F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 311) recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 60 years of service to the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and appreciate the consideration the Rules Committee has given the Judiciary Committee. This Rule recognizes the Judiciary Committee's important and historic role with regard to telecommunications policy, particularly as it relates to issues involving competition, by providing 20 minutes of general debate equally divided between myself and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Upon adoption of this rule, two amendments negotiated between myself and Chairman Tauzin will be incorporated into this legislation. These amendments, which will significantly improve the bill, are the result of spirited negotiations that the Speaker requested we undertake. Although the negotiations were at times difficult, both sides worked in good faith to reach a final compromise which helped pave the way for today's floor consideration. The first amendment provides that, not less than 30 days before offering interLATA high speed data service or Internet backbone service in an in region State, a Bell operating company shall submit to the Attorney General a statement expressing the intention to commence providing such service, providing a description of the service to be offered, and identifying the geographic region in which the service will be offered. This statement shall not be made public except as may be relevant to any administrative or judicial proceeding. This amendment is important because of the long and checkered antitrust history of the telecommunications market. H.R. 1542 would eliminate the need to go through a regulatory process in deploying broadband, as the RBOCs will continue to be required to do for telephone services, and this amendment mandates that the antitrust enforcers at the Department of Justice will get 30 days notice before such service is offered. The second amendment provides that the savings clause found in section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall be interpreted to mean that the antitrust laws are not repealed by, not precluded by, not diminished by, and not incompatible with the Communications Act of 1934, this Act, or any law amended by either such Act. This amendment, a version of which was adopted by the Judiciary Committee, is a response to concerns raised about any conflicting, confusing, or contradictory language found in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp., 222 F. 3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000). In Goldwasser, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals construed the savings clause found in section 601(b)(1) (47 U.S.C. Sec. 152 note) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56). Mr. Speaker, many Members have labored on these issues and I appreciate their work, particularly the efforts of Chairman Tauzin. I support the rule and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will support final passage of H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. While I did not support this legislation in the Committee on the Judiciary, I am persuaded that sufficient changes will be made to the bill today that merits supporting the bill and moving the process forward. I believe two changes negotiated between the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and myself significantly improve the bill. There is general agreement that rapid deployment of broadband could dramatically improve communications, electronic commerce, and more easily deliver digital goods to consumers. However, there is disagreement over how broadband should be deployed. The Committee on the Judiciary had several days of hearings on these complex and difficult issues. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over unlawful restraints of trade, I am cognizant of antitrust problems which gave rise to our modern telecommunications policy. After the 1984 breakup of AT&T, competition in the long distance market flourished. As a result, rates decreased and service improved. However, when local telephone competition failed to materialize, Congress in 1996 attempted to open up the local markets by offering the regional Bell operating companies, RBOCs for short, a basic trade. They were to open their local exchanges to competitors for interconnection; and in return, they were to be allowed entry into the long distance market. Since 1996, there has been major consolidation in the industry as the RBOCs have merged with one another. Furthermore, the RBOCs have not had a stellar record regarding compliance with the 1996 act. Hence, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will offer an amendment increasing penalties for violation of the Communications Act of 1934, which I urge the committee to adopt. Consolidation and a history of anticompetitive market restraints should give one pause. Many would argue with considerable justification that there has been not enough progress in the local markets and that the RBOCs should not be rewarded by giving them the unregulated green light to the lucrative data market. On the other hand, we should continuously review public policy to determine whether regulatory regimes are meeting the public interests. We must also remain vigilant to make sure that the RBOCs do not use their market dominance to undermine competition because competition is the only way to ensure the most efficient delivery of the highest- quality and lowest-price goods and services. Notwithstanding the changes that will be made today, including two within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, incorporated into the bill by the rule, I remain concerned about competition in the broadband and telecommunications market as a whole and will continue to review these issues to search for ways to ensure that the benefits of competition, lower prices, more choices and better service, are available to the consumer. No bill is perfect; and after much deliberation, debate, and consideration, I believe on the whole that final passage of this legislation should be supported. Many Members have labored on this legislation, and I want to specifically thank the members of the Committee on the Judiciary on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. The committee performed quickly and thoughtfully under unreasonably tight time constraints last June, and all Members should be proud of their accomplishments. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and his staff for working an agreement in the language contained in section 9 of the bill which preserves the powers of the Justice Department to review antitrust considerations. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the balance of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed to yield such portions of that time to other Members as he desires.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1892) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the acceptance of an affidavit of support from another eligible sponsor if the original sponsor has died and the Attorney General has determined for humanitarian reasons that the original sponsor's classification petition should not be revoked.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001, was introduced by the two gentlemen from California (Mr. Calvert) and (Mr. Issa). I want to thank them for bringing to our attention an unintended quirk in the Immigration and Nationality Act that needlessly keeps families separated. I also want to thank them as well for developing this bill, which corrects the problem. Each year, the United States provides hundreds of thousands of immigrant visas for spouses and other family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Tragically, each year a number of these U.S. citizens and permanent residents petitioning for their family members will die before the immigration process is complete. Generally, INS regulations provide for automatic revocation of a petition when the petitioner dies. The consequences are severe for a beneficiary when his or her petitioner dies before the beneficiary has adjusted status or received an immigrant visa. If no other relative can qualify as a petitioner, then the beneficiary would lose the opportunity to become a permanent resident. For instance, if a petition is revoked because a widowed citizen- father dies after petitioning for an adult unmarried daughter, the daughter would have no living mother to file a new petition. If another relative can file an immigrant visa petition for the beneficiary, that beneficiary would still go to the end of the line if the visa category was numerically limited. For instance, if the daughter's mother was alive, she could file a new first family-preference petition. However, the daughter would lose her priority date based on the time her father's petition had been filed with the INS and would receive a later priority date based upon the filing date of her mother's petition. Because of the severe consequences of the revocation of a visa petition, INS regulations do allow the Attorney General, in his or her discretion, to determine that, for humanitarian reasons, revocation would be inappropriate, and thus complete the unification of a family. However, there is a complication. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires that when a family member petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa, the visa can only be granted if the petitioner signs a legally-binding affidavit of support promising to provide support of the immigrant. If the petitioner has died, obviously he or she cannot sign the affidavit. Thus even in cases where the Attorney General feels a humanitarian waiver of the revocation of the visa petition is warranted, under current law a permanent resident visa cannot be granted because the affidavit requirement is unfulfilled. H.R. 1892 solves this dilemma. It simply provides that in cases where the petitioner has died and the Attorney General has determined for humanitarian reasons that revocation of the petition would be inappropriate, a close family other than the petitioner would be allowed to sign the necessary affidavit of support. Eligible family members in H.R. 1892, as it passed the House last July, would include spouses, parents, grandparents, mothers- and fathers-in-law, siblings, adult sons and daughters, adult sons and daughters-in-law, and grandchildren. Legal guardians would also be eligible. The Senate passed a minor amendment to the bill to add brothers- and sisters-in-law, and this is the motion to concur in the amendment that is before the House today. H.R. 1892 is humanitarian and pro-family. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1892, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 1888.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1888, legislation to correct a technical error in the Federal Criminal Code concerning the protection of certain Olympic trademarks. As you know, a great tradition resumes this week. The Winter Olympic Games begin in Salt Lake City, Utah. The tradition of the Olympics is more important than ever. Amateur athletes from around the world come together to compete in goodwill and strive towards excellence in their sport. They are an inspiration to us all. Since the tragedies of September 11, it is more important than ever that the nations of the world are united in peaceful exhibition. Surely my colleagues join me in the pride that our country hosts the games this winter. The Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the U.S. Olympic Committee have recently notified Congress that an incorrect citation was made when a recodification of certain laws was passed in 1998. This typographical error, the insertion of the number 7 instead of 5, inadvertently undermines the protection of Olympic trademarks such as the Olympic rings. This legislation corrects the error. The need to protect trademarks and other intellectual property is stronger today than ever. There are disturbing reports detailing how the proceeds of counterfeit and pirated goods are used to fund a variety of dangerous criminal enterprises including terrorism. It is important that we safeguard the integrity of the goodwill of the Olympics as well as our public safety by giving Federal law enforcement the tools to go after wrongdoers and to protect these important trademarks. I would also like to say a few words about something that is very disturbing to me. When I was driving in from the airport today, the radio carried a report that the International Olympic Committee had denied the request of the United States Olympic team to carry as the American flag that flag which had been recovered from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Today we are talking about legislation relating to the meaning of symbols, the Olympic rings in particular, and how important symbols are to the fight against evil and for good, and how important symbols are in terms of preventing criminals and terrorists from appropriating those symbols for their own use. I was honestly shocked to hear that the bureaucrats of the International Olympic Committee are denying the American team the right to carry the flag that they wanted to as a symbol of the solidarity of the world against the events of September 11. And while we are passing legislation today protecting one of the symbols of both the International and U.S. Olympic Committees, I would hope that the IOC would reciprocate and would reconsider the very foolish decision that they made, if this radio report was accurate, denying American Olympic athletes the right to carry the flag that they want to carry. One must remember that there were citizens of 86 countries that died in the World Trade Center on September 11. So that flag is not just an American symbol, it is a symbol that is being carried in memory of those citizens of most of the countries participating in the Olympics, and it ought to be present when the games open up in Salt Lake City later this week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1888) to amend title 18 of the United States Code to correct a technical error in the codification of title 36 of the United States Code.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I note the death of a former colleague and a great Pennsylvanian, Mr. Robert Lawrence Coughlin, Jr., who passed away last month. Larry grew up on his father's farm near Scranton, Pennsylvania. But he was no farmhand. Making the most of his opportunities, Larry graduated from the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut in 1946, he received an Economics degree from Yale in 1950, a Masters degree in Business Administration from Harvard, and a law degree from Temple University's law school in 1958. While at Temple, Larry attended classes at night, and was a foreman on a steel assembly line during the day. This ``steely'' resolve served him well throughout his career. As a Marine, Larry fought in the Korean War, and was aide-de-camp to Lt. General Lewis B. ``Chesty'' Puller. When he was elected to Congress, he was Chairman of the Capitol Hill Marines, which represented Members who had been in the Marine Corps. Larry was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1968. He came from a family that had some experience in the field of public service as his uncle, Clarence Coughlin, was a former Republican Representative. Representing a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia from 1969 to 1993, Larry was so popular personally and politically, that he was almost always easily elected. It wasn't until after he retired that Democrats were able to field significant competitors for that seat. A tall and authoritative man, Larry always had a way with people. With his military background and penchant for bow ties, Larry came across--rightfully so--as a gentleman and a scholar. While he briefly served on the House Judiciary Committee, he spent most of his career on the Appropriations Committee. Although I never had the opportunity to directly work with him on the Judiciary Committee, I did work with him on several issues. The nation last a good legislator when Larry resigned, and on November 30, the world lost a good man. It is with a heavy heart that I say good-bye to Larry. My wife Cheryl and I would like to express our condolences to his wife Susan, and the entire family, in this time of sorrow and sadness. They will be in our prayers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2336) to make permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have a lengthier statement which I will put in the Record, but in the interest of time let me explain the bill and the Senate amendment. Section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact portions of financial disclosure statements for judges and other judicial officers and employees where the Judicial Conference makes a determination that public disclosure will jeopardize the safety of the judge, the judge's family, or the judicial officer or the judicial officer's family. This provision sunsets on December 31, 2001, in the absence of further legislative action. The House passed this legislation with a permanent extension of the redaction authority. The other body amended the House bill for a 4-year sunset. So with the 4- year sunset, the redaction authority would once again expire on December 31, 2005. I believe that it is a legitimate compromise. It allows the Congress in 4 years to review whether these redactions have been done in a manner that preserves the thrust of public disclosure without jeopardizing the lives and safety of judges and their families; and thus I would urge concurrence in the Senate amendment. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we get on the subject of what is before the House tonight; that is, legislation that does a number of important things: tightening up our visa issuing system; attempting to make sure that the visas and passports used by people entering this country are those that were issued to them; and to provide biometric information and various other types of antifraud devices. I think it is important to point out that we provide more money for additional INS inspectors and investigators, and most importantly, provide a pay raise for them. Since 9-11, I have made several visits to border areas. I have been to San Diego, I have been to Detroit, and I have been to the Miami airport. At each one of these stops, I have specifically requested to meet with representatives of the unions that represent the border patrol and INS inspectors, and I have heard again and again that good people are leaving because they can go to someplace else in law enforcement and get paid a lot more. As a result, the turnover and the training time of those people who are actually on the borders enforcing the laws and protecting the people of this country becomes greater and greater. So this bill deals with those issues. Again, I regret that the jurisdictional disputes prevent us from dealing with the aircraft and ship manifests and the chronic shortage of Customs inspectors, and once again, I urge the other committees of jurisdiction to promptly bring legislation before the House to deal with those issues. With respect to what I have heard from the last several speakers, I will state categorically that this is not a war on immigrants, it is a war on terrorists. Immigrants have made this country what it is. With the exception of the descendents of Native Americans, all of our forefathers and foremothers were immigrants; granted that there were different waves of immigration from different parts of the world, but immigrants came to this country because of the economic opportunity and the freedom that we provide. What