Monthly Archives: December 2007

Second Amendment Goes to Congress in a Private Bill

Hosted by eSnips

Is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G. Roberts a Fugitive from Justice?


By the U.S. Supreme Court denying my Motion to Proceed as a Seaman under the Seamen’s Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 that accompanied my Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the link above) which included my self-styled “Citizen’s Arrest Warrants for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, named judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and their respective Court Clerks for Extortion Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 872 of filing fees from a seaman in violation of the Seamen’s Suit law,” the Chief Justice and the DC Circuit judges and their Court Clerks became fugitives from justice. That is, of course if the Rule of Law and equal justice under the law applied to these people as they would apply to you me.

Under threat of arrest by the U.S. Marshals Service if I attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of those named judicial personnel I was then forced to file a my PRIVATE BILL with U.S. Rep. Marion Barry of Arkansas and U.S. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas for a congressional remedy.

House version of the Private Bill

Hosted by eSnips
Senate Version of the Private Bill

Hosted by eSnips




SECTION 1. The Human Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Human Rights Amendment incorporates human rights clauses from constitutions of other nations listed in Part 6 and the preservation of freedom through citizen participation in the three elements of justice to be known as the Three Shields of Justice. The Human Rights Amendment is a refortification of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and the International Bill of Human Rights elevating the protection of the sovereign rights of the individual, the States, and the United States against incursions by governments foreign and domestic. The text of The Human Rights Amendment shall read as:

“Human rights are created by God and not by Government. Among these are the human right of personal safety, security, and defense of self, family, community, the State, and the United States by force of arms autonomously in a lawful manner proscribed by positive law and social norms or by militia, whether organized or unorganized in a lawful manner proscribed by positive law against violent crimes, murder, home invasion, and/or tyranny, whether foreign or domestic. The Right of citizens to act in the interest of justice, for equal justice under the law, and for the achievement and the preservation of actual justice, to be known as the three shields of freedom, shall never be trespassed by government, whether foreign or domestic. These rights include the right of citizen’s arrest based upon evidence showing probable cause of felonies committed by government, local, state or federal, especially so when such arrest is abdicated by authorities, whether local, state, or federal. Further included among these human rights is the right to a remedy, whether administrative or judicial, to violations of constitutional rights and human rights, including patterns of behavior maliciously designed to circumvent these rights.”

SECTION 2. National Open Carry Handgun and the National Drivers Record

Congressional legislation can be passed into law amending the National Drivers Record, codified in 49 U.S.C. § 30301 – 30308 to add a data field on the driver’s license signifying that the driver is not prohibited from possessing or owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), et seq. By this act the Second Amendment becomes incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting the States from passing gun control laws infringing, restricting, or prohibiting home-state citizens and out-of-state citizens their right to travel intrastate and interstate while exercising their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Courts have relentless and consistently ruled “that there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982). The courts have been equally relentless and consistent in ruling that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Serv., 109 S.Ct. 998, 1004 (1989); South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855).This doctrine of no constitutional right to police protection or protection by the state is the genesis for a human rights complaint at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan), Petition No. 1490-05.

The petition was presented on behalf of Ms. Jessica Gonzales (Lenahan), a U.S. national who claims that the police failed to respond to her repeated and urgent calls over several hours informing that her estranged husband had taken their three minor daughters (ages 7, 8 and 10) in violation of a restraining order issued against him, which resulted in their death. The United States Supreme Court allegedly validated the law enforcement officials’ conduct, by holding that Ms. Gonzales was not entitled under the United States Constitution to have the restraining order enforced by the police.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report No. 52/07, July 24, 2007


SECTION 1. The First Shield of Freedom: In the Interest of Justice

This is the realm where citizen’s can freely act with their First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and powers reserved to the People under the Tenth Amendment for the Interest of Justice. This includes the Common Defence clause of the Preamble to the United States Constitution and is carried out by individuals in association with other individuals under the right of association under the First Amendment (i.e., Neighborhood Watch Programs, autonomously law-abiding militia groups under the militia clause of the Second Amendment and under the self-determination clause of United Nations human rights treaties). I define the phrase “In the Interest of Justice” as it applies to the individual, as any activities that insures any one or more or all of the six purposes of the U.S. Constitution as stipulated in the Preamble:

