Floor Statements

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

I, too, Mr. Speaker, join the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in rising in support of this legislation. One of the many effects of the terrible tragedy resulting from Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst in our history, is the problem that the Federal courthouses in the region are flooded, preventing countless civil and criminal cases from proceeding. This legislation would permit the circuit courts, the district courts, magistrates, and the bankruptcy courts to all conduct proceedings outside their normal jurisdictions in times of emergency. These courts are, in many instances, closed as we meet today in Washington.

Terrorist attacks and natural disasters can render unusable the Federal courthouses. Along with the tragic humanitarian results of such events, the administration of justice would come to a halt, preventing citizens from exercising their rights in court. In such circumstances, the chief judge of the court or judicial council of the circuit court could order the court proceedings to be conducted at any other place within the United States.

Upon such an order, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts would notify Congress of the reasons. Also, within 180 days of the termination of the special session, the Administrative Office would notify us of the order's duration, its impact on litigants, and the cost to the judiciary.

This bill, H.R. 3650, further provides that jurors for civil cases may come from either the original or the temporary jurisdiction of the court. With respect to criminal cases, the legislation preserves the sixth amendment rights of defendants by limiting the jury pool to the district where the crime is committed, unless the defendant consents otherwise.

There is an issue not addressed in the bill, and that is who would pay for the parties, including criminal defendants, to travel to the new location. Presumably, because a public function is at issue, the government should pay such expenses. It would be untenable for the courts and prosecutors to travel at government expense while defendants are left to fend for themselves in times of disaster. I am hoping that this can be corrected. There may be due process and sixth amendment violations if we force defendants to pay their own way to a distant courthouse. I hope to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate and the chairman of our committee in the House in the coming weeks to ensure that this oversight is properly resolved.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that we in the Congress must do more, much more, to alleviate the effects of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people may be forced to seek bankruptcy protection, but now will be subjected to the onerous and creditor friendly provisions of the newly enacted bankruptcy law, including its means test, which goes into effect on October 17. Victims of disasters and other tragedies, I think, ought be exempt from such rigid requirements.

We have also heard countless reports of price gouging at gas stations. Big oil says the pipelines and refineries are down, thus limiting supply and increasing prices, but somehow they still continue to reap record profits. Along with a number of my colleagues, I have called upon the Federal Trade Commission to investigate this profiteering.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3650, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005, deserves the support of every Member in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduce the Promoting Responsible Interrogation Standards Enforcement Act. I am disappointed that it is necessary to do so, but over a year after the first pictures of abuse Abu Ghraib were leaked, there has still been no command responsibility for those who condoned the atrocious behavior. And recent news reports tell us that even more pictures of even worse treatment will soon be released.

Over the past year, we have come to learn that the abuse of detainees in American custody is not the work of a few bad apples in a single Iraqi prison, but a common occurrence throughout our military controlled detention centers. From Afghanistan to Guantanamo, at our hands or at the hands of well-known sponsors of torture, we have abused, tortured, and even killed those who we have captured or detained in the war on terror.

We clearly cannot leave the Administration to its own devices to prevent this abuse from happening again. After ten so-called ``investigations,'' we are no closer to discovering just how high in the Administration the approval of torture tactics went. Every day we learn of more abuse, each allegation more horrific than the next. How much longer can we pretend it was all an accident?

That's why I am introducing this bill to clarify that torture at the hands of our personnel, or upon their request, is not allowed under any circumstance. It also clarifies that our responsibilities in the U.N. Convention Against Torture, unlike what the Attorney General is claiming, apply to everyone in our custody, regardless of where they are kept or which country they come from.

Intelligence obtained through torture is notoriously unreliable, and is therefore bad policy in the first place. But perhaps most importantly, our use of torture only encourages other nations to torture our own captured personnel. We cannot continue to put our own fighting men and women in danger.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of both this bill, and H.R. 952, Congressman Markey's bill banning the outsourcing torture. Together, they will clarify that this Congress will no longer tolerate the inhumane treatment of those we capture or detain, and will hopefully start our country down the road to repairing its now tarnished reputation as the world's most preeminent human rights leader.

Yes, sir. That is correct.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Now, the reason that many people might support this bill is that they do not know that inside the bill, if they were asked, are you for legislation that makes it harder to sue drug companies and HMOs, I do not think you would get the same polling results.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record after these remarks letters and reports in opposition to H.R. 5 from the American Bar Association, Public Citizen, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Conference of State Legislators.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This is a special interest bill before us today. The bill would supersede the law in all States in the Union to cap noneconomic damages, to cap and limit punitive damages, to cap attorneys' fees for poor victims, to shorten the statute of limitations, to eliminate joint and several liability, and to eliminate collateral source.

That is a pretty large menu. But, more amazing, this bill comes before us today without the benefit of a committee hearing, or a committee markup, and under a totally closed rule. How do you like that?

