Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend SBC Communications, Inc.; its Michigan president Gail Torreano; the Governor of my home State of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm; and representatives from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Communications Workers of America.

Earlier this month they came together to unveil a ten-year economic development project, which will keep 930 metropolitan jobs in Detroit and invest over $3.6 million to upgrade seven network facilities in Southfield and Detroit. This incredible news comes only four months after SBC had initially announced plans to layoff workers.

Over the past five years, Michigan has lost nearly 300,000 jobs, and has had little prospect for significant job growth in sight. My State's unemployment rate was nearly two percent above the nation's average. That number increasingly looked gloomier with news last week that General Motors expects to lose money in this year's first quarter. As a result, their stock dropped 14 percent. My distinguished colleagues, there is no question about it--jobs in Michigan are in jeopardy.

But now, the future appears brighter with SBC Communications and others leading by example in recognizing that corporations play an integral role in their communities, and corporate decisions have consequences that reach much further than their own bottom line.

Such an agreement could not have been reached without strong leadership and a shared vision for the future from all parties involved. This agreement to keep SBC Communications' business in Michigan not only exhibits the great benefits that partnerships between the private and public sectors can reap for our nation's metropolitan communities, but more specifically, it demonstrates the success of Michigan's economic development programs and their capability of serving as a prime example for the rest of America's cities and states.

In agreeing not to move nearly 1,000 jobs out of Michigan, SBC Communications will receive a single business tax credit worth approximately $18 million from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, in addition to an Economic Development Job Training grant of up to $930,000. The proposed

cuts had been part of a planned company-wide reduction of 10,000 workers by the end of this year. And other companies are also staying, too, rather than moving to neighboring states as they had once considered. Assay Designs, Inc. will be adding 86 new jobs and investing an additional $18 million to a new site in Washtenaw County's Pittsfield Township. Faurecia, a Michigan auto supplier, will be creating nearly 450 more jobs in Sterling Heights as part of a $40 million expansion. Emerald Graphics Corp. will be producing an additional 347 new jobs near Grand Rapids, rather than in Texas. And with these Michigan fixtures staying, who knows what the future holds for our great State.

The significance of this private-public partnership cannot be overstated. In addition to the immediate consequence of job retention, the University of Michigan projects that the State's agreement with these companies will create an additional 1,210 jobs and generate over $97 million in revenue for Michigan over the next ten years, with another 1,000 jobs indirectly generated at other area companies. Rather than facing the prospect of helplessly watching hundreds of families potentially flee the metropolitan area--or even the state--in search of new jobs, Michigan's economic future looks brighter with a commitment that these hard workers will remain at home and continue to contribute to the State's economy. Instead of disrupting their children's lives with moves to new schools, SBC employees will continue to root themselves in their respective local communities.

I see no reason why other States cannot create similar incentive programs to keep private sector jobs within their borders as well. The tax credits that Michigan has extended to SBC Communications, Assay Designs, Faurecia, and Emerald Graphics Corp. are just the start. My home state recognizes that corporations naturally desire to expand. And it also recognizes that the State has too many brownfields that require developing. These two are not mutually exclusive. So Michigan has decided to invest in its own future. And what will be the reward? An anticipated $558 million in private investment! Michigan has proven that it is committed to working with labor and management. Our State has shown that it truly has an open door policy, and will meet and work with all those interested in doing business within its borders, whether your company resides there already and is looking to expand, or is looking to relocate to a local economy that suddenly has a more optimistic forecast.

I encourage my colleagues in Congress to take a close look at what Governor Granholm, SBC Communications, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Communications Workers of America have accomplished. I see no reason why such a success story cannot be replicated in other States as well. In closing, I commend all those parties involved; am grateful for their willingness to work together for our State's future; and hope that this is just the beginning of many success stories to come out of Michigan and America's other 49 States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership tonight.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill, we will be intruding in the most sensitive possible family decision at the most ill-opportune time. It will be hard to envision a case or circumstance that Congress will not be willing to involve itself from now on if this precedent is approved this evening. By passing legislation which takes sides in an ongoing legal dispute, we will be casting aside the principle of the separation of powers. We will be abandoning our role as a serious legislative branch, and we will be taking on the role, as we have done during this debate, of judge, of doctor, of priest, of parent, or spouse.

By passing legislation which wrests jurisdiction away from a State judge and sends it to a single preselected Federal court, we will forego any pretense of federalism. The concept of a Jeffersonian democracy as envisioned by the Founders and the States as ``laboratories of democracy,'' as articulated by Justice Brandeis, will lie in tatters.

By passing this legislation in a complete absence of hearings, committee markups, no amendments, in complete violation of what we once called ``regular order,'' we will send a signal that the usual rules of conduct and procedure no longer apply when they are inconvenient to the majority party.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will declare that this legislation is about principle and morals and values. But if this legislation was only about principle, why would the majority party be distributing talking points in the other body declaring that ``this is a great political issue'' and that by passing this bill ``the pro-life base will be excited''?

If the President of the United States really cared about the issue of the removal of feeding tubes, then why did he sign a bill as Governor in Texas that allows hospitals to save money by removing feeding tubes over a family's objection?

If we really cared about saving lives, why would the Congress sit idly by while more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, or while the President tries to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid, a virtual lifeline for health care for millions of our citizens?

