F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, several speakers on the other side said that if this bill was law at the time of 9/11, it would not have made any difference on what ID the terrorists used to get on the planes. That is flat out wrong. What the bill say is that anyone who is admitted to this country on a temporary visa will have their driver's license expire as to the date of their visa. Now, Mohammed Atta, who is the ring leader of 9/11 murderers, entered the United States on a 6-month visa. That visa expired on July 9, 2001. He got a driver's license from the State of Florida on May 5, 2001. That was a 6-year driver's license. Had this bill been in effect at the time, that driver's license would have expired on July 9, and he would not have been able to use that driver's license to get on a plane because it was an expired ID. Read the bill. Secondly, relative to the asylum issue, what this bill does is two things. First of all, it says the burden of proof is on the applicant for asylum to prove that they qualify. What is wrong with that? The burden of proof is on anybody who is the plaintiff or an applicant in any type of proceeding. They have got to prove that they are entitled to the relief that they are requesting, and I will just read from page 3 of the bill. In General. The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of the law. To establish that the applicant is a refugee, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group or political opinion was or will be the central reason for persecuting the applicant. So nobody, nobody who falls under that definition will be denied asylum under this bill. Secondly, it says that in sustaining the burden, it allows the trier of fact, the immigration judge in this case, to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Now, the trier of the fact, whether it is a judge or a jury in any other legal proceeding, bases determinations on the credibility of the witnesses as to what verdict is reached. Without this bill, a person can come before an immigration judge, be determined by that judge that they are lying through their teeth, and still get asylum. That is just flat out wrong, and it is a distortion of the type of jurisprudence that we have had where court proceedings are supposed to determine exactly what the truth is. There is no one who is lying through their teeth that should be able to get relief from the courts, and I would just point out that this bill would give immigration judges the tool to get at the Blind Sheik who wanted to blow up landmarks in New York, the man who plotted and executed the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the man who shot up the entrance to the CIA headquarters in northern Virginia, and the man who shot up the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Every one of these non-9/11 terrorists who tried to kill or did kill honest, law-abiding Americans was an asylum applicant. We ought to give our judges the opportunity to tell these people no and to pass the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in December, the President signed into law legislation intended to respond to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, the legislation that was enacted failed to include several key provisions critical to addressing vulnerabilities found in both the 9/11 Commission Report and of the 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel. To that end, on January 26th of this year, I introduced H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. The bill, which now has 139 cosponsors, encompasses four of the most important border and document security provisions that the House overwhelmingly approved as a part of H.R. 10 last year. The goal of the REAL ID Act is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another 9/11-type terrorist attack by disrupting terrorist travel. The 9/11 Commission terrorist travel report stated that ``Abuse of the immigration system and the lack of interior enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activities.'' The report further states that ``Members of al Qaeda clearly valued freedom of movement as critical to their ability to plan and carry out the attacks prior to September 11th.'' Finally, the report observed, ``If terrorist travel options are reduced, they may be forced to rely on means of interaction which can be more easily monitored and to resort to travel documents that are more easily detectable.'' The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting terrorist travel. First, the legislation does not, does not, try to set States' policy for those who may or may not drive a car, but it does address the use of a driver's license as a form of identification to a Federal official such as an airport screener at a domestic airport. American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that the people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias. Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum system, which has been abused by terrorists. The 9/11 Commission staff report on terrorist travel states that ``Once the terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here.'' Their primary method was immigration fraud. Irresponsible judges have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and abuse. We will end judge-imposed presumptions that benefit suspected terrorists in order to stop providing a safe haven to some of the worst people on Earth. The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for immigration fraud so that we can protect honest asylum seekers and stop rewarding the terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution. Liberal activist judges in the Ninth Circuit have been overturning clearly established precedent and are preventing immigration judges from denying bogus asylum applications by aliens who are clearly lying. If criminal juries can sentence a defendant to life imprisonment or execution based on adverse credibility determinations, certainly an immigration judge can deny an alien asylum on this basis. It is one of the foundations of our system of jurisprudence that juries and trial judges should be able to decide cases on the basis of credibility or lack of credibility of witnesses. This bill will again allow immigration judges to deny asylum claims based on the lack of credibility. The bill also overturns an even more disturbing Ninth Circuit precedent that has made it easier for terrorists to receive asylum. The circuit has actually held that an alien can receive asylum on the basis that his or her government believes that the alien is a terrorist. Third, the REAL ID Act will waive Federal laws to the extent necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence which is still stymied 8 years after congressional authorization. Neither the public safety nor the environment are benefiting from the current stalemate. Finally, the REAL ID Act contains a common-sense provision that helps protect Americans from terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. Currently, certain terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility to our country are not also grounds for deportation of aliens already here. The REAL ID Act makes aliens deportable from the United States for terrorism-related offenses to the same extent they would be inadmissible to the United States to begin with. The act provides that any alien who knowingly provides funds or other material support to a terrorist organization will be subject to immigration consequences. The REAL ID Act will make America a safer place. It is even endorsed by the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an association of family members of 9/11 victims. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, February 9, 2005. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), our recently returned prodigal son. (Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Mr. Bradley David DeBraska, a police officer with the Milwaukee Police Department. It gives me great pleasure to join the International Union of Police Associations in recognizing his service to the Milwaukee community. Mr. DeBraska has honorably served the police force since 1977. He worked tirelessly as a Police Officer, and for the past twelve years has served dual roles as a Police Liaison Officer and Detective. Mr. DeBraska's service also extends to numerous Boards and Associations, helping to guide several police and community organizations. In addition, he faithfully served the residents of Wisconsin as a member of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. He has truly fulfilled his duty as a citizen of this country. I am proud of the work that Mr. DeBraska has accomplished in his 28 years of service. Once again, I congratulate him. I wish Mr. DeBraska a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for the 109th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. These rules were adopted by the Committee on January 26, in a meeting that was open to the public. Rules of Procedure Rule I. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees with the following specific additions thereto. Rule II. Committee Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on Tuesday of each week while the House is in session. (b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor. (c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each scheduled Committee or Subcommittee meeting, each Member of the Committee or Subcommittee shall be furnished a list of the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or Subcommittee. (d) The Chairman, with such notice to the Ranking Minority Member as is practicable, may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (e) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any Member, and a copy made available to each Member present. (g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a subpoena. (h)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time. (2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote. (3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (i) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee and shall be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by the Chairman. (j) Without further action of the Committee, the Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. Rule III. Hearings (a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee chairman shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or Subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of two Members. (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication. Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct any errors other than errors in the transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the publication of the verbatim transcript. Rule IV. Broadcasting Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure. Rule V. Standing Subcommittees (a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the Chairman. (b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellect Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on the Constitution: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, terrorism, internal and homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, criminal law enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-border enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (c) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or Ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing or meeting of such Subcommittee. Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of such report and given the opportunity to give notice of intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in which to file such views be less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session). Rule VIII. Committee Records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Village of Brown Deer, WI. It gives me great pleasure to join Brown Deer in celebrating this historic occasion. Brown Deer was not incorporated into a village until January 20, 1955. However, its history began much earlier in 1835, when Irish and German migrants from the eastern United States settled in the Brown Deer-Granville area in search of farm lands. A few men from Granville, New York gave the township its name, which means ``large city.'' In 1841, the original towns of Lake and Milwaukee were parceled out into seven townships of roughly 36 square miles apiece. The township of Granville was positioned in the northwest corner of Milwaukee County. It was in the northeast corner of this township where a small community referred to by residents as Brown Deer developed. With a population of about 225, the first town meeting took place in 1842. The early 1900s showed moderate population growth in the Brown Deer area, but it was not until September 1953 that the process of incorporating Brown Deer into a village began. On November 3, 1953, incorporators applied for an order incorporating the Village with the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County. Following a hearing and a subsequent trial, the people of Brown Deer voted overwhelmingly at a referendum ordered by the Circuit Court in favor of incorporation, thereby officially creating the Village of Brown Deer and making it a municipal corporation on January 20, 1955. Its humble beginnings helped make Brown Deer the Village it is today. I congratulate the Village of Brown Deer on its incorporation, and wish the residents of the Village of Brown Deer a very happy 50th Anniversary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I recognize the death of a former colleague and a