Rather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor. We have a bill today for you.

So let us cut the charade and get to the heart of the problem, and the insurance industry is the greatest place to start. This month we found out that the insurance industry has increased premiums by more than 100 percent over the last 5 years, while the claims they have paid out were essentially the same, were flat.

This may have something to do with the fact that the insurance industry, which is exempt from antitrust laws, is not immune from collusion, price fixing, and other anticompetitive problems that they would be subject to if they did not have an antitrust exemption.

It is also clear that a legislative solution, largely focused on limiting victim rights, available under our State tort system will do little other than increase the incidence of medical malpractice, which is already the third leading cause of preventable death in our Nation.

So under the proposal, we here in Congress would be saying to the American people, we do not care if you lose your ability to bear children. We do not care if are you forced to bear excruciating pain for the reminder of your life. We do not care if you are permanently disfigured or crippled. We are going to limit your recovery no matter what.

The proposed new statute of limitations in this bill takes absolutely no account of the fact that many injuries caused by malpractice or faulty drugs take years, sometimes decades, to manifest themselves. Under this proposal a patient who is negligently infected with HIV blood and develops AIDS 6 years later would be forever barred from filing a liability claim.

The so-called periodic plan provisions are really nothing less than a Federal installment plan for the health maintenance organizations. The measure we have here right now would allow insurance companies teetering on the verge of bankruptcy to delay and then completely avoid future financial obligations. And they would have no obligation to pay interest on the amounts that they owe their victims.

And guess who else gets a sweetheart deal under the legislation? The drug companies. The producers of such killer devices like the Dalkon Shield, the Cooper-7 IUD, high-absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock syndrome, and silicone gel implants all would have completely avoided the billions of dollars in damages that they have had to pay had this bill been law.

Do you really want to do this today, my colleagues? It would help insulate Vioxx claims for liability, adding insult to injury to hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who suffered heart attacks or lost their life as a result of this dangerous drug.

I conclude. Nearly 100,000 people die in this country every year from medical malpractice. And at a time when 5 percent of our health care professionals cause 54 percent of all medical malpractice injuries, just a few, a few doctors causing all of this problem, the last thing we need to do is exacerbate this problem while ignoring the true causes of medical malpractice, the crisis that exists in this country today.

My colleagues, I urge you to please do not accept this antipatient, antivictim legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the material I referred to previously is as follows:

National Conference of

State Legislatures,

Denver, CO, July 26, 2005.

Re H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely

Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005.

Hon. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just let the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) know about the General Accounting Office report that found there is no evidence that caps on damages have reduced losses or helped consumers. They found, instead, that the contention that premiums are rising because there is a surge in jury awards is a myth and that while premiums have increased claims payments of insurance companies have remained essentially flat.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a valuable member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

request to amend h.r. 5

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for a unanimous consent request.

Request to Offer Amendment

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has followed this subject ever since he has come to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who serves with distinction on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that this bill is based on the California program MICRA, and premiums for medical malpractice insurance grew more quickly between 1991 and 2000 than the national averages. Just remember that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring a motion to recommit that goes to the heart of the medical malpractice crisis. Rather than limiting the rights of legitimate malpractice victims, as the underlying bill actually does, our motion would directly address the problem of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses.

Title I of the substitute addresses the problem of frivolous lawsuits. Among other things, it would require that both an attorney and health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before a malpractice action

can be brought, and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make any frivolous pleadings.

Unlike the majority's bill, our amendment is limited to licensed physicians and health care professionals for malpractice cases only. It does not include lawsuits against HMOs, insurance companies, nursing homes, and drug and device manufacturers. And it sure does not insulate the manufacturer of Vioxx from liability.

Title II establishes a national commission to evaluate the rising insurance premiums and to review whether the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurers should be repealed.

This is a good motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, the last 2\1/2\ minutes, to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

This motion to recommit sets up a limitation on malpractice cases being brought. It requires that there be an attorney and health care specialist to submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted; and then in the second part, we establish a national commission to evaluate the causes of rising health insurance premiums.

This motion to recommit protects legitimate victims, limits frivolous lawsuits, and gives us a much-needed opportunity to examine the real causes of the medical malpractice insurance crisis that has this Nation in its grip.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can deal with medical malpractice insurance as a crisis and not as a giveaway to the companies that have been named throughout this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join Congressman John Lewis in introducing a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. This Act is one of the Nation's most important civil rights victories and serves as a tribute to those that marched, struggled, and even died to secure the right to vote for all Americans.

Brave Americans of different races, ethnicities, and religions risked their lives to stand up for political equality. Most notably, on March 7, 1965, a day that would come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' nonviolent civil rights activists, like Congressman John Lewis, were brutalized and demeaned in their pursuit of voting rights for all Americans. It took this horrific violence for the Nation to realize it had to own up to the democratic ideals it preached. Eight days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for a comprehensive and effective voting rights bill.

