F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been a controversial part of our immigration law since its inception in 1994. 245(i) allows illegal immigrants who are eligible for immigrant visas but who are illegally in the United States to adjust their status with the INS in the U.S. upon payment of a thousand dollar penalty. In the absence of section 245(i), illegal immigrants must pursue their visa applications abroad. Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, those who have been illegally present in the United States for a year would be barred for reentry for 10 years. Supporters of section 245(i) argue that it promotes family unity because, without it, illegal immigrants would be forced to leave the United States and their American families for many years. I believe we must also recognize that by allowing illegal immigrants to adjust their status in the United States, section 245(i) serves as an open invitation to those waiting in the queue for immigrant visas to jump the line and enter the United States illegally. This is not fair to those immigrants who respect the immigration laws of our country and wait patiently in their home countries for visas, sometimes for years. Such line-jumping negates the deterrent power of the bar on readmission for long-term illegal immigrants, which was a key reform of our immigration laws. As a part of last year's Legal Immigrant Family Equity Act, Congress decided to allow illegal immigrants who were in the United States as of December 21, 2000 and who would have green card petitions filed in their behalf by April 30, 2001 to utilize section 245(i). This was a delicately crafted compromise. Now that April 30 has come and gone, supporters of 245(i) push for an extension of the application deadline, some arguing that we should make the program permanent. Many others oppose any extension whatsoever. On what grounds can we find a principled compromise? President Bush has pointed the way. He has noted that illegal immigrants eligible to utilize section 245(i) under the LIFE Act may not have had their 4- month window to apply that the Act promised them. The INS did not issue implementing regulations until this March and bureaucratic delays may have prevented many individuals from taking advantage of the 245(i) extension, individuals that Congress intended to benefit. Furthermore, many illegal immigrants claim to have difficulty procuring the services of immigration lawyers in time to apply. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, has introduced a bill that ensures that illegal immigrants have the promised 4 months to apply. H.R. 1885, the Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001 would allow illegal immigrants to utilize section 245(i) as long as they have green card petitions filed on their behalf within 120 days of enactment after this 245(i) sunsets for good. H.R. 1885 retains the LIFE Act's requirement that illegal immigrants must have been in the United States as of December 21, 2000, so as not to encourage further illegal immigration into the United States. This bill also requires that illegal immigrants must have entered into family or business relationships qualifying them for green cards by April 30, the original filing deadline. This requirement ensures that we do not encourage a new wave of marriages designed purely to procure green cards. Countless news articles have reported that many thousands of illegal immigrants rushed to get married to U.S. citizens to beat the April 30 deadline. Under H.R. 1885, the marriage or employment, in the case of a petitioning employer, must have begun by April 30. I believe that H.R. 1885 is fair and balanced legislation which does not solve the requirements of people who have taken strong positions on either side of the issue but which gets the job done. It ensures that the intent and compromises embodied in the LIFE Act are carried out. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, this bill is a compromise, as was the provision in the omnibus appropriation bill that was passed at the end of last Congress was a compromise. The 4-month provision in this bill seems to be attacked from all sides. There are some who would like to make section 245(i) permanent; and there are those who argue that we should not extend 245(i) because there was a deadline, and the people who missed the deadline knew full well what it was and did not file timely applications. This bill attempts to take a middle course. What is so wrong with 4 months? The provision in the omnibus appropriation bill which was signed by former President Clinton on December 21, 2000, established a period of 4 months and 10 days for 245(i) applications to be timely filed. A lot of people did not timely file their 245(i) applications because the Immigration and Naturalization Service waited until the middle of March in order to issue the regulations for the extension. That was not the fault of those who were eligible to apply; that was the fault of the Immigration Service, and I think most of us who have immigration cases in our own congressional office realize that this agency is probably more dysfunctional or nonfunctional than any of the other agencies of the Federal Government. But they did get their act together until 2\1/2\ to 3 months after the time established by the law went by. What this bill does is it says okay, the INS goofed up and did not give everybody the 4 months, and so we will start the clock ticking again. The 245(i) deadline will be 4 months from the date of enactment of the law that is proposed in H.R. 1885. Now, whether the extension is 4 months or 6 months or a year or some other time, human nature, being what it is, everybody waits until the last minute to file their applications. Madam Speaker, I think that the word should go out today from this House of Representatives that if this legislation passes, do not wait until the last day to file an application. I would hope that the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be geared up to receive these applications, and I know I speak for most of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, to inform the INS that we are going to be all over them so they will receive the applications as of the date of the enactment of the law; but the immigration groups and the immigration bar should not tarry so that the immigration petitions under section 245(i) will end up being filed well before the deadline so that the INS can be in the process of adjudicating them and issuing the proper visa. Madam Speaker, this is a compassionate compromise to a very contentious issue. I think that 4 months is a legitimate extension because it was just a little more than 4 months that was contained in the omnibus appropriation bill. I would strongly urge the House to endorse this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on it.