(1) to form a more perfect Union,
(2) establish Justice,
(3) insure domestic Tranquility,
(4) provide for the common defence,
(5) promote the general Welfare, and
(6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Much of life is spent under The First Shield of Freedom. It is found in a belief in God and in doing the right thing in all things mankind does or can do for themselves and for each other. To this end I present evidence of this shared belief in the Golden Rule, which also known as the Ethics of Reciprocity as noted from the Religious Tolerance Websight by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance:

(1) Shared Belief in the “Golden Rule” (a.k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)


Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people’s suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal.The Dalai Lama


Religious groups differ greatly in their concepts of deity, other beliefs and practices. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, also exhibit a wide range of beliefs. But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.”

One result of this Ethic is the concept that every person shares certain inherent human rights, simply because of their membership in the human race. People are individually very different; they come in two main genders; different sizes, colors, and shapes; many races; three sexual orientations; and different degrees of ability. They follow many religious and economic systems, speak many languages, and follow many different cultures. But there is a growing consensus that all humans are equal in importance. All should enjoy basic human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one manifestation of this growing worldwide consensus.[2]

In our opinion, the greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. It is our belief that religions should stress that their membership use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.Some

SECTION 2. The Second Shield of Freedom: Equal Justice Under the Law

This is the realm where the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth are thrashed out in the federal judicial system in what is supposed to be a level playing field. This is not what always happens because whenever the human element is involved (i.e. judges) there is always the element of corruption forever ready to rise up to cause miscarriages of justice disguised as true Justice, the Third Shield of Freedom. Mankind will always be experimenting with equal justice under the law, searching for the perfect method to achieve The Third Shield of Freedom. This is no more evident that with Eric Allen Engle’s article, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Can RICO Protect Human Rights? A Computer Analysis of a Semi-Determinate Legal Question, 3 Journal of High Technology Law 1 (2004). Engle’s article posits the question whether artificial intelligence (AI) can serve (from what I suspect) as judge and jury in civil RICO Act cases reaching for extraterritorial jurisdiction.

This theory of international justice by computer is terrifyingly applicable to my civil RICO Act case against the United States and the United Nations for the Second Amendment as an international universal human right. Engle’s question is moralistically terrifying because this question has been frequently played out in cinematic SciFi genre for generations. In presenting an opposing opinion to Engle’s proposition I place myself in a Catch-22 situation, damned if I agree and damned if I disagree simply because I have run up against corrupt judges in the federal judicial system. But because Engle’s position involves the human element in the proposed design of artificial intelligence to serve as judge and jury in civil RICO Act cases reaching to extraterritorial jurisdiction I am intellectually terrified of the possibility of such a theory achieving an antithetical outcome as displayed in SciFi movies.

CNet/UK presents a list of the Top Ten Evil Computers[3] in the SciFi genre:

1. HAL 9000 (2001: A Space Odyssey)
2. Proteus IV: Demon Seed
3. Nomad (Star Trek: The Changling)
4. The Ultimate Computer (Superman III)
5. Max (The Thirteenth Floor)
6. GLaDOS (The Portal)
7. MODOK (Marvel Comics)
8. Queeg 500 (Red Dwarf: ‘Queeg”)
9. Skynet (Terminator 1, 2, and 3)
10. BOSS (Doctor Who: The Green Death)

CNet/UK omitted what I believe to be the most terrifyingly evil computer in the SciFi genre and that is none other than “Colossus” whose apocalyptic proclamation serves as a warning to Engle’s proposition:


This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.

In my view, Mankind, becoming distrustful in God or yearning for scientific evidence of God, has become impatient with God and is constructing His replacement with AI. In my opinion AI is a heathenish form of polytheism. Mankind has a bad habit of achieving undeserved results time and time again until the intended goals are achieved. But do we really want to replace the human element with AI as the Third Shield of Freedom?

SECTION 3. The Third Shield of Freedom: Actual Justice

True Justice is God’s Holy Grail for Mankind. It is not found with the polytheistic AI but in God as found in the Deuteronomy 16:18-20, of the King James’ Bible It is the basis for the Code of Judicial Conduct for all judges, even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Deuteronomy 16:18-20,18:

Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with just judgment.19: Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.20: That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


[2] The English text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at: The text is available in other languages is at:


Congress is Killing the Right to Petitition!

