Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I control the time on the minority side for the purpose of yielding time.

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

I begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her brilliant opening statement.

This measure before us today could be called, A Tale of Two Bills. One is our substitute, that reflects both the spirit and the substance of the 9/11 Commission's work, and like the Commission itself, it is bipartisan, a theme that we continue to underscore even in the closing days of the 108th Congress. We are supported by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and Senators McCain, Collins and Lieberman. Yesterday, in the other body, this measure that we will bring forward here this evening passed the other body by a vote of 96 to 2. In substance, it reflects exactly what the 9/11 Commission recommendations contained, and it was endorsed by the commission and by the September 11 families.

On the other hand, we have before us a bill that was cobbled together haphazardly, with only the input of one party. It fails to implement many of the Commission's recommendations, and therein lies our grievance, and contains provisions that the Commission, after months of study, did not ask for at all.

But the main omission is that the 9/11 Commission recommended, at a time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties. Why is there no civil liberties board in the majority bill?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a former U.S. attorney and a distinguished member of the California bar.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watts), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, to close for our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor. I first would like to note the comity that went into drafting this bill. We worked with the Commerce Committee on addressing the relevant issues based on jurisdiction. Further, Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff worked diligently with us on drafting this legislation. I would particularly like to thank David Whitney, counsel to the majority, whose diligence and bipartisanship are the only reason we are here today.

In 1999, we passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act to allow satellite companies to retransmit distant network signals to customers who could not receive clear over-the-air television signals. Such companies have to pay a government-set rate to the broadcast copyright owners. While I had, and still have, hesitations about creating compulsory licenses that require content owners to sell their work for a set fee, I believe this license led to significant competition in programming distribution.

As a result of this policy decision, the satellite industry has dedicated significant technological and financial resources to expanding the choices available to consumers. I am certain we can all agree that is a good thing.

The 1999 law expires at the end of this calendar year, so we must reauthorize it. The bill before us extends the license for 5 years. Importantly, the bill goes beyond that in addressing the desires of consumers in that it permits the satellite companies to retransmit a significantly viewed local signal to a customer.

The bill also settles a gray area in terms of what satellite service customers can get when local-to-local satellite television is available. Under the new regime, current subscribers will be allowed to choose between the distant signal service or the local service. New customers would be provided with the local service.

Despite the benefits of this legislation and the work of the interested parties, much remains to be done in terms of providing complete television service across the country. I look forward to working with the content owners and satellite companies in making that happen.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, bringing up a bill today, nearly 2 days since it was introduced without a hearing, to anybody in any committee, nothing, to just bring it up today, 3 days before the end of the session, makes it very clear what is on the minds of the leadership in this House. This is a smoke screen to divert the focus from the real facts about the war in Iraq.

The authors of this bill want a hearing. Why do you not want a hearing? Why do you want to bring it up out of nowhere? This was not even scheduled. Yesterday, this was not scheduled or noted for scheduling.

But they do not want a hearing because they do not want the public thinking about the fact that, as of today, we have spent nearly $200 billion on this war, the United States has lost over 1,000 lives, these figures represent 90 percent of the costs of the war, and more than 90 percent of the casualties in what the President continues to paint as a global problem led by a willing coalition, when no coalition exists.

Worse, the President sends our troops into Iraq without body armor, without sufficient troop strength, and without any discernible exit strategy, and guess what? We are running out of troops. It is not a secret, I say to my colleagues. We are continuing to keep National Guardsmen in the service beyond their career. We are taking Reservists and we are running out of volunteers. So let us not be astounded that what follows that is a draft. The only problem is that we cannot announce it until after the election.

Bringing this bill up today--nearly two years since the day we introduced it--is nothing but a Republican attempt at a smokescreen to divert the focus from the real facts about the war in Iraq.

The Republicans don't want the public thinking about the fact that as of today, we've spent nearly $200 billion on this war, and the United States has lost over 1000 lives. These figures represent ninety percent of the cost of this war and more than ninety percent of the casualties--in what the President continues to paint as a global problem led by a willing coalition. No such coalition exists. Worse, President Bush sends our troops into Iraq without sufficient troop strength, and without any discernable exit strategy or plan to win the peace. The Administration doesn't want the public to know that, when it comes to Iraq, this President has failed the American people.

Even Paul Bremmer, the U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion, has admitted that the United States made a mistake in not deploying enough troops in Iraq, and then made a mistake in not containing the violence and looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

The Administration doesn't want to call attention to the fact that the Pentagon has had to resort to the use of a ``stop loss'' policy to mask the fact that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. This policy is in a sense a military draft because it is used to keep tens of thousands of soldiers bound for Iraq and Afghanistan in their service beyond their originally scheduled discharge dates. Under this policy, the Army alone has blocked the retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reservists who were eligible to leave the service this year. This just shows that politics has taken priority over readiness. The administration uses these policies to meet the needs in Iraq because they are expedient and convenient, but all it amounts to is playing politics with the lives of the men and women overseas, and with their families back home.

And while the Administration likes to talk about what a good job it's doing in Iraq, it consistently fails to mention the other impending crises we will eventually have to deal with. Iraq does not scratch the surface when you consider the situation we're in with North Korea and Iran.

No, rather than have the American people focusing on these facts and statistics, the Republican members of Congress want to use this bill as a political maneuver to kill rumors that the President plans to reinstate the draft after the election. The Republicans want to use this bill--a bill that strives to bring equality to our military--to shift the focus from their extreme and devastating shortcomings.

