Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this Special Order is taken in a spirit of deep sadness and regret about the events that are going on in the nation of Haiti. We have come here this evening to recommit ourselves to the proposition that the United States has a responsibility to prevent the loss of life and the continued deterioration of the nation of Haiti. The present administration's inaction has undermined democracy and security in Haiti, and it is our responsibility to make sure that this does not get any worse.

So we, Members of Congress, call upon the administration to protect Haitian lives by restoring order, upholding the rule of law and disarmament across the country. The current state of affairs in Haiti is chaos. The rebels who were empowered by our inaction must be held accountable and not allowed to benefit from their violence. Humanitarian aid must flow to Haiti immediately. A humanitarian corridor with supplies of food and water and medical equipment must be established to provide assistance to the beleaguered Haitian people. Humanitarian aid must flow to Haiti immediately. We must support the formulation of a donor conference so the people of Haiti can finally get the kind of assistance that they so desperately need and so properly deserve.

This administration is misinterpreting and failing to honor the spirit of the Haitian constitution. Where is Article 149 in the transitional government talks?

So we as Members of Congress call upon this administration to follow the rule of law and the Haitian constitution. In it, Article 149 of the 1987 Haitian constitution clearly outlines the process by which the interim president is appointed and it includes the ratification of the legislature. Due to the unwillingness on the part of the political opposition party's willingness to participate in elections, there is no legislature to confirm the interim president; and, therefore, the recently sworn in president is, unfortunately, regrettably not ruling pursuant to the Haitian constitution.

On Sunday President Bush said, ``The Haitian constitution is working.'' How does he believe just because he said it that that could make it true? The President forgets that when they fail to respond to the opposition's rejection of the U.S. brokered peace plan that they had in fact repudiated their own plan for peace. It was just on Monday of last week that Secretary of State Powell said ``The United States will not support the overthrow of a democratically elected government by thugs and criminals.''

For the administration to remain mute while the constitutional process was thwarted and then to pressure President Aristide, the one who was compromised to resign, is in no way in line or in accordance with Haiti's constitutional process.

Moreover, now that the administration has created this constitutional quagmire in Haiti, it is reprehensible to claim that the constitution is working.

Our administration is jeopardizing the lives of countless numbers of Haitian asylum seekers by enforcing immediate Coast Guard interdiction without an opportunity for a fair asylum hearing.

Members of Congress call on the Bush administration to extend temporary protected status to Haitian asylum seekers because returning to Haiti will pose a serious threat to their personal safety.

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti under section 244(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that the nationals of Haiti present in the United States or reaching our shores may be granted temporary protected status. This would mean that both Haitians who are present in the United States and those who may be fortunate enough to make it to shore will not arbitrarily be sent back to Haiti until the country is stable.

This administration's neglect of Haiti and the intentional, systematic dismantling of the Haitian social, economic, and political circumstance which culminated in the current political instability and provided the environment for a coup d'etat.

As Members of the Congress, we call on our leaders in Congress to hold joint public hearings between the House Intelligence Committee and the International Relations Committee on the Bush administration's role in undermining a democratically elected government in, of all places, the western hemisphere. The United States should not have allowed the opposition in Haiti without a legislative popular mandate to veto the possibility for peace in Haiti. Now there is mayhem and on-the-spot executions and other atrocities which are taking place daily.

Why did the United States not send in a force to reinforce the police when a political solution was still possible? Why did the United States only act after that possibility, along with President Aristide, was removed? Why have the rebels not been arrested? Were their actions not illegal? How did the leaders of the insurgence, some of whom are the most notorious torturers and death squad members, return to power? Louis Jodel Chamberlain is a former military leader who led a brutal paramilitary group that backed the most recent of Haiti's coup d'etats in 1991. The other, Guy Philippe, is a charismatic former soldier once loyal to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide who fled Haiti 3 years ago after being accused of drug dealing and of treason.

What are we to say to history? How will we account for this tragic set of circumstances that have now surrounded this poor beleaguered nation? As of today, the United States Coast Guard has repatriated 902 Haitian refugees to Port-au-Prince despite the escalating and continuing violence there. A handful of Haitians only have met the ``credible fear'' standard required for asylum. They remain on Coast Guard vessels and are being assessed by asylum officers from the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard

have said that Haitians picked up at sea who indicate that they are afraid of returning to Haiti are given interviews with asylum officers on Coast Guard cutters. Haitians are not individually asked if they have a fear of return, nor are they necessarily spoken to individually where they may have a chance to say why they left. Homeland security says that when people are afraid, they find a way to convey that. I do not know whether any of the Coast Guard officials who first encountered the Haitians speak French or Creole. If Haitians do not express fear somehow, then they are given an interview with asylum officers who either speak French or Creole or have interpreters. Thus far, three Haitians have been found to possibly have a credible fear of persecution. Those who are deemed to be economic migrants have been turned over to the Haitian Coast Guard and were disembarked in Port-au- Prince. The last repatriation was today when 21 refugees returned to the Haitian Coast Guard. No new refugees have been picked up by the United States Coast Guard since Friday; and as far as is known, the repatriations will be ongoing despite the terrible insecurity in Port- au-Prince.

I have been unable to get information on the current control of the Haitian Coast Guard now that the government in effect ceases to exist. It seems that the United States Government is still treating the Haitian Coast Guard as an official agency under legitimate command of the Republic of Haiti.

And so, my colleagues in the Congress, we are now called to an immediate task to make right, to correct the terrible wrong that has been visited much by our inaction upon the 8 million inhabitants of this small country. We have a duty to persist. It is not over. We will investigate, we will protest, we will evaluate, we will persuade, until the majority of the American people are convinced that we cannot leave this wrong, which is a wrong for which we must be responsible, to go uncorrected. That is the pledge I leave my colleagues with on this evening.

