F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will nullify the Federal Communication Commission's mandate that will force all televisions to have a digital TV receiver by 2007. The TV Consumer Choice Act of 2002 will give consumers the ability to choose whether or not they want a TV that includes an expensive--and often unnecessary--digital TV tuner. While digital TV may present new and exciting options to viewers, these tuners should not be forced upon hundreds of millions of Americans, many of whom do not want or need this expensive device. Digital TV tuners are only used to receive over-the-air signals. For those households who choose alternate services, such as cable or satellite, the device is completely worthless. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, the tuner mandate will increase the cost of the average TV by $250 for a device that less than 13% of consumers will use. This is unacceptable. My legislation will ensure that individual consumers--not the federal government--decide which TV options are best for them. I am hopeful my colleagues will support this legislation and the House will act on this proposal expeditiously.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4967) to establish new nonimmigrant classes for border commuter students.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4967, the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the principal author of this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Nationality Act permits foreign students to study in the United States on nonimmigrant student visas. Aliens must be full-time students to be eligible for F visas, which is academic or language studies, or M visas, which are vocational or non- academic studies, nonimmigrant student visas. However, some INS districts have paroled commuter students from Canada and Mexico into the United States as visitors to bypass this statutory requirement because no visa category exists for part-time commuter students. Since September 11, 2001, the INS has issued memoranda regarding its intent to end this practice of accommodating part-time commuter students but permits its continuance through the end of this year for students already enrolled in border schools. On August 27, 2002, the INS issued an interim rule to expand the F and M student visa categories to permit Mexican and Canadian commuter students to obtain student visas. However, such a rule is open to differing interpretations across administrations. By passing H.R. 4967, this bill would make Congress' intent clearer that the Canadian and Mexican students should be able to obtain student visas and attend U.S. schools along our borders. The bill amends the F and M student categories of the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand student visa authorization only for nationals of Canada or Mexico who maintain actual residence and place of abode in the country of nationality, whose course of study may either be full- or part-time, and who commute to the U.S. institution or place of study from Canada or Mexico. These part-time students will be tracked in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS; and I would point out that if this bill is not passed, and they continue to be paroled in as visitors, they will not be tracked under SEVIS because they do not have student visas. In practice, the INS has been allowing the students in for years but without proper authority to do so. This bill gives the INS that proper authority, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was the principal Republican author of the Brady Act, which was signed into law in 1994. While much of the debate on the Brady Act was on the 5-day waiting period that was contained in there, the lasting good of the Brady Act was the establishment of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, wherein people who are statutorily ineligible from possessing any type of firearm, such as a convicted felon or an adjudicated mental incompetent, could be identified instantly and a proposed firearm sale could be denied to that individual. This part of the Brady Act is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who are prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing them. The NICS system was established by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of the Brady Act. The mission of NICS is to ensure the timely sale of firearms to individuals who can legally possess them and to deny their sale to individuals who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. But background checks can only be as effective as the records that are available to be checked, and most crimes of violence are prosecuted under State and local law rather than Federal law. So the NICS system cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals without receiving the most current records from the States. NICS has not been operating in the most efficient way possible because of the failure of certain State and local governments to provide NICS with the current information regarding individuals who may be disqualified from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Despite the fact that the Federal Government has contributed more than $350 million since 1995 through the National Criminal History Improvement Program, called NCHIP, to help the States update their records and to improve reporting, some States still have not completely computerized their criminal records and do not maintain complete criminal history records. Some States still do not have computerized records on mental health adjudications. And in some States domestic violence crimes and protective orders are not computerized or properly labeled as domestic violence related. Often, even States that do keep records fail to note the final disposition of arrest charges. This bill is designed to provide more money to the States to make these records as close to 100 percent perfect as possible, and I support it. Although