we want to do is to make sure that the immigration is done pursuant to law, and to provide the proper documentation so that people who are here legally can go to work and help themselves and their families and our country. Next year, we will be dealing with the restructuring and reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is the most dysfunctional agency in the Federal Government. Finally, with respect to 245(i), this House has voted in favor of extending 245(i). The chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and I introduced H.R. 1885 on May 17, 2001. We brought it before the House under suspension of the rules four days later on May 21, 2001. And on a roll call of 336 to 43, the House passed the extension of 245(i). Now, that bill provided an extension four months after the date of enactment. And as is the case with a lot of meritorious legislation, the other body did not deal with it promptly. Now, I hope the time has come when we will be able to bring another 245(i) bill to the floor. But I do not think it accurately represents what 336 of us did on May 21, to say that we have turned our backs on those families. There were only 43 no votes on May 21. And I think the vast majority, the 336 of us who voted yes, will have our day in court some time in the future and a 245(i) extension that is fair to all will be sent to the President of the United States. I urge an aye vote on H.R. 3525.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, since September 11, we have learned how deeply vulnerable our immigration system is to exploitation by aliens who wish to harm Americans. H.R. 3525 makes needed changes to our immigration laws to fight terrorism and to prevent such exploitation. I will outline some of the bill's most significant provisions. Most importantly, by October 2003, this bill requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to issue machine readable, tamper-resistant visas that use standardized biometric identifiers. This will allow immigration inspectors to determine whether a visa properly identifies the visa holder. Similarly, aliens seeking to enter the United States under the visa waiver program with passports issued after October 2003 must possess tamper-resistant, machine readable passports with standardized biometric identifiers. The bill also requires the Attorney General to enter into a data system the identification numbers of stolen U.S. and foreign passports. Our military recently found blank European and United States passports in the caves of Afghanistan after the al Qaeda terrorists fled. We must ensure that passports and other documents presented to our inspectors are not counterfeit and are being used by the aliens to whom they were issued. The bill directs our law enforcement agencies and intelligence community to share information with the State Department and the INS relevant to the admissibility and deportability of aliens. This will result in lookout lists that are much more thorough and will do more to prevent bad actors from obtaining U.S. visas or entering the United States. As the Border Patrol succeeds in controlling the border, more aliens take a chance at ports of entry, placing a strain on the limited staff of immigration service inspectors. Likewise, INS investigative resource needs have long been neglected. This bill helps fill these critical gaps. H.R. 3525 authorizes appropriation to hire at least 200 full-time INS inspectors, and at least 200 full-time INS investigators. Another long-standing problem at the INS is the low pay for Border Patrol agents and INS inspectors. This has led many trained Border Patrol agents and inspectors to leave the INS for other law enforcement agencies offering better pay, such as the Air Marshals. Former Border Patrol agents make up 75 percent of the first Air Marshals class. H.R. 3525 authorizes appropriations to increase the pay of Border Patrol agents and inspectors in order to help the INS retain its best people. The bill requires the Secretary of State to give special training to all Consular officers in effective screening of visa applicants who pose a potential threat to the safety or security of the United States. The bill also requires a higher level of scrutiny of aliens from countries that sponsor international terrorism before nonimmigrant visas are issued. It requires Consular officers issuing visas to provide the INS an electronic version of the alien's visa file to ensure that the visa file data is available to immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry before the arrival of the alien at the port. The bill strengthens the foreign student tracking system by requiring that it track the acceptance of aliens by educational institutions, the issuance of visas to aliens, the admission into the United States of the aliens, the notification of education institution of the admission of aliens slated to attend them, and the enrollment of aliens at the institutions. Finally, the bill requires the State Department to keep visa applications, whether granted or denied, on file for 7 years, so that the government can determine whether an alien sought a visa in the past, what type of visa and whether the visa was granted or denied. The bill fills many gaps in our current immigration law enforcement system. We must put these essential tools into the hands of our law enforcement agents. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. Let me publicly thank everybody who has worked on this bill, particularly Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Brownback and Kyl, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and the staffs on both the Senate and House sides. Let me also say that it is my regret that, because of jurisdictional problems, we cannot deal with giving the Customs Service more personnel to help them do their jobs at the border, and it is my hope that the Committee on Ways and Means will promptly pass legislation to fill this hole. I also regret that we are not able to provide in this legislation a requirement that manifests of arriving and departing airplanes and vessels be filed with the immigration service so that visa numbers can be matched, so the INS particularly, for arriving airplanes and vessels, will be tipped off on who is on board them. It is my hope the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will deal with this issue promptly in other legislation. Again, this is a good bill. It is a bill that is sorely needed. I urge Members to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 3525, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).