F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute that has been offered by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). This substitute is a big mistake for a number of reasons, and it should not be supported. Most notably, it would make the prohibition against human cloning virtually impossible to enforce, it would foster the creation of cloned human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services, and trump States that wish to prohibit cloning. As I have already stated, allowing the creation of cloned embryos by law would enable anyone to attempt to clone a human being. While most individuals do not have the scientific capacity to clone human embryos, once they have been cloned, there is no mechanism for tracking them. In fact, one would logically expect an organization authorized to clone human embryos pursuant to this substitute to be prepared to produce an abundance of cloned embryos for research. Meanwhile, those without the capabilities to clone embryos, could easily implant any of the legally cloned embryos, if they had the opportunity, and a child would develop. Furthermore, those who do want to clone humans for reproductive purposes are very well funded and may have the capability to clone embryos. Would they be banned from registering with HHS under this amendment, or would they be authorized to create cloned embryos under the watchful eye of the Federal Government? If not, what would prevent any of these privately funded groups from creating a new organization with unknown intentions? If they did attempt human cloning for reproductive purposes, who would be held accountable? The lead scientists or others, or would the impregnated mother? The fact is, any legislative effort to prohibit cloning must allow enforcement to occur before a cloned embryo is implanted. Otherwise, it is too late, and that is the big deficiency in the Greenwood substitute. The substitute attempts to draw a distinction between necessary scientific research and human cloning by authorizing HHS to administer a quasi-registry; quasi because the embryos are not in the custody of HHS, they are maintained by private individuals. However, let us be clear, the crux of this substitute is to invoke a debate on stem cell research, a political knuckle ball, and this debate on stem cell research is a red herring. First, therapeutic cloning does not exist, not even for experimental tests on animals. Second, the substitute would require authorized researchers to destroy unused embryos, the first Federal mandate of its kind and a step that is extremely controversial. Third, the bill allows for the production of cloned embryos for stem cell research. Again, H.R. 2505 does not prohibit stem cell research. It does not prohibit stem cell research. Currently private organizations are able to conduct unfettered research on embryonic stem cells. While this research is ethically and morally controversial, it has been heralded, because embryonic stem cells multiply faster and live longer in petri dishes than adult stem cells. Cloned embryo cells and normal embryo cells provide the same cellular tissue for research purposes. However, Mr. Speaker, these embryonic stem cells have failed in many clinical tests because they multiply too rapidly, causing cysts and cancers. Adult stem cells are the other area of stem cell research, which is much less controversial and which has been successful in over 45 trials. In fact, adult stem cells have been utilized to treat multiple sclerosis, bone marrow disorders, leukemias, anemias, and cartilage defects and immuno-deficiency in children. Adult stem cells have been extracted from bone marrow, blood, skeletal muscle, the gastro-intestinal tract, the placenta, and brain tissue, to form bone marrow, bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, fat, liver, brain, nerve, blood, heart, skeletal muscle, smooth muscle, esophagus, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, and colon cells. H.R. 2505 would not interfere with this work, but it prohibits the production of cloned embryos. It is a cloning bill; it is not a stem cell research bill. Furthermore, H.R. 2505 allows for cloning research on various molecules, DNA, cells from other human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, animals or animals other than humans. In fact, it allows for cloning research on RNA, ribonucleic acid, which has been used in genetic therapy. Fourth, the substitute prohibits States from adopting laws that prohibit or more strictly regulate cloning within their borders. It is a Federal preemption. This portion of the substitute raises even more ethical concerns which speak for themselves. Try telling my constituents they cannot ban human cloning, and I will tell you they disagree. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the substitute contains a 10-year sunset provision. If this were to be enacted, Congress would have to go through this debate once again before the sunset occurs. The ethical and moral objections to human cloning will not change 10 years from now. However, the proponents of human cloning will continue to fight for their right to produce human clones in America; and authorizing a subsequent ban on human cloning could become even more controversial. This is why Members on both sides of the aisle should rise in opposition to the substitute, defeat it, and pass H.R. 2505. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of the bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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, as amended.

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. 1892, as amended.