I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), who serves with great effectiveness on the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas for her analysis and her contributions to this discussion.

I yield to, if he desires, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Madam Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) that as usual his perception about this problem is remarkable. I know that he has not an awful lot of seniority, but he worked on this problem for many years before he became a Member of Congress. He worked in his State legislature as a State senator. He worked alongside with his mother, Ms. Carrie Meek, who held a seat before he did. So it is very important that we seriously analyze the contribution that he has made tonight, and I thank him for it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California, for the work and steadfast commitment she has had to make democracy work in a tiny, impoverished nation, now celebrating its 200th anniversary. I thank the gentlewoman deeply.

I yield now to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who has worked in this as long as anyone I know.

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

How profoundly we are in the debt of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his contribution tonight and from across the years around the people and the country and the idea of a democratic process.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a strong and dedicated leader and fighter in seeking justice for Haiti.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Well, apparently there was an American role. The details have not been forthcoming because what actually happened has been covered up with a series of misrepresentations that are clearly not accurate, and that is a challenge that remains for us to uncover. That is our job as legislators. And I think that the gentlewoman's fierce determination to get to the bottom of this will lead this country, this Congress, to an honest evaluation of what has gone down.

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that what has happened and what has been explained as what has happened are both totally inconsistent and have yet to be reconciled and that this is another responsibility that has added to our duties.

Now, on that I firmly believe that had we not taken the incredible diplomatic position that we had to resolve a political dispute before security could be brought to the people, that we would not be in the position that we are in.

Just consider, how can you tell people that when the rebels do not want to compromise, do not want to negotiate, do not want to resolve the violence, that unless President Aristide can reach a conclusion with them, they did not even listen to representatives of the United States, much less their own government, because they were determined not to reach a political accord, something that was patently obvious from the very beginning?

That is precisely what we are in the process of determining. And I would like to say that my optimism is still on the side of justice, that my conviction that there are enough people in this Federal legislature and in this country to right the terrible wrong that has been visited upon the poor beleaguered citizens of that little tiny nation only miles away from our shore. We can make Haiti better. We can still create a humanitarian corridor to bring in the life-giving supplies without which they will not only perish but the violence will continue.

I again thank the gentlewoman for her perseverance and commitment across the years on this subject.

I thank all of the Members that have participated in the Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2000, along with additional bipartisan cosponsors. As a product of years of extensive consultation with both the law enforcement and civil rights communities, this legislation represents the most comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift cause by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. The introduction of this legislation is critical step in what should be a nationwide, bipartisan effort to end this divisive practice.

Before September 11, 2001, there was wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling is wrong and should end. Many in the law enforcement community acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. What was true before September 11th is even more true today: racial profiling is inappropriate and ineffective as a law enforcement tactic.

To that end, the Bush administration has promulgated a series of guidelines which are designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies. However, we must not mistake the issuance of federal guidelines as the final resolution of the racial profiling problem nationwide. The vast majority of racial profiling complaints arise from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. While these guidelines send a signal, they are not a replacement for the enactment of comprehensive federal anti- profiling legislation.

Racial profiling not only undermines our constitutional rights, it undermines the trust on which law enforcement depends to protect our communities. Since the first introduction of racial profiling legislation in the 105th Congress, the pervasive nature of the practice has gone from anecdote and theory to well documented fact. Data collected from New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New York and Massachusetts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that African-Americans and Latinos are being stopped for routine traffic violations far in excess of their share of the population or even the rate at which such populations are accused of criminal conduct. Moreover, a recent Justice Department report found that although African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped and searched by law enforcement, they are much less likely to be found in possession of contraband.

This legislation is designed to eliminate racial profiling by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by injunctive relief. Second, the receipt of federal law enforcement and other monies that go to state and local governments is conditioned on their adoption of effective policies that prohibit racial profiling. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices.

The vast majority of law enforcement officers discharge their duties professionally and without bias. The value of their service should not be tarnished by a minority of police officials who engage in discriminatory behavior. Evidence obtained from enforcement efforts over the past several years has made it clear that federal action is necessary to address this problem with finality.

Racial profiling is a divisive practice that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. When law-abiding citizens are treated differently by those who enforce the law simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin, they are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Decades ago, with the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation this country made clear race should not affect the treatment of individual Americans under the law. The practice of using race as a criterion in law enforcement flies in the face of the progress we have made toward racial equality.

With the continuing cooperation of the Administration, we have the opportunity to move bipartisan legislation and end the practice of racial profiling. I hope that we do not miss an historic opportunity to heal the rift cause by racial profiling and restore community confidence in law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). I am delighted to participate in this Special Order. And we have all agreed that the original objective of this was to discuss black history, and that has been postponed until next week; and it will be given thorough consideration here.

What we are talking about tonight is world history, and the events that I just want to comment on turn around the meeting with Senator Dodd last evening, with Senator DeWine, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), the Canadian ambassador, and the French ambassador. The French ambassador to the U.S., the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. And what we were talking about there was the importance of getting our international bodies committed, CARICOM, the Organization of American States, the Security Council and the United Nations and how that could be gone about.

I was encouraged by the positions taken by both ambassadors, particularly the French Ambassador. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), points out that in South Africa there is a readiness to intervene. It was a very positive meeting.

Today we had nearly two dozen Members of Congress, including the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), at least a couple gentlewomen from California, maybe all three, and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands were with us.

Now, we asked to see the President. We were greeted by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the Chief Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and Mr. Andy Card, and we had a very intense, frank exchange that led to the reconsideration of whether we were going to meet with the President of the United States.

I suppose in the course of history it may not be considered important that there was a reconsideration that led us to meet with the President of the United States, and it was on the basis of our collective arguments to the two Cabinet members that we were at a precipice, that this was so immediate that continued political negotiations were really not appropriate. After all, many parts of the north have been taken by rebels, drug lords, gangsters, ne'er-do-wells and a legitimate political opposition. The second largest city in Haiti has already been captured.

