F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in listening to my friends from the other side of the aisle talk in support of this very important and meritorious resolution, they seem to have forgotten that the advances of civil rights that were passed in Congress in the 1960s were only made possible due to the fact that civil rights was a bipartisan project. Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass not only the civil rights bill of 1964 but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. When we talk about civil rights in the 21st century, it seems to me that we ought to hearken back on repeating what worked in the 20th century. I did not hear very much praise for the Republican efforts to get the civil rights acts passed. I would remind my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle that we are just as much for civil rights as you are; and when we work on this on a bipartisan basis, we can accomplish a lot more while each side maybe strikes a few fewer political points. I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 676) recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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. Res. 676, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 676, which recognizes the 40th anniversary of Congress' passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and calls on all Americans to recognize and celebrate the historical milestone that it represents. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been a cornerstone in the effort to end discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. It has been used successfully by Federal prosecutors to desegregate hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other places of public accommodation engaged in interstate commerce. Together with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has done much to remedy the sad legacy of discrimination in America. As I noted in my comments on the resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown on the House floor last month, the quest for civil rights has been, and must continue to be, a bipartisan effort. This was particularly true in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Recognizing that segregationists in the Democratic Party could forestall the passage of any civil rights legislation, the Kennedy administration actively sought to build a bipartisan consensus in favor of the bill from the moment of its introduction. In that spirit, Republican ranking member William M. McCulloch joined with Democratic chairman Emanuel Celler to guide the bill through the House Committee on the Judiciary. Their efforts ultimately led 138 Republicans to join 152, mostly Northern Democrats to overwhelmingly pass a compromise measure in the full House on February 10, 1964. In the Senate, bipartisanship was even more important for passage of the act. Due to the rules of that body, a minority of Senators, mostly Southern Democrats, were able to prevent a vote on the act for 52 days. Against this backdrop, Republican Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen succeeded in drafting an alternative clean bill with Majority Leader Mike Mansfield that kept most of the substantive provisions of the House bill, while tweaking it sufficiently to gain the support of a few swing Republican Senators. The Dirksen-Mansfield substitute worked. After an impassioned floor speech by Senator Dirksen, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to invoke cloture on June 10, 1964. After a few more days of procedural wrangling, 28 Republicans joined with 45 Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act by a 73 to 27 margin. When the Senate-passed measure returned to the House for final action, a bipartisan coalition succeeded in ensuring that the bill would go to the floor without an amendment. On July 2, 1964, the House passed the Civil Rights Act with yet another bipartisan vote of 289 to 126. The bill went to the White House where President Johnson signed it into law before a live television audience the same day. The legislative history of the Civil Rights Act demonstrates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together. Neither side got everything it wanted, but they succeeded in passing landmark legislation that, while imperfect, did a great deal to remedy discrimination and promote equality of all Americans, regardless of color, creed, or sex. Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the highlights of the history of Congress, and I hope that all Members will join me in recognizing its importance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the committee position is to pass the bill, and I have made the motion to do so.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it is the intent of the chairman of the committee to divide time based upon requests that are made by Republican Members on this side. I have no idea how time on the Democratic side will be divided, since I would assume that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee, will be recognized for 20 minutes to manage the time on the Democratic side.

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. 218, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I also have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4417) to modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine- readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4417. The Visa Waiver Program allows travelers from certain designated countries to come to the United States as temporary visitors without having to obtain a non- immigrant visa. There are currently more than 10 million foreign visitors entering the United States every year under this program. Since its creation in 1986, the program has greatly facilitated travel to the United States from participating foreign countries. Through reciprocal arrangements, American international travelers also benefit with greater ease of travel. The Visa Waiver Program was established on the premise that nationals from participating countries pose little security risk or threat of overstaying their period of admittance, which under the current program is a maximum of 90 days. After the tragic events of September 11, we recognize that a traveler from a visa waiver country can pose a serious threat, especially when the country of origin differs from the country that issues the passport used to enter our country. It was, in part, to address threats like this that I offered the Enhanced Visa Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. The act requires the Visa Waiver Program countries to certify that they have established systems to issue their nationals machine-readable passports that are tamper- resistant and incorporate biometric identifiers that comply with the biometric identifier standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The act sets a firm deadline of October 26, 2004, after which anyone applying for admission to the United States under the program, with passports issued after that date, must present a passport that meets these standards or otherwise obtain a visa from a United States embassy or consulate overseas. This requirement will close several security loopholes. First, it will allow the Department of Homeland Security inspectors at ports-of- entry to determine whether a passport properly identifies its bearer. This will combat terrorist imposters and prevent them from defeating lookout lists on which they are posted. Second, it will make passports much harder to alter or counterfeit. Third, in conjunction with the installation of scanners at ports-of- entry to read these passports and the completion of exit controls, the DHS can track the arrival and departure of travelers and identify those who overstay their visas. My goal as author of this act in selecting the October 2004 deadline was to compel countries to act promptly to modernize their passports. I have written to the foreign governments participating in the Visa Waiver Program to ascertain how soon they will be ready to issue biometric passports. I regret that most visa waiver countries will not meet the October 2004 deadline. However, many are making significant progress and have indicated that the October 2005 deadline is reachable. An example is Belgium, which had one of the weakest passport regimes in Europe, and now has so completely revised its approach that it is the first visa waiver country to meet the new biometric requirements. Belgium has also recently won the Interpol award for the best passport security. Likewise, Austria, Denmark and Slovenia have working prototypes of biometric passports and will begin issuing them as soon as the European Union sets its internal standards for member countries. Nonetheless, the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State have testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary that most visa waiver countries are still resolving privacy issues, chip durability concerns and production and procurement delays. Accordingly, they asked for legislation to extend the biometric passport deadline. To minimize the risk of extending the deadline, the administration has initiated security procedures that begin in September of this year. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security will begin fingerprinting each traveler from the Visa Waiver Program countries so as to strengthen current abbreviated inspection process for visa waiver travelers. H.R. 4417 simply extends the October 26, 2004, deadline by one year. While this extension provides more time to meet the requirement, this additional breathing space should not lead visa waiver countries nor our own government to become complacent. The committee will conduct bipartisan oversight to ensure that the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security are working as hard as they can to get their own systems ready to validate biometric passports when they are presented at ports-of-entry. While the visa waiver countries are committing their resources and intellectual talent to comply with our new requirements for identity, our own government should do no less. I also expect that the State Department will step up pressure on visa waiver countries to meet the new October 2005 deadline instead of providing erroneous assurances that Congress will again provide an extension should they fail to meet the new date. On the other hand, it is also crucial that we enact this legislation expeditiously in order to provide our own travel and tourism industry the certainty they need to plan events for the coming months that involve large numbers of travelers from the visa waiver countries. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 4417.

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 House Resolution 662 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise in support of this resolution recognizing Flag Day, which is celebrated each year on this day, June 14. The American flag is the symbol of hope, freedom, and unity. The flag symbolizes the resolve of our country and demonstrates our ability to overcome adversity. As we encounter new challenges, we are reminded of the men and women who have fought to defend and preserve the values that the flag represents. These men and women serve as a testament to our great Nation. They made their sacrifice because of their belief in our country and the values we hold so dear. There is no greater symbol of that sacrifice than the American flag. Flag Day originated in 1885 with a school teacher named Bernard John Cigrand in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin. Cigrand, inspired by love for his adopted country, placed a 38-star flag in the inkwell of his classroom and instructed his students at Stony Hill School to write essays on what the flag meant to them. Cigrand's enthusiasm for the flag sparked the interest of his students, but it did not stop there. Cigrand also spent numerous hours writing to magazines and newspapers emphasizing the good that would come out of a holiday celebrating the flag. Without his hard work and dedication, Flag Day would not exist. For his efforts, Cigrand was cited by President Bush in his 2001 Flag Day proclamation as one of the first to push for a national celebration for the flag. Although it began in a small, one-room schoolhouse in Wisconsin, Flag Day gained popularity in 1889 when George Balch, a schoolteacher in New York City, organized activities celebrating the American flag. It was later adopted by the State Board of Education in New York. The Flag Day celebrations expanded to Philadelphia where it was celebrated by the Betsy Ross House in 1891. The following year, the New York Society of Sons celebrated Flag Day. Although pockets of the country celebrated Flag Day, it did not become an official holiday until 1916 when it was officially established by the proclamation of President Woodrow Wilson. Even though Flag Day was celebrated nationally after this proclamation, it was not until August 3, 1949, that President Truman signed an act of Congress which officially designated June 14 as National Flag Day. One of the many important events honoring the American flag occurs each year right where Flag Day began. People from all over Wisconsin turn out to raise their flags and celebrate this day. Individuals line the streets in Waubeka to watch parades that feature marching and dancing bands. Different versions of the flag are on display, including a 30-star flag which symbolizes the addition of Wisconsin to the Union. There is no other place in the country where people more enthusiastically celebrate the American flag than Waubeka, Wisconsin. Today, as people across the country raise their American flags to celebrate the resolve of our great Nation, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating National Flag Day and recognizing Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, as the birth of Flag Day. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 662) recognizing that Flag Day originated in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I first met Ronald Reagan over 40 years ago when I was an undergraduate student at Stanford University in California. He and I and some others were involved in a primary election campaign for a United States Senator from California which proved to be very unsuccessful. But in the meetings that I attended that Mr. Reagan chaired, I recognized him as being a unique person with an uncanny knack to bring out the best in everybody. He certainly proved that during his subsequent career: two successful terms as Governor of California and two successful terms as President of the United States, leaving office with the highest approval rating of any departing President since Franklin Roosevelt. Look at the shape America was in when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. We went through a horrible decade of the 1970s. There was a Vietnam War, there was Watergate, there was Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford's unsuccessful Whip Inflation Now campaign, Jimmy Carter's malaise, and long lines at the gas pump to buy 5 gallons of gas. When President Reagan took office, he got us out of our national funk. His Morning in America speech and his philosophy gave us as a Nation and as individual Americans the self-confidence to do what America has always done; that is, to achieve the ultimate dream, to overcome the impossible, and to have each and every one of us reach our highest and best. Much is said about Reagan turning around the economy and winning the Cold War, and some of the debate on the Cold War was about the so- called Strategic Defense Initiative, but there was a decision that Ronald Reagan made earlier that laid the groundwork for the collapse of communism. He persuaded then German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in West Germany. That was extremely controversial at the time both in Europe and the United States. People said putting more missiles would encourage an arms race. Well, Mr. Schmidt agreed to deploy them. He might have lost his job as a result of it, but he was able to see the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany during his lifetime, and we have got to give credit to Ronald Reagan's international skills for doing that. God bless you President Reagan, may you rest in peace.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have debated this constitutional amendment for almost an hour and a half now. I think that the issue is very clear, and that is whether the House should maintain its function as a House that no one enters without first being chosen by the people, or whether there should be some procedure for the appointment of Members of the House should there be a catastrophe. This is a philosophical difference, and it is a philosophical difference that no amount of hearings will be able to bridge. Maybe this constitutional amendment is improperly drafted, maybe it is not; but the thrust of the constitutional amendment is to allow the appointment of Members of the House of Representatives to act, supposedly in the people's name, when there is a national catastrophe of unspeakable proportions. Any action by appointed officials will lack the legitimacy of action by elected officials, and that is why I think it is important to reconstitute the House with people who come to Congress with a mandate from the people should there be a disaster that wipes out most of our government. Now, let us look at what House Joint Resolution 83 proposes to do. It says that prior to taking the oath of office, every Member elected to the House shall designate at least two temporary successors and will send that list to the Governor. Now, during a campaign, when candidates are running against each other, there is no way that candidates will be able to avoid telling the press and the public who they will name as temporary successors. And that would be a distraction that would take away from the issue of choosing a representative in Congress who, hopefully, will serve for the full 2-year term. And all kinds of extraneous issues, such as how much the temporary successor designee contributed or whether they have special interests and things like that, will end up becoming an ancillary, but very important, issue in the campaign and take the campaign's focus away from the issues that the candidates espouse in their platforms. And that would not be good for democracy at all. Now, it puzzles me greatly that people who have said how important it is that we deal with this issue and deal with it properly are now attacking the Committee on the Judiciary and asking for a delay. On October 23 of last year, the author of this amendment, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), said ``The more urgent matter is to put the measure before the body.'' That is what is being done today, yet now I hear him and others saying, well, we need more hearings. Well, Mr. Speaker, more hearings will just continue the debate on whether or not there should be appointed temporary successors or the House should maintain its tradition constitutionally of being entirely comprised of people who are elected by the voters of the various States. The Continuity in Government Commission's report, which endorses appointed representatives, says ``The exact details of a solution are less important than that the problem be addressed seriously and expeditiously.'' Today we are debating that issue. We ought to send a clear message on whether this House wants to have temporary successors appointed, which will only be done by a constitutional amendment, or whether we want to continue our tradition of having people who come here to be elected. I urge that the motion to recommit be voted down and that the amendment be voted down so we can show the people of America and the world what this House stands for and what it stands against. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``no'' vote on the constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, passing this motion to recommit will not serve to do anything but to continue a debate that has gone on for almost 45 years. In 1960, the Senate passed an amendment to allow for the appointment of House Members. It was never voted on in the House of Representatives, and that was during the height of the Cold War when everybody was afraid that the Soviet Union would unleash a missile or massive numbers of bombers, and if we did not make it down to the bunker at the Greenbriar in West Virginia, the entire Congress would be wiped out. That was a crisis time, and the Congress did the right thing: It ignored what the Senate did in terms of appointment of House Members. Sending this resolution back to committee is not going to change anybody's mind on whether replacement House Members should be appointed or elected. We ought to hit this issue directly on the nose and vote on the amendment after defeating the motion to recommit. Now I am again very puzzled by the fact that many of the proponents of this amendment, including the Commission on Continuity in Government, and their spokesperson is Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, have said that the problem should be addressed seriously and expeditiously. This is what we are doing today. And the author of the resolution, who now wants to have more hearings, told Roll Call on October 23, 2003, that the more urgent matter is to put the measure before the body. The measure is before the body today. We ought to vote down the motion to recommit. We ought to have a clear vote on whether Members want to have temporary successors appointed or to preserve Madison's principle of having the People's House be elected by the people. It is time to stand up and be counted, not to have more hearings on the subject. Vote no on the motion to recommit and vote no on the joint resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close debate if the gentlewoman from California will do so first.

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary when he is not busy as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.