Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

And I would like to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for accommodating us with the extra time that we have here this evening for the Coretta Scott King resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a dear friend of the honoree in this resolution, who had worked with Mrs. King for many years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has worked in the King venue even before she became a Member of Congress when she was a staffer and when she was a State senator in California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who has worked tirelessly in the field of health care since she came to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who has shown his interest in the ideals of Dr. King by joining the Committee on the Judiciary in connection with the

Voter Rights Act extension which is currently under debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), who has worked with us on civil rights issues both in this country and in other places in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a dear friend who was in the civil rights movement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) to close our discussion this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a civil rights leader, one who has been in the struggle since the beginning. I remember him from 1963 and he had been in it long before.

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

Today we mourn the loss of a dignified and peaceful woman who showed us by example how to pursue change in the world, despite the costs of that struggle.

My friends in the Congress, I have known Coretta King since I went south during the civil rights movement as a lawyer. She was a vibrant, consistent, totally dedicated partner with her husband. She helped him stay strong, especially in the beginning when there were so many threats and challenges to the revolutionary idea that we would start a civil rights movement in the South itself. Many people tried to dissuade Martin from that course. As a child of the segregated South, she agreed that the movement should begin at the seat of Jim Crow.

When faced with the loss of her husband, Coretta remained able to advance their vision of a free and equal America. She continued her husband's legacy by devoting her life to advancing racial and economic justice and for the rights of women, children, the poor, and the homeless. She also fought for employment, education and health care opportunities for all. Most notably, this woman stood for equality and peace, the very virtues to which her husband had dedicated his life.

It was with Coretta's approval that 4 days after Martin's assassination on April 4, 1968, that I introduced a bill to name a holiday in his honor. Coretta was at the heart of this effort, as well as were many others to continue the life and work of King. In 1969, I joined Coretta at the King Center in Atlanta to kick off the campaign for a national holiday. She orchestrated a national grassroots movement that urged passage of this legislation and would come to Congress in 1979 and 1980 and 1981 and 1982 and 1983 to testify before the Congress and urge support of the King holiday. It was with her diligence and perseverance that that holiday bill was passed in 1983 and first observed in 1986.

Today, upon the passing of Mrs. King, we will pledge to continue the King legacy as she has for the past 37 years. As the life and work of the Kings touched millions during their lifetime in this country and around the world, we here in Congress must ensure that their lives continue to impact millions more in the coming years, and that is why I am so proud to join the rest of us in supporting and urging passage of the King resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the honorable Democratic whip of the House, who I happen to know worked with Rosa Parks. And I am delighted that he came to several of her farewell memorial tributes and that he is with us on the floor today for the resolution for the late Coretta Scott King.

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that there will be continuation of the debate on this resolution tomorrow.

Until then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a civil rights leader when she was in State government and a civil rights leader today, to close on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to another Member person to testify in terms of this House Resolution tonight, Congresswoman Diane Watson, a member of the Congressional delegation, but, more than that, she was a distinguished State senator from California and she was one of the few in this body who have been named an ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

I am pleased to yield 3\1/3\ minutes to a member of the Committee on the Judiciary from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/3\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), an attorney, a prosecutor, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a staunch advocate for civil rights.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has distinguished herself in the field of law, in the executive branch of our government, and has also appeared in the Supreme Court on a number of occasions on behalf of civil rights issues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Montgomery, Alabama (Mr. Davis) who in closing will perhaps yield as much of his time as he can to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) where Mrs. Coretta Scott King resided for so many years.

Mr. Speaker, while I am a strong supporter of the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces, I am deeply opposed to the unnecessary and pernicious last-minute amendment added to this bill by Senators Graham, Levin, and Kyl. I am also disappointed that the conferees have made further changes to the provision that will only further damage our rule of law and compromise the efforts of our soldiers around the world.

Their amendment, which is now Section 1405 of this bill, may severely curtail the federal court's review of detainees operations in ways that do irreparable damage to our rule of law. The provision also fails unequivocally to condemn torture and abuse, or the erratic and unreliable information that practice yields. These flaws are contrary to the fundamental principles of our legal traditions.

Let me first focus on the torture issue. Never before in America's proud history have we countenanced a system in which there is even a possibility that human liberty might be taken away based on evidence extracted by torture. And it is this refusal to debase ourselves, by resorting to immoral and illegal techniques, that lies at the core of our best and most noble traditions.

We should have made clear beyond doubt in this provision that we do not approve of and we are not willing to tolerate a system that rests on torture today. Even if it were true that there may be some extreme case--say, the infamous ``ticking time-bomb'' scenario--that could vindicate the use of abhorrent physical coercion, that exceptional case would not warrant the use of that evidence--evidence that our intelligence services have told us is very often unreliable--in subsequent judicial proceedings. There is simply no excuse or justification for this omission.

As we try to establish new democracies and the rule of law for Iraq and Afghanistan in place of sanctuaries for terrorists, Congress's failure to condemn and bar abuse is shameful, intolerable, and deeply hypocritical: How can we refuse to practice what we preach to other countries?

Congress must return to this issue as soon as possible and make good the promise of Senator McCain's wise anti-abuse provision; after all standards are important but, as we have learned time and time again, we also need accountability and enforcement.

Time is of the essence because continued torture and abuse hurts our efforts in Iraq and beyond against al Qaeda. The persistent wave of stories about prisoners detained for the wrong reasons, or subjected to inappropriate treatment or abuse while in U.S. custody has inflicted terrible harm on our reputation, and on the efforts by our brave men and women in Iraq to win the hearts and minds campaign. Establishing a meaningful system of accountability for detainee operations is not only a matter of restoring America's honor in the eyes in the world, it is a vital part of our counterterrorism strategy.

Accountability, moreover, cannot be achieved without independent monitoring mechanisms. The rule of law, as events of the past four years have made clear, dies behind closed doors and barbed-wire. Cutting off meaningful judicial supervision of the Guantanamo Naval Base will not restore the military's honor. And turning the federal courts into rubber stamps for decisions generated through the rack and the screw would stain our legal traditions.

As Senator Specter powerfully urged, these difficult issues must be assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their careful and expert consideration. Senator Specter's wise counsel has been repeated in letters from senior members of our armed forces, who have already retired; a bipartisan group of respected former federal judges; the American Bar Association; and a broad cross-section of professors from the legal academy. This wide-ranging opposition indicates how thorny these issues are, and how unwise it is to move so quickly on them.

I am heartened, however, that we have been able to preserve much that is not harmful in this provision. There are some sound ideas embedded in these provisions that we should use when we reconsider these issues.

Central to Congress's aim in this provision is a distinction between those detainees who have already been subject to a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) and new detainees who will be subject to a future CSRT procedure that Congress will certify more than six months from now. For those who have already been subject to a CSRT and now challenge either that procedure or the lawfulness of the military commission system, the provision does not affect access to the federal courts.

Through section(h)(2), Congress has crafted a new system of judicial review for cases that will be brought under a new system of CSRTs, to be designed by the Secretary of Defense and reviewed with care by Congress. These appeals from new CSRTs will be heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And even in these new cases, the provision does not alter the now-established ability of attorneys to visit clients at Guantanamo. Attorneys litigating their cases in a circuit court need access to and communication with their client, as recent filings in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case show.

But section (h)(2) also circumscribes the new system of review to new cases, which will of necessity arise more than six months from now, when the new CSRT procedures have been promulgated. We have preserved the existing, expansive review role of the federal courts for the habeas petitions filed by those who have already been through a CSRT. So detainees who have already had a CSRT hearing, including those who have pending habeas petitions, will continue to have traditional habeas review.

We also chose in paragraph 3 of subsection (e) not to legislate an abstention rule. For those who have filed challenges to their military commissions, we did not take the extraordinary step of requiring convictions or other exhaustion before they come into federal court. As in Ex Parte Quirin, we have permitted pre-conviction challenge to be brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Paragraph 3

simply governs challenges to ``final decisions'' of commissions, and does not impact challenges when they are not brought ``under [that] paragraph.'' See Section 1405 (e)(3)(c),(d).

To be sure, a few provisions are singled out to apply to pending cases, but these are provisions that give those who have filed cases additional rights, instead of taking any rights away. One such provision was added in conference with respect to coerced testimony, Section 1405(b)(2). But that provision does not in any way alter the clear intent of the Congress, which was to grandfather the jurisdiction of existing Guantanamo habeas and mandamus lawsuits under Lindh v. Murphy.

As such, nothing in the legislation alters or impacts the jurisdiction or merits of Hamdan. And, quite obviously, nothing in the legislation constitutes affirmative authorization, or even toleration, for the military commissions at issue in that case. That is the question that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming months. Our mention of commissions simply reflects, but does not endorse, the fact that the lower court in Hamdan held them legal.

