Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a dangerously reckless way to deal with one of the most serious issues we will ever confront. There is no way to make these judgments easy, even when the express desires of the patients are clear and unambiguous. Where there is disagreement on the medical facts or on the wishes of the patient, these cases can be heartrending and sometimes bitter, beyond the comprehension of those who have been fortunate not to have to make these decisions.

So what does this bill do? This bill would place a Federal judge in the middle of this case after the State courts have adjudicated it, after doctors and family members and counsel and clergy and the courts in Florida have struggled with it for years. After everything is over, after all the facts have been established to the satisfaction of the courts, all the appeals exhausted, the writ of certiary denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, now we start all over again.

My colleagues wish to put one of those unelected Federal judges they always denounce right in the middle of this and say the trial starts de novo. Ignore everything the Florida courts have done. This expresses contempt for the Florida courts, contempt for the Florida legislature. Nothing is to be considered res judicata. No facts are to be considered established.

This is not establishing a Federal appeal from the Florida courts on the grounds that the Florida courts have violated some constitutional rights we are familiar with; those kinds of procedures. No, this does not do that. This simply says the Florida courts are incompetent. The Florida legislature is incompetent. The Florida people are not to be trusted in electing their judges and their legislators.

Instead, we are going to put this case, and only this case, in the Federal courts from the very beginning and we instruct the Federal courts to ignore the evidence in the Florida courts; to ignore the procedures in the Florida courts; to ignore the testimony in the Florida courts and to start all over, because we have contempt, because we do not like the judgments of the Florida courts.

We have never, ever done such a thing in the history of this country, and we should not start now. The Constitution of the United States says there should be no ex poste facto law because it is fundamentally unfair. This is not ex poste facto, it is not a criminal court, but it is the same kind of legislation. It is a bill of attainder, in effect. There is a reason why the

Constitution prohibits bills of attainder and ex post fact laws, and although this is not technically an ex poste facto law or a bill of attainder, it violates all those reasons, and we should respect the spirit of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is an uncontradicted fact, uncontradicted except for the speculations of some orators in this Chamber, that Terri Schiavo told her husband, told her sister-in-law, told her brother-in-law, told various of her friends when attending funerals of close family members who had been on life support, that she would ``not want to live like that.'' The Florida court found that to be the case, to be the fact. The guardian ad litem appointed by the court, in his report to the court, found that.

This is not the case of a perhaps self-interested, conflict of interested husband testifying to that. It is the case of the husband saying that she told him that, the friends, the brothers-in-law, the sisters-in-law. They all said the same thing. And the court found that, as a matter of fact, that is what Terri Schiavo said that was her wish.

The doctors' testimony. The doctors testified, doctors who examined her, not doctors standing up on the floor here who say, well, from the video tape we can infer. Doctors can be deprived of their license for making diagnoses from afar. But doctors who have actually examined this patient have testified her cerebral cortex is liquefied; that it is destroyed. Without a cerebral cortex there is no sensations, there is no consciousness, there is no feeling, there is no pain, there is no possibility of recovery.

That is what a persistent vegetative state is. There is no possibility of recovery, despite the wishes, despite the fervent hopes, despite the illusions of desperate relatives. We should not feed those illusions.

And what has happened to family values that we talk about here? This bill would invade the sanctity of the family, would invade the decision of the husband. George Will, a noted conservative comentator and philosopher, conservative enough so that he famously helped coach Ronald Reagan for his debates in the Presidential debates in 1980, said on television this morning, and I quote, ``Unless we are prepared to overturn centuries of common law and more than two centuries of constitutional law that says that husband and wife are one, therefore clearly this is a decision to be made by the husband.''

Now, this is not just a decision made by the husband. This is a decision made by Terri Schiavo, according to the testimony of the husband and the brothers-in-law and the sisters-in-law. This is a decision made by the husband and Terri Schiavo, according to all the testimony. So we have no respect for the carefully established procedures our States have set up to wrestle with these difficult cases; no respect for the elected representatives of the Florida State legislature or their judges.

Who are we to say they are wrong? Who are we to say Terri Schiavo and her husband are wrong? Who are we to say that Terri Schiavo's husband is self-interested? And who are we to say this is any different from the thousands of cases of do-not-resuscitate orders that are given effect in our courts and in our hospitals every day, other than the fact that this case has gotten a lot of publicity and a lot of public official intervention? This is hypocrisy at its greatest, and we ought not to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed say that there can be Federal court review of due process, obviously.

