Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this event is not the basis for which the Committee of Inquiry was created because even though there was so much harm and possible violation of the voter rights of Americans in Texas, that was not what the Committee of Inquiry was gathered to do.

The committee of inquiry introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) was merely to inquire as to whether or not Federal funds, resources, or personnel had been used in trying to locate the missing members of the Texas legislature during June 11 through June 19, and that was all.

It was claimed by the distinguished majority leader of the House, himself from Texas, that this was a Federal matter, and that there was a justification because redistricting was involved that the Congress had every right to inquire. Whether he is correct or not is not central to the question of whether we should determine whether Homeland Security resources, whether Federal U.S. marshals, whether members of the FBI, whether personnel in the Department of Justice in Washington were used in trying to identify the whereabouts of members of the State legislature. That is all we wanted to do.

In an incredible debate, which fortunately has been reported to the American people and is preserved for all posterity, in a totally party vote, every Republican voted that they did not want to inquire, they did not want to know, they did not want to find out if Federal resources were used. They did not have any interest in knowing if there were any Federal statutes that were broken, whether there were any possible violations of the law.

This is the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States whose responsibility it is to protect the Constitution and its amendments and preserve democracy for the people of the United States of America, a rather striking position, but one that is not over because we did not prevail in the great Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives.

This is a matter, as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has admonished us, is not going away. We are not packing up our tents and forgetting about this. We have got to show to people that the Department of Justice is accountable, that the FBI is accountable, that the United States marshals are accountable and that indeed the Members of Congress have a responsibility to know if Homeland Security has now been turned into a partisan operation for any purpose that anybody in charge happens to think it is.

This is very important because with this kind of attitude there is going to be a great difficulty for the American people to have any confidence in Homeland Security whatsoever.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the ``Equal Treatment of Pensions and Bankruptcy Act of 2003'' to eliminate an unfair and abusive practice that has allowed corporate insiders to protect their exorbitant pensions even as their employees jobs and retirement savings are obliterated in bankruptcy.

Recently, some in top corporate management have attempted to insulate their pension benefits by placing them in a trust that would be beyond the reach of the bankruptcy court. As a result, while employees lose their jobs, pensions, and other benefits, these insiders are able to walk away from the bankrupt company with a substantial windfall. This immoral tactic does not benefit the rehabilitation of the business. To the contrary, it loots the company of assets that could be used to pay creditors, employees, and help the company successfully emerge from bankruptcy. It is bad for business, it is bad for unpaid creditors, it is bad for the families who are shattered by the failure of a company.

This is an ongoing problem. In April, American Airlines enraged employees by threatening to shut down the company if they didn't accept billions in steep pay and benefit cuts, while secretly setting aside millions in pension guarantees for top executives. Although CEO Donald Carty resigned in April, American has kept its executive pension plan.

The legislation provides that if the company places any supplemental retirement benefits or deferred compensation in a trust for the benefit of management or another insider, the court will have the authority to reclaim those funds for the benefit of the creditors, including the employees. It also clarifies that a party with an interest in the case or a committee of creditors may bring a motion to reclaim these funds if the trustee or the debtor in possession consents for fails to bring such a motion. While these parties are now permitted to bring such motions, as recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Cybergenics case, this bill reaffirms that right under the Code.

This is pattern of abuse is becoming ever more widespread. We must protect the livelihood of the average American worker and their families and ensure that top executives are not allowed to pillage a firm and enjoy protection in bankruptcy that would be denied to the people who are least to blame for the bankruptcy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to introduce legislation recognizing President Kennedy's founding of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by supporting the designation of June 21, 2003 as ``Equal Justice Day'' in honor of the Committee's tireless efforts over the past 40 years to secure justice and equal opportunity for all. On June 21, 1963, I was summoned to White House along with 250 other members of the bar by President Kennedy to help resolve the civil rights crises which gripped the nation. Without President Kennedy's vision for racial justice, the bar would have remained silent in the face of vocal resistance by southern state legislatures against desegregation.

