Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to reject this bill.

The surveillance bill raises several serious constitutional and civil liberties issues that Congress needs to address and has not addressed in this bill, and I'd like to discuss just one of those.

Congress should prohibit the Federal Government from intentionally searching for information on a U.S. person in a data pool amassed lawfully under section 702 of FISA--should such a data ever be amassed--unless the searching official has a warrant.

Now, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 does not make clear that the government must obtain a warrant prior to searching for information acquired incidentally on a U.S. person in a large pool of data that the government has already lawfully obtained under section 702, should such a data pool ever be amassed. Instead, the information about the U.S. person in such a situation is subject to minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General, and that must be approved by the FISA court, but that does not explicitly include a warrant requirement, which I think the Constitution requires.

The prohibition on reverse-targeting--where the government deliberately targets a non-U.S. person for the purpose of acquiring information about the U.S. person at the other end of the line--is not a substitute for the warrant requirement to search a database for U.S. persons, should such a database ever be amassed under section 702. Minimization procedures are not a substitute for a warrant in such a case.

Now, I think that the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time. I think that the privacy of Americans should not be subject to the lower standard of minimization procedures. That's not in the Constitution. And I think, also, that when we think that we should trade the protections that our Founding Fathers devised for us in the United States Constitution in the effort to buy safety, we're mistaken. We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States.

I'm mindful that we began this Congress reading most of the United States Constitution on the floor of this House. It's ironic, indeed, that we should be ending this Congress with a bill that does violation to that very body.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join my colleague, Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, in bringing this bill to the floor. This is a commonsense bill. As has been noted, it makes technical revisions to bipartisan legislation enacted during the 111th Congress that created the new title 41 to the U.S.C., which pertains to public contracts.

This bill was prepared by the Office of Law Revision Counsel as part of its ongoing responsibility to draft and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

The bill makes conforming amendments to laws contained in title 41, corrects references that require more particular reference. In addition, the bill omits references to outdated or repealed laws, makes clarifying revisions to sections of title 41 that do not provide meanings for particular words for the purpose of clarity, and corrects two cross-references to public laws that may have been erroneously included.

The bill is not intended to make any substantive changes to the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the revision of sections into a more coherent overall structure; but these changes, as I've said, are not intended to have any substantive effect.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for its good work. This makes the practice of law more coherent in the United States.

We have no speakers, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I do rise in strong support of this bill. Specifically, this bill extends until September 30, 2015, these four longstanding immigration programs that are set to expire otherwise at the end of this month. They are valuable programs, and they serve different purposes.

The one, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, allows religious workers to enter the United States to do important work. There are 5,000 religious workers eligible for these visas each year when they are called to a vocation or are in a traditional religious occupation with a bona fide nonprofit religious organization. They are missionaries, counselors, instructors, and pastoral care providers. They really help our country.

The second program, the Conrad ``J Waiver,'' helps medically underserved communities attract highly skilled physicians. This program literally provides a lifeline for communities that desperately need doctors who received their medical training in the United States. It is absolutely necessary that this program continues to exist so that States can attract medical talent and can keep the doors of small town clinics open.

The third program, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, allocates 3,000--out of the EB-5 category's 10,000--visas each year for EB-5 investors who invest in these designated regional centers. This pilot program is important to our Nation's economy as it represents, actually, billions of dollars in aggregate immigrant investment, and it creates more than 20,000 new direct and indirect jobs each year.

The final program that would be extended under the bill is E-Verify, the basic pilot program first authorized in 1996. Now, Chairman Smith and I disagree on how effective this bill is. I don't believe it's ready for mandatory nationwide use because of errors in the system and, more broadly, because of major dysfunctions in our immigration system, but that doesn't mean I disagree that this program should be extended. I do. This program is voluntary, and by extending the E-Verify program as it currently exists, it will provide Congress additional time to work toward improving the program and fixing our Nation's immigration laws so that they work for American families, businesses, and the economy as a whole.