That has happened here. And the Federal court said, ``Not only has Ms. Schiavo's case been given due process in State court, but few if any similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.''

The difference in this bill is not that it is a review of State court, but it orders a de novo proceeding to ignore everything that happened in State court as if the State courts did not exist. That is unprecedented, that is contemptuous, that is different; and that should not be done.

She got the appellate review already. The appellate courts and Federal court did not agree with the distinguished chairman. That is not an indication for a new bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill because it is a dangerously reckless way to deal with some very serious issues.

The Committee on the Judiciary was supposed to have a hearing to examine this legislation, or rather another piece of legislation on this subject. This bill was introduced only a few hours ago. That hearing today was canceled and then we were told that this bill would be brought up.

We are dealing with some of the most difficult issues likely to come before this Congress, end of life issues, discerning the wishes of those unable to speak for themselves, ensuring due process and a fair and careful fact finding process.

Does this legislation do the job, or does it make matters worse? Has anyone looked closely at this bill? Have we

had a hearing? Have we had a markup? Has anyone had a chance to look at the competence of its drafting, at the effects of its language? No.

There is no way to make these judgments easy, even when the expressed desires of the patients are clear and unambiguous. Where there is disagreement on the medical facts or on the wishes of the patient, these cases can be heart rending, and sometimes bitter, beyond the comprehension of those who have been fortunate enough not to have to make those decisions.

Unfortunately, we have no choice. Even a decision to do nothing is a decision with consequences. Someone eventually will have to make that decision, either the patient or someone on behalf of the patient. In a dispute, a court must make the final call. I am grateful that burden has not fallen on my shoulders.

So what does this bill do? It would place the Federal judge and then Federal appellate judges in the middle of a case, after State courts, doctors, family members, counselors and clergy have struggled with that case perhaps for years. After everything is over, everything determined, everything adjudicated, and the participants finally sighing a sigh of relief that it is over, then a Federal judge jumps in.

It does not deal just with feeding tubes. It would allow intervention in any decision affecting any kind of medical care. Read the bill. It even says that the cause of action does not include a claim or cause of action in which no party disputes and the courts find that the incapacitated person while having capacity executed a written directive, et cetera.

What does that mean? It means that after someone writes a living will and says I do not want to be resuscitated, or do not use painful treatment beyond a certain point or whatever, and after the courts in that State have found that that is what happened, that that is what the person meant and that those instructions are to be followed, some busybody from outside can now come in and start the process all over again, notwithstanding the fact finding in the State courts, because we do not trust State courts any more. We do not trust the elected State courts, we want the unelected Federal judges that we normally excoriate in this Chamber. Now suddenly they are trustworthy and we want to come and say they should start a whole new proceeding after everything is over and drag the case on, to the anguish of the family members, for another few years.

This bill allows a large number of people, not just the spouse or a relative, to intervene in these cases, years into the proceeding, or even after everyone thought the proceeding was finished. Even if the incapacitated person has executed a written advance directive, any party can drag the matter into Federal court simply by ``disagreeing.'' That is what the bill says.

Do we have no respect for families? Do we have no respect for the carefully established procedures our State legislatures and courts have set up to wrestle with these difficult situations? Do we have no interest in writing a law for the whole country that might actually do the job right?

Unfortunately, the leadership is determined to vote on this important life or death issue without giving the Members of this House the opportunity to actually look at the issue or even read the bill or to think about it.

These things should not be done in haste tonight. That may be par for the course these days, but it is irresponsible and shows real contempt for the families who will have to live with this.

If you think this is the only way to prevent the disconnection of Terri Schaivo's feeding tube, that we should not legislate this way, we should give Members the opportunity to read bills, we should not ride roughshod over State judiciaries, but here we have an emergency because the case is coming down right away in Florida, consider this: The Florida legislature is considering its own legislation on this matter. There is no need to enact radical legislation unconsidered for the whole country just for this one case. Florida, for better or worse, is addressing it.

We should take back this bill and look at it carefully. People should at least read it. We should hold hearings. We should get expert witnesses. We should tighten up the drafting so that not any busybody can come and insert himself or herself into a family's anguish. We owe American families that much.

I urge that this bill not be passed tonight, and that we stop, look, listen and think.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

(Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, the phrase that the distinguished chairman just read is a catch-all phrase. If a person thinks a court in a State is depriving someone of civil rights they can go into Federal court under a section 1983 action and say that there is an alleged deprivation of Federal rights under current law.