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 gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and amended in the Committee on the Judiciary by our other colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). I want to thank both of them for bringing to our attention an unintended quirk in the Immigration and Nationality Act that needlessly keeps families separated. I want to thank them for developing this bill, which brings families back together. 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 the 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 an opportunity to become a permanent resident. For instance, if a petition is revoked because a widowed citizen's 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, the beneficiary would still go to the end of the line if the visa category were 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 the priority date, based upon 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. Given that first-family preference visas are now available to beneficiaries from Mexico with priority dates from April, 1994, and are available to those from the Philippines with priority dates from May, 1988, this can result in a significant additional delay before a visa is available. 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, that visa can only be granted if the petitioner signs a legally binding affidavit of support promising to provide for the support of the immigrant. If the petitioner has died, obviously he or she cannot sign that 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. Madam Speaker, 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 member other than the petitioner would be allowed to sign the necessary affidavit of support. Eligible family members of beneficiaries would include spouses, parents, grandparents, mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law, siblings, adult sons and daughters, adult sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, and grandchildren. Legal guardians would also be eligible. In order to sign an affidavit of support, the individual would need to meet the general eligibility requirements needed to be an immigrant sponsor. Thus, he or she would need to, first, be a citizen or national of the United States or an alien who is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; second, be at least 18 years of age; third, be domiciled in a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States; and, fourth, demonstrate the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892 is a humanitarian and pro-family piece of legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Madam Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1892. I, too, have at least one of my constituents who has the same problem. Myrna Gabiola has tried, so far in vain, to take over the sponsorship of her two brothers. But this is not to say that there are not one, two, or three thousand separate occurrences right now in America. This, like many of the problems dealt with her in the House, needs in fact good legislation so that they do not fall to the desk of individual Congressmen and Congresswomen in the future. Good government is dependent upon good and consistent rules of the road that allow for the immigration process to be done under our laws, but under common sense. I believe that the reason this was such a bipartisan effort, and the reason that I am very hopeful it will pass here today, is that we took the time to realize that no organization, except perhaps a Federal Government, would in fact allow the loss of a loved one to turn into a ``go back to go and start over.'' I believe that this type of reform, and others to come on a bipartisan basis, are the best way to signal to the people of the world, the tens or hundreds of millions who would like to come here, that they are better off getting in line, playing by the rules, waiting their turn, than coming here illegally. These kinds of reforms make the process fairer and more likely to be obeyed by those who wish to come to our country. Most of all, it is fairer for those citizens of our country who do in fact want to be repatriated with their loved ones from abroad.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 2215, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act which authorizes appropriation for the Department of Justice and its components for fiscal year 2002, establishes permanent enabling authorities for the Department, makes several minor and technical improvements to various statutes affecting the Department, requires certain reports be made to Congress, and establishes a permanent Violence Against Women's Office within the Office of Justice Programs at the Department. This bill was favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 20 by voice vote. The legislation is cosponsored by the committee's ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice and its various components wields tremendous power and influence. It has an annual budget exceeding $24 billion and has in excess of 125,000 employees. The Department has ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of all Federal criminal laws, including those regarding terrorism. It enforces our Nation's antitrust laws, civil rights laws, immigration and naturalization laws, environmental statutes, tax laws, and numerous other Federal statutes. The lawyers at the Department of Justice represent the government in most types of actions, civil and criminal. And it provides legal advice to the President of the United States and the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. In short, the vast majority of legal questions in litigations addressed by the Federal Government are reviewed and handled by the Department of Justice. This great power and responsibility can be a tremendous force for good throughout the Nation and the world. Also, abuse, misuse, and neglect of this power can have detrimental effects that reverberate throughout this country. The Department of Justice is unlike any other department or agency of the Federal Government because its job is providing justice to all. Thus it must be held to the highest standards. Because of its importance, Congress should be fully engaged in oversight of the Department. Unfortunately, Congress has not done a good job of oversight of the Department in the past and needs to do much better. Further, Congress has neglected its basic responsibility for the last 20 years by failing to authorize the programs within the Department of Justice. It is shameful that the last bill authorizing appropriations for the Department was signed into law by President Carter on November 30, 1979. The last serious effort to authorize the Department was undertaken by my predecessor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), during the 105th Congress, but the other body failed to act on that legislation. Congress must do a much better job in overseeing the many departments and agencies that make up the Federal Government, and today this House will take a giant leap forward in that effort by authorizing the DOJ and its components. One reason the Department needs increased oversight is its size. In 1993, the budget authority for the Department was $11.3 billion. Today, it exceeds $24 billion. In 1993, the Department had 90,600 authorized positions. Today it has 35,000 more. In 1993, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had over $1.5 billion in budget authority and over 18,000 authorized positions. Today the INS has over $5 billion in budget authority and 33,500 authorized positions. I doubt that many Members or their constituents would argue that the increased funding and staffing at the INS has improved its operations appreciably. I would feel the opposite. Another area of exponential growth at the Department has been its grant-making authority. In 1993, the Office of Justice Programs distributed almost $1 billion in grants. In fiscal year 2001, the Department will distribute more than $5 billion. This growth of budget authority and responsibility cries out for congressional oversight. This bill takes us in that direction. Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations for the major components of the Justice Department for fiscal year 2002. While President Bush's budget provides a breather from the hefty increases the Department has seen over the last decade, this budget still includes promising initiatives, such as new funding for the INS to help secure our borders, new funding for the FBI to combat terrorism and cybercrime, and new funding for the DEA to improve its efforts to fight the scourge of drugs and violence. The authorization mirrors the President's request except in two areas. First, the committee increased the President's request for the DOJ Inspector General by $10 million. This is necessary because the committee is concerned about the severe downsizing of that office and the need for oversight, particularly of the FBI, at the Department. H.R. 2215 does not contain an authorization for appropriations for several unauthorized grant programs. The Committee on the Judiciary will review each of these expired programs and authorize them as needed. The committee has already done this for the Juvenile Justice Block Grants program which I am hopeful that the House will consider in the coming weeks. Madam Speaker, title III contains an important provision establishing within the office of DOJ Inspector General a deputy IG for FBI oversight whose sole job will be to coordinate and be responsible for overseeing the programs and operations of the Bureau. This position is necessary because of the recent spy scandal, the FBI's failure to comply with the document disclosure agreement in the McVeigh case, and now the revelation about missing firearms and computers at our Nation's number one law enforcement agency. These problems cry out for attention, and I believe there needs to be one person in the IG's office whose sole focus is to review FBI operations. As I have already mentioned, the bill increases the authorization for the office of Inspector General by $10 million above the President's proposed budget. This office has been severely downsized over the last several years from approximately 460 to 360 full-time equivalents. I believe that Congress has been penny-wise and pound foolish in this regard. We should spend a little bit more time, effort, and money on oversight and a little less on other bloated DOJ programs. I would urge the conferees in the DOJ appropriation bill to adequately fund the new responsibilities that have been given to the IG. H.R. 2215 requires the IG to submit an oversight plan for the FBI to the Congress and requires the Attorney General to review Attorney General Reno's order numbered 1931-94. Coincidentally, Attorney General Ashcroft overturned this order on July 11, a day after the report to H.R. 2215 was filed in the House. Now the DOJ Inspector General has full authority over both the FBI and DEA. Passage of this bill will help the new Director and the Attorney General make needed improvements to this prestigious agency. The bill also authorizes a Violence Against Women Office within the Justice Department. This provision was offered in committee by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). The VAWO would be headed by a director who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In addition, title IV enumerates duties and responsibilities of the Director and requires the Attorney General to ensure the VAWO is adequately staffed. Since its adoption in committee, this provision has been changed to ensure that it may utilize the existing bureaucracy that already exists at the Office of Justice Programs. As originally drafted, the VAWO would have had to establish its own grant making office and administrative offices. The director of VAWO will report to the Assistant Attorney General but may report to the Deputy Attorney General on such matters as she deems appropriate. I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and her willingness to ensure that this office works properly within the existing bureaucracy at the Department. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight one other provision of this bill. It contains an important provision that directs the Department of Justice to submit all reports it is required to submitted, including reprogramming notices and transfer requests, to the Committee on the Judiciary in addition to any other committee. This will clearly help the Committee on the Judiciary conduct oversight of the Department. This provision is necessary because several years ago, the Committee on Appropriations slipped an amendment into their bill denying the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the ability to receive reprogramming and transfer notices, notices which were routinely sent to the committees from 1979 through 1996. This has diminished our ability to conduct oversight over the Department, and I believe has hurt the Department of Justice. It takes more than just the Committee on Appropriations to conduct oversight over the DOJ. The Committee on the Judiciary has a large role to play, and it should not be denied needed information by another committee. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2215 is a giant step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. We do not tackle every problem facing the Department by this legislation. However, we do address several, and I am sure we will address more next year during the fiscal year 2003 process. The Committee on the Judiciary will continue to review the programs and operations of the Department of Justice and will hold it to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. Congress ratifies that process by its action here today. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the members of the committee, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff who have sat through numerous sessions with majority staff and Department of Justice officials. We all should be proud of this comprehensive bill. I urge all Members to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2137) to make clerical and other technical amendments to title 18, United States Code, and other laws relating to crime and criminal procedure, as amended.