Yesterday, at 5 o'clock p.m., the final offer that Secretary of State Powell had worked so hard on was rejected. It is not hard to interpret from that that the decision had been made to move forward and to take over the country; that they did not want to negotiate, even though President Aristide had quickly agreed to every condition in the proposal that was being brokered by the Secretary of State.

So the question that remains now is what are the steps that we ought to take, and we expect to hear from the President to speak about our opposition to any violent overthrow of any nation in the Western Hemisphere less than an hour away from our shores. So this is quite important.

I should mention that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), was with us, and she was with us at the press conference earlier, and that our colleague the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), was likewise at both events.

Now, there are several ways that we can approach this matter. One is to assume that we can still negotiate politically toward a settlement, which some had argued was a precondition to us sending in support. The only problem with that is that if the rebels and the assorted groups that are demanding now to oust the President with no agreement whatsoever, that there would be nobody left for us to negotiate with if that were to occur. In addition, the country would be in ruin.

Furthermore, it is not hard to perceive that if there was an outbreak of violence between these two groups, Lavalas and the citizens loyal to their government and those who want Aristide's ouster, that it would be the largest bloodbath in recent Haitian history, and that it could result in the assassination of the President of Haiti.

It was out of that concern that we wanted to make sure that we insulate the Government of Haiti, as well as the President. That was based on the simple premise that if we cannot protect the head of the government, then we cannot protect any of the other 8 million people there. So it was important that we have this meeting.

Now, I want to take this moment to praise the President of the United States for agreeing to see us and agreeing to consider the proposal laid out by the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and others that were present. This constitutes a reconsideration of immense proportions, because I do not think that the President has been looking at this from the point of view of the members of the caucus and our contacts in Haiti.

We do have a member of the caucus that has personally visited this country on three occasions. It now turns out, thanks to a Senator in the other body, that a plane will be provided for us to make sure everyone in the Caribbean, that all the millions of occupants and citizens of this independent nation struggling economically and socially to survive will know that the Congressional Black Caucus, 39 men and women strong, are completely behind the order and the legal process that requires that under no circumstance can violence be used to resolve internal political differences, not just in the Western Hemisphere, but anywhere in the world, for that matter.

That is what we stand for. That is why we helped create the United Nations. That is why we have worked on issue after issue on the planet, whether it be in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or anywhere else.

So I join proudly the members of the caucus, who comported themselves extremely properly. They were duly aware of the circumstances between the Congress and the White House, and I think this was, as the gentleman from Maryland (Chairman Cummings) has said, an important, and, yes, I believe a turning point in the destiny of this small, but great, nation.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to bring to my colleagues' attention the extreme emergency that the country of Haiti finds itself in with gangs, rebels, renegades, protesters, thugs, drug lords, in combination and in different groups in different parts of the nation of trying to drive out the first duly elected President in the history of Haiti, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

There are a number of activities going on here in the Capitol that are intended to move our government and national organizations and international organizations into an effective combination that would allow peace to quickly come to this beleaguered nation where poverty, suffering and misery is so endemic.

I begin my comments with an appeal to the President of the United States, and I quote from a resolution that has been drafted by our colleague from California (Ms. Waters) which urges the United States to support the principles of democracy and constitutional rule in the Republic of Haiti under which President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected and oppose any and all attempts to remove President Aristide from office prior to the completion of his term under the Constitution of Haiti. And that we additionally condemn the violent activities of groups of thugs, former members of Haiti's disbanded army, and paramilitary organizations in Haiti.

This is an appeal to urge the President of the United States to make a statement, to break his silence and to let the world and the people of Haiti know that this country promotes democracy, respects the right to protest, but appreciates that free speech cannot be equated with violence and intimidation.

In addition, we are seeking to invoke the awesome prestige of the United Nations through its Security Council which will be meeting tomorrow. We intend to communicate, Members of Congress, with the Organization of American States to urge that they continue their important work, that CARICOM be invited to offer assurances; in other words, that we pull these international organizations together and make certain that our country does not by its silence give a wink and a nod to the violence that is going on there.

Last of all, we appeal to our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell himself, whose ancestors came from the Caribbean. We thank him for his negotiations by which he attempted to reach agreement, and he extended the time. It was finally at 5 p.m. this evening that the rebel opposition rejected and refused to continue any negotiations. And so now we ask the Secretary of State in his wisdom and judgment to move to a new and higher plane in trying to bring this matter, the differences of other groups and citizens with their President, to a peaceful resolution.

It is very important that we recognize that the United States' role in this is so important since we were prominently involved in bringing a democratic election and a President to Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to discuss the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005. The Bush Budget boasts $521 million in deficits and takes the audacious step of increasing the budget by 50 percent in 1 year while promising to cut that same 50 percent increase in half within 5 years. Is he joking? Does he think the American public has no discerning ability to think about the state of our affairs logically? To create such a huge deficit and place it on the backs of our children is morally indefensible. The interest expense of the deficit will mean higher taxes and will also mean that future taxpayers will be hamstringed to provide for national security, homeland security, and education for our kids or healthcare for our parents. Moreover, Bush's budget represents the largest deficits in this Nation's history. To make this statistic even worse, he took office with a $5.6 trillion surplus.