This provision attempts to address problems that have occurred in the determinations of the status of people detained by the military at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. It recognizes that the CSRT procedures applied in the past were inadequate and must be changed going forward. As the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found, in In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, the past CSRT procedures ``deprive[d] the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for their detention and den[ied] them a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration,'' and allowed ``reliance on statements possibly obtained through torture or other coercion.'' Her review ``call[ed] into serious question the nature and thoroughness'' of the past CSRT process. The former CSRT procedures were not issued by the Secretary of Defense, were not reported to or approved by Congress, did not provide for final determinations by a civilian official answerable to Congress, did not provide for the consideration of new evidence, and did not address the use of statements possibly obtained through coercion.

To address these problems, this provision requires the Secretary of Defense to issue new CSRT procedures and report those procedures to the appropriate committees of Congress; it requires that going forward the determinations be made by a Designated Civilian Official who is answerable to Congress; it provides for the periodic review of new evidence; it provides for future CSRTs to assess whether statements were derived from coercion and their probative value; and it provides for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for these future CSRT determinations.

At the same time, in accordance with our traditions, this amendment does not apply retroactively to revoke the jurisdiction of the courts to consider pending claims invoking the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging past enemy combatant determinations reached without the safeguards this amendment requires for future determinations. The amendment alters the original language introduced by Senator Graham so that those pending cases are not affected by this provision. Accordingly, subsection (h)(1) establishes that generally the provisions of this section, including subsection (e)(1), which affects the substantive rights of parties, apply only as of the date of enactment of this provision in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Lindh v. Murphy.

Recognizing the Supreme Court's concerns about judicial independence in cases such as City of Boerne v. Flores and United States v. Morrison, we have underscored that Congress is not attempting to settle any constitutional question that is the proper province of the federal courts. Thus in sections (e)(2)(C)(ii), (e)(3)(D)(ii), and (f), we have made clear, out of an abundance of caution, that we not purport to decide any constitutional question that remains within the proper bailiwick of the federal courts pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. Thus, this provision does not speak to the constitutionality of the military commissions or the old CSRTs. We leave it to the courts to decide these questions.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a Resolution of Inquiry H. Res. 643 requesting the Attorney General to transmit to Congress documents reflecting the legal justification for spying on American soil without judicial approval. I introduce this Resolution on behalf of myself and Mr. Berman, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Ms. Waters, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Linda Sanchez, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Doggett, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Filner, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Tauscher, Ms. Lee, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Udall of New Mexico and Mr. Holt.

It is my hope that the Administration will voluntarily comply with this straightforward request. However, if they do not, this Resolution will require a vote in the Committee, and possibly the House floor so that the Members can go on record concerning whether this is an important enough issue to warrant Congressional oversight. I believe we simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is both laying down and interpreting the law on its own accord, and not even sharing with the Members of Congress what the legal justification for such a program is.

Last week we learned that the President has been using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This week we learned that contrary to the President's assertions that the wiretapping included only foreign calls, some of the intercepted communications were conducted entirely within the United States. As a result of these disclosures, one member of the FISA Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned, and the presiding judge of the court has sought a classified briefing to address their concerns that the NSA program was illegal and may have been improperly used to gain further wiretaps from their court.

These revelations raise some of the most serious legal and constitutional questions conceivable in our democracy--whether our own government is able to intercept our most private conversations without establishing to any independent party that such eavesdropping is in any way necessary or related to a possible crime. For 25 years under FISA we have created special procedures for obtaining intelligence information on U.S. soil. The standard for getting a wiretap warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is so low that only 5 out of the 19,000 applications have been denied since 1978. We even allow FISA orders to be obtained on a retroactive basis for the first 72 hours, in case the government needs to move with great speed.

However, for some reason the Bush Administration has opted not to use the FISA laws to obtain surveillance orders involving a number of people located on U.S. soil. As one official told the Washington Post, ``the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.''

The purpose of this Resolution of Inquiry is to allow Congress to obtain the necessary information so we can learn precisely what the legal basis was for this great expansion of executive power. We are not asking to learn about the names or identities of the individuals who have been surveilled, at this point we simply want to learn on what legal basis the surveillance orders were issued. The Administration has proposed a number of legal theories to the press to justify the NSA wiretaps, ranging from the President's authority as Commander In Chief to general authority included in the post 9/11 Afghanistan Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. Specifically, I oppose the avian flu liability provision which provides sweeping blanket immunity for the drug companies while again leaving American citizens unprotected. This legislation, which appears both unconstitutional and contrary to federalism, has not been reviewed by any committee of jurisdiction. In fact, this language was added to the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report in the middle of the night, long after the conferees approved the bill.

Under the current provision, punitive damages for any claims are barred, allowing for no corporate liability. Drug companies that engaged in the worst kinds of abuses could not be penalized by juries. In addition, the legislation limits the total liability of any manufacturer or distributor. The result is no out of pocket payments by reckless corporations and no real recovery for injured citizens.

Consider this example: The Secretary of Health and Human Services declares a potential public health emergency and designates a vaccine as a countermeasure. Later production of the vaccine demonstrates that the vaccine has vast problems with its potency and may render the vaccine harmful. With this knowledge, the company still sends the vaccine to thousands of distributors and when it is administered, the result is numerous deaths. Under this provision, families who are trying to gain compensation for their losses are left without recourse.

This provision requires that before an injured person can pursue a claim, the Secretary of HHS must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was willful misconduct on the part of the manufacturer, distributor, or administrator of a covered product. First, this would insure that no injured person, including first responders and medical personnel, would have coverage. Second, it is doubtful that ``willful misconduct,'' which is defined as actual knowledge that a covered product would cause harm, could actually be proven. Third, even if an injured victim proved willful misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, the massive tort reform such as no punitive damages and capped non-economic damages would severely limit any compensation.

In addition, this portion of the conference report applies to a wide range of drugs, vaccines, and other products. The provision does

not limit its application to only new drugs or vaccines used in a pandemic context. Instead, it applies to any ``drug, biological product or device'' that is used to treat or cure a pandemic, epidemic or limit the harm that a pandemic or epidemic might cause. As drafted, this legislation would include drugs such as Tylenol or AdviI.

Finally, the conference report falsely claims to establish a compensation process. This ``compensation process'', under the sole direction of the Secretary of HHS, is governed by regulations created by the Secretary alone and includes caps on compensation awards. Further, no monies have been appropriated for the fund and consequently, the ``compensation process'' is whole inoperable. The provision has no true compensation program.

Attached to my statement is a letter from Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor at the Duke University School of Law which further outlines the problems and issues concerning this preparedness provision. Instead of putting the burden on the victim by cutting compensation and protecting the drug manufacturers, we must ensure corporate accountability and protection for our citizens. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science,

Duke University School of Law,

December 20, 2005.

Dear Senator: I understand that the Congress is considering

legislation that has been denominated as the ``Public

Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.'' This legislation

would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services

extraordinary authority to designate a threat or potential

threat to health as constituting a public health emergency

and authorizing the design, development, and implementation

of countermeasures, while providing total immunity for

liability to all those involved in its development and

administration. In addition to according unfettered

discretion to the Secretary to grant complete immunity from

liability, the bill also deprives all courts of jurisdiction

to review those decisions. Sec. (a)(7). I write to alert the

Congress to the serious constitutional issues that the

legislation raises.

First, the bill is of questionable constitutionality

because of its broad, unfettered delegation of legislative

power by Congress to the executive branch of government.

Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may provide

another branch of government with authority over a subject

matter, but ``cannot delegate any part of its legislative

power except under the limitation of a prescribed standard.''

United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 282 U.S.

311, 324 (1931). Recently, the Supreme Court endorsed Chief

Justice Taft's description of the doctrine: ``the

Constitution permits only those delegations where Congress

`shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle

to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed

to conform.' '' Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417,

484 (1998)(emphasis in original), quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr.,

& Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928). The breadth

of authority granted the Secretary without workable

guidelines from Congress appears to be the type of

``delegation running riot'' that grants the Secretary a

``roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery

correct them'' of the type condemned by Justice Cardozo in

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S.

495, 553 (1935)(Cardozo, J., concurring).

Second, the bill raises important federalism issues because

it sets up an odd form of federal preemption of state law.

All relevant state laws are preempted. Sec. (a)(8). However,

for the exttemely narrow instance of willful (knowing)

misconduct by someone in the stream of commerce for a

countermeasure the bill establishes that the substantive law

is the law of the state where the injury occurred, unless

preempted. Sec. (e)(2). The sponsors appear to be trying to

have it both ways, which may not be constitutionally

possible. The bill anticipates what is called express

preemption, because the scope of any pennissible lawsuits is

changed from a state-based to a federally based cause of

action. See Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8

(2003).

Usually, that type of ``unusually 'powerful' '' preemptive

statute provides a remedy for any plaintiff's claim to the

exclusion of state remedies. Id. at 7 (citation omitted).