What our bill does is address the growing disparity in socio-economic background between those who go to fight our nation's conflicts and those who send them. The statistics show that minorities and the working class segments of society constitute a disproportionate percentage of the military. African Americans represent 21 percent of the military as opposed to 13 percent of the civilian age population. Only 24 percent of the persons in

the military have parents in white collar management jobs, while that is true for 34 percent of the general military population. It is plain fact that the military does not come from the higher socio-economic status of society.

This bill deserves better than placement on the suspension calendar. It deserves serious consideration. As my colleague Mr. Rangel has stated, we should be hearing testimony and gaining an understanding of our needs in Iraq. But as it stands, the Republicans only care about his bill to divert attention from the true fact--that the President has made a colossal error in judgment that is costing American lives every single day.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin this discussion with the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and others that are joining us asking for time. Before I recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to begin our discussion by observing how unnecessary consideration of this matter is at this point. No one in the Chamber is unaware of the fact that the obvious ploy by some is to play upon the worst fears of our citizens, who are deep into an election year, to deal extensively with a subject, a constitutional amendment, which every Member on this floor knows is going nowhere. The reason? Because it has already been defeated by the other body. The only conceivable point of this amendment is to energize the conservative political base.

Well, we are not buying into that, Mr. Speaker. We know that this is the reason that it is being done, because our distinguished majority leader only recently told us that we could not take up the assault weapons ban because we did not have the votes to pass it.

Well, do we have the votes to pass this amendment, a two-thirds requirement, while we are here on the floor less than 45 days before the election? I think that we know the answer to that.

We know that the States are fully capable of dealing with the issue of the same-sex relationship on their own. Our Nation has a long tradition of leaving questions relating to civil marriage to the States, and for more than 228 years the States have dealt with these issues, with marriage age limits, with miscegenation and divorce. Let us leave it with the States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has in this Congress found himself busier than almost every other subcommittee that we have. We have a long history of court-stripping attempts, constitutional amendments that were of high dubious legal question, and he has worked tirelessly with a staff I think that is second to none on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a gentleman who has followed the civil rights struggle and the struggle for women in this country for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), from the Committee on the Judiciary, a very distinguished lawyer in her third term who has served with us from the time she arrived here.

(Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) who has been of immeasurable assistance on constitutional questions in our committee.

Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the honorable Member who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary with great skill and distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who replaced our good colleague Ron Dellums, an activist in domestic and international matters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has worked on civil rights and constitutional matters with great skill ever since she has come to this Congress

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a longtime civil rights and human rights advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary now on leave.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to reach across the aisle and yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has worked with us on civil rights, human rights and international issues throughout her career.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the leader of the equal rights amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished lawyer in her own right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for the purpose of making a unanimousconsent request.

(Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very distinguished supporter of civil rights and human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, no one has been closer in this Congress to Dr. Martin Luther King than he has, and I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very courageous gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a distinguished member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the bill just passed, H.R. 3193, will the Members of the House of Representatives be allowed to bring concealed weapons to the floor of this body?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill but with strong opposition to section 112. While the bill contains numerous anti-copyright piracy provisions that I helped draft, I oppose section 112 because it is an anti-copyright, special interest provision that will interfere in a pending lawsuit.

The content industries provide this country's number one export; in fact, copyrighted content provides a positive trade balance of approximately $89 billion. Clearly, our content is a valuable resource that deserves protection.

Unfortunately, the same technologies that have enhanced our lives and globalized trade have made it possible to obtain digital content for free; the same technology that enhanced the lives of so many is harming the lives of people--the artists, musicians, writers, etc.--whose work we value so much.

While there are laws on the books that protect copyrighted content from theft, they do not go quite far enough. New file swapping programs and sites appear every day on the Internet, each one better than its predecessor. These sites do not develop their own content but rely upon the popularity of content created by others and allow that content to be distributed to millions with the click of a mouse. These sites also create security and privacy risks, in that they open up the entire hard drives of average consumers for the world to see, financial and personal information included.

I was a cosponsor of Chairman Smith's bill, H.R. 2517, but felt that we could do even

more to thwart piracy. That is why Ranking Member Berman and I introduced H.R. 2752, which provided for increased enforcement of the piracy laws. For the past several months, we have been working in bipartisan fashion to craft language that is non-controversial and workable.

In that regard, I am pleased that the compromise bill incorporates numerous provisions from the original Conyers-Berman bill. H.R. 4077 clarifies that it is a federal offense to camcord a movie in a theater. This is a major means by which movies end up on the Internet for free. I think we can all agree there is little legitimate reason for engaging in this conduct and need to send a clear message that we will not tolerate this theft. It also ensures that theaters owners are exempt from liability if they attempt to enforce this prohibition.

The bill contains a sense of the Congress recognizing the potential dangers of misused peer-to-peer services (such as spreading worms, viruses, making personal computer files available to the public).

Third, the bill provides additional tools to prosecute those who upload copyrighted content to the Internet unlawfully, and I was pleased the content and Internet industries were able to compromise on this provision. It also provides an authorization of $15 million for the Justice Department's piracy fighting efforts, an increase over the traditional $10 million.

Finally, the legislation includes language similar to a provision in an earlier bill of mine, H.R. 4643 from the 107th Congress, saying the distribution of unpublished or pre-release works can constitute infringement. This is important for industries whose content ends up on the Internet before it is even released to the public.