great Californian, Representative Robert Matsui, who passed away earlier this week. A third-generation Japanese-American, Bob was born in Sacramento and was just a 6-month-old baby when he and his family were imprisoned at the Tule Lake internment camp following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Forty years later, he was instrumental in passing the Japanese- American Redress Act, which produced an official apology from the Federal Government for the World War II internment program and offered compensation to victims. Bob was a quiet and admired Member of Congress. His passion for issues he believed deeply in was respected by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He brought dignity and honor to the House of Representatives. Bob was a tax and trade maven on the House Ways and Means Committee, and his knowledge and expertise in these areas will be sorely missed. He was one of a small number of Democrats who pushed for passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. First elected in 1978 following his service to the City of Sacramento, Bob 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 Bob during the 26 years we served in the House together. The people in the Sacramento-based 5th district lost a good legislator when Bob passed away on January 1, and he will be missed by his friends and family. It is with a heavy heart that I say good-bye to Bob. My wife Cheryl and I would like to express our condolences to his wife, Doris, and the entire family, in this time of sorrow and sadness. They will be in our prayers.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 2004, the House passed both S. Con. Res. 146 and S. 150 under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The amendments made to S. 150 as it was passed by the Senate included a provision that ended some state taxation of Internet access previously interpreted to be allowed by the original 1998 moratorium grandfather exceptions. The final enrolled version of S. 150 was signed by President Bush on December 3, 2004, and became Public Law 108-435. As Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction in the House, I wish to remark further upon the meaning and intent of Section 1104(a)(2) of the final enrolled version of S. 150 that became Public Law. The intent of this section is to clarify ambiguities associated with the Internet Tax Freedom Act (Pub. L. 106-277, Div. C. Title XI (1998)) (``ITFA''), which created a moratorium on State taxation of Internet access and on multiple and discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce. The ITFA contained an exemption for States that had generally imposed or actually enforced a tax on Internet access prior to October 1, 1998. Thus, States that qualified for ``grandfather'' status could continue to tax Internet access. Subsequent to 1998, however, litigation arose between State taxing authorities and various Internet Service Providers (ISPs), who maintained that certain States wrongly taxed them and their customers for Internet access even though such States had never qualified for grandfather status. One example is that of Tennessee, whose Commissioner of Revenue had assessed sales and use taxes on Internet access based on the State's tax on ``telecommunications services.'' An ISP (Prodigy) challenged the tax and, following several years of litigation, the Tennessee Court of Appeals eventually ruled that the provision of Internet access did not constitute a taxable event within the Tennessee statute. Thus, Tennessee had never met the requirements for grandfather status under the ITFA to tax Internet access. Similarly, Wisconsin taxation authorities claimed to qualify for grandfather status under the ITFA based on a broad State tax on ``telecommunications services'' which was subsequently applied to encompass Internet access through an administrative ruling. Like Tennessee, ISPs have challenged Wisconsin's status as a ``grandfathered'' State under the pre-October 1998 provisions of the ITFA. The crux of the ISPs' argument is that the tax statutes of Tennessee and Wisconsin differ from those of other grandfathered States that meet the conditions of the ITFA. Where other grandfathered States' statutes impose taxes on all services unless an exemption exists, those of States like Wisconsin and Tennessee only tax services if they are enumerated in the statute specifically. Since neither State's statute taxed Internet access explicitly, they were never entitled to assess taxes on Internet access within their States as the ITFA was intended to be construed by Congress. In order to provide clarity about the original intent of Congress and the ITFA, and in order to end further litigation, Section 1104(a)(2) states that the grandfather provision of the ITFA will terminate after November 1, 2007 with the exception of a State telecommunications service tax enacted by State law on or after October 1, 1991 and applied to Internet access through administrative code or regulation issued on or after December 1, 2002. Section 1104(a)(2) should also serve notice that Congress finds particularly egregious the attempts of some States, like Wisconsin, to avoid the Congressional intent and the general moratorium by seeking to impose preexisting telecommunications taxes on Internet access after the enactment of the ITFA through administrative ruling rather than an act of the legislature. It is also the intent of this section to deter any similar efforts by States in the future. As of November 19, 2004, Congress believes that only Wisconsin of the remaining grandfathered states under the 1998 ITFA meets the particular general qualifying criteria set forth in Section 1104(a)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Therefore the effect of Section 1104(a)(2) will be to end Wisconsin's grandfathered ability to collect taxes on Internet access by November 1, 2006. However, if any other grandfathered States are subsequently found to meet the same generally applicable criteria, they should be treated similarly and their grandfathered taxation status should also end by November 1, 2006.