F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Absolutely, the gentleman made a mistake.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fourth bright mind of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his compliments, and I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 3210. I wish to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his vigorous work on this difficult issue. I am particularly supportive of the litigation management provisions in H.R. 3210 which will benefit all people in all industries that fall victim to terrorist attacks of a catastrophic nature. Any bill that fails to limit potentially infinite liability for terrorist-caused litigation would fail to recognize the obvious. Traditional tort rules are designed to address slip-and-fall cases caused by banana peels, not terrorists; and while banana peels may be accidents waiting to happen, terrorists are suicidal killers plotting the deaths of thousands of innocents and the destruction of billions of dollars of property. Under this legislation, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that one or more acts of terrorism have occurred, an exclusive Federal cause of action kicks in for lawsuits arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the acts of terrorism; and the lawsuit must be heard by a Federal court or courts selected by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. These claims in Federal court are subject to limits on punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Defendants are only liable for noneconomic damage in direct proportion to their responsibility for the harm, and damage awards to plaintiffs must be offset by any collateral source compensation received by the plaintiff. By enacting these provisions to cover terrorist-inspired litigation, individuals and businesses will be protected by Congress from potentially limited liability and bankrupting litigation. Also under these provisions, the size of damage awards for which the United States taxpayer will have to provide up-front sums to cover would be reduced, just as the Federal Tort Claims Act's limits on punitive damages and attorneys' fees limit damages and litigation that will result in money taken from the U.S. Treasury. These provisions protect the American taxpayer. Those opposed to them wish to turn the key to the United States Treasury over to the plaintiffs' bar. Existing tort rules do not properly apply when the primary cause of injury is a suicidal fanatic motivated by a deep hatred of America. These are not garden variety slip-and-fall or auto accident cases, and this Congress has already recognized this key distinction in passing the liability protection provisions governing lawsuits relating to the September 11 attacks. As a result of the Aviation Security Act conference report, as well as the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act, September 11-related lawsuits against air carriers, air manufacturers, owners and operators of airports, State port authorities, and persons with property interests in the World Trade Center must be heard in Federal court in New York; and the total damages against these potential defendants, should they be found liable, are capped at the limits of the insurance coverage they had on September 11. Let this be clear, that what is proposed in the litigation management provisions of this bill the House has already approved in both the Aviation Security Act and in the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act. So Members have already voted for this once and twice. In addition to these provisions, the Airline Security Act that originally passed the House also limited punitive damages and attorney's fees, and required that damage awards to plaintiffs be offset by any collateral source compensation received by the plaintiffs. The litigation management provisions of H.R. 3210 would similarly benefit victims of future terrorist attacks. If these same provisions are not extended to private businesses which might be attacked in the future, the mom-and-pop store down the street will have to invest scarce resources to turn itself from a corner shop into a fortified bunker designed to withstand foreign attacks to avoid potentially infinite liability, or pay through the nose in higher insurance premiums because the risks are higher and their exposure is greater. Furthermore, without the litigation management provisions in H.R. 3210, no limits would be placed on the fees of attorneys bringing terrorist-caused cases against Americans and their businesses, and ultimately against the taxpayers, under this bill. Reasonable limits on attorney's fees serve the same purpose behind restrictions on permanent damages and joint and several liability. They maximize the funds available to large numbers of victims when there are only limited resources available for compensation. Such protections are more important than ever in the context of the terrorist attacks causing large-scale losses. Again, the litigation management provisions in this bill will spread the wealth out to more victims, rather than having one or two large awards ending up bankrupting the pot of money available. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing killed six people, yet resulted in 500 lawsuits by 700 individuals, businesses, and insurance companies. Damages claimed amounted to $500 million. Eight years later, these cases are only now just getting to trial, and hundreds of plaintiffs have yet to receive a cent in compensation. By providing reasonable limits on potentially infinite liability and consolidating all cases in one or a few Federal forums, victims of terrorism will recover more quickly and more equitably because a few enormous awards in one court will not bankrupt a responsible party before another court can consider arguments of others who may have stronger claims against the same party. I urge all Members to support these vitally important provisions, which ensure equitable compensation to victims while protecting the American economy and the American taxpayer.