I should note that this bill received unanimous support in the Senate. Likewise, I hope that all of my colleagues in this Chamber will support this bipartisan legislation so that it can be quickly sent to the President's desk for his signature.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we do have two Members who would like to address this briefly. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I have no additional speakers, and I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1410, the Vietnam Human Rights Act. I am an original co-sponsor of this legislation, and I thank Mr. Smith for introducing it.

This bill would prohibit any increase in U.S. non-humanitarian aid to Vietnam until significant progress is made with regard to political and religious rights for the people of Vietnam, including the release of political and religious prisoners, and the repeal or revision of laws that criminalize peaceful dissent and otherwise impede democratic freedoms.

The human rights situation in Vietnam is dire, and shows no signs of improvement. Reporters Without Borders ranks Vietnam as 172nd of 179 in its Press Freedom Index (last in Southeast Asia, and only two spots above China) and an article in Foreign Policy magazine recently referred to Vietnam as ``the most repressive country in Southeast Asia.''

According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) 2012 Annual Report, ``The government of Vietnam continues to control all religious communities, restrict and penalize independent religious practice severely, and repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority . . . The U.S. government should use its diplomatic and political resources to advance religious freedom and related human rights in Vietnam.''

I agree. We need to send a message to the Vietnamese government and make it clear that we do not condone its repression of free speech and democracy. I also want to add that on April 17th, the American democracy activist Nguyen Quoc Quan was arrested in Vietnam and remains in detention. I urge the Vietnamese government to release Dr. Quan, and I urge my colleagues to stand up to the Vietnamese government and support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 484. I am proud to cosponsor this important resolution introduced by my good friend, fellow Californian, and co-chair of the Vietnam Caucus, Representative Loretta Sanchez. This resolution calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to respect basic human rights and to stop abusing vague national security provisions such as articles 79 and 88 of the Vietnamese penal code, articles which are frequently cited as the justification for the arrest and detention of citizens who peacefully advocate for religious and political freedom.

The use of these draconian laws to silence opposition and maintain one-party control is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to speak out for the activists whose voices have been silenced by the repressive regime in Vietnam.

Thank you, Representative Eshoo, and thank you to all who have brought this important bipartisan resolution forward.

I remember, as the Internet was beginning to take off commercially, that we had a discussion here in the government. Again, it was bipartisan, and there was an understanding that the Commerce Department was not going to be able to run the Internet. We did something that was a risk, but it worked out pretty well. We created ICANN, which basically allowed a multistakeholder, nongovernmental organization to do the technology, to assign the names and numbers. They've not been perfect but not half bad.

What is before us today is a threat to what has been, as my colleague Mr. Markey has said, the greatest force in modern times for communication, for growth, for low-barrier entry into innovation--the Internet. Whether it is to tax it or to censor it for political or cultural reasons, we are aware that there are those around the world who wish to burn the Internet. We need to take a stand in this body and with our administration to say ``no'' to that.

Whether the attempts to control the Internet from the top down come from

an international body like the International Telecommunication Union or from international trade agreements and treaties--and there have been many threats to the Internet that have been included in our international treaties or even sometimes from our own government--we need to stand up and protect the Internet and the freedom that it embodies.

We know that the multistakeholder approach is critical to the continued robust growth of the Internet. We also know that the transparent, multistakeholder model has made the Internet such a hugely successful global platform for economic growth, human rights, and the free flow of information.

I'm proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that America is going to stand up for freedom, we're going to stand up for technology, and we're not going to allow anyone, whatever their intentions may be, to threaten the freedom of the Internet to succeed.

I appreciate Mrs. Bono Mack's efforts in this regard, along with Ms. Eshoo's, and the entire committee. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the measure. I look forward to its resounding success in a vote tomorrow.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the Student Visa Reform Act.

Our U.S. student visa program has a long and proud history. For decades, it's helped American colleges and universities attract some of the brightest young minds in the world, while offering those students the opportunity to study in the world's leading institutions of higher education.