NICS will attempt to obtain information for any missing record, Federal law provides that if a delayed background check is still pending after 3 business days, the firearms dealer may proceed with the sale. So if the records are not in NICS and cannot be found in 3 days, the sale goes through even though the buyer might be an adjudicated mental incompetent or a convicted felon. The NCHIP program has helped increase the records available for search by NICS by as much as 60 percent. But some States and local governments have failed to automate their records or otherwise make them available to next, and I am particularly troubled by States that have refused to join the Federal Government as partners to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the State of Maryland's refusal to assist the FBI with these NICS checks, and I will enter four letters into the Record to highlight this problem. In a March 12, 2002, letter to the FBI, the Maryland State Archives informed the FBI, ``We can no longer provide the research and assistance your program requires without reimbursement for the work.'' The letter indicated that the annual cost of providing this research to support NICS would cost about $45,000 annually. It was not until August 27, 2002, that the Maryland Department of Public Safety reaffirmed its commitment to NICS. Then, on October 3, 2002, the Maryland Archives informed the FBI that it will provide NICS research assistance so long as NCHIP funding is available, thereby leaving the door open to once again discontinue cooperation. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the State of Maryland would let almost 7 months go by without assisting the FBI with these criminal NICS checks. And I do not know if this was the fault of the executive branch or the failure of the Maryland legislature to provide enough money to do the job, but 7 months went by and nothing was being done. The Federal Government spends about $60 million annually on NICS, and as I have already said, about $350 million in the last 7 years on NCHIP. Maryland has received over $6,700,000 from NCHIP to improve its criminal history records. Are we to believe that Maryland could not find another $45,000 to assist with NICS checks? Maryland's shortsighted policy has made it the weak link in the NICS system. Maryland's policy has endangered lives and threatened public safety. Maryland's failure affects every State because a Maryland felon might, for example, try to illegally buy a gun in Virginia. If the Maryland State Archives refuses to search its criminal history records, Maryland felons can purchase guns that they are otherwise prohibited from purchasing. It is my understanding that the State of Maryland was the only State in the country to refuse to assist the FBI with NICS checks. Practically every State in the Union has a financial problem, but they have continued working with the FBI because they felt it was important. Only Maryland said no. Maryland is now, apparently, providing that assistance, but only if Federal funding is available, and this is not tolerable because of the amount of NCHIP and other Federal criminal justice assistance provided Maryland and the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and adjudicated mental incompetents. The Washington Post, in an October 12, 2002, story, reported that Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ``Is considering a plan to require ballistic fingerprints of high-powered rifles sold in Maryland.'' I would suggest that the folks in Annapolis start by assisting the FBI with a program that we know will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor's biography, which is posted on the official State of Maryland Web site, claims she is ``Maryland's point person on criminal justice,'' and her biography lists a number of anticrime efforts for which she takes credit. As the point person for criminal justice matters, I would expect the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland to fully cooperate with the General Accounting Office investigation that I am requesting today for a complete audit of Maryland's use of NCHIP funding. Mr. Speaker, more money to upgrade State criminal history records is all well and good, but Federal money and assistance is not always the answer. Sometimes public officials need to exercise a modicum of common sense, and that common sense dictates that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals. NICS can only do that if it is provided the records on those individuals. Accordingly, funds provided to the States must be used to improve their recordkeeping and automate system to reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers and to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. In 1998, the Brady Act required Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to initiate a background check on all persons who attempt to purchase a firearm. The Brady Act is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who are prohibited by Federal or state law from possessing them. The Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operation center to enforce the provisions of the Brady Act. The NICS mission is to ensure the timely sale of firearms to individuals who are not prohibited under Federal law and deny a sale to those individuals who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. However, background checks can only be as effective as the records available to be checked. The NICS system cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals without receiving the most current records from the states. The current NICS system has not been operating in the most efficient way possible because of the failure of certain states and local governments to provide NICS with current information regarding individuals who may be disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Despite the fact the Federal government has contributed more than $350 million since 1995 through