For more than four decades, the Lawyers' Committee has worked to advance the civil rights of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority communities in the areas of environmental protection, employment, affirmative action, fair housing, and voting. The Committee protects fundamental civil rights by representing African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities and women in the courts, advocating strong enforcement of civil rights laws before administrative bodies, working in coalition with other organizations, and by educating the public about important civil rights issues. Among many other achievements over the years, the Lawyers' Committee was successful in: fighting for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, securing a landmark, unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Decision that strengthened First Amendment protections for peaceful political boycotts in Claiborne Hardware Co. v. NAACP, and coordinating a Church Burning Project in the 1990s to provide free legal services to churches that were destroyed during the bitter rampage of racially motivated church burnings.

By supporting the designation of June 21, 2003 as ``Equal Justice Day'', we will recognize the achievements of the Lawyers' Committee, as its staff and pro-bono attorneys, clients and friends commemorate and celebrate its 40th anniversary. I urge you to support this legislation that will honor President Kennedy's commitment to implementing justice reflected in the accomplishments of the Lawyers' Committee and the many hours of pro-bono service offered by lawyers and law firms throughout this country.

Mr. Speaker, with great sorrow, I call to the attention of the House, the passing of one of Michigan's great educators, Eugene A. Gilmer. His family has lost a loving, devoted husband, and father; I have lost a dear friend and constant inspiration; Detroit has lost a giant.

Eugene Gilmer left us on June 13, 2003, at the age of 79. He had compiled an outstanding career as an educator and community activist. After serving with great distinction overseas in the Army during World War II, he graduated from Wayne State University. Determined to overcome racial bias in hiring educators, Eugene drove a bus until he won a teaching position. After that, there was no holding back his talent, his dedication and his spirited drive.

In addition to his commitment to educating Detroit's youth, Eugene was equally dedicated to the preservation and appreciation of African American history. While serving as principal at the Sampson Elementary and Fitzgerald Elementary Schools, he played a key role in the founding and funding of the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History and then served on its Board of Directors. Over the years, the Wright Museum became one of the Nation's leading institutions preserving an appreciation of the tribulations, as well as the contributions of African Americans.

It is now commonplace for public officials to pledge allegiance to slogans like ``quality education for all'' and ``no child left behind.'' Decades before these principles became popular sound bites, however, they were the cornerstones of Eugene's educational philosophy and his professional goals.

Eugene never lowered his standards of excellence, nor accepted excuses for students who failed to achieve their potential. At the same time, he knew better than most that education was the essential ladder of higher aspirations. He firmly held that ladder and showed generations of students how to climb it.

His wisdom, guidance and leadership enriched the lives not only of thousands of students, but also of countless Michigan teachers and educational administrators. While Eugene would not compromise the principles that informed his career, he applied them with compassion and gentleness, in equal measure.

Eugene's total commitment to the improvement of education in Metropolitan Detroit flourished against the larger landscape of his social activism, and participation in the political process. He regarded both as the higher calling of a citizen and thought of neither as a nuisance or as simply an avenue for self-promotion. Detroit residents from all walks of life knew this about Eugene, and loved him for it.

Our thoughts are with his family: with Margaret Gilmer, his beloved wife of 56 years; his daughter, Crystal; his son, Eugene; his eight grandchildren, and his three great-grandchildren.

Eugene Gilmer contributed immeasurably to his fellow human beings. He will be sorely missed. I salute his memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the extraordinary life of former Congresswoman, and my dear friend, Martha Griffiths. Martha was the matriarch of Michigan politics and one of the nation's greatest advocates for women's rights.

She grew up as the daughter of a rural mail carrier in Pierce City, Missouri, where she excelled in the art of debate. Her intelligence and strong spirit carried her all the way from Missouri to the steps of the University of Michigan Law School where she and her husband became the first couple to graduate together in 1940. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, she and her husband founded the law firm Griffiths & Griffiths in 1946.

With a top notch law school education and the creation of a successful law firm under her belt, Martha decided to run for a seat in the Michigan State House, and like everything else she did, she succeeded. Martha Griffiths was one of two women who held a seat in the Michigan House from 1949-1952.

In 1954, Martha Griffiths was the first woman elected to serve the great state of Michigan in Congress, where she held the seat for 20 years. While in Congress, she became the first woman to sit on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, she served on the Joint Economic Committee and she was Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy.

During her tenure in Congress, Martha built her career fighting for equal rights for women. She fought to ensure the protections for women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination in voting, public education, employment, public accommodations, and federally assisted programs. In 1970, she stalked the halls of Congress to obtain 218 signatures needed to file a discharge petition to demand that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which had languished in a House committee for 47 years, be heard by the full Congress. Congress overwhelmingly approved the ERA in 1972. Unfortunately, it was ratified by only 35 states, three short of the number needed to add it to the U.S. Constitution.