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. 2137, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, during the last half of the 20th century, Congress has expanded the criminal code almost exponentially. According to a study conducted by the Task Force on Federalization of Criminal Law of the Criminal Section of the American Bar Association, more than 40 percent of the Federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil War have been enacted since 1970. In addition to the increased responsibility placed on Federal law enforcement agencies, this explosion of lawmaking has resulted in the enactment of numerous technical mistakes which litter the criminal code. This legislation corrects those mistakes. Specifically, H.R. 2137 makes over 60 separate technical changes to various criminal statutes by correcting missing and incorrect words, margins, punctuation, redundancies, outmoded fine amounts, cross references, and other technical and clerical errors. Madam Speaker, this is not a glamorous bill. No one will issue a press release about its passage or will make it a plank in one's reelection. But it is important work. Correcting mistakes in the criminal code is important to the thousands of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Federal law enforcement officials throughout the Nation who rely on the accuracy of the criminal code on a daily basis. No longer will they have to rely on an editor's footnote to guess Congress' true intentions. Furthermore, the placement of a comma is not always trivial. The Supreme Court has reviewed cases because of confusion over Congress' grammatical mistakes, including the mistake in placement of a comma. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the three cosponsors of this legislation: the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking minority member of the committee; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Crime. I would also like to recognize the staff of the Office of Legislative Counsel and Law Revision Counsel who, along with majority and minority staff, spent hours going through each minor change. I urge Members to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This motion to recommit is more than a new preemption clause. It denies religious organizations, including churches, their current exemption from Title VII when they seek to take part in Federal programs to help others. It is not the motion to recommit we have been reading about. It is the motion to recommit we have been hearing about, plus an atomic bomb for faith-based organizations. I repeat. This motion to recommit contains more than a preemption clause. It trumps the considered judgment of the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and which soundly decided, along with the Supreme Court, that churches must be allowed to hire members of their own faith in order to remain churches under Federal law. I ask my colleagues to remember that when they vote. Even Al Gore, during his campaign and in his speech to the Salvation Army, said that ``faith-based organizations can provide jobs and job training, counseling and mentoring, food and basic medical care. They can do so with public funds and without having to alter their religious character that is so often the key to their effectiveness.'' Again, the only way a church can retain its religious character is if it can staff itself with those who share the same faith. In addition, the small churches of America will often be providing the social services covered under H.R. 7 with the same staff they currently have, and that staff likely shares the same religious faith. The substitute would make it impossible for these small churches to contribute to Federal efforts against desperation and helplessness, and it is precisely these small churches that H.R. 7 intends to welcome into a laudable effort. Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has for decades exempted nonprofit, private, religious organizations engaged in both religious and secular nonprofit activities from Title VII's prohibition on discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. The Supreme Court, including Justices Brennan and Marshall, upheld this exemption in the Amos case. Section 702 is not waived or forfeited when a religious organization receives Federal funding. No provision in section 702 states that its exemption of nonprofit, private, religious organizations from Title VII's prohibition on discrimination in employment is forfeited when a faith-based organization receives a Federal grant. But the substitute would do just that. The motion to recommit would prevent Federal equal access rules from following Federal funds. Under this motion, States or localities could incorporate provisions into their procurement requirements that prohibit religious organizations from hiring on a religious basis when they take part in covered Federal programs. Such provisions thwart the very purpose of this legislation, which is to welcome the very smallest of organizations into the Federal fight against poverty. I want to emphasize to everyone that the small churches of America will be providing the social services covered by H.R. 7 with the same staff they currently have, and that staff likely shares the same religious faith. State or local procurement requirements that deny them the right to retain the same staff will slam the door shut on their participation to the detriment of people in need everywhere. Churches should be allowed to compete for Federal social service funds and remain churches while doing so. The only way a church can remain a church is to give them the right to staff itself with those that share their faith. Again, this is a bill that really puts the small churches in America in the midst of fighting poverty, helplessness and despair. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote down the motion to recommit. The only way we can expand the capacity of the Nation to meet the needs of the poor and afflicted is through H.R. 7. Only in this way can we help those with highly effective and efficient but small, faith-based organizations being in the mix.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to yield parts of my time to others.