Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Subcommittee, which I chair, held 17 hearings in 2007 to examine every aspect of immigration reform, and one of the most memorable in the series of hearings was the hearing on the plight of undocumented young people who have been brought to the United States as children, including Tam Tran, then a Ph.D. candidate at UCLA who tragically later lost her life in an auto accident. They grew up in the United States, attended American high schools, often knowing no other country as home, no language other than English, yet they were faced with a dead end once they graduated from high school. Their immigration status prevented them from working, paying taxes, serving in the military. They could never get right with the law, even though they had done nothing wrong. The only thing they had done was to obey their parents.

The DREAM Act would allow these young people to apply for conditional immigration status with a series of conditions and would allow these young people to step forward, register, pay their taxes, get right with the law, and contribute to this wonderful country.

You know, we hear a lot about the rule of law. I think it is worth remembering that we write the laws in this

country, and we need to address this issue. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this bill, if we pass it, will increase revenues by $1.7 billion.

We will have a $2.2 billion deficit reduction over the next 10 years. So we can do the right policy and also have the right fiscal impact by passing this bill. I recommend that we help these innocent children who did nothing wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I call up privileged resolution, H. Res. 1737, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 30 minutes.

Of my remaining 30 minutes, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Mr. Bonner, for purposes of debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control those 15 minutes.

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

As the chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and as chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee in the matter of Mr. Rangel, I rise in support of the resolution which calls for censure of Representative Charles B. Rangel.

Article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides that ``each House may punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.''

In the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure that Members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust.

It is the role of the committee to review allegations that a Member has violated those standards. In this case, after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than 2 years and resulted in a 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this Member violated those standards. We were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the House.

The entire report has been available to Members of the House and the public on the committee's Web site. Many portions of the report have previously been publicly released, some since July.

Here is a brief summary of the findings of that report and why the committee recommended censure.

In this matter, we found that Representative Rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas.

Mr. Rangel improperly solicited individuals and entities with businesses and interest before the House to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. He misused official resources to make these solicitations for millions of dollars. He improperly solicited funds from lobbyists.

He failed to file full and complete financial disclosure statements for 10 years.

He accepted a favor or benefit related to his use of a residential, rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety.

He failed to report and pay taxes for years on income he received from a property he owns in the Dominican Republic.

We found that Representative Rangel's conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations, as well as the rules of the House and standards of conduct, namely that he:

Violated the Gift and Solicitation Ban, a statute enacted by Congress in 1989;

Violated clauses 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service;

Violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the Franking Commission;

Violated the rules of this House, including the Code of Conduct;

Violated the Purpose Law, a statute which derives directly from the Constitution;

Violated the Ethics in Government Act; and

Violated the Internal Revenue Code.

A bipartisan majority of his colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation regarding these areas of his misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence.

We found his actions and accumulation of actions ``reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House.''

Nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service, both in this House and as a hero of the Korean War.

But that service does not excuse the fact that Representative Rangel violated laws. He violated regulations. He violated the rules of this House. And he violated the standards of conduct.

Because of that misconduct, the nonpartisan committee staff recommended that he be censured, and a bipartisan majority of the committee voted to recommend censure.

The committee also voted to require that he pay restitution to taxing authorities.

Censure is a very serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the House. The decision to recommend that sanction was not reached lightly.

In making its recommendation, the committee considered the aggregation of Representative Rangel's misconduct. The committee concluded that his violations occurred on a ``continuous and prolonged basis'' and were ``more serious in character, meriting a strong Congressional response rebuking his behavior.''

For the violations related to the payment of taxes, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years, but the fact that he served at various times in highly visible and influential positions as both chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

It brought discredit to the House when this Member, with great responsibility for tax policy, did not fully pay his taxes for many years.

Some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent with the committee's past precedent. It is true that in the committee's roughly 40 years of existence, the House has censured just four Members. But it is also true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set.

We follow precedent, but we also set it. For example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two Members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. The House rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two Members. It is possible that if that situation were to occur again today, this House might not feel censure is a severe enough action.

Many of us in this body pledged 4 years ago to create the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history. Censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge.