Public and Private Bills from 1947 to 2007Congress Hears Nothing, Sees Nothing, and Hears Nothing!

Congress Does Not Hear the People, Speak for the People, nor See the People!


SECTION 1: The Congress is Killing the Right to Petition

“While the absolute number of private bills submitted by individual members of Congress has remained relatively steady, the number that have become private laws has shown a precipitous decline.” (Citing Matthew Mantel, Private Bills and Private Laws, 99 Law Library Journal 87, 90 (May 2007)). Footnote 24 in Mantel’s article only listed data from 96th Congress (1979) to the 108th Congress (2003). Don Hamrick found the data to create a more expanded chart from the 80th Congress (1947) to the present day 110th Congress (December 12, 2007).

(a)Private Legislation

House Document No. 109-153, A History of the Committee on the Judiciary 1813–2006 Section II–Jurisdictions History of the Judiciary Committee, Private Legislation,” pp. 143-148

Nearly half of all the laws enacted by Congress have been private laws.[1] Unlike public law, which applies to public matters and deals with individuals only by classes, the provisions of private law apply to “one or several specified persons, corporations, [or] institutions.”[2]

Private legislation has its foundation in the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”[3] guaranteed to all citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress sometimes chooses to enact private law to grant relief in situations where no other legal remedies are available. Private legislation is premised on the idea that public law cannot cover all situations equitably, and sometimes Congress must address special circumstances with specially targeted legislation. In this sense, private law has been called “an anomaly,”[4] since it is intended to address specific problems that public law either created or overlooked.

The 1st Congress enacted 10 private laws. The 59th Congress–the historic high water mark of private legislation–enacted 6,249. Reporters observing the 59th Congress (1905–1906) noted that, on one occasion, 320 private pension bills passed the House in an hour and a half, “an average of three each minute.” One reporter characterized the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole as presiding with “auctioneer-like qualities” as these private pension measures were raised and rapidly adopted in turn.[5]

Today Congress enacts very little private legislation. In the last 10 Congresses combined it has enacted just 159 private measures, a mere two percent of the amount passed in the 1905–1906 sessions alone. In the 108th Congress, just one percent of the laws enacted by Congress were private – the lowest percentage of private legislation enacted at any time in the nation’s history.

The first private law enacted by Congress in 1789 awarded a year-and-a-half’s pay at the rank of Captain to a foreign citizen serving in the U.S. military.[6] Since that time, Congress has enacted over 45,000 private laws dealing with issues both commonplace and extraordinary: providing pensions or lump sum payments to soldiers and widows, satisfying sundry monetary claims against the government, correcting military records, eliminating the “political disabilities” of Civil War rebels, fixing immigration problems, extending patents, providing vessel documentation, refunding tariffs or overpayments, expediting the naturalization process for a potential Olympian, authorizing the Speaker of the House to wear a foreign military decoration, and permitting the family of an immigrant murdered in a post 9/11 hate crime to remain in the United States.

Historically, most private legislation introduced in the House of Representatives was considered by various private claims Committees in the House[7] or by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.[8] The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act,[9] however, transferred jurisdiction over both immigration and claims to the House Committee on the Judiciary, along with jurisdiction over patents. Thus, since 1947, only a fraction of private measures dealing with sundry matters such as public lands, vessel documentation, military awards, veterans’ benefits and legislation relating to tax and tariffs introduced in the House have been referred to Committees other than the House Committee on the Judiciary. While the overall volume of private law has not been large in recent years, the internal workload of the Judiciary Committee and of its Members and professional staff, in dealing with private legislation has remained significant. Over the last 27 years, the House Judiciary Committee has processed 91 percent of all private laws enacted. In addition, the importance of the task of reviewing such legislation is as high as ever. In its truest sense, each private measure referred to the House Judiciary Committee represents a plea for relief from a petitioner who, in theory, has no other recourse. The problems involved may touch on some of the most important and emotionally-charged subjects imaginable: a mother’s plea to bring an adopted child into the United States, the death of a soldier’s toddler due to government negligence, payments justly owed to a small business but tied up in bureaucratic red tape.