Cuts to Education: The Bush budget fails to provide $9.4 billion in promised funding for education, which means that 2.4 million children will not get the help in reading and math they were promised. Bush's budget freezes funding for rural education and provides only half the funding promised to after school programs. This shortfall in funding means that 1.3 million children who were promised after school programs will not get them. The Bush administration has frozen funding for Pell grants at the maximum level of $4,050 and results in a lower average award of $2,399. The administration's budget also cuts reading programs by $22 million, even though the President touts a new $100 million reading program for high school students and an increase of $129 million for Reading First, however, in order to pay for these increases, the President budget eliminates $247 million in the Even Start literacy program. Despite the administration's attempt to highlight its community college job training proposal, the Bush budget cuts job training programs by $286 million. These cuts total $36 million more than the $250 million proposed for the community college program. In addition, the budget would cut $316 million in vocational training funding in the Department of Education. All of these cuts are on top of $1.4 billion in spending reductions President Bush has proposed for job training and vocational education since he took office.

Cuts in Veterans Benefits: While almost all veteran programs provide medical care and hospital services, President Bush's budget for Veterans programs of $29.8 billion is $257 million below the amount the CBO estimated it needs to maintain current benefit levels. Over 5 years, the budget is $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain benefits at the current level. Bush's budget also fails to repeal the Disabled Veterans Tax, which forces disabled military retirees to give up $1 of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. Also, the budget imposes a $250 annual enrollment fee on non-service- connected Priority 7 (higher income, non-service-connected) veterans and all Priority 8 veterans who wish to receive medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The budget assumes 5-year savings of $1.5 billion from this proposal. The budget also assumes 5-year savings of $747 million from increasing pharmacy co-payments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans from $7 to $15. Both of these were proposed in last year's budget and rejected by the Congress. The President's budget raises health care costs for veterans, imposing new co-payments and enrollment fees that will cost veterans over $2 billion over 5 years.

Cuts in Healthcare: The Bush budget reflects a difference of $139 billion, a total of $534 billion over 10 years to fund the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernation Act. The Bush budget cuts Medicaid spending by 23.6 billion over 10 years by curbing intergovernmental transfers and the use of the upper payment limit and by limiting Medicaid provider payments to the cost of providing services. When these cuts are combined, the total impact on Medicaid results in $15.7 billion over 10 years. This year's budget once again proposes block grant Medicaid. Under this proposal, States have the option to cut benefits to certain Medicaid populations and to roll back benefits.

Tax Cuts: The President makes his expiring tax cuts permanent at a cost of $131.6 billion over 5 years. Over 75 years, these tax cuts exceed the combined shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. The budget squanders an additional $1 trillion over the next 10 years in additional tax cuts for the wealthy, but does not expand the tax credit to cover millions of military and working families. Instead of helping small business growth, the Bush budget cuts funding for Small Business Administration by 10 percent. President Bush continues to push for tax breaks for companies that move American jobs overseas instead of helping American small businesses.

Glaring Omissions: No funding in 2005 for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Supplemental funding which will further increase the deficit will be required to pay for the costs of these operations. The budget avoids long-term reform of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), even though the AMT will soon force millions of middle class families to pay more taxes, contrary to the original intent of the AMT.

Record Job Losses: President Bush enjoys the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. This is the third budget that Mr. Bush has produced which claimed that jobs would be created. Instead, the exact opposite has occurred, over the past 3 years, the United States has lost more than 2.3 million jobs. The Bush budget cuts $286 million from job training and employment services, these cuts come on top of the $1.5 billion in cuts to job training and related services that President Bush proposed when he took office. The Bush budget for the Labor Department does not keep pace with inflation and cuts desperately needed programs. Two million individuals over the coming months are expected to exhaust their Federal and State unemployment benefits, due to objections from Republican leaders to extend these benefits. The Bush budget block-grants adult and dislocated worker programs under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), jeopardizing critical training resources just as workers look to gain new skills to compete in an increasingly tight job market. Dislocated workers will be hurt the most because there would no longer be dedicated funding guaranteed to help them find new jobs. The Bush budget also eliminates the Employment Service--the very program that connects unemployed workers with jobs. This termination comes at a time when millions of workers continue to struggle to find jobs.

Mr. Bush's tax cuts which promised to increase jobs has not come to fruition. Not only have the losses been massive but $1 trillion of new debt has been created. Last month, only 1,000 jobs were created by the economy. However, in his last State of the Union address, President Bush stated that ``jobs are on rise.'' Based on this type of progress, it would take 192 years and 8 months for the economy to return to the number of jobs it had at the beginning of Bush's presidency.

Additional Domestic Cuts: Domestic appropriations are held to a 1 percent increase which reduces funding for transportation, environmental protection, and small businesses and other priority series that the American people want and respect.

The President's budget is a bad dream beyond belief. It is evasive, inefficient, poorly thought and most egregiously hurts the people who can least afford to be hurt. The Democrats have priorities and we are going to fight for them. We want to create good paying jobs and help small business to grow, to improve education, lower health care cost, support veterans and military retirees as well as to do more to protect our ports and borders from terrorism.

In another sly move, President Bush presented a 5-year budget instead of a 10-year budget to further conceal the true cost of his policies to the American public. This budget includes policies that have long-term costs that need to be looked at over longer periods of time. Examples of programs that meet this criteria include the President's Mission to Mars and the Lifetime Savings and Retirement accounts which will incur significant costs past the 5-year time frame. To further put the deficit in perspective, be aware that in 1998, we achieved the first balanced budget in 29 years. In 1999, we achieved the first balanced budget without reliance on the Social Security trust fund. In 2000, we achieved the first balanced budget without relying on either the Social Security or Medicare Trust Fund surpluses in the history of those programs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, the manager of the bill, and I rise and take this time not to go over a piece of legislation that has been around here since 1997, started in 1996 with a commission, has been up and down and around, and here we are today taking the bill up yet another time.

Well, is it sufficient that 35 national organizations, civil rights groups, unions, public interest research groups, consumer organizations, women's organizations, law organizations, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation, Legal Defense and Education Fund, 34 organizations, I would appreciate it if anybody could tell me why they think all of these organizations do not get the picture, do not understand why this bill should be rejected yet another time?