Unfortunately, I am disappointed that our year-long bipartisan effort has been tainted by the addition of section 112, which is identical to H.R. 4586. H.R. 4586, the ``Family Movie Act of 2004,'' is an anti- content creator proposal that interferes in a private lawsuit. It puts Congress on one side of a private business dispute that is properly left to the litigants and the court.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, this is the only civil rights measure that we will be considering in this Congress, and it is the first civil rights measure, as distinguished from voter rights, that we have handled on this floor since 1968 when 18 U.S.C. 242 was amended.

Please, let us understand that we have witnessed a dramatic increase in hate-motivated violence. The definitions are very clear. To my friends who have wondered what a hate crime is, there are 8,000 hate crimes each year.

I want my colleagues to know that we have already approved of this. The House has voted on this measure. The Senate has voted on this measure. And now, we are doing the same thing again.

For all of my colleagues who want to know where law enforcement stands on this, please know that the Police Foundation endorses the measure. The National Sheriff's Association endorses this measure. The International Association of Chiefs of Police endorses the measure. The Police Executive Research Forum likewise. So we have law enforcement realizing that we need a comprehensive law banning hate crimes, and what this bill essentially does is modify the Federal nexus that is connected with it.

Please, let us understand that this is the only opportunity we will have to go on record to show that we want to assist States in prosecuting their hate

crimes by re-endorsing and re-supporting this measure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), an excellent member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State in his State.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just wonder if the gentleman is aware that many States have asked for this assistance; that this merely amends the Federal nexus that already exists; and that the civil rights organizations and more than half a dozen police and law enforcement organizations have all strongly supported the request and the Department of Justice has not taken the point of view that is brilliantly argued by my friend from Alabama?

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip of the Democrats, who has been a strong civil rights advocate throughout his career, and who I have been pleased to work with.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), a civil rights leader from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who has worked with the civil rights community in her State and Nation since she has come to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) that his position is a perfectly legitimate one, and for anyone to attack him as a racist on that regard I would take issue with. I want the gentleman to know that would not be the sentiments of anyone I know here in the Congress on this side of the aisle, and we apologize for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we have had here today. I close with a reminder from the International Association of Chiefs of Police in the United States: this is not a door-opener for State prosecutors to get rid of cases or get into the Federal jurisdiction. They can only bring these cases if the Department of Justice agrees that they can be brought. Without that, the Department of Justice wants to make sure that they need this help and in some cases will grant programs to the State and local law enforcement to cover the costs of investigating and prosecuting.

So this hate crimes law will greatly assist law enforcement officers in investigating hate crimes.

Mr. Speaker, 175 organizations, law enforcement, civil rights, Hispanic national law groups, the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, Anti-Defamation League, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Sikh Mediawatch and Resource Task Force, Human Rights Campaign, the American Association of People With Disabilities, and the National Center For Victims of Crime pray that we will take action today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

My colleagues, we have before us a measure that is unconstitutional, that undermines the Federal Judiciary, and is totally unnecessary. The bill, of course, violates Marbury versus Madison, which has stated and been the law of the land since 1803. Never in these 201 years has any Congress ever brought a measure like this to the floor of the House.

In Marbury, Justice Harlan said, ``it is emphatically the role of the court to determine what the law is.'' And so we violate the very basic fundamental part of the role of the Judiciary in the Constitution. It violates the separation of powers principle because it denies the Supreme Court its historical role of final authority on the constitutionality of our laws.

Who wants 50 different decisions coming from the several courts of the States? It violates freedom of speech and religion. And we have Supreme Court cases, West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnett, and just this year the Third Circuit held in Pennsylvania that the mandated recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.

Now, I know what you are trying to accomplish by this gross distortion of constitutional history, but ultimately someone has to decide, and we have been deciding for 201 years. To make sure it is constitutional, some minds reason, we should strip the jurisdiction of the subject from the court. What is next: guns, freedom of choice, terrorism?

We cannot proceed as a democratic nation without very emphatically joining with Senator Barry Goldwater, and Robert Bork, and our former Judiciary colleague, Bob Barr.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2028, the so-called ``Pledge Protection Act''. This bill is not only unconstitutional, it undermines our federal judiciary and is totally unnecessary.

H.R. 2028 is Unconstitutional: This bill violates just about every principle in our constitution and bill of rights. First, it violates separation of powers principles because it denies the Supreme Court its historical role as the final authority on the constitutionality of our laws. This is a doctrine that was established more than 200 years ago in the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, and which has served as the cornerstone of our system of checks and balances.

Second, it violates Freedom of Speech and Religion. This is because it makes it far more difficult for persons who feel they are being coerced into reciting the pledge to have access to the courts. These cases are not hypothetical. Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court issued the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett decision, which held that it was unlawful to expel religious minorities from school if they refused to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just this year the Third Circuit held a Pennsylvania law which mandated recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.

Third, it violates the equal protection clause. This is because it imposes an undue burden on a specific class of individuals--religious minorities--without a rational basis, other than fear of independent judges. Just read the 1996 Roemer decision, which held it unlawful to pass a law excluding gay and lesbians from legal protections.

H.R 2028 Undermines the Federal Judiciary: If H.R. 2028 is enacted, it would constitute the first and only time Congress has ever enacted legislation totally eliminating any federal court from considering the constitutionality of federal legislation--in this case, the Pledge of Allegiance.

Adoption of the bill will result in the balkanization of our judiciary and would eliminate any possibility of operating under a single uniform Supreme Court. This is inconsistent with the very words of the Pledge of Allegiance, namely that we are ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Dividing our nation into 50 different legal regimes, where the Pledge is permitted in some jurisdictions and not in others, is the very antithesis of this sacred principle.