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit which would strip from the bill vital litigation management provisions. Without these provisions, the bill would threaten untold numbers of businesses with the loss of capital and credit simply because they might be named in a lawsuit related to a terrorist attack. Nearly identical litigation management provisions were passed by the House by a vote of 286-139 to cover lawsuits related to the September 11 attacks. Without these provisions, anyone could be on the hook for all damages caused by a terrorist attack, running into billions of dollars, even when they share only 1 percent of the responsibility of the losses and the terrorists share the remaining 99 percent. If any defendant, even those just marginally involved in such a minuscule portion of any injuries could be made to pay the full amount of noneconomic damages caused by a massive terrorist attack, hundreds of legitimate businesses would be thrown into bankruptcy. Again, existing tort rules are designed to deal with the typical slip-and-fall case. They may properly apply when the primary cause of an injury is excessive water on the floor of a grocery store, but surely that cannot be true when the primary cause is a suicidal fanatic, motivated by the deepest hatred of America and using weapons of mass destruction intended to kill as many innocent people as possible. If anyone can convince me that a slippery floor is the moral equivalent of a terrorist, I will vote for the gentleman's motion myself. Mr. Speaker, Congress has already recognized this in passing the liability protection provisions governing lawsuits relating to the September 11 attacks. Without the litigation management provisions, no limits would be placed on the fees of attorneys bringing cases against Americans and their businesses, even when the primary cause of injury is a terrorist. Without the provisions which allow courts the discretion to keep attorneys' fees reasonable, a few war profiteers can turn attacks that result in multibillion-dollar losses into private jackpots for themselves, that are paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this motion to recommit and ensure equitable compensation to victims while protecting the American economy and the taxpayer.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, let me blow away the smoke screen from the litigation management provisions of this bill. Number one, it does not take away anybody's right to sue or anybody's right to get compensation. If there is a cause of action and the Secretary triggers the provisions in this legislation, suits would have to be in one court, and that would prevent a race to courthouses all around the country to see which judge could have the trial quicker and whoever gets the quickest trial will end up exhausting all of the money that is available; and in courts where things move a little bit slower, if the money is exhausted, then the plaintiff would be out of luck. Now, secondly, what the bill does is it prohibits punitive damages, and this is exactly the way the Federal Tort Claims Act is. We are talking about giving a limited key to the United States Treasury, and we give the same protection to the taxpayer in this bill that we do when there is a tort claim against the Federal Government. We also limit attorneys' fees, also done in the Federal Tort Claims Act. So this is existing law for claims against the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government will be the ultimate reinsurer during this period of time, we provide the taxpayers the same protections and the plaintiffs the same limitations as we would if somebody got run over by a postal service van or ended up falling out the window of a Federal building because of a defect in construction there. Now, it seems to me that when we are dealing with terrorism, we have to look at the fact that people who buy terrorism insurance pay a premium that is based upon the risk that the insurance company is underwriting; and if they have unlimited liability when there is a terrorist act, then those premiums are going to be so sky high as to make that coverage either unaffordable or less affordable, particularly to small business operators. So, Mr. Speaker, these litigation management provisions protect the taxpayers, protect the ratepayers of people who have to buy terrorism coverage, and do not significantly limit the recovery that plaintiffs could get.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is contemporaneous with the bill. It is not here forever, but that is not the gentleman's only mistake; and I will ask the gentleman from Ohio for a little time to talk about those.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this conference report because it contains important provisions protecting aircraft manufacturers, airport owners and operators, and persons with property interest in the World Trade Center from unlimited damages resulting from lawsuits inspired by the terrorist attacks of September 11. Today's agreement adds significant protections to those entities not protected in the airline bailout bill. However, the protections do nothing to address the unlimited liability exposure faced by the State of New York and other entities or industries that are self-insured or not specifically listed in the bill. In contrast, my proposal as contained in the House-passed bill would have protected all potential defendants from lawsuits based on the September 11 terrorist attacks. After we pass this legislation, other potential defendants such as jet fuel providers, architects, steel manufacturers or self-insured entities such as the State of New York and, thus, its taxpayers will still be exposed to billions of dollars in damages under New York's rules on joint and several liability. The only constraint on their being named in a lawsuit would be a sense of restraint or reasonableness on the part of trial lawyers, and I do not think we can count on that. I have fought, and will continue fighting, for those who remain left out of the provisions limiting potentially infinite liability. I remain committed to helping everyone, deep pockets to small pockets, who becomes embroiled in litigation inspired by foreign enemies. We must not stop in our effort to do the right thing by treating everybody equally. We must not stop in our efforts to prevent trial lawyers from taking advantage of this great tragedy and, thus, becoming war profiteers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I note the death of a former colleague and a great New Yorker, Mr. Gerald Solomon, who passed away last month. Jerry grew up in Delmar, New York and attended Siena College and St. Lawrence University before enlisting in the Marines at the onset of the Korean War. After serving his country with honor as a member of the Armed Forces, Jerry continued working for the nation as a Member of Congress. But even as an elected representative, when you spoke with Jerry, you could easily guess his background. Like the motto says, ``once a Marine, always a Marine.'' First elected in 1978, Jerry and I were in the same freshman class of Congress as I too was elected that year. I got to know, and become very good friends with Jerry during the 20 years we served in the House together. He was perhaps the most ardent supporter of our nation's veterans. As