Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to carry out the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Lin, et al. v. United States Department of Justice rendered on July 16th, 2007.

Mr. FOSSELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to prevent the Department of Justice from enforcing a decision made recently by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Many of us know of the policy in China of forced sterilization and forced abortions, and this decision recently really ties into that.

As we also know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stated that Chinese nationals are eligible for asylum if they're subjected to forced abortions or sterilization procedures in China.

    
A decade of Department of Justice policy has held that spouses or unmarried partners of those subject to brutal treatment are also eligible.

Recently in Lin, et al., v. The United States Department of Justice, the second circuit overturned years of that policy and previous judicial decisions allowing Chinese men to claim asylum if their wife or partner is subject to a forced sterilization in China.

Less than 1 month before the second circuit handed down their decision, the third circuit came to the exact opposite assertion in Jiang v. The Attorney General of the United States, where they clearly upheld the decade-old policy of the Department of Justice granting asylum to spouses of those physically harmed by China's policy.

The chilling effect of the second circuit's decision is already being felt in States covered by the second circuit. Just 1 day after the second circuit handed down its decision, an immigration judge in Manhattan was bound to order the removal of an individual because her claim of asylum was based on the fact that her husband was a victim of the forced sterilization.

The lady had three children in violation of China's barbaric population control policies, keeping the first two hidden from the government. Upon the birth of her third child, the Chinese Government became aware of her violation of the law and came to her home to force her to undergo sterilization. Due to the complications from her third birth, the doctor was unable to perform the sterilization, so the government simply seized her husband and sterilized him.

The judge in her case was sympathetic to her story and indicated his wish to grant her asylum; however, he felt that his hands were tied by the second circuit's decision just 24 hours prior.

Mr. Chairman, I will include the entire story for the Record.

We also have heard from many immigration lawyers. In light of this decision, many immigration lawyers are actively recommending to their clients who are seeking asylum based on such inhumane treatment to leave the States covered by the circuit in order to avoid expulsion.

Chinese nationals make up the largest number of asylum seekers in the United States. Between 2000 and 2005, 35,000 of the 157,000 asylum seekers came from China. It is unclear how many were petitioning solely due to China's brutal population-control policies.

In her dissenting opinion in the second circuit case, Judge Sonya Sotomayor made the point well when she wrote, ``The majority clings to the notion that the persecution suffered is physically visited upon only one spouse. But this simply ignores the question of whom exactly the government was seeking to persecute when it acted. The harm is clearly directed at the couple who dared to continue an unauthorized pregnancy in hopes of enlarging the family unit.''

To me it is clear that the effects of China's brutal forced sterilization procedures do not harm only the mother, but also the father, or vice versa. If the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can't recognize that, then I feel it is our responsibility to protect such asylum seekers either until there is a consistent national policy, or Congress considers a legislative remedy if necessary.

The second circuit's opinion, as we mentioned, recognizes the split. There are contrary decisions in the third, sixth, seventh and ninth circuits between 2002 and 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the statement on Jiang Meijiao.

  
Statement

My name is Jiang, Meijiao. I was born on August 19, 1967 in Lian Jiang County, Fu Jian Province, P. R. China. I started school at the age of nine and stopped going to school after the second year of junior high. I stayed home to help with family chores afterwards.

My husband and I were junior high schoolmates. We held a traditional wedding ceremony on January 1, 1991. We were only allowed to have only one child according to the family planning policy because my husband belonged to city household and worked in a government work unit.

I found myself pregnant in early 1993. We wanted to have more children so I went to stay in my brother's home. I gave birth to a girl named Chen, Xi and another girl named Chen, Yu on September 18, 1993 and December 10, 1996 respectively with help of midwives in my brother's home.