The benefits to our country have been great. International students have expanded and enriched the educational experiences for all students at U.S. universities and colleges. And by immersing foreign students in American culture, the program often creates a lasting and favorable understanding of our country that pays dividends in foreign nations for years to come.

Unfortunately, some institutions have been undermining the laudable mission of this visa program. Last year, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took down two schools in California after they were found to have engaged in widespread visa fraud and exploitation of students.

Among other things, these schools misled students as to their accreditation. They lied about the ability of students to transfer credits to other institutions. Commonly known as ``visa mills,'' these schools took enormous sums of money from the students but provided questionable academic courses and essentially worthless degrees.

To prevent this type of fraud in the future, H.R. 3120 requires that colleges and universities be accredited in order to host foreign students. Such accreditation would need to be given by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education. Seminaries and other religious institutions would be exempt from this requirement.

This bill follows in the footsteps of legislation enacted in the 111th Congress that requires the accreditation of language training programs before they can host foreign students. That bill, sponsored by my good friend, Representative Barney Frank, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Lamar Smith, has already helped the Department of Homeland Security crack down on fraud in language training programs.

Like the Frank-Smith bill, the accreditation requirements instituted by this bill will prevent illegitimate institutions from cheating foreign students who legitimately seek a bona fide education in the United States. In addition, this requirement will prevent fly-by-night institutions from engaging in student visa fraud to smuggle or traffic persons into the country.

Finally, in committee, I worked with the chairman to add a provision that would prevent persons who have committed certain crimes from owning or running an academic institution that seeks to host foreign students. Persons would be barred if they had been convicted of human trafficking, transportation for illegal sexual activity, alien smuggling, or harboring or visa fraud under the student visa program.

We also added a provision to give the Secretary of Homeland Security additional flexibility with respect to schools that are playing by the rules and trying to get accreditation but may be running into bureaucratic delays. Specifically, the Secretary is given the ability to waive the accreditation requirements in cases where an educational institution is otherwise in compliance with the law and is taking good faith steps to obtain accreditation.

I thank Chairman Smith for working with me to bring this bill to the floor and for working with me to improve and strengthen the bill in committee. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments and celebrate the life of Edward Ramirez, Sr.

Edward Ramirez, Sr. was born on March 1, 1930 to Bernardina and Pedro Ramirez and he recently passed away peacefully on July 13, 2012. He was surrounded by his family in his final moments.

As a young boy, Edward Ramirez, Sr. worked in the fields of San Jose. He enlisted when he was only 15 and served our country during World War II in Germany. In 1967, he started his social activism as an original member, parishioner, and leader at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in San Jose, where he gave his time and resources in the fight to improve the community.

Edward graduated from San Jose State University in 1973 and advocated for the establishment of the Educational Opportunity Program, EOP, that improves student academic support of low-income and educationally disadvantaged students. He established the first alcohol rehabilitation center, Casa Adelante, in Santa Clara County. His expertise with the Hispanic Community in need of alcohol rehabilitation services has earned him the respect and gratitude of our community.

Edward is survived by his children, Edward, Jr., Arlene, Julian, Margaret, Catherine, and Julieana; 16 grandchildren; 6 great-grandsons; and numerous loving siblings, nieces, and nephews he loved. He was a much beloved son, brother, husband, father, grandfather, great- grandfather, and pillar of the community.

We honor and mourn the passing of Edward Ramirez, Sr. We thank Edward for his invaluable service to our community and applaud his numerous contributions to the economically disadvantaged. We are very fortunate to have benefited from his passion, advocacy, and tenacity. He has left his mark in San Jose and the larger community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the human cost of the war in Afghanistan. Last Thursday, June 14th, Marine Corporal Taylor Baune, of Andover, Minnesota, was killed in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He was 21 years old, and had married his high school sweetheart just three months ago. Corporal Baune was the 2000th American killed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

We often speak of the financial cost of the war in Afghanistan, which has grown to $289 million per day. Although this is a staggering figure, the human cost of the war is beyond measure.