At the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that Representative Rangel's pattern of misconduct appeared to reflect ``overzealousness'' and ``sloppiness.'' But he also said that did not excuse his misconduct.

In light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the House that Representative Rangel be censured.

Throughout this matter, key decisions were made with bipartisan votes. Not all votes were unanimous, but each was made on the basis of a bipartisan, majority vote.

The purpose of the ethics process is not punishment, but accountability and credibility: accountability for the respondent and credibility for the House itself.

Where a Member has been found by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that Member must be held accountable for his conduct.

Representative Rangel has violated the public trust. While it is difficult--actually painful--to sit in judgment of our colleague, it is our duty under the Constitution to do so. And, accordingly, I bring this resolution to the floor today.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just make a couple of brief comments before turning back to Mr. Butterfield.

First, although the issue of two Members in 1983 being censured for sexual misconduct has been mentioned, historically censure has been used a variety of times, including the very first time, for insulting the Speaker of the House; insulting the House, Mr. John Chandler, by introduction of a resolution containing unparliamentary language; Mr. Hunter, using unparliamentary language; Mr. Holbrook, using unparliamentary language. So I think it is important to at least have that history.

I want to say one other thing. And we do not discuss the executive session deliberations of the committee, but I feel obliged to note, since I think a misimpression could be had, that in fact Mr. Rangel did sign a settlement effort, and the committee was unable to reach a settlement agreement with Mr. Rangel earlier this year.

Now, it may well be that the committee and the House could do a different sanction. Mr. Scott identified several Members and former Members and staffers who are either still serving sentences in prison or still in court being tried in ongoing proceedings of misconduct. I think it's precisely because of that failure to put Members of this body and the American public first, to demand a higher standard, that the committee on a 9-1 vote recommended this sanction.

We need a higher standard. Mr. Rangel himself has acknowledged that we must meet a higher standard. Process is about protecting the integrity of the House as much as it is about sanctioning an individual who has violated the rules. The nonpartisan committee counsel recommended this. On a 9-1 vote the bipartisan committee recommended this.

This is a wrenching decision for us all. It is not with any pleasure at all that I stand here today presenting the committee's report. And finally, it is for each and every one of us to sort through our own conscience, mindful of the obligation we have first and foremost to the American people, to protect the integrity of the House as we decide what to do.

Each of us must cast the vote that we think is right, and I will respect each Member who does that.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions made by Marie Hibler to the thousands of families who have children with mental illness.

More than 35 years ago, the Hibler family found themselves with a new challenge. Roger Hibler, their son, had experienced a very public schizophrenic event. The family knew nothing about mental illness. They did not know where to turn. As Marie once noted, at the time she had to go to the dictionary to find out what schizophrenia was.

At that time, serious mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, were viewed with ignorance, shame and guilt by the public. Those afflicted and their families suffered from the same attitudes. Parents and family were often viewed as the cause of their child's illness rather than its solution. Professional psychiatrists and psychologists had primary responsibility for diagnosis and treatment. Parents and families had little say in the care and treatment of their family member. Before psychotropic medication, individuals with serious mental illness were often locked away under deplorable conditions in inadequate institutions.

When the Hibler family looked for help, they found a system that provided almost no family support. Marie decided that was not acceptable. Although Marie and her late husband Keith did not have training in psychiatry, they did know about families. They knew that they had to turn to their family and friends to find the best possible care for their son.

Marie, a mother and homemaker, came to be one of the prime founders of PAMI, Parent of Adult Mentally Ill. She gave speeches and wrote articles. I know this because I was a neighbor and my mother was Marie's volunteer typist and editor.

The organization she helped create turned into a national movement to inform and educate the country about mental illness. They advocated for the rights and care of mentally ill family members and helped change the way we think about, treat and care for mental illness. Parent volunteers helped each other and those in their families suffering from mental illness.

That organization, PAMI, evolved into NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, with active chapters in every state.

NAMI is celebrating its 35th year this November. While many challenges remain for those who suffer from mental illness and their families, the support and treatment of those with mental illness has greatly improved.

