F. Sensenbrenner

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. 5363, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1417) to amend title 17, United States Code, to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty Judges, and for other purposes.

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. 1417, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417, legislation to reform the rate-making and royalty distribution system for compulsory and statutory licenses. The House passed its version of the bill on March 3 of this year by a vote of 406 to nothing. The other body subsequently passed H.R. 1417 on October 6 with certain amendments incorporated into a committee substitute. These changes are acceptable to both the majority and minority members of our committee with the adoption of the enrolling resolution just considered. Mr. Speaker, with the adoption of the three copyright compulsory licenses in 1976, Congress contemplated the need for an administrative body charged with periodically adjusting the rates as well as distributing royalties under the respective licenses. The resulting entity was the Copyright Royalty Tribunal or CRT. Over the next 17 years, however, CRTs were roundly criticized, prompting Congress to reassess the rate-making and royalty distribution construct. This deliberation produced the current system in 1993 that features copyright royalty arbitration panels or CARPs. Eleven years later we are seeking further improvements in response to existing deficiencies in the CARP system. Among other things, H.R. 1417 addresses the uniform complaint that CARP decisions are unpredictable and inconsistent. This is generally accomplished by changing the structure from one featuring ad hoc arbitration panels to one comprised of three permanent copyright royalty judges or CRJs. To justify the need for these full-time judges and to alleviate overwhelming workloads associated with multiple proceedings that occur simultaneously, the bill staggers the timing during which individual proceedings can be adjudicated. The bill also addresses the complaint that the process is unnecessarily expensive by eliminating the costs of the arbitrators upon private parties and by creating a specific process to give small claimants a more balanced ability to participate. The bill discourages persons or entities from disrupting the process at the 11th hour by requiring potential participants to show that they have a significant interest in the proceedings. In furtherance of marketplace negotiations, the measure establishes a cooling-off period during which time parties are to focus on reaching their own agreements. Mr. Speaker, the amendments adopted by the other body that require our further consideration of the bill today concern the scope of discovery in the role of the copyright office under the new construct. Briefly, the original House version created greater open-ended discovery of relevant material information over a 60-day period. The changes adopted by the other body make it more difficult for a participant to acquire documents and materials other than statements made by stakeholders and witnesses. In addition, another revision specifically limits the number of interrogatories and depositions that each participant may seek. Both of these changes are consistent with the current trend in administrative law that pares the discovery process. This will save participants time and money. In addition, the other body strengthened the role of the copyright offices relative to the CRJs. This represents a policy preference that deviates somewhat from the House bill which conferred greater autonomy upon the CRJs to make independent decisions. I am nonetheless satisfied that the changes adopted were born of a legitimate concern that the proceedings would be fairer and more predictable if the Copyright Office retained plenary authority to offer guidance regarding copyright law. This is especially important when novel questions of law arise. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1417 was painstakingly negotiated amongst the various congressional, executive, and industry stakeholders. We have worked in a bipartisan manner and developed a consensus product over a 3-year period that will effectively address an arcane, but important, matter. I urge the adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2302) to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, lest anyone be confused as a result of the previous speaker that this is a wide-ranging, overall immigration bill that deals with amnesty and guest workers and all of those very contentious issues, let me lay that impression to rest. This bill does not do that, and I fear that the previous speaker's statement ends up hurting the support for this bill that is broad and bipartisan. All this bill does is allow a foreign national who is a graduate of an American medical school and who has completed his residency in an American hospital to practice in a medically-underserved area, somewhere in the United States, and the request would have to be made by a State Department of Public Health and limited to no more than 50 doctors per State. Now, this is not what the gentlewoman from Texas is talking about. We will deal with that in due course, but let us make sure that this bill is not confused with the other more broad and contentious bills. This bill has to pass because it extends a program that expired in June of this year, and if we vote this legislation down, then we are not going to have those doctors in the medically-underserved areas. We should keep the discussion and bills like this confined to what is in the bill, rather than a wide-ranging overall debate on immigration policy.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the author of the House counterpart to this bill.