Just last month, a young man from my district, Travis Morgado, was killed in Kandahar Province. Travis was an athlete who enjoyed basketball and football. He joined the Army after graduating from the University of Washington with a degree in civil engineering, expressing a desire to give back to his country. Second Lieutenant Morgado leaves behind his mother, Andrea, and stepfather, Dean Kessler, his father, Joe, and stepmother, Nancy, as well as two younger brothers, a stepsister, and a stepbrother. He is remembered as a loving big brother, and a positive role model for his younger cousins.

I would also like to recognize Marine Corporal Kevin Cueto of San Jose, who was killed in action nearly two years ago, on June 24, 2010, in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. He was 23 years old. Corporal Cueto grew up in San Jose, and later moved to Campbell to live with his father. At Westmont High School, Kevin served in the Reserve Officers Training Corps and was a member of the football, baseball, and wrestling teams. He was also involved with the debate team. After graduating from high school, determined to serve his country, Kevin enlisted in the Marines. Corporal Cueto served a tour in Iraq in 2009, before being deployed to Afghanistan. Corporal Cueto has left behind his father, Phillip Cueto, his mother, Kelley Greenhaw, and a younger brother.

Finally, many mourned the loss of Pat Tillman. Pat grew up in my district. He was a star football player at Leland High School in San Jose, and earned a scholarship to Arizona State University. He helped lead ASU to the Rose Bowl in 1997, and was selected as the team's most valuable player as well as the Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year. As a student, Pat also excelled, earning the Clyde B. Smith Academic Award, the Sporting News Honda Scholar-Athlete of the Year, and the Sun Angel Student Athlete of Year awards during his time at ASU. Pat was drafted by the Arizona Cardinals in 1998, and began a promising career as a professional football player. However, when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Pat and his brother, Kevin, decided to enlist. Pat married his high school sweetheart, Marie, and became an Army Ranger, serving tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Corporal Tillman was killed in Afghanistan. He left behind his wife, Marie, his father, Patrick, his mother, Mary, and two younger brothers.

I extend my sincerest gratitude to these brave young men and their families as we mark this solemn milestone. Two thousand American soldiers have paid the ultimate price in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Countless others have suffered wounds, both physical and mental. The human cost of the war in Afghanistan has been immense, and I urge my colleagues to support a safe, immediate, and orderly withdrawal of our troops, and to ensure that our veterans, who have sacrificed so much, are given the care and benefits that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Dartmouth Middle School upon its recognition as a ``School to Watch'' by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform in 2012.

Located in San Jose, California, Dartmouth Middle School is a public middle school in the Union School District that teaches grades six through eight. It was recently named as one of the top performing middle grade schools in the country and will be recognized by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform at their annual conference in Arlington, Virginia from June 21 23.

In 2012, only 103 schools around the country were named ``Schools to Watch'' by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform. The Forum is an alliance of more than 60 educators, researchers, and officers of national associations and foundations committed to improving schools for young adolescents across the country. Forum members choose schools that are academically excellent, developmentally responsive, and socially equitable.

Dartmouth Middle School meets and exceeds the criteria for a high- performing middle grade school. It involves students in service activities, celebrates diversity, and actively engages its students in their own learning. It has a Homework Club four days a week where students may drop in to get help from teachers with homework questions. At a time when schools are cutting back on afterschool activities, Dartmouth still allows students to put on a school play, participate in various sports, and perform in different levels of band.

It is indeed an honor and a privilege to have such a dedicated and nurturing institution in my district that appreciates its students, the community, sports, and the arts. I wish Dartmouth Middle School continued success for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Lloyd LaCuesta upon his retirement from KTVU.

Lloyd retires on June 15th, after over 35 years of reporting with KTVU Channel 2 News. Lloyd held the position of South Bay Bureau Chief for decades and is the longest tenured reporter at KTVU. He received his B.A. in Journalism and Political Science from California State University, Los Angeles, and San Jose State University. He obtained his M.A. in Journalism from University of California, Los Angeles.