It is especially fitting at this 35th anniversary to thank those parent volunteers who stood up to be counted when there was little help for them, or their sons and daughters. Marie Hibler is someone who fearlessly stepped forward. She wasn't an expert in psychiatry. She was a mother who loved her son. That made all the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in support of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010.

Voting for this bill is essential if we want to honor the true heroes of 9/11. These heroes are the firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, and volunteers who risked their lives to help the country during one of its darkest periods only to be misinformed by that country with respect to conditions at the World Trade Center crash site. They deserve our help. It is our duty to provide it to them.

In the days after 9/11, Congress came together and--in a truly bipartisan effort--conceived of a system through which the victims of those terrible attacks could obtain medical treatment and just compensation. As we learned in various hearings and markups before the Judiciary Committee, that system was a stunning success.

The 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, for example, quickly compensated those who were injured or lost close family members in the attacks. Just over $7 billion was paid out in a 33-month period, with overhead costs of less than 3 percent, and with 97 percent of the families of deceased victims opting into the fund rather than pursuing tort relief in the courts. As Special Master Kenneth Feinberg stated in his written testimony before our committee earlier this year, ``this was one of the most efficient, streamlined and cost effective programs in American history.''

Despite its incredible success, however, the job is not quite done. There remain thousands of people who require the protection of the VCF, but who--by no fault of their own--were unable to take advantage of it when it was available. This includes first responders, workers, and volunteers from around the country who rallied to help locate survivors, recover the dead, and clean up debris from the fallen towers. These are the people that the Nation and the world watched on television as they dropped everything in their own lives to rush to aid those who needed it the most.

They were told by their government that the air was safe to breathe. But many are now sick and suffering because of their exposure to the toxic dust that covered much of lower Manhattan.

People are sick and will continue to get sick because of their exposure to World Trade Center dust. We must resolve this problem, and that means passing H.R. 847.

The bill would provide medical monitoring and treatment to the continuing victims of the 9/11 attacks. It would also reopen the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to provide compensation to those victims.

One thing is clear: the status quo is unacceptable. Worker's compensation has failed. Medical programs aren't covering enough people. And the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Fund, created by Congress to resolve claims such as those that remain outstanding, has instead used the money appropriated to contest each and every one of those claims. Six years and $300 million in administrative and legal costs later, the Captive Insurance Fund has settled less than 10 claims.

I believe this bill, while perhaps not perfect, goes a long way to establishing a fair and just program to care for and compensate those who continue to bear the deep scars from 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which is the result of a great deal of work on both sides of the aisle, and in the end is just the right thing to do.

I congratulate Ms. Maloney, Mr. Nadler, Mr. King of New York and the other members of the New York delegation for their long struggle to bring this bill to the floor. I also

thank Speaker Pelosi for her strong commitment to helping the heroes and heroines of 9/11.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 120th Anniversary of San Jose's Japantown, located at the heart of my Congressional district and only a few short blocks from my district office.

At one time, there were 43 different Japantowns in California. Today, only 3 distinct and recognizable ones remain. San Jose's Japantown has escaped the fate of most of California's Japantowns and continues to thrive. It has grown beyond a strictly Japanese-American enclave into a community that has embraced Hawaiian, Cuban, Mexican and numerous other groups. Our Japantown is thriving due in large part to its openness to other cultures and the welcoming nature of Silicon Valley, San Jose in particular.

San Jose's Japantown was originally formed around the existing ``Heinlenville'' Chinatown settlement. During the Second World War the Japanese-American population was forcibly removed from Japantown and interned in camps. After the war many Japanese Americans resettled in the area after returning from internment camps in World War II.

The expansion and growth of Silicon Valley spread the Japanese- American community far and wide, but the culture and vitality of this community remains. The California State Legislature has paid special attention to the area, officially designating it a historical Japantown.

Japantown is the site of the newly rebuilt Japanese American Museum of San Jose, the famous San Jose Taiko ensemble, the world renowned Shuei-do Manju Shop, confectioners, the Nichi Bei Bussan Japanese goods store, handmade tofu at San Jose Tofu and a variety of restaurants, professional services, and community organizations, such as the Yu-Ai Kai Senior Center and the Japanese American Citizens League, and smaller retail shops. Japantown is also home to a number of non- Japanese businesses, including Mexican, Hawaiian, Cuban and Korean restaurants.