This call for a voting rights bill was to ensure that this country realized the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' Forty years later, the Act has proven effective in furthering this Constitutional ideal, as it has enhanced political participation and opportunity among racial and ethnic minorities. Today the Voting Rights Act also serves to protect the rights of language minority and disabled voters.

Please join us in celebrating this significant progress from 40 years of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in protest of Rules Committee's refusal to make the Sanders library amendment in order.

Just last month, this body passed an amendment that would have barred funds from being spent on the controversial 215 orders against libraries and bookstores. It simply would have protected the reading habits of our own citizens from government snooping.

It passed by a vote of 238-187. I cannot protest enough that we are not debating and voting on this amendment again.

Section 215 allows a secret court to issue secret orders to anyone to turn over anything. It need not even be directed at a suspected terrorist.

Mr. Sanders and I introduced an amendment that would have exempted library and bookstore reading records from these secret orders. The FBI still would have been able to get a regular warrant for reading records. However, the administration doesn't even want to have to show any criminal activity before it starts digging into our reading records. It wants a free pass, and I will not willingly give it to them.

Consider this: the American Library Association has confirmed that the government, under some authority, has gone to a library, and asked for a list of everyone who checked out a book on Osama bin Laden. Clearly, in the wake of the September 11 attacks, many innocent people are checking out books on Osama bin Laden. And therefore, many innocent people had their right to privacy violated by our own government.

And there may be thousands more. We know that nearly 200 libraries have been contacted by local and Federal officers since 9/11. We must demand that they show some wrong doing on behalf of library patrons before they dive into their personal habits.

Let me also note that we tried to offer an amendment to increase the safety and security of our Nation's ports, rails, and mass transit systems by providing those segments of the transportation industry with the necessary tools and resources to reduce identified risks and vulnerabilities, but were shut down by the majority. The American people deserve these improvements, but the majority party will not even let us vote on the issue. In light of today's bombing incident in London, it is all the more objectionable that the majority would foreclose critical amendments for the Patriot Act reauthorization on the floor.

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

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, let me say from the outset that every Member of this body wants to make sure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect the American people from terrorism. I also know that all of us want to make sure that we protect our civil liberties and freedoms as we fight terrorists anywhere in the world and in this country as well.

I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, in the first original PATRIOT Act, I helped write many of them in a version of the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary 36-0, but a bill we never saw after it left the Committee on the Judiciary. It was replaced in the middle of the night in the Committee on Rules.

I did it, I wrote the provisions because I believe as technology changes, our laws need to keep up and change as well. I believe our law enforcement officials need to be able to talk with one another and connect the dots to prevent terrorist attacks.

In some sense this is not really about the PATRIOT Act, the debate that is going on here, or even most of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset this year. It is about four areas that are subject to abuse and need greater checks and balances, and I would like to suggest what they are.

First, the business records, 215, allows the FBI to obtain any record considered relevant to an investigation. This includes library books, medical records, and bookstore purchases. The provision has been difficult to oversee since targets of FBI investigations under the law are not permitted to tell anybody about it, even their lawyer. The Department of Justice and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary say that this provision has never been used on libraries and bookstores. However, the American Library Association has reported that more than 200 requests for library records have been made since September 11.

Now, concerning national security letters, the second very serious issue here, which allows the FBI to obtain financial, telephone, Internet and other records relevant to any intelligence investigation without judicial approval. Again, this is for any intelligence investigation, which means it does not even have to deal with terrorism, or even a crime. Like section 215, recipients are forever prevented from telling anyone they received a letter under penalty of law. Thank goodness a New York Federal court struck down this provision as unconstitutional. Shame on an administration that keeps using it anyway.

Third, under section 213, the government can sneak and peek into your business, your office, your car, your home, anywhere, even if there is no emergency. This means the government can break into your home and search it without telling you. It was not in the bill originally reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and was slipped in by the Department of Justice or the administration when the bill was first written a few years back. This provision has been subject to exceedingly widespread abuse. It has been used more than 240 times, and it has been delayed sometimes for over a year before anybody can be told what happened, that they were broken into, they were burglarized, they had things taken out of their home.

Worse yet, only 10 percent of these uses had anything to do with terrorism, which is the whole purpose of the PATRIOT Act.

Finally, it is clear to me that we need to have additional sunsets in this legislation. What is wrong with sunsets? That is why we are here, because the bill is being sunsetted in more than a dozen ways. If we have learned anything over the last 4 years, the only thing that makes the administration give us any information on oversight on the use of these new powers was the sunset provision.

We have also learned of abuses during our oversight that has led to us making modifications. Given this history, it simply makes no sense to make these provisions permanent or near permanent. And 10 years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent.

The lessons of September 11 and London, and even today in London, are that if we allow law enforcement to do their work free of political interference, give them adequate resources and modern technologies, we can protect our citizens without intruding on our liberties.