Lloyd worked for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner as a high school correspondent and then in radio at KNBC/KNX. Lloyd later served in the U.S. Army as a military broadcast journalist for the American Forces Korea Network before coming to KTVU in 1976.

From 1987 1990, Lloyd served as Asian American Journalists Association's (AAJA) first elected national president. In 1991, Lloyd co-founded the UNITY alliance to increase diversity in the news and served as its first president. His mentorship, reputation, and service earned him AAJA's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004.

Lloyd covered stories ranging from the L.A. Riots in 1992 and the Columbine high school shooting to the first landing of the Space Shuttle at Edwards Air Force Base and a flight into Mr. St. Helen's volcano crater. His reporting led him to the Philippines to cover the Marcos vs. Aquino Presidential campaign, Honduras to report on Hurricane Mitch, and Vietnam to produce a series on Amerasian children.

For his work, Lloyd has won six Emmy Awards from the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. He received awards from the Associated Press and the Peninsula Press Club. He uses his expertise to teach journalism at San Jose State University and Menlo College.

We honor Lloyd LaCuesta, on the special occasion of his retirement and will miss him on the ten o'clock news. We commend Lloyd for his invaluable service to our community and wish him the best in his future adventures. We are very fortunate to have benefited from his dedication, tenacity, and perspective. He has left his mark in San Jose and the larger community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life and service of Army Second Lieutenant Travis Morgado, who was killed in action on May 23 in the Kandahar Province of Afghanistan. He was 25 years old. Travis was the son of Joe Morgado of San Jose, and our community was greatly saddened to hear of his passing.

Born in Los Gatos, he moved to Edmonds, Washington, with his mother when he was 5. He graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in civil engineering in 2009 and enlisted in the Army, determined to serve his country. He deployed to Afghanistan on March 20 and was tragically killed while conducting operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Second Lieutenant Morgado leaves behind his mother, Andrea; stepfather, Dean Kessler; his father, Joe; stepmother, Nancy; as well as two younger brothers, a stepsister, and a stepbrother.

I would like to extend my gratitude to Second Lieutenant Morgado and his family. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his service to his country. He served America well with courage and honor. I ask all of Congress to join me in thanking his family as they grieve at his loss and to express our condolences to all of them.

Thank you, Mr. Dicks. I will be brief.

I just want to point out that the executive order itself indicates that only actions that would not be unduly burdensome should be engaged in. And the true scope of this amendment is really quite broad and adverse to the enforcement of the law.

If you are ICE and you have people in custody, those people in custody may not be speaking English, and you may need to be able to communicate with them in a language other than English. The broad scope of this amendment could interfere with that.

I would like to note, also, as to the FEMA issue that my colleague from California referred to, we think of DHS as immigration. My colleague from Iowa has mentioned that frequently in our committee. But the Department of Homeland Security is very broad. This could be the Coast Guard dealing with sailors in the Caribbean Sea, either people they believe are out to do mischief or people who are in distress who may not speak English. This could be storm warnings, as has been mentioned. There are parts of Florida where Spanish is spoken. Certainly in Puerto Rico, Spanish is spoken and hurricanes come. You want to alert the entire population in a way that they can understand that danger is on its way.

I think this repeal of this executive order, which goes back almost 12 years and through many administrations, is ill-advised. It will make the country less safe, and certainly it is an amendment that we should not support.

With that, I thank the gentleman.

It is true that every law enforcement agency in the land makes priorities for enforcement. You're going to go after the dangerous gang member before you go after somebody who is double-parked or who is jaywalking. That's what police do all over the United States.

What these memos do is to put some order into who we're going after first. It's important to note that in all of the memos there is a statement that this does not create any right for a person who is here without their proper papers. It is merely a set of priorities.

I would note also that these memos are not new. The prosecutorial discretion memos have been in effect since 1996. I recall in 1999 I was a member of the Judiciary Committee. Then-Chairman Henry Hyde, along with now Chairman Lamar Smith, asked the Department of Homeland Security, actually, the immigration service at the time, to set priorities, and here's what they said.

