Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 174, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

Madam Speaker, the United States has enjoyed a free press for over 200 years because it is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. Our Founders understood that a free press protects and perpetuates our democracy.

There has been no Federal media shield law to protect journalists' sources because there has been no evidence of a need. No more than 17 journalists during the past 25 years have been jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury. They were not singled out for punishment. Every American called to testify before a grand jury must cooperate or face this very same consequence.

Nor is there any evidence that potential sources have withheld critical information from reporters because of a fear of being identified. Just look at the scandals that are regularly uncovered-- from Watergate to the recent mistreatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center.

In the 37 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not shield a reporter from testifying in a grand jury proceeding, the media have had no problem exposing corruption and injustice.

Unfortunately, this bill raises serious law enforcement and national security concerns. However well-intentioned, H.R. 985 will compromise the work of the Justice Department and other Federal agencies charged with crime-fighting, intelligence-gathering, and national security matters.

The bill we are considering today creates a press ``privilege'' under which courts cannot compel reporters to provide information they need to fight crime.

Protecting anonymous sources should never be more important than protecting the American people or solving crimes that can save lives. While confidentiality is vital to the work of a reporter, national security is essential to the preservation of a free nation.

For example, the exception to the privilege in this bill--to prevent a terrorist attack or imminent bodily harm--will not help in investigations after the attack has already occurred.

Under the bill, law enforcement officials could have obtained information identifying a reporter's source on September 10, 2001, for example, to prevent the terrorist attacks, but could not have acquired that same information on September 12 to track down the terrorists.

Similarly, officials could acquire information regarding a reporter's source to prevent the molestation of a child, but they could not get that same information to bring a sexual predator to justice after the assault.

Concerning classified information leaks, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in an editorial following the House vote in 2007: ``Leaking classified information is itself a crime, but in order for the government to get source information from a journalist in a leak investigation, it must show that the leak caused significant articulable harm to national security, that the information was properly classified, and the person who leaked it was authorized to have it.

``Thus, a would-be leaker of classified information could simply give it to someone not authorized to have it, urge that person to leak it, and thereby prevent the government from investigating the crime.

``This bill effectively cripples the government's ability to identify and prosecute leakers of classified information. Ironically, a bill styled as a `reporter's shield' would have the perverse effect of shielding would-be leakers.''

Look at the range of crimes where a reporter would be able to hide his source: Corporate and financial crimes--very relevant these days; human trafficking, gun and drug trafficking; gang activity; and other criminal activity that might not result in a direct risk of imminent death or significant bodily harm, even though we all have a strong interest in preventing such crimes.

H.R. 985 creates a privilege that allows reporters to avoid a civic duty. The bill goes beyond promoting a free press. It confers on the press a privileged position. It exempts journalists from the same responsibilities that all others have in a criminal investigation. This new privilege has no precedent in American legal history.

This bill is not about protecting the public's right to know about corruption or malfeasance that already exists. It's about giving a reporter a special privilege at the expense of our national crime- fighting efforts.

To quote a high-ranking official from the Office of the Director of National Security during last Congress' debate, the media shield bill ``makes it very difficult to enforce criminal laws involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and could seriously impede other national security investigations and prosecutions, including terrorism prosecutions.''

As a former reporter, I sympathize with journalists not wanting to reveal their sources. But as a Member of Congress I have a responsibility to see that law enforcement and intelligence officials who keep us safe can do their jobs. This bill creates serious law enforcement and national security problems without sufficient justification.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Crime Subcommittee. And I am yielding him 2 minutes in the hopes that he will reconsider his position.

Madam Speaker, we just have one more speaker on this side, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Congress should not legislate in the absence of a problem. And here, there is no problem. The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that no reporter's privilege is found in the Constitution or the common law.

In the past 37 years, thousands of stories about malfeasance and scandals have been reported by local, national and international news outlets in the United States. These stories have covered a variety of subjects, many with the participation of anonymous sources.

Yet the premise of H.R. 985 is contradicted by the facts. These stories were written despite no Federal shield bill. In fact, let's examine a real-world example illustrating how the media might use this privilege. Supporters of H.R. 985 often cite the so-called ``BALCO case'' as a justification for the bill. But what really happened? BALCO was an organization involved in the illegal distribution of steroids to professional athletes. Reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote more than 100 stories on the case without benefit of illegally leaked grand jury testimony. But an attorney for one of the defendants eventually leaked testimony, which the reporters used in other stories.