This is far broader. What we have heard from the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida about the facts of the case are compelling, but I would remind everybody this bill is way beyond the facts of this case.

It establishes for any interested person, someone who has a significant relationship with the incapacitated person, whatever that means, no definition, a right to come in, overturn what the courts have decided, overturn what the family has decided, what she has decided and subject that family to the agony of perhaps years of further litigation.

Maybe that has to be done in some cases, I do not know, but this kind of slapdash legislative procedure with no hearing, no consideration, no real understanding of what this bill does in cases far beyond Terri Schaivo should not be on this House floor tonight, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) regarding vicarious liability for rental car companies. This amendment, if passed, would nullify the laws of 15 States and the District of Columbia and would have the disastrous effect of allowing rental car companies to lease vehicles to uninsured drivers with no recourse for innocent victims should an accident occur. Fifteen States and the District of Columbia allow rental car companies the freedom to lease cars to whomever they choose whether or not the customer has his or her own insurance. In exchange for this right, the companies are required by the State laws to assume responsibility when uninsured drivers cause injury and are financially unable to compensate the people they injure or kill. If the gentleman from Missouri's amendment were to pass, the innocent victim would have no recourse, no insurance company to sue.

This trade-off is in the best interest of both the States and the rental car companies. For example, my own State of New York is one of the most active rental car markets in the country. In New York City, many, many people do not own cars. Therefore, they do not have automobile insurance. If companies were allowed to rent cars only to insured drivers, and that is the natural result should this amendment pass, these States would allow companies to rent only to insured drivers, many New York residents would effectively have no access to rental cars and the rental car market would decline.

This situation is not unique to New York. Anybody, Republican or Democrat, who is from Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, California, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin should not vote for this amendment, Republican or Democrat, unless you want to say to your State legislators: We are going to preempt the law of New York, of California, of Florida, wherever, because we know better. Many of these States are big tourism States. By holding rental car companies responsible for the out-of-state drivers who rent cars while vacationing, these States protect their own residents from negligent out-of-state drivers. Vicarious liability laws also protect innocent Americans from negligent foreign drivers. If a foreigner rents a car in New York City or Los Angeles, runs over a pedestrian and her child, and then flees the country, the injured family would be left with no remedy should this amendment pass. In fact, the Graves amendment would probably shift responsibility away from wrongdoers and onto taxpayers. That is not something we ought to do.

There is nothing wrong, Mr. Chairman, with a State deciding, a State making its own decision. We believe in that here, supposedly. There is nothing wrong with a State deciding that it is in the best interests of the people of that State for uninsured drivers to be able to rent cars, but to require the car rental companies to take vicarious liability so that we do not shift the burden of paying for an accident to the pedestrian, the innocent victim or to the hospital or to the taxpayers, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And 15 States and the District of Columbia have done it. Why should Congress usurp the States' power to make this decision for themselves? What is the overriding Federal interest in preempting State laws on this subject?

Rental car companies reap lots of profits in these States. Any expense that results to them from these State laws, such as any insurance policy the rental car company itself has to carry to cover its liability, is simply passed on to the rental car drivers as a cost of doing business. If we are going to preempt State vicarious liability laws, we could require that any uninsured drivers must purchase insurance themselves from the rental car company, but no such requirement is included in this amendment.

To pass this amendment is to say that we are going to obviate the policy choices of these States and shift the burden of any accidents to innocent victims of accidents in those States. We should not do it. The States should decide this question as they have. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri says why should a company that rents a car to an individual, the company is not negligent, the individual is negligent, why should they be liable for the results of his or her negligence?

The answer is that is up to the State legislature. The State legislature may prefer that the person who must pay the medical bills should be the insurance company of the lessor company, rather than the innocent victim who is walking along with her baby stroller. We want people to be protected. There are cars that are insured to $10,000 and $20,000, they drive into a State with a high cost of living, with a high cost of medical care, that requires of its own domestic drivers $100,000 and $300,000, and there is no guarantee.

So the real answer is why should not New York or California or these other States be able to say we want to protect our citizens against non-resident drivers who are negligent, against foreign tourists from France who are negligent.