The letter expressed concern about cases of apparent extreme hardship, such as removal proceedings against legal permanent residents who came to the United States when they were very young, many years ago, maybe committed a single criminal crime at the lower end of the spectrum, who have always been law abiding, and said to the INS that they should exercise discretion more regularly. That was done by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration.

To suggest that deportations are not occurring is extremely misleading because, in fact, there have been more deportations during the Obama administration per year than at any time in the Nation's history. DHS has removed over 779,000 individuals in deportation proceedings, an 18 percent increase.

However, there is a limit to the number who can be deported per year. Surely, we would all agree that going after criminals and terrorists is a higher priority than going after grandma or little kids.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just like to make a brief comment, because I actually share the concern that's been expressed about TSA agents randomly going out. I had an incident such as that in the city of San Jose, and I find it improper and highly objectionable.

However, the concern I have in this amendment is, as Mr. Price has said, you could not utilize this workforce and say, Okay, we're having the Republican convention; we need an all hands on deck to do security. If this amendment passes, that would be off limits. If you had an actual articulable threat where you needed expertise, you couldn't use them.

So I think that is a mistake, even though I want to say I think the issue you've raised is a solid one and I agree with you. It's just I think the amendment goes way beyond the issue that we agree on.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would just like to note that there is a difference--and obviously the gentleman has a right to refine his amendment--between the original version of the amendment that we saw, which had a provision that allowed for the termination in certain cases. For example, when the Inspector General determined that a term of the agreement was violated, the amendment before us no longer has that provision. I think it's an important distinction.

In addition to the very high costs of over $33,000 to find and remove an alien under this program, there are complicated agreements that are engaged in between the localities and the Federal Government. If they aren't adhered to, there needs to be an enforcement action, and that would not be the case under this amendment.

I would note also that, if localities no longer think it's worth it-- because, really, they're entering into agreements that cost them, too-- it's time that might be better spent doing something else. If they say that this is not working out--we want to terminate it--I don't think, under this amendment, they would be able to do it because the Federal Government would need to respond to their requests and terminate.

Finally, as Mr. Price has indicated, this is a program that, although I think had good intentions, didn't work out the way people thought. That sometimes happens in law, and it often happens in immigration law. It's expensive. It's in fewer than 100 localities in the United States, and many of them are rethinking it. The terms and conditions have frequently not been adhered to. In some notorious cases, there have been flagrant violations of civil rights, and the Department has had to go in and yank contracts. Even in the cases where there haven't been really outrageous civil rights violations, there have been problems.

I think there are likely better and more cost-effective ways to enforce the immigration laws, which is why the Department has notified us that it is its intention to begin notifying communities just this spring that it's not going to be considering any further requests from State and local jurisdictions.

That current policy would be permitted under this amendment, and they don't have to accept any more, so we would be stuck with the 68 that we have--no more, no less. I don't think that's a sensible way to proceed on the enforcement of the immigration law; and I think the amendment, although I'm sure well-intentioned, would not enhance the enforcement of law.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would, in joining my opposition to the amendment, note that the amendment before us actually does not prevent highway funds and other funds from going to so-called sanctuary cities at all.

Further, I would note, as Mr. Price has done, that these so-called sanctuary laws really very rarely, if at all, from the record, have to do with communicating between the locality and the Federal Government. They have to do with what the locality is doing and their own citizens.

In many urban parts of the country, police chiefs have made a decision that they need to trust their communities to be witnesses to crime, to come forward, to cooperate with the police, and that they do not want to play the role of immigration police. They want to be the real police. That is a decision that localities can make, provided that they do not run afoul of the 1996 act that prohibits the restrictions on sending and receiving information.

Here's the deal: you can say we're not going to disrupt this community because of our need to get the trust of the community, but you can't prohibit the communication with the Federal Government.

I think that this amendment will not achieve anything. The law is already clear. It passed in 1996.