Here, rather than displace state law in such instances, the

bill adopts the different individual laws of the various

states, but amends them to include a willful

misconduct standard that can only be invoked if the

Secretary or Attorney General initiates an enforcement

action against those involved in the countermeasure and

that action is either pending at the time a claim is filed

or concluded with some form of punishment ordered.

Such a provision raises two important constitutional

concerns. One problem is that this hybrid form of preemption

looks less like an attempt to create a federal cause of

action than an direct attempt by Congress to amend state law

in violation of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64

(1938) and basic principles of federalism. Although Congress

may preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause by creating

a different and separate federal rule, see Crosby v. Nat'l

Foreign Trade Counc., 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000), it may not

directly alter, amend, or negate the content of state law as

state law. That power, the Erie Court declared, ``reserved by

the Constitution to the several States.'' 304 U.S. at 80. It

becomes clear that the bill attempts to amend state law,

rather than preempt it with a federal alternative, when one

realizes that States will retain the power to enact new

applicable laws or amend existing ones with a federal overlay

that such an action may only be commenced in light of a

federal enforcement action and can only succeed when willful

misconduct exists. The type of back and forth authority

between the federal and state governments authorized by the

bill fails to constitute a form of constitutionally

authorized preemption.

The other problem with this provision is that the

unfettered and unreviewable discretion accorded the Secretary

or Attorney General to prosecute an enforcement action as a

prerequisite for any action for willful misconduct violates

the constitutional guarantee of access to justice, secured

under both the First Amendment's Petition Clause and the

Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Christopher v.

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n. 12 (2002). In fact, the Court

has repeatedly recognized that that ``the right of access to

the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment right to

petition the Government for redress of grievances.'' Bill

Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731. 741 (1983),

citing California Motor Transport Co . v. Trucking Unlimited,

404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). First Amendment rights, the Supreme

Court has said in a long line of precedent, cannot be

dependent on the ``unbridled discretion'' of government

officials or agencies. See, e.g., City of Lake wood v. Plain

Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988). At the same time,

the Due Process Clause guarantees a claimant an opportunity

to be heard ``at a meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner.'' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). The

obstacles placed before a claimant, including the insuperable

one of inaction by the Secretary or Attorney General, raise

significant due process issues. The Supreme Court has

recognized that official inaction cannot prevent a claimant

from being able to go forth with a legitimate lawsuit. See

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982). The

proposed bill seems to reverse that constitutional

imperative.

Third, the complete preclusion of judicial review raises

serious constitutional issues. The Act, through Sec. 319F-

3(b)(7), expressly abolishes judicial review of the

Secretary's actions, ordaining that ``[n]o court of the

United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter

jurisdiction,'' i.e., the power, ``to review . . . any action

of the Secretary regarding'' the declaration of emergencies,

as well as the determination of which diseases or threats to

health are covered, which individual citizens are

protected, which geographic areas are covered, when an

emergency begins, how long it lasts, which state laws

shall be preempted, and when or if he shall report to

Congress.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed

that the preclusion of all judicial review raises ``serious

questions'' concerning separation of powers and due process

of law. See, e.g., Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974);

see also, Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board

No. 14, 393 U.S. 233 (1968); McNary v. Haitian Refugee

Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991); Reno v. Catholic Social

Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993). Judicial review of government

actions has long regarded as ``an important part of our

constitutional traditional'' and an indispensable feature of

that system,'' Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and a co-author of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, I take this opportunity to reemphasize the importance of certain parts of the legislative history of the provisions involving protections for battered immigrants. Additionally, I want to highlight and provide guidance on the reasoning behind and expectations about some of the provisions that are part of the final bill, the engrossed amendment agreed to by the Senate, which passed the Senate on December 16, 2005 and passed the House on December 17, 2005.

Since the section numbers changed between the version of VAWA 2005's Protection of Battered and Trafficked Immigrants provisions that passed the House September 28, 2005, and the version that we are considering today, I will provide a list at the end of my statement that cross references the section numbers in the final bill.

Section 801 enhances protection for immigrant victims of trafficking and certain immigrant crime victims by reuniting them with their children and family members living abroad. In the context of trafficking cases and other immigration functions I wanted to clarify for the record that VAWA 2005 contains language in Sections 801, 803, 804, 813 and 832 that are designed to amend sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to reflect the current delegation of authority and reassignment of immigration functions from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When DOJ and DHS are cited as having shared authority under this Act, that shared authority should be limited to instances in which DHS is making an immigration determination in a case in which DOJ has an active federal investigation or prosecution. In cases where the investigation or prosecution is being conducted by a state or local prosecutor, or by another federal government agency, DOJ involvement may not be appropriate or required.

Section 802 creates an exception to unlawful presence for victims of severe forms of trafficking who demonstrate that their trafficking experience was at least one central reason for their unlawful presence in the United States. For the purposes of this section (and similarly for sections 801, 805 and 812 of this Act), I

understand that the term ``at least one central reason'' is intended to mean that the unlawful presence was caused by, or related to, the trafficking experience and its concurrent process of victimization. Just as this section provides a waiver of unlawful presence inadmissibility for T visa victims, I would hope that DHS will exercise its discretion determining good moral character so that T visa recipients are not barred from attaining adjustment of status from a T visa.

Section 804 provides that aliens can qualify for T status if they respond to and cooperate with requests for evidence and information from law enforcement officials. I also want to emphasize that state and local law enforcement officials investigating or prosecuting trafficking-related crimes are permitted to file a request (and certification) asking DHS to grant continued presence to trafficking victims. This section changes references in the INA to conform to the transfer of immigration functions from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security by replacing references to the Attorney General with references to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

I believe the expansions in protections for children contained in this Act are particularly important. Section 805 ensures that immigrant children who are victims of incest and child abuse get full access to VAWA protections. The application for adjustment of status to permanent residence of an alien who self-petitioned for permanent residence shall also serve as an adjustment application for any derivative children. Derivative children of self-petitioners will receive lawful permanent residency along with their self-petitioning parents. This section removes the requirement that abused adopted children must live with the abusive parent for two years and assures that child VAWA self- petitioners and derivative children have access to VAWA's aging out protections and can additionally access any Child Status Protection Act relief for which they qualify. It allows assures victims of child abuse and incest who were under 21 when abused have additional time until they turn 25 to file VAWA self-petitions. In this context, I understand that the term ``at least one central reason'' is intended to mean that the they delay in filing was caused by, or related to, the child abuse or incest and its concurrent process or victimization.

Section 811 defines a ``VAWA petitioner'' as an alien who has applied for classification or relief under a number of provisions of the INA. I want to emphasize the importance of the fact that the law assures that adjudication of all forms of immigration relief related to domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking or victims of violent crime continue to be adjudicated by the specially trained VAWA unit.

In 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service consolidated adjudication of VAWA self-petitions and VAWA-related cases in one specially trained unit that adjudicates all VAWA immigration cases nationally. The unit was created ``to ensure sensitive and expeditious processing of the petitions filed by this class of at-risk applicants . . .'', to ``[engender] uniformity in the adjudication of all applications of this type'' and to ``[enhance] the Service's ability to be more responsive to inquiries from applicants, their representatives, and benefit granting agencies.'' See 62 Fed. Reg. 16607-16608 (1997). T visa and U visa adjudications were also consolidated in the specially trained VAWA unit. (See, USCIS Interoffice Memorandum HQINV 50/1, August 30, 2001, from Michael D. Cronin to Michael A. Pearson, 67 Fed. Reg. 4784 (Jan. 31, 2002)). This specially trained VAWA unit assures consistency of VAWA adjudications, and can effectively identify eligible cases and deny fraudulent cases. Maintaining a specially trained unit with consistent and stable staffing and management is critically important to the effective adjudication of these applications.

Consistent with these procedures, I recommend that the same specially trained unit that adjudicates VAWA self-petitions, T and U visa applications, process the full range of adjudications, adjustments, and employment authorizations related to VAWA cases (including derivative beneficiaries) filed with DHS: VAWA petitions T and U visas, VAWA Cuban, VAWA NACARA (Sec. Sec. 202 or 203), and VAWA HRIFA petitions, 106 work authorization under section 814(c) of this Act), battered spouse waiver adjudications under 216(c)(4)(C), applications for parole of VAWA petitioners and their children and applications for children of victims who have received VAWA cancellation. I also encourage DHS to promote consistency in VAWA adjudications by defining references to ``domestic violence'' in the INA as ``battery or extreme cruelty,'' the domestic abuse definition codified in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA 1994''), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (``IIRIRA'') and regulations implementing the battered spouse waiver.

The Secretary of Homeland Security can remove the conditional status of an alien who became a permanent resident, as the spouse of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident without joint filing of a petition with the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, upon the showing of hardship, battery, or certain other factors. Applications for such relief may be amended to change the ground or grounds for such relief without having to be resubmitted.

