Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a moment of personal privilege to acknowledge the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee. It has only been a little over 6 months, or almost 6 months, that Mr. Conyers has taken the realm of this august body. And I think if history is to be accurate, to recount the volcanic change that has come about on the life-changing legislative initiatives that have been able to be moved out of this committee, we recognize that hate should not be applauded, but it should be made illegal.

We have confronted the issues dealing with the creativity of America, addressing the questions of patent reform. We are looking closely at the idea of how do we find a balance on the issue of immigration. We are listening, we are learning, we are sympathetic. We are, in fact, what the Judiciary Committee, one of the oldest committees, was really intended to do: to listen to the grievances of people and be able to find relief.

Let me thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee, for they have partnered on a number of initiatives, and we have found, sometimes, common ground. Today I rise on that very shining example of a common ground.

Allow me to thank Congressman Hulshof of Missouri for his passion and his commitment, and Mr. Sykes, who was a witness and who humbly said he was simply a public servant, someone who thought this idea was long in coming.

And so why we are here today is to talk about what many of you perceive as a television program called Cold Cases. I wish it was as simple as that. On that program, you do see the impact on families, but it is, in fact, a television program. Today, we speak of lives, lives long left on the dusty road of unsolved crimes, lives that are broken, torn, full of tears, looking for just a semblance of justice and hope in America. Maybe they were thinking of the words of Winston Churchill when he spoke to President Roosevelt in the dark ways of World War II, ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.'' That is what this bill does today; it gives the tools to America's prosecutors to pick up the broken pieces of the civil rights movement.

In 1989, we put together a memorial for those who had lost their lives in the civil rights era. They lost their lives not because they were criminals, not because they were caught in an unfortunate accident, but they lost their lives because they were on the battlefield for justice. They were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement. They were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists of many different colors and religious backgrounds. Their death, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South. It is an era of terror which all of us have come to stand against, proudly so, which makes you very proud to stand here as an American, frankly, the greatest country in the world. For we have traveled a blood-stained road, but yet as we've traveled it, there have been those who have tried to go back and be able to bring us forward, united, arm in arm together, sweeping across America talking about the injustices of the past, but looking forward to the future for our children.

And so this bill is in tribute to the likes of Rita Bender, a witness who was brought before this committee. It was in recognition of the lives that we have heard of, Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, buried deep in a mud pile. It was a testimony to John Lewis, who sits among us as an icon of conscience, who will tell you that in those muddy fields of Mississippi and Alabama, there are still skeletons that have yet been found. For many were killed, unnamed, and the relatives were too frightened to ever come forward. Maybe now, because this bill has a section in it on community relations, and I am hoping that as we provide oversight on this bill, we will increase those dollars from $1.5 million to $2 million or $2.5 million, because one of the witnesses said they could not have prosecuted the case had it not been for the persistence and the heart and determination of the family members, having lived under the shadow of this sin for so long.

This bill does create a deputy chief in the Criminal Division of the Civil Rights Division. Many of us would have preferred a division, some separate fixture standing with the responsibility to have the hammer, if you will, of rightness. But we support this legislation, and we hope that as our chairman has been diligent and vigilant, as he looks forward, that we will ensure that that deputy chief does the right thing and provides a vigorous advocacy and prosecution of those unsolved crimes.

Let me, Mr. Speaker, just recount very briefly the moving testimony that was given of the witnesses. Let me home in, if I could, on Myrlie Evers Williams. Why? Because it is part of my psyche to have seen Medgar Evers folding down on his front yard as he was murdered going into his home to see his wife and his children.

Can you imagine the horror of waiting for daddy to come home, waiting for your husband to come home, the dinner on the table, the radio playing, the children making the kinds of pleasant noises that children make? Her husband was a warrior, but a gentle man, a man of peace, a man who was willing to sacrifice his own future so that he might bring justice to some.

Let me, Mr. Speaker, as I close, simply ask my colleagues to remember this past and go to the future as I ask for support for this legislation.

I thank you, John Lewis, and I thank you, John Conyers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong of H.R. 923, the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007.'' This legislation, which I am proud to co-sponsor and strongly support, is intended to complete some of the Nation's most important unfinished business. And that is to solve some of the most depraved acts of violence against persons belonging to a racial group that was vulnerable, politically powerless, and innocent, and against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007 is long overdue. I thank our colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, who is widely recognized as the moral conscience of the House for sponsoring this legislation and I thank Chairmen Conyers, Scott, and Nadler for their work in shepherding it through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the Civil Rights Memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. The Memorial honors the lives and memories of 40 martyrs who were slain during the movement from 1954 to 1968, including Emmett Till. But we know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era. In fact, at the time the Memorial was dedicated, the killers of 13 of the 40 martyrs whose names are inscribed on the Memorial had not been prosecuted or convicted. In 10 of the 40 deaths, defendants were either acquitted by all-white juries or served only token prison sentences. We also know there are many cases that still cry out for justice. These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our Nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under law. The legislation before us is intended to help us remove that stain once and for all.

The 40 victims selected for inclusion in the Civil Rights Memorial fit at least one of three criteria: (1) they were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement; (2) they were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists; or, (3) their deaths, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South. The 40 persons who fit the selection criteria ranged in age from 11 to 66. Seven were white, and 33 were black. They were students, farmers, ministers, truck drivers, a homemaker and a Nobel laureate.

But Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other victims besides the 40 who are remembered on the Memorial. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that its research uncovered approximately 75 other people who died violently between 1952 and 1968 under circumstances suggesting that they were victims of racial violence. For most of them the reason their names were not added to the Memorial is because not enough was known about the details surrounding their deaths. Sadly, the reason so little is known about these cases is because they were never fully investigated or, in some cases, law enforcement officials were involved in the killings or subsequent cover-ups. And because the killings of African Americans were often covered up or never seriously investigated, there is little reason to doubt that many slayings were never even recorded by the authorities.

The reason justice had not been served was the callous indifference, and often the criminal collusion, of many white law enforcement officials in the segregated South. There simply was no justice for African Americans during the civil rights era. The whole criminal justice system--from the police, to the prosecutors, to the juries, and to the judges--was perverted by racial bigotry. African Americans were routinely beaten, bombed and shot with impunity. Sometimes, the killers picked their victims on a whim. Sometimes, they targeted them for their activism. In other cases, prominent white citizens were involved and no consequences flowed. Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi, for example, was shot in the head by a state legislator in broad daylight in 1961.

It is, of course, fitting and proper that H.R. 923 bears the name of Emmett Till, whose slaying in 1955 and his mother's decision to have an open casket at his funeral stirred the Nation's conscience and galvanized a generation of Americans to join the fight for equality. Sadly, hundreds of them were killed in that struggle, and many of the killers, like those of Emmett himself, were never successfully prosecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that the Department of Justice strongly supports this legislation. It should. No government agency has done more through the years to protect and defend the civil rights of African Americans and other victims of injustice. I hope the DOJ's embrace of this legislation represents a rededication to its historic role of ensuring equal justice under law for all, even the poor, powerless, and vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, the heart of this legislation is sections 3 and 4. Section 3 establishes a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. Section 3 requires the Attorney General to designate a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights division who will be responsible for coordinating the investigation and prosecution of violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred before December 31, 1969, and ended in death.

Section 3 also requires a study and report to Congress about the number of cases opened, the number of Federal prosecutions commenced, the number of cases of State and local prosecutions where the DOJ assisted, the number of cases that have been closed, and the number of open pending cases. The report shall be made not later than 6 months after the enactment of the Act.

Section 4 of the bill establishes a parallel component in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be headed by a Supervisory Special Agent designated by the Attorney General. This Supervisory Special Agent in the Civil Rights Unit is responsible for investigating violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred not later than December 31, 1969, and resulted in death. The Supervisory Special Agent should, where appropriate, coordinate investigations with State and local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support H.R. 923, I believe the bill would be even stronger if it incorporated three small but important amendments. First, I would recommend an amendment containing Congressional findings of fact that help explain to the nation and the world why the Congress was compelled to enact this vitally important legislation. We are enacting this legislation not because of who the perpetrators of these unsolved criminal violations of civil rights statutes are, but who we are, and who their victims were.

Mr. Speaker, over the past half century, the United States has made tremendous progress in overcoming the badges and vestiges of slavery. But this progress has been purchased at great cost. From Reconstruction through the modern Civil Rights Movement, heinous and depraved acts of violence were committed against persons belonging to a racial group that was innocent, vulnerable, and politically powerless, and also against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution. Many of these crimes remain unsolved and no one has ever been held accountable.

Examples of unsolved cases include the 1968 ``Orangeburg Massacre'' at South Carolina State University where state police shot and killed three student protesters; the 1967 shooting death of Carrie Brumfield, whose body was found on a rural Louisiana road; the 1957 murder of Willie Joe Sanford, whose body was fished out of a creek in Hawkinsville, GA; the 1946 killing of a black couple, including a pregnant woman, who was pulled out of a car in Monroe, GA, and dragged down a wagon trail before being shot in front of 200 people.

These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our Nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under the law. Solving these cases is part of the unfinished work of America. President Kennedy said it so well 44 years ago, when he addressed the Nation on June 11, 1963: ``this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.''

A second amendment I would recommend is the establishment of a specially created section within the Civil Rights Division with dedicated resources, personnel, and budgetary authority to investigate and prosecute notorious and neglected pre-1970 criminal violations of the civil rights statutes.

I believe that in designating the Deputy Chief required by this legislation, the Attorney General must also be required to delegate to the Deputy Chief authority over the necessary personnel and budgetary resources. The high hope of H.R. 923 is that it may help bring justice to those whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. The Deputy Chief, therefore, has an awesome responsibility. If we are to expect positive results, it is incumbent upon us to provide the Deputy Chief the resources and authority needed to be successful. As Winston Churchill said to President Roosevelt during the dark days of 1940: ``Give us the tools and we will finish the job!''

I am pleased, however, that the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $10 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2017 for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting pre-1970 criminal violations of the civil rights statutes that resulted in a death. Similarly, I am pleased that the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $1,500,000 to the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance by bringing together law enforcement agencies and communities in the investigation of criminal violations of civil rights statutes.

My third amendment I would recommend is to increase the amount of this annual appropriation by $500,000 to $2 million and to make this funding source available to assist the families of victims in coping with the loss of a loved one through counseling and other support services, financial and otherwise. Such assistance must be available to the victim's families because in many cases the testimony of a family member may be indispensable to government investigators and prosecutors. I am particularly mindful that the witnesses testifying before the Judiciary Committee hearing affirmed their belief that the government's ability successfully to investigate and solve criminal civil rights violations would be greatly enhanced were assistance and support available to the victims' families.

Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, Medgar Evers was murdered in Jackson, Mississippi; justice would not be done in his case for more than twenty years. But that day was foretold because the evening before the death of Medgar Evers, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the Nation from the Oval Office on the state of race relations and civil rights in America. In his historic speech to the nation President Kennedy said:

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as

old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American

Constitution.

One hundred years of delay have passed since President

Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons,

are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of

injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic

oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its

boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are

free.

H.R. 923 is intended to help bring justice to those whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. In doing so, this legislation will help this Nation fulfill its hopes and justify its boast that in America all persons live in freedom.

Mr. Speaker. I strongly support this historic legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in 2004, when I was selected by my peers as the Democratic leader, the first public appearance I made following the vote we had, I walked out to the press and said I would rather dance than fight. I still feel that way. I was elected to the Senate because the people of Nevada knew I was a good Democrat but that I always would eagerly reach across the table and find common ground wherever possible. I guess I learned that in the courtroom in working cases. You have to be willing to compromise in the law, as you do in politics. I have a strong conviction, that is true.

There is no better example of that than my relationship with John Ensign. John Ensign, the junior Senator from Nevada, and I had a bitter race in 1998. He was a Member of Congress. I was a sitting Senator. He ran against me. That was a close race. No one ever thought we would wind up in the Senate together, but as fortune spins, Senator Bryant unexpectedly decided not to run for reelection, and John Ensign was able to come to the Senate.

For 8 years, we have worked to develop a relationship that has turned into a strong friendship. John Ensign and I, though we disagree on some political issues, never, ever publicly or privately discuss our differences politically.

I mention that because we need in the Senate to work together. Even though we may have different political views on different aspects of Government, we need to work together. It may not be apparent to those who watch the daily skirmishes of the Senate from afar, but I try to approach every issue in this Congress with the same eagerness to find common ground that I do working with Senator Ensign.

There have been occasions--not often enough--where Republican colleagues have joined Democrats in the pursuit of progress. When they have chosen that path, we have, together, accomplished some very good things for the American people, even in this work period, which has seen some bitter partisanship. While it will be remembered probably for the Republican obstructionism that has occurred, we can still look and find examples of significant bipartisan compromise.

At a time when we see such interesting things around the country that need so much help, we have been able to pass legislation in one area of great concern: housing. We passed a comprehensive housing bill. The housing crisis has been uprooting families and wreaking havoc in neighborhoods across the country for far too long. It was a struggle to get this bill passed. Never in the history of the country, I am told, has there been a bill that has passed the Congress where we have had seven filibusters on one bill--the same bill--at the same time. We had one filibuster right after the other, seven of them, but we finally got to the finish line on housing. It is a good piece of legislation. Some 8,500 families who receive foreclosure notices every day will not be confronted with that in many instances because of the legislation we passed.

During this work period, we also passed the Medicare doctors fix--the salvation of Medicare is what it was--and we did that by overriding the senseless veto by the President of the United States. We were only able to do that because right down here stood Senator Ted Kennedy, a man who should not have been here. He was not supposed to be flying. He wasn't supposed to be around crowds, and of course there were lots of crowds that

were here--everyone wanted to be around him--and he stood here and cast the deciding vote that broke the impasse. We had 60 votes. After we got 60 votes, the Republicans in good will joined and allowed us to save Medicare. It took the courage of Ted Kennedy, rising from his sick bed against doctors' orders, to cast the deciding vote. Because he did, and enough Republicans joined with us, we renewed the long-held American promise that the elderly, the disabled and the orphans and widows will receive the health care they need.

We also passed, during this work period, a bill that is a test to America's charity and moral authority in the world, the so-called PEPFAR bill. This legislation provides an unprecedented level of support for the fight against AIDS in Africa. It is not often I have occasion to praise the President, but he did a good job on this, and I commend him for helping us. I am glad that even after we had struggles for months at a time, Senate Republicans joined with the President and Senate Democrats to choose to end their obstruction and allow us to pass that legislation.

Late yesterday, we wrapped up work on an important piece of legislation. We did it at the end of this work period. In fact, we did it on two important pieces of legislation: consumer product safety and the higher education bill, both very important pieces of legislation. At a time when parents are rightly more concerned than ever about the safety of the toys they buy for their children, the consumer product safety legislation gives parents and all consumers new assurance that the goods we buy are fully tested and approved for safe use. That applies to the stereotype, which is the toys the children use in America, but it is far broader than that. With rare exception, it is everything we consume in America today now will be safe.

The Higher Education Act had not been reauthorized in some 10 years until last night. Of course, it was long overdue, but since we passed it, millions of bright young American minds will have the opportunity to unlock the doors of opportunity a college education provides.

Our country will be stronger for every one of the bills we passed this work period--every one of them. I wish we had passed a lot more. Those we did are important. I am glad we did it. As with any legislation, when you pass a bill, there are lots of accolades to be passed around. When you don't pass a bill, there is a lot of blame to go around.

I feel a lot of disappointment, though, when I think back upon this work period and wonder what might have been, what might we have accomplished if our Republican colleagues had decided to dance with us more often than fight. We could have gone a long way toward solving America's energy crisis. Yesterday was a microcosm for why the Senate failed to do so. Democrats came to the floor to offer seven different energy initiatives. Our plan would tackle every piece of the energy puzzle: Increasing supply with more domestic production, meaning increasing supply with more American production; reducing demand by investing in clean and renewable alternatives; going after those who keep oil prices artificially high for their own financial gain; and helping those in need pay their skyrocketing heating bills.

