Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2195) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2195.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4917) to amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4917.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 2864) to extend for eighteen months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2864.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4306, legislation that I introduced along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the subcommittee, for their support of this bill. This is a noncontroversial bill that reinserts logic into the regulatory process by updating an outdated regulation.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires the Employment Eligibility Verification form, also known as the I-9 form, to be completed and stored by an employer in order to verify the employment eligibility and identity of the employer's workforce.

The statute also stipulates that all employers must maintain these documents for at least 3 years after the date of hire or 1 year after employment is terminated, but many employers maintain the forms for longer periods of time simply because of the cost to audit the files every year.

But, Mr. Speaker, the real regulatory burden occurs with the accompanying regulations. These regulations require that the employer must retain the forms ``in their original form, either paper or on microfilm or microfiche.'' When these regulations were promulgated, microfiche was in the stratosphere of technological progress, but to place this in proper perspective, these regulations went into effect 5 years before Adobe Acrobat was invented. With new technology available today, it is vitally important that the Congress streamline burdensome and outdated regulations.

The House Corrections Day Advisory Committee was implemented to fix such things. H.R. 4306 went before the Correction Committee, a bipartisan committee cochaired by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and received the committee's blessing that this legislation should receive consideration and passage because it rectifies an outdated regulation.

The need for this legislation is evidenced by the hundreds of millions of records that are stored in warehouses across the country in order to comply with the IRCA regulations. All businesses, especially those with high employee turnover, have a burden maintaining these documents in storage all over the country. Most companies do not use microfiche, so they are inundated with reams of paper to file and maintain. Some companies ship all their forms to one centralized location while others maintain the document where an individual is originally hired, even if he is transferred, causing audits to be complex and inefficient. The nonuniform method causes burdens to the employers and the investigators who may need to access specific files.

This legislation enhances security and provides greater privacy protections for employees. Electronic computer storage with backup systems is far more secure than paper-based systems in which the paper documents can be lost, damaged, misfiled or accessed by unauthorized individuals. The automatic time and date stamping of documents which occurs on automated systems will also help prevent fabrication or tampering.

It is our intent to provide employers a more practical option to meet their obligations. By permitting these forms to be completed and stored on a computer rather than simply on paper, an employer can avoid unnecessary administrative and storage costs. This will allow employers to reinvest the savings, benefiting the broader economy through the creation of new jobs.

In addition to allowing the electronic completion and storage of the I-9 forms, this legislation also allows employers to convert existing I-9 forms into electronic versions for storage purposes. An employer who continues to use paper I-9 forms with handwritten signatures should be able to convert those forms into an electronic version for storage and security purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not mandate anything new. It allows employers to adopt electronic completion and storage of I-9 forms if they so choose. For a small employer with few employees and a few new hires per year, the paper route may be the most logical.

But in the industries with high employee turnover, electronic completion of I-9 forms will save time and money and help in enforcement.

I would like to thank the staff that worked on this bill. Personally I would like to thank from the Committee on the Judiciary Phil Kiko, Joseph Gibson, Art Arthur, George Fishman, Perry Apelbaum, and Nolan Rappaport; from leadership, Brett Loper and Andrew Shore; and Robert Knotts from the staff of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); and Todd Thorpe and Matthew Iandoli from my staff.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is acting well within its Constitutional authority in considering H.R. 3313. Currently, many state courts including those in Massachusetts have begun the process of defining marriage through judicial decree. Because of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, this judicial activism may be forced upon all the remaining states, including Utah, undermining the traditional definition of marriage and family.

These and other state and federal courts imperial judges are acting in an extra-constitutional fashion and assuming the powers of legislatures.

In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled on a 4-3 vote in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dep't of Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003) that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. The court found that the traditional definition of marriage, the same definition used throughout history, was evidence of ``invidious'' discrimination. In a follow-up opinion, these same judges stated the current definition of marriage in Massachusetts was a ``stain'' on the state constitution and needed to be ``eradicated''.