I would further note that there is a case, it had to do with gun control. It's called the Prince case, and what it says is that the Federal Government cannot commandeer local and State governments to enforce the Federal law.

If that's really what the intent is here, it would violate the Supreme Court decision saying that you can't use the power of the Federal Government to force cities to enforce gun control laws. I would say you couldn't do that to force cities to enforce immigration laws either. That would be the Prince case.

This amendment doesn't matter, really, whether the amendment is approved or not because, as I indicated and Mr. Price has indicated, this has been part of our law since 1996.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give special thanks to Mr. Visclosky and his staff, as well as Congressman Dicks and his staff, for their tremendous support for fusion energy in this bill.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, since the need for a national ignition facility was first established in the 1990s, the project had a mandate of supporting nuclear weapons science expertise required for stewardship of our Nation's stockpile and the development of fusion power.

Basic science research has always been a central mission of NIF. In the 1997 Facility Use Plan for NIF, the Statement of Mission projected that the uses of the facility fall into five major areas: one, ignition physics; two, weapons physics; three, weapons effects; four, inertial fusion energy; and, five, basic science and technology.

I want to affirm with you that the mission of NIF has not changed and that inertial fusion energy and basic science research, as well as stockpile stewardship, will continue to be vigorously pursued at NIF.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that reassurance. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky.

Before today, every VAWA bill we've considered over the last 20 years had three things in common: they've all been bipartisan, they've all been written in consultation with the advocates and service providers on the front lines against domestic violence, and they've all increased protections for victims of domestic violence.

This bill, even as amended, shares none of those attributes. It actually reduces protections that exist in current law for victims of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault. It was developed without any support or consultation from the minority or from the domestic violence advocates. And it is not bipartisan.

Now, the bill's opposed by every leading domestic violence organization. It's opposed by the National Association of Evangelicals and the Willow Creek Church, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, all the leading women's groups. It's opposed by law enforcement officials with years of experience fighting domestic violence. It's opposed by tribal authorities, immigration advocates, LGBT groups. The list goes on and on.

So the question really is this: If everyone from the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood to the National Association of Evangelicals and the Catholic Church have extreme concerns about this bill, who thinks this is a step in the right direction?

And as far as I can tell, the only groups who openly support the bill and the amendments are groups like SAVE and A Voice for Men, who align themselves, not with battered women, but with the men who abuse them.

I will insert into the Record an article from Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and Lynne Hybels, the co-founder of the Willlow Creek Community Church. This is what they say:

Nicole came to the U.S. from Indonesia on a temporary fiancee visa, expecting to enjoy life as a spouse. Instead was trafficked.

They oppose the bill.

[From CNN, May 16, 2012]

Protect Immigrant Women From Violence

(By Leith Anderson and Lynne Hybels)

Nicole came to the United States from Indonesia on a

temporary fiancee visa, fully expecting that she would enjoy

life in a new country with the U.S. citizen she intended to

marry. Instead, she found herself trapped as a victim of sex

trafficking.

Nicole (not her real name), like thousands of other women,

was forced to engage in commercial sex acts against her will.

We heard about her when she received support from the

Salvation Army STOP-IT Program in Illinois, which serves

victims who have been harmed by the sex trade. (The Salvation

Army is a denominational member of the National Association

of Evangelicals.) Eventually, Nicole escaped from her

trafficker and assisted law enforcement in the prosecution of

the crime committed against her.

Though Nicole's fiancee visa had lapsed, leaving her

susceptible to deportation, our nation's anti-trafficking law

provided a legal option for her to be granted permanent legal

status by helping law enforcement to prosecute her

trafficker. With the help of a nonprofit legal service

provider and the Salvation Army, Nicole was able to petition

on her own for legal status--and obtain it--through a special

``U'' visa for immigrant victims of crime, allowing her to

get back on her feet and begin rebuilding her life.

This week the House of Representatives is considering a

proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, first

enacted in 1994, but in a new version that would

significantly undermine the same U visa program that provided

Nicole with safety and permanency in the United States.