When all is said and done, this bill is about taking sides in a legal dispute, which we should not be doing. Last year, the majority passed two bills stripping the Federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would read the Constitution too broadly. Last month, the majority passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from State courts because they feared they would treat corporate wrongdoers too harshly. Today, we are sending a case from State courts to the Federal courts, even though it is already the most extensively litigated right-to-die case in the history of the United States.

There is only one principle at stake here: manipulating the court system to achieve predetermined, substantive outcomes. By passing this bill, it should be obvious to many that we are no longer a Nation of laws, but have been reduced to a Nation of men. By passing this law, we will be telling our friends abroad that even though we expect them to live by the rule of law, Congress can ignore it when it does not suit our needs. By passing this law, we diminish our Nation as a democracy and ourselves as legislators.

Do not let this bill pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Mr. Pitts and myself to introduce this Resolution to condemn the alleged statements and actions of complacency by the government authorities in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, in the face of the religious persecution of the Gujarati people.

In February of 2002, India experienced its greatest human rights crisis in a decade: orchestrated violence against Muslims in the state of Gujarat that claimed at least 2,000 lives in a matter of days. Three years after that horrific incident, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat has been indicted by various Indian and International human rights organizations for lending his hand to the violence.

Mr. Modi himself has not been shy about proudly professing his anti- Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-tribal stances. He has repeatedly dehumanized the Muslim population of his state by accusing them of treachery; he has actively sought to interfere in the practice of the Christian faith in Gujarat, and he has caused wide-scale displacement of indigenous populations in the State in the face of stiff popular resistance. I find Mr. Modi's actions to be of the most reprehensible sort.

In an article in the Hindu Times on March 2, 2005, former Indian President K.R. Narayanan stated that ``there was a `conspiracy' between the BJP governments at the Centre and the state behind the 2002 Gujarat riots . . .''. Further, a number of Indian human rights organizations, international human rights organizations, and a former Supreme Court Justice all recognize Chief Minister Modi's complicity in the violence.

He has attacked Muslims and Christians with vile venom, and according to both India's highest court and many international human rights groups, has condoned terrible, violent religious hate crimes, all the while, shielding those said to have committed them. In fact, in a scathing indictment of Mr. Modi, the Supreme Court of India referred to the Chief Minister and his government as ``the modern day Neros''. Moreover, in a recent unprecedented order, the Supreme Court of India ordered the reopening of all the criminal cases that Mr. Modi has closed, regarding over 2000 police cases in which the non-Hindu victims filed reports of rapes, killings, and destruction of their property.

Such actions by high ranking government officials of any religion are unacceptable and must not be tolerated.

I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning religious intolerance and promoting religious freedom, so that others may see what our great democracy stands for.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus has carefully considered its responsibility here, and they have asked me to point out a couple of things.

In the Justice Department we need to put more money into three programs that were cut: First, the programs that investigate gang- related crimes; secondly, the problems of juvenile delinquency; and, third, prison reentry. These are incredibly important.

And I just want to add that this budget that we are trying to replace ours with is one of the most mean-spirited documents that I have witnessed. Over 150 domestic program cuts. The $81 billion for Iraq was not even included in this budget, as if it was a supplemental consideration.

So I ask the Members to join with us and let us have a great number of people supporting the CBC budget this year.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act. My intention was to vote ``no'' for the following reasons:

The President is asking for another blank check, despite the fact that its policies in Iraq have made our country and the world less safe.

The President has neither accounted for the funds spent pursuing these unsuccessful policies nor have they offered the American people a plan to stabilize the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home.

March 19, 2005, is the second anniversary of the war in Iraq and the world is a more dangerous place. To date 1,500 American troops have died in Iraq and 11,000 have been wounded.

I want to make clear that I support the courageous men and women in combat and I think it is imperative that we bring our troops home as quickly and safely as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this Resolution to condemn the alleged statements and actions of complacency by the government authorities in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, in the face of the religious persecution of the Gujarati people.

In February of 2002, India experienced its greatest human rights crisis in a decade: orchestrated violence against Muslims in the state of Gujarat that claimed at least 2,000 lives in a matter of days. Three years after that horrific incident, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat has been indicted by various Indian and International human rights organizations for lending his hand to the violence.

Mr. Modi himself has not been shy about proudly professing his anti- Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-tribal stances. He has repeatedly dehumanized the Muslim population of his state by accusing them of treachery; he has actively sought to interfere in the practice of the Christian faith in Gujarat, and he has caused wide-scale displacement of indigenous populations in the State in the face of stiff popular resistance. I find Mr. Modi's actions to be of the most reprehensible sort.

In an article in the Hindu Times on March 2, 2005, former Indian President K.R. Narayanan stated that ``there was a `conspiracy' between the BJP governments at the Centre and the state behind the 2002 Gujarat riots . . .''. Further, a number of Indian human rights organizations, international human rights organizations, and a former Supreme Court Justice all recognize Chief Minister Modi's complicity in the violence.

