F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished representative from Iowa, the Hon. Jim Ross Lightfoot. For the past 12 years, Jim has honorably served the people of Iowa's Third District. Now I wish him the best in his attempt to represent Iowa in the United States Senate. Jim has served this country in many different capacities, including in the Army, as a police officer, on the Corsicana, Texas City Commission, and most recently, as the Representative from Iowa's Third District. While in Congress, Jim has made his marks on the Appropriations Committee, where he has served as the Subcommittee Chairman on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government for the past 2 years. Because of his work as Chairman, Jim deserves some of the credit for the savings achieved in Government spending during the 104th Congress. Jim's humor and demeanor will be missed in this body. He is a fighter whose courage and tenacity have allowed him to outlive his political obituary written by many pundits. On behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Ninth District, I thank the Hon. Jim Ross Lightfoot for his service to the House of Representatives and the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be in order at this time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished Member of this body for the past 18 years, the Honorable Bill Clinger who has represented the people of Pennsylvania's Fifth District with class and dignity. It has been my honor to serve with Bill since we entered Congress together in 1978. He is a man of integrity and principle. His legislative accomplishments over his career are impressive, but his accomplishments just in the past 2 years are nothing short of remarkable. As chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Bill's leadership and determination pushed through bills ending Federal unfunded mandates and enacting the line-item veto. Bill's accomplishments did not stop with these pieces of legislation though. He also successfully passed bills involving paperwork reform and regulatory reform, among others. For his work, the Almanac of American Politics said, ``his legislative production in just his first few months as chairman was as impressive as that of many members over a whole career.'' Mr. Speaker, the House is losing a tremendous legislative leader, gentleman, and patriot. On behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Ninth District, I thank the Honorable Bill Clinger for his outstanding service to the House of Representatives and the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished chairman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Bob Walker. For the past 20 years, Bob has been an outstanding representative for the people of Pennsylvania's 16th District. Since 1978, I've had the pleasure and fun of serving and dealing with Bob. Let me say it here first, there has never been nor will there ever again be a Member quite like Bob. I've gotten to know Bob pretty well from our work on the Science Committee. Bob has been and continues to be a devoted supporter and ally of science. He has done a marvelous job as chairman of the Science Committee, focusing the limited budget resources on sound science and basic research. I sincerely hope my friend will continue to provide his enthusiasm and counsel in helping develop science policy for many years to come. Bob's impact has not been limited to science policy. He successfully got his drug-free workplace provision passed in the 100th Congress. In addition, he has had legislative success reforming product liability, antitrust, and intellectual property laws. Bob has been a master of parliamentary procedure since he entered the House. His mastery forced the Democratic leadership for many years to plug parliamentary loopholes as quickly as Bob could use them. Many battles and victories were won because of Bob's parliamentary skills. On behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Ninth District, I thank the Honorable Bob Walker for his outstanding service to the House of Representatives and the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Tom Bevill, who has honorably served the residents of Alabama's Fourth District for the past 30 years as their Representative in the United States Congress. Mr. Bevill first served our country in the U.S. Army during World War II. A few years later, he began representing Alabama citizens in the Alabama House of Representatives, where he served for 8 years. Beginning in 1967, Mr. Bevill has represented the northern region of Alabama in Congress. Through his years, Mr. Bevill has earned the respect of his congressional colleagues and the public alike. Thanks to his efforts, many water and energy project ideas became a reality. Mr. Bevill's constituents appreciated his hard work and efforts, rewarding him with large reelection margins each times. Over his years in Congress, Mr. Bevill has truly been the distinguished gentleman from Alabama. On behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Ninth District, I thank Mr. Tom Bevill for his outstanding service to the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Glen Browder, for his service in the U.S. House of Representatives on behalf of Alabama's Third District residents. Mr. Browder first entered the public arena in 1982, winning a seat to the Alabama House of Representatives. Four years later, he was elected secretary of state, where he succeeded in persuading the legislature to adopt stricter campaign finance disclosures. In 1989, Mr. Browder won a special election contest for Congress, where he has honorably represented Alabama's Third District ever since. While in Congress, Mr. Browder has been a bipartisan leader in the push for campaign finance reform. He deserves thanks for his leadership in attacking this and other difficult issues. Furthermore, he has been active on the House Budget Committee in attempting to eliminate wasteful Federal Government spending. On behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Ninth District, I thank Mr. Glen Browder for his outstanding service to the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not because the rule protects a good bill, but because there is a provision in this bill that does not belong in there. It is a provision that is certainly a poster child of why the line-item veto is long overdue. Section 351 of this legislation turns Congress into a domestic relations court, and a domestic relations court involving one very famous case in the District of Columbia involving Dr. Elizabeth Morgan and her former husband, Dr. Eric Foretich. By protecting section 351 against the point of order, the Committee on Rules has, in effect, legislated the outcome of a child custody case when the Congress does not have any of the facts, and that is outrageous and it should not be allowed to stand without someone standing up here to object to it. Let us look at the facts. Drs. Foretich and Morgan were involved in a very messy divorce case. That is not unusual. There are a lot of messy divorce cases that come up in the courts around our country. The divorce was granted. Dr. Morgan was given custody of her daughter. Dr. Foretich was given visitation rights. Dr. Morgan objected to the visitation rights and went to court, alleging that Dr. Foretich was involved in child molestation. The court did not sustain Dr. Morgan's assertions and continued Dr. Foretich's right to visit. Dr. Morgan then hid the child and prevented visitation, and was jailed for civil contempt. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] who has put the present provision in the bill, came to Congress, the 101st Congress, and asked us to pass a private bill for the relief of Dr. Morgan, to let her out of jail. When he testified before the subcommittee in the earlier bill, he said, ``The legislation written with input from academic and legal communities took great care to protect the ability of the court to enforce its rulings. While the jury trial provision in my legislation protects the individual from indefinite incarceration, the court can pursue additional remedies. Individuals cannot simply wait out the year-long period and expect to walk away from their obligation to obey the court.'' Under Public Law 101-97, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan technically could still be charged with criminal contempt of court and brought before a jury. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, said that some years ago. The legislation which he has introduced in this appropriation bill, without consideration by a subcommittee in either House, without a vote in either House, negates that provision. Second, this is a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary, and is bad public policy. Dr. Morgan has access to a judicial body. If she thinks the judicial body has erred, she can either appeal, or if she thinks that the judge is biased, there are provisions in the D.C. civil procedure court to get a new judge. Instead, she has come to Congress to legislate the outcome. Finally, Dr. Morgan and her daughter are in New Zealand. The New Zealand courts have ruled that it is not in the best interests of the child to be brought back to the United States. The New Zealand court has possession of the child's passport. If this legislation is passed, our country will be in violation of the Hague Convention relative to child custody, and if the child is brought back to the United States without valid papers, both New Zealand and American law will be violated. Let us prevent this by voting down this rule. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an op-ed piece by Paul Kolker in today's Washington Post.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to this legislation. In addition to all the reasons given by my colleagues from Pennsylvania and California on why it should pass, let me add one, and that is that unless we update our commercial launch legislation, we are going to become, as a Nation, more and more uncompetitive with foreign countries for the commercial space launch business, particularly nonmarket countries such as Russia, China, and the Ukraine. I do think it is important to rebut somewhat the allegations that have been made by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. First of all, this Congress has not been parsimonious with Mission to Planet Earth. The appropriation legislation that was approved by the House provides about a billion dollars for fiscal year 1997 for this purpose. That is a little bit less than was requested, but it still is a significant amount of money, $1 billion. The problem exists in providing a proper balance for the various types of programs that NASA is involved in. Both the OMB budget lines and the Republican balanced budget budget lines give NASA a declining amount of money between now and the year 2002. The OMB line is about $2 billion less than that which the Congress approved, but the fact is that NASA's budget is going to be pinched as time goes on and we cannot provide for unchecked increases in any of NASA's accounts. The fear that I have, looking at both the OMB and the Republican budget lines is that if we do have unchecked increases in Mission to Planet Earth, then NASA's science will be squeezed almost down to a zero amount, and that would be a shame if we ended up squeezing science in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 because the scientific accomplishments with NASA's robotic programs have been literally amazing in the 35 years of NASA's existence. So let us face it, we do not have enough money for everything. We would like to have more, but at the same time we have to have a proper balance between the various accounts. I think that the appropriation bill and the Committee on Science authorization bill does that. The reductions in the request for Mission to Planet Earth end up being reflected in more money being spent in NASA's science accounts. We want to have both a healthy Mission to Planet Earth and a healthy Committee on Science budget for the next 2 or 3 fiscal years. I think that this bill will provide for the leveraging of the Government dollars in Mission to Planet Earth. And if we can attract private sector dollars to replace public sector dollars, so much the better.