It is no wonder that principled conservatives like former Senator Barry Goldwater found court stripping legislation to be so repugnant. When court stripping legislation was proposed in the 1970's concerning school prayer, abortion, and busing, Senator Goldwater opposed them, warning that the ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.''

Robert Bork, a former Yale Law professor and Reagan appointee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, also is strongly opposed to court- stripping measures, arguing, ``[y]ou'd have 50 different constitutions running around out there, and I'm not sure even the conservatives would like the results.''

Our former colleague Bob Barr has written, the principal problem with court stripping bills is ``that it sets a harmful precedent for the future. Our healthy democracy depends on having three separate and independent branches of government . . . I am concerned about having a Congress or President unchecked by the independent judiciary established by the Constitution.''

If we allow H.R. 2028 to pass into law, it truly could be open season on our precious rights and liberties. This was our prediction when the Majority was contemplating the Marriage Protection Act, and here we are again. Today I ask, where will this all end? Why in the world would we exempt these laws from federal judicial review and not laws concerning terrorism, or child pornography?

H.R. 2028 is unnecessary: What is most amazing to me is that we are taking up this bill at a time when the Supreme Court--which is dominated by Republican appointees--has not issued a single opinion in any way undermining the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why do we have to take up this bill now when the death toll of our men and women fighting for our right to be free from terror has reached record limits and continues to rise every single day. A recent report from the Center for American Progress shows an alarming number of suicides this year among U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Yet, at a time when our troops are working hard to answer the Nation's call, their own needs remain unmet--put at the bottom of the list of priorities.

Conclusion: Just as I opposed the ill-considered Marriage Protection Act two months ago, I must oppose this court stripping bill. These efforts to deny our citizens access to the federal courts constitute nothing less than a modern day version of ``court packing.'' Just as President Roosevelt's efforts to control the

outcome of Supreme Court decisions by packing it with loyalists was rejected by Congress in the 1930's, thereby preserving the independence of the federal judiciary, so too must this modern day effort to show the courts ``who is boss'' fail as well.

Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record letters from organizations opposing this bill:

September 20, 2004.

Oppose the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' H.R. 2028

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned organizations

dedicated to protecting women's reproductive health and

rights, write to urge you to oppose H.R. 2028, the so-called

``Pledge Protection Act.'' The implications of this bill go

far beyond the context of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill

would set a dangerous precedent that would disrupt the

traditional separation of powers and undermine the

longstanding role of the federal judiciary in safeguarding

constitutional rights, including the right of reproductive

choice.

H.R. 2028 would deny all federal courts--including the U.S.

Supreme Court--the jurisdiction to hear any cases concerning

the interpretation or constitutionality of the Pledge of

Allegiance. The bill would irreparably alter the relationship

between the judicial branch and the two other branches of the

federal government by depriving the federal courts of their

traditional role as interpreters of the U.S. Constitution.

Even more disturbing, unlike other previous versions of

court-stripping legislation, H.R. 2028 deprives even the U.S.

Supreme Court of jurisdiction, divesting the Court of its

historical role as the final authority on the U.S.

Constitution.

We are deeply concerned about legislation like H.R. 2028

that strips federal courts of their important role in

safeguarding constitutional rights and freedoms. While the

target today is a controversial view of the Pledge of

Allegiance and the separation of church and state (a view

that the Supreme Court has not endorsed), there can be no

doubt that anti-choice lawmakers and their allies in Congress

intend to use this strategy to achieve other policy goals

that they are unable to accomplish without toppling the

delicate constitutional balance of powers that has served

this country for more than 200 years. Recently, House

Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that he plans to use

``jurisdiction stripping'' measures to achieve other social

policy goals. While he claimed that the time is ``not quite

ripe'' to apply this legislative tactic to the issue of

abortion, in fact, anti-choice lawmakers have already made

the attempt--in 2002, when considering the Federal Abortion

Ban. Although that particular effort failed, passage of H.R.

2028 would set a dangerous precedent for future attempts to

strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases regarding

reproductive choice. The federal courthouse doors should not

be closed to women seeking to vindicate their right to obtain

critical reproductive health services.

For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2028.

Sincerely,

American Association of University Women

Center for Reproductive Rights

Choice USA

Feminist Majority

Legal Momentum (the new name of NOW Legal Defense and

Education Fund)

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Organizations

National Council of Women's Organizations

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health

Association

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Mr. Chairman, while I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for heeding the advice of Representative Bobby Scott and offering an amendment that will allow DC residents to have their day in court, I am concerned that the amendment does not grant similar protections to residents of U.S. territories.

This is because the local courts in the U.S. Virgin Islands (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1611, population 110,000 residents); the Northern Mariana Islands (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1821, population 78.000); and Guam (codified at 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1424, population 160,000); were all created by acts of Congress, not the local legislatures.

Since this bill provides that ``[n]o court created by an Act of Congress'' shall have any jurisdiction to hear cases concerning the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, the net result is that under H.R. 2028, no judicial review would be available for Pledge of Allegiance cases for the nearly 350,000 combined residents of these territories.

As the majority's own witness, Martin Redish, concluded at the Committee's hearing on court stripping legislation:

. . . as long as the state courts remain available and

adequate forums to adjudicate federal law and protect federal

rights, it is difficult to see how the Due Process Clause

would restrict congressional power to exclude federal

judicial authority to adjudicate a category of cases, even

one that is substantively based.