He has attacked Muslims and Christians with vile venom, and according to both India's highest court and many international human rights groups, has condoned terrible, violent religious hate crimes, all the while, shielding those said to have committed them. In fact, in a scathing indictment of Mr. Modi, the Supreme Court of India referred to the Chief Minister and his government as ``the modern day Neros''. Moreover, in a recent unprecedented order, the Supreme Court of India ordered the reopening of all the criminal cases that Mr. Modi has closed, regarding over 2,000 police cases in which the non-Hindu victims filed reports of rapes, killings, and destruction of their property.

Such actions by high ranking government officials of any religion are unacceptable and must not be tolerated.

I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning religious intolerance and promoting religious freedom, so that others may see what our great democracy stands for.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act of 2005, legislation that will provide persons who have been released from incarceration the right to vote in Federal elections.

With just two states, Maine and Vermont, placing no restrictions on the voting rights of offenders or ex-offenders, the United States may have the most restrictive disenfranchisement policy in the world. Such prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both the voting system and the fundamental rights of ex-offenders. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights, as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy.

This past November it was estimated that approximately 2.3 percent of the voting age population, about 5 million people, were prohibited from voting because of state felon disenfranchisement laws. While it is undeniable that this group of disqualified voters was large enough to influence the outcome of close elections, partisan concerns obscure the fact that our varied, state-by-state approaches to ex-offender voting rights leads to confusion and disenfranchisement of legitimate voters under these existing laws. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived legitimate voters of their rights. Moreover, in Ohio, an erroneous interpretation of state law by the Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons of even the right to register. Only federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system.

In addition to tainting this country's fundamental principle of the right to vote, denying voting rights to ex-offenders denies them of the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders, and serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society. Restricting voting rights, a critical tool of self- empowerment, can only lead to higher rates of recidivism, community apathy, and other social ills. We fail not just ex-offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests prevented an entire class of

citizens, namely African Americans, from integrating into society after centuries of slavery, felon disenfranchisement laws prevent ex- offenders from reintegrating into society after retribution.

Statistics on felon disenfranchisement indicate that Congressional action is clearly warranted. The Sentencing Project estimates that 4.7 million Americans, or 1 in 43 adults, have currently or permanently lost the right to vote as a result of a felony conviction. 1.4 million or 13 percent of African American men are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 10 of the next generation of African American men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. An estimated 676,730 women are currently ineligible to vote as a result of a felony conviction. These statistics have prompted state responses. Most recently, Alabama, Nevada, Wyoming, and Connecticut, have adopted legislation that expands voting rights for ex-felons. We must now act at the Federal level.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the bipartisan ``Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act of 2005'' or ``TARR Act,'' legislation designed to make it much easier for State and Federal counterterrorism officials to track known or suspected members of a terrorist organization who attempt to purchase dangerous firearms here in the U.S. I am joined by Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

According to a recently released Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') report, over the course of a nine-month span last year, a total of fifty-six (56) firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the Federal Government. In forty-seven (47) of those cases, State and Federal authorities were forced to permit such transactions to proceed because officials were unable to find any disqualifying information (such as a prior felony conviction or court-determined `mental defect') in the individual applicant's background. Under current law, neither suspected nor actual membership in a terrorist organization is a sufficient ground, in and of itself, to prevent such a purchase from taking place.

Even more troubling than this apparent loophole in our

current system of gun laws is

the confusion which ensued after such transactions occurred.

The GAO specifically determined that, in such instances, the

Department of Justice's information-sharing procedures failed

to adequately ``address the specific types of information

from NICS transactions that can or should be provided to

Federal counterterrorism officials or the sources from which

such information can be obtained.''

The TARR Act seeks to correct this problem by making two

simple, yet important, changes in current law. First, the

bill would require all information regarding such

transactions to be shared with all appropriate

counterterrorism officials at the State and Federal level.

Secondly, it would impose a ten year retention requirement on

any records related to those transactions. In sum, the bill

proposes two modest changes which--in the long run--will go

along way towards keeping our homeland truly secure.

I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this

worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time, and I want to commend him and the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for their excellent work in rebutting the notion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) about protecting the rental car industry and the leasing industry. That is what this is. Because what is wrong with requiring that the rental and leasing car companies assume responsibility when uninsured drivers they rent to cause injury and cannot compensate the victim? This is another one of a long line of issues, legal, in which we reduce the supports of the citizen and make them more open and more vulnerable. If a driver harms an individual and cannot compensate for their injury, the rental company should do so. What is wrong with that? Vicarious liability guarantees that the victims are not left to shoulder the costs of injuries caused by negligent rental car drivers and companies.

Take the case of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). New York City, I have been in cabs where we have wrecks downtown in Manhattan. Car rental is a very dangerous activity. For us not to require this backup from the car rental industry would be a travesty. And so I am hoping that we will just do something for the consumers. By the way, Members, that is what you have in your district, consumers of a product that need a little insurance backup when necessary. And to knock that out in the cavalier manner that is being proposed is preposterous.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri. This provision is nothing more than a special interest sham designed to unfairly and unjustifiably protect the very profitable car rental and leasing industry and harm innocent bystanders.

Vicarious liability protects innocent bystanders from injuries caused by irresponsible drivers of rented cars. In exchange for the right to rent or lease to whomever the car companies chooses, fifteen states, including my own state of Michigan, require that rental and leasing car companies assume the responsibility when uninsured drivers cause injury and cannot compensate the victim. Thus, when a car rental company allows an uninsured driver to drive a rental vehicle, they do so, understanding the risk created by that action. If a driver harms an individual and cannot compensate for the injury, the rental company should do so. Vicarious liability guarantees that victims are not left to shoulder the cost of their injuries caused by negligent rental car drivers and companies that put these uninsured drivers on the road.