On May 17th of this year, the Goodridge decision went into effect and the state of Massachusetts began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. This new and expanded definition of marriage opens many more questions than it answers. What happens if these individuals move to other states after they are married? What benefits and rights must the new jurisdiction accommodate and what other obligations will be thrust on a jurisdiction that does not recognize such unions?

These are difficult and divisive questions, and this is why representatives elected by the people and not the courts should decide them. Those opposed to an open and deliberative debate and public votes by elected legislators have preferred judicial activism instead.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton, is central to our debate. DOMA was passed to prevent one state from imposing its family law policy on another state. Historically, family law has always been left to the states. However, scholars on both sides of the ideological aisle have stated their Constitutional concerns with the language of DOMA. If DOMA challenges are successful, then one case in one court could conceivably set social policy for the nation.

When the judicial branch loses its moral compass, it is the responsibility of the Congress to exert its authority to keep the judicial branch in check. In this particular circumstance, the Congress has two options. The first is a Constitutional Amendment. The second is assertion of its authority in the Constitution under Article III, Section 2 clause 2 and ``regulate'' the jurisdiction of the federal courts and make ``exceptions'' to their jurisdiction.

I have reservations about amending the U.S. Constitution. But that may be our last resort. As President Bush stated, ``If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.'' I agree with President Bush.

We are debating H.R. 3313, which limits the role of federal courts. This legislation states, ``No court created by an act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C.'' The referenced section relates to the DOMA language allowing states to opt to not recognize the same-sex marriages of another state. HR 3313 is simply Congress reaffirming its intent under DOMA and disallowing judicial review.

Some argue that Congress should not limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. I would like to remind them of the provision Senator Daschle inserted into a Defense Appropriations bill in the 107th Congress that exempted all forest management projects in the Black Hills National Forest from any further NEPA requirements, from administrative appeals, from Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation procedures, from review by any court, and from court ordered injunctions. I agreed with Senator Daschle and supported this legislation not only because it set a precedent for good forest policy, but also because it is a precedent for Congress's authority to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.

Chief Justice Marshall inferred in Marbury v. Madison that if the Supreme Court identifies a conflict between a constitutional provision and a congressional statute, the Court has the authority to declare the state unconstitutional. It is clear that Congress has the duty and responsibility to make sure that no act promulgated by it exceeds the Constitution.

In this particular case, the Congress is exerting its explicit authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts. This cannot be held unconstitutional by the federal courts or the Supreme Court because they cannot hear it. They have no jurisdiction because Congress withholds jurisdiction. It is the natural check on the courts' power that the founding fathers built into our system of checks and balances.

I say with all sincerity to those opposed to this legislation, the spirit of the law is explicit. State family law is for the states to decide. The Supreme Court in a 2004 decision, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301, 2309 (2004) (citing and quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)), reaffirmed this presumption by stating, ``the whole subject of domestic relations . . . belongs to the laws of the State and not to the laws of the United States.'' If the opponents of this legislation deny this reaffirmation of the law, a Constitutional Amendment to protect the definition of marriage is the only alternative.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize a Utah company for the help it has given to the recently freed people of Afghanistan.

Overstock.com, founded in 1999, is one of Utah's best performing companies and a leader in liquidating excess inventory through the Internet. For nearly five years, Overstock.com has operated on principles of value investing and fair deals, which is why it has become a leader on the Internet.

Overstock.com has also done great work abroad as well. Worldstock is the socially responsible goods department of Overstock.com that contracts with skilled craftspeople in developing countries and helps them sell their products. I am proud to say that this Utah based company is now Afghanistan's largest private employer. The Ministry of Commerce in Afghanistan reported that Worldstock has made it possible for 1,400 Afghans--90 percent of them women--to earn a living. This is a quite a feat, considering that just a few short years ago Afghanis, especially women, were living under the oppressive Taliban regime.

In Afghanistan, Overstock.com has been able to utilize technology to provide employment for this developing country. Overstock.com has given Afghanis the skills needed for long-term business success. Additionally, Overstock.com has said that it will not make a profit of more than one percent on goods sold through its Worldstock division. This policy has allowed women, prevented from working under the Taliban regime, to now flourish. Global trade and commerce are now a reality to the Afghani people thanks in part to the efforts of Overstock.com.