the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Jerry worked tirelessly on their behalf. In fact, it was largely through his work and dedication that the Veterans Administration was elevated to a cabinet-level department. Jerry was a man who didn't mince words--he was fair and principled and called things as he saw them. We got along well because we were similar in many ways and agreed on a lot of things. But, sometimes, we disagreed. I never, for example, quite saw the merits of the Northeast Dairy Compact the way he did--but even when we disagreed, we disagreed like gentlemen. It is a testament to his character as a legislator, and a reflection of his leadership, that during his final years in the House, he served as Chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee. This is particularly noteworthy because as many of you know, he was the first Republican to have that position in four decades! When Jerry spoke, people listened. Not because he was Chairman of the Rules Committee, but simply because if he took the time to tell you something, you could bet it was worth your while to pay attention to him. It is with a heavy heart that I say good-bye to my friend Jerry. My wife Cheryl and I would like to express our condolences to Jerry's wife Freda, their five children, six grandchildren, and brother, in this time of sorrow and sadness. They will be in our prayers.

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. 768.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 768) to amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent the favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that this exemption expired on October 1, and if the exemption is not reinstated and continued, well-endowed private colleges and universities, the gentleman from Massachusetts has several in his State, and I am a graduate of one of them, and the gentleman from Texas is also a graduate of one of them, will basically be able to use their superior financial resources to buy out the best students, generally by giving them more money than they really need for financial aid, even though the tuition at these colleges and universities is pretty steep. By passing this bill and by reinstating the exemption, there will be more money to go around to more good students and to open the doors to these well-endowed, prestigious private colleges and universities to more people to be able to go there. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House will send to the President for his signature H.R. 768, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2001. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I appreciate their hard work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid, that is, aid from the schools' own funds, solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to assist each student's financial need and to give essentially the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. From the 1950s through the late 1980s, the practice continued undisturbed. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against nine of the colleges that engaged in this practice. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a final settlement in 1993. In 1994, Congress passed a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws that basically codified the settlement. It allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only, to use common principles of need analysis, to use a common financial aid application form, and to allow the exchange of the students' financial information through a third party. It also prohibited agreements on award to specific students. It provided for this exemption to expire on September 30, 1997. That year, Congress extended the exemption until September 30, 2001. Under this exemption, the affected schools have adopted a set of general principles to determine eligibility for institutional aid. These principles address issues like expected contribution from noncustodial parents, treatment of depreciation expenses that may reduce a parent's income, valuation of rental properties, and unusually high medical expenses. Common treatment of these types of issues make sense, and to my knowledge, the existing exemption has worked well. The need-based financial aid system serves goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. Without it, the schools would be required to compete, through financial aid awards, to the very top students. Those very top students would get all the aid available, which would be more than they need. The rest would get less or none at all. Ultimately, such a system would serve to undermine the principle of need-based aid and need-blind admissions. No student who is otherwise qualified ought to be denied the opportunity to attend one of the Nation's most prestigious schools because of the financial situation of his or her family. H.R. 768 will help protect need-based aid and need-blind admissions and preserve that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, unlike the original House bill, which permanently extended the 1994 exemption, the Senate amendment to H.R. 768 would extend the exemption for another 7 years, and it also directs the General Accounting Office to review the exemption. It would not make any change to the substance of the exemption. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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. 2047, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2047 and urge the House to adopt the measure. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to retain all of the user fee revenue it collects in fiscal year 2002 for agency operations subject to appropriations. In addition, the PTO is to earmark a portion of this revenue to address problems relating to its computer systems and to develop a 5-year strategic plan to establish goals and methods by which the agency can enhance patent and trademark quality, while reducing application pendency. The bill will allow us to move forward and to make the PTO a more responsive and efficient agency that will better serve the needs of inventors and trademark filers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2047) to authorize appropriations for the United States Patent and Trademark Office for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, in September, the House passed a bill that limited the potential liability of air carriers in any litigation arising out of the terrorist attacks of September 11. We did this because the capital markets could not and would not deal with air carriers as long as they remained under a cloud of potentially infinite liability. At that time, I voted against that legislation because it failed to similarly