[House Report 108-531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-531
======================================================================


 
   RELIEF OF DURRESHAHWAR DURRESHAHWAR, NIDA HASAN, ASNA HASAN, ANUM 
                         HASAN, AND IQRA HASAN

                                _______
                                

   June 8, 2004.--Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 867]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 867) for the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, 
Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     2
Vote of the Committee............................................     2
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     2
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     3
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     4
Agency Views.....................................................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     7
Markup Transcript................................................     7

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 867 would grant permanent residence to Durreshahwar 
Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra 
Hasan.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    In 1993, Waqar Hasan came to the U.S. and a year later, he 
brought his wife and four daughters to join him. Mr. Hasan 
worked at and helped manage service stations on a work visa 
with a pending application for adjustment of status for himself 
and his family to permanent residents. On September 15, 2001, 
in reaction to the events of September 11, an unstable man 
killed Mr. Hasan. Because Mr. Hasan was the petitioner for his 
family's adjustment, the petition became invalid upon his 
death. Therefore, under current law, his wife and four 
daughters, who live in suburban New Jersey, face removal from 
the United States.
    The Hasans are supporting themselves. Mrs. Hasan works the 
night shift on an assembly line at a Styrofoam cup factory. Her 
older daughters work after school. The oldest is on scholarship 
at Rutgers University and the second oldest is a freshman at 
Kean College.
    Subcommittee research indicates that movement of a private 
bill on behalf of the family would not set any bad precedent. 
Though he did not die at the World Trade Center or the 
Pentagon, Mr. Hasan was nonetheless a victim of the events of 
September 11th. The USA PATRIOT Act allowed the immediate 
relatives of legal immigrants killed by the terrorist attacks 
that day to continue their adjustment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 107-56 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee proceeded with this bill only because this 
murder was linked to 9/11. It is inappropriate generally for 
Congress to pass private bills to give status to the families 
of non-citizens just because those non-citizens were killed 
while in the United States.
    The current Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
report on the bill is set forth below.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 867 in the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 867, without an amendment by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present. On May 12, 2004, the Committee 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 867 without an amendment by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee consideration of 
H.R. 867.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 867, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed four pieces of private relief legislation that were 
ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 
12, 2004. CBO estimates that their enactment would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. This legislation 
could have a very small effect on fees collected by the Bureau 
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and on benefits paid 
under certain federal entitlement programs. These fees and 
expenditures are classified as direct spending. The legislation 
reviewed is as follows:

         LH.R. 530, a bill for the relief of Tanya 
        Andrea Goudeau;

         LH.R. 712, a bill for the relief of Richi 
        James Lesley;

         LH.R. 867, a bill for the relief of 
        Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum 
        Hasan, and Iqra Hasan; and

         LS. 103, an act for the relief of Lindita 
        Idrizi Heath.

                    Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
867 will allow Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna 
Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan to become permanent residents 
of the United States.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section 1. Permanent Resident Status for Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, 
        Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra Hasan.
    Section 1(a) makes the named individuals eligible for 
issuance of immigrant visas or for adjustment of status to that 
of permanent residents upon filing applications for immigrant 
visas or for adjustment of status.
    Section 1(b) provides that if the named individuals enter 
the U.S. before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
(c), they shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status to that of permanent residents.
    Section 1(c) provides that subsections (a) and (b) shall 
apply only if the applications for immigrant visas or for 
adjustment of status are filed within 2 years of the date of 
enactment.
    Section 1(d) provides that upon the granting of immigrant 
visas or permanent residence to the named individuals, the 
Secretary of State shall reduce by five during the current or 
next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the their 
birth.
    Section 1(e) provides that the natural parents, brothers, 
and sisters of the named individuals shall not, by virtue of 
such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status 
under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

                              Agency Views


         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes H.R. 867 
makes no changes to existing law.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
quorum is present.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next item on the agenda is the 
adoption of private bills. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, the Chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, for a motion.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims reports favorably the 
bills H.R. 710, H.R. 712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867, and H.R. 509 and 
moves their favorable recommendation to the full House.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 710, H.R. 
712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867 and Senate 103 will be considered en 
bloc. We are substituting Senate 103 for H.R. 509 because H.R. 
509 is identical to the Senate 503. By making this 
substitution, we will ensure faster enactment of an identical 
bill.
    Without objection, the en bloc private bills will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 867, follows:]
      
      