The real question is, should the insurance company bear the risk, the insurance company of the lessor company bear the risk, or should the woman with the baby stroller bear the risk? If I were running for the State legislature, I would say the insurance company. Here I say it is up to the legislature, not to us. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor BG William Terpeluk. BG William Terpeluk will complete his term as Deputy Commander for the 77th Regional Readiness Command this month. He served from 31 March 2001-30 March 2005, which included valuable service during the events of September 11, 2001, and throughout the War on Terror.

The 77th Regional Readiness Command is the Army Reserve headquarters for over 11,000 Army Reserve soldiers. Approximately 6,500 Army Reserve soldiers have been mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Their service to our Nation is to be commended.

Throughout his career Brigadier General Terpeluk has served with honor and distinction. His military awards include the Meritorious Service Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement

Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with Silver Oak Leaf Cluster. He has also received the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Silver Hourglass, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbons.

Brigadier General Terpeluk is an Infantry Officer who received his commission as a Second Lieutenant through the Reserve Officer Training Corps Program in 1974 from the Virginia Military Institute. After completing the Infantry Course at Fort Benning, Georgia, he served on Active Duty as the Executive Officer, Company E, 3d Battalion, 3d Basic Combat Training Brigade, Fort Dix, NJ.

Throughout his career Brigadier General Terpeluk has served at 79th United States Army Reserve Command, Willow Grove, PA, and in Camp Casey and Camp Howze, Korea.

Today, we honor his service to our city and to our Nation and wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, our Nation has moved inexorably toward the elimination of all forms of discrimination in government contracting and in the private sector. This bill rolls back that commitment that would enshrine the principle of religious discrimination in one of our most important job training programs at a time when many Americans are losing their jobs and need the help these programs offer.

Members on the other sides of the aisle say that this would roll back the ability of churches and synagogues to discriminate on the basis of religion now. Nonsense. They can discriminate. No one tells the Catholic Church they have to hire women priests. No one tells the Catholic Church or any other church or synagogue they have to hire a janitor of a different religion. Nor would this amendment. What this says is that with Federal funds, they cannot discriminate. With their own funds they still can.

President Reagan, who signed the original version of this legislation 23 years ago, did not think it was necessary to allow employment discrimination with Federal funds. No one should ever be told that they cannot hold a job simply because they profess the wrong faith. And why is this necessary? Are religiously affiliated charities unable to participate in federally social services programs? Is there a single Member of this House who has not held secure government funds for such programs? For Catholic Charities? The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies? The Jewish Federation, and countless others? We all get these funds. That is no secret.

The only thing required of these organizations is that they play by the same rules as everyone else. They cannot make professing religious faith a precondition of receiving social services paid for with the taxpayers' dollars, and they cannot discriminate in employment when those jobs are paid for with taxpayers' dollars.

We have all heard about the bad old days when signs hung in windows: ``No Catholics need apply,'' ``No Jews need apply. Fill in one's favorite denomination. That is wrong. People of every faith pay their taxes, and we have no right to deny them employment paid for by those taxes.

It is wrong. It is unAmerican. It is immoral. It is unnecessary, and it is unprecedented.

These are the armies of compassion. Religious discrimination with taxpayers' dollars is not compassionate. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) in sponsoring this resolution on the completion of the 11th cycle of the daily study of the Talmud.

Mr. Speaker, tossed into a stormy sea when his ship was wrecked, the great Talmudic sage, Rabbi Akiva, was given up for lost. This is how he later described his miraculous rescue to Rabbi Gamaliel. He said, ``A daf,'' that is a wood plank, ``from the ship suddenly appeared as a salvation, and I just let the waves pass over me.''

When Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the rabbi of Lublin, Poland, initiated the programs for Jews all over the world to study the same Dafyomi, that is, daily page of Talmud, he explained the significance of this undertaking by paraphrasing Rabbi Akiva, ``A daf is the instrument of our survival in the stormy seas of today. If we cling to it faithfully, all the waves of tribulation will but pass over us.''

Mr. Speaker, the latest 7-year cycle of completion of the Talmud will occur in the first month of the Hebrew month of Adar, corresponding to March 1, 2005, which is today. This will complete a formidable 7\1/2\- year educational and daily study cycle introduced in 1923 at Agudath Israel's first international Congress in Vienna by Polish Rabbi Meir Shapiro ``to enhance the sense of unity of Jews worldwide.''