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. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1885) to expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings, and for other purposes.

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 therein extraneous material on H.R. 1885.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to extend to the principal campaign committee of state and local candidates for elective public office the same graduated tax rates which apply to the principal campaign committee of a candidate for Congress. In running for Congress, Members of the House are made aware of the Section 527 tax laws that apply to congressional campaign committees. What many Members of Congress may not be aware of is the unfair tax treatment of campaign committees for state and local candidates. Recently, state representatives from my home state of Wisconsin brought to my attention the burdensome tax laws involving the graduated tax rates applicable to interest bearing accounts for state and local campaign committees. Under current law, the tax rate applied to the interest earned by a campaign committee is determined by which office the candidate seeks. State and local candidates are forced to pay a 35% tax rate while congressional candidates pay only 15% on interest bearing accounts for their primary campaign committees. That is why I am introducing the State and Local Candidate Fairness Act. This legislation would allow state and local candidates to pay the same tax rate as congressional candidates on interest bearing accounts for their campaign committees. As we are asking our state and local officials to build better and safer communities, we should be encouraging more involvement from our citizens and not discouraging them from participating in state or local government. By addressing unfair tax burdens on state candidates, my legislation would also help to simplify the tax code. By making the tax rates the same for state and local candidates as they are for congressional candidates, the tax code will in a small way become simpler for everyone running for office. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to fight against unfair tax rates for candidates for state and local office.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I note the death of a former colleague and a great North Carolinian, Mr. Lunsford Richardson Preyer, who died of cancer on April 3 at the age of 82. Born in Greensboro, North Carolina, Rich attended college at Princeton University and law school at Harvard. He served honorably in World War II, earning a Bronze Star from the Navy for his courage at Okinawa. It was this courage and his absolute respect for the law and for people that caught the eye of President John F. Kennedy, who named him to a U.S. District Court judgeship in 1961. In 1968, Rich successfully ran for Congress, where he served until 1980. Although my time with him in the House was brief, I know that Rich served the people of North Carolina's 6th District with distinction. He lived during a tumultuous time in our nation's history when racial discrimination was widespread. African Americans were frequently subjected to legal, social and economic oppression. However, Rich emerged through all that by displaying a remarkable moral integrity, tolerance, and support for racial diversity and human rights. As a member of Congress, Rich won the respect of both Republicans and Democrats for his dignity, intelligence, and integrity. He chaired the House Select Committee on Ethics, crafting the Congressional code of ethics. He also served on the House Select Committee on Assassinations, helping to investigate the deaths of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Two years after my election to Congress, Rich left the House. He and his wife Emily--who passed away in 1999--returned to Greensboro where they both continued to touch the lives of their many friends and neighbors in the community. Our nation lost a caring and visionary legislator with the death of Rich, and it is fitting that we pay tribute to his life and legacy today. My wide Cheryl and I would like to express our condolences to Rich's surviving family in this time of sorrow and sadness, and they will be in our prayers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2000, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 417-0, passed the Innocent Child Protection Act. This bill would prohibit either the Federal Government or any State from executing a woman while she carries a child in utero. That bill defined ``child in utero'' in the same language as the legislation that is before us. We heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others, talk about two-cell zygotes and other terms that have been used during the development of the Homo sapiens, but the protection that was given to the child in utero by the bill that passed last year by a vote of 417- 0, I have the roll call here. I noticed the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) endorsed this definition when it came to the death penalty, as did the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Why should we not use the same definition that everybody endorsed last year when it came to executing pregnant women at the State and Federal level in the legislation that sets up this separate crime? I intend to be consistent in my votes by voting for this definition in this bill, as I did last year for the definition in the other bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I agree we ought to talk about abortion when an abortion bill comes up. You are not hearing about abortion from this side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle is bringing up the issue of abortion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has questioned the Subcommittee on the Constitution considering this bill and has said that this is a wholesale assault on the constitutional rights granted women by Roe v. Wade. He is wrong. Twenty-four States have statutes similar to the one that is being considered today. If those statutes which protect the rights of unborn children were such an assault on the mother's constitutional right, every one of them would have been struck down by a Federal court, from the District Court to the Supreme Court level. They have not been, because it is not an assault on the constitutional right of a woman to choose. Then we just heard from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) that this strips away women's reproductive rights. I would submit to the gentlewoman from California that, if the woman wanted to have an abortion, she would have had an abortion before the assault took place. In these cases that this bill will protect, the woman wants to have her child born. So she has already made her choice, and that was for the child to be born. If someone takes away that child's right to life through an assault or through a murder, then that person, that criminal, ought to be prosecuted twice. You do not want the criminal prosecuted twice when the woman has chosen to bring that child to term and have that child born alive. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001. Under current Federal law, an individual who commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives an additional punishment for killing or injuring that woman's unborn child during the commission of the crime. As a result, except in those States that recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal consequence whatsoever. This deficiency in the law is especially troubling, considering the findings of a recent study of women in Maryland published in the March 21, 2001, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors of this study found that homicide is likely the leading cause of death among women who are pregnant or were recently pregnant. Another recent study of autopsies performed on women here in the District of Columbia revealed that an inordinate number of women who died of violence were also pregnant. This study prompted a call for an investigation by the General Accounting Office and the FBI. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, was designed to correct this deficiency in Federal law by providing that an individual who injuries or kills an unborn child during the commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may be punished for a separate offense. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on virtually identical legislation during the 106th Congress, and the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support on September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254 to 172. During the current Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on this legislation on March 15, 2001. The subcommittee held a markup on the legislation on March 21, 2001, and reported the bill without amendment by a voice vote. On March 28, 2001, the full Committee on the Judiciary held a markup and favorably reported H.R. 503, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 15 to 9. Under the act, the punishment for an offense against the unborn child will be the same punishment that would have been imposed under Federal law had that conduct resulted in the same injury to the mother. For example, if an individual assaults a Federal official in violation of 18 United States Code Section 111, as a result of that assault kills the official's unborn child, the perpetrator may be punished for either second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter, for killing the unborn child, the same punishment the individual would have received had the Federal official died as a result of the assault. By its own terms, the act does not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency. So this is not an abortion bill. The act does not permit prosecution of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child or the mother for any conduct with respect to her unborn child. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 will provide just punishment for criminals like Glendale R. Black of Wisconsin, who on February 8, 1992, brutally beat his wife, Terry Marciniak, who was 9 months pregnant with her unborn baby, Zachariah. Little Zachariah was just 4 days from being delivered from his mother's womb. At the hospital, Zachariah was delivered dead. At that time, Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law like H.R. 503, so Black was convicted of only assault and is already eligible for parole. The bill would also provide punishment for criminals like Reginald Anthony Falice, who on April 28, 1998, shot his 8-month-pregnant wife, Ruth Croston, at least five times as she sat at a red light in Charlotte, North Carolina. Falice was convicted by a Federal jury for interstate domestic violence and using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, but because Federal law did not currently recognize the unborn as victims, he received no additional punishment for killing the near-term infant. Ms. Croston's brother, William Croston, testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the tragic death of his sister and the failure of Federal law to recognize the murder of his unborn niece. Or criminals who planted a bomb just outside of Tammy Lynn Baker's apartment in Louisa, Virginia. Ms. Baker was near term with her unborn child when the bomb exploded on December 3, 1997, killing her and the child. Nearly 3 years later, Coleman Johnson, the unborn child's father, was arrested on a Federal explosives charge for the death of Ms. Baker and is awaiting trial. His charges do not include the murder of his unborn child. A similar incident occurred in Connellsville, Pennsylvania on January 1, 1999, when Deanna Mitts, who was 8 months pregnant, returned home from a New Year's Eve celebration with her 3-year-old daughter, Kayla. A bomb exploded in her apartment, killing Ms. Mitts, Kayla, and the unborn child. Almost a year later, Joseph Minerd, the presumed father of the unborn child, was arrested for Deanna and Kayla's murder, but is not being held criminally liable for the harm caused to the unborn child. This legislation would also ensure just punishment for criminals like Gregory Robbins, an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio who wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance he would inflict visible bruises, and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and abdomen, killing their unborn baby. Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for death of the unborn child by assimilating Ohio's fetal homicide law through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Had Mr. Robbins beaten his wife just across the river in Kentucky, a State which has no fetal homicide law, he would have received no additional punishment for killing the unborn child. By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that criminals who commit violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for killing unborn children or injuring them. Without this bill, crimes against these innocent victims will go unpunished. I have given the Members of the House a list of several heinous crimes. It shows the need for this legislation. It shows specifically that killing an innocent unborn child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The only way to do this is to pass H.R. 503, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Stump, I submit for the Record a letter he wrote to the Speaker relating to the floor consideration of H.R. 503, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, April 23, 2001. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, the Committee on Armed Services agrees to waive its right to consider this legislation. H.R. 503, as introduced and ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on April 20, 2001, contains subject matter that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered, and that the Committee's right to the appointment of conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact. Sincerely, Bob Stump, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard people opposed to this bill say time and time again that this bill takes away the right to choose, and they are so so wrong. This bill respects the right of those who have chosen to carry their baby to term, because they want the baby to be born. The opponents of the bill have massed their arguments saying that we are providing legal protection for fertilized eggs and zygotes and blastocysts, but they ignore the fact that this bill provides protection regardless of at what stage of development the unborn child is. They would turn around and say defeat this bill because this dead child as a result of an act of violence against a woman in my home State of Wisconsin should not be protected. This is a child that was about ready to be born before he was murdered. The man who committed this crime, because it was a mere assault on the mother, is now out of prison. We have to pass this bill so that somebody who kills a child like this one spends a lot of time in prison to pay for his crime.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 119, the rule just passed, I call up the bill (H.R. 503) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 the bill, H.R. 503.