F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wishes to speed the process up, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time and go to an immediate vote if the gentleman from New York will do the same.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002, would prohibit the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion that unfortunately we are now all too familiar with. An abortionist who violates this ban will be subject to fines, a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, or both. This bill includes an exception for those situations in which a partial-birth abortion is deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that partial-birth abortion is an unsafe and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and which should be prohibited. Contrary to the claims of partial-birth abortion advocates, this type of abortion remains an untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous procedure that has never been embraced by the medical profession. As a result, Congress has voted to ban partial-birth abortion during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses, and at least 27 states enacted bans on the procedure. Unfortunately the two Federal bans that reached President Clinton's desk were promptly vetoed. In June 2000, the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban, which was similar but not identical to bans previously passed by the Congress. The Court concluded that Nebraska's ban did not clearly distinguish the prohibited procedure from other more commonly performed second trimester abortion procedures. The Court also held, on the basis of the highly disputed factual findings of the district court, that the law was required to include an exception for partial- birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of a woman. This bill has a new definition of partial-birth abortion. It addresses the Court's first concern by clearly and unambiguously defining the prohibited procedure. It also addresses the Court's second objection to the Nebraska law by including extensive congressional findings based upon medical evidence received in a series of legislative hearings that, contrary to the factual findings of the district court in Stenberg, partial-birth abortion is never necessary, never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and is in fact below the requisite standard of medical care. The bill's lack of a health exception is based upon Congress's factual determination that partial-birth abortion is a dangerous procedure that does not serve the health of any woman. The Supreme Court has a long history, particularly in the area of civil rights, of deferring to Congress's factual conclusions. In doing so, the Court has recognized that Congress's institutional structure makes it far better suited than the judiciary to assess facts upon which it will make policy determinations. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has stated, the Court must be ``particularly careful not to substitute its judgment of what is desirable for that of Congress or its own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the Legislative Branch.'' Thus in Katzenback v. Morgan, while addressing section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court deferred to Congress's factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in ``gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public.'' Similarly, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, when reviewing the minority business enterprise provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, the Court repeatedly cited and deferred to the legislative record and factual conclusions of Congress to uphold the provisions as an appropriate exercise of congressional authority. Based upon the Supreme Court precedent and separation of powers principles, I am confident that H.R. 4965 will withstand judicial scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, it also is important for this body to understand that in addition to the health risk to women who undergo the partial-birth abortion procedure, it is particularly brutal and inhumane to the nearly-born. Virtually all of the infants upon whom this procedure is performed are alive and feel excruciating pain. A child upon whom a partial-birth abortion is being performed is not significantly affected by the medication administered to the mother during the performance of the procedure. As creditable testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution confirms, current methods for providing maternal anesthesia during partial-birth abortions are unlikely to prevent the experience of pain and stress that the child will feel during the procedure. Thus, claims that a child is almost certain to be either dead or unconscious and near death prior to the commencement of the partial-birth procedure are unsubstantiated. H.R. 4965 enjoys overwhelming support from Members of both parties, precisely because of the barbaric nature of the procedure and the dangers it poses to women who undergo it. Additionally, the American Medical Association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are either ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally 20 weeks or longer in gestation, is killed out of the woman. Thus, partial birth gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body. Implicitly approving such a brutal and unjustifiable procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to humanity of all vulnerable and innocent human life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting to prohibit this procedure.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 498 adopted earlier today, I call up the bill (H.R. 4965) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that saving the lives of some partially-born babies is worth 2 hours of our time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), a former member of the committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, shortly the Democrats will offer a motion to recommit, and I hope the vote on that is not charged against us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1209, the Child Status Protection Act, is the good work of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.) It passed the House by a vote of 416 to 0 in June of 2001. Today we take up the bill as amended by the Senate. Aliens residing in the United States who are eligible for permanent resident status may adjust their status with the INS. However, INS processing delays have caused up to a 3-year delay for adjustment. For alien children of U.S. citizens, this delay in processing can have serious consequences, for once they turn 21 years of age they lose their immediate relative status. An unlimited number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can receive green cards every year. However, there are a limited number of green cards available for the adult children of citizens. If a U.S. citizen parent petitions for a green card for a child before the child turns 21 but the INS does not get around to processing the adjustment of status application until after the child turns 21, the family is out of luck. The child goes to the end of the long waiting list. The child is being punished because of INS ineptitude, which we have heard much about, and it is not right. H.R. 1209 corrects this outcome by providing that a child shall remain eligible for immediate relative status as long as an immigrant visa petition was filed for him or her before turning age 21. The Senate passed H.R. 1209 with a few appropriate additions, and the motion today is to concur in those additions. The Senate bill addresses three other situations where alien children lose immigration benefits by ``aging out'' as a result of INS processing delays. Case number one: Children of permanent residents. Under current law, when a child of a permanent resident turns 21, he or she goes from the second preference A waiting list to the second waiting list B waiting list, which is much longer. Case number two: Children of family and employer-sponsored immigrants and diversity lottery winners. Under current law, when an alien receives permanent residence as a preference visa recipient or a winner of the diversity lottery, a minor child receives permanent residence at the same time. After the child turns 21, the parent would have to apply for the child to be put on the second preference B waiting list. Case number three: Children of asylees and refugees. Under current law, when an alien receives asylum or is granted refugee status, a minor child receives permanent residence at the same time as the parent. After the child turns 21, the parent would have to apply for him or her to be put on the second preference B waiting list. The Senate amendment also fixes a troubling anomaly in our immigration laws. Under current law, when a permanent resident naturalizes who has sponsored adult sons and daughters for preferential visas, they move from the second preference B category to the first preference category. Normally, the wait for a first preference visa is much shorter than the wait for second preference B visa. However, currently this is not the case for sons and daughters of immigrants from the Philippines. For complicated factors, the line actually gets longer for sons and daughters when the parent naturalizes. Immigrants are in effect being penalized for becoming citizens, and we don't want that. The Senate amendment provides a simple fix by allowing an adult son or daughter to decline to be transferred from the second preference B category to the first preference category when a parent naturalizes. This bill is a fine example of how we and the other body can work together in a collaborative fashion. Bringing families together is a prime goal of our immigration system. H.R. 1209 facilitates and hastens the reuniting of legal immigrants' families. It is family-friendly legislation that is in keeping with our proud traditions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1209.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4558) to extend the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4558 amends the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998, which established a cultural training program for disadvantaged individuals to assist the Irish peace process. The program creates 12,000 3-year nonimmigrant visas of the Q classification for adults between the ages of 18 and 35 who live in disadvantaged areas in northern Ireland and the border counties of the Irish Republic. The program enacted in 1998 is set to sunset on October 1, 2005. This bill extends it for 1 year to 2006. The purpose of the visa is to provide practical training, employment, and the experience of co-existence and conflict resolution in a diverse society and a strong economy such as ours. After trainees return home, they can provide the critical skill base needed to attract private investment in their local economies. The program currently operates in Washington, D.C.; Colorado Springs; Boston; and Pittsburgh. Because the program has been so successful, it also began in Syracuse, New York, within the past few months. The program got off to a late start due to funding trouble. As such, H.R. 4558 would extend the program for 1 year to make up for the delay so that additional young people can take advantage of this successful program and become peacemakers for Northern Ireland. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) conferring honorary citizenship of the United States on Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as Marquis de Lafayette, as amended.