I was pregnant again in October 1999 and during the late term of the pregnancy, I often experienced pain in my abdomen area. I dared not to seek medical examinations in hospitals so I went to a private doctor but was refused treatment by the private doctor. The private doctor suggested that I should go to a hospital. In the morning of June 12, 2000, around four o'clock in the morning, my water broke. My husband rushed to locate a midwife for help. When the midwife learned about the frequent pain I had during the last phase of my pregnancy, she refused to deliver my child but urged us to go to the hospital. My husband had to take me to Fu Zhou City No. 1 hospital immediately. I gave birth to our third child, a son named Chen, Qi on June 12, 2000.

During the delivery of my third child, I had bled severely. I had to stay in the hospital for about a week. I was diagnosed with hysteromyoma and the doctor gave me medicine and injection as well. I was told to return to the hospital to check up half year later.

I brought my newborn baby to my mother's home to stay after being released from the hospital and left our two daughters to my brother and his wife to take care of.

On October 9, 2000, six family planning cadres came to my mother's home and forcibly taken me to Lian Jiang County Family Planning Service Station and when the doctor tried to perform the sterilization operation, they found out the leiomyoma in my uterus was too big and they dared not to continue with the operation.

The family planning cadres detained me at the family planning office and went to my husband's work unit. They took my husband to Fu Zhou No. 2 Hospital and sterilized him. I was released afterwards. We were fined 20,000 on February 3, 2002.

I came to the U.S. on April 11, 2001 and returned to China on October 3, 2001. I came to U.S. again on February 9, 2006.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. We accept the amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree with the gentleman from New York. I entirely agree with the purpose of this amendment. The problem I have with this amendment is that, as I understand it, it says no funds may be spent to enforce a court decision.

If that is what this amendment says, and I just heard it briefly, then it is the wrong way to do it. We have to put in a bill. I am sure the Judiciary Committee will entertain, I assume would entertain it quickly, to clarify the law and say that that is not what the law is, and that what the gentleman seeks to do we ought to do legislatively.

But the idea of saying we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys, undermines, and subverts the rule of law in this country. We cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court.

If we don't agree with the order of the court, and I agree, I certainly don't agree with the order of the court in this case, it is terrible, we ought to change the law. That is why we have a Congress. That is our job. Let's change the law.

If the court interprets the law wrongly, as it has, in my opinion, along with the gentleman, we ought to put in a bill, change the law and clarify it. I think that bill would sail through here pretty quickly in all likelihood. That is the way to do it.

But to make an amendment to say no funds appropriated may be used to enforce the court order, what's next? A different court order that we dislike? That subverts the rule of law. It is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with the gentleman with regard to the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. We will count on the gentleman to move that and get it to the floor even before we get to conference so that it will be a good result.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, we are all on the same page as to the decision itself. The consequence of what we are trying to offer this amendment for is to delay the deportation that is already occurring in the second circuit.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York and I share the second circuit as members of the New York City delegation, but what we are trying to do is at least provide a stopgap measure. We know quite clearly that just 24 hours after this decision was reached, a young lady, and perhaps her whole family, will be sent back to China. We are looking for a consistent policy.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work towards a legislative remedy, but until that time, we are trying to keep people here who want to seek and enjoy the American dream.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to work with the gentleman and anyone else who will try to effectuate this policy. I would hope that the gentleman and others and I can address the administration and urge them for the next few weeks that it may take for the Congress to act, for the administration to withhold action, that they should not engage in deportations.

Now, I hope that comity with the administration would allow them to delay a little on enforcing. After all, the court didn't say, ``You must.'' The court didn't say, ``You must deport these people.'' It said, ``You may deport these people.'' It is up to the administration to determine that.

So I would hope that the administration would delay for the few weeks it may take for Congress to show our will on this matter and that we don't agree with the court. But, again, I hope this amendment doesn't pass because it sets a terrible precedent. It may even be unconstitutional. I am not sure.

But clearly we don't want to start passing bills that say you can't enforce a court order, because once you start down that road, where do you end? But I certainly do anticipate working to make sure that nobody is deported under this. I hope the administration will delay that, and we can move legislation quickly on that.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

The amendment was agreed to.