I would also like to recognize the founder and CEO of Overstock.com, Dr. Patrick Byrne. Being a three-time cancer survivor has not slowed down his altruism, productivity or creativity. It is Dr. Byrne's vision that drives Overstock.com and its work in Afghanistan. In 2003, Dr. Byrne hired Neelab Kaniska, an Afghan woman who fled her homeland when she was a child, to manage Worldstock. This position allowed Neelab to return to her native country and work with local artisans and provide them with the technological tools that now employ over 1500.

Overstock.com and Dr. Patrick Byrne understand the importance of all markets whether it is the individual consumer, small business owner, or an artisan in a developing country. I applaud their efforts and their representation of Utah, American business, and the American spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the establishment of a new and innovative non-profit foundation whose sole objective is to rationalize and accelerate the transition of the Balkan countries to full market economies. The purpose behind the Balkan Organization for National Financial Development (BONAFIDE) is the promotion of U.S. investment in the region by facilitating the harmonization of the ethics, laws and regulations governing business, investment and the financial markets in these countries with those of the United States.

History is clear, Mr. Speaker. The greatest speed, quality and durability of the transition to democracy in this culturally and politically complex region will not be achieved solely through diplomatic pressure and direct foreign assistance. Instead, this transition is best achieved through positive pressures developed within these economies through the positive participation our companies and institutions in legitimately participating in their growth.

In the past, there was an accepted and established manner of conducting business and working with government in these countries that was, by most measures, corrupt. The reality is that the lack of laws promoted this weakness. Today, with anti-corruption laws in place, the lack of enforcement institutions and transparency are in some cases promoting the perpetuation of these practices. The situation is improving, but it is by no means where it needs to be. As I see it, we can sit on the sidelines and lament the corruption of the past and the present, or we can support constructive programs and look to the future.

We can sit back and allow the other nations and their companies to participate in the tremendous economic potential in the region while imposing their own models of business ethics on these developing economies, or we can aggressively promote competitive U.S. investment and develop business ethics like ours. We need to help concentrated wealth achieved in a time when there was an absence of law transitioned into a framework of legitimate business. This is the purpose of the BONAFIDE organization.

BONAFIDE is funded exclusively by business and industry in the Balkans, including companies and individuals from the banking, railroad, mining, petroleum, telecommunications, and agriculture industries, as well as individuals who see the clear benefits of a closer alignment with the United States and its economic principles and practices, such as leading financial institutions and corporations from the Republic of Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Republica Srpska and Bulgaria, as well as individuals who have come, not unscathed, through this period of vague law, such as Sorin Vintu of Romania. These companies and individuals are concerned that the concentration of investment from countries other than the U.S. will have the effect of stagnating reforms and, therefore, growth. They are now committed to the early adoption and implementation of regulatory and enforcement reforms and transparency in their countries on the U.S. model, not the German or Russian model.

BONAFIDE, through its headquarters in Washington, will promote the accelerated harmonization of national laws, regulations and best business practices for the Balkans with those of the United States through an aggressive education exchange and cooperation program. BONAFIDE will facilitate collaborative

working visits of U.S. legislators and regulators with their counterparts in the region; between leaders of industry, financial services and law and their counterparts in the Balkans; and of academic leaders with government, business and educational institutions in these countries.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the establishment of this new organization and organizations like it and I strongly support the objectives they promote.

Mr. Speaker, today the United States needs true friends like the Republic of Kazakhstan as never before and we should encourage and welcome their achievements for the simple reason that by strengthening themselves they strengthen us.

I have followed the development of a young Kazakhstan with great interest and I should note that since gaining its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, this country has undergone tremendous political and economic transformation. Reforming a former totalitarian society is not an easy task. Of course, there were some mistakes and drawbacks. However, one should acknowledge the fact that Kazakhstan is dynamically moving forward and is moving in the right direction.

We should keep in mind that we are talking about a country which achieved democracy and personal freedoms through tremendous suffering. A great deal of credit for Kazakhstan's coming of age should go to its leader, President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I fully share the position of the leadership of Kazakhstan that any reforms make sense only if they serve the people.