Earlier today, a group of 10 Senators--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats-- indicated they had done some work to come up with a proposal that they think would help the energy crisis. I have been kept informed of how this has been progressing, and I am glad they have worked on what they did. They have worked very hard. There are many good ideas. Do I agree with everything they did? No, I don't agree with everything, but even the 10 don't agree with everything in the package.

I look forward to working with them. We are going to work with this group in a number of different ways. First of all, the information we got from them is important. I am going to hold a summit in Las Vegas on August 19--an energy summit, a clean energy summit. President Clinton will be there, Mayor Bloomberg, T. Boone Pickens, the Governors of Utah, Arizona, Colorado. We have people from the private sector, the public sector coming to talk about what we can do to wean ourselves from fossil fuel.

Also, the week we get back in September, we are going to have an energy summit of Democrats, a bipartisan energy summit, to see if there is any way we can work together to move forward--move forward on things that are so important to this country, such as having multiple year energy tax credits so we can wean ourselves from the fossil fuels and look to the Sun, the wind, and geothermal for our energy. I certainly hope we can do that.

Republicans have said no to every proposal we have made. Because they did, the American people will have to wait for short- and long-term solutions to the energy crisis. That truly is unfortunate.

With more Republican cooperation, we could have passed mental health parity. That is so important. It is a bipartisan bill to ensure equal access to health care for people with mental illness. We were prevented from doing that.

With more Republican cooperation, we could have passed a package of 13 bipartisan bills that Republicans blocked. That package includes the Emmett Till unsolved crimes bill which would help heal old wounds and provide the Department of Justice and the FBI tools needed to effectively investigate and possibly solve civil rights-era murders.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act would provide grants for health care, education and workforce programs and housing programs for runaway and homeless youth.

The combating child exploitation bill would provide grants to train law enforcement to use technology to track individuals who trade in child pornography and establish an Internet crimes against children task force.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act would enhance cooperation in research, rehabilitation, and quality of life with people who suffer from paralysis.

LIHEAP, a bill that was called Cool In Summer, Warm In Winter Act to provide relief to the aged, the disabled, and the poor so they can have energy assistance to cool their homes in summertime, heat their homes in the wintertime--the Republicans turned it down.

We were amazed that Republicans said no to these bills and many others, but they did, and that is unfortunate.

The list of critical priorities we could have done something about with even a small degree of Republican cooperation is no longer available to us now. It would have been nice if we could have done the list. The list of things we copuld have done is far longer than I can recite today, but I say that because Republicans chose the path of obstruction. The good we did is far outweighed by the good that could have been. Of course, that is disappointing to all of us.

When you strip away the differences between the McCain Republican approach to energy and the Democratic approach to high gas prices, you find the Republican policy is the Exxon policy, and our policy is an energy policy. The Republicans have a one-word policy: drill. That is the Exxon policy. Our approach, the Democratic approach is No. 1, drill where appropriate, but also develop competition for oil by encouraging solar, wind, geothermal. The Republicans say no because it will lower oil prices, and that is not what Exxon wants. Our policy is to increase the supply now by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Republicans say no because it will lower oil prices and that is not what Exxon wants.

No. 3, we say go after financial speculators. The Republicans say no because that would lower the price of oil, and that is not what Exxon wants.

No. 4, we say invest in new car battery technology. The Republicans say no because that will lower oil prices, and that is not what Exxon wants.

The Republicans' affection for Exxon explains why they say no to even allowing us to debate issues that are so important. No, no, no is what Exxon wants--to keep oil prices high.

That is too bad.

When we return in September, we need to get right back to work. We have just a few weeks to get a lot done. Perhaps by then, though, the political winds will blow in a different direction, and the Republicans will return with a new willingness to work together. If they do, we can work out a bipartisan plan on energy that meets our country's near- and long-term needs.

We can send the American people a new economic stimulus bill to help families make ends meet and strengthen an economy that has now lost jobs every month this year.

We can pass the Defense authorization bill that provides our military with the funds they need to keep our country safe. It takes care of those who serve us bravely with an across-the-board 3.9-percent military pay raise and major investments in the physical safety and mental health of our troops, not the least of which is attempting to rebuild the military which is in a state of distress because of the Iraq war.

We can pass a Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill to maintain and upgrade military facilities, build better military family housing, and ensure the care our veterans deserve.

We can pass a Defense appropriations bill to keep our Armed Forces prepared for combat and peacetime missions, relieve the strain of constant 12- and now 15-month deployments, and support highly classified initiatives in the fight against terrorism.

With the Presidential election drawing near, our time will be short. But with new cooperation from our Republican colleagues, we can do all this--and pass several other important bipartisan bills already passed by the House of Representatives.

So I wish all my colleagues well in their August travels. I know we are all weary from the long, difficult work period.

I also know the fights that await our return won't be easy. I hope a month back home will give our Republican colleagues a new appreciation for how America needs badly the changes they have blocked.

