Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the American people

an editorial that raises the important questions regarding our uncertain course of action in Iraq. In particular, the author, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, addresses the dilemma that looms in the not-so-distant horizon--do we increase the military effort or do we end it? He also brings to light the ``Downing Street Memo,'' which indicates a pre-war orchestration by the President and Prime Minister Blair to the point of cooking intelligence to meet the President's needs. Mr. Speaker, 87 of my colleagues and I sent the President a letter last week asking him to respond to these serious charges. We await his response.

Staying What Course?

(By Paul Krugman)

Is there any point, now that November's election is behind

us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path

out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their

opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves

as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important

to understand how the tough guys made America weak.

There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the

``Downing Street memo''--actually the minutes of a British

prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which

officials reported on talks with the Bush administration

about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of

London during the British election campaign, confirms what

apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush

administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.

Here's a sample: ``Military action was now seen as

inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military

action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the

policy.''

(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, ``the case was thin'' and Saddam's ``W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran''? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong II fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?

At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.

Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.

Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes--those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.

In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.

So what's the plan?

The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.

Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.

In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.

But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.

So we need to get beyond the cliches--please, no more ``pottery barn principles'' or ``staying the course.'' I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army--which means a draft--or we need to find a way out of Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it appears to me that this amendment we have before us a very stringent solution in search of an actual problem. Although the amendment is supposed to encourage the donation of firefighter equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there have been no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate equipment nor cases of volunteer firefighter companies suing donators. At a minimum, this bill should be reviewed in accordance with regular House order. There have been no hearings or markups in the Judiciary Committee, no opportunity for the members to debate this issue to date.

Companies should not be given blanket immunity to companies for donating fire fighting equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete equipment. Certain equipment like protective gear and breathing apparatuses can deteriorate over time and may not be suitable for reuse. If firefighters work to protect and keep citizens safe, should not they have the best protective equipment possible?

This ``so-called'' problem can clearly be solved without congressional action. First, volunteer fire companies could simply sign a contract waiving the liability of the donors for negligence resulting from donating firefighting equipment. This tactic would ensure that the fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. Second, this issue is a matter that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire departments; it is purely a State issue.

With all of the other pertinent issues that are before Congress, I find it problematic that we are entertaining this non-problem. I urge my colleagues to reject this truly anti-firefighter protection amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time to honor and commemorate the life and the accomplishments of our former colleague Congressman Peter Rodino, elected to the House of Representatives in 1949, who served his district in New Jersey for 40 years with great integrity, humility, fairness, dignity and honor.

Originally known for making Columbus Day a national holiday, Chairman Peter Rodino spent his whole life fighting for people's rights, and I recall personally his strong commitment to human rights, his unwavering support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Voting Rights Extension Act of 1982. He introduced many of these bills and shepherded them through Congress as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

He was also responsible for the enaction of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act which reviewed determinations of mergers of huge corporations in America, and he was instrumental in reforming immigration laws in both the Simpson-Rodino legislation and the Kennedy-Rodino legislation, both of which improved mechanisms for people in the country illegally to legalize their immigration status.

In 1973, Mr. Rodino replaced the legendary Emanuel Celler as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I was then a member of the committee, and he impressed all of us with his determination to do the right thing and his considerate treatment of all committee members. He displayed this common touch in his ability to relate to citizens of every background and from all walks of life.

Of course, Peter Rodino has earned his record in history for his role as chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, presiding over the Watergate hearings which led to the impeachment of then President Richard Millhouse Nixon. History has recorded the debt all Americans owe him for presiding firmly, responsibly and fairly over these hearings and subsequent proceedings.

Many people were very alarmed at what the impeachment of a President would mean, and they wondered aloud in our public media whether this country could survive an impeachment. He handled this very sensitive matter, and it turned Chairman Peter Rodino into a national hero. It was his calm steering of the committee to a final conclusion that ultimately preserved, without any disruption, the constitutional system of the United States, which has been emulated throughout the world.

After he retired from Congress in 1990, he returned to New Jersey as a professor of law at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, New Jersey, and he was active up until even last year. When I visited him there, he was still going strong.

I would like to close by announcing that his memorial service will be held in Newark on this coming Monday, and we want to invite as many of his friends in and out of the Congress who remember his great work to join us at 11 a.m. at the Catholic church of which he was closely connected for his memorial service.

My colleagues, this is a measure that we should be able to identify the problem, study the data, and work together to craft a commonsense response to youth violence. But the measure before us has fatal flaws which authorizes trying more juveniles as adults and provides for more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. None of these things will correct and reduce the youth violence problem, but they will seriously harm our system of juvenile justice.