Many have criticized Kazakhstan for initially choosing a course of economic liberalization while putting deep political reforms on the backburner. However, the time has proven this course right. I praise the political foresight of President Nazarbayev, an architect of Kazakhstan's success, who, in spite of criticism, has managed to bring his country into the fold of economically strong nations and has now embarked on an even bolder set of political reforms.

Recently, Kazakhstan's leader has called for a massive transformation of the county's political life and the strengthening of Kazakhstan's leadership by building a democracy. The major step in this direction will be a significant strengthening of the role of the national Parliament. President Nazarbayev has proposed to increase the numbers of deputies in both houses of Parliament and to develop a new system of forming the Government through the mechanism of a Parliamentary majority.

I believe decisions to decentralize state management and pursue aggressive fights against corruption are also crucial. Moreover, according to the President, the judiciary system will undergo serious reforms. Jury trials will be introduced, more power will be given to defense attorneys in criminal litigation.

All this, to me, is a true sign of Kazakhstan's maturity. I agree with President Nazarbayev, that ``You can't just declare democracy. You can only build it through hard work.'' As a nation that has been building its democracy for more than 200 years, we should value the words of a leader of a young democracy.

I would like to wish the people and government of Kazakhstan success in their efforts. Future successes of a democratic and free Republic of Kazakhstan directly benefit the United States, as it will help ensure stability and prosperity of Central Asia, a region extremely important in our fight against international terrorism.

I have no doubt that the United States and Kazakhstan will continue to closely cooperate in ensuring stability and security in the world, and our cooperation, which has tremendous potential, will deepen and bring about fruitful interaction in an international situation that is increasingly complex. The U.S. Congress should play a key role in this endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at an important juncture in the relationship between the United States and Kazakhstan. We have an opportunity to remain engaged in the region. I strongly believe that we should acknowledge Kazakhstan's achievements and support them in their efforts to continue with reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The hour is late. I would like to begin just by associating myself with the comments by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) about where he spoke about the additional lands that we are acquiring and why we do not need that until we can take care of the lands that we have.

I would also like to associate myself with the comments by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who was speaking about counties that I have represented in the past, and I personally know the problems that those counties have.

I would also like to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) who spoke eloquently about some of these issues.

I want to also thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). I recognize the need for him to oppose this on the basis of what the offsets are. I think the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) was fairly articulate about how we can solve that problem in conference. I urge the Members of this body to do so.

I must say I was really offended by the personal attack of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) here. This is not a personal matter. This is a matter that relates intensely to the needs of our people.

Let me just point out that if we look at the West, we have done a study in the State of Utah, Marty Stephens is the Speaker of our House, and he has taken a massive amount of statistical data and shown that we in the public lands area of the United States tax more.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of fairness. In the West, we tax more than we tax in the East. We still pay a lower amount per student in educational expenses because and only because we are dominated by Federal ownership of land. That means California and every west coast State, every intermountain State, all of us, tax more and spend less. It is not fair, and this body needs to redress that.

I hope that the Members of this body will vote in favor of the increase in PILT; and as a big fan of the Smithsonian myself, let us hope we can solve the problem in conference. But we need to give more money to our western counties who are fighting fires because of the negligence of the Federal Government who are suffering with educational costs that we cannot meet because the Federal Government owns our land and we are not getting any of the other benefits that should come from that public land. We have an obligation, and I urge this body to meet that obligation by voting for the Flake amendment to increase PILT.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Brigham Young University men's volley ball team for winning the 2004 NCAA Division I-II men's volleyball championship.

As you may know, Brigham Young University is located in the 3rd district of Utah, and it has been my pleasure to represent the University and its student body for the past 8 years. This is the third national championship in men's volleyball that BYU has won in 6 years by overcoming a 10-6 deficit in game 5 to defeat Long Beach State University.

The team achieved a 29-4 overall record for the season, marking the second highest single season win total in BYU volleyball history. I would especially like to congratulate the Cougars head coach, Tom Peterson, who became the first men's volleyball coach in NCAA history to win a national championship with 2 different schools.