But my emphasis this evening is upon the parliamentary process by which the bankruptcy bill was brought to the floor today, and that is to say that the bill is being brought to a conference and the Senate has never passed this bill. This bill is being brought on the sham of a Chapter 12, 6-month, noncontroversial extension entitled ``The Debts of the Family Farmer,'' and that is being used to force a several-hundred- page bill into conference.

The Senate has not acted. It is shameful that the leadership, the Committee on Rules of this House, would permit this bill, as large, as controversial, as complex as it is, to be taken, that little tale, and brought in here yet again. In other words, we are holding the farm families of America hostage by substituting the controversial omnibus bankruptcy bill to push anticonsumer changes to bankruptcy laws and bypass the Senate debate on the bill.

So I would like to point out that there happens to be a very big problem on the other side. Notwithstanding the parliamentary shenanigans in the House, again with this attempt to end-run around the Senate, the antichoice lawmakers have to answer this one question: Why do they oppose the compromise of Hyde-Schumer that would hold people who illegally harass, intimidate, commit crimes of violence, blockade and blow up clinics and innocent people, who abuse the bankruptcy system, to evade their lawful debts?

Will somebody on this floor, to whom I will yield, explain to me why they would support criminal conduct as a reason not to allow this bill to go through? I will yield to anybody.

And I would like someone else, further, to explain to me, who has stronger views on abortion than the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) of the Committee on International Relations? He is the cosponsor of the bill that you are trying so desperately to keep this provision out of.

I think this is another example of the disgraceful, dishonest tactics being used in this House to get through anything by any means necessary, and I object to it very strenuously.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I would just like to respond to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who feels very strongly that the abortion consideration has no place in this bill.

Well, I will be happy to report that to the predecessor chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). He will be happy to know that you do not feel it does and that a whole group of Senators, not to mention a fairly substantial number of Members of the House, all think that it does, and to think that by running an end-run around this provision with an arcane debt farmers provision, it is not going to work.

Now, for my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has served with great distinction in the Congress, I will be happy to let his farmers know that everything is okay, that the provision has expired; but somehow he can get into court, or somebody, and they can just continue on, that with the judges, even though the provision has no effect, that the farmers are okay. I am sure they will be very comforted to hear that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. There is no denying the fact that the rise in unsolicited commercial e- mail, or spam, has become an intrusive aspect of the Internet, negatively impacting consumers and Internet service providers. Surveys have noted that the volume of spam rose from 8 percent of all e-mail in January 2001 to 45 percent of all e-mail in January 2003.

Increasingly, spam mail is designed to prey upon innocent consumers by enticing them with fraudulent or misleading offers. Even worse, many of these e-mails are created to trick Internet users of all ages into opening web pages that depict sexually-explicit materials. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission recently reported that, out of 1,000 pieces of spam it studied, 66 percent contained false or misleading information, and roughly 18 percent concerned adult offers.

At the same time, spam also is incredibly costly to our Nation's economy. The huge amount of spam that is transferred over the Internet has drastically altered the speed at which it takes to process e-mails and the amount of memory needed to maintain an e-mail account. These costs are often transferred to businesses and customers who are forced to pay for time spent reading and deleting junk mail. Indeed, the Ferris Research Group estimates that spam will cost the United States over $10 billion in 2003. It is clear that something must be done about this problem.

To this end, I am gratified that many of my colleagues are unified in their resolve to pass a law to prevent spam and have reached this compromise. In order to stop the harmful practices of spammers, we have before us Federal legislation that gives consumers the ability to opt- out of receiving any commercial e-mail they do not want to receive and makes it illegal to falsify the identity of the sender.

With respect to enforcement, we have before us legislation that would allow for effective prosecution of those who violate Federal spam legislation. On the Federal level, by giving the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the tools to fine and place in jail the most egregious spammers, we can begin to give consumers control over their in-boxes. It is important to note that these protections are not limited to commercial e-mails; consumers will have enhanced protections against pornographic e-mails as well.

Also, knowing that effective law enforcement requires multiple fronts, this legislation does not rely on Federal enforcers alone, though. It empowers State attorneys general to bring civil actions against spammers for injunctions and damages. Moreover, it gives Internet service providers, whose systems suffer from spam traffic every day, the ability to bring lawsuits against violators.

The bottom line is that Congress must pass tough laws in order to deal effectively with spammers who can now hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Only through legislation such as this that establishes civil and criminal penalties for sending unsolicited and fraudulent e- mails can we protect our Nation's consumers.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2673. This omnibus appropriations bill, which was thrown together at the last minute, underfunds important programs and proposes dangerous new policies. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I would like to detail my many concerns with this legislation.

law enforcement grants

The conference report would significantly underfund Federal grants for enhanced law enforcement efforts, for both state and local law enforcement assistance and the Community Oriented Policing Services program (``COPS''). For instance, with respect to actual state and local law enforcement assistance grants (Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Byrne Grants, Justice Assistance Grants, drug courts, etc.), the Justice Department received $2 billion. This conference report would provide only $1.3 billion, a drastic cut of $700 million (35 percent). This means that important programs like police block grants, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Project ChildSafe, and others will be slashed.

Developed by the Clinton Administration in 1994, COPS has community policing as its cornerstone; police officers concentrate on specific neighborhoods and gain the trust of community residents to prevent and solve crimes. Targeting youth violence has been a major priority for COPS; instead of locking up juveniles after they have committed offenses, the presence of cops on the beat and in schools helps to keep them out of trouble in the first place. In addition to putting cops on the street and in schools, the COPS program has reduced domestic violence, gang violence, and drug-related crimes by helping to create and organize community groups, victims' groups, treatment centers, and community police in various regions around the country. It is also important to note that local law enforcement is a critical component in the war on terrorism; local police in the everyday course of patrol may be the first to learn about potential terrorist acts or terrorists.