the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) to help states update their records and improve reporting, some states still have not completely computerized their criminal records and do not maintain complete criminal-history records. Some states still do not keep computerized records on mental health adjudications. In some states, domestic violence crimes and protective orders are not computerized or properly labeled as domestic violence related. Often, even states that do keep records fail to note the final disposition of arrest charges. Although NICS will attempt to obtain information for any missing record, Federal law provides that if a delayed background check is still pending after three business days, the firearms dealer may proceed with the sale. The NCHIP program has helped increase the records available for a search by NICS by as much as 60%; however, some states and local governments have failed to automate their records or otherwise make them available to NICS. I am particularly troubled by states that fail to join the federal government as partners to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about Maryland's refusal to assist the FBI with these NICS checks, and I will enter four letters in the record which highlight this problem. In a March 12, 2002 letter to the FBI, the Maryland State Archives informed the FBI that ``we can no longer provide the research and assistance your program requires without reimbursement for the work.'' The letter indicated that the annual cost of providing this research to support NICS would cost about $45,000 annually. It was not until Aug. 27, 2002, that the Maryland Dept. of Public Safety affirmed its commitment to NICS. Then, on October 3, 2002, the Maryland Archives informed the FBI that it will provide NICS research assistance so long as NCHIP funding is available, thereby leaving the door open to again discontinue cooperation. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that Maryland would let almost 7 months go by without assisting the FBI with these critical NICS checks. The Federal government spends about $60 million annually on NICS and as I have already indicated, over $350 million since 1995 on NCHIP. Maryland has received over $6.7 million from NCHIP to improve its criminal history records. Are we are to believe Maryland could not find $45,000 to assist with NICS checks? Maryland's short sighted policy made it the weak link in the NICS system. Maryland's policy endangered lives and threatened public safety. Maryland's failure affects every state because a Maryland felon might, for example, try to illegally buy a gun in Virginia. If the Maryland State Archives refuses to search its criminal history records, Maryland felons can purchase guns that they are otherwise prohibited from purchasing. It is my understanding that the state of Maryland was the only state to refuse to assist the FBI with its NICS checks. Maryland is apparently now providing that assistance but only if federal funding is available. This is not tolerable given the amount of NCHIP and other federal criminal justice assistance provided to Maryland. And the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and adjudicated mental incompetents. The Washington Post, in an October 12, 2002, story reported that Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend ``is considering a plant to require ballistic fingerprints of high-powered riles sold in Maryland . . . .'' I would suggest that the politicians in Maryland start by assisting the FBI with a program that we know will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Mr. Speaker, Maryland Lt. Governor Townsend's biography, which is posted on the official Maryland state website, claims that she is ``Maryland's point person or criminal justice . . .'' and her biography lists a number of anti-crime efforts for which she takes credit. As the point person for criminal justice matters, I expect the Lt. Governor of Maryland to fully cooperate with the General Accounting Office investigation that I am requesting today in which the GAO will completely audit Maryland's use of NCHIP funding. Mr. Speaker, more money to upgrade state criminal history records is all well and good, but federal money and assistance is not always the answer. Sometimes pubic officials need to exercise a modicum of common sense. Common sense dictates that we need to keep guns out the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals. NICS can only do that if it is provided the records on these individuals. Accordingly, funds provided to the states must be used to improve their record keeping and automate systems to reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers and prevent guns from failing into the wrong hands. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and at this point would include for the Record the letters I referred to above: Maryland State Archives, March 12, 2002. Ms. Linda L. Miller, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Clarksburg, WV. Dear Ms. Miller. We regret that we can no longer provide the research and assistance your program requires without reimbursement for the work. Orders received before March 18 will be the last we are able to process, unless the enclosed memorandum of understanding is signed before then. Since July 1, 2001, the Maryland State Archives has responded to 1,800 requests for dispositions of criminal cases related to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Our staff researched the case numbers through an on-line system, or from docket book indices, or by contacting the courts. We then located, reproduced, and faxed the dockets that reflect the charge and disposition. Archives staff averaged next day response for requests received on weekdays, and always responded within three working days (unless we were dependent on the courts for case numbers which are reported after that time). The annual cost of providing this efficient service