New York City is a case in point. It has one of the most active car rental markets in the country and a huge number of uninsured drivers that rent cars due to the car ownership rates in NYC. New York has forbidden car rental companies to ask their customers if they own auto insurance, in order to allow the largest number of people access to rented cars. Since New York has made the policy decision to mandate car rental companies to rent to uninsured drivers, New York needs vicarious liability to protect innocent bystanders who are injured by these uninsured drivers. Eliminating vicarious liability would be disastrous for the citizens of New York, leaving injured people to shoulder their own costs of injuries unforeseen and prevent.

It is also important to note that the issue of preempting state liability is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am the Ranking Member, and no hearings have been held to examine the appropriateness of the language which would be included in the legislation should the amendment pass. It is irresponsible to allow this provision to be debated on the House floor without a committee of jurisdiction's careful review.

I also object to the retroactive and unfair nature of the amendment. As a matter of equity, it is unfair to change the rules of litigation in the middle of the game. If a victim brings a lawsuit based on a particular set of laws and principles, it is simply unfair to alter those rules and principles after the fact. In addition to suffering a harm, the plaintiff may have expended significant time and resources in the litigation, and it is inequitable for Congress to unilaterally dismiss that claim without providing the harmed party with his or her day in court.

Additionally, the principles of federalism dictate that in all but the most exceptional cases, tort law should be left to the states. Tort law has traditionally been handled by the state legislative and court systems under a framework established by our founders. In fact, there are fifteen states that are ably handling this issue of vicarious liability. Congress should not depart from its long tradition of letting courts decide new cases before considering stepping in to alter the law where it believes the results are contrary to the public interest.

This amendment has no other purpose than to protect big rental and leasing companies at the expense of accident victims. I am appalled at the effort to leave innocent bystanders without recourse and believe this amendment has no place in this Transportation Reauthorization legislation that is before us today. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce this resolution to inquire whether the Justice and Homeland Security Departments were abused in favoring Mr. Guckert, a fake reporter from a fake news organization. I had hoped that the half dozen congressional and Senate requests for information would have been sufficient. However, to date, they have not even merited a response from the White House or its agencies.

For nearly 3 years, the White House has been granting Mr. Guckert, a right-wing activist with no press credentials, access to the White House briefing room and presidential press conferences. This appears to violate long standing practices of carefully screening contacts with the President.

This special access not only raises security concerns, but calls into question the fundamental fairness of the White House press corps. In fact, the favoritism bestowed on this fake reporter may have violated federal law. Mr. Guckert's efforts as a mouthpiece for the White House likely violated statutes banning the Administration from using appropriated money for propaganda purposes.

Finally, Mr. Guckert has claimed that he had access to a classified Central Intelligence Agency document that revealed the undercover status of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. It's now been over a year and a half since Valerie Plame was maliciously outed, and we appear to be no closer to finding out who in the Administration played with her life for political purposes. I hope this resolution may shed some light on whether Mr. Guckert, the White House's go-to propagandist, also received classified information and from who.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would simply require that each State provide a minimum required number of functioning and accurate voting machines and poll workers for each precinct on the day of any special election. I do this and offer the amendment so that we can avoid the misallocation of voting machines and poll workers that occurred last year in the Ohio Presidential election that led to lines of sometimes 10 hours and disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters.

Consider the following: in Franklin County in that State, 27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush while six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered the large margins for Kerry. They also found that election officials in Franklin County decided to make due with 2,868 machines even though their analysis showed that 5,000 machines were needed. In Columbus alone it is estimated that the misallocation of machines reduced the number of votes by up to 15,000 votes.

There is also an investigation that revealed the Franklin County election officials reduced the number of election voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them to suburbs. They used a formula based not on the number of registered voters but on past turnout. In the Columbus area, the result was that suburban precincts that supported Mr. Bush tended to have more machines per registered voter than those in the inner-city precincts that supported Mr. Kerry.

The Election Protection Coalition testified that more than half the complaints about the long lines they received came from Columbus and Cleveland where a huge proportion of the State's Democratic voters lived.

This should never happen again in an election in our Nation. It is unconscionable to stack the deck so that Americans are forced to wait in the rain in line while others are given the red carpet treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

The motion to recommit would fix the problem raised by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), at least for special elections under this bill.

I urge the support of the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, with the consideration of this legislation, the majority begins their assault on our Nation's civil justice system. Today we will attempt to preempt State class actions. Next month we will take up a bankruptcy bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of credit card companies and against ordinary consumers and workers alike. On deck and pending are equally one-sided medical malpractice bills and asbestos bills that both cap damages and eliminate liability to protect some of the most egregious wrongdoers in America.

The majority's assault on victims and consumers is unprecedented in its scope and stunning in its breadth. Collectively, these measures will close the courthouse doors on millions of Americans harmed by intentional wrongdoing, negligence, and fraud. And so, long after the 109th Congress has forgotten, American consumers and workers will be paying the price for these special interest bills through needless injuries and uncompensated harm.

