F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1209) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to determine whether an alien is a child, for purposes of classification as an immediate relative, based on the age of the alien on the date the classification petition with respect to the alien is filed, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3892 constitutes a noncontroversial fine-tuning of an existing statute, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which permits individuals to file complaints against Federal judges for inappropriate behavior. The legislation before us will reorganize the 1980 act by recodifying it as a new chapter of title 28, United States Code, thereby making it easier to locate and use. The bill will also clarify the responsibilities of a circuit chief judge in making the initial evaluations of a complaint, will specifically empower a judicial council to refer a complaint to a smaller panel for greater scrutiny. These changes will not only assist the Federal judiciary in discharging its responsibilities under the 1980 act, they will enable an individual to understand more fully the reasoning behind the disposition of a complaint. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary believes that the 1980 act works well in most instances but could work better. We have developed this bill with full participation of the minority, and I urge my colleagues to support it. 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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 3892 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3892) to amend title 28, United States Code, to make certain modifications in the judicial discipline procedures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from American Samoa have brought extraneous issues into the debate on whether or not we should give honorary citizenship to the Marquis de Lafayette. This is really something that is very unique. It probably came about as a result of an anomaly in our citizenship laws that have been overlooked for over 200 years, because both Virginia and Maryland, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, granted the Marquis honorary citizenship. I think many people had assumed that that grant before the Constitution was adopted would have sufficed to make sure that his honorary citizenship was valid in the newly United States of America. Unfortunately, it was not, and that is why we are here today. One of the reasons why we have 50 stars in the upper left-hand corner of our flag rather than the union jack was because of the efforts that the Marquis made not only militarily during the Revolutionary War, but in securing the France of Louis the 16th to be on the side of the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain. Without his efforts, both on the ground on this side of the Atlantic and diplomatically in Paris, the revolution may very well have not succeeded. So today should be the Marquis de Lafayette's day. I think that we should have an overwhelming vote in favor of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 13 confers honorary U.S. citizenship on the Marquis de Lafayette in recognition of his many contributions to and sacrifices for the cause of American independence and his lifelong crusade for the principles of representative government. American citizenship is the highest honor that we as a country can confer upon the citizen of another country. The granting of honorary citizenship is the admission and welcoming of that person into our national family. The granting of honorary U.S. citizenship has only been given to individuals four times in our history. The Marquis de Lafayette's role in the fight for this country's freedom justifies adding the Marquis to this select group of individuals. This resolution acknowledges the many efforts made by the Marquis de Lafayette that are the basis for granting him honorary United States citizenship. Although the Marquis de Lafayette was granted citizenship by Maryland and Virginia before the Constitution was adopted, it has been determined that citizenship conferred by those States did not confer U.S. citizenship on the Marquis. Because of the many ways in which the Marquis played a major role in the creation of our great Nation, it is appropriate to bestow the rare distinction of honorary U.S. citizenship upon the Marquis de Lafayette. No other foreign national involved in this country's independence contributed so much to the cause. The Marquis de Lafayette certainly deserves this tribute for his role in creating a free America. Unfortunately, the resolution passed by the Senate states the Marquis's name incorrectly. This motion that I have made amends the joint resolution to grant honorary citizenship to the real Marquis de Lafayette and, thus, the resolution must go back to the other body for its consideration. I hope that the other body will move quickly and not cause any further delay in granting this much overdue honor to the Marquis de Lafayette. I urge the House to pass this resolution. 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 and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 13.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4558, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer is yes. If the gentleman will yield further, I will explain that the criminal penalties against those who retaliate against corporate whistleblowers was the addition, which was one loophole that was plugged, and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) thinks this is a good amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that an additional 20 minutes on the motion to suspend the rules be granted, and be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Xerox, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, and Tyco are among several of the U.S. elite corporations now in Wall Street's Hall of Shame. They have all apparently cooked the books and served their employees with a recipe for disaster with pink slips and lost pension funds. Enron overstated its profits by over half a billion dollars in 1997. WorldCom admitted that it had hidden a staggering $3.50 billion in losses. Many Americans have been hurt badly by this irresponsible behavior, and tragically, everybody's 401(k) assets have tanked. Employees who receive stock options as part of their income package have lost their life savings, on top of losing their jobs. Much of these shenanigans appear to have begun in the 1990s, the decade when personal