Its success has led to COPS being praised by law enforcement and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the United States, has stated that ``[COPS] is a program that works and one that has had a positive impact on our nation today.'' Also, during his confirmation hearings, Attorney General John Ashcroft promised to continue supporting COPS and, as a Senator, cosponsored legislation to reauthorize it. Finally, Representative Jim Kolbe, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary, has noted that COPS ``has always played a vital role in community safety and [he was] glad to see Federal money funding such a position.'' This is why it should not be surprising that, initially intended to fund 100,000 officers, the program funded 116,573 officers in September 2002 alone.

The Republican leadership, however, refuses to acknowledge the successes of COPS. Overall, this bill provides $756 million for COPS, a drastic cut from the FY03 level of $978 million. More specifically, the conference report provides only $120 million for the hiring of officers, which is the program's most important component; in FY03, this portion received $199 million (the Senate bill would have given $200 million for hiring). In the September 2003 issue of Washington Monthly, the Chief of the Richmond Police Department, Andre Parker, said he was ``dismayed at the current Administration's attitude toward local law enforcement. . . . [It] has not seemed to grasp what we face.'' It is clear that the Republicans are giving law enforcement and community policing the short shrift.

If we take away funds now, our local communities who have used COPS money to hire police officers will be devastated; many already are hard-pressed financially because of the slowdown in the economy. So there is no question in my mind that reducing funds will lead to police layoffs and an increase in the cycle on crime and violence.

Biomedical Research

The conference report also would stifle research on life-saving drugs and treatments. This is because of the report includes an amendment by Representative Dave Weldon that prohibits the PTO from issuing patents ``encompassing or directed to'' human organisms (section 634 of Division B). While this provision has been marketed as targeted toward human cloning, it would have a much broader effect.

Arguably, any medical treatment is ``directed to or encompasses'' human organisms. This is broad and vague prohibition could prevent patents on, and thus discourage research into, drugs and treatments for Alzheimer's, in vitro fertilization, and virtually any other area of medicine that pertains to the human body. This poorly-drafted provision is an example of why Congress should not legislate on medical practices and should not make important policy decisions without the input of experts in the field.

Gun Safety

The Republican leadership also caved to the gun industry by preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and explosives (``ATF'') from enforcing gun safety laws. For instance, the conference report includes proposals from Representative Todd Tiahrt that:

Impose a 24-hour limit on destruction of records of approved firearm purchases (section 618 of Division B). The current rule permits the retention of records for 90 days. The new proposal would undermine audits of the system to ensure it is working properly and undermine the ability to retrieve firearms that have been transferred to criminals and other prohibited owners. A June 2002 study by the General Accounting Office stated that 288 of the 235 (97 percent) firearm retrievals initiated during the first 6 months of the current 90-day rule could not have been done under a 24-hour rule; in other words, the new rule would permit 228 prohibited persons (i.e. felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, fugitives) to keep their illegal guns.

Prohibit the ATF from releasing to the public information regarding sales and dispositions of firearms kept by gun dealers and manufacturers, as well as any records of multiple handgun sales (where 2 or more handguns are sold to the same buyer within 5 days) or gun tracing information reported to ATF (title I of Division B). Community residents no longer would be aware of neighbors stockpiling mass quantities of firearms.

Prohibit ATF from requiring dealers to provide a physical inventory (title I of Division B). This precludes the ATF from finalizing a rule it proposed in August 2000 to require annual inventories. The purpose of the proposed rule was to allow dealers to identify missing firearms and report them as such. Had the ATF's proposal been in effect, we could have avoided the situation that occurred in the Washington, DC, sniper case where Bull's Eye Shooter Supply (the dealer from whom the snipers allegedly stole an assault rifle) asserted they did not know the gun was stolen until the ATF traced it to the store.

Prevent ATF from computerizing records of gun dealers who go out of business (title I of Division B). Computerized records are critical with respect to being able to trace guns used in crimes. As a result of this amendment, a gun used in one crime could not be connected to another crime; depriving law enforcement of valuable evidence.

In essence, the conference report would reverse Clinton Administration policies that led to a substantial decrease in the number of gun

dealers from 245,000 in 1994 to 58,500 now. By making it easier to be a gun dealer, the conference report would make gun shops as prevalent as 7-Eleven; there would be one on every corner in every neighborhood in America, open all day and night. Moreover, as Kristen Rand, Legislative Director of the Violence Policy Center, noted on July 23, 2003, ``Representative Tiahrt's proposal would aid criminal gun traffickers and at the same time devastate ATF's already weak oversight authority.'' Make no mistake about it, the only winners under this proposal are criminals and the NRA.

Beyond these matters relating to Judiciary Committee jurisdiction, I am troubled by the conference reports treatment of other programs and initiatives important to everyday Americans.

In a reversal of prior votes of the House and Senate, the conference report would encourage media monopolies. In June 2003, the Federal Communications Commission raised the broadcast ownership cap from 35 percent of the national market to 45 percent of the market. This decision was widely criticized by Congress and the public, so much so that the House passed by a vote of 400-21 an appropriations bill that prevented the FCC from increasing the 35 percent cap. Similarly, the Senate Appropriations agreed by a vote of 29-0 to overturn the FCC decision, using an appropriations bill to retain the cap at 35 percent. Despite these prior votes, the Republican's engaged in backroom dealing to craft a conference report that lifts the cap to 39 percent (section 629 of Division B). This simply is bad policy that will encourage consolidation and discourage the diversity of voices in the media that drives our democracy.

The legislation fails to block a Labor Department regulation that would deny overtime pay to approximately 8 million workers across the country. Both the House and Senate had agreed to prevent this anti- worker provision from becoming effective, but the Republican leadership has turned its back on working Americans.

The House had agreed to permit drug reimportation so Americans with medical needs could reap the benefits of lower drug costs. By reneging on this promise, the Republican leadership is putting the needs of billion dollar corporations ahead of the needs of the sick.