Unfortunately, under the Chairman's amendment, such a local court review would not be possible in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. As a result, the bill would continue to be unconstitutional with regard to these territories.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would preserve Supreme Court review of appeals related to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

As presently drafted the legislation precludes any federal judicial review, either by a

lower federal court or the Supreme Court, of any constitutional challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Aside from the obvious constitutional flaws inherent in the bill, the idea of Congress unilaterally cutting off constitutional review by the Supreme Court constitutes both a poor and dangerous legal precedent. As presently drafted, the legislation not only degrades the independence of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court, but eliminates any possibility of developing a single uniform policy with regard to the recitation of the Pledge from the 50 state supreme courts.

Since H.R. 2028 strips the Supreme Court of the ability to review state court decisions, including those involving federal questions, a lack of uniformity in the law is an imminent threat. One's federal rights would depend on the vagaries of location. Ultimately, coercing children to recite the Pledge may be permitted in one state and not in another. This is why it is so important that we pass the Watt amendment.

The complete, unprecedented, and unnecessary stripping of Supreme Court jurisdiction inherent in the current bill would be totally at odds with the policy of checks and balances envisioned by the Nation's founders. As a matter of fact, the legislation would bring us far closer to the balkanized scenario envisioned by the Articles of Confederation, than the unified nation brought forth by the Constitution.

It is ironic that in the very same year that Congress celebrated Justice John Marshall by authorizing a commemorative coin in his honor, the Judiciary Committee would disparage him by passing legislation such as the bill that is totally inconsistent with Marshall's seminal legal opinion, Marbury v. Madison.

We should not use the issue of the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance to permanently damage our courts, our constitution, and Congress. At a time when it is more important that ever that our nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, I cannot support a bill which undermines the very protector of those freedoms--our independent federal judiciary.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment is needed to make sure that the bill does not prevent religious minorities who are coerced into reciting the Pledge, in violation of their religious beliefs from having access to the Federal courts.

As presently drafted, the bill would prevent not only persons who believe that voluntary recitation of the Pledge is unconstitutional from seeking relief in Federal courts, but also those persons who assert that they are being forced into recitation of the Pledge in violation of their religious beliefs.

Cases of this nature are not infrequent. For example, in the landmark Supreme Court decision of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett; the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and fined, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, Justice Jackson wrote for the Court:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional

constellation, it is that no official, high, or petty can

prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,

religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to

confess by word or act their faith therein.

To argue that the State courts would still be bound by this precedent as the Chairman asserts, misses the point. Unless the State courts know the Supreme court can and will enforce its precedent, the State courts are free to ignore it. And there will be no further appeal.

Moreover, just this year, in striking down a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge as violating free speech the Third circuit in Circle School v. Pappert court found:

The rights embodied in the Constitution, particularly the

First Amendment, protect the minority--those persons who

march to their own drummers. It is they who need the

protection afforded by the Constitution and it is the

responsibility of federal judges to ensure that protection.

As presently drafted, the bill would strip the parents of those children of the right to go to court and defend their children's religious liberty. If this legislation is passed, schools could expel children for acting according to the dictates of their faith and Congress will have slammed the courthouse door shut in their faces. We need this amendment to make sure religious minorities continue to have access to the Federal courts in cases of religious coercion.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that Congress in general, and the House of Representatives in particular, is engaged in an unprecedented assault on the Judiciary, the crown jewel of our constitutional system.

In the last 2 years, Congress has undertaken a series of discrete, but interrelated actions that undermine our constitutional framework. By hamstringing, harassing, and weakening the Judicial Branch, these actions threaten to rob the Judiciary of its independence. The House has pushed unconstitutional legislation to prevent the courts from reviewing legislation, to take away the ability of judges to issue fair sentences in criminal cases, and to intimidate judges into following politically conservative beliefs when making rulings.

If enacted, these bills would, for the first time, prevent federal courts from reviewing the constitutionality of federal laws:

First, H.R. 3313 (Marriage Protection Act) prevents federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. It passed the House this past July by a vote of 233-194.

Second, H.R. 2028 (Pledge Protection Act of 2003), which prevents courts created by Congress and the Supreme Court from reviewing First Amendment challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance. This will be on the House floor on Thursday, September 23, 2004.

Finally, H.R. 3799 (Constitution Restoration Act of 2004) is a response to anger at two federal court decisions that cited foreign law and found certain governmental invocations of God to violate the First Amendment. H.R. 3799 would strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear such cases. And here's the kicker: H.R. 3799 declares it an impeachable offense for a judge to decide that H.R. 3799 violates the Constitution. In one fell swoop, Congress would overturn the centuries-old principle that judges have the ultimate power to decide if our laws violate the Constitution.

Aside from their political attack of the judiciary, these bills are unconstitutional in that they violate separation of powers, equal protection, due process, and the supremacy clause. Congress is challenging Justice John Marshall's famous pronouncement from Marbury v. Madison that it is the province of the courts to ``say what the law is.`'

On top of that, permitting state courts to be the final arbiters of federal constitutional law will bring disarray to the Nation, also in violation of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of article VI states that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, but dividing our Nation into fifty different legal regimes is the antithesis of this sacred principle. Enacting these proposals would constitute an undesirable precedent and lead to further assaults on the Judiciary.

Considering that the highest court in our land has not issued a single opinion undermining the Pledge or the Defense of Marriage Act, it is inexcusable to attack the judiciary to score political points.

The irony is that the House is celebrating Justice John Marshall by authorizing a commemorative coin in his honor, at the same time that it is passing the Pledge Protection Act and the Marriage Protection Act. These bills are entirely inconsistent with Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall's seminal opinion. At a time when it is more important than ever that our Nation stand out as a beacon of freedom, we should not countenance bills that undermine the very protector of those freedoms-- our independent judiciary.