We all fight terrorism, but we need to fight it the right way consistent with our Constitution and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world. I believe that the committee-passed legislation that is on the floor right now does not meet that test. As such, it does not warrant passage until it is corrected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has headed the Constitution Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), I am preparing a list of 10 instances of where there have been abuses that have been reported.

Abuses of the USA Patriot Act

(Prepared by the House Judiciary Democratic Staff)

While some have suggested that no abuses have occurred

under the USA PATRIOT Act, the simple truth is that it

appears that abuses have indeed occurred. The following are

examples:

section 215, seizure of records or ``any tangible thing''

Since 9/11, the American Library Association found that

libraries have received over 200 formal and informal requests

for materials, including 49 requests from federal officers.

section 218, coordinating criminal and intelligence investigations

Abuse in the Brandon Mayfield case: The FBI used Section

218 to secretly break into his house, download the contents

of four computer drives, take DNA evidence and take 355

digital photographs. Though the FBI admits Mr. Mayfield is

innocent, they still will not divulge the secret court order

to him, or allow him to defend himself in court. It is

unclear how the search was for any reason but to find

evidence incriminating Mr. Mayfield.

section 805, material support for terrorism

Section 805 has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL by three

separate courts. The 9th Circuit found the provision

prohibiting ``personnel'' and ``training'' was overly vague.

The Central California District Court found the provisions

prohibiting ``expert advice and assistance'' was overly

vague. A New York District Court found the provisions

prohibiting ``personnel'' and acting as a ``quasi-employee''

overly vague. In each instance, the courts found COMPLETELY

LEGAL ACTIVITIES would violate Section 805.

Abuse in Lynne Stewart case: A District Court threw out

charges of materials support against Lynne Stewart, holding

that the law makes ANY action by a lawyer in support of an

alleged foreign terrorist client illegal, including providing

legal advice.

Abuse in Sami Al-Hussayen case: A federal jury in Idaho

acquitted University of Idaho graduate student Al-Hussayen on

all charges of providing material support for a terrorist

organization by running a website for the Islamic Assembly of

North America. Importantly, this group is NOT on the list of

foreign terrorist organizations, and the links

posted by Al-Hussayen were available on the GOVERNMENT'S own

website.

section 213, ``sneak and peek'' searches

In a July 5, 2005 letter to Rep. Bobby Scott, DOJ said

Section 213 had been used 153 times as of 1/31/2005; ONLY

EIGHTEEN (11.8%) uses involved terrorism investigations.

Thus, ALMOST 90% of ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used in

ordinary criminal investigations: 97 warrants were used in

drug investigations and 38 were used in other criminal

investigations.

Abuse of delays: In April 2005, DOJ said 90-day delays are

common, and that delays in notification have lasted for as

long as 180 days. In May 2003, DOJ said its longest delay was

90 days.

Abuse of delays for ``unspecified times'': Delays may be

sought for an unspecified duration, including until the end

of the investigation. In one such case, the delay lasted 406

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a former prosecutor and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me time.

Could I ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), is this not kind of unusual? There have been no hearings and we are combining the death penalty by putting together two substantial terrorist crimes, section 1992 and 1993.

Well, maybe I should ask the author of the bill, if he is on the floor, why this has not had committee consideration.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Right. Is the author of the amendment here?

I was wondering if this was sent over to the chairman of the committee at some earlier point in time.

I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I am sorry I was not on the committee the day they had the hearing, but normally death penalty matters are not brought to the floor this way. Normally I thought it was the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice in the Committee on the Judiciary of the House that would be considering this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the floor manager who is, I think, supporting the amendment, but he gives some very compelling arguments against the amendment.

Let me pick up from there. The major problem is that under this amendment the FBI can still compel personal records of anyone if they are relevant to an investigation, even if the person whose records they seek is not suspected of criminal or terrorist activities.

Is that correct? May I ask the author of this bill whether or not that is true? Is it not true that the FBI can still compel personal records even if a person is not suspected of any criminal or terrorist activities?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what is new then? We have got the law now, we have the amendment here.

Well, let me ask you this. Is the national security letter still unconstitutional under the court ruling?

So we do not know what the court was doing. It is not clear, depending on what someone's interpretation is.

Well, let me ask you this. The amendment allows the recipient to challenge the letter in court, but it can be quashed only if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive to the recipient?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Arizona if he feels that this cures the problem, or does he have some of the reluctance that the gentleman from New York, a co-author of the amendment, has about it not going far enough.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, and we do not have any more time over here, that is why we are using this process. But does the gentleman know there are new criminal penalties in this part of 505 now added as a result of this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his information.

I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that this is another one of the famous half-loaf amendments that we are being peppered with this afternoon.

The amendment leaves ``interferes with an investigation'' open, but it does take away ``when it would delay a trial.'' We get half a loaf here again, so I cannot oppose the amendment, because it did make some improvement. After all, what is progress, even if it may be slow?