Now, the one thing that we should know before we go to a vote here is the organizations that have joined myself and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking subcommittee member, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has worked tirelessly on this issue across the years with the Congressional Black Caucus. For instance, the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes this measure. The Sentencing Commission opposes this measure; the Alliance for Children and Families, the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Council of La Raza, the Presbyterian Church, and the Volunteers of America.

And let me tell my colleagues why these groups oppose this legislation. Because, first, they know that trying children as adults and transferring them to adult jails not only does not work, but it makes the situation more likely that they will commit crimes upon release. There are studies that back this up; that they will commit violent crimes upon release, and they will commit crimes sooner upon release. The Miami Herald study concluded that, since adult prisons are, in effect, often crime schools, sending a juvenile there increases by 35 percent the odds that they will commit another offense within a year of release.

Secondly, we know that mandatory minimums distort the sentencing process because the Judicial Conference and the Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' Again, the legislation before us ignores these facts and creates numerous new mandatory minimums that will lead to far greater disparities and further discrimination.

At a time when we have more than 2.1 million Americans in prisons or jails, more than any Nation on the planet, and 10 percent of these individuals are already serving life sentences, it is difficult for reasonable legislators to see how more jail time for more youth can accomplish anything constructive.

Finally, we know now that the death penalty system in this country is incredibly prone to error. So I urge that the Members of this House return this measure to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished author of this amendment if this idea occurred to him during the time that we considered the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary? Because I have never heard of this before.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but we are trying to get rid of criminals from coming into the country, and what the gentleman is doing in this amendment is keeping them in the country. In other words, deporting them is not good enough. We want to keep them in our prison systems, which now house more citizens, and now, we are adding noncitizens to the population of those incarcerated in America. And I have some reservations about piling it on. We have never talked about this position before in the subcommittee or full committee of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to make that observation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a friend and champion of democracy, Lloyd Cutler. Sadly, Lloyd passed away this past Sunday.

His accomplishments are too numerous to list. Serving as Counsel to two presidents and founding a distinguished law firm are just two of the feats he is known for. But Lloyd was more than just the Washington insider he is often portrayed as and his legacy extends far beyond the highest levels of our government; his connections to Presidents did not diminish his resolve to fight for the rights of all Americans.

At President Kennedy's request, he founded and co-chaired the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and developed the organization's mission to engage private lawyers in securing equal justice for all minorities and races in our nation. Indeed, it was because of Lloyd's efforts that many of those arrested for protesting segregation decades ago received legal representation.

He also never wavered in his commitment to the preservation of our democracy anytime the strength of our democracy came into question. After the tragedy of September 11, he was a welcome co-chair of the Continuity of Government Commission. After the 2000 elections, he led the National Commission on Federal Election Reform to ensure no American would be denied the right to vote.

What many may not know is that even as a young man, Lloyd was not content to sit by the sidelines in times of trouble. As a newly minted lawyer, he left a high-profile New York law firm at the start of World War II to enlist in the Army. Time and time again, the pattern has repeated itself; where others saw challenges and setbacks to our country, Lloyd saw another opportunity to serve.

He was a model of civility and bipartisanship that almost seems anachronistic in today's strident debates. It has been said that cooler heads prevail; it must be true because Lloyd accomplished so much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this supplemental appropriations bill and the anti-immigrant legislation it contains.

If we truly believe all the rhetoric we hear about the importance of freedom and liberty from the president and others, we will vote down this bill, which denies so much freedom and liberty to immigrants in our own country.

H.R. 1268 includes numerous provisions limiting the rights of refugees, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the states, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long standing habeas corpus rights.

If enacted into law, this legislation will close America's doors to religious minorities escaping religious persecution and women fleeing sex trafficking and rape.

We have been down this road of overreaction in the past. During the Civil War, General Grant sought to expel the Jews from the South. The aftermath of World War I brought about the notorious Red Scare and the anti-immigrant Palmer raids. World War II led to the unconscionable internment of Japanese Americans.

In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, and even after the PATRIOT Act, this legislation would further target immigrants for crimes they have not committed, and sins they are not responsible for. At some point, we have to treat terrorism as a problem that requires an intelligence response, as opposed to an excuse to scapegoat immigrants.

It is for all these reasons that so many groups strongly oppose this bill, including groups concerned about immigrant rights, civil rights and liberties, privacy rights; Labor rights; the environment; Native- American rights; state rights, and international human rights.