She continued spearheading women's rights as Michigan's first female lieutenant governor in 1982. She also served on five corporate boards, two that had been all male and she was the only woman to serve in all three branches of government in Michigan.

In addition to her great accomplishments for women's rights, Martha was also the driving force in helping me obtain my seat on the prestigious House Judiciary Committee. Being an advocate for civil rights herself, she saw the great importance of having an African American on the very Committee that handles many important issues, including civil rights. As a freshman in the House, having Martha Griffiths as a mentor and a friend was invaluable.

Without the leadership, strength and courage of Martha Griffiths, women would not be where they are today and neither would I. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give special thanks to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for bringing this tribute to the floor. A tribute to a woman of such stature is long overdue.

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

Mr. Chairman, welcome to ``Bash Trial Lawyers Day'' in the House of Representatives. My friend the chairman used the term 13 times in his presentation.

I just keep wondering, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), what kind of law did you practice? I am intrigued by the right of trial lawyers not to be as effective as they can in court.

I notice that the Enron people have pretty good trial lawyers. I notice that WorldCom has pretty good trial lawyers. I notice that Adelphia has pretty good trial lawyers. These are all Republican supporters. I notice that Tyco has pretty good trial lawyers.

Why cannot people with class action suits have trial lawyers that are effective and doing a good job and get compensated for it?

I would yield to the gentleman, if he chooses to comment on that.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, everybody has a right to a lawyer. I thank the gentleman very much. I am very happy this gets reiterated.

I just want to count the number of times trial lawyers get it in the neck. Property lawyers, they are okay. Domestic relation lawyers, have you got any beef about them? They are okay. But trial lawyers that try these kinds of class action cases, they are making out like bandits, so, let us put it in the Federal courts. Let us take all of the class action cases and send them to the Federal courts, exactly where the Federal judiciary is begging you not to send them; begging you not to send them. All the consumer groups are begging you not to send them there.

Yet you tried it in 1998, 1999, 2001, and, now for the fourth time in 6 years, you are back at it again.

Why? What is the problem, guys? Should not people, consumers injured, be able to bring their cases to their State courts where they have traditionally?

Well, the answer is, for me, yes; but for you, no.

Could somebody explain to me why we would make the cases retroactive on top of it? I yield the floor. Tell me why Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, just tell me why those five corporations should be granted a delay?

I yield with pleasure to the gentleman from Virginia, my friend on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I take my time back. I thank the gentleman very much for his contribution.

What this bill does, and I just ask that you would read it, I will quote you the exact place in the bill, is grant an automatic right of appeal in class certification cases automatically. Is that going to expedite things?

Most of the judges do not even grant an appeal if they had the discretion, and think I think you or your staff may be aware of this. That is a delay, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Now, in addition to the automatic delay, there is a stay of all discovery proceedings while the right of appeal is exercised. Do you know how long that could take, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)? About 2 years. Now you are telling me that is really expediting the process. I wait to hear your explanation of that.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1115. Although the legislation is described by its proponents as a simple procedural fix, in actuality it represents a major rewrite of the class action rules that would bar most forms of State class actions and massively tilt the playing field in favor of corporate defendants.

This is why the legislation is opposed by both the State and Federal judiciaries, consumer and public interest groups, environmental and health groups, and civil rights groups. There are several critical problems with the bill before us.

First, H.R. 1115 will have serious adverse impact on the ability of consumers and other harmed individuals to obtain compensation in cases involving widespread harm. At a minimum, the legislation will force most State class action claims into Federal courts where there will be far more victims to litigate cases and where defendants could force plaintiffs to travel long distances to attend proceedings. At worst, because it is so much more difficult to certify class actions at the Federal level, the bill will operate to terminate most class action entirely.

Second, the bill includes a whole series of unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with class action jurisdiction, but will serve to benefit corporate wrongdoers. For example, section 6 of the bill gives the defendant an absolute right to appeal preliminary court decisions, which will delay the case by up to 2

years. The section also stops the discovery process dead in its tracks while the appeal is pending.