But at the same time, this may be a nonterrorist provision within the PATRIOT Act, because we already have a provision for secret searches for terrorists. So letting this section expire altogether would not interfere with secret searches for terrorists at all.

What we found out in our examination, the staff examination, is that 90 percent of the uses of the sneak-and-peak authority have been for nonterrorism cases. It seems to me that this amendment goes along in that same direction.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Mr. Coble offered language to mitigate concerns over his amendment's impact on tribal sovereignty. As initially drafted, the amendment by Mr. Coble could have had the unintended effect of targeting tribal governments who are legitimately involved in the retailing of tobacco products. With the help of Mr. Cole and other Members, Mr. Coble has modified his amendment and has incorporated language that will go a long way to protecting tribal governments and tribal sovereignty. Specifically, a provision stipulating that enforcement against tribes or in Indian country, as defined in Title 18 Section 1151, will not be authorized by the pending bill has been incorporated.

Support for tribal sovereignty is a bi-partisan issue and collectively the Congress will continue to defend that fundamental principal of law. I realize that there are other sections that may need to be fixed as well because there has not been much time to refine the entirety of the Coble provision and that further refinements may be in order once we get to Conference with the Senate on this provision. I understand that the rule of law of enforcement in Indian country will fall to tribal governments and the Federal government will be protected through further amendment and I pledge to work in conference to ensure the rights of tribal governments are fully protected.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Rosa Parks and her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks refused to obey a bus driver's order that she give up her bus seat in the black section to a white man because the white section was full. It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on this day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modern day civil rights movement. Ms. Parks's actions on December 1, 1955 led to the desegregation of American society and enabled all of this nation's citizens to realize freedom and equality.

The arrest of Ms. Parks led African Americans and sympathizers of other races to boycott the Montgomery city bus line until the buses in Montgomery were desegregated. The 381 day Montgomery Bus Boycott encouraged other courageous people across the United States to organize in protest and demand equal rights for all. The fearless acts of civil disobedience displayed by Rosa Parks and others resulted in the United States Supreme Court, on November 13, 1956, affirming a district court decision that held that Montgomery segregation codes deny and deprive African Americans of the equal protection of the laws. This decision would lead to other landmark Supreme Court decisions in which the Court would rule in the interest of justice and equality.

In the years following the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Ms. Parks moved to Detroit, Michigan in 1957 and continued her civil rights work by working in my District Office. Ms. Parks was with the office from 1965 until 1988. In the more than twenty years that Ms. Parks was in the office, she worked with a tireless spirit for the people of Detroit and other Americans. In 1987, she started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit, a nonprofit organization which motivates youth to reach their highest potential. So it is with great pleasure and honor that I stand today to recognize not only a civil rights pioneer, but a member of my staff, a constituent, and a friend.

It is in this recognition of the 50th Anniversary of Ms. Parks's refusal to give up her seat on the bus, that I ask the Congress and the great people of this nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by her to address modern day inequalities and injustice. The American dream is out of reach for millions. The United States is one of the richest nations in the world so I ask: Why aren't our schools thriving? Why are so many African Americans unemployed? Why are health care, housing, and college education so difficult to afford?

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks displayed a defiant act of courage 50 years ago so that these questions would not be raised today. I know that this Congress and the people of this nation can work to further the ideals of Ms. Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record that on July 11th of this year, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to be present. If I had been in attendance, I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted in the following manner on these bills:

On H. Con. Res. 168--Condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights I would have voted ``yea.''

On H. Res. 333--Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I express strong opposition to H.R. 742, the Occupational Safety Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act.

This fee shifting legislation before us is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is dangerous to our workers, overbroad, and unnecessary.

The bill is dangerous because it creates an incentive for employers to litigate with OSHA rather than to correct any safety flaws in the workplace. Since OSHA was created in 1970, its mission has been clear: ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' Unfortunately, H.R. 742 will undermine that goal and penalize OSHA for any instance in which it attempts to safeguard worker safety and loses the case even for technical reasons.

The bill is overbroad because it applies to any company with less than 100 employees, regardless of their revenues or their safety record. Currently, over 6.5 million private sector establishments fall into this category, more than 97 percent of all employers. These companies employ more than 55 million workers. Many of these businesses have millions if not billions of dollars in annual revenues, and have no business being covered by a ``small business'' bill.

The bill is unnecessary because this Committee has not received a shred of evidence that OSHA has pursued unwarranted litigation or abused its prosecutorial discretion. To the contrary, more than sixty percent of OSHA citations resulted in settlements, and OSHA wins nearly four out of five cases that make it to the Federal appellate level.

Moreover, employers are already entitled to the recovery of legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. That law specifies that the government must pay the prevailing party's fees and costs in any situation in which the government's position was not ``substantially justified.'' This offers more than sufficient incentive to prevent OSHA from overstepping its authority.