During an investigation, the lawyer stated under oath that he had not leaked information. In fact, he claimed the government leaked it, thereby creating a pretext for him to request that the court dismiss the case against his client. He was eventually exposed and prosecuted. Nothing was done to the reporters who refused to identify their source. In other words, the BALCO reporters used illegally-leaked information they didn't need to report on the

case, all the while protecting a disreputable attorney who perjured himself before a Federal Court. Yet this case is cited as a modern-day justification for a shield bill to protect reporters and ``the public's right to know.''

But what happened in BALCO pales in comparison to what may happen to crime-fighting and national security if this bill becomes law. The Justice Department has developed internal guidelines that govern how they interact with reporters during investigations. For example, these guidelines require U.S. Attorneys to obtain information through alternative sources when possible. But the biggest difference between the guidelines and the bill is that the guidelines are administered flexibly. In an age of terrorism when the timely acquisition of information is indispensable to crime-fighting, U.S. Attorneys should not have to spend time satisfying the multipart test of H.R. 985.

The entire structure of the bill inflexibly requires the Department of Justice to meet certain threshold requirements before they can acquire some information. Exceptions in the bill to provide greater access to such information are limited and do not cover a wide range of Federal criminal investigations. And the prospective nature of some of the exceptions, to prevent a terrorist attack or imminent bodily harm, will not help in investigations after an attack has already occurred.

We have seen time and time again in the last few weeks where rushing legislation through without benefit of a hearing or expert testimony has led to unintended consequences. Regarding this bill, we still haven't heard what the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence thinks about it. We do know that in the last administration, all these individuals opposed it.

Today, only 20 minutes are allowed in opposition to this bill. Yet it might well lead to heinous crimes that could have been prevented or solved. Terrorism hasn't gone away since the election. Neither has domestic crime. The primary function of government is to protect people. And this bill greatly complicates the ability of the government to prevent and solve crime. The press doesn't need H.R. 985 to do its job. And the public can't afford to have the government make it easier for terrorists and other criminals.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will oppose this well-intentioned but ultimately misguided piece of legislation.

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a Rasmussen poll found that 67 percent of likely voters support worksite enforcement actions to identify and deport illegal workers. That included a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

The poll results are no surprise. Enforcement protects jobs for citizens and legal immigrants alike. Also, a long-term study released last week by the Center for Immigration Studies found that wages increased for legal workers after a worksite enforcement operation at a large meatpacker.

But you are unlikely to hear about studies and polls like these from the national media because of their left-wing slant on immigration issues. In fact, not a single major daily newspaper or a single network news program covered either the poll or the study.

Americans need the media to report the facts, not ignore the news.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, Senator Obama told his colleagues, ``We need an electronic verification system that can significantly reduce the employment of illegal workers, and give employers the confidence that their workforce is legal.''

E-Verify is the voluntary Federal program that does just that by allowing employers to check the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees. Yet the Democrats have blocked every single attempt made so far this year to enact a long-term extension of E-Verify.

Instead of protecting jobs for U.S. citizens and legal workers, President Obama signed a bill that will provide 300,000 jobs to illegal immigrants in just the construction industry alone.

With 12 million Americans out of work, we should save jobs for American workers and legal immigrants, not give jobs to illegal workers.

Mr. Speaker, many of us remember the tragic case of Chandra Levy, a former Washington, D.C. intern who disappeared suddenly 8 years ago.

The man charged recently with murdering Ms. Levy entered the United States illegally, but you might not have known that by following the news. CBS, CNN, and the AP, among many other media outlets, failed to mention even once that the suspect entered the country illegally. Instead, the media used terms like ``incarcerated felon'' and ``jailed attacker'' to refer to the suspect in news reports. They neglected to point out that the suspect would not have been able to commit the alleged murder if he had not entered the country illegally in the first place.

This is an example of how the media's liberal bias on immigration issues prevents Americans from getting the facts. Whether it's immigration or any other issue, the media should report the facts, not slant the news.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too time consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 628 addresses these concerns by authorizing a pilot program in certain United States district courts to promote patent expertise among participating judges. The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that less than 1 percent of all cases in U.S. district courts are patent cases and that a district court judge typically has a patent case proceed through trial only once every 7 years. These cases require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial resources, and the rate of reversal, unfortunately, remains unacceptably high.

The premise underlying H.R. 628 is that practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges who regularly focus on patent cases can be expected to make better decisions.