I urge a ``no'' vote. We cannot and should not close ourselves off to the most vulnerable members of our society.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my request of last Thursday, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 253) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a resolution concerning the privileges of the House.

The deliberate misrepresentation of Members of the House of Representatives' amendments is unprecedented.

And I do this because the Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748 mischaracterized amendments offered by Members in a way that distorted both the effect of the amendments and the intentions of the Members.

I offer this resolution to protect the rights of every Member in this body. None of us wants to see our amendments mischaracterized in a way that undermines our good faith. None of us wants to see our legislative work distorted in a way that diminishes our motives. I am not eager to bring this matter to the floor of the House, but I do so as a last resort to achieve a resolution that is fair and just.

There is little doubt in my mind that the amendment characterizations included in the committee report were distorting and damaging. Taking an amendment written to exclude grandparents and describing it as one protecting sexual predators crosses a line of good faith and comity so essential to the operation of this House.

Descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are without precedent. This has never happened before in my memory. If we look at the Record, we will see that the three previous committee reports describing these amendments use neutral and objective terms. The same is true of the amendment descriptions prepared by the majority staff on the Committee on Rules as well as the majority staff on the Republican Conference.

I cannot agree with the contention that the obligation should have been on the Members to draft these amendments more narrowly. The amendments were drafted in a careful and straightforward manner as they have been for each of the last four Congresses. The duty should not be on us to exclude categories of persons who have nothing to do with the underlying amendment.

Let me close by stating that the majority will not control this body forever. There will come a time when members of another party are the ones interpreting the rules, writing the committee reports, and explaining the amendments. Whoever controls this body tomorrow or next year, we will all be better off today if we do not rewrite each other's words or disparage each other's intentions.

I support this privileged resolution and urge the rest of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, can we inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has not used any of his time yet, how many speakers he has?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a senior Member in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want my friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) to understand it is not about anything in the debate that took place to which we were objecting. It is about the entitlement of the amendments which were totally misconstrued.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

I tell my dear friend who just left the well, we are not here to debate the bill. We debated the bill in committee. We debated it on the floor. We are talking about the titles in the section that were mislabeled.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have been called here today to raise a question of the privileges of the House. A very serious matter. A prerogative rarely used by the Members of the House of Representatives. But we have to deal with the mischaracterizations of the titles of the amendments, which is what this debate is about.

It is incredible to me that the case of the other side is so weak that all they can do is continue to talk about the bill itself. We are not here to debate H.R. 748, we are here to talk about the power and the abuses of the majority party that sets the agenda, that writes the reports, and that entitles the amendments submitted to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment titles of three members were twisted and distorted and their meaning was rendered so that the entitlement of the amendment was not, indeed, accurate. I believe the majority has failed the Congress but, more importantly, the American people.

Now, what we are doing here right now is hoping to raise this question of the privileges of the House regarding the blatant abuse of power; Republicans' mischaracterizing the description of numerous Democratic amendments, when some of the amendments had been considered in previous Congresses. These are the same amendments that were properly entitled in other Congresses.

So it is with great reluctance that I come before you to ask that we make sure this never happens again; that this deliberate mischaracterization of amendments be stopped here and now; that it does not happen and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary issue a supplemental report and apologize to the House of Representatives. Support the resolution.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have, this afternoon, a measure on the floor that will increase health risks to young women who choose to have an abortion, is clearly unconstitutional, is antifamily and antiphysician, and it goes way beyond limiting the travel rights of a young woman who would want or seek an abortion or forcing a physician to provide parental notices.

This bill is really about stopping any woman from crossing a State line to obtain an abortion under any conditions and about preventing a doctor from performing an abortion at any time. It is a tragic bill. It is a mean-spirited bill.

If the proponents really wanted to allow young women to ever cross a State line to obtain an abortion, would they pass a law so extreme as to prevent even the woman's grandparents, aunts or uncles, siblings or clergy from helping safeguard the woman's safety? Why else would they pass a law that criminalizes not only taxi and bus drivers but nurses or any health professional who even gives a young woman directions home? There is only one possible answer, and that is they want to prevent any young woman from being able to obtain an abortion, even if she is raped, or even if she is too afraid of her parents to confide in them.

If the proponents of the bill really wanted to permit doctors to conduct abortions on young women under the proper circumstances, why would they force the doctors to travel in person across State lines to give actual written notice to parents? Why else would they fail to define what constitutes reasonable effort by a physician? Why else would they impose this burdensome requirement, even if a parent brought his or her child to the doctor's office to obtain this medical procedure?