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 Senate Concurrent Resolution 145 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, prior to our last recess, the other body was frantically applying their finishing touches to H.R. 1417, a bill to reform the copyright royalty arbitration process which we will consider in a few minutes. When we get to that bill, I will describe the core amendments that were developed there. For now, I will just state that they are acceptable to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, in the rush to send the amended bill back to the House, some inadvertent drafting errors were included in the text. The purpose of this concurrent resolution which passed the other body yesterday is to correct these provisions before the fact in the enrollment of the bill. In other words, the concurrent resolution will automatically make the appropriate changes to H.R. 1417, thereby ensuring that the measure will work as intended. The most expeditious way to address this matter is by concurring in the Senate concurrent resolution. Because we cannot approve H.R. 1417 conditionally, it is important that we consider and support the enrolling resolution first. The concurrent resolution is especially important because of the interaction of the present language in H.R. 1417 with that of H.R. 4518, the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, which passed the House on October 6. Among other things, that measure extends the copyright compulsory license for satellite broadcasts for another 5 years. As the Committee on the Judiciary moved H.R. 4518 through the legislative process, the major developers of copyrighted programming and the satellite carriers arrived at a voluntary agreement on the use and compensation of this programming. However, the relevant Senate text in H.R. 1417 inadvertently required rate-making proceedings under the satellite license to be conducted pursuant to the rules and practices in place prior to the enactment of the CARP performed bill. This conflicts with those provisions in the satellite bill that take into account the voluntary agreement. In other words, unless the error is corrected, the voluntary agreement will not work as intended once the satellite bill is adopted. Senate Concurrent Resolution 145 will ensure that the voluntary agreement and the text of the satellite bill will operate as intended by Congress and the parties to the rate-making negotiations. This major fix aside, the concurrent resolution makes other noncontroversial tweaks to additional drafting errors. These tweaks include developing language that clarifies certain definitions; imposing time deadlines on the Copyright Office when reviewing legal matters; and tightening those rules that prevent claimants from ``gaming'' small-claim proceedings. Finally, the concurrent resolution eliminates typographical errors and adopts other grammatical and stylistic changes where appropriate. Mr. Speaker, after 3 years of the excruciating process, it is time to put CARP reform to bed. I urge Members to support this concurrent resolution and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 145) to correct the enrollment of H.R. 1417.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary filed its report on H.R. 4453, the ``Access to Rural Physicians Improvement Act of 2004.'' At that time, the Committee had not received a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the bill, and it filed the report with a committee cost estimate as provided in clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the Committee received the CBO cost estimate on H.R. 4453, and I am submitting it here for the record. October 15, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4453, the Access to Rural Physicians Improvement Act of 2004. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 4453, Access to Rural Physicians Improvement Act of 2004, As passed by the House of Representatives on October 6, 2004 CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4453 would result in no significant net cost to the federal government. The act would affect direct spending, but we estimate that any effects would be insignificant. H.R. 4453 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Until June 1, 2004, foreign students attending medical school in the United States were permitted to remain here after graduation if they agreed to work for at least three years in certain regions considered to be underserved by physicians or if they accepted employment with certain federal agencies. That program was limited to 30 individuals a year for each state that participated in the program. Under current law, such individuals must return to their native countries. H.R. 4453 would make several changes to that program and would reestablish it through June 1, 2006. Based on the participation of foreign medical students in those employment programs in recent years, CBO expects that the act's provisions would affect no more than 2,000 persons annually. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would collect fees to provide work permits for those individuals. CIS fees are classified as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending). The agency is authorized to spend such fees without further appropriation, so the net impact on CIS spending would be insignificant. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, who may be reached at 226 2860. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on October 6, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary filed its report on H.R. 775, the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act of 2003.'' At that time, the Committee had not received a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the bill, and it filed the report with a committee cost estimate as provided in clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the Committee received the CBO cost estimate on H.R 775, and I am submitting it here for the Record. October 27, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 775, the Security and Fairness Enhancement Act of 2003. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Joseph C. Whitehill, who can be reached at 226-2840. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Enclosure H.R. 775--Security and Fairness Enhancement Act of 2003 Summary: H.R. 775 would eliminate the diversity immigrant program. The costs of implementing that program are covered by fees charged to winning applicants in a lottery for a limited number of immigrant visas. The fees are credited to State Department and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) accounts as offsetting collections and offsetting receipts, respectively. (Offsetting collections are a credit against discretionary spending, while offsetting receipts are a credit against direct spending.) CBO estimates that enacting the bill would decrease collections and spending by the Department of State and the CIS; however, changes in net spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting H.R. 775 would lower the number of persons eligible for food stamps and Medicaid benefits. CBO estimates spending for those programs would be reduced by $164 million over the 2005-2014 period. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. Each year, the Department of State issues about 50,000 immigrant visas under the diversity immigrant program to natives of foreign states which the U.S. Attorney General determines have had a low ratio of immigrants admitted under the other sections of the immigration law. The immigrants are selected randomly by the Secretary of State from among persons who submit applications in a special lottery for the visas. Persons apply in one fiscal year for visas to be issued in the coming fiscal year. Applicants must meet minimum requirements for education or work experience and otherwise be eligible for immigrant visas as specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those selected in the diversity lottery must obtain their visas by the end of the fiscal year covered by the lottery. H.R. 775 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); CBO estimates that states would save about $45 million in Medicaid costs over the 2005-2014 period. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 775 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) and function 600 (income security). In addition, the bill would have an insignificant effect on net spending in budget function 150 (international affairs) and budget function 750 (administration of justice). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why anybody would oppose this amendment. The amendment simply states that if you cannot be admitted to the United States because you are affiliated with a terrorist organization, then you can be deported if you get in through one way or another. We have a big problem with illegal aliens crossing both the northern and the southern border. If you do not go through the passport check and enter the United States illegally and you could not enter the United States legally because you were a part of a terrorist organization, then if this amendment goes down, you cannot kick them out. So it seems to me that if you cannot get in and it is illegal for you to get in and you do get in, anyhow, illegally, or by fooling an immigration inspector, then the government ought to have the power to be able to deport these people. The amendment is as simple as that, meaning if they do get in when they should not, they should be able to be removed and sent out of the country and make America safer. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment, which I believe deals with the issue of compliance with the torture amendment in a humane manner that will safeguard the safety of the American people. Let me say why this is necessary. Under current law, as interpreted by the courts, a criminal who has committed a crime or conspired to commit a crime in another country, or someone who is on a terrorist watch list can come to the United States. When they get here, they claim asylum. It takes a while to adjudicate asylum applications. They also can say if he is immediately deported, then he would be tortured if he went back home. So the way it stands now under the current law, that person would be out in society free to commit crimes, free to commit terrorist acts until the time comes for the asylum hearing. And then if the person were found not to be eligible for asylum, they still could not be deported if they thought that they would be tortured when they come back home. So if we cannot send them home under the torture convention, and that is the case in many Middle Eastern countries, and we cannot detain them, then they are out on the street posing a danger to society. What the Hostettler amendment does in this circumstance is say that they can be detained. And there are procedural safeguards in the Hostettler amendment that set up standards for detention and require a review every 6 months. If my colleagues vote against this amendment, they are going to have these people out on the street. They should not be out on the street. They should be detained or deported. If we cannot deport them, then let us give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to detain them. Pass the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 14 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is not an issue of humanitarian application of our immigration refugee laws. It is an issue of securing our borders. None of the people the gentleman from New Jersey described would be subject to this if they have come to the United States and entered legally with a claim of persecution under the Refugee Act or a claim of asylum because of what is going on in their home country. Simply stated, the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey would strike the expedited removal provisions of this bill. The expedited removal provisions say that the provision of existing law shall be used when the INS picks up somebody who is illegally in this country and who has not been here for 5 years or more. What is going on is that there are a lot of non-Mexicans that are coming across the southern border. Many of these people come from the Middle East. Without having the expedited removal procedures that are contained in this law, we are stuck with these people. This is a tremendous security threat to the United States. And what the provision that the gentleman from New Jersey seeks to strike is a provision that says that you do not have to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get these people who have illegally entered the United States out of our country or who have entered legally and have overstayed their visas. It is as simple as that. This is a question of border security. It is not a question of persecuting all of the list of people that the gentleman from New Jersey talked about. If you want secure borders in this country, the only vote on the Smith amendment is ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Has the time of the gentleman from New Jersey expired?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.