Most outrageously of all, the bill was amended so that it applies retroactively to pending cases. This means that the bill would apply to pending in corporate fraud cases. As my hometown paper, the Detroit Free Press wrote yesterday, ``the House version of the legislation is particularly offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would affect class action claims now pending against Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding investors while their executives made millions of dollars.'' Is there a single Member in this Chamber who could defend Congress intervening in a pending case to help these corporate scam artists?

Fourth, the bill federalizes far more than just class actions. Section 4 provides that private attorney general actions and mass tort actions are to be treated as class actions and removed to Federal court. This means that district attorneys will no longer be able to combat fraud and abuse in their own State courts, and groups of harmed tort victims will be forced out of their State courts as well.

Do not be fooled by the Boucher amendment, which proponents claim will incorporate the Feinstein language from the Senate. What they do not tell you is that unlike the Feinstein compromise, the Majority's bill applies retroactively, allows for two year delays or more, and knocks out private attorney general actions. None of these provisions were in the Feinstein amendment in the Senate.

I believe it is time for more corporate accountability, not less. I urge a no vote on this one-sided, anti-consumer legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Virginia, forgot to put in Enron class action cases. I guess that was an oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a former prosecutor, judge, and attorney.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that he was not that happy with Federal courts in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. Remember that one?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is class warfare with a vengeance.

Here my conservative friends, Republicans, are supporting the bill that will help Enron, Ken Lay, that is right, Adelphia, WorldCom, Tyco, by making retroactive all the automatic appeal provisions. By the way, the Chambers of Commerce are enthusiastic that maybe the fourth time this will get through the Congress. The National Association of Manufacturers are for it, and so is the President of the United States. That is one side.

Now, who are the victims? All consumers groups are against the bill. All civil rights groups are against the bill. All environmental groups are against the bill. All health care groups are against the bill. All judges, Federal and State, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, are against the bill.

Get the picture? We do. And so do the people in your districts from whom you are taking the right to be jurors in these trials away from.

Let us talk about the coupon business, because in the Democratic substitute, on page 12, section 1711, is the only corrective action to coupons, which have been cried about on this floor this morning. If there is any provision in the bill that is on the floor now about coupons that will eliminate it or make it harder to bring, I would sure like to hear about it in the closing comments; and I have a Detroit Free Press editorial that came out yesterday saying class action, the plan seems less about justice than helping business. And I will insert it and a letter from the NAACP for the Record at this point.

[From the Detroit Free Press, June 11, 2003]

Class Action: Plan Seems Less About Justice Than Helping Business

Now don't go making a federal case of it . . .

That old expression is a good one to direct at Congress,

since the House and Senate appear to be racing each other to

pass bills that would discourage class-action lawsuits by

shifting them from state courts to the federal system. This

is an interesting tack for a lot of conservative lawmakers

who profess to want less federal involvement in American

lives. Federal judges, already buckling under case overload,

are opposed to it. So are state judges. Consumer groups see

the bills as an overkill remedy for a system that's already

being repaired by judicial initiatives.

Class-action suits allow one or a few people to seek

damages for hundreds or even thousand of individuals who may

have been affected by a bad product or policy. They are,

understandably, the bane of big business and have been

outrageously lucrative to some lawyers. But they also have

produced changes in dangerous products or practices and held

companies accountable.

Shifting such suits to federal courts sets up new

procedural hurdles, appeal possibilities, and delays even

before the merits of a claim are addressed. Even suits in

which the entire ``class'' of potentially harmed people

resides in the same state as the company being sued would be

moved to the federal system, where cases languish years

longer than in state courts.

The House version of the legislation is particularly

offensive because it is retroactive, meaning it would affect

class-action claims now pending against Enron, WorldCom,

Adelphia and other corporations accused of defrauding

investors while their executives made millions of dollars.

Supporters will say these bills are about reforming a bad

process. What they really are about is discouraging a

legitimate right to seek redress for wrongdoing--without

making a federal case of it.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is to celebrate the gentlewoman, the Senior Senator from California Day in addition to Attorney Bashing Day. We have a letter from the senior Senator of California, which says she is opposed to the bill and why she is. So what we have here is a Feinstein-lite or a fake Feinstein here.

I do not know what we are trying to do here, but this attempt to fix the class action bill creates, as I expected, more confusion and does not deal with the real defects in the bill.

Her letter says: ``As I said in committee before this amendment was adopted, I will not support any class action legislation that moves those suits to Federal court.''