So we have before us an unnecessary and unwarranted bill, that, punishes an effective agency, and places our workers in danger. I urge Members to reject this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record that on July 12 of this year, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was unable to be present. If I had not been detained today, July 12, 2005, I would have voted as follows:

On Previous Question on OSHA rollbacks, I would have voted ``nay'' to defeat the previous question on the Rule. If defeated we would have allowed the House to consider the Miller-Owens bill to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage would be raised to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage has been frozen since 1997.

On H. Res. 351--rule providing consideration for 4 OSHA rollback bills--I would have voted ``nay.''

On H. Res. 352--providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the United States economy--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it would not improve U.S. competitiveness. Instead this resolution attempts to blame trial lawyers and ``regulation'' for the challenges facing the U.S. economy.

On H. Res. 343--commending the State of Kuwait for granting women certain important political rights--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 804--to exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 68--NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act--I would have voted ``yea.''

On H.R. 739--OSHA rollback on employer citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it undermines the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, encouraging employers to challenge OSHA citations. One of the principal purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is ``to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' However, this bill effectively delays the timely abatement of unsafe working conditions, by encouraging employers to litigate citations rather than correcting health and safety hazards.

On H.R. 740--OSHA rollback to stack the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it unjustifiably ensures that only lawyers are appointed to the Commission.

On H.R. 741--OSHA rollback of the Secretary of Labor's authority to issue citations--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it provides that the OSHA Review Commission shall have deference to override the Secretary of Labor's reasonable interpretations of the Secretary's own workplace safety standards-- thereby increasing the incentives for challenges to Labor Department's rules and regulations.

On H.R. 742--OSHA rollback to require OSHA to pay attorneys' fees--I would have voted ``nay.'' I would not have supported the legislation because it requires OSHA to pay attorneys' fees and costs for employers with 100 or less employees and a net worth of $7 million or less in an administrative or judicial proceeding in which OSHA does not prevail. It is a blatant attempt to chill OSHA's exercise of statutory responsibility to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health (OCS) Act, by penalizing the agency for every instance in which it attempts to do so unsuccessfully, and therefore, undermined the enforcement of workplace health and safety laws.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution commemorating Rosa Parks and her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks refused to obey a bus driver's order that she give up her bus seat in the black section to a white man because the white section was full. It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on this day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modem day civil rights movement. Ms. Parks' actions on December 1, 1955 led to the desegregation of American society and enabled all of this Nation's citizens to realize freedom and equality.

The arrest of Ms. Parks led African Americans and sympathizers of other races to boycott the Montgomery city bus line until the buses in Montgomery were desegregated. The 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott encouraged other courageous people across the United States to organize in protest and demand equal rights for all. The fearless acts of civil disobedience displayed by Rosa Parks and others resulted in the United States Supreme Court, on November 13, 1956, affirming a district court decision that held that Montgomery segregation codes deny and deprive African Americans of the equal protection of the laws. This decision would lead to other landmark Supreme Court decisions in which the Court would rule in the interest of justice and equality.

In the years following the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Ms. Parks moved to Detroit, MI, in 1957 and continued her civil rights work by working in my District Office. Ms. Parks was with the office from 1965 until 1988. In the more than 20 years that Ms. Parks was in the office, she worked with a tireless spirit for the people of Detroit and other Americans. In 1987, she started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit, a nonprofit organization which motivates youth to reach their highest potential. So it is with great pleasure and honor that I stand today to recognize not only a civil rights pioneer, but a member of my staff, a constituent, and a friend.

It is in this recognition of the 50th Anniversary of Ms. Park's refusal to give up her seat on the bus, that I ask the Congress and the great people of this nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by her to address modern day inequalities and injustice. The American dream is out of reach for millions. The United States is one of the richest nations in the world, so I ask: Why aren't our schools thriving? Why are so many African Americans unemployed? Why are health care, housing, and college education so difficult to afford?

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks displayed a defiant act of courage 50 years ago so that these questions would not be raised today. I know that this Congress and the people of this nation can work to further the ideals of Ms. Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a great man and fellow Detroiter, Mr. Sidney Barthwell. As a child and young adult in Detroit, I grew up aware of the legacy of Mr. Barthwell. Later, I was blessed to both meet and come to know him personally. He was one of the first African American entrepreneurial beacons of Detroit to exemplify the ``American Dream.'' Many watched him succeed in business and sought to replicate his success. I was and remain extremely impressed with both his humanity and his brilliance. He never bought in to the notion that to have economic success made him better than those who may have been struggling financially. He treated everyone, regardless of title of or income, in the same manner, with kindness and warmth. Not only was he an astute businessman, but he was also a role model, a mentor, a benefactor and I am proud to say a friend. I would like to insert into the Record the article below which appeared on June 25, 2005 in the Detroit Free Press:

Sidney Barthwell: His Life's Success Inspired Others

(By Alexander B. Cruden)

In many ways, Sidney Barthwell's life was the story of

20th-Century Detroit.