The entire team deserves recognition for winning the national championship, but I would like to take a moment and recognize a few players whose abilities have garnered extra honors. Seniors Fernando Pessoa and Joe Hillman received first and second team All-American honors, respectively, and sophomore Victor Batista also received second-team honors. Junior Carlos Moreno earned the distinction of being selected the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation Player of the Year, the American Volleyball Coaches Association Division I-II National Player of the Year, the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation Tournament Most Valuable Player, and the NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player.

Madam Speaker, I again congratulate the BYU Men's Volleyball team on its championship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of President Ronald Reagan.

First, let me extend my condolences to Nancy Reagan and the entire Reagan family for this tremendous loss. But let me also thank Nancy and her family for taking care of the President for all these years. Rest assured the nation mourns with you today.

When I think of President Reagan the feeling that stirs within me is hard to put in words. In reflecting on what to say I realized the best way for me to explain my feelings is to explain who I am. Simply, I am a Reaganite!

Being a Reaganite provided me the wonderful opportunity to come to Washington and work in the Reagan Administration. I did not come to Washington for a job but I came to Washington to be a foot solider in the Reagan Revolution. I had the opportunity to trade in the walking of precincts to walking the halls of his Administration. And for this I am forever grateful.

This opportunity allowed me to play a small part in President Reagan's goal of giving America back to America. As a result of his leadership, we did not hang our heads any longer but rather we raised them up and remembered our moral standing in the world. Through his leadership, a nation was motivated.

At the time President Reagan was elected to office, the country was losing faith and confidence in its being. In 1980, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, inflation was in double-digits, homeownership was near impossible and optimism was nonexistent. By the time his Administration ended, the Soviet empire crumbled, inflation's back was broken, homeownership soared and morning dawned in America. With a set of principles, one man who wanted to make a difference set out and changed the world.

But to see President Reagan's legacy, as George Will stated, one has to see what no longer exists. We no longer see Soviet expansion and aggression, we no longer see the Berlin Wall and we no longer see devastating economic plight. These are testaments to his courage and his ability to communicate his resolve to the nation.

President Reagan realized another decade of detente would not protect America and another decade of stagnant economic policies would not free the individual. Through his force of personality and conviction he set about changing our future. And he relegated our worries to the ash heap of history.

President Reagan pursued policies that resulted in derision and loathing from some. But he had no hesitation in pursuing his goals because he knew what was right. His beliefs were steadfast and unwavering. He set his course and plowed through the skeptics. He was not Teflon. He was Iron.

Being a Reaganite is not solely relegated to a certain place and time or a certain individual. Instead, it is set a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs imbued in many Members of Congress, their staffs and individuals throughout this country. It is a longing to assert and maintain America's rightful place in the world, as the shining city on the hill.

President Reagan, thank you for restoring hope in America. It has been Morning In America since your Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of a group of women from Utah's Third Congressional District for their dedication to helping children that have been victims of abuse. On Wednesday, May 5, 2004, the Pleasant View Relief Society will be honored at the National Children's Alliance annual luncheon with the Volunteer Group Leadership Award of 2004.

Working with the Utah County Children's Justice Center, this group, now affectionately known as the ``Teddy Bear Ladies,'' has created over 10,000 handmade teddy bears for distribution to children receiving social services as a result of severe abuse. What started as a simple service project has now turned into a labor of love for these giving women. Not only do the Teddy Bear Ladies donate their time and money to this worthy project, but they also help give these children a fresh start after years of abuse.

What is remarkable about these ladies is not just their work, but also the ladies themselves. These dedicated volunteers range in age from the early 20s to mid 90s. Some of the younger volunteers thread needles for the older members of the group. Not even illness can stop the Teddy Bear Ladies from their work. One woman continued to sew teddy bears while suffering from severe headaches as a result from a brain tumor.

The Teddy Bear Ladies from Utah County represent what all Americans should strive to be: caring, dedicated, giving and compassionate. Through volunteering their time and talents, they are making a real difference in one Utah community.