Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, how bad does it have to get?

Over 20 million Americans are out of work or have given up looking for work. Federal spending is out of control, and congressional Democrats won't even propose a budget.

The administration intentionally takes actions to weaken immigration laws; Federal judges assault our time-tested values; and the administration wants to hike taxes on individuals, small businesses, and investments, which will kill jobs.

How bad does it have to get before Americans reclaim our country?

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I support the passage of this bill. Additional funds for border security are always a step in the right direction, but if the Democrats were serious about immigration enforcement, they would include more funds for interior enforcement.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it doesn't have enough resources to enforce our immigration laws, yet this bill contains no funds for work-site enforcement that is needed to protect jobs for citizens and legal immigrants.

Last week, an illegal immigrant drunk driver killed a nun and critically injured two others. He had two earlier convictions for drunk driving. If ICE had sufficient funds for enforcement, this tragedy could have been avoided.

Madam Speaker, in many ways, this bill represents an opportunity lost, and I regret that even though I support passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, Arizona's pleadings in support of their immigration enforcement law include an important declaration by Harvard Economics Professor George Borjas.

In his analysis of interstate wage trends from 1960 through 2006, Borjas found: ``that the presence of unauthorized aliens in the Arizona workforce reduced the earnings of low-skilled authorized workers in Arizona by 4.7 percent.

Borjas says, ``The overall wage depression for all Arizona workers is approximately $1.4 billion.

``The evidence further indicates that the presence of unauthorized aliens in the Arizona workforce reduced the employment rate of Arizona's low-skilled authorized workers by 1.6 percent . . .''

This reinforces what we already know: the Obama administration's failure to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws means citizens and legal immigrants face higher unemployment and lower wages.

Madam Speaker, yesterday a Federal judge sided with the Obama administration against Arizona's immigration enforcement law.

The ruling will be seen by Arizonans and the vast majority of Americans who support the law as just another example of this administration's failure to deal with illegal immigration and border security.

Like the administration, the national media has shown a clear bias against the Arizona law. Network evening news coverage has been slanted against the Arizona law by a margin of 10-1, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center. Only one in six stories mentioned public opinion polls showing that Americans support the law.

The national media should give Americans the facts about Arizona's immigration enforcement law, not provide cover for the administration's failure to secure the border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill presents a sensitive issue with regard to compensation for those who are suffering ailments as a result of recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site. No doubt there are many with legitimate claims as a result of their efforts at Ground Zero.

But this legislation, as written, creates a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste. That's because the legislation creates an unjustifiable 21-year-long fund that leaves decisions on whether or not to pay claimants to the complete discretion of the special master. As Ken Feinberg, special master of the original 9/11 Fund, has stated, quote, ``No latent claims need such an extended date.''

The legislation also vastly extends the geographic scope of the fund to cover routes of debris removal. This will result in the potential for a huge number of additional claimants with tenuous connections between their medical problems and the cleanup efforts at Ground Zero. Additionally, the bill permits those who have settled their lawsuits to reopen their claims and seek additional taxpayer-funded compensation through the 9/11 Fund. This is contrary to both the terms of the original 9/11 Fund and to general legal principles regarding the finality of settlements.

The original 9/11 Fund was unprecedented in its expression of a Nation's compassion and generosity following the deaths of innocent people. It was designed to settle the claims of those covered once and for all. It may be that the fund should be reopened to first responders whose injuries were not evident until after the expiration of the initial deadline. However, if we are going to reopen the fund, we should do so in a manner that is much narrower, with far less discretion for the special master than is provided for in H.R. 847.

It's hard to explain spending billions of additional taxpayer dollars when Special Master Ken Feinberg himself has emphatically stated that the $1.5 billion in taxpayer money, charitable contributions, and insurance coverage currently available for distribution is, quote, ``more than sufficient to pay all eligible claims, as well as lawyers' fees and costs.''

Mr. Speaker, why do Democrats continue to overreach and consider the taxpayer to be their personal slush fund? I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who is also the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, two questions: One, I would like to know how much time the last speaker used; and I would like to know how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who happens to be the vice ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. And I hope the Speaker will use the same timepiece in judging Mr. Goodlatte's time as he did in judging the gentleman from New York's time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have 4 minutes left on this side. I would like to inquire again how much time remains on the other side, including both of the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Crowley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who is the ranking member of the House Administration Committee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents an irresponsible overreach and does not contain the necessary protections to safeguard taxpayer dollars from abuse, waste, and fraud.