Among the numerous houses of worship in Japantown, two churches founded by Japanese Americans well over a century ago continue to thrive in the community, Wesley United Methodist Church and San Jose Buddhist Church Betsuin.

San Jose Japantown's most unique and charming feature is the harmony between generations-old businesses and new ventures. A spirit of cooperation pervades the neighborhood, and merchants who might compete in business share a sense of friendship that leads them to strive for the betterment of the community.

A critical part of the Japantown community is the Japantown Community Congress of San Jose which partners with the City of San Jose to look after cultural preseveration in the area. Each year brings many festivals, major ones include Obon, every July, Nikkei Matsuri, every spring, Aki Matsuri, every fall, and a newer festival: The Spirit of Japantown Festival (also in the fall). Japantown also features many street venues such as a year-round Certified Farmers Market run by the Japantown Business Association and events open to the public at the Art Object Gallery.

It is my honor to congratulate the Japantown community on its 120th anniversary. I am sure the partnerships and collaborations within and around Japantown will lead to many more years of prosperity and success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life, accomplishments and joy of Rabbi Joseph Gitin who recently passed away after a long career of exuding positive, loving energy to not only those of his own congregation and faith--but also to the extremely diverse population of San Jose and Silicon Valley, California.

At the age of 104, Rabbi Joseph Gitin was considered one of the oldest Reform rabbis in the world and presided over San Jose's oldest Reform temple for the longest tenure of all its rabbis. In fact, he had been rabbi emeritus at Temple Emanu-El on University Avenue in San Jose, California for more than 30 years.

When he arrived in San Jose in 1950, he was the city's only rabbi. He served at Temple Emanu-El until 1976. During that tenure, he worked alongside two Christian ministers, to speak at churches about their religious similarities. The Reverend Paul Locatelli, who died this summer at age 71 and was the former president of Santa Clara University, presented Rabbi Gitin an honorary doctor of divinity degree in 1996 for ``promoting interfaith dialogue and interracial cooperation.''

Gitin was perhaps best known for his work in the interfaith community. By some accounts, about 30 percent of his funerals were for non-Jews, which speaks to his enduring compassion and ability to comfort those in the last stages of their lives.

Rabbi Gitin fought hard for the passage of civil rights, equal voting rights and equal housing bills. He also worked to protect the civil rights of the gay and lesbian communities. His actions are noted in the 91st Congressional Record, which states how he measured his success not by his numerous awards and honors but by the good deeds that he tried to perform every day. It was true back then and rings with even more clarity as we reflect upon his life.

Gitin served on a staggering number of civic boards, including the Red Cross and Community Chest; the Heart Association and the Tuberculosis Society; the Municipal Entertainment Commission and Agnews State Hospital; the county Advisory Committee on Children and Youth; and the Bicycle Court. He was a lifetime Rotary member and was a judge pro tem in the juvenile courts.

It is my distinct honor to have Rabbi Gitin's presence, compassion and love for humankind in my Congressional district. My sincere condolences are extended, to his. daughter, Judi Elman Harris, and son, David Gitin.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of a distinguished member of my community and my friend, Pastor Kenny Foreman, upon his 80th birthday.

Pastor Kenny Foreman and his beloved wife Shirley are the leaders and founders of the Cathedral of Faith. The Cathedral of Faith is one of the most prominent and highly regarded Christian Churches in Santa Clara County. Pastor Foreman's life story is truly one of faith and commitment to his beliefs and his community.

In 1957, Kenny wed Shirley and they began their lifetime commitment of building a home, community and place of worship. Their work began modestly with the Calvary Temple in Louisiana, which soon grew to serve a congregation of more than 2,000. In 1964, Kenny, Shirley and their two sons, Ken and Kurt, were invited to San Jose, California to conduct a crusade and eventually lead the Friendly Bible Church. He was also given the opportunity to present a television show on a local channel titled, ``Kenny Foreman Presents Abundant Living,'' which was eventually nationally syndicated.