The entire Talmud is covered in 7\1/2\ years by those who keep to the prescribed daily pace of one page at a time. By studying the Talmud, groups and individuals throughout the world spend time learning the precious details of Jewish law and life. They are able to step back, to develop a sharply honed understanding of Jewish history and law. People study in every country and every city, in groups, alone, with friends and over the Internet.

CEOs and cab drivers, doctors and shop owners, of different ages and nationalities come together to learn the Talmud. Tens of thousands, mostly Orthodox Jews, around the globe are on the same page, literally. In the Boro Park section of Brooklyn, in my district, for example, about 200 fathers of young children gather each night at 10 p.m., after their children are asleep.

I am proud that about 50,000 scholars are expected to attend this year's event at Madison Square Garden, the Javitz Convention Center in Manhattan, and Continental Airlines Arena in New Jersey.

In addition, more than 25,000 other Jews in 33 locations, ranging from Mexico City to Melbourne, Australia, from Los Angeles to Tel Aviv, will be linked to these activities via satellite television.

I join in their joy and celebration. This monumental achievement in study, dedication, perseverance, and persistence is a lesson for contemporary society and for people of good will everywhere.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the students and teachers of the Daf Yomi program on the occasion of their celebration of the completion of the 11th cycle of the Daf Hayomi, wish them well on the beginning of the 12th cycle, and urge the passage of this resolution.

And again I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for being the chief sponsor of this, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I rise in strong opposition to this egregious legislation and in support of the Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute amendment.

This substitute amendment amends this bill in several ways to ensure that consumers, workers and victims in personal injury cases are not precluded from having a fair opportunity to present their cases in court. I know the distinguished minority leader and others have mentioned some of these instances.

My good friend Eliot Spitzer, the distinguished attorney general of New York State, has joined 46 State attorneys general in expressing their concern that this legislation could limit their power to investigate and bring actions in their State courts against defendants who have caused harm to their citizen. Our amendment clarifies that cases brought by States attorneys general will not be subject to the provision of this bill and would not be forced into Federal court.

The substitute also includes a provision which I have advocated for many years, which actually was supported by the distinguished chairman and passed the Committee on the Judiciary a couple of times, to limit the ability of corporations settling lawsuits to demand that records that may indicate threats to public health and safety be sealed, unless it is necessary to protect trade confidentiality.

The substitute provides that when such a gag order is requested, and it is normally requested by both the plaintiff and the defendant because in the settlement the defendant insists on this as a condition of the settlement, the court then rubber stamps it. This substitute provides that if such a gag order is requested, the court must make a finding as to whether the defendant's interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in knowing of the threat to its health or safety.

If the court finds that the privacy interest outweighs the public interest, the court will issue the gag order. If the court finds the public interest in health and safety outweighs the privacy interest claimed in the specific case, the court must prohibit the sealing of the information.

Too often, critical information is sealed from the public and people are harmed as a result. How many people were killed or injured because the court sealed records relating to exploding Firestone tires, for one example. This provision will allow the public to learn of threats to this health and safety so as to take proper action to protect the public, while protecting legitimate confidential information.

The Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute amendment also deals with a major catch-22 created by the bill for victims of large and complex multistate court torts. On the one hand, the bill provides State courts cannot hear such cases; but when these cases are removed to Federal court, plaintiffs will find that the Federal courts routinely refuse to hear them. Federal courts are very reluctant to certify a multistate consumer class action suit, and six circuit courts and 26 district courts have expressly refused to consider certifying cases where several State laws apply.

Our substitute protects victims from facing this catch-22 and having the courtroom door completely closed to them by providing that if these cases are removed to Federal court by this bill, the Federal courts cannot refuse to certify a class action simply because more than one State law applies.

I urge my colleagues not to allow this bill to completely deny victims their day in court, either in State court or in Federal court. That would render this bill completely hypocritical. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Conyers/Nadler/Jackson-Lee substitute and ``no'' on the main bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this amendment, but I do oppose this bill. Like many Americans, I exercise my right not to view programming I find offensive by using that miracle of modern technology, the remote control. It lets you change the channel or even turn off the TV entirely. I recommend everyone buy one and learn how to use it. If you want to protect your children, there is the V-chip for that purpose. People ought to use that too.

But the Puritans of this House and elsewhere in government are not satisfied with free choice and the free market. Instead, they want the government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to.

Just recently, for example, the Secretary of Education on his second day on the job snapped into action and threatened public broadcasting funding if they dared air a show in which real live families with real live same-sex parents would appear. It was actually a show about making maple syrup, not an advocacy piece about family arrangements. But it was too much for the Secretary of Education.

``Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode,'' Spellings wrote in her threatening letter to the CEO of PBS. Who asked her?

Then there was the strange case of SpongeBob Square Pants, a cartoon character who appeared in a video promoting tolerance entitled ``We Are Family.'' Who were the purveyors of this objectionable material? Well, among others, the Anti-Defamation League's successful ``World of Difference'' program and Sesame Street's ``Sesame Foundation.'' It seems some self-appointed guardians of our morals are fine with the idea of tolerance, unless it includes people they don't like. ``We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids,'' Paul Batura, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, told the New York Times. ``It is a classic bait and switch.''

A former Member of this House condemned NBC for airing ``Schindler's List,'' saying that the Holocaust film took network television ``to an all time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity'' during family viewing time. He said that NBC's decision to air the movie on Sunday evening should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere.

Then-Senator Alfonse D'Amato properly replied that ``to equate the nudity of Holocaust victims in the concentration camps with any sexual connotation is outrageous and offensive.'' But with this bill, where would we be if that former Member of the House were a member of the

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman talks about section 102 of the bill, which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to waive all laws that might get in the way of building the fence; and he talks about environmental laws, and he talks about endangered species. Well, that is all well and good, but the radicalism and the irresponsibility of the majority is shown by how this is drafted.

This does not refer to environmental laws. This does not refer to endangered species. This says the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all laws in his sole discretion that he determines necessary.

The Secretary of Homeland Security can tell the contractors, if anybody gets in your way, shoot them. Shoot them. The laws against men are waived. Laws against anything are waived. It makes him a total dictator. Then to make sure that the Secretary can be a total dictator in contravention of the Constitution, in contravention of all our laws, it then says, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any clause or claim arising from any decision the Secretary takes or to order any compensatory declarative injunctive, equitable or any other relief for damages alleged to have been suffered.

So someone can be shot because the Secretary says shoot anybody that gets in the way by accident or deliberately and the courts cannot review whether

the Secretary had the authority, whether this is constitutional.

Last year we had certain court-stripping legislation before us to say that the court shall have no jurisdiction to hear a claim against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

One other thing, I got up on this floor and I said, this is going to become boiler plate language in bills, and here it is. It did not even mention it. Boiler plate language.

``No court shall review any action the Secretary may take.''

I thought the Republican Party stood for limited government. This says the Secretary is absolute dictator, as absolute as Stalin. What kind of language is this?

Regardless of the merits of this bill, regardless of the merits of this provision in general, this is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to explain a unanimous consent request I am about to make.

Mr. Speaker, I regret I must request unanimous consent to amend my amendment, which I am going to offer later, but the process the majority has chosen to use is, to say the least, unfair. The rule makes in order virtually a new bill, which we did not get to see until after the deadline for submitting amendments to the Committee on Rules.

There was no opportunity to draft our amendments to reflect the bill that we are now considering. My amendment would strike section 101 from the bill as amended by the manager's amendment. But the manager's amendment adds a provision to which we do not object, namely, raising the cap on asylum adjustments. This unanimous consent request would change my amendment so as not to change this good provision added at the last minute by the chairman. If we had seen the manager's amendment before the Committee on Rules deadline, this request would not be necessary.

If the majority is sincere in wanting a fair process, there should be no reason to object to this unanimous consent request. This unanimous consent request would not have been necessary if we had seen the manager's amendment before the rules deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 418 pursuant to House Resolution 75, it may be in order to consider amendment No. 4 in House Report 109-4 in the modified form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to strike section 101 of the bill relating to asylum seekers. Under the excuse of protecting national security, the asylum provisions in this bill make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum. The logic seems to be, if you keep out every

asylum seeker, including legitimate victims, then the system cannot be abused.

Proponents of this section make inaccurate, dramatic claims about terrorists who abuse the asylum system to get into the country, but the cases they cite are mostly pre-1996 when the law was changed. Since that 1996 change, asylum seekers are jailed, put in custody until a finding of reasonable fear of persecution is made, so they cannot pose a threat while they are in custody.

Because current law already places the burden of proof on the asylum applicant and places the applicant in custody until he or she meets the initial burden of proof, a terrorist who wishes to enter the United States would most likely attempt to do so by a tourist visa or on fraudulent papers. They are not going to claim political asylum and then be put in jail until they can show a credible fear of persecution.