Ken Feinberg, the special master of the original 9/11 fund, has stated that if the fund is reenacted, it should be for a window of 5 years, not 21, and that it should be done with ``the understanding that there would be no changes in the rules and regulations governing the original fund, and that the new law would simply be a one-line reaffirmation of the original 9/11 fund.'' Unfortunately, the majority did not listen to Mr. Feinberg's sound advice. Instead, we are considering a bill that creates a fund with an unnecessary 21-year-long duration that contains special protections for trial attorneys, extends greatly the original fund's eligibility and criteria, and does not include the procedural protections necessary to safeguard the fund from abuse, waste, and fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say I think this is another example of the Democrats' insatiable appetite for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have set six records. Unfortunately, they are not the ones the American people hoped for:

One, Americans are staying unemployed longer than ever before;

Two, for the first time since the current budget rules were adopted 35 years ago, the House will not pass a budget;

Three, the Federal debt has never been larger;

Four, the cost of health care has never been higher;

Five, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before;

Six, the Federal Government has taken control of an unprecedented number of private companies, according to the Congressional Research Service.

These records stifle economic growth and hurt all Americans. They are taking our country in the wrong direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, those who fail to learn the lessons of history often pay a price. Unfortunately, the real cost usually falls on others. In the 1980s, America faced an epidemic created by a new, more potent form of cocaine known as crack. Its abuse spread through major cities and across the country at a stunning speed. Along with crack came guns and violence, which riddled many urban communities.

These communities cried out for help, and in 1986 Congress responded. We enacted tough penalties to protect these neighborhoods and bring an end to the scourge of crack cocaine. The penalties helped make America's communities safer.

Now Congress is considering legislation to wind down the fight against drug addiction and drug-related violence. Reducing the penalties for crack cocaine could expose our neighborhoods to the same violence and addiction that caused Congress to act in the first place.

Twenty-five years ago, crack was cheap, easily available, and highly profitable. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity. As a result, the number of Americans addicted to cocaine increased dramatically. Crack cocaine devastated many communities, especially inner-city communities. Black Americans who lived in these communities bore the brunt of the violence associated with the drug trade.

Today, crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, thanks in large part to the enactment of tough penalties for drug trafficking and other offenses. Crack and powder cocaine use has dropped by almost two-thirds in the past 20 years, from 5.8 million users in 1985 to 2.1 million users in 2007. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime victimization rates for black Americans have fallen by more than two- thirds since enactment of these tough Federal trafficking penalties. What's wrong with that? Why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties?

Many argue that Federal prisons are filled with addicts convicted of simple possession of cocaine, but that's not true. The vast majority of Federal drug offenders are convicted for drug trafficking. In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that there were 25,000 Federal drug trafficking convictions compared to fewer than 300 convictions for simple possession. So why do we want to make it more difficult to take drug traffickers off the streets and easier for them to peddle their lethal product?

Crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs. Crack offenders are also more likely to have prior convictions and lengthier criminal histories than powder cocaine offenders. It is these aggravating factors, which are more common to crack cocaine trafficking, that contribute to higher Federal

crack sentences. These aggravating factors also render many Federal crack offenders ineligible for the so-called ``safety valve provision.'' The safety valve allows low-level offenders to be sentenced below the statutory mandatory penalties if they meet certain criteria, including no significant criminal history.

So why should we reduce the ratio for defendants who are more violent, more likely to have criminal records, and less likely to benefit from the safety valve provision that already provides a mechanism for reduced penalties? Why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in America?

Proponents of reducing or eliminating the crack/powder ratio argue that crack penalties impact a larger number of minorities than powder cocaine penalties. But the percentage of minority defendants for Federal crack and powder cocaine offenses is quite similar. Eighty-two percent of crack offenders and 90 percent of powder cocaine offenders are minorities, though black Americans comprise the majority of Federal crack cocaine offenders.

Crack and powder cocaine offenders are even sentenced with mandatory penalties at similar rates. In 2009, 80 percent of crack cocaine offenders and 77 percent of powder cocaine offenders were convicted under a mandatory penalty statute. The bill before us today, S. 1789, lowers the ratio for Federal crack cocaine offenses from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. The bill also eliminates the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine possession, making it only a misdemeanor under Federal law. Why enact legislation that could endanger our children and bring violence back to our inner-city communities?