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. The House-passed bill not only reformed our intelligence community, it also secured our borders. Unfortunately, the conference has left us with an incomplete product that does not secure our border and, thus, makes us more vulnerable to another terrorist attack. At the beginning of this process I said that the object of this legislation should be to prevent a future attack on the United States, not to manage the consequences of that attack. This bill does not do that. And the reason it does not do that is that while we will have better intelligence, good intelligence is useless without good homeland security. The House bill followed the 9/11 Commission's common-sense recommendation that we have Federal standards for driver's licenses. The commission said, ``For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' Despite many attempts to keep these weapons away from terrorists, the bill does not do the job. In fact, the language in the conference report is worse than the current law, and it practically invites terrorists to come into our country and to apply for these critical identification documents. There is no enforcement or certification at the national level. There is no expiration of the licenses when the visas expire. There is no data- sharing between the States. And any State can simply walk away from the few requirements that are in the bill. That does not sound like driver's license reform to me. Rather it sounds like a recipe for disaster, the same kind of disaster that occurred on 9/11. Remember that the 9/11 hijackers had multiple validly issued State driver's licenses among them, and that is how they got on the airplanes. That is what we were trying to stop by changing the provisions in the conference report, and I regret that we failed. But I can assure you that this issue is not going to go away. We have also failed on asylum reform. Many terrorist aliens have applied for asylum and then have been released from detention to plot or commit their crimes. That must stop, and the provisions in the House bill would have done that, but they too were dropped. Terrorists are getting asylum today for two main reasons. First, our government cannot even ask foreign governments what evidence they have about terrorist activities of asylum applicants. Thus, the U.S. Government must usually oppose asylum requests by arguing that the applicant is lying. The Ninth Circuit has effectively barred immigration judges from denying asylum claims on the basis of the credibility of witness statements. That is crazy, because every jury in the country judges the credibility of the witnesses in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The House bill would have stopped that and removed that bar. The conference report does not. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has been granting asylum to applicants because their home government believes they are terrorists. It then says, therefore they are being persecuted because of the political beliefs of the relevant terrorist organizations. That is goofy. The House stopped it, but the Senate would not go along; and the conference report fails to deal with this issue. These provisions are not too controversial. They are not irrelevant. They are vital. And how could we face grieving families in the future and tell them that while we might have done more, the legislative hurdles were just too high? I, for one, cannot, and, therefore, oppose the bill. I have heard from many citizens from my district and across the country who understand and want these provisions, and I thank them for their support. I want to say to them, and to everyone else that is listening, I will not rest until these provisions are enacted into law. I will bring them up relentlessly until this job is completed. The bill was a chance to complete the job, and that chance was missed; but it will come again soon. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to two of my fellow conferees, the gentlemen from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I think did yeoman's work in cleaning up the problems with the chain of command in order to protect our warfighters in the field and reduce casualties, and the bill is an improvement over what was passed by the other body on this. But that only applies to safety of troops overseas. It does not deal with the issue of safety of Americans at home. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) in particular, were instrumental in trying to support the driver's license and asylum reform provisions as well as plugging the hole in the fence that needs to be plugged to prevent aliens from streaming across the border. We ought to vote this down and start over next year.

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 S. 2192.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2655 would extend the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program for 2 years, from 2006 to 2008. It would also modify the provisions of the program to ensure that those aliens receiving visas are those the program was designed to benefit. In 1998, Representative Walsh guided the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act to enactment. The purpose of the program is to allow young adults who live in disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland and designated border counties of Ireland that are suffering from sectarian violence and high unemployment to enter the United States to develop job skills and conflict resolution abilities in a diverse, cooperative, peaceful, and prosperous environment. They can then return to their homes better able to contribute toward economic regeneration and the Irish peace process. Up to 4,000 qualifying aliens (and their spouses and minor children) can be admitted each year and they can stay in the U.S. for up to 3 years. Mr. Walsh's bill, H.R. 2655, would extend the program for another 2 years, until October 1, 2008. It would also make a number of changes to the program to ensure that the aliens granted admission are those truly economically disadvantaged young adults the program was designed to help. These changes include requirements that program participants not have degrees from institutions of higher education, that they be at least 21 years of age, that they be nationals of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, that they have been unemployed for at least one year and resident in Northern Ireland or the designated border counties for at least 18 months. The bill would also make changes to the program to help ensure that the aliens return to Ireland to foster economic development and peace. For instance, it would also require that aliens admitted under the program return home for 2 years before they could apply for an immigrant visa, permanent residence, or another nonimmigrant visa. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2655.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2655) to amend and extend the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