But this bill seeks to raise the bar when people finally do get into court. If we pass this bill in its current form, mothers, fathers, children with legitimate asylum claims will be sent back to their persecutors with no benefit to national security.

Current law provides that an asylum seeker must prove a reasonable fear of persecution by reason of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or political opposition. The new provision in this bill would require proof that one of these factors, race, color, creed, political opposition, is the ``central reason'' for the legitimate fear.

This is an almost insurmountable burden of proof since the persecutors rarely stop to explain their motives while they are committing torture, rape, and murder. The judge would be forced to look into the minds of the persecutor and decide what weight to give to a particular motive in cases of mixed motives, which they are, in order to prove, the burden of proof, that this is the central reason. Not one of the major reasons, a central reason. This is an impossible burden of proof with no purpose other than to deny the asylum claim.

This section would deny a victim asylum based on an immaterial inconsistency or inaccuracy in a prior statement. So an applicant who, at the airport, perhaps without a decent understanding of English or a mistranslation, forgets or misspeaks the date of her high school graduation, or the date of her wedding or her grandchildren's births, even though the dates might not be significant in her culture, unlike in ours, would later be denied safe haven from persecution, even though they have nothing to do with the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of her claim for asylum under the law. This would be a ridiculously harsh outcome for an absurdly innocent mistake.

There are other things that this section does. We did not have time to review it properly. It did not go before the committee. The provisions that were considered by the House last year was only a 2- page provision. This became a 10-page provision 2 days ago. No one has had a chance to properly look through it, but we do know that it does a lot of other very harsh things.

Mr. Chairman, asylum law is supposed to be about protecting individuals from serious abuses of human rights. It is not supposed to be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or to return people to harm's way.

This section is not about protecting our borders; it is about xenophobia and sending victims back to their torturers. It is, Mr. Chairman, in the larger sense, un-American.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me in voting for the Nadler-Meek- Jackson-Lee amendment to strike these provisions and keep our law humane and American.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I grant myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey and other speakers have made excellent points, but I want to make one different point.

This amendment, rather this section which we are trying to eliminate, is not focused on terrorism. It does not focus on terrorism. It does not focus on terrorists. All it does is put up additional bars to all asylum seekers, legitimate victims or otherwise. It has nothing to do with terrorism, does not claim to focus on terrorism. Does not do anything to distinguish between a terrorist and a legitimate victim of persecution or anybody else.

It simply sets the bar for all claimants at an unrealistically high level and ought to be defeated, and the amendment therefore ought to be passed for that reason.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this legislation are completely correct that obviously real terrorist threats exist and we must act forcefully to safeguard our national security. But this bill is really three or four or five separate bills entirely, some of them unexceptional, some of them very questionable.

Under the excuse of national security, for example, the asylum provisions in this bill completely gut the possibility of many legitimate victims of persecution to be granted asylum. Asylum law is supposed to be about protecting individuals, including women and children, from serious human rights abuses; it is not supposed to be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or return people to persecution.

Proponents of this bill have been making dramatic claims about terrorists abusing the asylum system to get into this country to perform acts of terrorism. But since 9/11, in fact, since the 1996 act, most asylum-seekers are in jail while resolution of their cases are pending so they cannot pose a threat. What this bill does is to change the standards by which the judgment is made as to whether they should get asylum; but while it is being judged, they are in jail. So this has nothing to do with alleviating a threat to this country.

For example, one provision would change current law to require that the applicant prove that his or her race, religion, et cetera is a central reason instead of merely a major reason for the legitimate fear of persecution in order to get asylum. This would force asylum applicants to prove the state of mind of their persecutors. What is the central reason of several different reasons? It makes it almost impossible to grant asylum.

Now, this was not, and some of the points in the manager's amendment were not in the bill before us last year. No one has ever seen some of these provisions until yesterday. This provision, at least, and I am gratified that the Committee on Rules made the amendment to be in order by me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to strike this section of the bill, and in order for it to be passed tomorrow so that the Committee on the Judiciary can properly vet this bill or the asylum provisions can be properly looked at and we can deal with it adequately.

This section, in my judgment, would subject hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to being tortured or abused or shot because of their race, color, religion, creed, or opposition to a dictatorial regime back home, because it would make it impossible for them to get asylum. I think when this House examines this carefully, and when the committee examines this carefully, it will come to that conclusion. Maybe we out to change the asylum provisions, but we ought to do it after careful consideration.

