Supporting the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At the beginning of this Congress, Members read aloud the Constitution of the United States from the floor of this very Chamber. That reading, of course, included the Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments so vital to protecting the individual freedoms of all Americans.

Today, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H. Res. 196, a bipartisan resolution affirming our support for the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to a fair trial. It also reads, ``In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have the assistance of counsel for his defence.''

We all agree that the right to counsel for anyone accused of a crime is the foundation of individual liberty. It is essential to the rule of law and the basic principle that, in America, the government cannot take away any citizen's freedom without a fair trial. H. Res. 196 is a bipartisan resolution reaffirming the support of this Congress for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a time when this right is too often trampled in our modern-day justice system.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, in the landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright that access to quality legal representation is essential to a fair trial, and that even Americans too poor to afford an attorney have a right to counsel.

This landmark opinion held that States and localities have a Sixth Amendment constitutional obligation to provide counsel to indigent defendants. Yet, a half century later, the reality is that we continue to struggle to honor the right to counsel upheld in Gideon.

Reports by the Department of Justice, the American Bar Association, the Constitution Project, as well as innumerable law review articles by top experts in criminal law, have revealed how legal representation for indigent defendants often has been undermined by crushing caseloads, inadequate funding, and other obstacles. It has been estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all persons charged with a criminal offense qualify as being indigent and cannot afford an attorney.

The American Bar Association, in its comprehensive report, ``Gideon's Broken Promise,'' concluded that ``thousands of persons are processed through America's courts every year either with no lawyer at all or with a lawyer that does not have the time, the resources or, in some instances, the inclination to provide effective representation.''

All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring.

In this time of limited resources, the right to counsel has also been undermined by cuts to funding for indigent defense. These cuts have eliminated training programs to keep lawyers informed of criminal justice best practices and have limited the ability of lawyers for indigent defendants to access investigators or experts essential to adequately representing their clients.

We pay a hefty price when we fail to uphold the Sixth Amendment of our Constitution. It is not uncommon for indigent people without an attorney to sit in jail for weeks or months, causing the loss of a job, a home and, in some instances, the loss of a family.

Failing to provide adequate counsel to indigent defendants can also lead to costly extended pretrial detentions, costs associated with appellate litigation, costs for appellate defense counsel, prosecutors and appellate courts, incarceration costs of indigent people during the appeals process, and other unnecessary costs.

From our unsustainably high rates of incarceration to the lives of families torn apart by unnecessary jail time and wrongful convictions, Congress can't afford to ignore the economic and moral costs of this crisis in our criminal justice system.

Our Nation's failure to uphold the Sixth Amendment has resulted in bloated prison and jail populations at the State and county levels, which hold more than 2.2 million people at a cost of $75 billion per year. An additional 5 million people are on probation, parole, or supervised release.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all the comprehensive reports, all the law review articles, and all the stories reported by the media, the fundamental right of an indigent defendant to adequate counsel remains at risk.

The situation is dire. Look no further than a recent determination made by the Florida Supreme Court allowing the Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office to withdraw from 21 criminal cases because of excessive workload and underfunding. In fact, it was found that approximately 400 felony cases were being assigned to the average public defender, and public defenders in third-degree felonies had as many as 50 cases set for trial in a week.

These facts provide us with just a glimpse into a growing crisis within our criminal justice system. There is no question that States and localities are struggling to provide adequate and well-resourced lawyers to indigent defendants.

Ensuring that all Americans, regardless of their financial resources, have access to a lawyer is essential to our system of justice. Our failure to uphold the Sixth Amendment undermines the premise that, in America, every person has the right to a fair trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

H. Res. 196 is a product of bipartisanship. I would like to thank the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his support of this legislation and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

I would also like to thank Congressman Steve Chabot for all of his hard work on this resolution and for working to ensure that indigent people in the criminal justice system are adequately represented by counsel.

I also want to recognize Ranking Member John Conyers and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott for their support of this resolution.

For my colleagues who are as concerned as I am about the state of indigent defense in America, I invite you not just to support today's resolution but to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 3407, the National Center for the Right to Counsel Act. This legislation aims to improve financial and training resources for State and local public defense systems and encourage the adoption of best practices for the delivery of legal services to indigent defendants.

The bill would equip States and localities with more tools to implement their own indigent defense systems and meet their constitutional obligations as defined by the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the first step toward solving any problem is confronting it, and that is why I am so pleased to have H. Res. 196 on the floor today. The Supreme Court recognized in Gideon that ``the right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.''

It is long past time that the House of Representatives engage, debate, and develop strategies to assist the States with improving the delivery of indigent defense services.