S. 1789 includes a requirement that the U.S. Sentencing Commission review and amend the applicable guidelines for crack offenses involving violence. However, since Federal judges are not required to adhere to the guidelines, there is no guarantee that any increased penalty will be imposed under this provision.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee reported legislation, over Republican opposition, that would have eliminated entirely the ratio between crack and powder cocaine. Before that, the Obama administration relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party teeters on the edge of becoming the face of deficits, drugs, and job destruction. I cannot support legislation that might enable the violent and devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past to become a clear and present danger.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a senior and active member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, more than any other drug, the majority of crack defendants have prior criminal convictions. Despite claims by some, this is not an issue of one-time crack users being prosecuted for possession. This is about offenders who perpetually peddled this dangerous drug and should pay the price for their actions.

Despite the devastating impact crack cocaine has had on American communities, this bill reduces the penalties for crack cocaine. Why would we want to do that? We should not ignore the severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking. We should worry more about the victims than about the criminals.

Why would we want to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine trafficking and invite a return to a time when cocaine ravaged our communities, especially minority communities?

This bill sends the wrong message to drug dealers and those who traffic in destroying Americans' lives. It sends the message that Congress takes drug crimes less seriously than they did. The bill before us threatens to return America to the days when crack cocaine corroded the minds and bodies of our children, decimated a generation, and destroyed communities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, sincerely, that those who support this legislation are prepared to take responsibility if cocaine trafficking increases, if our neighborhoods and communities once again become riddled with violence, and the lives of Americans are unnecessarily destroyed.

I hope that doesn't happen, but at least today we have gone on record as saying that there was a warning, and I can only hope that at some point in the future it will be heeded and responded to.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5143 establishes a National Criminal Justice Commission consisting of a bipartisan panel of 14 experts appointed by the President, the Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader in the House. The commission will review all areas of the criminal justice system at the Federal, State, local and tribal levels. It will also examine national trends in criminal justice costs, practices and policies.

Further, the commission will provide recommendations for changes to prevent, defer and reduce crime and violence. The recommendations should also help to reduce recidivism, improve cost effectiveness and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system.

H.R. 5143 expresses the sense of Congress that the commission should work towards unanimity in making its findings and recommendations. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia introduced legislation to establish this commission in the Senate. The bill is cosponsored by a group of 39 Senators.

In the House, my friend from Massachusetts, Bill Delahunt, a colleague on the Judiciary Committee and a former district attorney himself, introduced the House companion legislation to establish the commission. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts reached across the aisle to Republican members, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) as well as myself to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

I must confess initially to having some concerns about the bill. Why do we need another commission to do the work and consider the issues that we in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee ought to be doing? However, my friend from Massachusetts was insistent and persuasive in convincing me that the commission will be able to consider the data and underlying policy considerations without political considerations.

Another reason, Mr. Speaker, to support the measure is that it will serve as a fitting tribute to our colleague from Massachusetts, who is retiring at the end of this Congress. Passage of this bill represents an historic opportunity to undertake a bipartisan, thorough, and comprehensive review of what works and what does not work at every

level of the criminal justice system. For this, and for his many other contributions to the American people, we can thank Congressman Delahunt, who I know is getting ready to speak on this legislation momentarily.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5143. And before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for being such an active and effective member of the Judiciary Committee, for being a close personal friend, whose advice I clearly take.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney) who is an active member of the Judiciary Committee and also a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the national media have been quick to blame conservative news outlets for the firing of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod.

For example, a recent New York Times article points a finger at Fox News. The article, which mentions Fox seven times, describes the network as being in ``pursuit of Ms. Sherrod.'' However, Fox did not air any stories about Ms. Sherrod until after she had already resigned.

The New York Times and the rest of the national media have largely ignored the truth. The rush to judgment that led to Ms. Sherrod's firing came from the Obama administration, not conservative media outlets.

The Times article is another example of the media giving the White House a free pass. Media outlets should be more honest in their reporting if they want the trust of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are getting a look behind the curtain of the national media, and the view isn't pretty. In recent weeks, leaked email messages from an online meeting place for reporters called JournoList have revealed some journalists' true colors.