So I hope that this bill will not be passed in its current form, and that my amendment will be passed so that we can give proper consideration to some of these provisions that do not really aid the national security, but do gut protection for people who need those protections.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would have us believe that a grave threat is presented to the security of this Nation by the policy of some institutions of higher learning to bar military recruiters from their campus because of the discrimination against gay and lesbian people by the military. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not the threat to our national security.

The threat to our national security is the policy of the military to refuse to use the talents and the abilities of gay people in defending our country.

One of the biggest problems we have in Iraq now is the shortage of people who know how to translate intelligence documents written in Arabic and Farsi, and yet they are dismissing linguists who can translate these documents for our use to save the lives of our troops because they are gay. This is insanity.

Our troops are paying with their lives because of the bigotry that this Congress has mandated on the military, number one.

Even that is not the real issue presented by this resolution. The real issue presented by this resolution has to do with free speech and association.

Private universities, private institutions have chosen to say, as part of their free speech, that they do not want on their campus recruiters from any organization, the military, any private company, anybody else, that discriminates against gay people and lesbian people; that engages in an unacceptable, to them, form of discrimination. It is not a question, as this resolution says, of equal access to military recruiters. All people, recruiters from all institutions that discriminate are barred from these campuses.

We should not have passed the bill that we did, but we passed a bill to say that, if they do that, if a private institution bars military recruiters and other recruiters on an equal basis, we will withhold Federal funds.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals says that is a violation of the first amendment. This resolution says who cares what the courts say. We do not care about the first amendment. We do not care about the courts. We know better.

We encourage the executive branch to follow the doctrine of non- acquiescence and not find a decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on another jurisdiction.

That is not the way we ought to legislate. This decision was decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The executive branch is going to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Let it appeal. Let us see what the Supreme Court says, if they accept the case.

The courts have to defend our liberties. It is the province of the courts, not of the Congress, to declare what the Constitution means.

Our liberties, the Bill of Rights, are protected from the majority. You never have to protect the majority from itself. You have to protect unpopular minorities. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and that is why we have the courts to enforce them. For Congress to come in and say the court is wrong and the executive should not enforce the order of the court is to show a disdain for the rule of law and a disdain for the spirit of liberty for which we are fighting in Iraq and for which our Armed Forces exists in the first place.

This resolution ought to be defeated on its merits.

Madam Speaker, I solemnly rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the first and largest Nazi concentration camp stumbled across by Allied troops as they fought back Nazi Germany.

Today, the twin camps of Auschwitz-Birkenau are silent, yet full of the ghosts of horrors of boundless slaughter, torture and sadistic human experimentation. We lost over one million souls at Auschwitz alone. Over 5 million more innocent people with names, families and lives were murdered at several other Nazi concentration camps.

On January 27, 1945, Allied troops marched by the ashes of those killed at Auschwitz, and freed the few remaining survivors. Tattooed with a number on their left forearm, and inconceivable torment in their minds and bodies, the survivors walked under the Auschwitz gate adorned with the words ``Arbeit Macht Frei'' or ``Work Makes Freedom'' as emancipated men and women.

The survivors miraculously got on with their lives, although the pain of their memories did not diminish. Many have become successful doctors, teachers, writers and entrepreneurs. Others served valiantly in defending the state of Israel against hatemongers with similar intentions as the Nazis. Many others settled in New York's Eight Congressional District, which I proudly represent, and added immensely to New York City's soul and wealth of character. Theirs is a remarkable story of the human spirit.

It is an appalling realization that 60 years after the Holocaust, the Jewish people are still persecuted, anti-Semitism remains prevalent in many parts of the world, and genocide occurs and is often ignored.

As we commemorate this 60th anniversary, we face the terrible reality that anti-Semitism did not die in Auschwitz. Many of those who survived the holocaust are now reliving the unspeakable horror of anti-Semitic hatred for the sole reason of their religion and identity.

Moreover, sixty years later, we continue to turn our backs on the victims of hatred and genocide. We failed to appropriately respond to devastation and death in Rwanda, and now we repeat our desertion of innocent women and children in Sudan.

Let us honor the memories of those who died in Auschwitz and the Holocaust and the lives of those who survived it, by combating anti- Semitism, hate and bigotry today, tomorrow, and always.

Let us never forget.