So if the proponents really cared whether the bill complied with the Constitution, they would add a health exception that has been frequently enumerated by the Supreme Court in Stenberg versus Cahart; they would provide for a judicial bypass, as is mandated in Hodgson versus Minnesota. Yet the proponents continue to ignore the letter of the law and then act surprised and complain about activist judges when the Court merely does its duty and strikes down blatant unconstitutional proposals like the one before us today.

Unfortunately, this legislation constitutes yet another in a long line of shortsighted efforts to politicize tragic family dilemmas that does nothing to respond to the underlying problems of teen pregnancies, dysfunctional families, and child abuse. We in Congress should not be in the business of telling young women facing a terrible situation who they must confide in and that the Constitution does not apply to them.

Please listen carefully and reject this unwarranted piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has worked with great diligence on this subject across the years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who has worked tirelessly on the committee on this subject matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, would the Chair inform us as to how much time remains on both sides?

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

It is very critical that we understand whose side everyone is on. The Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are all opposed to this bill, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, Planned Parenthood, all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians.

We have yet to have anyone explain why it is that the exception for health is not included in this law. So the dangers that are posed to young women in H.R. 748 underscore the need for confidential access to physicians. It is absolutely critical that we realize that this is about developing more human regulations of this very terrible circumstance.

Very little has been said on the other side about the constitutional concerns and the fact that we refuse to recognize that the lack of parental notification provisions raise at least three serious constitutional concerns.

So I urge the Members to consider how much more Draconian this law is than the previous bills that have been on the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), cochair of the Women's Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), chair of the Pro- Choice Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has been very careful about what he has said and

written about this bill, and his amendment is very thoughtful.

Now, for anybody that thinks this is the same bill you have voted on three times, I want to tell you it is not. This bill goes far further and federalizes more things than any of the legislation we have ever had. And as the bill is drafted now, and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has perceived, anyone involved in any way with the transportation of a minor would have violated the law if they were going to get an abortion, whether he knows it or not.

That is because the bill does not require proof of any intent to avoid State parental consent laws. Just simply transporting a minor, a driver, a taxi man, a bus driver, a family member, could be jailed up to a year or fined, or both. The same applies to emergency medical personnel.

As the gentlewoman pointed out, doctors who may be aware that they are taking a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion but would have no choice if a medical emergency was occurring, what about the Supreme Court requirement for medical emergencies for abortion? Does that not mean anything to anybody here?

Similarly, a nurse at a clinic just providing directions to a minor or her driver could be convicted as an accessory. We have never had that in the bills before us before. A doctor who procures a ride home for a minor and a person accompanying her because of car troubles, coupled with the minor's expressed fear of calling her parents for assistance, could be convicted as an accessory after the fact. A sibling of the minor who merely agrees to transport a minor across States lines without knowledge of any intent to evade the resident State's parental consent or notification laws could be thrown in jail and convicted of a conspiracy to violate the statute.

Let us pass this amendment that brings just a little bit of humanity back into a very mean-spirited bill. We need this amendment to protect these individuals who are innocently swept into the young woman's abortion act and are not made innocent victims of the law.

Support the Scott amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, whose amendment, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), helps to bring a little sensitivity, a little care, understanding, concern about the awful problem behind the necessity that is thought to be needed for this bill.

The Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment seeks to give the young women who are already in desperate situations an opportunity to turn to a trusted adult. Specifically, it creates an exception for grandparents and clergy members from civil or criminal liability.

Now, one could almost, in a more rational circumstance, ask who could be against that. The alternative to this, without this amendment, would be to leave the young women at the mercy of their peers and adults who do not have their best interests at heart or leave them alone.

So the amendment is absolutely vital. Even further, some young women justifiably fear they would be physically abused if forced to disclose their pregnancy to their parents. Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to consult with their parents have experienced violence in their family or feared violence or feared being forced to leave home. So enacting this legislation and forcing young women in these circumstances to notify their parents of their pregnancies will only exacerbate the dangerous cycle of violence in dysfunctional families.

This is the lesson of Spring Adams, an Idaho teenager who was shot to death by her father after he learned she was planning to terminate a pregnancy he caused. It is clear that when a young woman believes that she cannot involve her parents in her decision to terminate a pregnancy, the law cannot mandate healthy, open family communications.