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 123, which declares English to be the official language of the Government of the United States. The Government of the United States. And simply stated, that means when one does business with the Government of the United States, one does it in the English language. We have heard a lot about the fact that English is a unifying force which has brought millions of immigrants over the years together in this country, and I think that is a true statement, but I also think it is important for us to look to the north and to Belgium to see how bilingualism and multilingualism has been a dividing force in those countries. And it has. Neither in Canada nor in Belgium over literally centuries has there been a formula devised to bring unity to those countries that have been divided, not along religious or ethnic lines but along language lines. But irrespective of whether this bill is adopted, English is the language of commerce. If someone comes from a non-English speaking country to the United States, in order for them to achieve the American dream they have to be functional in English, and there is no better way to help them become functional in English than to say that when doing business with the Government of the United States, it be done in the English language. So what we are doing here I think is helping people who come from other countries where English is not the language to become part of America. To achieve the American dream. To achieve their own individual human potential. And this is one small step in allowing them to do so. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record. I rise in strong of H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996. I believe it is essential to have English as the official language of our National Government, for the English language is the tie that binds the millions of immigrants who come to America from divergent backgrounds. We should, and do, encourage immigrants to maintain and share their traditions, customs, and religions, but the use of English is essential for immigrants and their children to participate fully in American society and achieve the American dream. Importantly, title II of this bill repeals the Federal mandate requiring certain communities to provide bilingual ballots. This directive of the Voting Rights Act is unnecessary and costly. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally intended to put a stop to racial barriers to voting in the South, such as literacy tests. English-only ballots are simply not the equivalent, or even comparable, to the racially abused literacy tests of the South. Applicants for American citizenship, with some limited exceptions, have been required to demonstrate proficiency in English since 1906. Since only citizens may vote, the rationale for mandatory multilingual voting services is perplexing. One of the reasons we require immigrants to learn English before they naturalize is that a person who cannot understand English will not be able to participate in the political community in any but the most limited capacity. Bilingual ballots are not an effective means of increasing full political participation, for they are used by citizens who are obviously not proficient in English, and those who are not proficient in English, in most cases, cannot follow a political campaign, talk with candidates, or petition their representatives. I believe it is necessary to clarify what repealing the bilingual ballot requirement does not do. This bill does not affect laws outlawing voter discrimination. It does not propose a literacy test. It does not preclude anyone from voting, even if they do not know English. There are effective alternatives to federally mandated bilingual ballots, especially where complicated ballot initiatives are involved. Foreign language newspapers have the free speech right to publish sample ballots translated from English, and voters can take these sample ballots into the voting booth. Under this bill, a political party or interest group is perfectly free to issue multilingual voting materials. States can choose to allow voters to bring a friend or relative in the booth with them, absentee ballots can be filled out at home with assistance, and ethnic organizations can provide bilingual sample ballots and voter information pamphlets. Furthermore, although this bill eliminates the unfunded mandate on the States, States are still free to supply ballots in foreign languages, if that is what the voters demand. According to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of Americans, including immigrants, support making English the official language of the United States. I urge my colleagues to heed the call of the American people and vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to the late Hon. Hamilton Fish, Jr., an outstanding American of great compassion, decency, and dignity. Known to this friends as ``Ham,'' he dedicated his life to serving the United States. As a young American, he interrupted his education to enlist in the Navy during World War II. Later Ham joined the U.S. Foreign Service and served in Dublin as Vice Consul to Ireland from 1951 to 1953. In 1968 he began his 26 years of dedicated service to the people of New York's 19th Congressional District as their representative to Congress. His constituents appreciated his leadership and hard work, electing him by overwhelming margins as a result. I observed Ham's legislative skills while serving with him on the Judiciary Committee. He was a master at working together with all Members to achieve a consensus. While in Congress, Ham focused his skills on passing legislative landmarks, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. In addition, he was a leader in crafting copyright and antitrust law. While he was well known for his legislative accomplishments, Ham Fish was best known as a great American. Friends and foes alike respected and admired Ham. His affable and kind personality positively impacted all who knew him. Today America has indeed lost an outstanding citizen. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of the late Hon. Hamilton Fish, Jr.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, left before we could respond to his remarks. And I regret that he was not here when I made my remarks on why this legislation is in front of us. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not mean-spirited. It is not divisive. It is not cynical. It is a legitimate response to a well- publicized legal move to try to expand a decision in Hawaii to the rest of the country and to Federal law. Now, the question is not whether or not we are compassionate. I think we all are compassionate because uncompassionate people do not get elected to Congress. But the question is how these issues should be debated and how the decision should be made. I believe in the power of the people and the power of the Congress to make the right decisions and to do the right thing. And we ought to have an open debate on the issue of whether Federal benefits should be expanded to couples who get involved in gay marriages. The place for that debate, I would submit, is in the forum of public opinion, and the greatest deliberative legislative body in the world, the Congress of the United States, rather than having judges that are not elected and judges that are not responsible to the people bootstrap a decision in one State to national policy. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the gentleman from Wisconsin does not understand that. I think the rest of the House does.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down. He has impugned my motives.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think Congress should decide whether the domestic spouses of gays and lesbians should get Social Security survivor benefits.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, at least in terms of Federal benefits, to me, no.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank]. This is not a States rights amendment. This amendment would allow the will of Congress to be usurped by three justices on a divided Hawaii Supreme Court. In rebuttal to the argument made by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the Justice Department, headed by Janet Reno, not one of ours but one of yours, has twice said that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. It is time for the Congress to define the full faith and credit clause, what the Constitution allows us to do, and that is what this bill proposes. As was stated several times during the debate yesterday, this act is necessary because of a concerted effort on the part of homosexual activities to win the Hawaii case and then to impose the decision on every other State by a lawsuit invoking the full faith and credit clause. My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. I would like to reiterate the words from a memo written by the director of the Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education fund, a gay rights group. This memo is entitled, ``Winning and Keeping Equal Marriage Rights: What will Follow Victory in Baehr v. Levin,'' unquote. On page 2 of this memorandum it is written, ``Many same-sex couples in and out of Hawaii are likely to take advantage of what would be a landmark victory. The great majority of those who travel to Hawaii to marry will return to their homes in the rest of the country expecting full recognition of their unions.'' It is important to remember that this gay activist scheme may not only affect every other State but the Federal Government as well. The Federal Government currently extends benefits, rights, obligations and privileges on the basis of marital status. These include Social Security survivor and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, Federal health, life insurance and pension benefits and immigration privileges. In fact, the word marriage appears more than 800 times in Federal statutes and regulations, and the word spouse appears over 3,100 times. However, these terms are never defined in the statutes and regulations. This bill proposes to do so. Because this United States Code does not contain a definition of marriage, a State's definition of marriage is regularly utilized in the implementation of Federal laws and regulations. Such deference is possible now because of the differences, because the difference in State marriage laws, although numerous, are relatively minor. Every State concurs in the most basic marital qualification, that a valid marriage must be between one man and one woman. There never has been any reason to make this implicit understanding explicit until now. If Hawaii legalizes same-sex marriage, which the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], says is going to happen, then the basic qualification is altered. Consequently, section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act amends the United States Code to make it clear for purposes of Federal law marriage means what Congress intended it to mean, that is, a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Congress certainly has the authority to define qualifications, conditions and obligations surrounding the application of Federal law and the disbursement of Federal benefits. Exercising such authority is not uncommon. When Congress voted on Federal laws that conferred benefits on married persons, I do not think that Congress ever contemplated their application to same-sex couples. I do not think the American people did either. Should we not let the American people and their elected Representatives, as opposed to a sharply divided Hawaii court, decide whether