In 1976, 14 acres of property were purchased in San Jose to house what is now the Cathedral of Faith. Through hard work, dedication and faith, the Foreman's and their congregation not only are a faith community but a congregation reaching out to help those in need in the wider community.

The Church established the Reaching Out Center in 1979 out of a simple church closet. I recall fondly working with Kenny in the early 1980s as their successful efforts were underway to grow this important service.

The program now operates from a 16,000 foot distribution complex, serves 50,000 families annually, and provides food for some 200,000 people. The California Department of Agriculture has recognized Reaching Out as one of the most efficient food programs in the state. The Cathedral of Faith also provides child care, early childhood education services as well as a Family Life Center.

Kenny is well known not only as someone who serves his faith but as part of his faith serves the poor. He has never forgotten his own humble roots. His life has been one of joyful, generous, forgiving and loving service.

It is an honor to call Pastor Kenny Foreman friend and my privilege to honor him as one of the most significant people in the 16th Congressional district. I'd like to take the occasion of his 80th birthday to thank him and his family for their many gifts and contributions to the community of San Jose and wish him many more healthy, happy and blessed years.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that we continue to care for and compensate the heroes and heroines of 9/11. These are the firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, and volunteers who risked their lives to help the country during one of its darkest periods. They deserve our help, and we are duty-bound to provide it to them.

I congratulate Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. King of New York and the other members of the New York delegation for their long struggle to bring this bill to the floor. I also thank Speaker Pelosi for her strong commitment to helping the heroes and heroines of 9/11.

In the days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress came together and--in a truly bipartisan effort--conceived of a system through which the victims of those terrible attacks could obtain medical treatment and just compensation for any injuries that occurred as a result of those attacks. As we learned in various hearings and markups before the Judiciary Committee, that system was a stunning success.

The 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, for example, quickly compensated those who were injured or lost close family members in the attacks. Just over $7 billion was paid out in a 33-month period, with overhead costs of less than 3 percent, and with 97 percent of the families of deceased victims opting into the fund rather than pursuing tort relief in the courts. As Special Master Kenneth Feinberg stated in his written testimony before our committee earlier this year: ``this was one of the most efficient, streamlined and cost effective programs in American history.''

Despite its incredible success, however, the job is not quite done. There remain thousands of people who require the protection of the VCF, but who--by no fault of their own--were unable to take advantage of it when it was available. This includes first responders, workers, and volunteers from around the country who rallied to help locate survivors, recover the deceased, and clean up debris from the fallen towers. These are the people that the Nation and the world watched on television as they dropped everything in their own lives to rush to aid those who needed it the most.

They were told by their government that the air was safe to breath. But many are now sick and suffering because of their exposure to the toxic dust that covered much of lower Manhattan.

People are sick and will continue to get sick because of their exposure to World Trade Center dust. We must resolve this problem, and that means passing H.R. 847.

The bill would provide medical monitoring and treatment to the continuing victims of the 9/11 attacks. It would also reopen the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund to provide compensation to those victims.

One thing is clear: the status quo is unacceptable. Worker's compensation has failed. Medical programs aren't covering enough people. And the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Fund, created by Congress to resolve claims such as those that remain outstanding, has instead used the money appropriated to contest each and every one of those claims. Six years and $300 million in administrative and legal costs later, the Captive Insurance Fund has settled less than 10 claims.

I believe this bill, while perhaps not perfect, goes a long way to establishing a fair and just program to care for and compensate those who continue to bear the deep scars from 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which is the result of a great deal of work on both sides of the aisle, and is the right thing to do for the first responders, workers, and volunteers who heard the call of duty and helped our country recover from 9/11.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, July 22, I was absent from three votes due to a stomach virus. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 466, ``aye''; Rollcall No. 465, ``yea''; and Rollcall No. 464, ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of John Anthony Bruzzone, a devoted family man, member of the United States Army, successful Santa Clara County entrepreneur and a valued leader in our community. Sadly John passed away on June 30, 2010.