will approach $45,000.00 this year alone. We have previously requested federal funding directly through NICS and through federal grants to this state, but no support has been forthcoming to date. Direct financial support for the staff and facilities to make this information accessible is required. Given the state imposed hiring freeze we are operating under and the loss of reference staff in the last four months, it is not possible for the Archives to continue providing this service to your agency unless funds are found to pay us a per unit cost of $25.00 for each request. We estimate that the Archives has processed better than half of all the applications that your office receives from Maryland which require further information before the background check can be completed. If you are unable to secure funding to assist us in the research necessary to fulfill your requests, we foresee that you will have to assign an agent to research here on a full-time to continue to perform this work. We know from our own experience that each cased requires approximately one hour of research. We will assist any agent in our public Search Room at the Hall of Records in Annapolis to locate the necessary documents on days that we are open. The Archives provides this level of service to anyone who visits our facility, although I should point out that budget cuts may force us to close the Search Room for one or more days during the week. Sincerely yours. Christopher N. Alan, Deputy State Archivist.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4757) to improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 4757, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my thanks to the gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from Maryland for putting together this bill. I have been in the Congress for 24 years. This is the first bill on the subject of firearms that I can remember that is supported by both the NRA and most of the major gun control groups. That means we ought to seize this moment and pass this bill right away before this coalition unravels. I urge the Members to do that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1339) to amend the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 2000 to provide an asylum program with regard to American Persian Gulf War POW/MIAs, 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 S. 1339, the Senate bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the 106th Congress, the Bring Them Home Alive Act was enacted as Public Law 106-484. This law, sponsored by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), offers refugee status to any national of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, or any of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, who personally delivers into the custody of the United States Government a living American prisoner of war from the Vietnam War. It grants similar status to any national of North Korea, China, or states of the former Soviet Union who differs delivers a living American prisoner of war from the Korean War. Information regarding the act is broadcast by the International Broadcasting Bureau over the Voice of America and other broadcast services. The Bring Them Home Alive Act signals our continuing dedication to all the Americans who served in the Vietnam and Korean wars. It shall be needed until all of our soldiers are accounted for. This bill amends the Bring Them Home Alive Act to broaden its coverage for the Persian Gulf War and any future hostilities in Iraq. There have been recent reports that Michael Speicher, a Navy pilot shot down over Iraq in 1991, may still be in Iraqi hands. We owe it to him and to all those who may be called to serve in the coming months to pass this bill. The bill provides refugee status to a national of Iraq or a nation in the greater Middle East who personally delivers into the custody of the United States Government a living American prisoner of war from the Persian Gulf War or any successor conflict. To receive refugee status, the alien cannot be eligible for asylum on account of being a criminal, a terrorist, or a danger to the security of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2155) to amend title 18, United States Code, to make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a drug or alcohol in the body of the driver at a land border port entry, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2155 helps prevent drunk driving at and around our borders. The bill authorizes INS inspectors at the border to take drunk or drugged drivers into custody based on their impaired state. Currently, border inspectors do not have the authority to do so other than as private citizens making arrests. Typically, inspectors now have to alert State or local law enforcement that an impaired driver is headed their way, wave impaired drivers through the port of entry, and hope that State or local law enforcement will pick them up before the driver does any harm. This bill makes it a Federal crime for a person to operate a motor vehicle at a land border patrol entry in an impaired manner because of the presence or drugs or alcohol. The bill deems any such driver to have given consent to submit to a chemical test by the INS to determine the presence or concentration of alcohol or drug in the driver's body. The bill authorizes INS inspectors at land border ports of entry to perform chemical tests upon drivers if the INS has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver is dangerous because of a drug or alcohol in the driver's body. If the individual refuses to submit to such a test, the bill requires the Attorney General to notify the driver's State or foreign state of the driver's refusal to submit to the test. The Attorney General is also required to notify the driver's government of a conviction of the driver for impaired driving. The bill requires the Attorney General to issue regulations authorizing INS officers and