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 S. 2873.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2873) to extend the authority of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, Illinois, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The other body has passed S. 2873, which contains five noncontroversial items that affect the operations of certain Federal courts. These provisions have been thoroughly scrubbed and will assist the affected judicial districts in their work. I urge the House to pass the measure. Mr. Speaker, the contents of S. 2873 are as follows: First, the bill designates Cleveland, Mississippi, as a place of holding federal court. This is necessary because Cleveland is the site for a local prison that houses Federal inmates who cannot be incarcerated elsewhere based on a shortage of Federal facilities in the area. The provision will allow a federal judge who resides in Cleveland to process the Federal cases there rather than commute to Greenville along with the prisoners. There is no need for building construction or leased space. Second, the bill designates Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana Arkansas, as places of holding Federal court. The provision allows the Western District of Arkansas and the Eastern District of Texas to hold court anywhere within the Texarkana courthouse that straddles the border between the two States. This will allow the judges to coordinate their workloads and move their dockets more efficiently. Third, the bill designates Plattsburgh, New York, as a place of holding court. This provision was part of H.R. 3632, an anticounterfeiting bill, that the House passed earlier this year by voice vote. The Plattsburgh designation will assist the U.S. Customs Service and the Department of Justice in prosecuting criminal activity on the Canadian border and Lake Champlain region. Fourth, the bill designates Colorado Springs, Colorado, as a place of holding court. This was also part of H.R. 3632. Colorado Springs is home to a number of Federal prison facilities, including one which houses terrorists. The nearest Federal court is 70 miles away. The Marshals Service is especially concerned about transporting terrorists over this expanse. And fifth, the bill extends an existing authorization to permit the Southern Judicial District of Iowa to hold court in Rock Island, Illinois. The courthouse in Iowa is undergoing renovations which are not yet completed, thereby necessitating the extension. To conclude, I emphasize that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts endorses this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the other body and our committee in a bipartisan fashion have reviewed these items and we find them meritorious. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2873. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2192) to amend title 35, United States Code, to promote cooperative research involving universities, the public sector, and private enterprises, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, S. 2192 will help to spur the development of new technologies by making it easier for collaborative inventors who represent more than one organization to obtain the protection of the U.S. patent system for their inventions. Members should note that the text of S. 2192 is identical to that of H.R. 2391, which received approximately 2 years of process. The House passed H.R. 2391 by voice vote on March 10 of this year. The bill achieves this goal by limiting the circumstances in which confidential information, which is voluntarily exchanged by individual research team members, may be asserted to bar the patenting of the team's new inventions. Today, industries that rely on intellectual property, like pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and nano-technology serve as key catalysts to the U.S. economy, employing tens of thousands of Americans. More often than not, the innovations they develop are not done solely by researchers ``in-house'' but rather, in concert with other researchers who may be located at universities, non-profit institutions, or other private enterprises. Carl E. Gulbrandsen, the managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, provided an assessment of the value of university research contributions when he testified before the Intellectual Property Subcommittee last Congress that: In 2000, non-profits and universities spent a record $28.1 billion on research and development much of which involved collaborations among private, public, and non-profit entities. Sales of products developed from inventions transferred from these research centers resulted in revenues that approached $42 billion that year, a portion of which was then reinvested in additional research. As significant as this research activity is, the tangible benefits of its application are also worth noting. Innovations like magnetic resonance imaging and the sequencing of the human genome through a process known as automated polymerase chain reaction technology were both made possible through collaborative research. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, Congress acted to provide incentives for innovation by encouraging researchers within organizations to share information. That year, we amended the Patent Act to restrict the use of background scientific or technical information shared among researchers in an effort to deny a patent in instances where the subject matter and the claimed invention were under common ownership or control. S. 2192 will provide a similar statutory ``safe harbor'' for inventions that result from the collaborative activities of private, public, and non-profit entities. In so doing, the bill responds to the 1997 OddzON Products, Inc. V. Just Toys, Inc. decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals by clarifying that prior inventions of team members will not serve as an absolute bar to the patenting of the team's new invention when the parties conduct themselves in accordance with the terms of the bill. In the future, research collaborations between academia and industry will be even more critical to the efforts of U.S. industry to maintain our technological preeminence. By enacting S. 2192, Congress will help to foster improved communication among researchers, provide additional certainty and structure for those who engage in collaborative research, reduce patent litigation incentives, and facilitate innovation and investment. S. 2192 is the product of the collaborative efforts of a number of individuals and leading professional patent and research organizations. Among those who contributed substantially to the development of the bill are the USPTO, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the American Council on Education, the American University Technology Managers, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Mr. Speaker, S. 2192 will ensure that tomorrow's collaborative researchers can enjoy the full measure of the benefits of the patent law. I urge the Members to support the bill. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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. 2655.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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