So we have the senior Senator from California saying that this is a class action bill, and there has been general agreement that we need reform on class actions; but these provisions in the bill do not relate to class actions.

This is far from a done deal. I do not think we correct the basic defects in the bill; and since this is Feinstein-lite, I am going to reject the amendment that I am sure is made in good faith by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I include the letter from Senator Feinstein in the Record at this point.

June 11, 2003.

Hon. Rick Boucher,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Boucher: I wanted to clarify several

issues with regard to S.274, the Class Action Fairness Act,

and two

Amendments I offered to it in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During House consideration of H.R. 1115, there has been some

misunderstanding about my position. I thought a clarification

might be helpful to you in your deliberations.

During Committee consideration of S.274, I offered an

amendment to raise the amount in controversy to $5 million

and to set specific criteria based on a percentage formula to

determine whether certain intrastate cases should be heard in

state or federal court. This is what has popularly become

known as the ``Feinstein Amendment.'' It is my understanding

that Chairman Sensenbrenner and a number of Democrats plan to

offer this as an amendment to H.R. 1115 on the House floor,

and of course, I support its inclusion.

I also co-authored an amendment with Senator Specter to

strike a provision from the bill that would have made certain

citizen suits and ``private attorney general'' actions

removable to Federal Court as well. I felt strongly then, and

I feel strongly now, that such suits--particularly those

brought under Section 17200 of the California Business and

Professional Code--properly belong in state court and should

not be classified as class actions under the bill. As I said

in Committee before this amendment was adopted, I will not

support any class action legislation that moves those suits

to federal court.

Senators Specter's amendment also, however, struck a

provision from the bill that would make so-called ``Mass

Actions'' subject to the same removal provisions in the bill

that apply to class actions. That was not my concern, and in

fact I believe that truly national ``Mass Actions'' should be

removable to Federal Court under the same procedures as class

actions.

I hope this clarifies some of my views on this matter. I

appreciate your concerns about this important legislation and

welcome you to contact me or to have your staff contact my

Chief Counsel, David Hantman, at 224-4933 if you have further

questions.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Chairman, the problem that is presented in the bill that the Jackson-Lee amendment attempt to correct is the incredible ability of corporations doing business in this country to move offshore, Bermuda as an example, to do business and then escape coming into State court on class action by claiming they are a foreign corporation.

These are the same companies that are eager to put ``Made in the U.S.A.'' on their products, while they at the same time avoid United States taxes and attempt to minimize their legal liability by merely shuffling corporate documents. Support the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the healthy birth of Isabella L. Mesfun on Sunday, May 25, 2003. I hope Isabella has a life filled with happiness and success.

Mr. Speaker, my service in this House has often shown me the profound tension between government secrecy and democratic decision-making. Rarely however, has that tension been as starkly posed as in the current revelations of divergence between President Bush's assertions based on ``secret information'' about the alleged threat to America posed by Iran and the actual assessment of that threat by America's intelligence professionals.

I have seen the American people apparently deceived into supporting invasion of sovereign nation, in violation of UN charter and international law, on the basis of what now appear to be false assurances. The power of the Congress to declare war was usurped. The consent of the governed was obtained by manipulation rather than candid persuasion.

Instead of conducting a sustained all-out war against the genuine terrorists behind 9/11, President Bush chose to terrorize the American people. The President, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld painted lurid nightmares of al Qaeda's attacking U.S. cities with insidious anthrax or clouds of deadly nerve gas. All of this was portrayed as coming courtesy of Saddam Hussein, unless we destroyed the Iraq regime. They also wielded the ultimate threat that Iraq would imminently endanger America and our closest allies with nuclear weapons. Members of Congress who voiced deep distrust of those claims were privately briefed with even more vivid descriptions of the deadly threats that Saddam posed to American security.

In public speech after speech, the President and his supporting players assured America's anxious citizens that attacking Iraq was absolutely necessary to prevent the imminent threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction from harming them and their loved ones.

In addition, President Bush was determined to convince the public that Saddam was personally behind, or at least intimately involved in 9/11. He and Vice President Cheney repeated that mantra incessantly. No wonder that about half of the country still believes that Saddam was involved, although our intelligence community has emphasized that there is no credible evidence that is true.