These unprecedented court stripping bills are nothing more than modern day versions of ``court packing.'' Just as President Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to control the outcome of the Supreme Court by packing it with loyalists was rejected by Congress in the 1930s, thereby preserving the independence of the federal judiciary, so too must this modern day effort to show the courts ``who is boss'' fail as well.

Last year, Congress undertook another line of attack against the Judiciary through the controversial ``Feeney amendment.'' This misguided legislation eliminated most of the discretion judges had when making sentencing determinations.

If we have learned anything over the years, it is that mandatory minimum sentences are counterproductive. They do not reduce crime. They punish the smaller players and their families. They distract from dealing with the real problems. And they waste precious resources.

Moreover, the amendment's imposition of burdensome reporting requirements, combined with Congress's demonstrated willingness to investigate the sentencing practices of specific judges, represent a shameless attempt to intimidate judges.

Last, but not least, I am concerned that by failing to provide judges with annual cost of living adjustments over the last decade, federal judges have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for judges. This has made it increasingly difficult for the judiciary to attract and retain talented lawyers to its ranks.

That is why I joined my colleagues in introducing a bill, H.R. 2118, to increase the salaries of all federal judges by 16.5 percent.

In the short history of our Republic, the political branches of government have all too frequently ridden the prevailing political breeze to constitutional excess.

An independent judiciary is all that protects our constitutionally guaranteed rights against the depredations of the political branches. If the judiciary is too cowed or disabled to protect us, each citizen will be at the mercy of the evershifting political winds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Rebuild Lives and Families Re-Entry Enhancement Act of 2004. This legislation will be the next important step in establishing policy to help the men and women emerging from our Nation's prisons and jails re-integrate into society and rebuild their lives.

While our national crime rates have fallen over the last decade, we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Over two million prisoners are now held in Federal and State prisons and local jails. Each year, approximately 650,000 people return to their communities following a prison or jail sentence, resulting in more than 6.7 million under some form of criminal justice supervision.

Reentry refers to the return of incarcerated individuals from America's jails and prisons to the community and their reintegration into society. There is a pressing need to provide these individuals with the education and training necessary to obtain and hold onto steady jobs, undergo drug treatment, and get medical and mental health services. However, they are confronted with the ``prison after imprisonment''--a plethora of seemingly endless obstacles and impediments which stymie successful re-integration into society. These obstacles have substantially contributed to the historically high rate of recidivism, with two-thirds of returning prisoners having been rearrested for new crimes within 3 years.

This legislation is designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Title I of the bill reauthorizes and enhances our early adult and juvenile reentry programs to broaden the availability of critical ex-offender services, while Title II addresses the substantive federal barriers to successful reentry. Both titles include provisions requiring that the funded programs be rigorously evaluated and the results widely disseminated, so that reentry programs can be modified as needed, to ensure that recidivism is reduced and public safety enhanced.

A recent study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveals that Americans strongly favor rehabilitation and reentry programs as the best method of insuring public safety. With this changing paradigm in public opinion, the opportunity is ripe to sensibly reassess the role and impact of criminal justice policies. This legislation translates this emerging public perception into balanced policies and procedures which dismantle the structural impediments to successful reintegration into society.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act'' for the following reasons: First, it undoes the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection Act by specifically exempting pilots and aircraft carriers from liability; second, it not only applies to pilots, but also to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not-for-profit; third, it would leave innocent victims without recourse in some situations by reducing the standard of care applicable to pilots; fourth, it does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations; finally, it is poorly drafted and includes loopholes that would insulate international terrorist organizations from liability and subjects innocent bystanders to harm without any recourse.

H.R. 1084 flies in the face of the Volunteer Protection Act, a bill Congress passed into law after 8 years of debate extending over 5 Congresses. The Volunteer Protection Act was carefully deliberated and negotiated, but this bill wipes the slate clean by giving volunteer pilots protection from liability despite the fact that the Volunteer Protection Act specifically excluded that category of volunteers from protection.

Under the Volunteer Protection Act, pilots and those operating aircraft were specifically left out of the liability exemption because of the highly dangerous nature of the activity and the fact that States require these pilots to have insurance. This bill undoes that and exempts pilots from liability.

Moreover, it goes further than the Volunteer Protection Act was willing to go by giving this exemption to not only the pilots, but also to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not- for-profit. In the Volunteer Protection Act, Congress made sure that it was only the volunteers being protected.

Finally, H.R. 1084 does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations. In testimony we heard on this bill, it was suggested that these nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations need liability protection because they can't get insurance. If this is the case, why not have a bill that requires insurance agencies to offer insurance to these organizations? Why not that instead of exempting everyone under the sun from liability?

This bill establishes national policy specifically allowing certain pilots to operate their aircraft negligently and still escape liability. And by immunizing both the negligent pilot and the organization that arranges and provides the transportation, this bill will in many cases leave the victims of an air tragedy--and their surviving families--with no means of seeking compensation for their loss. Congress should not turn its back on the victims of air tragedies.

For these reasons, I cannot support passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support this legislation because it will have a significant, adverse impact on the ability of civil rights plaintiffs to seek recourse in our courts, it will operate to benefit foreign corporate defendants at the expense of their domestic counterparts, and it will massively skew the playing field against injured victims.