we should alter the fundamental definition of marriage recognized by civilizations for thousands of years and always presumed by the U.S. Congress? Gay rights groups are scheming to manipulate the full faith and credit clause to achieve through the judicial system what they cannot obtain through the democratic process. I do not think that Congress should be forced by Hawaii's State court to recognize a marriage between two males or between two females. Congress did not pick that fight. The groups that filed suit in Hawaii did. We are simply responding to an unprecedented overt effort to impose one State's marital rules on the rest of the Nation. We have enough problems financing our Social Security trust funds. If the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is adopted, there will be a huge expansion of the number of people eligible to receive Medicare survivor benefits. We should decide that by ourselves, not by Hawaii court.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Representative Bill Emerson, a distinguished American who served his country with unsurpassed dignity and an inspiring fighting spirit. Representative Emerson began his public service as a teenaged House page in 1954. He later served on the staffs of Representative Bob Ellsworth and Senator Charles Mathias. In 1980, Representative Emerson sacrificed a lucrative lobbying career to run for Congress. Through his dogged determination and exemplary integrity, Bill Emerson defeated the Democratic incumbent, becoming the first Republican in 50 years to represent the Cape Girardeau-Bootheel region. During his 16 years in Congress and throughout his life, Bill Emerson earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the public. He was able to rise above politics and work together with Members on the other side of the aisle to pass legislation benefiting our country. As a compassionate leader on the Agriculture Committee, Bill Emerson dedicated much of his efforts to food stamps and nutrition programs. No matter what challenge life threw at him, Bill Emerson attacked it with every fiber in his body. He fought and defeated alcohol dependency and never gave up his fight against cancer. Since being diagnosed with cancer last November, Bill's spirit and zeal for life never wavered. This House and our country has lost a great American patriot. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of the Honorable Bill Emerson.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. This substitute is really a cop-out, because what it does is it punts the ball right back to the bureaucrats in the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It does not compel the Secretary and the bureaucrats to approve the submittal that has been made by the Governor of Wisconsin. It allows the Secretary to cherry-pick and approve some and modify others and disapprove others, which means that the whole W-2 welfare reform plan that was passed by the State legislature does not get approved, and it does not even set up an automatic deadline as I read this. It just urges the Secretary to do it by the end of July. There is precedent for legislatively approving welfare waivers that have been requested by the States and I referred to 3 instances during my remarks in general debate: In 1987 Washington State welfare waivers were legislatively approved in a budget reconciliation bill as were New York waivers. In 1989 Minnesota had some waivers legislatively approved. That is exactly the same procedure that we are using here today with the waivers that have been requested by the State of Wisconsin. So we are not doing something unprecedented, despite what the previous speaker has said. We are following the precedents that occurred in 1987 and in 1988 with the 3 other States and simply saying that this Congress approves the waivers so that the decisions that have been made in Madison, WI by the elected representatives of the people will proceed rather than getting modified, delayed and confused by bureaucrats in the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services across the street.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that whenever you are on the short end of the argument, you end up demeaning the other side's arguments, getting involved in name calling. And that is not what the legislative process should be, but unfortunately, in many instances it is. What the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] said is what the issue is before this House. The issue is whether the decision on what waivers should be approved or not rests with bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services, who are not elected, who are not responsible to the voters and who are not even responsible to the President of the United States, or whether the decision should be made by the elected representatives of the people in the Wisconsin State Legislature. It is those State senators and those State representatives that have determined that this is a good idea for the people of Wisconsin. If it has been misrepresented, they are the folks that ought to take the political hit, because they are responsible for their voting record, just as we are responsible for ours. So let us have some faith in those elected senators and representatives by approving this bill and providing the waivers that are needed to make this work.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, to know that had H.R. 4 become law, we would not be standing here today, because there would be no waivers required for Wisconsin to implement the W-2 welfare reform bill that the State legislature passed and Governor Thompson signed. So anybody who voted for H.R. 4 and its conference report should really be supporting this piece of legislation enthusiastically because we already dealt with the issues then that we are dealing with today. Unfortunately, the President of the United States decided to veto H.R. 4 and that is why we are having this debate today. I thank the gentleman for yielding.