This legislation will remove class actions involving State law issues from State courts, the forum most convenient for victims of wrongdoing and with the judges most familiar with the substantive law, and this legislation will move it to the Federal courts where the case will take far longer to resolve and is far less likely to be certified.

Now, you do not need to take my word for it. Let us just ask big business itself. The Nation's largest bank, Citicorp admits ``the practical effect (of the bill will) be that many cases will never be heard. Federal judges facing overburdened dockets and ambiguities about applying State laws in a Federal court, often refuse to grant standing to class action plaintiffs.''

Forbes Magazine writes, ``The legislation will . . . make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail, since . . . federal courts are . . . less open to considering . . . class action claims.''

Passage of this legislation would be particularly devastating for civil rights cases and labor law cases. As the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under The Law explained, ``The consequences of the legislation for civil rights class actions . . . will be astounding and, in our view, disastrous. Redirecting State law class actions to the Federal courts will choke Federal court dockets and delay or foreclose the timely and effective determination of Federal (civil rights) cases.''

Since the November election we have heard a lot of talk about values, and that is fine; but will someone during this discourse today tell me where the value is in denying senior citizens who suffered heart attacks because they took Vioxx for their arthritis? Where is the morality in preventing poor workers from joining together to obtain compensation when unscrupulous employers pay them slave-labor wages?

Where is the righteousness in telling victims of discrimination that they will have to wait years for a Federal court to consider violations of their own State laws?

If we have learned anything from the Enron, TYCO, Firestone, and other legal debacles, it is that our citizens need more protection against wrongdoers in our society, not less. And yet the class action bill before us takes us in precisely the opposite direction.

The House should reject this one-sided, anti-consumer and anti-civil rights legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is a dear friend of mine, and I merely want to take one observation that he made, that this is just a procedural process and that there is no substantive changes, but I say to him, if the legal system is rigged and the rules are stacked against you, you never have to get to the substance; you do not even get your day in court.

That is the problem with this bill. It is a procedural process that prevents people from bringing actions in State courts, and we are sending it to the Federal courts when both the Federal judiciary has spoken against this measure and the State judges have spoken against this measure as well. I think that that should be a very instructive criticism against this bill.

The proposal before us is opposed by both State and Federal judiciaries. It is opposed by the National Council of State Legislatures; consumers and public interest groups, including Public Citizen, the Consumers Federation of America, the Consumers Union, the United States PIRG; a coalition of environmental advocates; health advocates, including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; civil rights groups such as the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and labor such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations,

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He has worked with us on many of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

First of all, I think the NAACP and the civil rights groups will be eager to find out that his wisdom is superior to their experience in the civil rights movement. What the gentleman was suggesting may have been correct a number of years ago, but I would point out to the gentleman that the Federal courts more recently have not been as desirable a forum for civil rights activities.

The Bank of Boston case, that was 10 years ago and an anomaly. There are not other examples of class actions where class members lost money. No other court has made the same mistake. I would urge that neither the gentleman nor any of us rewrite class action rules because of one mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a ranking subcommittee member.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have listened carefully to the discussion here, and it is very clear that one thing is for sure: this is not a simple procedural fix to class actions in our courts.

Another thing, it is clear that all of the totally unsatisfactory provisions have not been removed.

First, the bill, as the gentlewoman from Texas has said, harms working Americans and victims of discrimination who are in no position to bring individual actions of wage-and-hour cases or civil rights discrimination claims. Moving the cases to Federal court will result in many never being ever heard at all.

Many State laws provide better protection than Federal statutes. For example, 20 States provide protection for marital status and Federal law does not. Twenty-one States extend Federal definitions of national origin discrimination by including ancestry, place of birth, and citizenship status; and 31 States prohibit genetic discrimination in the workplace, not provided under Federal law.

Secondly, this bill closes the door on victims of large-scale personal injury cases resulting from accidents, environmental disasters, or dangerous drugs that are widely sold. Although these cases are filed in State courts under State law, the bill will treat them as class actions and throw them willy-nilly into the Federal court.

While harming victims of personal injury, this provision greatly helps the companies, like Merck, the company that manufactured the deadly drug Vioxx. Since the discovery of the dangers of Vioxx, hundreds of cases from all over the country have been filed against Merck, and we can anticipate likely thousands more. However, under this proposal before us today, those who suffered harm from the drug will be denied their day in court and their ability to seek justice.

Finally, this bill makes it difficult for consumers to pursue claims against defendants who violated consumer protection laws. The bill will force many of these cases filed in State courts into the Federal system. But some Federal courts will not certify class actions involving the laws of multiple States because they deem the case too complex and unmanageable. Result: harmed consumers will never have their cases adjudicated in the courts.

It also makes it impossible for States to pursue actions against defendants who have caused harm to the State's citizens. State attorneys general often pursue these claims under State consumer protection statutes, antitrust laws, often with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the State.

Under this bill, would we want these cases to be thrown into Federal court and severely impede the State's ability to enforce its own laws for its own citizens? That is what will happen. That is what will take place.

So I am very pleased to put in the Record the letter from the States attorneys general opposing this legislation, those attorneys general from California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.