The U.S. government estimates that as many as 17,500

foreign-born victims are illegally trafficked in from abroad

each year, and academic estimates suggest that at least

100,000 victims of human trafficking live in the United

States today.

By force, fraud or coercion, traffickers keep victims

enslaved in prostitution or forced labor.

If the House proposal is enacted, thousands like Nicole

could remain enslaved, too afraid to speak out because some

of their most effective safeguards will have disappeared. The

proposal introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Florida, would

dramatically roll back important protections for battered

immigrant women and their children. It could face a vote

Wednesday afternoon.

Several provisions would leave immigrant victims of human

trafficking and domestic abuse no legal way to break the

cycle of violence in which they are trapped.

Specifically, this version would remove the incentive of

permanent safe haven in the United States for women who help

bring abusers to justice. By changing the U visa from

permanent to temporary, the bill could validate an abuser's

threat that a call to police could result in deportation.

Many women would keep quiet rather than risk immigration

consequences.

The bill would also allow abusive partners in domestic

violence cases to provide input as to whether their victim

should qualify for immigration relief, stripping

confidentiality provisions that currently protect victims.

Abusive spouses, who are in a position to petition to adjust

the status of their immigrant wives through marriage, can

choose not to do so as a tool of abuse and fear. Abusers

frequently deny guilt and falsely accuse victims of fraud or

abuse.

We don't want a bill that endangers some of the women and

children it purports to help. Overall, this bill's proposed

changes to current law would discourage immigrant victims

from escaping abuse and reporting crimes, and make all of us

less safe.

Women--and, often, their children--come to our churches for

sanctuary and hope. We believe Adams' proposal would put more

lives in danger. It would perpetuate abusers' use of

immigration status as part of the cycle of exploitation.

As evangelical Christians, we are committed to Jesus' great

commandment to love God and to love our neighbor, with a

particular concern for those who are most vulnerable. Through

local churches and ministries, we extend that love when we

provide counseling and support for victims of human

trafficking and domestic violence. In doing so, we point to

the ultimate healing and restoration that we believe is found

only in Jesus.

We also love our neighbor by speaking up when laws are

proposed that could cause harm, intentionally or not. Loving

our neighbor not only means reaching out to those in need,

but also means addressing systemic problems that harm those

in need.

That's why we're asking Speaker John Boehner and the House

leadership to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act

continues to protect vulnerable immigrant women who are

victims of human trafficking or domestic violence. They need

our protection.

I think sometimes it's helpful to get into the nitty-gritty of legislation. This bill changes the law that exists today and reduces protection for immigrant women in key ways. Let me just talk about one of the ways.

If you are an immigrant temporarily here, or even without your documents, and you are a victim of domestic violence and the police want to keep you here because you're a witness or they need your help in a prosecution, the police can obtain what is called a U visa so you get to stay here. That's in the current law. It was bipartisan. It was done in the year 2000.

This bill changes that in important ways. Under current law, if you are a U visa holder, you have the possibility of applying for a permanent visa. Why is that important? Because otherwise, if you come forward to cooperate with the police, you could be voluntarily deporting yourself and be separated from your children, and that is a deterrent to people coming forward to work with the police. That's why it was crafted the way it was. Even under the manager's amendment, there is a diminution of that possibility, and it would lead to absurd results.

I'll give you an example.

Under the manager's amendment, you can only apply for the residence if your abuser had been deported to the country where you are from. So a U visa is for 4 years. If your abuser is serving a 5-year sentence, you have to be deported, and then your abuser will come after you the next year. It's a stupid provision, unfortunately. I can't believe that that's the intended result. I know Mrs. Adams is sincere, but that's what is in the bill. And that's why people object to the bill--that, among many other provisions that will endanger women and take us back from where we were.

I think that when you take a look at not just the groups that support the Senate bill instead of this, but the groups that support this bill, who embrace abusers, you know where you need to stand--and that's not with this bill, despite the sincerity of the author.