Since 1947, private immigration and claims bills have been handled in the House by subcommittees of the full Judiciary Committee, initially known as Subcommittee No. 1 (dealing with immigration and nationality) and Subcommittee No. 2 (dealing with claims against the government.)[10] Currently, such measures are referred to one Judiciary subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, for review.

Individual private cases are examined by the Subcommittee to determine if they meet the criteria for private relief and are in keeping with precedents and with Congress’s overarching goal of making equitable law.

The decline in the introduction of private legislation in recent decades stems primarily from incremental reforms made by Congress to delegate the authority to address most private grievances administratively or through the courts. Examples of this progression include the creation of the United States Court of Claims in 1855, the enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the passage of similar statutes permitting administrative settlement of most military claims.[11] Likewise, changes in immigration law have, at times, led to reductions in the introduction of private legislation in Congress.[12]

Congress has also made numerous internal reforms that have had the effect of reducing the amount of private legislation introduced. For example, section 131 of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act barred the introduction of private bills addressing grievances that might be resolved by the Tort Claims Procedure of Title 28, bills to grant a pension, to construct a bridge over a navigable stream, or to correct a military or naval record. These provisions were made part of the standing rules of the House in 1953, and are currently codified in Rule XIII, clause 4.[13]

As former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler noted, these changes initially did “effect some change in the private bill workload,” reducing the percentage of private measures enacted from 55 percent immediately before the reforms, to 34 percent after their adoption.[14]

Additional reforms undertaken by the House Judiciary Committee in 1947 barred stays of deportation simply because of the introduction of a private bill for “stowaways, deserting seamen, and border jumpers.” The Committee realized that a large fraction of private immigration bills were being introduced by Members, not with the hope of them becoming law, but simply to stay deportation proceedings. The simple introduction of a relief bill meant that the alien would not be deported while the measure was pending, whether or not the measure was ever acted upon.

The volume of private legislation introduced, and as a result, the workload of the House Judiciary Committee, however, remained unmanageably large despite these reforms. In the 90th Congress (1967–1968), for example, House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 2 was referred 779 private claims bills and oversaw the enactment of 116 of them into law. Subcommittee No. 1 was referred over 6,000 private immigration bills.[15] According to former Rep. William Cahill, this represented “the largest number [of private immigration bills] ever introduced” up to that time.[16] While the Judiciary panel worked hard to meet its responsibilities – its immigration subcommittee held 37 meetings and oversaw the enactment of 216 private laws – the strain from such legislative volume meant that it was simply, “unable to remain current.”[17]

In response to this challenge, the restrictions on stays of deportation for certain petitioners were further broadened. According to Rep. Cahill, in 1967, the Committee rule “was broadened to include those who entered the United States as transients en route to third countries and [who] illegally remain[ed] in this country.”[18] New Judiciary Committee rules adopted in 1969, and amended in 1971, further tightened procedures for the consideration of private immigration measures and contributed signifi cantly to an overall decline in their introduction. Specifi cally, the rules altered Committee policy by eliminating the stay of deportation of various additional petitioners that used to be automatic upon the introduction of a private immigration bill. These Judiciary Committee rules changes led the introduction of private immigration bills to “drop sharply.”[19]

The marked reduction in private laws enacted in recent decades stem largely from these reforms, but doubtless also stems in part from periodic accusations of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in the introduction of private measures. In 1969 and 1976, Members and staff in both chambers were accused of soliciting and accepting bribes in exchange for the introduction of private immigration measures.[20] In addition, the widely publicized 1980 FBI Abscam bribery sting operation revolved, in part, around requests for the introduction of private bills in exchange for money.[21]

Today, in considering private immigration bills, the Judiciary Committee generally reviews only those cases that are of such an extraordinary nature that an exception to the law is needed and acts favorably on only those private bills that meet certain well-defined precedents. The Subcommittee has published detailed rules of procedure for the consideration of private immigration and claims bills, and works regularly with Members and staff to guide them in the framing and drafting of private legislation on behalf of their constituents.[22]

SECTION 2. Brief Legislative History of Civil Defense (50 U.S.C. § 2251 et. seq.)

On January 12, 1951: H.R. 9798, The Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, became Pub.L. 920 (64 Stat. 1228). It authorized a Federal civil defense program.