This bill must be bad given the number of organizations that are opposed to it. This list includes the United States Judicial Conference, the NAACP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the American Bar Association, the National Conference on State Legislatures, National Partnership for Women, National Women's Law Center, the Center for Justice & Democracy, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, USAction, U.S. PIRG, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

By requiring a mandatory sanctions regime that would apply to civil rights cases, H.R. 4571 will chill many legitimate and important civil rights actions. This is due to the fact that much if not most of the impetus for the 1993 changes stemmed from abuses by defendants in civil rights cases--namely that civil rights defendants were choosing to harass civil rights plaintiffs by filing a series of rule 11 motions intended to slow down and impede meritorious cases.

Although the bill states that the proposed rule 11 changes shall not be construed to ``bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims or remedies under Federal, State, or local civil rights law,'' the language does not clearly and simply exempt civil rights and discrimination cases, as should be the case. Determining what a ``new claim or remedy'' is will be a daunting and complex issue for most courts and clearly does not cover all civil rights cases in any event.

Section 4, the ``forum shopping'' provision, would operate to provide a litigation and financial windfall to foreign corporations at the expense of their domestic competitors. This is because, instead of permitting claims to be filed wherever a corporation does business or has minimum contacts, as most state long-arm statutes provide, the bill only permits the suit to be brought where the defendant's principal place of business is located--in the case of a foreign corporation, that does not exist in the United States.

If a U.S. citizen is harmed by a product produced or manufactured by a foreign competitor, under H.R. 4571 the harmed U.S. citizen could have no recourse against a foreign corporation, whereas he or she would have recourse against a comparable U.S. corporation. This is unfair to both the U.S. citizen and all U.S. companies that compete against the foreign firm.

I urge you to vote ``no'' to this poorly drafted and unfair piece of legislation.

September 13, 2004.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned civil rights

groups, urge you to vote against H.R. 4571 and H.R. 3369. If

enacted, these bills will embolden some to unlawfully

discriminate without fear of being held accountable. This

legislation will turn back the progress civil rights

organizations have made to achieve equal rights under the law

these past decades.

Currently, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

gives judges discretion to determine whether a claim or

defense is frivolous and if so, the appropriate sanctions for

such a filing. H.R. 4571 would take away the judge's

discretion to impose sanctions and changes Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in significant ways that

will harm victims of discrimination. By removing the ``safe

harbor'' provision that allows a party to withdraw or amend

the claim or defense that an opponent argues violates Rule 11

and making sanctions more severe and mandatory, the bill will

trigger additional, contentious judicial proceedings that

have little to do with the merits of the claims. Thus even

civil rights plaintiffs who pursue their legitimate claims

with the heightened risk of severe sanctions, may give up at

the hands of litigious defendants who employ a rope-a-dope

technique to simply wear out their opponents.

Our concerns about the threat to civil rights cases posted

by H.R. 4571 are well founded and based on real life

experience. More than a decade ago, civil rights

organizations--including several of the undersigned

organizations--worked to amend Rule 11 because the old rule

unfairly discouraged meritorious civil rights claims.

Nationwide surveys about the former rule found that motions

for sanctions were most frequently sought and granted in

civil rights cases. Expressing his concern about the former

Rule 11, the Honorable Robert L. Carter, United States

District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York,

noted, ``I have no doubt that the Supreme Court's opportunity

to pronounce separate schools inherently unequal [in Brown v.

Board of Education] would have been delayed for a decade had

my colleagues and I been required, upon pain of potential

sanctions to plead our legal theory explicitly from the

start.''

H.R. 4571 seeks to take back the changes made in 1993 to

Rule 11 and force litigants to operate under the terms that

we fear, like the former rule we worked so hard to amend,

will be used to punish and deter valid claims of

discrimination. But H.R. 4571 goes even further. Not content

with changing the rules for federal courts, the bill extends

its reach to State court cases. Upon motion, the court is

required to assess the costs of the action ``to the

interstate economy.'' If the court determines that the state

court action ``affects interstate commerce,'' Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ``shall apply to such

action.'' Imagining the proceedings necessary to determine

whether a particular state court action ``affects interstate

commerce'' is mind-boggling. Moreover, the total disregard

for federalism is astounding.

We also oppose H.R. 3369, the ``Nonprofit Athletic

Organization Protection Act.'' This bill gives immunity to

nonprofit athletic organizations. The scope of the

legislation could protect an organization that violates

federal or state law by discriminating against an athlete on

the basis of race, gender, disability or other protections

given under federal or state law. No evidence has been

presented that nonprofit athletic organizations need such

protection. Coaches and other volunteers are already

protected from liability under the 1997 Volunteer Protection

Act.

We understand that members of Congress who oppose H.R. 3369

risk being accused of siding with ``trial lawyers'' over

``Little Leagues,'' particularly this election season. But it

is not the ``trial lawyers'' that need your protection; it is

the players themselves and others who may be discriminated

against and may have no recourse under this bill who need

your protection. Therefore, we respectfully ask you to oppose

the bill.

If you have any questions or need more information, please

contact Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau,

202.463.2940 or Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance

for Justice, 202.822.6070.

Sincerely,

Alliance for Justice, American Association of People with

Disabilities (AAPD), Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights Under Law, National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National

Partnership for Women, National Women's Law

Center, People For the American Way, USAction, U.S.

Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert, which occurs during our Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise today to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, James Moody. Just a few years ago, in 1998, James Moody received the prestigious Jazz Masters Award from the National Endowment of the Arts. The following biography, found on Moody's own web page, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect:

For nearly four decades, saxophone master James Moody has serenaded lovers with his signature song Moody's Mood for Love; an improvisation on the chord progressions of I'm in the Mood for Love.