Born elsewhere, with few resources, he arrived as a teen in

the city, studied hard, overcame tough situations, made much

from nothing and provided opportunities for his family and

hundreds of others.

In many ways, his life was also the story of the creation

of black success in Detroit.

Mr. Barthwell, who founded and ran, under his own name,

what was once the largest black-owned drugstore chain in the

country, died of heart failure on Thursday at Harper Hospital

in Detroit. A steady, friendly, slyly humorous and discerning

man, he was 99.

When he came to Detroit with his family from Cordele, Ga.,

in 1922, he was 16. He graduated from Cass Technical High

School and earned a bachelor's degree in pharmacy in 1929

from what is now Wayne State University.

But with the prevalence of discrimination, the only

pharmacy that would hire him was unlicensed, and it failed

early on in the Depression.

Mr. Barthwell took over the store and built his business

from there. He was a good observer of what people wanted and

worked tirelessly to fulfill opportunities.

At the peak, he had 13 stores around the city, providing

substantial employment, especially for younger people.

``I think my operation became the bridge for many blacks to

achieve their goals,'' Mr. Barthwell said at a 1996 dinner

attended by hundreds to launch a WSU pharmacy scholarship in

his name. The scholarship built on a loan fund established in

his honor in 1975.

His own children were high achievers as well. Daughter

Akosua Barthwell Evans is a Yale Law School graduate and a

lawyer and banker for J.P. Morgan in New York. Son Sidney

Barthwell Jr. graduated from Harvard Law School and is a 36th

District Court magistrate in Detroit.

Mr. Barthwell made it a point to see that other black

pharmacists found job opportunities. He recalled that at

least 30 pharmacists got their start by working with him.

``He was very wise, very understanding, very optimistic . .

. just an amazing person,'' his daughter said Friday. He had

a quick grasp of difficult concepts ``but was always down to

earth . . . He always respected people . . . regardless of

their station in life.''

In his business achievements, Mr. Barthwell was both a

trendsetter and typical member in Detroit's growth from the

1930s on. As well, he was a model for what is now a

broadly established black middle class, serving for a time

as president of the Booker T. Washington Business

Association in Detroit.

He was a delegate to the Michigan Constitutional Convention

in 1962, elected without party affiliation and serving on the

judiciary and education committees. He was a life member of

Detroit Branch, NAACP, and a charter member of the Alpha Beta

chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi at WSU.

In 1998, Mr. Barthwell was named by the Detroit Urban

League as a Distinguished Warrior.

A meaningful moment was being invited to give a black

history lecture at his grandson's exclusive prep school, the

Lovett School in Atlanta. There, he spoke to an audience of

wealthy white people. In the back of his mind were the racial

humiliations of his Georgia childhood. He said later the

Atlanta experience was a very rewarding interaction.

He loved his family deeply, his daughter and son said,

though always mindful of the value of work.

His wedding day was a prime example. He and his wife,

Gladys, were married about 11 p.m. Christmas Day in 1936,

after a full day at the store.

As his son recalled, laughingly, if you woke up ill, Mr.

Barthwell would say: ``Get up and go to work. You'll feel

better as the day goes on.''

The younger Barthwell said his father was a man of ``high

integrity, high character. To say he was unpretentious is an

understatement. . . . He was very egalitarian; a great

father.''

His grandson, Walter Evans, said ``he was always very

loving, very interested in what I was doing,'' and as well

kept up with what was going on in the world, right to the

end.

Perpetually a committed Detroiter, Mr. Barthwell

nonetheless saw national chain stores and shopping malls edge

out smaller city businesses. The construction of 1-75 knocked

out the core of a busy commercial area of Detroit. He began

closing his stores, selling the last one in 1987.

He lived in Detroit's Boston-Edison neighborhood. An avid

bridge player, he was an active member of the Plymouth United

Church of Christ in Detroit.

The funeral will be at his church, 600 E. Warren, at 11

a.m. Thursday. A family hour is scheduled at 6 p.m. Wednesday

at the Thompson Funeral Home, 15443 Greenfield, Detroit.

Memorials are requested to the Sidney Barthwell Scholarship

Fund at the WSU College of Pharmacy and Health Services, 259

Mack Ave., Detroit 48201.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this sense of Congress resolution.

This is a great evening in the House of Representatives. We had the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, joining me and the great civil rights organizations of America that he has named, all working in common cause to right a decision that has come out of the Supreme Court about eminent domain that will require the attention of all of the Members of this body.

In a way, I am reluctantly in opposition to the sense of Congress resolution because if I had had a little part in drafting it, I can tell my colleagues we would have taken out some of the over-the-top criticism of the Court itself, and I would probably be arguing for this sense of Congress resolution.