I would also like to add the letter from the environmental organizations which have made their case as to why this would be a very harmful measure. The signatories of this letter include the United States Public Interest Research Group, PIRG; the Wilderness Society; the Sierra Club; the National Environment Trust; Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth; and the National Audubon Society, and many others.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I include in this debate from the Leadership Conference and the AFL-CIO, and the Alliance For Justice, all writing on one letter, and they plead with us in the House of Representatives to protect working men and women and civil rights litigants by opposing the measure that is before us.

Washington, DC, February 15, 2005.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned civil

rights and labor organizations, we write to urge you to vote

against the Class Action Fairness Act (S. 5), which passed

the Senate last week. While the bill was pending before the

Senate, we pushed for an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy

that would have exempted civil rights and wage and hour state

law cases. Because the amendment was not adopted, we ask you

to reject S. 5 in order to ensure that the Class Action

Fairness Act does not adversely impact the workplace and

civil rights of ordinary Americans by making it extremely

difficult to enforce civil rights and labor rights.

During Congress' extensive examination into the merits of

class action lawsuits, nowhere has a case been made that

abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class-

action litigation. By allowing dozens of employees to bring

one lawsuit together, the class-action device is frequently

the only means for low wage workers who have been denied mere

dollars a day to recover their lost wages. Moreover, class

actions also are often the only means to effectively change a

policy of discrimination. These suits level the playing field

between individuals and those with more power and resources,

and permit courts to decide cases more efficiently.

Wage and hour class actions are most often brought in state

courts under the law of the state in which the claims arise.

The reason is that state wage and hour laws typically provide

more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour

violations than the federal wage and hour statute. For

instance, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) offers

no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for

20, so long as the worker's total pay for the 30 hours worked

exceeds the federal minimum wage. However, many states have

``payment of wage'' laws that would require that the worker

be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work. Also,

federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who

often work 10-16 hour days, yet earn no overtime because they

work less than 40 hours per week. At least six states and

territories, however, including California and Alaska,

require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of

hours are worked in a single day.

Likewise, state laws increasingly provide greater civil

rights protection than federal law. For example, every state

has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of

disability. Some of these state statutes provide a broader

definition of disability and a greater range of protection in

comparison to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

including California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode

Island, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, every

state has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in

employment, and some of these state laws--including those of

California, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia--

contain provisions affording greater protection to older

workers than comparable provisions of the federal Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

In addition, many state laws provide protections to

classifications not covered by federal law. For example, the

following states provide protection for marital status:

Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,

Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon,

Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Moreover, several states

have expanded Title VII's ban on national origin

discrimination to prohibit discrimination on the basis of

ancestry, or place of birth, or citizenship status. These

states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the

Virgin Islands.

Finally, 31 states have enacted legislation prohibiting

genetic discrimination in the workplace--an important

protection given the rapid increase in the ability to gather

this type of information. The 31 states are Arizona,

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,

Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In

addition, Florida and Illinois have enacted more limited

protections against genetic discrimination.

Under S. 5, citizens are denied the right to use their own

state courts to bring class actions against corporations that

violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights

laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees

in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal

court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and

women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are

already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less

likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of

state law.

In light of the lack of any compelling need to sweep state

wage and hour and civil rights claims into the scope of the

bill, which is done in the current bill, we urge you to vote

against S. 5. In the event that amendments are offered, we

support any amendment that, like the Kennedy amendment and

others offered in the Senate, preserves the right of

individuals to bring class actions in an effective, efficient

manner.

If you have any questions, or need further information,

please call Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director of the Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights (202-263-2880); Sandy Brantley,

Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice (202-822-6070); or

Bill Samuel, Legislative Director, AFL-CIO (202-637-5320).

Sincerely,

AARP; AFL-CIO; Alliance for Justice; American-Arab Anti-

Discrimination Committee; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Association of University Women;

American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation for the

Blind; American Federation of Government Employees; American

Federation of School Administrators; American Federation of

State, County & Municipal Employees; American Federation of

Teachers; American Jewish Committee; Americans for Democratic

Action.

The Arc of the United States; Association of Flight

Attendants; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center for

Justice and Democracy; Coalition of Black Trade Unionists;

Communications Workers of America; Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities Civil Rights Task Force; Department for

Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; Disability Rights Education

and Defense Fund; Epilepsy Foundation; Federally Employed

Women; Federally Employed Women's Legal & Education Fund,

Inc.; Food & Allied Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Human

Rights Campaign.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship

Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers; International

Brotherhood of Electrlcal Workers; International Brotherhood

of Teamsters; International Federation of Professional &

Technical Engineers; International Union of Bricklayers and

Allied Craftworkers; International Union of Painters and

Allied Trades of the United States and Canada; International

Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of

America; Jewish Labor Committee; Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the

San Francisco Bay Area; Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights; Legal Momentum; Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund.

NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.;

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees; National

Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Association

for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; National

Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems; National

Association of Social Workers; National Employment Lawyers

Association; National Fair Housing Alliance; National

Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women and

Families; National Women's Law Center; Paper, Allied-

Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union;

Paralyzed Veterans of America.

People For the American Way; Pride At Work, AFL-CIO;

Service Employees International Union; Transport Workers

Union of America; Transportation Communications International

Union; UAW; Unitarian Universalist Association of

Congregations; UNITE!; United Cerebral Palsy; United Food and

Commercial Workers International Union; United Steelworkers

of America; Utility Worker Union of America; and Women

Employed.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly describe why this substitute is the superior piece of legislation before us today. The substitute is much better for the following reasons: civil rights carve-out. The substitute would carve out State civil rights claims in order to make sure that civil rights plaintiffs, especially those seeking immediate injunctive relief, can have their grievances addressed in a timely manner.

Believe me, this is an issue of great moment to those of us who are still prosecuting for a fair day in our Nation and have civil rights laws to back us up, but we now are pleading to keep the proper forums. For example, every State in the Union has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. The language does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal claims.

The second consideration for this is the wage-and-hour carve-out. Wage-and-hour class actions are often brought in State courts because State wage-and-hour remedies are often, I am sorry to say, more complete than the Federal wage-and-hour statute; and we have examples of that.

The third reason: we exclude non-class action cases involving physical injuries. The measure before us applies not only to class actions, but also to mass torts. The Democratic substitute removes the mass tort language. And then, of course, the attorney general carve-out which clarifies cases brought by State attorneys general are excluded from the provisions of the class action bill and would not be forced into Federal court.

These are the major reasons why we encourage a supportive vote for the substitute to the measure that is being debated today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of our caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a cosponsor of the substitute amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the manager on the Democratic side for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was brought to our attention yesterday evening, and at first blush, this is a shocking correlative point to be made and a comparison to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, in which agents were given the broad powers to return freed slaves in free States and return them back to slavery.

What we are doing here with bail bondsmen is giving them the ability to enforce immigration laws by summarily rounding up and deporting people and also gaining access to incredible private and secret material in data files.

And I just wanted to briefly ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) what inspired him to add this to a bill that we already had a considerable number of problems about and have never had any hearings on a provision such as this.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I need my friend to know that they are in the process of having the claim heard. It has not been terminated or it is not all over. But we are arguing the substance.

What I was trying to figure out is, what inspired the gentleman at this late point in the proceedings, since we had hearings last year, we had no hearings this year, and we just found out about this yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the author of the amendment, would he have objected to having hearings on his amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) for his work on this. It is credibly important.

This is perhaps the most objectionable part of the bill.

I rise in support of the Nadler/Meeks/Jackson-Lee Amendment to strike section 101 of H.R. 418 which imposes evidentiary requirements on asylum-seekers fleeing persecution and all immigrants who seek withholding of removal from deportation.

Without a doubt, if this section passes into law, genuine bona fide refugees who have fled horrible persecution that qualifies them for protection from our government will be returned to face more terror, torture and death at the hands of their persecutors.

Chairmen Sensenbrenner is using the public's fear of terrorism to radically change asylum law for all asylees, not just those with some connection to terrorism.

Section 101 will not make us one bit safer from terrorist attack. Since we tightened some loopholes in asylum law in 1996, terrorists have not been ``abusing our asylum system'' as the proponents of this bill allege. Terrorists are already barred from receiving the benefit of asylum protection in the United States.

Those who support placing these new insurmountable hurdles on asylum- seekers have used examples of known terrorists to allegedly show that the asylum system makes us vulnerable to terrorist attack. But none of the people they talk about were granted asylum.

Ramzi Yousef and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who were both involved in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, were never granted asylum. They filed applications for asylum that had not been adjudicated at the time of the bombing.

Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees in 1993, was never granted asylum. He had an asylum application pending at the time of the attack.

Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, known as ``the Brooklyn bomber'' for his involvement in a planned attack on the New York City subway in 1997, was never granted asylum. He applied for asylum but withdrew his application before it was reviewed.

Ahmad Ajaj, who was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, was never granted asylum His initial application for asylum was abandoned when he left the country, and his second application was denied.

Abdel Hakim Tizegha, who was involved in the planned Millennium attack in 1999, was never granted asylum. His application was denied in 1997 and his appeal was denied in 1999.

Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who killed two people at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, was never granted asylum. His application was denied in 1995.

Shahawar Matin Siraj, who has been accused of plotting to bomb the Harold Square subway station in New York City in August 2004, was never granted asylum. He asserts that he entered the United States legally as a teen, and he later filed an application for asylum that was suspended upon his arrest.

Immigrants cannot apply for asylum unless they are already in the United States. So it is not the fault of the asylum system that these terrorists, and terrorist suspects, entered the United States and section 101 of H.R. 418 would not have prevented their entry. In addition, filing an application for asylum should not be equated with actually receiving asylum protection and the right to remain in the United States that it grants. Many asylum applications are rejected, just as many tourist visas to enter the United States are rejected.

For people applying for asylum in 2005, under current law, extensive security checks are now done through the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security and State Department databases. Now, expedited removal rules mandate detention for people arriving without proper documents, and grant DHS authority to detain asylum-seekers throughout the adjudication of their application. Expedited processing of asylum claims now exists, and applicants are denied work authorizations that may have been a magnet for false applications before asylum reform. People who are already in the United States, who become terrorists while they are here, must be identified by intelligence and law enforcement. If they are, asylum or any other immigration benefit will be revoked under current law.

For that vast majority of asylum applicants who have no nexus to terrorism, other than being victims of it, section 101 will create high, new legal standards of evidence, and will severely limit judicial review of their cases.