Born in Savannah, Georgia on March 26, 1925, and raised in Newark, New Jersey, James Moody took up the alto sax, a gift from his uncle, at the age of 16. Within a few years he fell under the spell of the deeper more full-bodied tenor saxophone after hearing Buddy Tate and Don Byas perform with the Count Basie Band at the Adams Theater in Newark, New Jersey.

In 1946, following service in the United States Air Force, Moody joined the seminal bebop big band of Dizzy Gillespie, beginning an association that--on stage and record, in orchestras and small combos-- afforded a young Moody worldwide exposure and ample opportunity to shape his improvisational genius. Upon joining Gillespie, Moody was at first awed, he now admits, by the orchestra's incredible array of talent, which included Milt Jackson, Kenny Clark, Ray Brown and Thelonius Monk. The encouragement of the legendary trumpeter-leader, made its mark on the young saxophonist. His now legendary 16-bar solo on Gillespie's Emanon alerted jazz fans to an emerging world-class soloist.

During his initial stay with Gillespie, Moody also recorded with Milt Jackson for Dial Records in 1947. One year later he made his recording debut as a leader on James Moody and His Bop Men for Blue Note.

In 1949 Moody moved to Europe where in Sweden he recorded the masterpiece of improvisation for which he is renowned, Moody's Mood for Love.

Returning to the States in 1952 with a huge ``hit'' on his hands, Moody employed vocalist Eddie Jefferson. Also, working with him during that period were Dinah Washington and Brook Benton.

In 1963 he rejoined Gillespie and performed off and on in the trumpeter's quintet for the remainder of the decade.

Moody moved to Las Vegas in 1973 and had a seven year stint in the Las Vegas Hilton Orchestra, doing shows for Bill Cosby, Ann-Margaret, John Davidson, Glen Campbell, Liberace, Elvis Presley, The Osmonds, Milton Berle, Redd Foxx, Charlie Rich, and Lou Rawls to name a few.

Moody returned to the East Coast and put together his own band again--much to the delight of his dedicated fans. In 1985, Moody received a Grammy Award Nomination for Best Jazz Instrumental Performance for his playing on Manhattan Transfer's Vocalese album thus setting the stage for his re-emergence as a major recording artist.

Moody's 1986 RCA/NOVUS debut Something Special ended a decade-long major label recording hiatus for the versatile reedman. His follow-up recording, Moving Forward showcased his hearty vocals on What Do You Do and his interpretive woodwind wizardry on such tunes as Giant Steps and Autumn Leaves.

Music is more than a livelihood to Moody, so much so that portions of Sweet and Lovely, dedicated to his wife, Linda, figured prominently in the saxophonist's wedding ceremony on April 3, 1989. As well as being on the album, Gillespie was best man at the wedding for his longtime friend. The bride and groom walked down the aisle to Gillespie's solo on Con Alma then everyone exited the church to the vamp on Melancholy Baby. As their first act of marriage Linda and James Moody took communion accompanied by the groom's recording of Sweet and Lovely. In 1990, Moody and Gillespie received a Grammy Award Nomination for their rendition of Gillespie's Get the Booty, which showcases scatting at its best. Moody returns the soprano sax to his woodwind arsenal on Honey, his nickname for his wife, Linda, and Moody's last recording for RCA/

Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert, which occurs during our Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise today to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, Andy Bey. Earlier this year, Bey was named the Jazz Journalist Association's 2004 Male Vocalist of the year.

The following biography, found on Bey's own web page, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect:

Born in 1939, the Newark, NJ native was a genuine child

prodigy as a pianist and singer, garnering appearances at the

famed Apollo Theater and on television's Spotlight On Harlem

and The Star Time Kids, sharing stages with the likes of

Louis Jordan, Sarah Vaughan and Dinah Washington, before he

turned 18. He then formed a vocal trio alongside his sisters

Salome and Geraldine and embarked for Europe; Andy & The Bey

Sisters were celebrated regulars at The Blue Note in Paris

and other venues in Europe from the late 1950s into the early

1960s, when they returned to the U.S. and continued to

perform and record (for RCA and Prestige) until the trio

disbanded in 1966.

For the two decades thereafter, Bey recorded and performed

with such notables as McCoy Tyner, Lonnie Liston Smith, Thad

Jones/Mel Lewis, Eddie Harris and others. He was featured

vocalist on Gary Bartz's acclaimed Harlem Bush Music projects

and for an extended period with Horace Silver, including

Silver's The United States of Mind album sequence. In 1991,

Bey returned to Europe to teach vocal instruction in Austria;

he remained there until 1993, when he returned to the States

to record his ``comeback album,'' accompanied only by his own

piano, called Ballads, Blues & Bey.

One of the great unsung heroes of jazz singing, Andy Bey is

a commanding interpreter of lyrics who has a wide vocal range

and a big, rich, full voice. Bey enjoys a following that

swears by him; nonetheless, he isn't nearly as well known as

he should be.

The release of Ballads, Blues & Bey in 1996, and his

subsequent Shades of Bey, recorded with Bartz, Victor Lewis,

Peter Washington and other jazz notables and released in

1998, heralded Bey's ``renaissance'' in the business he's

been in for nearly five decades. Which leaves Bey somewhat

bemused: ``I never went away, actually. I don't know about

this renaissance. `` It's . . . well, it's new in a sense,

but it's not like I left the business.''

Bey has continued to make his presence felt in the jazz

arena with the release of Tuesday's in Chinatown in 2001, and

his latest outing earlier this year on Savoy entitled

American Song.