In a blow to public education and home rule, the Republican leadership is authorizing funds for a school voucher program for the District of Colombia. This program will drain needed funds from already-suffering public schools, depriving school-aged children of the education they need and deserve.

Despite public rhetoric about how much it supports our troops, the Republican leadership thinks nothing of our men and women in uniform when they return from the front. The conference report provides veterans' medical programs with $700 million less than the Republican leadership promised in the budget resolution and $900 million less than the veterans groups had sought.

Continuing the Majority's attack on the environment, the Republican leadership weakens the Clean Air Act and prevents 49 states (all except California) from adopting stricter emissions control laws for small engines.

Despite public statements by the President and congressional leaders to support AIDS prevention and treatment, the conference report actually provides less money for AIDS programs than the President's request and other bills. The report requires the National Institutes of Health (``NIH'') to return to the treasury a large portion of non- research funds. As a result, the NIH receives $118 million less than the President's request, $145 million less than the House level, and $182 million less than the Senate level. This translates into an actual cut from current funding levels for AIDS programs.

The Bush Administration touted its ``No Child Left Behind'' package and signed it with great fanfare; not surprisingly, it sought virtually no funds for the program in its next budget. Now, the conference report gives $24.5 billion, which is $7.8 billion lower than the amount authorized in the actual bill. This gives schools just enough money to cover inflation and fails to give funding to cover costs incurred in complying with Federal mandates.

The Republican leadership claims to be concerned about domestic security, but now it underfunds the very Department created to provide that security. For example, the 0.59 percent across-the-board budget cut applies to the Department of Homeland Security, such that the planned increase for border protection will have to be cut by two- thirds.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the introduction of the National Film Preservation Act of 2003, which reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Act of 1996.

We all know that motion pictures are amongst this nation's cultural treasures, going beyond entertainment to represent American ideals and values to people across the world. Unfortunately, the films on which many motion pictures are created are easily susceptible to physical deterioration; in fact, over fifty percent of movies made before 1950 have deteriorated and over ninety percent of movies from before 1929 have disintegrated.

The 1996 Act was designed to ensure that we could protect the treasures we still have. It created the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation. The NFPB generates public awareness of a national film registry and reviews initiatives to ensure the preservation valued films. The NFPF issues grants to libraries and other institutions that can save films from degradation.

The program has received accolades from organizations such as the Directors Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Noted filmmakers Martin Scorsese and Ken Burns also have praised the NFPB and the NFPF.

Unfortunately, the program officially expired October 11, 2003, and was not reauthorized. The legislation being introduced today would remedy that oversight by reauthorizing both the NFPB and the NFPF. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this valuable effort as we move it through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the Department of Defense Inspector General's public report on Richard Perle, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and a clip from The Washington Times.

[Editorial from the Wall Street Journal]

Perle's Vindication

One obligation of editors is to distinguish phony political

scandal from the genuine article. On that standard, any

number of writers and editors owe Richard Perle an apology.

The noted defense intellectual voluntarily resigned in

March as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

Advisory Committee after his enemies pumped up a few

anecdotes into allegations about ``conflicts of interest.''

The Pentagon's Inspector General has been investigating those

charges and last week issued a report absolving Mr. Perle of

even the ``appearance'' of impropriety.

The accusations, fanned by Michigan Democrat John Conyers,

had received especially prominent coverage in the New Yorker

magazine and the New York Times. They boiled down to the all-

purpose Washington smear that Mr. Perle has exploited his

position for personal financial gain. But Pentagon

investigator Donald Horstman concluded in a letter to Mr.

Perle that ``all of your activities with respect to those

private entities complied with statutory and regulatory

standards.'' There were no ``quid pro'' offers or attempts to

leverage his (unpaid) Pentagon access.

In Washington, of course, people are often run out of

office merely for the ``appearance'' of a conflict of

interest. But Mr. Horstman says he also examined that ``more

elusive issue'' and concluded that Mr. Perle's ``activities

did not create such an appearance'' under the ``perspective

of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant

facts.'' Mr. Perle's accusers knew all the facts, so the only

conclusion is that they are not ``reasonable persons,'' which

will not come as news to most of our readers.

Mr. Conyers is now trying to compound his political felony

by proposing to close what he claims is a ``loophole'' that

requires someone to work more than 60 days a year before

certain, more stringent Pentagon ethics rules apply. But this

would essentially bar anyone with private expertise from

advising Defense officials even in a voluntary, unpaid

capacity. How this would enhance U.S. national security is

not obvious. Then again, U.S. security was the last thing on

the mind of Mr. Perle's critics.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history Congress has voted to protect known polluters from legal liability. H.R. 6, the ``Energy Policy Act of 2003'', not only implements a restructured energy system that would harm consumers and provide unaffordable subsidies to energy companies, but Title XV of the bill, the Ethanol and Motor Fuels title, would particularly immunize the producers of a toxic contaminant from liability for its effects on those people who have been harmed by it. These provisions were unilaterally inserted into the conference report without the benefit of a single committee hearing or markup.

MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) has been classified by the EPA as a possible human carcinogen and can render water undrinkable in concentrations as low as two parts per billion. Due to the synthetic chemical properties of MTBE, when it leaks into water, it moves and dissolves through water rapidly, resists natural degradation, and causes water to take on the taste and smell of turpentine. According to the General Accounting Office, MTBE, a chemical which has been shown to cause liver damage, kidney damage, and even cancer in humans, has now been detected in the groundwater and drinking water in every state in the nation.