John, was a skilled businessman and entrepreneur, starting in 1947 with The Pied Piper Exterminators, Western Roofing Supply, and most recently Hollister Motor Sports. In 1974,

he purchased the Roberto-Sunol Adobe in San Jose, which he extensively and carefully restored. The Adobe became California State Historical Landmark No. 898 on March 18, 1977.

Always a business visionary and concerned with California's environment, John was one of the first recyclers in Santa Clara County where he operated San Jose Recycling and Diversified Recycling Services. He also operated the Italian Gardens in San Jose. He was always generous in donating his resources and time to our community.

Prior to his successful endeavors in business John was a dedicated member of our armed services serving in the Army during World War II. He fought in the Battle of Okinawa and was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received during that historic battle. He helped save our country.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our condolences to John Anthony Bruzzone's family and in remembering a special man who devoted his life to his family and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5532) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to adopted alien children, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I introduced H.R. 5532, the International Adoption Harmonization Act of 2010, to correct two longstanding problems and inconsistencies with respect to adoptions of foreign children by U.S. citizen parents.

First, the bill would harmonize the age requirements of such adoptions and provide some needed flexibility in cases where adoptions take longer than expected. Currently, our law contains two age requirements related to the adoption of foreign children. The general rule is that an adoption must be finalized before a child turns 16 in order for the child to qualify for legal status in the United States. For any sibling of such a child, the adoption must be finalized before the sibling's 18th birthday, but only if the sibling comes from the country that has not signed The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions. The age cutoff for siblings from signatory countries is 16. These different requirements create confusion; and, in particular, with respect to more stringent requirements for the signatory countries, the 16-year-old cutoff provision, failing to meet the cutoff can have disastrous consequences.

Every year, the 16-year-old age requirement prevents a small number of foreign children who have been adopted by U.S. citizen parents from obtaining legal status in the United States. If an adoption takes longer than expected, even for reasons outside the parent's control, and the deadline is missed even by 1 day, the child is left with no remedy whatsoever. Although the child may be legally adopted by U.S. citizen parents, he or she cannot legally remain with them in the United States. Obviously, this is a nonsensical result where one's child has to be removed from the United States or, more likely, the individual comes to us for private relief which we may or may not succeed in granting.

H.R. 5532 remedies the above problem by harmonizing the provisions to require that all adoptions be finalized before a child's 18th birthday. This would

provide an additional 2 years by which to complete an adoption before a child is barred from living in the United States with his or her parents. As adoptions for foreign children are rarely completed beyond a child's 16th birthday--China, for example, allows adoptions only up to the age of 14--this bill would affect very few children; but for those few children, this bill is critical.

Second, H.R. 5532 would also harmonize immunization requirements with respect to international adoptions. Current law requires adopted children to have certain vaccinations prior to arrival, but there is an exemption for children under 10 if the adoptive parents certify that necessary vaccinations will be obtained within 30 days of entry.

This exemption, which was created by Congress in 1997, was designed to prevent parents from having to subject their children to numerous and often unsafe immunizations in foreign nations and to allow them to safely immunize their children in the United States.

This exception, however, applies only to children adopted from countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention. It does not apply to children from signatory countries. This bill fixes this nonsensical discrepancy by expanding the definition to also cover children regardless of whether their home country is a signatory to the Hague Convention.

I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers; the ranking member, Lamar Smith; and Representative Jeff Fortenberry, for their support on this measure.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5283) to provide for adjustment of status for certain Haitian orphans paroled into the United States after the earthquake of January 12, 2010, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5283, the Help HAITI Act of 2010, was introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry and is an important bill to help us finish the job we undertook when we rescued just over 1,200 Haitian orphans immediately after the earthquake that devastated Haiti on January 12 of this year.

Six months after the earthquake, it is easy to forget how terrible this tragedy was. More than 220,000 people were killed and over 300,000 were injured. Over 300,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged, and more than 1,300 schools and 50 health centers were reduced to rubble.

At least 1.5 million people were directly affected by the quake. In terms of human and economic impact, it's the worst natural disaster ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere.

In response to this disaster, I am proud that our country responded quickly and in many different ways. Many know about the search and recovery efforts, the dissemination of food and water, the private donations totaling more than $1.3 billion, the thousands of military, civilian, and medical personnel that went to Haiti to provide critical care and save lives, but there are other ways that our country provided humanitarian assistance.

Soon after the earthquake hit, the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, otherwise known as USCIS, took several steps to provide critical assistance to vulnerable populations in Haiti. This included creating a humanitarian parole policy for the immediate evacuation of Haitian orphans who had been adopted or were in the process of being adopted by U.S. citizens.

These children had been previously identified as being available for intercountry adoptions, so they were not at risk of being separated from their families during the chaos that followed the earthquake. Now in the United States with their adoptive or prospective adoptive American parents, these children need one more bit of assistance from us so they can live lives like Americans.

Had the earthquake not hit and disrupted the adoption processes in Haiti, each of these children would have entered the country as U.S. citizens under current immigration law. But because of the current emergency procedures that were used to evacuate these children, they must now wait years before they can get permanent residency and years more before they can qualify for citizenship. Some are even in danger of aging out before they can get their residency, which would make them ineligible for legal status in this country.

H.R. 5283 would simply treat these children as if the earthquake had not happened and they had come to the U.S. under normal procedures.

Specifically, the bill would allow an adoptive parent or legal guardian in the United States to apply for permanent residency on behalf of one of the 1,200 Haitian orphans brought to the U.S. under the USCIS parole policy announced on January 18 and terminated on April 15 of this year. This is the least we can do to help the orphans we rescued and the U.S. citizen parents who have adopted or are seeking to adopt them.

I commend Representative Jeff Fortenberry for introducing this bill and committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith for his support on this measure.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask our colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Father Paul Locatelli, my friend and one of Silicon Valley's most distinguished and respected figures.

Paul, a member of the Santa Clara community for over half a century, was the President of Santa Clara University for twenty years and, most recently, the school's sitting Chancellor. Paul also served the International Society of Jesus, headquartered in Rome, as Secretary of Higher Education.

Growing up as the middle son on a ranch in the Santa Cruz Mountains town of Boulder Creek, Paul learned the lesson of a service at an early age. He graduated from SCU in 1960 and earned a doctorate in business administration from the University of Southern California in 1971. In 1974 he joined SCU as an accounting professor and that same year he became an ordained priest and earned his master of divinity from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley.

During his Presidency at SCU, he was particularly concerned with concentrating SCU's efforts around themes such as connecting students with the world, increasing student diversity and education for all, and utilizing of Silicon Valley's vast resources. His dedication to the success of SCU clearly led the university to become one of the Nation's preeminent Jesuit Catholic universities.

Fr. Locatelli was a man who brought about positive change with a continued and committed focus on educating students about poverty and injustice. One of his significant accomplishments was creating a program to help students understand poverty by working in urban schools and women's centers in El Salvador.

His unrelenting commitment to ethics and social justice and his desire to help create young leaders with the qualities of competence, conscience and compassion is what I admire him most for. He dedicated his life to creating a more just and understanding world.

Many will remember his tenure at SCU for the buildings he helped build and the thousands of students he loved and helped mentor, but most of all, Paul should be remembered for his commitment to service and making other's lives better. There is no question that his life has touched many and his good works will continue to flourish even in his absence.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our condolences to Fr. Paul Locatelli's family, his Jesuit brothers and the entire SCU community and in remembering a remarkable public servant, educator and friend.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life and service of Marine Corporal Kevin Cueto of San Jose, California, who was killed in action on June 24, 2010, in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. He was 23 years old.

Kevin was born in Santa Clara County, and grew up in San Jose, moving to Campbell while in high school to live with his dad. At Westmont High School, Kevin was a member of the football, baseball, and wrestling teams, as well as the Reserve Officers Training Corps. Following high school, determined to serve his country and his family, Kevin enlisted in the Marines, and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Twentynine Palms, California. Corporal Cueto served a tour in Iraq in 2009 before being deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year. Last week, he was tragically killed when his patrol was struck by a roadside bomb while conducting combat operations. His awards and decorations include the Purple Heart, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

Corporal Cueto leaves behind his parents and a younger brother. I extend my sincerest gratitude to him and my condolences to his family. I ask every

Member of the House to join me in honoring his service to our country.

Mr. Chair, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case fundamentally altered the political landscape. As a result of the Court's ruling, all organizations, corporations and unions are free to take unlimited corporate money and make unlimited political expenditures. This could allow corporations to simply take over the political system.

According to a report released late last year by Common Cause, the average amount spent for winning a House seat in the 2008 cycle was $1.4 million. During the same cycle, Exxon-Mobil recorded $80 billion in profits. If Exxon-Mobil chose to use just 1 percent of their profits on political activity, it would be more than what all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle, and that's just 1 percent of the profits of one corporation.

Now according to the Supreme Court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the American public. And I will read you what the Court said in its decision: ``The First Amendment protects political speech, and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' And that's what this bill does. It does exactly what the Supreme Court said that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency.

In the past, transparency has been a bipartisan issue. Senator Mitch McConnell was quoted in April saying, ``We need to have real disclosure.'' Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure? Republican leader John Boehner in 2007 said, ``I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure.'' And went on to say, ``I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.''

This measure, the DISCLOSE Act, has been supported by government reform groups, including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizens, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; and the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee have released a letter indicating their strong commitment to Senate action on the DISCLOSE Act. The White House strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act. The President says he will sign this bill when it comes to his desk.

Now, I ask my colleagues, will you stand with the American people in calling for disclosure and transparency in the political process, or will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the expenditure of undisclosed, limitless amounts of money? I think that we should stand with the American people. We should vote for the DISCLOSE Act. Disclosure is good. Voters need to know who is saying what.

I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Representative King's amendment would, as he has indicated, eliminate all limitations on Federal election campaign contributions, corporations and unions. Individuals could donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates, political parties, and committees. I think this is a fairly cynical amendment designed to undermine all support for additional disclosure and reasonable regulation.

Since the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was first challenged, the Supreme Court has always upheld reasonable contribution limits to candidates and political parties, and they did so as a reasonable means to prevent corruption. Even the Citizens United decision itself did not question the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on direct contributions to candidates, and they reaffirmed that the Court was concerned that large contributions could be given to secure a political quid pro quo.

I quote the Court decision where they refer favorably to the Buckley court: ``Nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption.'' That case did not extend the rationale to independent expenditures, and the Court didn't do so in Citizens United. But it did quote the Buckley court favorably on the limitation of expenditures when it came to candidates or political parties.

Money has a corrosive effect on the electoral process, and eliminating campaign limits would start a political arms war. Candidates have to raise millions of dollars to run competitive campaigns; and if Mr. King's amendment passes, candidates are going to turn to wealthy donors, special interests, corporations to get their money, and the voices of average Americans will not be heard. If this amendment is passed, the voices of the American people will be drowned out by wealthy corporations and other interest groups. This isn't what we should do. It's not what the Court suggested we do. And I would urge that we oppose the King amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to note, going back again to the Court decision, that although the Citizens United case did not attack--it was not about the constraint on individual contributions to candidates--the Court did, as I mentioned to you earlier and quoted, reference favorably the Buckley court, sustaining the constitutionality of those constraints.

It's worth noting that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has been the law for nearly 40 years. It's 39 years. It's helped clean up the role of money in politics. It's been improved over the years. I mentioned earlier under general debate the case of how much is spent in any given year; and I used the example 2008, the last big election, where 435 Members of Congress spent about $840 million. That's the equivalent of 1 percent of the profits of Exxon-Mobil for 1 year.

What Mr. King's amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation Member of Congress to go to the oil corporation and say, Write me a check that's half a percent of your profit; and that would be legal. That's not what we want in America. We don't want corporations pouring money into individual campaigns, disclosed or not. That's going to drown out the voices of regular Americans. It's not what the law permits today. The Court decision does not ask us to change the law, and I would urge that we defeat Mr. King's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment. From the gentleman's comments, he favors disclosure. I hope, therefore, he votes for the DISCLOSE Act. But we didn't need to open the door to unlimited funds by corporations to candidates. We know it will be sleazy. In order to get disclosure, vote ``no'' on the King amendment and ``yes'' on the DISCLOSE Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.