accountability and responsibility became irrelevant. It appears that for some in corporate America, the incentives for fraud and ill-gotten gain outweigh the consequences of getting caught. Well, maybe the potential penalties for these crimes are just not strong enough. Today, it is our duty to fix that. Mr. Speaker, these few bad actors have not only harmed the employees that depended on them, the public that invested in them, but also the integrity and reputation of all of corporate America, which is the backbone of the greatest economic machine the world has ever seen. We must return this country to personal accountability and responsibility, and help rebuild America and the world's confidence in our markets. We must crack down on the corporate crooks, and reestablish the honor of the vast majority of men and women in corporate America who are hardworking and honest. The best way to do that is to punish the corporate wrongdoers, and punish them harshly. The American public needs to know that under this bill, H.R. 5118, the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, corporate criminals will do real time, real long time. If they commit mail or wire fraud in the furtherance of their corporate crimes, which is often how prosecutors nail these criminals, they will face 20 years in jail, not the current 5 years, nor the 10 years called for in the other body's legislation. In addition, a distinct securities fraud crime is established with a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail. Again, the other body only calls for a 10-year penalty. Importantly, H.R. 5118 strengthens laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice, and provides a maximum penalty of 20 years. The other body calls for just 10 years. H.R. 5118 also requires top corporate executives to certify that the financial statements of the company fairly and accurately represent the financial condition of the company. Violating this section can subject corporate executives to fines of up to $5 million and up to 20 years in prison. Under the version passed by the other body, the maximum penalty a corporate officer would face is only a $1 million fine and 10 years in prison. The Corporate Fraud Accountability Act also increases the criminal penalties for those who file false statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission to a maximum penalty of $5 million and 20 years in prison. If a corporation files a false statement, those fines can increase up to a maximum of $25 million. The bill passed by the other body does not change the current penalties of a maximum fine of $1 million and 10 years in prison, and corporations would still only face maximum fines of $2.5 million. By passing this bill today, the House is telling the American people that the law will make CEOs directly responsible for the integrity of their company's financial statements, and face severe financial and criminal penalties for falsifying such statements. Under this legislation, top executives will not be allowed to pilfer the assets of the company by giving themselves huge bonuses and other extraordinary payments if the company is subject to an SEC investigation. Their pay and benefits are frozen when the investigation starts. Americans will know that corporate officers will no longer be able to misuse the bankruptcy laws to discharge liabilities based upon securities fraud, and the honest brokers of corporate America will know that those who abuse the law and tarnish corporate America's reputation will go to jail for a long, long time. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill creates criminal sanctions against those who retaliate against corporate whistleblowers, similar to witness tampering in another context. The only thing the other body's bill does is provide for more lawsuits, a civil cause of action for the whistleblowers against the retaliators. Under the current bankruptcy law, if the whistleblower wins the civil lawsuit, the retaliator will be able to discharge that judgment in bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5118 is a tough bill that cracks down on the corporate crooks. It goes a long way to protecting the life savings of many Americans by making the price of theft too high. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, it is because there is an urgency that we restore confidence in the markets that corporate wrongdoing is going to be dealt with firmly and severely, which the increased penalties in this bill do. Last week, the minority leader, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), on three occasions called on taking bipartisan action to correct the problems now. At least insofar as weak criminal penalties are concerned, this bill meets the minority leader's call.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the bill was introduced yesterday. It was jointly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Financial Services. The leadership and I made a decision, together with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), that it is really important that the bill be passed quickly, given the volatility in the stock market. Hopefully, we can provide some assurance that corporate wrongdoers will go to jail for a very long time, and this bill does that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the bill was introduced at the time we cast our votes yesterday afternoon. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was given an opportunity to cosponsor the legislation, and I do not see his name on the list of cosponsors.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes, I did.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. When we voted last night at 6:30.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The motion to suspend the rules was.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The motion to suspend the rules was as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further, I am not aware of whether it was or not. I am informed by staff, this is not personal knowledge, that there was a consultation; and furthermore, the majority staff on the Committee on the Judiciary consulted with the minority staff, and a few of the provisions that the minority suggested are contained in the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, there are no civil penalties, but there are criminal penalties. People who retaliate against whistleblowers ought to go to jail rather than being allowed to file a lawsuit, which, if they win, would be dischargeable in bankruptcy.