F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 2003, the Senate passed unanimously S. 1947, the ``Preserving Independence of Financial Institution Examinations Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, the Chairman and ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would update two provisions of the Federal Criminal Code enacted in the mid-1900s. As the Nation's banking system has consolidated, it has become extremely difficult for bank examiners to obtain credit cards or mortgages for themselves because of these outdated provisions. This affects the hiring, retention, morale, and work of our Nation's bank examiners. To alleviate this problem, the bill would amend sections 212 and 213 of title 18 of the United States Code to reflect the changes in our Nation's banking system. Under current law, these sections prohibit examiners from borrowing from banks they have examined, and prohibit a financial institution from extending credit to anyone who examines or has authority to examine that institution. These provisions have been interpreted to cover all kinds of borrowing, including standard credit cards and mortgages. In a December 4, 2003, letter the Legal Division of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System explained that: [under current law] . . . an examiner could commit a crime by obtaining a department store credit card that is ultimately issued by a bank the examiner examined five years ago. Examiners also have encountered difficulty in obtaining home mortgage and other loans at the best available rates because of restrictions on the range of permissible lenders. The proposed legislation updates the Criminal Code allowing for narrow exceptions to the statutes for bank examiners who hold credit cards and residential home mortgage loans on standard terms from the banks they are examining. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 rise in support of the bill S. 877, as returned by the Senate with technical changes. I urge my colleagues to pass once more and send it on to the President. The House of Representatives passed this legislation previously on November 21, 2003. The changes made herein to the language are not substantive departures from what previously passed the House, but are merely necessary to correct minor errors in the drafting to accurately reflect the will of Congress. Taking the final legislative step today necessary to put into law a unified federal approach to the problem of unsolicited commercial email or ``spam'' represents an important moment in protecting children and the ``in-boxes'' of millions of Americans. The bill provides consumers with more information and choices to stop receiving all forms of unwanted commercial email and provides federal and state officials and providers on Internet access with the tools to go after spammers. As I noted previously, the criminal provisions contained in this legislation are central to its purpose. In order to provide a credible deterrent against spamming, this legislation establishes enhanced criminal penalties for predatory spamming and provides law enforcement personnel far more authority to prosecute spammers whose electronic presence can shift with a keystroke. I believe this legislation will take a bite out of spam and spammers, and it will have some effect in reducing the type and amount of spam that online users deal with today. However, it is not a panacea. In the midst of speaking about the positive things that S. 877 does, it is important to put all concerned on notice that no legislation, no matter how severe, can stop spam entirely. The most hard core group of problematic spammers already operate sometimes in defiance of multiple laws and it will take time and effort to track down even those within the reach of U.S. jurisdiction. Furthermore, policy makers should be wary of any ``soundbite'' legislative or regulatory approach to this problem that promises to end all spam--because such an approach would surely have drastic consequences for free speech and the legitimate forms of e-mail that consumers want and use. Consumers and their Internet service providers can do far more to protect the nation's inboxes from unsolicited e-mail than any law that can be passed here or in state capitals. Already, consumers who take full advantage of existing firewalls, blocking software, and ``challenge/response'' protocols enjoy a dramatically reduced amount of spam--and many of these options are free or included in the package of services offered by their Internet access provider. Ultimately, spam will be stopped by a combination of new technology, consumer awareness, ISP filtering, and trusted sender systems for legitimate senders of commercial e-mail--with laws and regulation merely setting the outer boundaries of illegitimate e-mail practices. In the interim, this legislation will help fill the gap. I encourage those plagued by unwanted e-mail today to take advantage of the practices and technologies that are proven to reduce spam as well as the remedies provided under this law and others. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is sending the final version of this important anti-fraud and consumer protection measure on to the President, and the President has indicated he will sign the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3140, ``The Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act of 2003,'' which provides contact lens wearers with important new rights. This bill ensures that unscrupulous eye doctors will no longer be able hold consumers' contact lens prescriptions hostage, forcing them to purchase lenses solely from their doctor's office. In addition, this legislation will make shopping for lenses simpler and cheaper. Currently, eye doctors are only required to give patients their prescriptions for eyeglasses. Eyeglass wearers have had this right since 1978, when the Federal Trade Commission issued a regulation granting eyeglass wearers the right to automatically receive a copy of their prescription following an exam. Contact lenses were understandably not included in this regulation because, at the time, most contacts were hard lenses, which were custom-made to fit each patient. Today, most contact lenses are mass produced, soft lenses that do not require manipulation by eye doctors. As a result of this improvement, today's contact lens wearers should have the same right as eyeglass wearers to obtain their prescription, at no additional charge. That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. Approximately 36 million Americans wear contact lenses. Each year, these Americans spend an estimated $3.5 billion on contact lenses. Providing consumers with an automatic right to their prescriptions will allow them to shop around for contact lenses based on price, service, and convenience. It is estimated that H.R. 3140 could save consumers approximately $350 million annually, thanks in large part to increased competition. Competition among contact lens companies will result in lower prices, a greater choice of lens providers, and more convenient ways to fill contact lens prescriptions. H.R. 3140 is bipartisan legislation supported by both optometrists and retailers. I have been working on this issue for a number of years, and am pleased to ``see'' it pass the House in a bipartisan manner. I encourage the Senate to take up this bill and help contact lens wearers receive this right.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House-modified version of Senate 877, and wish to thank my fellow chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in working out this compromise which deals with a very vexatious question, and I think provides a win/win situation for everybody except the few bad actors that flood the electronic media with spam. The Internet has revolutionized commerce and communications by permitting businesses to reach consumers in a digital, global marketplace and has allowed individuals to communicate through the speed and convenience of electronic mail. Unfortunately, the massive growth of unsolicited e-mail or ``spam'' now threatens to kill the utility of this popular media. Last year over 6 trillion e-mails were transmitted. Today, almost half of those e-mails are unsolicited or unwanted. Commercial e-mail is good, and a necessary and valuable component of electronic commerce. It allows legitimate businesses to customize offers of products and services and transmit them immediately to customers. However, the same features that make e-mail a valuable commercial tool also lead to its abuse by spammers. Once a portable to the global network is obtained, sending e-mail is instantaneous and virtually costless. There are no stamps in cyberspace, no per-message cost, not even a post office. The costs of delivery are borne more by the recipient and the transmission network than by the sender. The exponential growth of spam and the advancing sophistication of efforts to block it threaten to turn the information superhighway into a nightmare for every info-commuter and parent. Like other means of communication, e-mail can be used to cheat, defraud, and deceive consumers and also has been used to distribute computer viruses that have caused millions of dollars in economic damages. Unscrupulous spammers have transformed electronic inboxes and the Internet into virtual minefields strewn with lewd and pornographic images and solicitations, imperiling a medium that can serve as a critical learning tool for children. I am pleased to support this version of Senate 877, which is substantially similar to H.R. 2214 introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and myself earlier this year. I believe it will provide a remedial enforcement mechanism that private, regulatory, and individual State action cannot. The criminal provisions contained in this legislation are central to its purpose and to its effectiveness. In order to provide a credible deterrent to spammers, this legislation enhances criminal penalties for predatory spamming, and provides law enforcement personnel far more authority to prosecute spammers whose electronic presence can shift with a keystroke. The bill provides significant criminal penalties for the most egregious spammers by making it a crime to intentionally falsify the identity of the sender or disguise the routing and source information of e-mails. Other spammer tactics made criminal under this bill include the hijacking protected computers to send spam from the addresses of unsuspecting Internet users. The House modification of S. 877 also provides for much higher penalties and more effective civil and criminal enforcement against spammers who send unwanted sexually explicit materials. This bill even requires special labels for this most offensive category of e-mail. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) deserves special recognition for her work to get this provision into law. Overall, the bill provides consumers with more information and choices to stop receiving all forms of unwanted commercial e-mail while providing law enforcement officials and providers of Internet access with the tools to go after spammers. While S. 877 accomplishes these vital goals, there are some activities that it deliberately does not reach. Specifically, the legislation concerns only commercial and sexually explicit e-mail and is not intended to intrude on the burgeoning use of e-mail to communicate for political, news, personal and charitable purposes. Moreover, this legislation, while preempting State spam specific laws with a uniform national standard, also preserves a role for State law enforcement officials to help combat this growing electronic menace. The bill also allows for State laws that deal with fraud and computer crimes to remain in effect. However, there is specific language in the bill limiting this authority to law enforcement officials or agencies of the State, and it is not the intent of Congress to allow outsourcing of this truly State function to the plaintiff's bar. The House-modified legislation also contains other necessary amendments to the bill passed by the other body and reflects a thoughtful, bipartisan and bicameral approach to address the growing scourge of spam while preserving and promoting the commercial vitality of the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after hearing about that stuff that the gentleman from Texas was waving around, let me say that we Yankees knew that Spam was bad 50 years ago. It has taken a long time for you rebels to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time from Committee on the Judiciary, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, current law provides $267,494 to the survivors of public safety officers such as police officers, firefighters and rescue squad officers who die ``as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty''. S. 459, the ``Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act of 2003'', as introduced would provide that if a public safety officer dies as the direct and proximate result of a heart attack or stroke suffered while on duty or within 24 hours after participating in a training exercise or responding to an emergency situation, that officer shall be presumed to have died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty for purposes of that officer's survivors receiving a $267,494 death benefit. The intent of the legislation was to cover officers who suffered a heart attack or stroke as a result of nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity; however, testimony at the hearing indicated that the legislation as drafted was overboard. Witnesses testified that the legislation as drafted would undermine the purpose of the Public Safety Officer Benefits program, which was intended to provide a benefit to heroes who gave their lives in the line of duty for their communities. As drafted, it would cover officers who did not engage in any physical activity but merely happened to suffer a heart attack at work. A substitute amendment was introduced to address these concerns. The substitute amendment would create a presumption that an officer who died as a direct and proximate result of a heart attack or stroke died as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty if: (1) that officer participated in a training exercise that involved nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical activity or responded to a situation and such participation or response involved nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement, hazardous material response, emergency medical services, prison security, fire suppression, rescue, disaster relief or other emergency response activity; (2) that officer suffered a heart attack or stroke while engaging or within 24 hours of engaging in that physical activity; and (3) such presumption cannot be overcome by competent medical evidence. For the purposes of this Act, the phrase ``nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical'' activity will exclude actions of a clerical, administrative or non-manual nature. Included in the category of ``actions of a clerical, administrative or non-manual nature'' are such tasks including, but not limited to, the following: sitting at a desk; typing on a computer; talking on the telephone; reading or writing paperwork or other literature; watching a police or corrections facility's monitors of cells or grounds; teaching a class; cleaning or organizing an emergency response vehicle; signing in or out a prisoner; driving a vehicle on routine patrol; and directing traffic at or participating in a local parade. Such deaths, while tragic, are not to be considered in the line of duty deaths. The families of officers who died of such causes would therefore not be eligible to receive public safety officers benefits. For the purposes of this Act, the phrase ``nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical'' actions will include, but are not limited to, the following: involvement in a physical struggle with a suspected or convicted criminal; performing a search and rescue mission; performing or assisting with emergency medical treatment; performing or assisting with fire suppression; involvement in a situation that requires either a high speed response or pursuit on foot or in a vehicle; participation in hazardous material response; responding to a riot that broke out at a public event; and physically engaging in the arrest or apprehension of a suspected criminal. The situation listed above the types of heart attack and stroke cases that are considered to be in the line of duty. The families of officers who died in such cases are eligible to receive Public Safety Officers Benefits.