I urge my colleagues to support the right to counsel enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and to join me in supporting H. Res. 196.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a full-throated support of H. Res. 196, which upholds the Sixth amendment Right to Counsel, as laid out in the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright affirmed that everyone, whether rich or poor, has the right to an attorney in a criminal proceeding. Fifty years later though, sequestration's devastating cuts to federal defender services are jeopardizing the constitutional rights of Americans around the nation and ultimately resulting in higher costs--which is why this resolution--H. Res. 196--is utterly important. The case law and enunciation of this right began in Powell v. Alabama, in which the Court set aside the convictions of eight black youths sentenced to death in a hastily carried-out trial without benefit of counsel.

Justice Sutherland stated that due process always requires the observance of certain fundamental personal rights associated with a hearing, and ``the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character.'' This observation was about the right to retain counsel of one's choice and at one's expense, and included an eloquent statement of the necessity of counsel. ``The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crimes, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence

Clarence Earl Gideon, could not afford a lawyer to defend him in court, and he was convicted. Gideon challenged his conviction--all the way to the Supreme Court. The result was the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, which guarantees poor defendants in Houston,

the state of Texas, and all around this great nation, the right to counsel in criminal cases. Indeed Mr. Speaker, just this weekend a horrific shooting took place in Houston that was reported all over--and just as with many crimes--our fine law enforcement officials set-out to find the perpetrators and it appears as if they have. It is in cases like these where the public's opinion is enflamed that Gideon is most importance--particularly in ensuring that the right persons have been apprehended.

Public defenders serve as the backbone of our legal system because they ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is maintained. It is critical that this body act to ensure that next year's sequestration cuts do not force federal defender organizations around the country to further reduce their operations, hindering their ability to provide competent and timely legal representation. This body must pass legislation to avert further cuts to defender services otherwise--it will result in an abdication of our constitutional duties, increased costs to the American taxpayer, and a severe degradation of our criminal justice system in Texas and beyond.

In this body we often disagree on the scope and breadth of recent budget cuts, but we must all work to ensure that a highly functioning criminal justice system is maintained and adequately funded. We have a responsibility to the Constitution to continue to fund this critically important program at workable levels. As we continue to debate a budget for fiscal year 2014, and the overall fiscal path for our nation, I urge my colleagues to address this critically important issue.

I urge my colleagues to Support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 196. Since the founding of the Republic, the right to an attorney in a federal criminal prosecution has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and fifty years ago the Supreme Court reiterated that commitment and applied it to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright. But though the Constitution, the Court, and the Criminal Justice Act establish this right, Congress still must provide adequate resources before it can be a reality.

Public defenders serve as the backbone of this constitutional promise. Federal public defenders ensure access to counsel and other necessary criminal defense services for those who are indigent. Public defenders not only help to maintain confidence in the nation's commitment to equal justice under the law, but also ensure the successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system of justice through which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed rights are enforced. In addition, adequately funded federal public defenders save money for the federal treasury by reducing pre- and post-trial incarceration costs.

At the federal level, 81 public defender organizations nationwide represent 60 percent of all criminal defendants in the federal court system. In the judicial branch, where costs are heavily concentrated in personnel, the sequester cuts have led to furloughs, staff reduction through attrition, and as a last resort, layoffs. As a result, trials have been delayed and attorneys have been forced to take on even larger caseloads. This has an effect on the entire federal criminal justice system, delaying justice for everyone, whether innocent or guilty.

Although many federal agencies can choose to do less when fewer resources are available, the federal judiciary does not have the option to reduce its own workload when budget cuts threaten. In criminal matters, when the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute an indigent defendant, the Constitution requires the government to provide assistance of counsel. As pointed out by Justice Anthony Kennedy before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on March 14, 2013, because the Constitution requires the court to appoint counsel for an indigent criminal defendant, if there are fewer public defenders available the court must employ private attorneys, often at a higher cost.

This resolution will pass the House overwhelmingly, as well it should. But today I challenge my colleagues to put real force behind their words and expressions of support for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. I implore them to support full funding for the Federal Defender Services. I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 196) supporting the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to counsel, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I asks unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 196, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that ``in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.'' H. Res. 196 supports the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel, and strategies to ensure that indigent defendants in all felony cases are adequately represented by counsel.

Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Gideon v. Wainwright, held that providing counsel to indigent defendants is one of the essential requirements of the Sixth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Black stated:

From the very beginning, our State and national

constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural

and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials

before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands

equal before the law.

Since the Gideon decision, the Supreme Court has held that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless that person was represented by counsel at his or her trial.

This resolution reaffirms Congress' continued commitment to pursuing fairness in our criminal justice system and calls on States to help ensure that defendants are adequately represented by counsel.

I urge Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.