Introduced by our colleagues Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, this bill is identical to legislation that the House passed unanimously under suspension of the rules in the last two Congresses. H.R. 628 requires that the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select six district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that begins no later than 6 months after the date of enactment.

This bill requires the director to provide the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress reports. These reports will enable Congress and the courts to evaluate whether the pilot program is working, and, if so, whether it should be made permanent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a creative bill that will improve the application of patent law. I want to really take a moment to thank again Mr. Issa, the gentleman from California, for this creative idea coming up with this bill, and also for his personal expertise. Mr. Issa actually holds 37 patents, which I suspect is far more than any other Member of Congress has ever held in the history of this institution, so he knows whereof he speaks. It is no surprise he has come up with this very productive and constructive piece of legislation. And we are very pleased he is also a leader on the Judiciary Committee as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I am pleased to be original co-sponsor of H.R. 1429, the ``STOP AIDS in Prison Act of 2009.''

The Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2009 requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, treatment and prevention for inmates in federal prisons.

This legislation will combat and prevent the continued spread of HIV and AIDS among the prison population and the community at large.

There are about 200,000 prisoners in the federal system. But, the incidence of HIV and AIDS in the prison population is difficult to measure because not all inmates are routinely tested.

In a 2006 report, the Justice Department estimated that over one percent of federal inmates were known to be infected with HIV. The United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have historically defined an HIV epidemic as occurring when the overall percentage of disease among residents of a specific geographic area exceeds one percent.

That means that the percentage of prisoners who carry the HIV/AIDS virus may have reached epidemic proportions.

The occurrence of HIV and AIDS cases in federal prison is at least three times higher among prison inmates than it is among the United States population as a whole.

H.R. 1429 requires routine HIV testing for all federal prison inmates upon entry and prior to release. For all existing inmates, testing is required within six months of enactment.

This reasonable requirement will enable prison officials to reduce HIV/AIDS among inmates and provide counseling, prevention, and health care services for inmates who are infected with the disease.

For those prisoners tested when they enter prison, such testing will ensure that they receive adequate treatment, education and prevention services while incarcerated.

Similarly, it is important that prisoners are tested shortly before release into the community so that adequate services can be coordinated for the prisoner after release. That, in turn, will protect the community.

I believe in tough punishment for criminal offenders because the public deserves to be protected. But we have a duty to treat prisoners humanely and to rehabilitate them.

To me, preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS among prisoners is an essential part of humane treatment and rehabilitation.

I would like to thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congresswoman Waters, for her work on this legislation. Ms. Waters and I worked together on earlier versions of this bill in previous sessions of Congress. She has been an energetic partner in this effort.

I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers for helping bring this legislation to the House floor today.

As my colleagues will recall, the House passed a version of this bill last Congress by voice vote. The bill was placed on the legislative calendar of the Senate, but it was never acted upon. It is my hope that the Senate will pass H.R. 1429 during this Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Speaker Pelosi called work site arrests and deportation of illegal workers ``un-American.''

That's quite a powerful word: ``un-American.'' And it's quite a spectacle to have the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives call the actions of our law enforcement men and women ``un-American.''

We should praise them, not insult them, for enforcing our immigration laws.

Twelve million Americans are out of work. Seven million illegal workers hold jobs that should go to citizens and legal immigrant workers.

Let's let the American people decide what is ``un-American.'' We should not criticize law enforcement personnel. Instead, we should be grateful for the job they do.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Safe and Secure America Act of 2009 to instill confidence in the American people that our intelligence community is fully equipped to investigate and prevent threats to our safety and security.

This legislation extends for ten years sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which are scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2009. Three years ago, Congress reauthorized the USA PATRIOT Act, eliminating all but these three sunsets.

Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the use of multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps for national security and intelligence investigations. A ``roving'' wiretap applies to an individual and allows the government to a use a single wiretap order to cover any communications device that the suspect uses or may use. This type of wiretap differs from a traditional criminal wiretap that only applies to a particular phone or computer used by a target. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone, or computer that needs to be monitored.

Section 215 allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to apply to the FISA court to issue orders granting the government access to any tangible items (including books, records, papers, and other documents), no matter who holds it, in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 contains several protections against abuses of Section 215 authority, including Congressional oversight, procedural protections, application requirements, and judicial review.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 amends the definition of ``agent of a foreign power'' to include ``lone wolf'' terrorists who are non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism, regardless of whether they are affiliated with an international terrorist group. When FISA was originally enacted in the 1970s, terrorists were more commonly members of an identified group. That is not the case today. Many modern-day terrorists may subscribe to a movement but do not subscribe to a specific group and often act alone. It is imperative that such an out-dated definition does not impede our ability to gather intelligence about perhaps the most dangerous terrorists operating today.