Our hands remain outstretched. Our eagerness to seek common ground remains as strong as ever. We will fight if we must, but we would much rather dance.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Last month, Mr. President, I came to the floor and asked unanimous consent for two bills from the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee--I did not ask that the bills be passed, only that they be brought to the floor and considered. I talked to Senator Reid of Nevada about this and wanted to give Senator Reid the option to determine the amount of time in the debate, in consultation with the Republican minority.

At that time, just as this morning, a Republican Senator--in that case, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho--objected. Why? Well, they objected because they did not want us to move to issues involving America's veterans. I think our veterans deserve to have legislation such as the bills I have asked to be considered.

The first of the two bills is the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007. That bill would allow 1.3 million middle-income veterans to enroll for VA health care and increase the VA's beneficiary travel reimbursement rate--the first time that travel reimbursement rate would be increased in 30 years--to help veterans living in rural and remote areas.

There are programs, as well, for the treatment of veterans with traumatic brain injuries, the signature injury of the Iraq war.

Finally, the bill provides aid for homeless veterans, which is especially important at a time when one out of four homeless people you see on the streets in America are veterans.

I asked that this bill be brought up, that we agree on a time limit, consider it, and pass it.

Do you know how many speeches have been given on the floor of the Senate by Members on both sides of the aisle about our devotion to our soldiers, our men and women in uniform? Do you know how many speeches have been given on this floor on both sides of the aisle about how much we care and owe to our veterans? I am sure you could fill many Congressional Records.

So if this job is about more than just speeches and is about doing something to actually help our veterans, how could the Republicans continue to object? Object to helping veterans make it to the VA clinics and hospitals? Object to finding ways to eliminate homelessness among veterans? Object to the idea of expanding medical care for veterans who are the victims of traumatic brain injury?

If you want to vote against it, so be it. But to not even let us bring the bill to the floor for consideration? They did.

The second bill is the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act. This comprehensive legislation would improve

benefits for all veterans, especially for those with disabilities, and it would also correct a sad historical injustice for Filipino World War II vets.

Again, I asked for unanimous consent. The Republicans objected. However, if the Republican objections are based on substantive provisions in the bill, then they should be all the more willing to enter into the unanimous consent request I proposed last month and will propose again today.

If we can limit amendments to those that are actually relevant to veterans issues, it will give an opportunity for all Senators to come to the floor and actually speak to an issue that means so much to our soldiers, to our veterans, and all of their families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 335, S. 1233, Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury and Health Programs Improvement Act of 2007, at any time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader; that when the bill is considered, the only amendments in order to the bill, other than the committee-reported amendment, be first-degree amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the committee- reported substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, without yielding the floor, would the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas, did he attend the meeting in room 407, the closed meeting, where Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense, told us there was sufficient money in the current appropriations bill for the Department of Defense to continue the war in Iraq until at least the end of February or the middle of March so that it was unnecessary to pass the bill, which you have just asked me to consider, immediately?

Mr. President, I ask for regular order at this point.

I ask for regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from Texas, as he is deserving of a response.

Look what has just happened. Senator Reid of Nevada has asked for a registry for those in the United States afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease. He wants us to at least get the names and identities of people who are dying from this disease so that we can start to find treatments and cures. The objection came from the Republican side from Senator Cornyn of Texas to a registry for patients suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease because he insists that we have to also agree to go to a debate on funding for the war in Iraq--$50, $60, $70 billion.

The Senator from Texas conceded my point that we were told by the Secretary of Defense there is adequate money to continue this war until the end of February or first of March. So to say we have to move to this immediately is hardly a compelling argument when those are the positions taken by the Secretary of Defense.

Then I came in with a request--my own unanimous consent request--to go to a veterans bill to deal with traumatic brain injury, the signature injury of this war in Iraq, and again the Senator from Texas, saying he was speaking on behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, objected to taking up this veterans legislation to provide additional health care to deal with the homelessness problem among veterans and to increase the travel rate for veterans living in remote and rural areas who have to go to clinics and hospitals far from home.

I think it is pretty clear: Almost any excuse will do on the Republican side of the aisle to object to moving to legislation. I am going to give them one more chance.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. President, one of the bills Republicans are stopping is the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which I cosponsored. This is one of the key civil rights bills of this Congress, creating new positions at the Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division and in the FBI to strengthen the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute race-based murders that took place in our country before 1970 and which have gone unsolved. The bill would also create a grant program for State and local prosecutors for additional resources to pursue these heinous crimes.

The story of Emmett Till is a legend in America--and a sad legend. It was one of the most infamous acts of racial

violence in our Nation's history. A 14-year-old African American from the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, was murdered in 1955 when he was visiting in Mississippi and allegedly flirted with a White woman in a grocery store. His body was found floating in the Tallahatchie River with a 70-pound gin mill fan tied to his neck with barbed wire. Emmett Till's body was returned to Chicago, and his mother, despite her grief, insisted that there be a public display of his mutilated corpse. It was a transforming moment in American racial history. Friends of mine who are African American said that was the moment when they decided they couldn't take it anymore.

Emmett Till's killers were never brought to justice. They were prosecuted and acquitted by an all-White jury. In a 1956 magazine article, two men confessed to the murder. They said they had committed the murder because they ``decided it was time a few people got put on notice,'' in their words.

There were at least 114 race-related killings between 1952 and 1968, and in many cases, no prosecutions, no convictions. In recent years, there have been a handful of successful prosecutions, but time surely is not on our side. These cases are old, and so are the defendants and witnesses.