On August 8, 1958: H.R. 7576 became Pub.L. 85-606 (72 Stat. 532). It amended the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 adding the thermonuclear provisions.

On October 5, 1994: Pub.L. 103-337 (108 Stat. 3101) repealed the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950.

In 5 U.S. Code Cong. And Adm. News 2182-2183 (1994) TITLE XXXIV CIVIL DEFENSE:

Civil defense programs were originally designed to protect “life and property in the United States from attack.” In 1981, the law was amended to permit states to use civil defense funds to prepare for natural disasters “in a manner that . . . . does not detract from attack-related civil defense preparedness.”

Section 3402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Pub.L. 103-160) eliminated this restriction. The Civil Defense Act now reflects the “all-hazard” approach to emergency management, i.e., states are permitted to use the funds for all kinds of emergencies and disasters.

The committee believes that it should get out of the civil defense business for two reasons. First, the program has lost its defense emphasis. The threat of attack is no longer the driving force behind the program. Rather, the chief threats today come from tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, chemical spills, and the like.

Civil Defense gave way to FEMA.

Seven years later on September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists. President Clinton dropped the guard abolishing Civil Defense. Instead of resurrecting Civil Defense President Bush created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to which precipitated relentless thefts of constitutional rights, powers, and duties of citizenship as evidence in this Private Bill. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the exact centralization of the federal government that was feared at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist Papers.

Further evidence of a grave need for the restoration of Second Amendment rights to its full constitutional limits, i.e., National Open Carry Handgun, is found in the growing epidemic of single-shooter suicidal mass murders in Gun-Free Terrorist Zones in schools, malls, and now churches.

[1] According to data obtained from Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, v.7, §1028, the Calendar of the United States House of Representatives and History of Legislation from the 74th through 79th Congresses, and the Congressional Record’s Resume of Congressional Activity from the 80th through 109th Congresses, between 1789 and 2006, Congress enacted a total of 94,120 laws. Of these, 45,937 — 49 percent — have been private laws.

[2] Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives, v.4, §3285.

[3] U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 108–241, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), §208, p. 90. (Hereafter referred to as “House Manual”).

[4]Private Bills in Congress,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 79, June 1966, p. 1684.

[5] “Three Pensions a Minute,” New York Times, May 12, 1906, p. 9.

[6] Congressional Quarterly’s Guide To Congress, 5th ed., vol. I (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2000), p. 526.

[7] These include the House Committees on Claims; Pensions and Revolutionary Claims; Private Land Claims; Revolutionary Claims; Military Pensions; Invalid Pensions; Revolutionary Pensions; War Claims; and Pensions. David T. Canon, Garrison Nelson, Charles Stewart III, Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1789–1946, vol. 1, (Washington: CQ Press, 2002), pp. VI-XXXV.

[8] U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, Committee Print, 92nd Cong. 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 1972), p. 5.

[9] P.L. 79–601, 60 Stat. 812.

[10] CRS Typed Report, (Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress), by Richard S. Beth, p. 8.

[11] CRS Typed Report, (Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress), by Richard S. Beth.

[12] Other changes in immigration law have arguably led to increases in the introduction of private bills at certain points in congressional history. For more information on immigration policy and its effect on private legislation, see Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress, by Richard S. Beth, and CRS Report RL33024, Private Immigration Legislation, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.

[13] House Manual, §822, p. 601.

[14] Rep. Emanuel Celler, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 95, pt. 15, May 12, 1949, p. A2901.

[15] U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Summary of Activities, Committee Print, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 9.

[16] Rep. William T. Cahill, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 115, pt. 20, Mar. 12, 1969, p. H1629.

[17] Ibid., p. H1630.

[18] Rep. William T. Cahill, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 115, pt. 20, Mar. 12, 1969, p. H1629.

[19] Richard L. Madden, “Private Immigration Bills Found to Drop Sharply,” New York Times, Oct. 25, 1972, p. 14.

[20] “Rep. Helstoski Denies He Got Payoffs,” New York Times, June 26, 1976, p. A5.

[21] Charles R. Babcock, “FBI ‘Sting’ Ensnares Several In Congress,” The Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1980, p. A1.

[22] Subcommittee Rules of Procedure are available on the House Committee on the Judiciary’s website: