Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Basic Pilot Program was originally authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act. It allows employers in six states to verify the validity of the Social Security numbers of new hires. H.R. 2359 reauthorizes this program, and expands it to allow employers in all fifty states to voluntarily participate in the Basic Pilot Program.

The program offers employers the opportunity to ensure that the individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States. Illegal immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from American workers. Recent studies show immigration has depressed the wages of American workers by more than $2,500 per year. Our education systems spend millions of dollars educating illegal immigrant children. And hospitals spend millions of dollars providing health care to illegal aliens.

Ninety percent of the American people believe that we should reduce illegal immigration. Seventy-nine percent of individuals polled recently agree that the Federal government should require employers to verify the work status of potential employees.

The main attraction for the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders is work. If we want to stop illegal immigration-- and its negative impacts--we must reduce the availability of jobs for illegal aliens. This pilot program combats illegal immigration because it allows employers to make sure they are hiring someone who is eligible to work in the United States.

Everyone who is concerned about lost jobs and unemployment should support the expansion of the Basic Pilot Program. If we are serious about saving jobs for citizens and legal immigrants, we should pass

Mr. Speaker, several days ago President Bush observed that ``a lot of times there's opinion mixed in with news.''

The media generally present a liberal bias. For example, the three major television networks all carry more negative stories about President Bush than positive ones. Two of the country's largest dailies, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have not endorsed a Republican for President since the 1950s. The few media organizations without a liberal slant do not have nearly as many viewers or readers. For instance, Fox News has less than 1 million viewers while the three network stations have 25 million.

In a democracy we cannot afford anything less than fair and accurate news coverage. The media should trust the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the E-Government Act I introduced improves the information management of the Federal Government by authorizing upgrades to enhance systems management, information technology, and security. It also includes provisions that ensure greater citizen access to Federal Government information.

Section 205 of the Act instructs the Federal courts to establish and maintain a Web site with information such as courthouse locations, relevant telephone numbers, court rules, docket listings, written opinions, and case filings.

In addition, it requires the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents and the public availability of documents filed electronically.

After the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property marked up H.R. 1303, the Department of Justice raised concerns that under H.R. 1303, the Judicial Conference could adopt rules that might prevent the Department from using certain information necessary to prosecute cases, such as credit card numbers in a fraud prosecution.

At the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 1303, I offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that addressed the concerns of both the Department of Justice and the Judiciary.

H.R. 1303 will protect privacy of Federal litigants, provide for public access to information, limit party error, and ensure the introduction of evidence necessary for the prosecution of certain cases.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1303 is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Leadership and Members of the Committee on Appropriations for bringing the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Conference Report to the House floor.

In addition to addressing the necessary and priority manpower and equipment needs of our armed forces, the bill provides critical resources for advancing the scientific, research and advanced technology initiatives that will insure that the United States maintains its military primacy in the years ahead.

As a Member of the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research, I continue to take a special interest in the emerging technologies that promise quantum breakthroughs in research and development efforts that will enhance our national security. These promising new technologies offer new dimensions to our military capabilities while also providing significant benefits to the civilian sector. Many of the programs in this legislation rely upon the transition of an enabling technology from the laboratory, R&D stage to viable military applications.

Special enabling technologies are currently being developed in Texas that have great potential for a broad range of military applications and offer significant advances to our future national security capabilities.

The House is bipartisan in its support for the increased resources devoted to DARPA and the RDT&E accounts. The DOD research portfolio is broad, comprehensive, diverse and focused on mission-related objectives to further assure U.S. security and international stability. I strongly urge Department of Defense policy and program officials to continue investing resources into innovative field technology.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 49, the Internet Tax and Nondiscrimination Act. This legislation would permanently extend the current moratorium on Internet access taxation, as well as taxes on electronic commerce. It would not prohibit States from imposing sales tax on sales conducted over the Internet. However, it does prevent States or localities from imposing a sales tax that only applies to Internet transactions.

Mr. Speaker, Internet commerce is still relatively new and has yet to reach its full potential. The imposition of taxes would threaten the future growth of e-commerce and would discourage companies from using the Internet to conduct business. Internet taxation would create regional and international barriers to global trade.

The Internet is also a major source of information for many individuals and families. Taxes would reduce the number of Americans who could afford Internet access. Our goal in Congress should be to encourage and promote Internet access, rather than to widen the digital divide.

Mr. Speaker, Americans should be able to access the Internet without being subject to State and local taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees addresses the military naturalization provisions that were included in the Department of Defense authorization bill.

On June 4, this Chamber passed H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. This military naturalization measure has a number of good provisions. It was sent to the Senate for consideration where it was passed favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the Senate has not taken up H.R. 1954, similar provisions were included in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill.

The motion before us today urges conferees to adopt the provisions contained in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill. I think this motion underscores the importance of this military naturalization legislation to both Houses and to Republicans and Democrats alike.

However, the Senate should move this bill separately rather than include it in the DOD authorization. This would give the committees with relevant jurisdiction an opportunity to fully examine the differences between the House- and the Senate-passed version and to make informed decisions about these naturalization provisions.

Most of us agree that we should expedite the naturalization process for those who have served our country and provide immigration benefits to family members of those who died. I believe H.R. 1954 accomplished those goals.

I would like to point out, however, some of the reasons why I am concerned about supporting the Senate version contained in the DOD authorization bill. First, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, grants permanent resident status to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship if they die as a result of injuries incurred during active duty. The provisions supported by this motion to instruct conferees would only grant benefits to immediate family members if a soldier died in combat. The family of a soldier who died in training or in being transported to the front would not be granted these citizenship provisions.

Second, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, allows the spouse of a soldier granted posthumous citizenship to immediately naturalize. This is another important provision omitted from the Senate provisions supported by this motion.

Third, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant expedited naturalization during peacetime to a soldier who is discharged less than honorably. I do not believe we should extend the benefits of expedited naturalization to an individual discharged less than honorably, yet the Senate language does not make this distinction.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my concerns about the provisions that benefit illegal aliens in the Senate language supported by this motion. By contrast, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant benefits to illegal aliens. By adopting the motion to instruct conferees, we would grant benefits to those illegal aliens, and I do not think this sets a good precedent.

I am heartened that many of us agree on providing important reforms to the naturalization process for military personnel. However, it is my hope that the Senate will take up this legislation separately so that we can resolve some important policy differences between these bills in an appropriate context.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time with the understanding that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to clarify for the record that only a legal permanent resident can serve in the Armed Services. Someone who is in the country illegally cannot serve in the armed forces. They have to be a legal permanent resident. We may have given the impression that some individuals were here illegally and were allowed to serve but that is not government policy.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, we have looked at some of those cases and have found in almost every instance they had taken advantage of some legalization program so that when they actually enlisted they were legal permanent residents. I just would not want us to give the false impression that people who were in the country illegally can expect to enlist in the Armed Services.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is exactly right, but they are all legal permanent residents. They are not illegal immigrants.

I understand that, I acknowledge that. They are legal permanent residents. They are not citizens, but they also are not in the country illegally.

Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to help out, and I have to point out to the gentleman that all of the provisions which we support were in the House-passed bill, and I am surprised that this motion we are considering now would actually endorse some provisions that I consider to be not as good for individuals who are serving in the military who we want to grant citizenship to.

I mentioned in my opening statement a while ago, for example, that the Senate bill that is endorsed by this motion requires them to have served in the military 2 years. The House bill that I support requires them to have only served 1 year. The House bill says that they could be killed while in training, while on their way to the front lines. The Senate bill that this motion endorses says they have to be killed in combat, and the Senate bill that this motion supports says they can be awarded citizenship even if they were dishonorably discharged.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns tomorrow, September 18, 2003, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, September 22, 2003, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado Mr. (Tancredo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I support the strong intellectual property protections contained in both the Chile and the Singapore trade agreements. These agreements will boost U.S. trade in open markets in both countries. They also set a standard for the protections that should be included in future trade agreements.

In today's global economy, it is becoming increasingly easier for criminals to steal intellectual property. Whether this theft takes the form of pirated music, stolen software, or counterfeited trademarks, it has a severe impact on our industries and on our economy. Intellectual property is one of our Nation's major assets. The United States is a consistent leader in manufacturing high-tech and the creative industries. Strong intellectual property protections both in our law and in our trade agreements are important to ensure our economy continues to flourish.

The intellectual property found in our country is a result of the American creativity. When properly commercialized, these works lead to jobs, profits, and a better quality of life for all Americans. These agreements will enlist international cooperation that respects and protects our intellectual property.

The strong protections in these agreements set a good precedent for future free trade agreements, such as those with Australia and Central America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the Chile and Singapore free trade agreements.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2427. Like many of my colleagues, I am greatly alarmed by the negative ramifications of this legislation. This bill threatens continued patient access to safe and regulated prescription drug products, fails to address affordability issues for senior citizens, and violates U.S. drug patent and trade agreements.

This bill directly undermines the current regulatory system to prevent unapproved or otherwise unsafe prescription drugs from entering the U.S. consumer market. It prevents regulating authorities from enforcing drug labeling standards, inspecting the quality and components of imported drugs, verifying that strict safety standards are met, and maintaining market-related drug prices.

In addition, H.R. 2427 fails to provide lower prescription drug costs to patients and senior citizens. According to the congressional Budget Office, the importation program does not result in savings to the federal government or consumers as previously predicted. In fact, CBO reports that if ``manufacturers were unable to limit the supply of drugs entering the U.S. market from Canada, the likely result would be that brand-name prices in Canada would rise much more than the price in the U.S. would decline.''

Finally, this legislation allows the wholesale and individual importation of drugs into the U.S. from Canada even where a U.S. patent exists. This will nullify a patent owner's exclusive right to prevent importation and thereby undermine U.S. patent rights. Further, these provisions breach various U.S. international treaty obligations. By allowing drugs with a U.S. patent to be imported, the provisions violate several free trade agreements to which the U.S. is a party because most require that the owner of a patent be able to prevent third parties from importing the product without their consent.

This legislation would dangerously decrease the overall quality of drug products that consumers purchase, sabotage the regulatory system, and conflict directly with U.S. patent and trade agreements. All without lowering prescription drug prices.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2427.

Mr. Speaker, today the Subcommittee on Immigration will hold a hearing on consular identification cards such as those issued by Mexican consulates to illegal immigrants in the United States.

A number of cities and dozens of banks now recognize these cards for identification purposes. In several States, in fact, they can be used to obtain a driver's license.

The cards are not reliable, not secure, and make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. A person's identity is not verified and false identities are easy to obtain. To anyone worried about homeland security, these cards should be seen as a red alert.

The Treasury Department recently approved these consular identification cards for bank use, yet no major bank in Mexico accepts them. So we have U.S. banks relying on Mexican identification cards that even Mexico will not recognize.

Perhaps the Treasury Department did not hear that the President is concerned about homeland security. Treasury officials may want to call the White House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from San Antonio for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to read the resolution congratulating the San Antonio spurs for winning the 2003 NBA Championship.

Whereas, on June 15, 2003, the San Antonio Spurs won the National Basketball Association's Championship best-of-seven series with an 88- 77 victory over the New Jersey Nets;

Whereas the Spurs' victory over the Nets is their second NBA championship in 5 years;

Whereas this year's Spurs-Nets Finals is the first time two former American Basketball Association teams have played for the NBA Championship;

Whereas 7-foot center David Robinson joined the Spurs in 1987, and Tim Duncan joined the team in 1997;

Whereas last night's match-up was the final game of David Robinson's 14-year career, and his 13 points, 17 rebounds, and two blocked shots will be remembered as his best performance of the season;

Whereas Tim Duncan's triple-double, 21 points, 20 rebounds, and 10 assists, and his eight blocked shots will be remembered as one of the greatest individual efforts in finals history;

Whereas Tim Duncan won the regular season Most Valuable Player award for the second consecutive year, and he was named the Finals Most Valuable Player following the Spurs victory;

Whereas spurs head coach Gregg Popovich was recognized as the NBA Coach of the Year for the 2002-2003 season;

Resolved that the House of Representatives congratulates the San Antonio Spurs and Coach of the Year Gregg Popovich for an unforgettable season of basketball excellence and for winning the 2003 National Basketball Association Championship.

Mr. Speaker, this year's NBA champions, the San Antonio Spurs, showed America their determination and their character. They never gave in and they never gave up, and that is why they are champions today.

Owner Peter Holt, Coach Gregg Popovich, and the Spurs' players provided the City of San Antonio with an unforgettable season of basketball excellence that will be remembered for years. They deserve the thanks of our grateful city.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about Spurs Center David Robinson. It is fitting that he close his storybook career as an NBA champion. Few players represent their teams and their cities with such class and dignity. We all agree that David Robinson achieved greatness on the basketball court, but what is less known to the general public is that David Robinson is a man who cares deeply about the City of San Antonio and the education of our children.

Through the David Robinson Foundation, he donated $9 million toward the construction and operation of the Carver Academy, a school on the east side of San Antonio that opened its doors in 2001. David Robinson serves as the school's chairman. This donation is believed to be the largest ever made by a professional athlete.

Named for George Washington Carver, the school serves elementary-aged students from a culturally diverse community. The core curriculum focuses on excellence in reading and language arts, social studies, math, science, technology, fine arts, athletics, and foreign languages including German, Japanese, and Spanish.

David's community involvement is extensive. At Spurs' home games he reserves special seats for underprivileged families. He has contributed to the homeless, children's charities, and hurricane victims. In 1991, he promised 94 fifth graders at San Antonio's Gates Elementary School a $2,000 college scholarship if they finished high school. Well, in 1998, 50 students graduated at the ceremony that was attended by Robinson himself.

In 1992, Robinson and his wife Valerie started their foundation, which supports programs that address the physical and spiritual needs of the family. He said their goal is ``To build a foundation for future generations. We want

to make these children the heroes of tomorrow by teaching them principles of integrity, discipline and faith.''