Congressman John Lewis, one of my personal heroes in Congress, is the sponsor of this bill that the House passed by a rollcall vote of 422 to 2. Here is what he said about the bill:

The time has come. For the sake of history, for the sake of

justice, for the sake of closure, the 110th Congress must

pass this legislation.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act should not be controversial. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed an identical version by voice vote and no dissent. It has bipartisan support, 16 cosponsors, and authorizes $13.5 million a year but doesn't appropriate it. It will have to go through the regular appropriations process.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 237, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I will insist on regular order for only one point. I would ask unanimous consent that if the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Texas wants to express his objection to a unanimous consent request, that the time he uses in expressing his objection be taken from the leader's time or from the time remaining for the Republicans in morning business.

Mr. President, I will close because I see other colleagues on the floor.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Oklahoma. There is one simple fact of legislative rule and law that he does not express accurately. There is a world of difference between an authorization and an appropriation. An authorization gives you permission to ask for money to spend. The appropriations bill spends the money. This is an authorization bill. It would have to go through the regular appropriations process. What he refers to was an attempt at appropriating money to the Department of Justice without enacting the underlying law. It is totally different.

Again, for the third time this morning, the Republicans have obstructed and stood in the way of bringing up legislation, first Senator Cornyn of Texas on a registry for the victims of Lou Gehrig's disease, then Senator Cornyn on behalf of Senator Coburn for a veterans bill to deal with traumatic brain injury, and finally Senator Coburn of Oklahoma objecting to considering even moving to a bill that would deal with solving these civil rights crimes which so sadly reflect on a period of American history that should be closed in the right way.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank my chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day. What we're doing is recalling a difficult period in American history to understand the combined climate at that time that coexisted with fear and violence during the civil rights era. And so we have the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.

The first thing I want to do is try to recapture, for the moment, all those who were not in the Judiciary Committee the day of the testimony, because it moved both Republicans and Democrats and visitors when we had Myrlie Evers, the widow of Medgar Evers, who was himself a victim of the violence that marked the civil rights era, talking to us about Emmett Till and how this youngster's life was taken.

And it was one of those moments in judiciary history that we were all electrified by the ability of our witnesses to recapture this moment in our history.

It was a remarkable hearing. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, and also I lift up the name of Steve King of Iowa. Everybody was moved by this determination that at this point in American history we are now moving forward at a pace that may not always be recognized, faster than we think. And the reason I say that is that we are now going back into history to make the corrections that law enforcement could have and should have made at that earlier time. So it is to me a very powerful determination of the Committee on the Judiciary to bring H.R. 923 to the floor for the expedited action that is required this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, I can't help but observe that the difference between this crime, the Emmett Till crime of 52 years ago, and today is that passionately held beliefs about justice and fairness could cost you your life. There are only a few people left in America today who put their lives on the line knowingly in this struggle for justice, and the one in this body, the 110th Congress, is none other than John Lewis of Georgia, and I yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. LEWIS OF Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (Mr. Conyers) for those kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is being considered today before the full House of Representatives.

I would like to thank the lead cosponsor of this bill, my good friend, Representative Kenny Hulshof from Missouri, and my good friends in the United States Senate, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont for their distinguished support in this effort.

Again, I must thank Chairman Conyers for all of his help and for all of his support in bringing this bill before us today. Also, Subcommittee Chairs Scott and Nadler for coordinating a powerful hearing on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the sake of history, for the sake of justice, for the sake of closure, the 110th Congress must pass this legislation.

On August 28, 1955, almost 52 years ago, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago, a young African American boy, was visiting his uncle in Money, Mississippi. He was pulled from his bed in the darkness of night. He was beaten until he could hardly be recognized. He was shot in the head, and his body was dumped in the Tallahatchie River, all because somebody said he had been fresh with a white woman.

Several years later, an intelligent and dignified NACP leader named Medgar Evers was gunned down in front of his home in Mississippi in June of 1963. Some historians said it was the injustice of these unsolved two murders that began the mass movement in the American South that we call the modern-day civil rights movement.

Who can forget the NAACP leader and his wife, Harry and Harriette Moore, who were killed by a bomb on Christmas night as they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary in 1951 in Florida? Who can forget the two black couples lynched about 60 miles east of Atlanta in 1946, or the death of Lemuel Penn, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve from Washington, D.C., who was a veteran trying to get home from Fort Benning, Georgia for a little rest. He was killed in 1964 as members of the KKK drove by him on a highway.

Who can forget Viola Liuzzo, shot down in Alabama in 1965, from the hometown of our chairman, Chairman Conyers from Detroit, trying to bring nonviolent activists back to their home after the Selma-to- Montgomery march?

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of these crimes that were never brought to justice. There are murderers who have walked free for decades while the families of victims cry out for justice. Passing this bill is the least we can do. And we must do something to right these wrongs.

I will never forget the three civil rights workers, three young men I knew, Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They came to Mississippi with a simple mission, to register as many black voters as possible. They were stopped, arrested, taken to jail. Later that night, June 21, 1964, they were taken from jail by the sheriff and his deputy, turned over to the Klan, where they were beaten, shot and killed. They didn't die in Vietnam. They didn't die in Eastern Europe. They died right here in the United States. They died in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Viola Liuzzo didn't die on a road or some street in Baghdad, she died right there in Alabama on Highway 80. Lemuel Penn, Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and countless others didn't die in the Middle East; they died right here in our own country fighting for simple justice.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation, we have a mission, we have a mandate. The blood of hundreds of innocent men and women is calling out to us. Then, no one came to their aid. But today we can help make it right. Let us move to close this dark chapter in our history. Let us try to wash away the stains on our democracy. So I call on all of my colleagues to pass this legislation and pass it today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters of support for H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act.

Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to express our strong

support for H.R. 923/S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil

Rights Crime Act. The bill, sponsored by Congressman John

Lewis of Georgia, will give the U.S. Department of Justice

the funding and tools necessary to investigate and prosecute

civil rights era murders.

Ever since our founding by President John F. Kennedy in

1963, the Lawyers' Committee has sought to attain equal

justice under law for all Americans, and the Unsolved Civil

Rights Crime Act is an important step in continuing that

mission.

We are hopeful that the House of Representatives will pass

the bill this week, as June 21 represents an incredibly

symbolic day in the history of the civil rights movement. On

that date in 1964, KKK member Edgar Ray Killen assembled a

mob to hunt down three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The victims' names were James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and

Michael Schwerner. Those young men sacrificed their lives in

pursuit of equal rights for all Americans, yet their killer

roamed free for decades until a court finally convicted him

on June 21, 2005.

We urge Congress to mark this important anniversary by

passing H.R. 923.

The bill assigns offices within the Justice Department the

specific responsibility of investigating and prosecuting

civil rights murders before 1970. Then, civil rights murder

cases that went to trial often ended in hung juries. However,

today, different attitudes and improved race relations could

result in color-blind justice, and technological advancements

could allow prosecutors to present more persuasive evidence

at trial.

To this end, H.R. 923 will provide the Justice Department

with $11.5 million in funds to carry out their duties, a sum

publicly supported by a D.O.J. representative at a recent

House subcommittee hearing.

At that same hearing, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of

slain civil rights worker Medgar Evers, spoke in support of

the bill. Her husband was assassinated in 1963, and three

decades later, a jury convicted 74 year-old Byron de la

Beckwith of the murder, proof that justice knows no time

limitations.

Although the Lawyers' Committee and Americans-at-large are

thankful that the Evers family and others have received some

level of closure, we know that countless American families

are still waiting to see justice served. Just last week, a

federal jury convicted James Ford Seale of two counts of

kidnapping in relation to the 1964 murders of two African-

American teenagers. Passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved

Crimes Act will help the Justice Department investigate and

prosecute cases similar to the Killen, Seale, and De la

Beckwith trials.

With your support of this measure, aging murderers who have

subverted our legal system for decades could finally face a

court of law. The long-grieving families of numerous victims

could hope to see closure. Perhaps

most importantly, this bill could assist the United States

government in upholding justice, no matter how long overdue.

Again, we urge you to mark this important anniversary by

scheduling a floor vote on H.R. 923/S. 535 this week. Please

feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding

this request.

Sincerely,

John G. Brittain,

Chief Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to the articulate gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the committee, as much time as she may consume.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Forbes. I think this is an important step forward. I have been amazed by the congeniality and the cooperation that has been extended to me by all of the members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Things come around. This is a historic moment. It has been expressed with great articulateness by Members on your side of the aisle, Mr. Forbes, as well as mine. But the witnesses on that day in Judiciary, and Myrlie Evers Williams stands out more than anyone else, were so amazing that I want everyone to go back and read the testimony that just electrified us all.

Addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my friend and colleague from Illinois, as well as our leader, Senator Reid, about what is going on here. This is unbelievable. What we have, in fact, is the folks from the other side of the aisle are in disarray. Their basic tenet and philosophy which govern them, which they use to govern, which they have used to win elections starting with Ronald Reagan, is falling apart. There is dissension in the Republican Party. There are different wings all over the place. Most importantly, the Republican base which says, basically, shrink Government, get rid of Government, is very far away from where the American mainstream is--not just far away from where Democrats are but far away from the mainstream.

But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have nowhere to go. They cannot put forward a positive program because their positive program is out of date with the needs of 21st century America. So they have come up with a strategy of obstruction: 57, 58, 59, and soon they will set the record in numbers of filibusters--not just obstructing on the most major of issues but on just about everything. Their view is: We can block things and show we count. Well, the rules of the Senate certainly allow them to block anything they want as long as they prevent us from getting 60 votes. That is true, but that is hardly a sign of strength. That is hardly a sign of resoluteness. It is a sign, in my judgment, of weakness, of an inability to do anything positive, and therefore a unity around just being negative.

In 1980, a lot of people felt Government was too big and out of control. In 2008, with our health care system needing help, with our education system needing help, with our energy policy in a shambles, with our foreign policy--I heard my colleague from Texas mention fighting al-Qaida. What percentage of the troops in Iraq are fighting al-Qaida? We all know that is a misstatement of what is going on there. The vast majority of those who are fighting are fighting in the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. So our present needs in America are different. The world has been hit by a technological revolution. The world has been hit by globalization.

In 2000, we sat astride the globe. We had a budget surplus. We had a prosperous economy. We were respected in the world. Over the last 7 years, under the leadership of President Bush, that has been squandered. That is not just Democrats speaking; that is America speaking. Close to 70 percent of America thinks we are headed in the wrong direction. A majority of not only Democrats but Independents and a near majority of Republicans think we are headed in the wrong direction. But my

colleagues across the aisle, clinging to their base, narrower and narrower, further and further away from the American mainstream and what the American people want, have come up with a policy of obstruction because they can't come up with anything else.