employees to impound a vehicle if the driver refuses to submit to a chemical or other test. Finally, the Attorney General is required to post a notice that operation of a motor vehicle with drugs or alcohol in the driver's body at a land border port of entry is a Federal offense. This bill will help prevent drunk driving and impaired driving tragedies in border areas, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Bradley case that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) cited is not relevant to this bill. She talked about a search of a woman who arrived at the Newark Airport. This bill only applies to land border crossings, not ports of entry that are not land border crossings. So the argument that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) relies on is irrelevant to dealing with the issue of this bill. The gentlewoman from Texas complains about the fact that people might be unduly targeted for stops. Everybody who crosses the border between the United States and Mexico and Canada has to be stopped. Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of the people do, regardless of what their race is or their national origin. I do not understand what the gentlewoman's complaints are because she should know that one must stop for inspection and the law requires it. Now, finally, during the markup of the Committee on the Judiciary, as chairman, I gave the gentlewoman from Texas my commitment to ask for a GAO study once this bill is signed into law. The gentlewoman from Texas should know that any Member of the House can ask for a GAO study. It does not have to be an amendment adopted by the committee; it does not have to be legislation on the floor of the House. She can ask for one, I can ask for one, and anyone of the other 433 Members of the House of Representatives can ask for one. So nobody is preventing a GAO study from being done should this bill be passed by both Houses and signed into law by the President. The issue is very simple, and that is that if somebody comes to a land border crossing at the United States who is drunk or who is under the influence of drugs and is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle, should the immigration inspector who stops that individual be allowed to detain them and to administer a chemical test. We cannot do that now, but this bill does give the immigration inspectors the authority to do that. And if this bill fails and this hole in the law is not plugged, then the drunk driver or the impaired driver will go on his or her merry way at a border crossing which is, of necessity, crowded by people who are stopping and submitting to inspection as required by Federal law and vulnerable to injury or death simply because the INS inspector had to call up the local police and it is only when the local police arrive on the scene can there be a stop. This is a good bill. The arguments of the gentlewoman from Texas are complete red herrings. It should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is not a chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable that my two colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) have decided to make this very meritorious bill into a debate on racial profiling. I have offered, as has the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), to send a letter to the Comptroller General asking for the precise study that the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Texas have asked for. As I said previously, every Member of Congress can get GAO studies on any relevant issue that they desire. We do not need to clutter up the statute books by requiring the Comptroller General to do a study on this subject or on any other subject. It merely requires sending a letter signed by a Member of Congress. Now, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who represents a border community, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who represents a district which is pretty close to the other border, if their idea becomes law, I am afraid that every immigration inspector who has to stop everybody who is legally crossing the border and ask them questions, they are going to have to compile this data for the GAO study, and the lines behind the border are going to get longer and longer, and people are going to be more frustrated, whether they are coming across the border to go to school, which we are going to talk about in a few minutes, or to further commerce, or just to visit the United States of America as a tourist, which is something that I think we encourage, as well, because we like foreigners spending their money here. I am going to work with the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Texas. But that is no reason, just because the issue of racial profiling is brought up, and a process where everybody has to be stopped and detained and questioned as they cross the border, that this very meritorious bill should be voted down. Anybody in law enforcement will tell us that the quicker a drunk driver or a driver whose ability is impaired by drugs is stopped, the fewer people are placed at risk; so why not stop them on the border, and if they are drunk or impaired, do the appropriate chemical tests? Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good idea. It might save lives. I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for keeping this a clean bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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. 2155, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman wishes an explanation, this concurrent resolution directs the Clerk of the House to make certain technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Authorization Act, which passed both Houses in the last 2 weeks. The concurrent resolution is supported by the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary in the other body, and has been cleared by both the Republican and the Democratic leadership in the House.