I urge my colleagues to support Jackson-Lee/Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to remind the world that the 24th of April marked the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, a systematic and deliberate campaign of genocide of the Ottoman Empire. Also, it marked yet another year without the U.S. formally recognizing the atrocities that occurred. Considering how well documented the genocide is in the U.S. archives and through an overwhelming body of first-hand, governmental, and diplomatic evidence this is nothing less than a disgrace. I also rise to reaffirm my support for the adoption of the Genocide Resolution H. Res 193, which was introduced last Congress by Rep. Pallone. Unfortunately, even though this legislation passed unanimously out of my committee, had 110 co-sponsors and was placed on the House calendar, it was not allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. The purpose of this legislation was prevent future genocides by stressing the importance of remembering and learning the lessons of past crimes against humanity, including the Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, and the Cambodian and Rwandan genocides in hopes of preventing future atrocities. In addition, this resolution strengthened America's commitment to the universal values of the Genocide Convention and asked the United States to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Genocide Convention.

As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, it was an honor to be instrumental in preparing the report last year which gained unanimous approval at the committee level. The report described the Armenian genocide in the following terms: ``Beginning in 1915, the Islamic Turkish state of the Ottoman Empire sought to end the collective existence of the Christian Armenian population. From 1915 through 1918, during World War I, the Ottoman Empire subjected the Armenian people to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. The atrocities were renewed between 1920 and 1923. It is estimated that one and a half million Armenians were killed out of over two million Armenians who had lived in the Ottoman Empire. It should be noted that these activities ceased with the institution of the new Republic of Turkey in October, 1923.'' Two weeks ago, I signed onto a bipartisan letter to President Bush, asking him to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian Genocide is fully documented in U.S. history. In a July 24, 1915 cable, American Consul Davis noted that, ``I do not believe there has ever been a massacre in the history of the world so general and thorough as that which is now being perpetrated in this region or that a more fiendish, diabolical scheme has ever been conceived by the mind of man. What the order is officially and nominally to exile the Armenians from these

Vilayets may mislead the outside world for a time, but the measure is nothing but a massacre of the most atrocious nature. It would be that even if all the people had allowed to perish on the road. As a greater part of them, however, have been actually murdered and as there is no doubt that this was done by order of the government, there can be no pretense that the measure is anything else but a general massacre.''

Now more than ever as the world is gripped by unrest and terrorism, the memory of the Genocide underscores our responsibility to help convey our cherished tradition of respect for fundamental human rights and opposition to mass slaughter. We owe it to the victims of the Genocide to acknowledge what happened and to teach our students and children about their suffering, so that we can fulfill our obligation to ensure that genocide will never happen again. Our future generation should be able to say, ``I learned, I acknowledge, and I will work to prevent it from happening again.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and as well the committee leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), for moving this measure swiftly through the Committee on the Judiciary.

On December 21 of last year, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its 500,000th design patent to the DaimlerChrysler Corporation for the design of the popular Chrysler Crossfire. House Concurrent Resolution 53, before us now, expresses the sense of Congress that the Patent and Trademark Office has contributed significantly to the Nation's economy and to the reputation in the United States that we enjoy worldwide for our technological innovation and ingenuity.

This is a very distinguished commendation, and I am very proud of the Patent and Trademark Office, which has helped us in protecting and preserving intellectual property.

As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I am well aware of the importance of intellectual property protection and what it means to our economy. Intellectual property rewards and encourages innovation and advancement. Without it, we would not have the high-tech, biotech and everyday numerous inventions that we have come to rely upon in everyday life, and that we have permitted to be exported to all the concerns of the planet.

I am also proud of this patent because I happen to represent the automobile capital of the world still. It is no secret that Michigan boasts the finest automobile workers in the world, and it should be no surprise that it is the design of an American car that has received this award.

So for these reasons and others, I am so proud of my colleagues who have joined me in this presentation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the Congress; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), all. It is a proud moment for us, and we are glad to be honored.

On a more personal note, my father was a worker and union organizer for the United Automobile Workers for Chrysler, Local 7. It was the first company, Chrysler, to be brought into collective bargaining, and so I urge that the Members favorably consider House Concurrent Resolution 53.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation with reservations about one part. At the outset, I strongly support efforts to make it more difficult to steal content and to encourage preservation of historic content.

As I have said before, the content industries are a boon to our economy, providing this country's number one export. Their products, which include music, movies, books, and software, survive on the protection given by copyright law. Without protection from rampant copying and other infringement, creators would have no reason to keep creating and investing in new content.