First, the bill requires that refugees prove that one of the five grounds for asylum protection--race, nationality, membership in a social group, political opinion, or religion--is the ``central reason'' why they were persecuted. With little access to the documents and witnesses they left behind when fleeing their country, they must prove what was in the mind of their persecutor during the persecution. This would require an asylum-seeker from Darfur, Sudan to prove that the janjaweed attacked them and ran them off their land because they were black, and not because the militia wanted to steal the immigrant's cows, for example.

Second, the bill requires asylum-seekers to show evidence corroborating their testimony, and it would bar judicial review of decisions regarding that evidence. Yet many refugees are unable to flee with the people or paperwork that could back up their stories under evidentiary standards.

Third, the bill allows judges to deny applications if they find inconsistencies between the applicant's testimony and any statement they have made to a U.S. official, or inconsistencies in witness and documentary evidence that is provided. In addition, it allows denials on the basis of subjective assessments of an applicant's demeanor, a factor that is frequently misinterpreted by U.S. judges due to cultural differences. Thus, a person could be denied asylum due to an immaterial inconsistency in the evidence they present.

Finally, the bill strips courts from the power to review immigration judge's discretionary judgments in asylum and removal cases.

Unfortunately, this bill takes a significant step in turning our country away from its proud history as a nation of refuge for those fleeing persecution.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler/Meeks/ Jackson-Lee amendment to strike section 101 of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, what I would like to find out, if the gentleman knows, has this ever occurred in the history of Federal legislation before that for a given instance all laws, local, State, national, will be waived all at one time for one specific purpose?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC)'' Act of 2005, legislation that subjects a group of competing oil producers, like the OPEC nations, to U.S. antitrust law when they act together to restrict supply or set prices. I am joined by Representatives Lofgren and McIntyre.

For the past year, American consumers have paid exorbitant prices at the pump, as gas prices have hit their highest levels since the first Gulf War. For the past several months, oil prices have remained stubbornly high, sitting above $48 at the end of last week. Since last January, oil prices have climbed more than 15 percent, driving gasoline prices in the United States to record levels while producing budget surpluses in nations like Saudi Arabia.

The group of 11 nations comprising OPEC are a classic definition of a cartel, and they hold all the cards when it comes to oil and gas prices. OPEC accounts for more than a third of global oil production, and OPEC's oil exports represent about 55 percent of the oil traded internationally. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $345 billion this year, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to reduce or increase its levels of production.

The OPEC nations have for years conspired to drive up prices of imported crude oil, gouging American consumers. Their price-fixing and supply-limiting conspiracy is a clear violation of U.S. antitrust laws, yet we have no recourse for action against these nations. The international oil cartel continues to avoid accountability, shielding itself behind the veil of sovereign immunity by claiming that its actions are ``governmental activity''--which is protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA''), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1602 et seq.-- rather than ``commercial activity.''

This legislation, the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'' (``NOPEC''), is simple and effective.

It exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of FSIA to the extent those governments are engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive activities with regard to pricing, production and distribution of petroleum products.

It makes clear that the so-called ``Act of State'' doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

It authorizes lawsuits in U.S. federal court against oil cartel members by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

We do not have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse; we can do something to combat this conspiracy among oil-rich nations. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Domestic Violence Connections Campaign Act of 2005,'' legislation that ensures that the National Domestic Violence Hotline continues to provide the essential services it has been providing since it was created in 1996. I am joined by Representative Hart.

The Hotline was created by the Violence Against Women Act and answered its first call on February 21, 1996. By August 2003 it answered its one millionth call, an increase of approximately 133 percent. This is due in large part to public awareness of domestic violence and public promotion of the Hotline. Today, on average the Hotline receives almost 16,000 calls a month.

The Hotline is primarily funded by federal dollars that come from annual federal spending bills. However, as the Hotline's call volume continues to increase exponentially, funding has failed to keep pace. To keep up, the Hotline needs new equipment, new connection capability, and new data protection technology. Because its system is so outdated, over 26,000 calls last year went unanswered due to long hold times or busy signals.

The Connection Campaign is a combination of public and private efforts to bring the Hotline up to speed. It teams up private telecommunication and technology companies with the federal government to solve the Hotline's crisis and guarantee that the Hotline can answer every call. Under the Connection Campaign, companies like Microsoft, Sony, BellSouth, Verizon Wireless, IBM, Dell and others, may donate hardware and software such as cell phones, home computers, mapping software, flat-screened monitors, and telephone airtime to the Hotline.

On the public side of the partnership, Senator Biden will soon join Representative Hart and me in introducing legislation to bridge the digital divide. Our bill, the Domestic Violence Connections Campaign Act of 2005, which will also appear in the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, has three components:

It mandates that federal appropriations to the Hotline include technology training for Hotline advocates so that every new telephone, computer, and database will be used to its fullest capacity.

It provides a new research grant program to be used to review and analyze data generated by the Hotline. Administered by the Attorney General, the grant program will study trends, gaps in service and geographical areas of need. The findings of this research will be reported to Congress within three years of its enactment.

It provides a grant program for the Hotline to increase public awareness about the Hotline's services and domestic violence generally.

The Connections Campaign and this legislation are important next steps in our fight to defeat domestic violence and assist victims. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.