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today when I was driving in, I followed a car that had a big bumper sticker on it that said ``Don't Mess with Texas,'' and I came to the House today with great fear and trepidation that by messing with Texas and deciding where the Federal courts will sit, I would be caught in the crossfire of a Texas cat fight, and I am happy to report that the cats are purring and the Members can mess with Texas and not get in trouble by passing this bill. Senate 1720 implements the March, 1991, Judicial Conference proposal to designate Plano, Texas, as a place for holding court in the Eastern District of Texas. It also realigns the divisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reflect the closing of the courthouse in Denton County. The Paris division is eliminated and its counties redistributed among the other divisions of this court. Plano is the largest city in the Eastern District of Texas. Of the 93 judicial districts in the United States, the Eastern District of Texas is the only one in which its largest city cannot hold Federal court. This is a major impediment to the efficient operations of the Federal court system in the Eastern District of Texas. Senate 1720 will greatly assist the affected citizens, litigants, lawyers, and judges and also will promote the efficient administration of justice. The bill is identical to language in section 102 of H.R. 1302, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2003, which was introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. In addition, this Congress has passed this exact language on five previous occasions since 1991. Following Senate passage of Senate 1720, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) expressed concern that the legislation does not ensure that the eastern district caseload will be distributed equally between Plano and Sherman. While the judges of the eastern district have unanimously agreed to split the docket between Sherman and Plano, this agreement, in a signed resolution, is nonbinding. I share the concerns of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Therefore, I support Senate 1720 premised on the understanding that the judges of the eastern district will do as they promised by implementing a system to assign at least 50 percent of the cases filed in or transferred to the Sherman district to a resident district judge sitting in the city of Sherman. The remaining 50 percent of the cases will be assigned to the Plano court. Finally, in response to my request for assurance that the judges' agreement will be implemented, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has written a letter promising to do whatever is necessary to implement this plan. I will insert this letter along with the resolution signed by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas into the Record. With these assurances, I am sure that we can mess with Texas and not get caught in the crossfire. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, November 19, 2003. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that S. 1720, a bill to designate Plano, Texas, will be considered by the House later today. The bill would remedy a serious problem hindering efficient judicial administration in the Eastern District of Texas. This bill has the strong support of the Judicial Conference of the United States. As a provision of an omnibus court improvement bill, it has been passed by the House in two previous Congresses, only to remain unacted upon in the Senate. The judges of the Eastern District of Texas have formally resolved that half of the Sherman Division caseload will be docketed and tried in Sherman, Texas, and half will be docketed and tried in Plano, Texas. A copy of an order of the court of June 13, 2003, stating this specifically and in some detail is enclosed hereto. The Judicial Conference and the court in the Eastern District of Texas are well aware of the concerns of those in Sherman that the judicial business of the division would be largely transferred to Plano. This is not and will not be the case. This issue was considered by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management when the proposal was first considered. The resolve of the judges to assure equity to Sherman, Texas, and other factors relating to the great need for a court presence in Plano caused that committee to recommend that the Judicial Conference approve this proposal, which it did. I congratulate you and the members of the Judiciary Committee for taking prompt action on this bill which will allow the court to better service the citizens of this region of Texas. Sincerely, Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Secretary. Enclosure.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1720) to provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

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. 1720, the Senate bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has no control over report language of bills that are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and since the thought has been to have this statutory amendment placed in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation bill, I can say that the Committee on the Judiciary would have no objection to this, because this codifies the agreement that has been made and the resolution that has been adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas, as well as confirmed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts representing the Judicial Conference of the United States. So I have no objection to this statutory amendment if it should find its way into an appropriation bill. But the gentleman from Texas and everybody else knows full well that what happens in appropriation bills at the end of a session of Congress is a very mysterious thing that those of us who serve on authorizing committees will never understand as long as we are here. But rest assured that what the gentleman from Texas has said does represent the understanding of members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and if the appropriators will listen to us, for once, they will be able to make a constructive addition to an appropriation bill, whether it is the State, Justice, Commerce one or another one that mysteriously arises from the bowels of the Capitol within the next few days.