    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, to strike the last word.
    Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    At the outset, I wish to commend the work of the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, as well as all of the Members of the 
Subcommittee for their work in bringing these bills to the full 
Committee.
    Let me give some background on the four private immigration 
bills and one private claims bill that we will consider en 
bloc.
    H.R. 710 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
pay Mrs. Florence Narusewicz $28,000. Mrs. Narusewicz is the 
widow of Leo Narusewicz, who fought in World War II and was a 
Purple Heart recipient.
    In June 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded 
Mr. Narusewicz $28,000 in disability benefits retroactive to 
his discharge in 1945. On July 24th, 2000, the Department 
mailed the first of two $14,000 checks to Mr. Narusewicz. After 
Mrs. Narusewicz informed the Department that her husband had 
died on July 12, 2000, her checks were immediately cancelled. 
This case mirrors the situation of two other women that the 
106th Congress passed a private law to assist.
    S. 103 would allow Lindita Idrizi Heath to become a 
permanent resident of the United States. Ms. Heath was born in 
1984, in the former Yugoslavia. She was a refugee residing in 
Germany when she was adopted by Dennis and Mary Jo Heath. 
Lindita entered the United States on July 2, 2001, under a 
grant of humanitarian parole and has been residing in Maryland 
with the Heaths since that day.
    Under U.S. immigration law, an adoption of a foreign child 
must occur prior to the age of 16. Unfortunately, Lindita's 
adoption was finalized after her sixteenth birthday. Private 
bill precedent dictates that in order to make an adoption 
legitimate for immigration purposes, the adoption must have 
been at least initiated prior to the child's turning age 16. 
The Heaths meet this condition. They were actively proceeding 
with Lindita's adoption prior to her sixteenth birthday.
    H.R. 712 would allow Richi James Lesley to become a 
permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Lesley was born in 
1977 in Korea to an unknown U.S. serviceman and a Korean woman. 
They put him up for adoption, and later that year he was 
adopted by U.S. Air Force Sergeant James Doyle Lesley and his 
wife in Korea.
    In 1978, Sergeant Lesley was killed in a fishing accident. 
When his wife became unable to care for their children, the Air 
Force, with her consent, transported Richi and his sister to 
America for placement with their adopted father's mother. Richi 
and his sister resided with his grandmother and, after her 
death, with other family and friends from the time he was 1 
year old until he attended college. He did not realize that he 
was not a U.S. citizen until the INS began deportation 
proceedings against him in 2000. Richi has been here since he 
was an infant and has no memory of ever living anywhere but the 
United States. His only remedy is a private bill.
    H.R. 530 would allow Tanya Andrea Goudeau to become a 
permanent resident of the United States. Tanya was born in 1984 
in Sri Lanka. Her natural father deserted her and her mother 
when she was 3 years old. Eventually, her natural mother left 
for Italy, leaving her in the care of her elderly grandmother. 
Tanya's aunt and uncle brought Tanya to the United States when 
she was 14 and immediately commenced adoption proceedings. The 
adoption was finalized 5 days after her 16th birthday.
    H.R. 867 would grant permanent residence to Durreshahwar 
Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hassan, Anum Hasan and Iqra 
Hasan. In 1983, Waqar Hassan came to the United States and 
later brought his wife and four daughters to join him. Mr. 
Hassan helped manage service stations on a work visa and had a 
pending application for adjustment of status for himself and 
his family. On September 15th, 2001, in reaction to the events 
of September 11th, an unstable man killed Mr. Hassan. Because 
Mr. Hassan was the petitioner for the family's adjustment, that 
petition became invalid upon his death. Therefore, under 
current law, his wife and four daughters who live in suburban 
New Jersey face removal from the United States.
    This private bill, on behalf of the family, would not set 
any bad precedent. Though he did not die at the World Trade 
Center or the Pentagon, Mr. Hassan was indeed a victim of the 
events of September 11th. The Committee is preceding with this 
bill only because the murder is linked to 9/11. It is 
inappropriate, generally, for Congress to pass private bills to 
give status to the families of noncitizens because those 
noncitizens were killed while in the United States.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I 
thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims for cooperating and working collectively 
on these legislative initiatives.
    Let me quickly ask unanimous consent for the totality of my 
statement to be put into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    Florence Narusewicz is the widow of Leo Narusewicz, a World War II 
veteran. In June of 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
awarded Leo a disability pension and made the pension retroactive to 
his military discharge in 1945. The total pension was $28,000, which 
was to be paid in two checks, but Leo died 12 days before the VA mailed 
the first of the two checks on July 24, 2000. When Mrs. Narusewicz 
notified the VA about Leo's death, the VA cancelled the two checks and 
informed Mrs. Narusewicz that she was only entitled to benefits dating 
back two years, which was an amount much less than the $28,000 her 
husband had been awarded.
    I agree that a private bill is warranted to award the entire 
disability payment to Mrs. Narusewicz.