The success of copyrighted content, however is also its Achilles' Heel. People now camcord movies in theaters to sell online or in DVD format. They obtain pre-release copies of content and sell it online. Of course, this is illegal because it is done without the permission of the content owners and without payment to them. This bill clarifies that these two acts are illegal even if technology makes it easy and fast and cheap. While I believe we should do more to stop piracy, S. 167 is a step in the right direction.

Having said that, I would like to clarify one issue. The civil enforcement said of the pre-release provision imposes a statute of limitations on certain copyright lawsuits. Because it imposes the limit only for infringements that occur no more than two months after pre- registered content is first distributed, it is clear that the bill does not impose any time limit on filing lawsuits for infringements that occur more than two months after distribution.

The bill also contains two provisions that will encourage the preservation of historically-significant content. First, it reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board and National Film Preservation Foundation, which review initiatives to ensure the preservation of valued films and issue grants to libraries and other institutions that can save films from degradation. The Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have applauded these efforts. The program expired in 2003, so S. 167 extends it until 2009.

The second preservation piece, the ``Preservation of Orphan Works Act,'' will empower libraries and archives to make additional copies of musical works, movies, and other content.

My one objection to S. 167, however, is with the ``Family Movie Act,'' which would allow private companies to sell movie editing software

without permission from the filmmakers. This was proposed in response to a lawsuit between one company and filmmakers. From our consideration of this provision last year, we know this section inserts Congress into a private dispute and will take away the copyrights and artistic rights of filmmakers to the financial benefit of one private company. It is important to note that the bill does not immunize those who make fixed copies of edited content; such copies would still be illegal, as they are today, and the legislative history should reflect that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported this legislation in the past because I am told it will improve the ability of Federal courts to handle complex multidistrict litigation arising from a common set of facts.

But I do have some reservations about this bill. When Congress enacted the Multidistrict Litigation, MDL, statute 35 years ago, its purpose was not to impose an unfair burden on plaintiffs and their families. Congress made plain its insistence on preserving the ability of individual plaintiffs to have their eventual day in court in a Federal district courthouse reasonably close to their home.

I want to make sure we continue to strike the right balance between emphasizing judicial economy and efficiency and preserving fundamental fairness during the critical trial phase. With this underlying goal in mind, I support this legislation. However, I hope the bill will continue to improve as it moves through the Senate and into Conference.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to tell the leader of the Rules Committee managing the bill today that time would be taken from him because of the unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the floor manager in no way encouraged anyone to speak contrary to the rule that you have just enunciated.

And in the judgment of the distinguished Speaker, how much time are you proposing to take from the floor manager?

Is there some precedent for that, sir?

There is?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the most special interest-vested bill that I have ever dealt with in my career in Congress. It massively tilts the playing field in favor of banks and credit card companies and against working people and their families. I have never, ever faced such a piece of legislation. That explains to me why it took 8 years to get this thing up here, because they kept fixing it up, making it wrong.

Mr. Speaker, all I want to say as we open this debate is that to those who assert that this bill cracks down on creditor abuse, I would ask them to realize that this bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive, underage lending; nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled; nothing to regulate the practice of sub-prime lending to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts; nothing to crack down on the sharks, the lenders, that charge members of the Armed Forces up to 500 percent interest per year or more. They hang around the bases and lure them in.

What this is is something that we should all be truly embarrassed about. This bill is opposed by every consumer group, by all the bankruptcy judges, the trustees, law professors, by all of organized labor, by the military groups, by the civil rights organizations, and by every major group concerned about seniors, women, and children.

Please, if we do not do anything else in the 109th Congress, let us not let this bill get out of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. This is an 8-year-old bill, and the gentleman has been foremost in this process for all of those years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to break the line of members of the committee. I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to a distinguished friend of mine, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want to go back and yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), an excellent member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who is an able member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Waters), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to let the gentlewoman from California know that the credit card companies solicit five billion mailings every year to college kids and others.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman how many speakers he may have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

We should all be embarrassed that instead of repealing the biggest loophole in the bankruptcy code, we have had 8 years to study it, the homestead exemption, the bill places only weak obstacles in its path. Instead of protecting women and health care providers from those who would terrorize abortion clinics, we lay out a blueprint for them to avoid their debts. Instead of helping individuals who have lost their job or faced a health care emergency, we deny them the chance for a fresh start.

By passing this measure in this form, the majority is telling the American people, Republicans are telling the American people, it is more important to help credit card companies than innocent spouses and children; that it is more important to protect corporate scam artists than workers losing their pension; that it is more important to protect unscrupulous lenders than disabled veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)