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1685) to extend and expand the basic pilot program for employment eligibility verification, and 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 S. 1685, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering Senate 1685, a bill authored by Senator Grassley that represents a fair and reasonable compromise regarding the reauthorization of the employment eligibility verification pilot project. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens and required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. Unfortunately, illegal aliens have used the easy and cheap availability of counterfeit documents to make a mockery of this law. Today's document-based verification system just does not work. It frustrates employers who do not want to hire illegal aliens but have no other choice than to accept documents that have a high likelihood of being counterfeit. In 1996, Congress responded to this state of affairs by creating a pilot program under which employers who elect to participate may submit the Social Security and alien identification numbers of newly hired employees to be checked against Social Security Administration and INS records. This weeds out bogus numbers provided by illegal aliens and thus ensures that new hires are genuinely eligible to work. The pilot program has been a great success over its 6 years of operation. A recent study found that 96 percent of participating employers believed the pilot to be an effective and reliable tool for employment verification, 94 percent believed it to be more reliable than the IRCA-required document check, and 83 percent believed that participating in the pilot reduced uncertainty regarding work authorization. The study recommended the continuation of the pilot. Last month, this body considered H.R. 2359, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), that would have extended the pilot program for an additional 5 years. It would have allowed employers throughout the Nation to voluntarily participate. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is required to operate the pilot in at least five of the seven States with the highest estimated number of illegal aliens. Senate 1685 also extends the pilot for an additional 5 years. It also takes two steps to address the concerns of some of our colleagues that aspects of the pilot program can be improved. First, the bill delays nationwide expansion for a year. It provides that employers in all States shall be able to participate in the basic pilot program no later than December 1, 2004. In addition, not later than June 1, 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall complete a report evaluating whether any problems identified in the 2001 report on the basic pilot program have been substantially resolved and describing what actions the Secretary shall take to resolve any outstanding problems before undertaking the expansion of the program. Senate 1685 also addresses the immigrant investor visa program. To encourage economic development through the program, Congress created a 5-year temporary pilot program in 1993 that set aside 3,000 immigrant visas each year for aliens who invested at least $500,000 in designated regional centers. A regional center is any economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, or increased domestic capital investment. A center seeking approval must submit a proposal showing how it plans to focus on a geographical region within the United States to achieve the required growth. Once a center has been approved, an alien applicant can receive an investor visa by showing that he will make the qualifying investment within the approved regional center. In 2000, Congress extended this program until September 2003. Senate 1685 extends this pilot program for an additional 5 years and also allows the Department of Homeland Security to process investor visa petitions involving regional centers expeditiously, as compared to nonpilot program investor visa petitions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The legislation will provide willing employers throughout the Nation the tools they need to hire a legal workforce. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of the House version of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the only way we are going to get a handle on the illegal immigration problem of this country is by giving employers the means to verify whether an applicant for employment is legally able to work here and then to enforce the 1986 law which makes it illegal for an employer to hire an illegal alien. If we do not do both, then it will be always cheaper for an employer to break the law by hiring an illegal alien because they do not have to pay them the minimum wage, they do not have to have workplace safety and environmental standards. In many cases they are paid in cash; and the deductions for Social Security and Federal and State income tax withholding are not taken out, all of which is illegal, but there still is a huge economic incentive for an employer to break the law multiple times by hiring an illegal alien. This bill is an important part of closing a part of that loop, by giving employers nationwide the tools to find out if the person who is asking for a job is legal and a better way of being able to determine whether the documents that the applicant presents are genuine documents or counterfeit documents. So we have done a part of making our immigration laws more effective by passing this legislation, but the other part indeed deals with enforcement because without enforcement of the immigration law, the problem that we thought we solved with the amnesty that was granted in 1986 will continue whether or not there is another amnesty that is granted by the Congress, which is a move that I personally oppose. So with that, I urge the Members to support this bill.

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