Fittingly, David Robinson has been described as the Goliath of Giving. Every community in America needs a David Robinson. San Antonio has been blessed by his generosity, thoughtfulness and compassion.

Mr. Speaker, David Robinson's extraordinary ability will be missed on the basketball court, but it is off the court where his work continues to give others the opportunity to seek a better and brighter future.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), my colleague from San Antonio, for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act. This bill reforms the class action system and addresses the abuses that harm so many Americans.

In recent years, State courts have been flooded with thousands of frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers looking for the most favorable jurisdictions conduct the equivalent of a legal shopping spree. They use loopholes so class action suits can be heard in State courts rather than Federal courts. Today, State courts employ criteria so loosely defined that virtually any controversy can qualify as a class action.

We have all heard of the lawsuits in which the plaintiffs walk away with pennies, sometimes literally, while their attorneys walk away with millions of dollars in fees. For instance, in a suit against Chase Manhattan Bank that was referred to by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) a few minutes ago, consumers were awarded 33-cent checks while the attorneys pocketed $4 million in fees. Mr. Chairman, to describe this suit, as well as other class action lawsuits, as ``frivolous'' is an insult to frivolousness. Even The Washington Post has acknowledged that under the present system ``lawyers cash in, while the `clients' get coupons.''

There are many ``magnet'' State courts that have a reputation for doling out enormous judgments. This bill makes it easier to get cases into Federal court to avoid such unfair results.

Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), amended this bill in the Committee on the Judiciary to apply the law to cases that have been filed, but not yet certified as class actions. Cases that gain class certification after the date of enactment will have, in fact, the new rules apply to them.

This language eliminates any incentive to rush to the courthouse to avoid the reforms contained in the legislation. It also prevents individuals from being made part of a frivolous suit that has been filed before enactment of the new laws.

The widespread abuse of class action lawsuits must be stopped. The Class Action Fairness Act includes bipartisan, sensible reforms that clarify the rights of consumers and restore confidence in America's civil justice system.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I also thank the chairman of the committee for his action in passing this today.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which bans partial-birth abortions unless they are necessary to save a mother's life. Partial birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure.

The American Medical Association has stated that partial-birth abortion is ``not an accepted medical practice,'' is ``ethically wrong,'' and is ``never the only appropriate procedure.''

A recent survey of abortion providers estimated that 2,200 partial birth abortions were performed in 2000. Most of these abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Infants then are usually viable--that is, if they are born premature at this stage, they are born alive and usually enjoy long lives. This makes the procedure even more disturbing.

The Senate recently passed this legislation and the American public overwhelmingly supports this ban. A poll this year found that 70 percent of those asked favored a law to make partial birth abortions illegal except in cases where needed to save the life of the mother.

This bill is the same text that the House passed last year. Congress has twice approved a ban on partial-birth abortions, but both times the bills were vetoed by President Clinton. Hopefully, this time, because President Bush supports the ban, we will be successful in implementing a new policy.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. Speaker, this critical legislation would prohibit physicians from

performing partial-birth abortions, a horrific and heinous procedure.

Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming evidence that shows that partial- birth abortion is not medically necessary to preserve the health of the woman, but rather poses serious consequences to her health.

Even organizations such as the AMA have said that this procedure is ``not good medicine'' and is not medically necessary.

Partial-birth abortion is a gruesome and inhumane procedure in which the child is forcibly pulled from the mother, with only the head remaining inside the cervical canal. The head of the child is then punctured at the base of the skull, and the brain is removed with a powerful vacuum. This is a barbaric act that is a grave attack against human dignity and justice, and it must be banned. Life is a gift, and it must be embraced and respected at all stages.

In a country which espouses the importance of protecting the inherent rights of every person, partial-birth abortion denies the rights of our most innocent and vulnerable members, our children. We, as legislators, must strive to uphold the truths upon which our great Nation was founded, especially that every individual is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Partial-birth abortion is not a sign that women are ``free to choose.'' It is a sign that women have been abandoned. They have not had the support and care that they so desperately need. Rather, abortion is the only option offered. There is increasing evidence that abortion causes extreme emotional and psychological damage. It has been determined that many abortions occur later in pregnancy when women do not want an abortion at all, but rather feel pressure to hid their pregnancy from their boyfriends or parents.

We must strive to ensure that each and every person is guaranteed the most basic human rights, the right to life. Women deserve better than to endure the physical and emotional pain and suffering associated with partial-birth abortion, and children deserve the chance to live.

I ardently support efforts to protect the dignity of women and children. As women, we have a unique role in society, to nurture and protect that dignity. Such dignity is only possible if it is promoted on every level.

It is time for partial-birth abortion to stop. We must have the courage and the strength to fight against the greatest of all human rights violations--partial-birth abortion. Women deserve better than abortion. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 760 the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. A vote for the ban is a vote for life.