Madam Speaker, America is fortunate to not have suffered a terrorist attack on our soil in over seven years. But we must not let our safety become complacency. America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their mission to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. America is safe today because the men and women of the intelligence community work tirelessly to protect us. It would be irresponsible of Congress to take away the authorities needed to their job. The threat to America from terrorists, spies, and enemy nations will not sunset at the end of this year. Neither should America's anti- terrorism laws.

Mr. Speaker, recently the New York Times asserted that President Obama enjoyed ``remarkably high levels of optimism and confidence'' among Americans. The very same day, Gallup released a poll with very similar results as the Times poll, but Gallup characterized the result as ``typical of how the last several Presidents have fared at the one-month mark.'' In other words, not remarkable.

Gallup also found that the number of people who disapproved of the way President Obama is doing his job had doubled in just one month, from 12 percent to 24 percent, and noted that President Obama's disapproval rating was higher than the average of the last six Presidents.

The Times and Gallup had similar polling results, but the Times gave a very biased report and ignored the historical facts.

At least one member of the White House press corps recognizes his colleagues' bias in favor of President Obama.

Jake Tapper, ABC's Senior White House Correspondent, said during a recent interview that some news editors and producers are soft on the President and inclined to ``root for him.''

Regarding the media's bias, Tapper also said: ``Certain networks, newspapers and magazines leaned on the scales a little bit.''

It is telling that a man who sees news coverage of the President first-hand on a daily basis would be so forthcoming about the media's pro-Obama bias.

When it comes to the major issues we face, Americans expect the media to be referees, not cheerleaders.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the ranking member and gentleman from Washington for yielding, and I ask unanimous consent to have my statement made as a part of the Record as well as an exchange of letters between Chairman Conyers and Chairman Rahall.

This Public Land bill includes a provision that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee. Subtitle D of title six of the bill imposes both civil fines and criminal penalties for the excavation and removal of fossils and other archeological items from federal lands.

It also includes provisions relating to forfeiture and judicial review and enforcement of administrative fines--all within the purview of the Judiciary Committee.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee was not given an opportunity to review or amend this language before consideration of S. 22 on the House floor today.

This provision incorporates the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, which was introduced in the 110th Congress. Judiciary Chairman Conyers and I raised questions about this language in the last Congress. Staff from the House Resources Committee worked with our staff to try to address these concerns.

Subtitle D employs several approaches to regulate the removal of fossils from federal lands, including criminal penalties. Certainly, the removal or destruction of fossils is inappropriate and should be deterred. But in its haste to solve this problem, the Senate concluded that a term of imprisonment is the answer.

Subtitle D makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to remove fossils from federal lands.

Even more troubling is that this crime could apply to a person who unintentionally removes a fossil or artifact from federal land; that is, who has no knowledge that the item may be a fossil or artifact. So someone could pick up what they thought was an interesting pebble and face five years in prison. I hope no Member thinks that is appropriate.

These and other issues demonstrate the importance of proper deliberation and review of criminal statutes by the Judiciary Committee before bills reach the House floor.

Chairman Conyers and Chairman Rahall have committed to working with me on bipartisan legislation to promptly address the various defects in the criminal penalty language, and I appreciate their support. It is our hope that this legislation will move quickly through the committee process and be considered on the House floor under suspension of the rules.

We must ensure that any criminal penalties imposed for the removal of fossils or artifacts from federal lands are directed at actual criminals and do not include the unintentional acts of law-abiding citizens who visit our national parks and forests each year.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2009.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: I am writing regarding S. 22, the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which has been

received in the House after passing the Senate.

Subtitle D of title VI of that bill is a measure based on

H.R. 554 from the 110th Congress, the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act, containing significant provisions

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,

including criminal penalties, judicial review and enforcement

of administrative fines, use of civil and criminal fines, and

forfeiture. The Judiciary Committee received an extended

referral of H.R. 554 in the 110th Congress, and our two

committees had extensive discussions about refining the bill

in important respects.