protect other industries. All businesses, not just air carriers, will be unable to obtain credit, capital, and loans if they are subject to potentially limitless liability awards. Without capital, these businesses will disappear, and the terrorists will have taken down not only the World Trade Center, but also untold numbers of businesses, large and small. And they will have done this with the help of a Congress that failed to act. Finally, today, in the manager's amendment, Congress is acting. Far beyond companies like Boeing, this bill protects any business that creative trial lawyers could implicate in the tragic events of September 11. Some or many of these business may be in our own districts. Surely it is the terrorists, and not American companies, that started this war on America. So let's remove the cloud of infinite liability that hangs over these businesses and allow them to continue to survive even as they may face litigation. The terrorists put that cloud there. It's up to us to cast away that cloud, and to protect the capital streams upon which New York and the nation thrive and prosper. This bill does nothing to prevent victims from being compensated by liable defendants. It does nothing to prevent them from taking part in the victims' compensation program we created last month. This legislation does, however, place finite limits on the potential liability of anyone implicated in litigation arising out of the terrorist attacks of September 11. In doing so, this legislation saves those persons and companies from losses of capital that could lead to bankruptcy. This in turn prevents the victims of September 11th from having their compensation decided by a federal bankruptcy court. This bill also protects the city of New York, its police department, and its fire department--all of which have conducted themselves so valiantly. This measure is supported by elected leaders in New York, as well as New York congressional members from both sides of the aisle (Mr. Nadler excluded). Mayor Guiliani, in a letter supporting the bill, noted that ``The measure that Chairman Young will bring to the floor will contain a manager's amendment that would provide New York with much needed relief from potential liability arising out of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Any substitute would fail to provide the City the fiscal protection it needs from potentially limitless lawsuits. . . . Passage of Chairman Young's bill would solve one large part of the City's potential liability exposure, and help ensure steady progress toward utilizing our resources to address critical fiscal matters.'' Governor Pataki has written ``I can only underscore the importance of passage for not only the manager's amendment and the bill, but also the defeat of any substitute amendment scheduled to be offered. . . . H.R. 3150 with the manager's amendment will free the city of New York and the Port Authority of under burdens which could seriously slow or even derail those rebuilding efforts.'' New York is our nation's center of commerce, and it thrives on the flow of capital. By passing the Manager's Amendment today, we can prevent the prospect of unlimited liability damage awards from turning New York from the nation's financial capital into a business graveyard. Last month, Congress appropriately placed limits on the potential liability of the airlines in order to keep planes in the air. That's current law. Given that there is a finite amount of funds available for victims from any airline found liable, the question becomes: Does the House want more money to go to trial lawyers, or to victims? It's that simple. The more money lawyers get from a limited source of funds, the less victims get. Let's stand solidly behind the victims today and pass the Manager's Amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am a bit puzzled hearing my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), say that this bill ought to be delayed so that the Committee on the Judiciary can consider contingent liability issues. We have heard from the other side again and again that we ought to send the substitute amendment to the President tonight so that the people can have protection, and yet my colleague from the Committee on the Judiciary wants us to spend some time looking at contingent liability provisions. The manager's amendment is important to complete the job we failed to do in passing the airline liability bill. That bill capped air carriers' liability at the limit of their insurance, so we have protected United Airlines and American Airlines and the security firms that screened the passengers that got on the planes that were hijacked, which have been included in the definition of air carriers by two Federal Court decisions; but we did not give the same type of contingent liability protection to Boeing, the manufacturer of the plane, to Pratt and Whitney and General Electric, the manufacturers of the engines, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is a quasi-public corporation, the lessee of the World Trade Center, the fire department and police departments of the City of New York, and anybody else that might have contingent liability. What the manager's amendment provision does is to close the loop. If we do not close the loop, none of the entities I have talked about, particularly the private sector entities, are going to be able to borrow money. So unless the manager's amendment is passed, you are not going to be able to see Boeing and General Electric and Pratt and Whitney and the wallboard manufacturer of the walls in the 105th floor of the World Trade Center be able to keep themselves in business, because no bank will lend them money because of contingent liability issues. So if the manager's amendment goes down because of the arguments the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has advanced, then I guess American airlines, and that is small ``a'' American airlines, not the corporation, are going to be flying Air Buses with Rolls Royce engines simply because we are not going to have American manufacturers in the international civil aviation market. This provision of the manager's amendment is strongly endorsed both by Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, who feel it is necessary to protect the State, the city, and the Port Authority from lawsuits; and I think that this is reasonable, to give corporations and entities besides the airlines the same type of protection that we gave air carriers in the airline liability bill. The manager's amendment should be passed. I thank the gentleman from Alaska for including it in his amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1840 extends eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons and daughters of certain Vietnamese refugees. It stems from the Orderly Departure Program which was established in 1979 to give eligible nationals of Vietnam an alternative method of emigrating to a foreign country, rather than undertake illegal hazardous departures by boat or land. In 1989, the INS began adjudicating applications for refugee status in Vietnam for certain Vietnamese nationals who had been in reeducation camps for at least 3 years and widows of Vietnamese nationals who died as a result of confinement in the reeducation camps. The INS included unmarried sons and daughters 21 years and older based on case eligibility guidelines set up by the State Department 10 years earlier. However, this contradicted immigration regulations. INS had been treating those unmarried sons and daughters as derivative refugees, but the Immigration regulations defined derivative refugees as spouses and unmarried children under 21 years of age. In April of 1995, the INS, with concurrence of the State Department, stopped accepting sons and daughters 21 years of age or older. In response to this modification, the McCain amendment was enacted to reestablish refugee eligibility to unmarried adult sons and daughters of the qualifying Vietnamese nationals. The legislation was retroactive to April 1, 1995, the date on which the modification had taken effect. It was extended in 1998. The INS has denied derivative refugee status to those unmarried sons and daughters who failed to prove their family relationship with the principal applicant. The INS mistakenly denied some for no proof of family relationship when the applicant could not show he or she continuously resided with the parent. After determining that it was incorrectly denying some derivatives based on co-residency, the INS identified the entire caseload of improperly adjudicated derivative family member cases. The agency had until September 30, 2001 to correct the cases adjudicated on or after April 1, 1995, where the original denial was based solely on the issue of co-residency with the principal applicant. The INS needs additional time to adjudicate pending cases under the McCain amendment. As such, H.R. 1840 extends the time to adjudicate these cases by 2 years. The intent of H.R. 1840 is to extend the same eligibility criteria applied to cases currently being processed under the McCain amendment to individuals whose parent's case was processed prior to April 1, 1995. Accordingly, the act removes the date of April 1, 1995, imposed by the McCain amendment. In addition to failure to prove co-residency, the INS has denied some cases because the applicants were unable to prove their family relationship to a principal applicant. Due to new identification methods, such as DNA, H.R. 1840 permits the INS to reconsider cases that were previously denied for failure of proof rather than just those cases that were denied based on the issue of cohabitation with the principal alien. Finally, some sons and daughters have been denied derivative refugee status because their principal applicant parent has died, although the surviving parent resides in the United States or is awaiting departure formalities from Vietnam. Accordingly, H.R. 1840 expands eligibility to include these adult unmarried sons and daughters. The bill has the support of its author, the State Department, the Justice Department, the INS, and it passed the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserves the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1840) to extend eligibility for refugee status of unmarried sons and daughters of certain Vietnamese refugees, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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, of the thousands of people killed on September 11, over 400 were public safety officers. These brave men and women dedicated their lives to the protection of life and property, and in so doing made the ultimate sacrifice. Since that day, thousands of their fellow officers from around the country responded to the attacks and have worked tirelessly at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and western Pennsylvania, and, indeed, all around America and the rest of the world. I believe it fitting and proper that our Nation honor not only those public safety officers who gave their lives, but also the officers who have demonstrated the highest forms of heroism and valor in the wake of these tragic events. Mr. Speaker, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001 was signed into law on May 30. This act established a national medal to be given by the President in the name of the United States Congress to a public safety officer who has displayed extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. The Public Safety Officer Medal Of Valor is the highest national award for valor that can be given to a firefighter, law enforcement officer, or emergency services officer. Under this new law, the Attorney General of the United States is charged with selecting the recipients of the medal and is limited to selecting not more than five recipients in a given year. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the Attorney General may increase the number of medals to be awarded in a particular year. Mr. Speaker, no one can argue that the events that occurred on September 11, and the acts of bravery and valor that followed, were anything but extraordinary circumstances. House Con. Res. 243 expresses the sense of Congress that the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor should be presented to all the public safety officers who were killed in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Further, the concurrent resolution states that the Medal of Valor should be presented to those officers who have earned special recognition for outstanding valor for their actions in the hours, days, and weeks following the terrorist attacks. These officers will be selected in consultation with the Governor of New York, the Mayor of the City of New York, the Governor of Virginia, and the Governor of Pennsylvania, and other officials who have firsthand knowledge of the heroic efforts made by these men and women. On October 11, 2001, a day of violence, horror and great sadness, America's public safety officers gave their lives trying to save others. They also performed their duties heroically in the face of adversity and tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and to provide the many heroes around the country with appropriate recognition by urging the Attorney General to present them with the highest national public safety officer award for valor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.