It has come to light that in 2008 a group of journalists tried to protect then-Senator Barack Obama from a scandal that threatened his Presidential campaign, according to messages obtained by The Daily Caller. Journalists from Time, Politico, The Baltimore Sun, and The New Republic, among others, expressed outrage about questions regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright that Senator Obama received during a debate. The journalists then collaborated to shield Senator Obama from the controversy, The Daily Caller reported.

It's no wonder a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans say they are ``angry'' at the national media. The national media should give Americans the facts, not try to rig an election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored this legislation introduced by Congresswoman Lofgren, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Our Nation has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. We admit more than 1 million legal immigrants a year, as many as all other nations combined. This legislation continues that generosity by ensuring that American parents who want to open their homes and hearts to children from around the world are able to do so.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that U.S. citizens can adopt foreign children and have the children considered immediate relatives for immigration purposes if the children are adopted while under the age of 16 years.

American families who initiated adoptions of foreign children by their 16th birthdays but were not able to complete the adoptions by that date have often sought relief from their Representatives in Congress. We have responded sympathetically.

Congress has routinely passed private bills over the years to allow these families to sponsor their adopted children for permanent resident status in the U.S. In fact, Congress has so routinely passed such private bills that it makes sense for us to simply modify the law and provide a broad remedy.

This legislation provides that for immigration purposes, adoptions by U.S. parents have to be completed by the age of 18 instead of 16. Under the bill, the parents are still obligated to finalize the adoption by the 18th birthday in order to receive immigration benefits for their child.

Of course, we expect U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to continue to be on guard against any possible fraud in the foreign adoption process.

This bill accomplishes one more objective by making a technical correction regarding the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions.

Under current law, prospective immigrants have to be vaccinated against certain diseases. The law provides an exemption to the general immunization requirement for adopted children if, one, a child is 10 years of age or younger and, two, the adoptive parents certify that the child will receive the necessary vaccinations within 30 days of entry into the U.S.

This exemption, enacted in 1997, is designed to ensure that parents don't have to subject their children to sometimes unsafe immunizations in foreign nations. Rather, they can more safely immunize their children in the United States.

However, when the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions was later adopted, this exception was not extended to the children from signatory countries. Ms. Lofgren's bill simply extends the exemption to cover children from these countries.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, a devastating earthquake hit Haiti and claimed 200,000 lives. The Department of Homeland Security quickly acted in the best American humanitarian tradition.

DHS announced a humanitarian parole policy to allow orphaned Haitian children who were in the middle of adoption proceedings with American parents to quickly enter the U.S. DHS paroled about 1,200 Haitian orphans into the U.S. as a result of this policy.

Adoption proceedings had not yet been completed when these children were airlifted to the U.S. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the children will have to live with their U.S. adoptive parents for 2 years before their parents can apply for permanent resident status for the children. During the interim period, the children must have their temporary parole status renewed each year.

As a result, these children will wait an appreciable amount of time in parole status.

Representative Fortenberry was concerned about how this delay could affect the new lives of these young children in the U.S.; for instance, what happens if the adoptive parents die during their parole period? In order to address these concerns and ensure the futures of these Haitian orphans, Representative Fortenberry introduced the Help HAITI Act of 2010. The bill allows the Haitian orphans brought to the U.S. in the aftermath of the earthquake to receive permanent residence immediately. This legislation helps future American citizens who have already suffered much but who will have bright futures in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the Obama administration is suing Arizona for wanting to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, but they won't sue cities that violate our immigration laws by enacting sanctuary policies.

So-called ``sanctuary cities'' prohibit their law enforcement officers from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security to support illegal immigration. Will the administration also ignore individuals who fail to pay their income taxes, for example? Of course not.

The administration's policies endanger American lives.

In San Francisco, an illegal immigrant with past violent crime convictions savagely murdered the Bologna family--a father and two sons. In Los Angeles, an illegal immigrant murdered 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw, Jr., and an illegal immigrant gang member shot three students in Newark, New Jersey, execution style.

All of these murders took place in sanctuary cities where they might have been prevented. The Obama administration needs to enforce immigration laws, not ignore them.

Madam Speaker, the national media have shown a clear double standard in their coverage of Supreme Court nominees, according to recent studies by the Media Research Center (MRC).

MRC found that when President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the national media repeatedly described both men as ``very conservative.''

In contrast, when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year, the media rarely described them as ``very liberal.''

MRC also found that the television networks gave far more coverage to opponents of Roberts and Alito compared to opponents of Sotomayor and Kagan.

The national media should report the facts, not practice a double standard.