While I understand and support the decision, in light of

the difficulty in passing S. 22 in the Senate, to attempt to

pass it in the House without amendment to ensure it reaches

the President, I regret that we will be unable to make

appropriate refinements to the provisions in the Judiciary

Committee's jurisdiction before the bill becomes law. I

appreciate your willingness to work with me to make these

refinements as soon as practicable in subsequent legislation.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and

for the cooperative relationship between our two committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009. This bill reauthorizes a number of programs set to expire at the end of 2009 that help to track and apprehend sex offenders.

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act to protect the public, particularly children, from sexual predators. Under the Act, sex offenders must register with state or local jurisdictions after incarceration or while on probation. The Act expanded the National Sex Offender Registry by integrating the information in state sex offender registry systems and ensuring that law enforcement agencies across the United States have access to this information. The Act further requires states to make registry information available to the public via government Internet websites. A number of new grant programs were also authorized to assist states in improving sex offender registration and related requirements of the Act. It is several of these grant programs and some related provisions that are expiring at the end of this year, though the registration requirements and related authorities are not.

Unfortunately, many of the programs authorized by the Adam Walsh Act, including the expiring programs reauthorized by this bill, have received insufficient or no direct funding from Congress.

There are currently more than 100,000 missing sex offenders who have failed to register as required under current law. These predators are working, attending school, and living in close proximity to our children unbeknownst to parents and law enforcement officials.

By reauthorizing these important Adam Walsh Act programs, Congress will demonstrate its commitment to empower federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to protect children and identify, locate and apprehend sex offenders.

These programs were specifically drafted to provide the Department of Justice and state and local law enforcement agencies the tools necessary to track and apprehend absconders from the Sex Offender Registry. These expiring programs reauthorized by this bill include:

1. The Sex Offender Management Assistance Program (SOMA)--this provision awards grants to states to assist with the implementation of the sex offender registry under the AWA.

2. Pilot Program for Monitoring Sexual Offenders--this provision empowers the Attorney General to make grants to state, local and tribal governments in order to outfit sex offenders with electronic monitoring devices. It authorizes appropriations of $5 million for fiscal years 2010-2014 and thereafter requests the Attorney General to report on the effectiveness of the program.

3. Grants to Combat Sexual Abuse of Children--this provision establishes a grant program for law enforcement agencies to combat sexual abuse of children with authorized appropriations of the necessary sums for fiscal years 2010-2014.

4. Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program--this provision creates the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program to enable state, local and tribal grantees to verify the addresses of registered sex offenders with authorization of the necessary appropriations for fiscal years 2010-2014 and the requirement of an Attorney General's report on the effectiveness of the program.

5. Fugitive Safe Surrender--this provision instructs the Marshals Service to establish and coordinate a Fugitive Safe Surrender program in designated cities for the capture of fugitives from federal, state and local justice. It authorizes appropriations of $8 million for that purpose in fiscal years 2010-2014.

6. Sex Offender Apprehension Grants; Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Grants--this provision creates a grant program available to both public and private entities that assist in treatment of juvenile sex offenders or that assist the states in their enforcement of sex offender registration requirements. Appropriations are authorized for fiscal years 2010-2014 in such amounts as are necessary in the case of the enforcement grants and in the amount of $10 million per year in the case of the juvenile sex offender grants.

Madam Speaker, Congress should move quickly to reauthorize these programs. Congress should also appropriate necessary funds for the full implementation of these programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve accurate stories about immigration issues, but the national media prevent that from happening.

Too often, the media only feature stories that support their bias, that include more quotes from pro-amnesty sources than pro-enforcement sources, and they prey on emotions while ignoring facts. These articles paint a one-sided sympathetic picture of illegal immigrants, but fail to acknowledge they intentionally broke our laws, burdened taxpayers, and displaced legal workers.

For example, five out of six immigration stories in the New York Times over a recent 2-week period were obviously slanted. The same was true of six out of eight immigration articles in the Washington Post. Americans deserve better, and should insist that the media provide all the facts and not just give one side.

Mr. Speaker, recently Homeland Security agents in Washington State arrested an illegal immigrant gang member, discovered he worked at a manufacturing plant, then began to investigate the employer and arrested 28 illegal immigrants. Instead of praising their good work, though, Secretary Napolitano said she would investigate the investigators. Amazing.

Secretary Napolitano took the wrong side. She should stand up for U.S. citizens and legal immigrant workers, not the illegal immigrants who take their jobs. She should stand up for the law enforcement officers who are doing their jobs, not the special interests who favor amnesty.

It does not bode well for citizens and legal immigrant workers alike that when it comes to worksite enforcement, this administration is investigating the investigators instead of the law breakers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, our country has fallen into a serious economic recession, a recession that is worsened by the foreclosure crisis.

Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. Some of what is in this bill we consider today will be helpful, such as providing loan officers a safe harbor from the threat of litigation if they offer borrowers meaningful loan modifications. But the bill also includes many counterproductive components, especially the bankruptcy provision. This bankruptcy provision not only will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis, but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider. Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will increase the overall cost of loaning. Lenders and investors will hesitate to put up capital in the future if they fear that judges will rewrite the terms of their mortgage contracts. Less available capital and increased risk means that borrowers will pay higher interest rates in the future.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will also encourage borrowers who owe more money on their mortgage than their house is worth to file for bankruptcy. Under this bill, a borrower will be able to reduce, for example, a $300,000 mortgage to $200,000. When housing prices rise in the future, that borrower has no obligation to pay back the $100,000, which of course amounts to a windfall.

Experts predict that this will provide an incentive for borrowers to file for bankruptcy so that they can avoid repaying the entire amount they owe. Also, if bankruptcy filings increase as a result of this legislation--which is virtually predicted by everyone--it is unlikely that the country's only 368 bankruptcy judges could handle perhaps millions of cases. This will prolong the crisis as borrowers wait years for their bankruptcy plan to be court approved.

In fact, even Senator Durbin, the primary sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, stated that he is ``willing to restrict'' this legislation to subprime mortgages in an effort to make this proposal ``reasonable.''

Because it has been suggested that Senator Durbin did not make these comments, I would like to submit the transcript of Senator Durbin's remarks to be made part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today in the Housing Affordability and Stability Plan really amounts to another entitlement program, a program that comes at the expense of the 92 percent of homeowners who are making their payments on time. And it is a program that benefits lenders who wrote irresponsible loans and borrowers who borrowed more than they could afford. In other words, this legislation will punish the successful, tax the responsible, and hold no one accountable.

If we pass this legislation, what message does it send to responsible borrowers who are making their payments on time? How can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbors' mortgages? What do homeowners think as they pay back the full amount of principal they owe while others receive a government-granted reduction in principal?

Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything we can to help solve the foreclosure crisis, but we need to do so in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the taxpayers or our financial system and that is fair to all. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that.

[From American Banker, Feb. 27, 2009]

Transcript of Remarks by Sen. Durbin

The following is a transcript of remarks between Sen.

Richard Durbin and an American Banker reporter, Tuesday

evening after President Obama's speech to Congress.

AB Reporter: ``Sen. Durbin, do you have a moment today on

bankruptcy reform?''

Sen. Durbin: ``Sure.''

AB Reporter: ``I know that in the House, at least regarding

this week, the lenders are still trying to make the

restrictions so that you have to exhaust all other recourses

before bankruptcy pretty tough, even today I heard about

making HUD or one of the regulators certify that you had a

modification or something that didn't work before you could

go through bankruptcy. What are your thoughts on what the

standard ought to be?''

Sen. Durbin: ``I think that it is reasonable to require the

borrower to be in communication for a reasonable time before

they file for bankruptcy. You know if a borrower will not

talk to a bank they should not be able to avail themselves

but it's really difficult to write into law a measurement of

good faith so the best you can do is give them an opportunity

to meet. Remember 99% of foreclosed homes end up owned by the

bank so it isn't as if they are going to end up coming out

ahead if the person's losing their home. They get stuck with

$50,000 in costs and a house to maintain; to protect from

vandalism, and to show and try to sell, so the banks ought to

be much more forthcoming. Every attempt we've tried, every

voluntary attempt we've tried has failed. You have to have

this bankruptcy provision as the last resort if there is a

failure to negotiate the mortgage.''

AB Reporter: ``Do you know when the Senate might be taking

this up?''

Sen. Durbin: ``After the House and we might change it of

course. There are variations we're looking at. But I'm

willing to restrict this to homeowners to eliminate

speculators; to subprime mortgages, only those currently in

existence. I want to make this a reasonable limited--

AB Reporter: ``You're willing to limit it to subprime

mortgages?''

Sen. Durbin: ``We've talked about that as a possibility.

But I am willing to negotiate. I want this to be a reasonable

approach, but we have to include it. If we don't include it

we'll be stuck in the same mess we're in today.''

AB Reporter: ``What about the time limitation as far as

when the loans were originated. I understand there are some

who

would like to see it limited to loan underwritten in the last

few years?''

Sen. Durbin: ``My version will not be prospective. So it

has to be existing loans.''