I have serious concerns regarding the misuse and overuse of eminent domain procedures in this country and oppose the elevation of corporate profits and corporate uses of land over individual rights. So like the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I joined NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, Operation Push, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights because I think this Court opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and transferred to another private owner. This is a particular problem. Eminent domain has been used historically to target the poor, people of color, and the elderly.

Since I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation that the chairman of the committee has called for, then what is my problem with the resolution? Well, it gratuitously overtargets the judicial branch. There are terms in here that are not helpful as we engage in a debate with a co-equal branch of government.

The resolution insists that Congress, and Congress alone, can address abuses of eminent domain. I am not so sure about that. That ignores and demeans the historic role the courts have played in protecting individual rights and property rights.

The other problem that leads me not to be supportive of the sense of Congress resolution is that it inaccurately misstates the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling. For example, the resolution states that the majority opinion justifies the forfeiture of a person's private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person. As a matter of fact, Justice Stevens stated at the outset of his opinion that the sovereign may not take property for the sole purpose of transferring it to another party.

The resolution states that the majority opinion renders the public use provision in the takings clause meaningless, but it is more accurate to say that the public purpose requirement is still applicable, although somewhat diminished.

In reality, the majority opinion held that the eminent domain may be used where the plan serves a public purpose. The issue of eminent domain in takings are complex, fact-specific issues. They warrant more than the short discussion that we will be limited to today. The issue deserves full legislative hearings, which our legislation will, of course, provide for in the Committee on the Judiciary.

We want to all work on this constitutional issue. It is sensitive. We cannot go over the top on this. We have got to keep it down.

I am tired of corporations wiping out communities because they need a plant or casinos developed and taken under eminent domain. We need to rein this in, and this case gives us an opportunity to do so.

I am shocked that I am standing in the well here reciting the members that signed the dissent: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor. What an evening this has been for those of us here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the Supreme Court for bringing us all together here in the House tonight. It is very unusual.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Frank), an active member for many years on the Committee on the Judiciary who is now on leave.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we add 6 additional minutes to the time of each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip, to close the debate on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate on this resolution. I would like to close with a quote from the amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Kelo case:

``In this case, public use has been defined so broadly that eminent domain authority has no practical limits. Allowing a taking simply because the party to whom the State wishes to transfer the property has a greater ability to maximize the value of the property fails to account for the rights of the individual property owners and would systematically sanction transfers from those with less resources at their disposal to those with more. Moreover, expanding the scope of public use to include the potential for economic development that may ultimately benefit the public would arguably include virtually any case, and thus render meaningless the judicial review of taking cases.''

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time, and first of all, I want to assure the chairman that we are absolutely in agreement that medical equipment and supplies would not be affected by the reach of this amendment. I am glad the gentleman has put that in the Record, and I am sure we are all in total agreement.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters- Kilpatrick amendment is something that we regret that we have to do. Haiti is in such a difficult situation, politically, economically, and socially, and it is so important that we try to stem the level of violence. That is the sole purpose of all of us coming together to work on this. I am so proud of the chairman for agreeing to accept this amendment, because it means that he sees and understands the underlying circumstances that have caused us to come together in the first place.

We need less violence. The election is coming up. How we are going to have an election there under these circumstances I am not even sure of. We have tried, some of us have tried to get it delayed, but we have not been successful. We need the United Nations to implement an effective disarmament program, because as long as there is as much a level of violence as we find there, we cannot even go down there.

So, please, let us support this amendment. I thank the Members on both sides that see the importance of it.

Mr. Chairman, Today I rise to support the Lee-Lantos-Conyers-Waters- Kilpatrick amendment which would preclude the State Department from transferring any ``excess arms'' that the State Department may have in its possession to the Government of Haiti and the Haitian National Police. Even though the United States has an arms embargo against Haiti, U.S. law grants authority to the President of the United States to provide weapons to Haiti, without any Congressional input, as long as these arms are identified as ``excess.'' Recently, it has come to the attention of Congress that last August, the President transferred over 4,000 arms and ammunition to the Government of Haiti. These arms included hundreds of .38 caliber, .45 caliber, and 9 mm guns as well as M-14 rifles and sub-machine guns.

Presently, the Country of Haiti is in the midst of a political, economic and humanitarian crisis. As a result, many resources, financial and otherwise are sorely needed. However, the sending of arms to further the perpetration the violence is not the prudent course of action.

Specifically, the Haitian National Police, on numerous occasions, have not been described not as ``law enforcement'' but instead as ``law breakers.'' Many incidents have been reported where the Haitian National police are accused

of harassing, beating and killing Haitian citizens, including innocent children.

Due to the many problems plaguing the Haitian National Police, the policy of transferring ``excess'' weapons to them is particularly unsettling. I believe it is important we stop the flow of weapons to Haiti and work with the U.N. to implement an effective disarmament program. As long as violence is the way, the people will suffer. The passage of this amendment is one of life and death and is critical to the well-being of region, of a country and of a people.