    Lindita Idrizi Heath was a Kosovo refugee living in Germany when 
she was adopted by Dennis and Mary Jo Heath. Lindita entered the United 
States on July 2, 2001, under a grant of humanitarian parole. She has 
been living with her family in Maryland since then.
    The adoption was not finalized until June 2001, which was after 
Lindita had reached the age of 16. Because the adoption was not 
finalized until after her 16th birthday, it is not recognized under 
immigration law. The record indicates, however, that the Heaths were 
actively proceeding with the adoption prior to Lindita's 16th birthday, 
which apparently satisfies the accepted standard for a private bill in 
adoption cases, assuming that the circumstances are sympathetic.
    I agree that a private bill is warranted in the circumstances of 
this case, but a better approach for future cases would be to modify 
the definition of an ``adopted child'' in section 101(b)(1)(F) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If we made the ``adopted child'' 
definition more flexible, we would not have to enact private bills to 
avoid harsh, unwarranted consequences in cases such as this one.
    Richi James Lesley was born to an unknown United States serviceman. 
On August 29, 1977, he was adopted by another serviceman in Korea, 
Sergeant James Doyle Lesley. A year later, Sergeant Lesley was killed 
in an accident. The United States Air Force transported Richi to the 
United States where he resided with his grandmother from the time he 
was a year old until he attended college. He did not know he was in the 
United States unlawfully until the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against him in the year 
2000. His only avenue for relief now is a private bill. I am very 
sympathetic to Richi's plight and will vote in favor of his bill.
    Tanya Andrea Goudeau is an 18-year-old native and citizen of Sri 
Lanka. Tanya's father deserted her and her mother when she was only 
three years old. Then, her mother left her too, leaving her in the care 
of her elderly grandmother. Tanya's aunt Dee and Dee's husband Roger 
Goudeau became Tanya's official guardian before she reached the age of 
16, but they did not finalize an adoption until after she had reached 
the age of 16, which is too late for immigration purposes. This is 
another example of the harsh consequences that are caused by the rigid 
definition of an ``adopted child'' in section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA. 
As was true in the case of Lindita Idrizi Heath, a private bill is the 
only avenue available to Tanya for obtaining permanent resident status. 
I will vote in favor of this bill too.
    Waqar Hasan, a Pakistani man who was the head of the Hasan family, 
was murdered four days after September 11, 2001, for no reason other 
than that he was a Muslim. Killing him did not bring back the lives of 
the people who had died on 9/11. It was a savage, pointless act of 
terror that ended his life and shattered the lives of his wife and four 
teenage daughters. After living in this country for nine years, Mrs. 
Hasan lost her husband and the four children lost a father; and they 
all lost their only avenue for becoming lawful permanent residents of 
the United States. I agree that this situation warrants a private bill 
and will vote to grant the Hasan family legal permanent residence in 
the United States.
    Thank you.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. But I would like to summarize and offer 
these thoughts on H.R. 710, which is a claims bill. And just to 
emphasize to my colleagues that these legislative private bills 
clearly are to correct a harm or undoing that was not the doing 
of the individual petitioner. And I would the same for Mrs. 
Narusewicz, that in actuality her husband died 12 days before 
the VA mailed the first of two checks, and when she petitioned 
to receive those monies, she was denied by the VA. There is no 
other option for her to be made whole, and we applaud that.
    Let me also suggest that the family dealing with Lindita, 
the adoption was not finalized until June 2001, which was after 
Lindita had reached the age of 16. Because the adoption was not 
finalized until after her sixteenth birthday, it is not 
recognized under immigration law.
    It is important to note that that is a fix that needs to 
occur with respect to adoption laws, so that children who are 
in line will not opt out of being able to be United States 
citizens.
    Let me also say that this applies to Tanya, the 18-year-old 
who mistakenly did not finalize her adoption papers, and 
likewise found herself too late to be able to become a citizen 
of the United States.
    They are laws that need to be modified, and I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in offering legislation, as well 
as joining on legislation existing, to help modify that 
particular problem.
    Also, we find Mr. Hassan, who was tragically killed simply 
because he was a Muslim, simply because he was a Muslim, after 
9/11, and obviously there is no remedy for his family in that 
he was the petitioner to secure the citizenship or the 
legalization of his family. So Mr. Hassan also states a problem 
with our immigration laws that could be fixed with 
comprehensive immigration reform, which I hope this Committee 
will have the opportunity to review in H.R. 3918. I support all 
of these legislative initiatives, including H.R. 867.
    I thank Mr. Holt, from New Jersey, for his leadership on 
the Hassan and all of the other Members, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support these legislative initiatives, and I 
would yield to the distinguished lady from California for some 
comments.
    Ms. Lofgren. I thank the gentlelady.
    I support these measures, but I did want to address also 
the issue of the adoption measures. We have two private bills 
that would grant legal permanent residence status to children 
whose adoptions were initiated prior to their sixteenth 
birthday, but finalized after they turned 16.
    Now, I agree that we ought to approve these measures 
because adoptions can be long and difficult processes, 
especially when adoptions are multinational. I think it is a 
mistake for our law to rely on highly variable adoption time 
frames to determine a child's immigration status. And when you 
think about it, think about our won families. If your child--
natural child--had been adopted, and it was finalized when they 
were sixteen and a half and that child, under law, had to go 
back to some country he or she didn't even remember, that would 
seem ridiculous to you.
    And so that's why we have these bills before us. And I 
think it is a good thing that this Committee can take time away 
from passing laws of general application to granting justice to 
individual families who cannot get justice. But I would ask 
that Members of this Committee consider very strongly 
cosponsoring a bill that I plan to introduce this week that 
would change the law relative to adoptions.
    I think it is problematic that the only families to get 
relief from the adoption rule are those families who happen to 
know a Member of Congress well enough to get a private bill 
introduced, and heard, and then passed. I think that we ought 
to make sure that the law, relative to adoptions and legalizing 
the children of adoptive parents, includes adoptions that are 
initiated before the age of 16. We ought not to punish families 
because court processes take a long time or the Immigration 
Service is bureaucratic. We ought to exalt family life by 
making sure that the initiative of the adoption is what counts 
for keeping parents and their adoptive children together.
    So I wanted to let Members of the Committee know that we 
will be introducing that bill later this week. I hope that 
every Member of this Committee might consider cosponsoring the 
bill.
    With that, I would happily support these measures and yield 
back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Without objection, all Members' opening statements will be 
placed in the record at this point.
    Are there amendments to any of the bills?
    The gentleman from New York?
    Mr. Nadler. I would like to ask Mr. Hostettler a question.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York strikes 
the last word and is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I support all of these bills. I want to 
express my agreement, in one sentence, with Ms. Lofgren. Every 
one of these bills shows an amendment that ought to be made to 
the law because you shouldn't need to know a Member of Congress 
because the law creates such a terrible result that you need a 
special private bill. The law ought not to create such terrible 
results. We ought to amend the law.
    One thing that the gentleman from Indiana said, I want to 
ask him why he said that. He said that on the bill that allows 
the family of this man who was murdered to continue to apply to 
regularize, adjust--to adjust I think is the phrase--the 
status, he said it would be inappropriate to do this for other 
crime victims who are not connected to 9/11. I wonder why.
    If someone is here as a legal immigrant, has a green card, 
et cetera, and under the law has the right to bring his family, 
and he brings his family, and they are here, and he gets shot 
in a bank robbery or otherwise killed or, for that matter, in 
an automobile accident, why should those people be subject to 
deportation? What is different than this situation?
    Mr. Hostettler. If the gentleman would yield. This would 
establish a precedent that just like the adoptions we would 
amend the law with regard to the very same situation that 
you're talking about. There comes a point where the law is the 
law and that if that law is violated, once again, through no 
fault of their own, but is nonetheless violated----
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time. You're exactly right--
through no fault of their own, and yet you said, you seemed to 
say--maybe you didn't mean it. I hope you didn't--that it is 
different because this man was murdered only because of 
emotions arising from 9/11. It was a hate crime. But if he was 
murdered because someone wanted to steal his money, then it 
would be appropriate to deport his family? I don't see the 
difference. I think, I would hope--I'm not going to put you on 
the spot--I would hope that we would all consider amending the 
law so that someone who played by the rules, came to this 
country legally, has a green card, is living here, brings his 
family here and then is murdered or, for that matter, gets 
killed in a car accident, it doesn't mean the family has to be 
deported. It seems to me the same situation as in this very 
worthy bill.
    I thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments to any of the 
bills?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Good. A reporting quorum is 
present. The question occurs on the motion to report the en 
bloc private bills H.R. 710, H.R. 712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867, and 
Senate 103 favorably.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the 
motion to report the en bloc private bills favorably is 
adopted.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the Chairman is 
authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules 
with respect to each separate bill. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes 
with respect to each separate bills and all Members will be 
given 2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit 
additional dissenting supplemental or minority views with 
respect to each separate bill.

                                  