The Ethanol and Motor Fuels title in H.R. 6 contains an outright and retroactive liability waiver for MTBE producers that knowingly polluted the tap water of millions of Americans. Specifically, the title would:

Protect responsible parties from liability--The title would give MTBE producers a special liability waiver from strict product liability suits. Because these strict product liability suits have been the only effective measure of holding MTBE producers accountable for polluting public water supplies, denying water districts and city and county governments the right to bring defective product lawsuits against the MTBE polluters would effectively end their accountability.

Shift cleanup costs to taxpayers--The MTBE provisions in the bill would shift the burden of paying for the cleanup of the polluted water to the water consumers. An estimated $29 billion in clean up costs will fall squarely on states, cities, and their citizens. MTBE manufacturers and gasoline companies will

not have to pay for the contamination of the water supplies that they caused, nor will they have to pay to acquire new water sources for hundreds of thousands of customers.

Nullify pending litigation against MTBE producers, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without recourse--There are currently 130 communities and water suppliers across the nation that have litigation pending to reclaim damages for MTBE pollution of public drinking water sources. Because this bill is retroactive, taking effect for lawsuits pending on September 5, 2003, all of these lawsuits would be nullified.

The MTBE provisions contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2003 benefit the wrongdoers and have a number of harmful consequences for the victims of drinking water contamination. Any policy that has the effect of leaving hundreds of thousands of victims without any recourse against their wrongdoers is bad policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to a provision in this conference report that intrudes on our civil liberties and will do little, if anything, to protect us from terrorism.

I think it is important that law enforcement have the powers it needs to investigate acts of money laundering that are connected to terrorism and espionage, but we must ensure those powers are reasonable and appropriately crafted. Current law already gives the FBI the ability to obtain financial records from various financial institutions, which are defined as banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and credit unions, with little or no judicial oversight. In fact, the government can delay notification to a court that it has sought such records if it merely certifies in writing that it required emergency access to the documents.

Now, the FBI is seeking investigative authorities beyond what are necessary for terrorism and intelligence investigations. Section 374 of the conference report would give the FBI even more unfettered authority by subjecting a broader group of ``financial institutions'' to the FBI's special investigative authorities. The FBI would be able to seek financial records not only from traditional financial institutions but also from pawnbrokers, travel agencies, car dealers, boat sellers, telegraph companies, and persons engaged in real estate transactions, among others.

The record of the Bush administration demonstrates that this provision is a significant intrusion on our civil liberties that will not be used to protect us from terrorism. In the days after September 11, the administration demanded from Congress expanded powers to root out terrorist activity. Congress granted much of those powers in the form of the USA PATRIOT Act, but the administration has yet to justify how it has used those powers to find the planners of the 2001 attacks or to thwart other, planned attacks. Instead, the administration returns to Congress with requests for more authorities, such as this one, in a grab for power.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which would provide greater access to Federal courts for litigants in various counties in Texas. One provision of the bill adds the city of Plano as a place of holding court; current residents of Plano must travel to the city of Sherman. It is my understanding that, with respect to the courthouses in Plano and Sherman, the courts will ensure that the civil and criminal dockets will be divided equally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill provides the Federal judiciary with a much needed cost of living adjustment (COLA) for their salary for fiscal year 2004. I also would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership and bipartisanship on this issue.

The Constitution mandates that the pay of Federal judges ``shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Unfortunately, by failing to provide judges with annual COLA's over the last decade, they have faced the equivalent of a $77,000 reduction in salary. Currently, Federal district court judges earn $150,000 per year. This is much less than they could earn in private practice; in fact, it is less than an attorney right out of law school can earn in private practice. Even the judges' employees, those who work at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, can make more than their employers. In the last 30 years, while average pay has increased 12 percent for most workers, it has decreased 25 percent for Federal judges.

This issue can seem to be just a matter of salary, but it extends deeply into our concept of a democracy and judicial independence. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, granting independent judges lifetime tenure and the right to an undiminished salary, in order to ensure the judiciary remains independent of financial, political, and social pressures. Unfortunately, many Federal judges are leaving the bench for private practice, and many experienced and qualified private practitioners are deterred from serving in the judiciary. The pay disparity has diminished the independence of our third branch and made it difficult to attract and retain qualified attorneys.

The timing for this legislation also is critical. Last year, Congress passed a continuing resolution that provided a cost of living adjustment to most Federal employees except judges. The omission required us to pass a law early this year to extend the COLA to judges. To ensure that we do not let this issue fall by the wayside again, we must pass this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Representative Delahunt and Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in developing this bipartisan, bicameral compromise. H.R. 3214 takes the first of hopefully many steps toward improving the integrity of our criminal justice system.

First and foremost, the bill provides Federal inmates with access to DNA testing, thereby enabling them to establish their innocence after being subjected to a wrongful conviction. As many of you know, over the past few years, more than 110 innocent Americans have already been exonerated thanks to post-conviction DNA testing. This provision will ensure that others wrongfully convicted will also have an equal chance at obtaining justice.

Second, the bill authorizes grants to be awarded to States with the express purpose of improving the quality of legal representation afforded indigent defendants in capital cases. Experts have indicated that many of the most egregious cases in which an innocent person was wrongfully convicted involved attorneys who were incompetent, ill- trained, or simply ineffective. These grants will dramatically alter this situation by providing defendants with defense counsel that meet a minimum standard of competency.

Finally, the bill contains a provision--not often mentioned--but of extreme importance to those that have been subjected to a wrongful conviction. I'm speaking of the provision in the bill that increases the maximum amount of damages an individual may be awarded for being wrongfully imprisoned from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in noncapital cases and up to $100,000 per year in capital cases.

Having pointed out the many virtues of the bill, I must admit this bill remains far from perfect. I would prefer the legislation include an outright ban on the use of the Federal death penalty. I also think the bill would have been considerably better if it addressed some of the many factors that contribute to the unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions, including eyewitness error, perjury, false confessions, and police torture.

Nevertheless, I strongly support the delicate compromise that has been reached today. And, I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile initiative.