So we come to the floor and ask for reasonable debates on the major issues facing us, whether it be weaning us away from oil and fossil fuels, whether it be improving health care for children, whether it be a change in course in Iraq, which the vast majority of America demands, and they block it, and then they block it again, and then they block it again. My good colleagues from Illinois and from Nevada even brought up the most noncontroversial bill: a registry on ALS. My uncle, who was a well-known obstetrician, the head of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital's Department of Obstetrics, died of ALS. I care about this. I watched him waste away. They blocked that too.

This strategy, which creates a feeling of false strength among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is doomed to failure. This strategy, I predict, will help create the demise of even the large minority they have right now.

There will be a Democratic nominee; there will be a Presidential campaign in the summer and the fall. That Presidential Democratic nominee, whoever she or he may be, will be campaigning and saying we need change. We cannot get change unless we increase the number of people who want change in the Senate. Senator X and Senator Y and Senator Z on the other side of the aisle have stood in the way of change, and they will continue to. So put in a new Senator who will vote for change. My Republican colleagues are filibustering themselves out of their seats come 2008. This strategy--short term, narrow, and shortsighted--will not stand because the American people demand change.

I want to talk about one area I have been asked to talk about, the subprime loan crisis. I have said time and time again we need to do something about this crisis. I have been talking about it for a long time. The Bush administration and Senate Republicans have ideological handcuffs on: Government should not be involved, no matter what. If hundreds of thousands of innocent people are losing their homes, no Government. If our financial markets are shaking and quaking, no Government. If housing prices are going down for the first time across America so that even if you fully paid your mortgage, you are suffering from this subprime crisis, no Government, no matter what, no matter the consequences.

Guess what that sounds like. It sounds like the Republican platform of the 1890s or 1920s. I thought we had learned something since then. Government is not the only answer, and it probably should not even be the first answer, in most instances, but it is often the only answer. What we have seen is this administration comes up with the sort of plans and schemes that twist themselves into a pretzel to try to say they are helping with this crisis and avoiding any Government involvement. It hasn't worked. Confidence in our credit markets declines. The number of foreclosures goes up. Housing prices continue to go down. The shame of it all is there are simple solutions.

I will be happy to yield when I finish my remarks.

Now here is what we Democrats are asking for: commonsense solutions, designed to help people save their homes at an absolute minimum cost, designed to curtail the drop in housing prices, designed to restore the faith that Americans, investors, and world investors have in our credit market.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

We are not asking for a bailout; far from it. We are asking for simple things. The simplest thing passed the House with a large number of Republican votes, and it is FHA modernization. President Bush is for FHA modernization. Secretary Paulson came and met with the Finance Committee last week, with Democrats and Republicans-- Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley were there--and urged us to pass FHA modernization. I haven't heard what the objection is, because FHA modernization passed the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in the Senate by a vote of 20 to 1. We sought to pass the bill on the floor and Senate Republicans objected on November 15. On December 6, we tried again, and again the legislation was blocked. What has happened since November 15 and today, about a month later? Hundreds, probably a hundred thousand, certainly tens of thousands more homes have gone into foreclosure, housing prices have declined further, credit markets are shaky, and the plan that the administration came up with, which assiduously, ideologically, and narrowly avoided any Government involvement, has been widely discredited and has brought no confidence in the credit market. The President's program became even more critical yesterday--the need for the FHA modernization--when it was revealed that the administration's signature subprime program, FHA Secure, activated in November--guess how many borrowers it helped. Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Thousands? No. It helped 541, when we are expecting 2 million foreclosures in the next 2 years. Helping only a few hundred families and saying you are doing something is incomprehensible.

I hope we will move this FHA legislation. As I said, it is supported by the President and by Secretary Paulson. It is the mildest of measures. It can't be too bad if President Bush is for it. That is not my view, but I am trying to perhaps win over some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This FHA modernization will help in a small way. We have to do other things. The bill Senator Brown, Senator Casey, and I have put in the appropriations bill, with Senator Murray's help, for $200 million to help families get out of foreclosure makes sense. Congressman Frank and I have a bill to help Fannie and Freddie to help with the foreclosures, which is legislation that is needed as well. But at least this is a first step. Yes, it is Government, and if you are a hard right ideologue, I guess you say the ideological purity of keeping Government away from everything is more important than helping innocent victims keep their homes, more important than keeping housing prices stable, more important than keeping our credit markets in good shape.

I hope my colleagues will join me. I hope so for the good of the country, even though I believe, frankly, politically they are marching down a path to oblivion and in the longer run it will help us get a better Senate to get things done--things that the American people demand.

At this point, I make a plea to my colleagues that this rather noncontroversial--if you judge by the breadth of its support-- legislation goes through on FHA modernization.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 481, S. 2338, the FHA Modernization Act of 2007; that the Dodd-Shelby amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Would my colleague be willing to support a provision to

have a time limit on debate on this bill, with amendments limited to the substance of the bill so we can get the bill done?

Let me discuss that with my colleague and maybe we can move the bill. We are in the closing weeks of the session, so maybe we can agree to a reasonable time limit and reasonable amendments.

I withdraw my unanimous consent request temporarily so I may discuss things with my colleague from Oklahoma.