VAWA 2000 allowed victims of domestic violence abused by U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident spouses to file VAWA self-petitions from outside of the U.S. if they had been abused in the U.S. or if their abuser was a member of the uniformed services or a government employee. Modeled after the VAWA 2000 protection offered to children on VAWA cancellation of removal grantees, existing parole provisions should be used to ensure that approved VAWA petitioners, their derivative children and children of traffic-king victims, can enter the U.S.

Section 812 provides that an alien who is a VAWA petitioner or is seeking cancellation of removal or VAWA suspension as a battered alien is not subject to the penalties for failing to depart after agreeing to a voluntary departure order, if the battery or extreme cruelty, trafficking, or criminal activity provided at least one central reason related to the alien's failure to depart. In this context it is my understanding that the term ``at least one central reason'' is intended to mean that the failure to depart was caused by, or related to, the battering or extreme cruelty experience and its concurrent process of victimization.

Section 813 is designed to address a number of problems for immigrant victims in removal proceedings. The definition of exceptional circumstances will now include battering or extreme cruelty. Important clarifications are made to assure that immigration judges can grant victims the domestic violence victim waivers we created in VAWA 2000. I particularly want to emphasize the importance of the protections from reinstatement of removal we create in this Act for immigrant victims. Under current law DHS has the discretionary authority to consent to the readmission of a previously removed alien (using the existing I-212 process). DHS should make use of its discretion in granting readmission to appropriately assist aliens with humanitarian cases including but not limited to, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, victims of trafficking and crime victims who are cooperating in criminal investigations.

Under current law, victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking who have been ordered removed, including expedited removal, are subject to reinstatement of removal if they depart the U.S. and attempt to reenter the U.S. Once they are reinstated in removal proceedings, they cannot obtain VAWA, T, and U relief, even if they have a pending application for such relief. Recognizing these harsh consequences, Congress encourages DHS to make use of its discretionary authority to consent to the admission of such previously removed aliens (using the existing I-212 process).

Section 814 provides that an alien whose petition as a VAWA petitioner has been approved may be granted work authorization. U visa applicants are provided work authorization under existing law. I want to emphasize that this section gives DHS statutory authority to grant work authorization to approved VAWA self-petitioners without having to rely upon deferred action. I believe that one of the most important protections offered by this section toward prevention of domestic violence is that Section 814 of this bill provides that an alien spouse admitted under the A (foreign diplomats), E-3 (Australian investor), G (international organizations), or H (temporary worker) visa non- immigrant programs accompanying or following to join a principal alien shall be granted work authorization if the spouse demonstrates that during the marriage he or she (or a child) has been battered or has been subjected to extreme cruelty perpetrated by the principal alien. This section is intended to reduce domestic violence by giving victims tools to protect themselves and hold abusers accountable. Research has found the financial dependence on an abuser is a primary reason that battered women are reluctant to cooperate in their abuser's prosecution. With employment authorization, many abused spouses protected by this section will be able to attain work providing them the resources that will make them more able to safely act to stop the domestic violence. The specially trained CIS unit shall adjudicate these requests.

I believe that Section 817 of this Act contains same of the most important protections for immigrant victims. This section is enhances VAWA's confidentiality protections for immigrant victims and directs immigration enforcement officials not to rely on information provided by an abuser, his family members or agents to arrest or remove an immigrant victim from the United States. Threats of deportation are the most potent tool abusers of immigrant victims use to maintain control over and silence their victims and to avoid criminal prosecution. In 1996, Congress created special

protections for victims of domestic violence against disclosure of information to their abusers and the use of information provided by abusers in removal proceedings. In 2000, and in this Act, Congress extended these protections to cover victims of trafficking, certain crimes and others who qualify for VAWA immigration relief. These provisions are designed to ensure that abusers and criminals cannot use the immigration system against their victims. Examples include abusers using DHS to obtain information about their victims, including the existence of a VAWA immigration petition, interfering with or undermining their victims' immigration cases, and encouraging immigration enforcement offices to pursue removal actions against their victims.

Immigration enforcement agents and government officials covered by this section must not initiate contact with abusers, call abusers as witnesses or rely on information furnished by or derived from abusers to apprehend, detain and attempt to remove victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking, as prohibited by section 384 of IIRIRA. In determining whether a person furnishing information is a prohibited source, primary evidence should include, but not be limited to, court records, government databases, affidavits from law enforcement officials, and previous decisions by DHS or Department of Justice personnel. Other credible evidence must also be considered. Government officials are encouraged to consult with the specially trained VAWA unit in making determinations under the special ``any credible evidence'' standard. I believe that all investigation and enforcement of these provisions should be done by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department. For consistency, these cases need to be centralized in one division and I believe that this office is best equipped to address these cases.

The current practice of granting deferred action to approved VAWA self-petitioners should continue. Aliens with deferred action status should not be removed or deported. Prima facie determinations and deferred action grants should not be revoked by immigration enforcement agents. The specially trained Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) unit should review such cases to determine whether or not to revoke a deferred action grant. Immigration enforcement officials at the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement do not have authority to overrule a CIS grant of deferred action to an alien victim. Immigration enforcement officers should refer aliens they encounter who may qualify for relief under this Act to immigration benefits adjudicators handling VAWA cases at CIS.

VAWA confidentiality protections in IIRAIRA are amended to conform with current practice extending these protections to the Department of Homeland Security in addition to the ``Department of Justice and to expand confidentiality protections to the Department of State. These protective provisions were designed to assure that the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State may not use information furnished by, or derived from information provided solely by, an abuser, crime perpetrator or trafficker to make an adverse determination of admissibility or. removal of an alien. However, information in the public record and government data-bases can be relied upon, even if government officials first became aware of it through an abuser.

This section provides that this provision shall not apply to prevent information from being disclosed (in a manner that protects victim confidentiality and safety) to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, including the Immigration Subcommittees, in the exercise of their oversight authority. This section also gives the specially trained VAWA unit the discretion to refer victims to non-profit, non-governmental organizations to obtain a range of needed assistance and victim services. Referrals should be made to programs with expertise in providing assistance to immigrant victims of violence and can only be made after obtaining written consent from the immigrant victim. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the ability of an applicant to designate a safe organization through which governmental agencies may communicate with the applicant.

This section requires that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice provide guidance to their officers and employees who have access to information protected by Section 384 of IIRAIRA, including protecting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking and other crimes from the harm that could result from inappropriate disclosure of information. Congress encourages the DHS's specially trained VAWA unit and CIS VAWA policy personnel: (1) to develop a training program that can be used to train DHS staff, trial attorneys, immigration judges, and other DOJ and DOS staff who regularly encounter alien victims of crimes, and (2) to craft and implement policies and protocols on appropriate handling by DHS, DOJ and DOS officers of cases under VAWA 1994, the Acts subsequently reauthorizing VAWA, and IIRIRA.

Section 825 contains a number of amendments particularly important to me. Protecting victims of domestic violence from deportation and assuring that they can have their day in court before an immigration judge to file for VAWA related immigration relief is a central focus of all VAWA immigration protection I have been involved in developing since 1994. This section contains amendments that clarify the VAWA 2000 motions to reopen for abused aliens, enabling otherwise eligible VAWA applicants to pursue VAWA relief from removal, deportation or exclusion. This section provides that the limitation of one motion to reopen a removal proceeding shall not prevent the filing of one special VAWA motion to reopen. In addition, a VAWA petitioner can file a motion to reopen removal proceedings after the normal 90-day cutoff period, measured from the time of the final administrative order of removal. The filing of a special VAWA motion to reopen shall stay the removal of the alien pending final disposition of the motion, including exhaustion of all appeals, if the motion establishes a prima facie case for the relief. One VAWA 2005 post-enactment motion to reopen may be filed by a VAWA applicant. Aliens who filed and were denied special VAWA motions under VAWA 2000 may file one new motion under this Act.

Additionally, I feel it is very important that the system of services we provide to domestic violence victims, rape victims and trafficking victims and our protection order courtrooms and family courts are places to which victims can safely turn for help without worrying that their abuser may have sent immigration enforcement officers after them when they are seeking service and protection. Section 825(c) establishes a system to verify that removal proceedings are not based on information prohibited by section 384 of IIRIRA. When any part of an enforcement action was taken leading to such proceedings against an alien at certain places, DHS must disclose these facts in the Notice to Appear issued against the alien. DHS must certify that such an enforcement action was taken but that DHS did not violate the requirements of Section 384 of IIRIRA. The list of locations includes: a domestic violence shelter, a rape crisis center, and a courthouse if the alien is appearing in connection with a protection order or child custody case. Persons who knowingly make a false certification shall be subject to penalties. Removal proceedings filed in violation of section 384 of IIRIRA shall be dismissed by immigration judges. However, further proceedings can be brought if not in violation of section 384.

I also want to highlight the important protections for all battered women and stalking victims contained in Section 827 of this bill. With respect to laws and regulations governing identification cards and drivers' licenses, DHS and the Social Security Administration shall give special consideration to victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking who are entitled to enroll in state address confidentiality programs, and whose addresses are entitled to be suppressed under State or Federal law (including VAWA confidentiality provisions), or suppressed by a court order.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 imposed a new national requirement that all applicants for driver's licenses or state identification cards must furnish their physical residential address in order to obtain a federally valid license or identification card. This requirement jeopardizes those victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking who may be living in confidential battered women's shelters or fleeing their abuser, stalker, or trafficker. In recognition of the dangers of this requirement, this provision instructs DHS and the Social Security Administration to give special consideration to victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking by allowing certain victims to use an alternate safe address in lieu of their physical residential address.

I understand that a driver's license or identification card is necessary for victims to board an airplane or train to flee danger. Many confidentiality programs are currently in place on both federal and state levels to ensure that the dual goals of economic security and victim safety are reached by allowing an individual to choose an alternate address on her driver's license. This will provide an exception for those victims who are entitled to enroll in state address confidentiality programs, whose addresses are entitled to be suppressed under State or Federal law or suppressed by a court order, or who are protected from disclosure of information pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1367, ensuring the continued protection and necessary mobility for these women and their families.

As Ranking Member' of the House Judiciary Committee, I have been particularly concerned about the significant delays that have occurred between the effective dates of VAWA 1994 and VAWA 2000 laws and the issuance of implementing regulations that are needed so that

immigrant victims can receive the protections Congress has created for them. Section 828 requires that regulations implementing both this Act (including materials and dissemination under section 834) and the Act reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2000, (``VAWA 2000''), be issued within 180 days of this Act's enactment. In applying such regulations, in the case of petitions or applications affected by the changes made by the Acts, there shall be no requirement to submit an additional petition, application, or certification from a law enforcement agency with the date of the application for interim relief establishing the priority date of counting time towards adjustment of status. However, the Department of Homeland Security may request additional evidence be submitted when the documentation supporting an outstanding VAWA self-petition or justifying interim reliefs now insufficient. The Department of Homeland Security shall also craft and implement policies and protocols implementing VAWA confidentiality protections under Section 384 of IIRAIRA as amended by this Act.

Lastly, I want to provide important background information about the reasoning behind The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) that is included in this VAWA 2000 legislation. The final IMRBA legislation combines provisions that created a significant role for the government in information collection and distribution to foreign fiancees and spouses with regulation of the International Marriage Broker Industry. IMBRA has been designed to address concerns about U.S. citizen abusers who use the K visa process to petition for aliens outside the United States and abuse them. This Act, establishes the first meaningful federal regulations on international marriage broker agencies (IMBs), companies jn the business of matching mostly American male clients to foreign women who will join them in the United States as fiances or spouses. There have been numerous cases of foreign women who were matched with American men, came to the U.S. live with their new spouses and were subjected to domestic violence, sexual assault or other forms of extreme cruelty. In some cases, the perpetrators have successfully used IMBs and the immigration system to bring in a series of fiances or spouses who have all suffered from domestic violence from the American sponsor and client. This bill is designed to inform foreign spouses and fiancees entering the United States of the laws relating to such abusive crimes, and the availability of help. In addition, it seeks to prevent abusers from using the immigration system to find new victims.

Sections 832, 833 and 834 are designed to prevent further abuse by instituting measures to distribute information that can help the K visa recipients learn about domestic violence protections available to them in the United States. These sections also provide them with specific information about their U.S. citizen petitioners' criminal conviction history. Additionally, this section limits the ability of abusive U.S. citizens to repeatedly petition for K visas for aliens outside the U.S.

A consular officer may not approve a fiancee visa petition without verifying that the petitioner has not previously petitioned for two or more aliens applying for spousal or fiancee K visas. If the petitioner has had such a petition previously approved, the consular officer must verify that two years have elapsed since the filing of the previous petition. The Secretary of Homeland Security may grant waivers of the two-year waiting period or the limit on filing more. than two petitions. The waivers included here were designed to give DHS the discretion to waive both the time and number limitations when K fiance visa applications are filed by nonabusive U.S. citizens. Such waivers may be appropriate, for example, for non-abusive U.S. citizens who live abroad or were raised abroad and may be more likely to marry foreign spouses, or in cases of unusual circumstances, such as the sudden death of an alien approved for a prior K visa. Section 832(a) includes a domestic violence victim waiver modeled after the waiver created for immigrant victims of domestic violence by VAWA 2000 (INA Section 237(a)(7)). Waivers shall be granted when tbe U.S. citizen petitioner demonstrates that they have been' subjected to battering or extreme cruelty, that there was a connection between the criminal conviction and the abuse. including efforts to escape the abuse and that they were not the primary perpetrator of abuse in the relationship.

Section 832(a)(2) of VAWA 2005 requires that U.S. citizen petitioners filing K visa applications for spouses they married abroad provide under oath the same criminal information required for K fiance visa petitioners. This section also creates a database to track serial K applications. Upon approval of a second K visa for a spouse or fiance the U.S. citizen petitioner will be entered into the multiple visa tracking database and will be notified that this petition and all future petitions will be entered into the database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. Once two espousal or fiance K visas have been approved, for each subsequent petition filed, DHS will notify both tbe citizen petitioner and foreign-born spouse about the number of previously filed petitions in the database for a 10-year period. All future K applications will trigger similar notice. The domestic violence pamphlet developed under Section 833 of this Act will be sent to the K beneficiary inunigrant spouse along with the multiple filing data base information.

Under this Act, IMBs are required to comply with mandatory collection of criminal background information on each U.S. client, including arrest and conviction information, information on any temporary or permanent protection order issued against the U.S. client, and information on where the person has lived, prior marriages and children they have under the age of 21. The IMB must also conduct a sex offender registry search on the U.S. client.

Conclusion

I am once again honored to have played a role in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and the protections it affords to immigrant women who suffer from battery and extreme cruelty in our Nation. We have made important changes and adjustments to current law that will ensure that the broad range of domestic violence victims have access to the immigration relief they need to escape from abuse and begin to rebuild their lives, and those of their children. I am particularly pleased that Congress was able to agree upon passage of the first legislation to provide fiancees and spouses applying for K visas from abroad the ability arm themselves with what can be life saving information and to truly regulate the international marriage broker industry. I offer my sincere appreciation to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, F. James Sensenbrenner, who worked with me for the better part of this year on this bill in shared commitment to protect victims of domestic violence. In addition, I must thank Congressman Rick Larsen of Washington for his leadership on protecting unsuspecting foreign women who become victims of abuse by sponsoring IMBRA and working with Chairman Sensenbrenner and me on bringing IMBRA into this bill. I also offer special thanks to my Senate colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Joseph Biden and Senator Ted Kennedy for their hard cooperative work to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 could be passed into law this year.

I worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner to develop legislative history for the protections offered to immigrant victims contained in Protection of Battered and Trafficked Immigrants Title of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives Report to accompany H.R. 3402 that was published on September 22, 2005, provides important legislative history on this Title. Since section numbers have changed in the final bill, I include here cross reference list that will facilitate relating the sections of the final VAWA 2005 provisions we are voting on today with the legislative history sections that describe and support these provisions.

Final VAWA 2005 Section Number and House Committee Report Section

Number

801 (Treatment of Spouse and Children of Victims)--901(a).

802 (Presence of Trafficking Victims)--903(b).

803 (Adjustment of Status for Trafficking Victims--903 &

903(a).

804 (Protection and Assistance to Trafficking Victims)--

901(d).

805 (Protecting Victims of Child Abuse)

805 (a) and (b)--912(b) and (c).

805 (c)--912(d).

805(d)--931.

811 (VAWA Petitioner Definition and VAWA Unit)--911, 902,

914, 918.

812 (Exception to Voluntary Departure)--919.

813(a) (Exceptional Circumstances)--937.

813(b) (Discretion to Readmission Instead of Reinstatement

of Removal)--915.

813(c) (Domestic Violence Victim Waiver Clarification)--

935.

814(a) (VAWA HIRIFA and VAWA Cuban Adjustment

Improvements)--936, 917.

814(b) (Work Authorization for VAWA Petitioners)--915(a).

814 (c) and (d) (Work Authorization for Abused A, E-3, G, H

Spouses)--933.

814(e) (Limitation on Petitioning for Abuser)--917(g).

815, 823, 824 (Clarification and Corrections Regarding VAWA

NACARA VAWA HRIFA, VAWA Cuban Adjustment Applicants--917.

816 (VAWA Protection for Elder Abuse Victims)--913.

817 (VAWA Confidentiality Protections)--921, 915.

821 (a) and (b) (Duration of T and U Visa Status)--901(b).

821(c) (Change of Status to T or U Visa Status)--901(c).

822 (Technical Corrections)--941.

823 (VAWA Cuban Adjustment Improvements)--917(d).

824 (VAWA HRlFA Improvements)--917(e).

825 (Deportation and Deportation Proceedings)--936, 921(f).

826 (Protection of Abused Juveniles)--921(d).

827 (Identification Documents for Domestic Violence and

Crime Victims)--None.

828 (Rulemaking)--900.

831, 832, 833, 834, Subtitle D, International Marriage

Broker Regulation--916, 922.

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

Mr. Speaker, I began on a note of congratulating the chairman of this committee who has been the first chairman to have began to get reauthorizations on the Department of Justice. I have been working on that for many years prior to him succeeding, but this is the first time that we have had them. This is the second time that we have had the authorization.

What makes this bill even more important to me is that we have a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in it as well. I congratulate a great number of our colleagues in the Senate, Senators Biden, Leahy, Specter, for working on this on their side; and we have all come together with what I think is a very important measure.

Now, let me quickly get to three parts of this that are particularly important to me.

For many years, I have been urging that in this program of Violence Against Women Act, we create specifically tailored programs to address the needs of communities of color. It draws on several Violence Against Women Act programs and finally ensures that we help people who either never receive the services or receive very few of them, and inserting this language into the bill is a monumental victory for communities of color fighting violence against women across this country.

Secondly, the bill provides funding for various offices within the department. In particular, we build up the Office of Inspector General, putting in over $70 million a year. This office has been diligent in overseeing the department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11 detainees and pushing the department to change its procedures in many of the ways they handle terrorism matters.

The third point that I consider extremely important is that our colleague from California, Adam Schiff, on the Judiciary Committee, was able to get language in that requires the Attorney General to report to Congress on the number of persons detained on suspicion of terrorism. If Members do not think that is an important subject, then we need to hold a special briefing for anybody that wants more information on it. It has been a highly controversial issue in the Judiciary Committee, notwithstanding the fact that everybody from the Attorney General on down has been dancing around these subjects.

We also reauthorize the COPS office that the Clinton administration created, and the law enforcement people have been very proud of that fact.

So for all of those reasons and more, I urge the House to, as close to unanimity as we may be able to come on this, pass this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), the head of her State delegation and member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who is the head of the Women's Caucus, and, as such, has worked hard for many years on this project.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 612. The reason is I support and honor our troops and request an open debate on this subject on the floor.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I ask that the House carefully consider this amendment because it may in one respect represent a not-so-subtle attempt to dismantle the only program that guarantees that at least 4 percent of the new immigrants have a chance to come to this country from under-represented nations.

The Diversity Visa Program is the chance for many people of color around the world to immigrate to the United States and pursue the same American dream that many of the ancestors of the Members here were able to pursue.

There is no time in our Nation's history when race and ethnicity were not primary factors. So what we are asking here is that just as many great Americans have come to this country as refugees, I have no doubt that many great Americans have and are coming through the diversity program. You need only to look at the promise of young Freddie Adu, the teenage boy who is the newest star on the National Soccer League and the youngest professional player in the United States. He has got great promise, and but for his entry to the United States on the Diversity Visa Program, that promise might not have been realized.

I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment carefully. I hope that it will be turned back. Let us not dismantle an important and valuable program.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, the problem about fraud in this program is that people apply multiple times when the rules only allow one application a year per person. In some cases, multiple applications are the result of people trying to cheat the system; but in other cases, people may apply not understanding that, unlike many other lotteries, multiple applications are not allowed and do not really improve your chances.

The State Department has already addressed this in several ways. This program, I want to emphasize to the membership, is extremely valuable for those countries that have so very few people coming in under the regular system, and I would not want us to take this out of the present law. It is working well. We have had many success stories, and we think that there is not a serious history of fraud in the program.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Chairman, as we have the right to close, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment, I think, has been mischaracterized seriously. To allow 4 percent of new immigrants to have a chance to come to the country from under-represented nations is a way of addressing the imbalance that I do not think anybody would disagree with that exists in the immigration patterns, whether they are accidental or purposeful.

There has been no time when race and ethnicity were not primary factors in immigration policy. Please, I think this is a very important provision. The Diversity Visa Program should be sustained, and I hope that the amendment will be turned away.

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

Madam Chairman, we come to the floor with a 39-page manager's amendment that has never been considered in the committee during the rather lengthy number of times that we have held hearings at the subcommittee and full committee level. And while there are fortunately some parts of it that I can agree to, I have counted approximately nine parts of it that present very serious problems.

One is that the punishment does not fit the crime. The manager's amendment would expand the definition of aggravated felony to include a wide range of passport and related document offenses, even if the person never spent a day in jail. As I have previously stated, the consequences of an aggravated felony conviction are severe. They include, among other things, mandatory detention, permanent deportation and

ineligibility for any type of relief. And so I think that is a very serious criticism. It criminalizes the most vulnerable of our populations.

This manager's amendment, with regard to passport fraud, would criminalize trafficking victims, victims of domestic violence or abuse, victims of animals, coyotes, and others who often do not have control over what documents are presented to immigration officials on their behalf.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The other point that we would like to make, and there are so many, but the manager's amendment punishes amazingly battered immigrant women who would suffer some very harsh consequences when they are frequently forced by their batterers to use fraudulent travel documents.

Under the Violence Against Women Act, battered immigrants are entitled to self-petition for immigration status, independent of their abusive U.S. citizen and lawful permanent residence spouse. So this would be a huge step backwards for those of us who have been working in this area.

So I urge and I hope that because there has been insufficient attention given in the committee and since we did not know these were going to come up, that the manager's amendment will be turned back and that we be given an opportunity to examine this more than a dozen objections that we raise.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time on this side, although I am not opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think our colleague from Georgia has an excellent amendment, but I think his deadline may be too generous. The Department of Homeland Security should report to Congress on the progress it is making to secure our borders, but, unfortunately, they have an unenviable record of submitting their reports to the Congress. Our ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee has written Secretary Chertoff twice on the repeated failures of the Department of Homeland Security to meet congressionally mandated deadlines.

As you have stated, we have a duty to ensure that it is protecting the American people, and to do that we must receive information to ensure that the Department is up to the task. Every day that passes in which Congress does not receive this information is another day that the terrorists gain on us if they are planning the next attack.

So I support the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), which gives the Homeland Security Department a lot of time, but I think we want to ride a very careful herd over these fellows in terms of where they go from this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have had a lot of time here with the current administration to have ridden herd and call for an accounting. I think the gentleman from Georgia is forced, and we are all collectively forced, into this position. They have had plenty of time to have been far more compliant.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chairman, we support the Price amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hayes). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This Norwood No. 65 amendment includes a number of provisions of the CLEAR Act; and in addition to giving State and local police the same authority to enforce immigration laws as a Federal agent, the provisions do not require, as a matter

of fact limit, the amount of training that they could receive in order to enforce these rather technical provisions.

Moreover, the provisions require the entry of millions of civil immigration law violators into the National Crime Information Center, an FBI database of those who are wanted; and these entries go on thousands of times each day.

I am just wondering if my colleague, the author of this amendment, is aware of the incredible complexity that he is suggesting now be included in this measure. If these categories were limited to wanted criminals, that would be one consideration. However, the list includes millions of people with technical status violations that are fluid and easily remedied, and we would be creating, I think, in my judgment, an administrative nightmare.

We have a lot of examples. But let me just close by saying that local police have more than enough work to do hunting down the people that are law violators. But entering the names of people with minor status problems into a criminal database would overwhelm it and mix those who may be legal and those who are not criminals with the rest who are. It exposes to liability for unlawful arrests. It discourages immigrants from working with local law enforcement. And those are the reasons I have serious reservations about this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the author of the amendment will rest more comfortably tonight when he finds that not only do the people that he described that do not want this amendment are joined by numerous State and local police departments across the Nation, but also scores of groups that work with victims of domestic violence.

The proponents of this amendment must understand that there is nothing in this bill to ensure that ICE or SCAT in Homeland Security will be able to respond to the millions of requests from local police to pick up low-priority civil law violators.

Remember what the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) said: you cannot dump millions of people into this database and think it is going to work. It will not. Turn down the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution calling for the observance of Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing.

Everyone in this body is concerned with finding a way to achieve peace. Peace in Iraq, peace in every corner of the world. Many of us have widely divergent views about how to achieve that peace--but I am confident--we all want peace.

We all have families back home who are longing for peace in the world and an end to the suffering caused by poverty, disease and hunger. Our friends, our neighbors, our parents and our children, all are hoping that this holiday season can bring more understanding, more generosity, more genuine friendship and caring among people of all faiths and cultures.

Perhaps we can't agree on military strategies, or budgets. Perhaps we will remain at odds on many matters when we come back after the holiday recess. But there's one matter on which the Congress agreed in 2000 and which I believe a unanimous Congress can agree upon now.

Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a concurrent resolution which calls upon all Americans to observe Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing every January 1st. It asks that we use the first day of every year as a time to reach out to others in the spirit of peace, to share a meal, to help the needy at home and around the world.

This is a matter that once agreed on by Congress, can lead to greater understanding

and cooperation among political parties, faith groups, people of different races and economic class. In other words, it's something that can help us all--and that positive effect can begin during this holiday season.

In the year 2000, the Congress adopted a similar resolution asking the president to issue an annual proclamation recognizing this special day, and in 2001, following the tragedy of 9/11, the United Nations General Assembly followed suit. Heads of state in more than 20 countries have personally endorsed the initiative. However, there is little public knowledge that this important tool for peace already exists. Members of Congress can remedy that.

We all know how powerful an influence holidays have in our lives. Our earliest memories are often of family gatherings at Thanksgiving, or parades on the Fourth of July. Holidays teach us about the beliefs that our families hold, they inspire us, they reunite us and remind us annually about the ways in which we ought to behave.

As we approach the 20th anniversary next year of our national celebration of the life and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, I ask that the Congress take the time to ratify once again its recommendation that our increasingly interdependent world celebrate each year with a holiday of peace and sharing that belongs equally to all our human family.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans are troubled by our deteriorating image in the world, by the growing disputes among our elected leaders, by the dangers of terrorism and by the suffering of others, both at home and abroad. Yet they feel helpless to do anything about it.

Global Family Day provides a way in which every man, woman and child in the United States can help to reduce suffering at home, repair our damaged image abroad, and help us remember that in the end, all peoples belong to the same family.

I urge immediate action on this resolution.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, let me say from the outset that we on this side, the Democrats, believe that a strong border security policy is an absolute necessity for this Nation. We must ensure that terrorists cannot lurk in the shadows of our society and do us harm. Let us begin with that.

Now, if you will look at the dissenting views in our report on this measure, there may be 20 to 40 different reasons that we do not like the bill. So rather than take all that time up, what I want to talk about is the one that offends me the most, and that is the criminalizing of unlawful presence. Now, this, alone, should turn away a majority of the House. There are roughly 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States who, under sections 203 and 201 of this bill, would be subject to mandatory detention if convicted of a crime of being unlawfully in the United States. First time in history. Are you ready for this? These individuals would be mandatorily retained without regard to whether the person is a flight risk or poses any danger.

Re-entry after removal would also be another aggravated felony, and these provisions would result in a permanent bar to re-entry and no chance of a waiver whatsoever.

Now, criminalizing unlawful presence by an incarceration of more than 1 year is, to me, over the top. Millions of immigrants could be impacted and would suddenly be unable to apply for relief if they had been convicted of unlawful presence. Any immigrant who overstayed a visa and was convicted would be permanently barred from any form of immigration relief. Families who have been living and working in the U.S. for years would suddenly be ineligible for immigration relief that they would otherwise be able to receive. Virtually anyone who overstayed a visa could be guilty of an aggravated felony and thus ineligible for release.

Now, the last thing I want to mention before I reserve the balance of my time is to state what we do need. And I have taken a little time to come around to this. We do need a program for the 11 million people in this country who are out of status to a system of earned legalization. This is the only rational solution that I can bring to you today, my colleagues. The President of the United States, who I seldom quote, has said that without a comprehensive approach that includes earned legalization, we will not solve the problem. Otherwise, these millions will remain in this country, in the shadows; and we will not know what they are doing and who they are and where they are going.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the head of the California Democratic delegation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, could we begin this discussion amongst ourselves by distinguishing between earned legalization and amnesty? Earned legalization is not a free lunch. Those working under this program will have to work for years in the United States to gain citizenship. They are here. They work. They pay taxes. They raise their families. And that is one legitimate plan.

What does someone have here for an alternative? The bill before us does nothing about the 11 million people who are already here. And, by the way, is the President of the United States supporting an amnesty program? I do not think so.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the one gentleman not on the Judiciary Committee that has worked with us all year long on this subject matter, who has done noble work for his caucus and for the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), one of our dedicated members on the Judiciary Committee and a leader in the Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the courageous gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

This debate has a peculiar forgetfulness about where we are. The Republicans have been in control for 5 years, and we keep hearing about what is wrong: There is not enough personnel; there is not enough equipment; we are giving people tickets and letting them go; the whole program is horrible.

Would you explain to me why it has not been corrected before now, and you offer now criminalizing up to 11 million people as a solution? This doesn't make sense.

But, folks, hang on to your hats because tomorrow it could get worse. The distinguished Rules Committee has proposals before them. We do not know what we will get on the floor. Citizenship for people born in the United States, just because their parents were born somewhere else, forfeiture of church property if they provide shelter for illegal immigrants, jail sentences for priests or nuns who help illegal immigrants get food or shelter; these are serious Republican proposals for improving immigration policy of which they have complained without letup since this discussion has begun. The Rules Committee takes these proposals up tomorrow, and we may see them on the floor with recommendations that they become part of this bill.

We don't need it to get worse to know that we don't need this measure. It's going nowhere, and I hope that somebody feels that they are getting some sound-bites out of this because I feel very badly about this important measure.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if only what my good friend, the chairman, said was accurate, we would not be here to ask that this measure be turned down and that we pass a 3-month extension, as I have proposed and is in legislative form, so that the PATRIOT Act and intelligence reform would not be stymied.

It is like coming to a meeting and we have forgotten all the things that most of the Members on my side of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee agreed with is wrong with the PATRIOT Act, but that we have ignored the fact that many other organizations are not for the PATRIOT Act.

Now, what safeguards are being preserved is very interesting for me because the opponents of the PATRIOT Act, including seven States that have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act and a number of communities that have done so, represent over 62 million Americans.

Additionally, numerous groups ranging across all parts of the political spectrum have come forward to oppose sections of the PATRIOT Act and demand that the Congress conduct more oversight, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Library Association, the Center For Constitutional Rights, the Center For Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Criminal Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous other groups concerned about immigrants' rights.

And what about the more than six death penalty additions that have been

put into this build with very, very few hearings. Is that something that somebody can hold forward as protecting the rights and improving the PATRIOT Act? I do not think so.

And even worse has been the abuse of unilateral powers by the administration where since September 11 our government has detained and abused physically thousands of immigrants without time limits for unknown and unspecified reasons and targeted tens of thousands of Arab Americans for intensive interrogations. All this serves to accomplish, of course, is to alienate many of those Muslim and Arab Americans that would be working with us.

So, Madam Speaker, there are two pictures of what happened in the Committee on the Judiciary. One is that the bill was made clearly worse, and we have some 92 pages of dissent about the bill itself, and much of it is still of course valid in terms of the conference report that we are examining today.

I urge Members, we have been tricked once, the first time when the bill was substituted, and now we are about to be fooled again if Members do not read our dissents and the reservations that we have about the PATRIOT Act. It can be made better, and we would propose that that is exactly what happen today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a subcommittee ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

May I bring to the attention of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that section 505 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the use of national security letters, so to say they are not in the bill would not be accurate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Let me remind my friend who returned from his California duties to the Congress, did you hear the Brandon Mayfield case just recited by the gentleman from New Jersey? That was an abuse that we heard in the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to quote from a letter that was sent to Chairman Sensenbrenner from the American Library Association, its president, indeed, Michael Gorman, and a copy to myself.

It says: ``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing on behalf of the American Library Association to express our opposition to the conference report. We are deeply disappointed that the conferees did not take this opportunity to heed the concerns of library users across this country and to restore protections for records of library use that were stripped away by the PATRIOT Act'' itself.

It ``does not seriously address any of the library community's concerns with section 215. It does not require a factual connection between the records sought and a terrorist or terrorist organization.

``The report also leaves in place the USA PATRIOT Act standards for national security letters'' and would ``allow the FBI to continue its unfettered reach into the personal electronic records of the public, including records of their use of the Internet through computers in libraries. Worse, it adds a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the order and for a knowing violation of the gag order. And while adding an ability to challenge the secrecy of a national security letter on the one hand, it takes it away with the other by requiring the court to accept, as conclusive, the government's assertion of harm to national security . . . ''

Madam Speaker, this is the clearest description from the president of the American Library Association, supported by thousands of professional librarians from one end of the country to the other.

Please, let us not buy into the fact that this is a new and improved version of the PATRIOT Act. With the death penalties arbitrarily added, it is a definite reversal, a downward, backward movement in which the PATRIOT Act becomes meaner and less democratic and is far more dangerous for people who get caught up in these things who are innocent Americans. Please join us in sending this bill back to committee and supporting my measure that would allow for a 3-month period of time for us to improve the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.

I want to give Chairman Sensenbrenner the benefit of the presumption of a doubt about this section 215 business. What happens in the report is it makes it easier to get library and other records under section 215 by creating a presumption that records of anyone to come into contact with a suspected terrorist even accidentally, innocently, is relevant to an investigation.

Madam Speaker, what he has done is he has moved a part of section 215 to another part of the bill, and that is why it does not operate that way.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a ranking subcommittee member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Leader Pelosi for her very succinct and moving comments.

At the close of this debate, I will offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety. Not that the Senate bill is perfect, but it does a far better job at protecting civil liberties than the conference report by requiring that the documents and things collected through section 215 have some connection to a suspected terrorist and providing meaningful judicial review of uses of that authority.

What is wrong with that? The conference report makes sensitive and personal records even easier to get by making every innocent connection with a suspected terrorist presumptively relevant to a terrorist investigation.

Now, the Senate bill also lacks a number of controversial and wholly unrelated provisions tacked on to the end of this bill. It does not have a lot of Christmas tree in it. Some 143 of the 216 pages of this bill have absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.

The chairman repeatedly admonished committee Democrats that we were not permitted to consider matters falling outside of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but on the floor and in conference, this bill became a Christmas tree for random drug laws, Presidential succession amendments and Federal employee benefit changes.

Some have argued that we must pass this bill now because it is the end of the session and it is so urgent. The House Republican leadership waited 3 months to appoint conferees. Where was the urgency then?

The PATRIOT Act does not need to expire if this bill fails in the House or the Senate, which it should. My bill, H.R. 4506, extends the PATRIOT Act for 3 months so that conferees may go back and make a truly bipartisan and bicameral bill.

Sunsets were a small step in the right direction but do not address the underlying problems. They are not a solution for bad law. We should instead be fixing the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Sunsets will be of no relief to those who will have their constitutional rights violated in the next 4 years and should prevent no one from voting against this bill and in favor of the motion.

This measure before us, this conference report, is neither bipartisan nor bicameral. In fact, not a single Democrat in the House or in the other body would sign it. No one on this side has signed the conference report. It is the conservative House bill with window dressing.

We should not let in the government sneak-and-peek provision for at least 30 days. The Senate bill and Federal courts allow a 7-day delay unless good cause is shown. And listen to these non-PATRIOT add-ons; it is a virtual Christmas tree: It alters the Presidential line of succession, criminalizes peaceful protest behavior, changes employment qualifications and benefits for Federal employees and expands the death penalty for non-terror related offenses.

The Senate sticks to the real issues, so join me in a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to recede to the Senate bill in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, in its present form.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to extend the PATRIOT Act for three months so that conferees may go back to the bargaining table and produce a conference report that is truly bipartisan and bicameral.

The conference report scheduled for debate this week completely ignores the many concerns expressed by Democrats and Republicans, civil libertarians both left and right, prosecutors and defenders, librarians, gun owners and religious groups. It is in fact facing a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.

That is why Senator Leahy and I are introducing a 3-month extension of the PATRIOT Act. It will allow the government uninterrupted use of these authorities until the Congress can agree on reasonable checks and balances that will make sure the war on terror doesn't become a war against innocent Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Mr. Speaker, I have over 15 persons including myself who have asked to be included in this Special Order, that is, celebrating the 50th year of service of the Dean of the House of Representatives John Dingell of Michigan; and I am very pleased and honored to lead this discussion. I would encourage all of the Members to share this time as expeditiously as they can and insert the rest of their materials or remarks into the Record.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that the first Member of Congress I ever met in my life was John Dingell, namely, because he was my Congressman. Further, our relationship and family went back before because my father knew John Dingell's father. Further, we shared contiguous districts across the entire span of my service, and many of our constituents were mutual and frequently, according to the whims of the Michigan legislature the lines that changed from time to time, and frequently my constituents became his as his became mine.

This is a particularly moving event for me because it did not take long for me to realize that one of the more formidable legislators of the 20th century was the same person who worked so hard for my family as his constituents and for the congressional district he represented, but more for all of the citizens of this country.

The legislative prowess and the ability with which he exercised his leadership as chairman of a major committee and the many different and important pieces of legislation have been recounted already tonight and at other events. But I merely want to say that John Dingell is the Renaissance man of the 20th century in the Congress, the man for all issues, the leader for all challenges, and the person who has created a friendship and a relationship with, as far as I can tell, every single Member of the House of Representatives who has served with him during these 50 years.

So this celebration is absolutely in order. The fact that it has been so widely recognized and so movingly responded to, not only by Members of Congress but by those across the country, it is no easy task to win the admiration and love of the labor movement and yet retain the respect of the corporate economic system leaders of this great country.

And so it is with great pleasure that I begin this recounting of our memories, of our relationships, of our legislative successes with the Dean of the Congress. And it seems fairly clear to most of us that he will soon be able to exceed the staying power of those several Members who exceeded him in 50 years of service. I am, of course, one of those looking happily and proudly toward that day when that occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for his comments.

I now am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Markey for his statement.

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of his committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call upon the gentleman from Texas (Gene Green).

Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to turn to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frank Pallone, and recognize him at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York in this very moving tribute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to the gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to turn to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) to help us wind down on this Special Order in honor of the Dean of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to turn to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) to express her congratulations in this tribute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to recognize a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank so much Ms. Jackson-Lee for her very moving tribute.

If it pleases the House, I would like to invite the object of our affection this evening and through the last few weeks to make a closing comment, and I would yield now to the Dean of the House of Representatives, the honorable John Dingell.

Mr. Speaker, today's actions are a shameful disservice both to our soldiers in Iraq and to Americans here at home. Republicans are denying the Nation an open debate on the war in Iraq. On tonight's agenda, the Republicans not only have replaced Mr. Murtha's resolution on Iraq with H.R. 571, a perversion of the Murtha Resolution that Representative Hunter introduced, and which in no way conveys the sentiment of Representative Murtha's proposal. They also have had the temerity to characterize it as a ``Democratic proposal.''

Representative Murtha's Resolution states that, ``The deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.'' It also provides for deploying a contingency capability outside of Iraq, and requires America to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. The Republican legislation contains none of this language.

I am a member of the ``Out of Iraq Caucus'' because I believe we should bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as practicably possible, as does Representative Murtha. The citizens of this country deserve to have a true floor debate on why this is right and on how best to do it. Then their Representatives owe them an up or down vote on this issue. Mr. Murtha's speech should open serious hearings on the issue, followed by extensive debate on our policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase FDR: Tonight it's clear that the only thing the Bush White House has to fear is public debate itself.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Republican leadership to schedule a sudden, strait-jacketed mini-debate and vote on their version of Mr. Murtha's resolution. To understand this hypocrisy its necessary to put their deceit in context.

The House Majority Leadership has consistently refused to allow the House to debate H.J. Res. 55, an earlier bill offered by 63 House members in a bipartisan fashion. It would require the President to set forth a plan for withdrawal from Iraq and to begin to implement it next fall. The Republican Leadership has stonewalled efforts to have this bill considered in committee and brought to the Floor for consideration. They have forced us to employ the parliamentary last resort of filing a discharge petition, in order to force the Leadership to let us debate H.J. Res. 55. The issue before the House at this point is not even the merits of that resolution. Instead, it is preservation of the basic democratic process and the ability of the public to hear debate on the most pressing issue facing this country.

Now, in a 180 degree reversal, the Leadership suddenly wants an abbreviated debate on our policy for ending President Bush's disaster in Iraq. Why this bizarre turn-around, Mr. Speaker? The answer is simple. Mr. Murtha, the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday struck fear in the Leadership and the White House with his statement of plain truths. Because of his stature in this body, the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, with that single speech, shredded the White House's defense of its flawed policies.

Until now, the President and Vice President have relied on questioning the patriotism of their critics on Iraq. They have hidden behind the claim that--any critics of their war do not support our troops and do not respect our troops' sacrifices. They have repeated that outrageous mantra over and over, most disgracefully in President Bush's remarks on Veterans Day.

Those false claims to discredit critics were demolished in one stroke by Mr. Murtha's statement. The White House knows full well:

that there is no more patriotic Member of this House,

that there is no Member who loves our troops more,

that there is no Member who has supported our troops more, and

that there is no Member who has served in our military more bravely than Mr. Murtha.

The White House political spinners also realize that the American people are disgusted when attacks on a patriot like Mr. Murtha are made by elected officials in the White House who sought to evade military service in time of war. So now they resort to this sleazy tactic. They pretend to have the Nation consider the issues raised by Mr. Murtha's candid analysis, but in reality they seek to sweep those powerful remarks under the rug.

Then they will pretend that the Congress has seriously considered the tragic issues of life and death and claim that this steam-rollered vote reflects the fully-informed, considered opinion of our constituents. That's nonsense.

This is a disgrace to the House, and more important, it's a disgrace to all that our men and women in Iraq are fighting and dying for. The American people and our soldiers deserve better than this cheap trick. To those across the aisle who want to prevent the American people from learning the awful truths about Iraq and who seek to stifle real national debate, there is only one thing to say: ``Shame on you.''

Mr. Hunter's charade should be defeated.