The manipulation was massive and malicious. The motive was simple. The Administration wanted to attack Iraq for a variety of ideological and geopolitical reasons. But the President knew that the American people would not willingly risk shedding the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis without the immediate threat of deadly attack on the United States. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz recently admitted to an interviewer in an unguarded moment, when the threat of weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the banner to lead a march to war, it was chosen for ``bureaucratic reasons,'' not because the danger was imminent or paramount.

The President and his Cabinet were well aware that these claims either rested on flimsy projections or came from sources that most of our Intelligence Community disdained. The President and his Cabinet knew that in some cases those discredited sources' assertions were flatly contradicted by the professional assessments of the intelligence Community experts at CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department, and were only supported by a rogue special office established under Secretary Rumsfeld precisely to ``find'' or reinterpret intelligence in order to support the Administration's determination to invade Iraq.

When war came, our own military field commanders were surprised by the fierce, often deadly, resistance that our troops faced from Saddam's ``militia.'' We, and our British allies, were surprised when the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere did not rise up to welcome our troops with open arms. Most of all, our military commanders, the Congress and the American people all were surprised when no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. Now, as each day passes, and no WMD has been found, that surprise has turned to suspicion, to concern and finally to outrage at the deception practiced by the Bush Administration.

In response, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and their spokespersons have offered one excuse after another. As reporters and whistle-blowers have exposed the flaws in each excuse, the White House has scrambled to create another, with the confusing speed of a kaleidoscope's changing patterns. Law students are taught to plead in the alternative: ``I never borrowed your pot.'' ``Besides, it wasn't cracked when I returned it.'' ``Anyway, it was not cracked when I borrowed it in the first place.'' The Bush Administration has learned that lesson well:

The Bush White House assures us that weapons of mass

destruction will inevitably be found.

At the same time, the Bush White House argues that they

never really said Iraq had such weapons in 2002, only that

they had programs to develop those weapons.

Finally, the Bush White House argues that it doesn't matter

whether Iraq did or did not have such weapons posing a threat

to the United States, because Saddam was a repressive ruler

and its good that the world is rid of him.

They cannot succeed with this shell game because they cannot outrun the truth. There are too many previous contradictory statements, too many reports leaked by outraged veteran intelligence analysts, and too great a record of established facts. The Administration's arrogantly crafted script is unraveling. President Bush and his courtiers now have learned the wisdom of the Scottish poet Robert Burns, who warned:

``Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to

deceive.''

Now, the Administration's final refuge is that the public thinks the war was justified even if no weapons are found. Obviously, those poll results reflect the American people's relief that our military's losses, and the loss of Iraqi civilians, regrettable as they are, have not been even greater. They reflect understandable revulsion at the horrors of Saddam's regime. Nevertheless, continued ethnic conflict and violence, ambushes of American soldiers, political disarray, malnutrition and disease mount daily in the aftermath of this ``easy war.'' Also, the Bush White House is forced to acknowledge the re- emergence of al Qaeda's terrorist threat. So the American people have begun to focus on how badly it appears that they, and their congressional representatives, may have been misled by a president anxious to stampede America into war.

In any event, regardless of the final tally on the war in Iraq, there is a growing awareness that this disturbing presidential conduct raises issues that transcend any particular hostilities in which America might engage. It raises the most profound constitutional questions. How can the separation of powers and checks and balances designed to protect our Republic continue to do, if the Executive can work its will through falsehood, deception and concealment?

Equally pressing is a determination of the appropriate remedy, should the Administration's assurances to Congress and to the electorate prove to have been as knowingly false

as now seems to be the case. In the days ahead, I shall consult with my colleagues, with legal scholars, political scientists and historians, in order to weigh the appropriate actions necessary to prevent this or any future Administration from usurping the power of Congress and the power of the people to decide public policy on the basis of accurate knowledge.

An accurately informed public is the essence of our democracy. It is most essential on the ultimate question of peace or war. To deceive the Congress and the public about the facts underlying that momentous decision is to transgress one of the president's supreme constitutional responsibilities. I believe the House Committee on the Judiciary should consider whether this situation has reached that dimension.

That question is especially acute at this time because President Bush's disturbing doctrine of ``preventive war'' means he plans to persuade the Congress and the electorate that additional ``preventive wars'' are necessary. Will that advocacy be based on deception and false statements, too? The prospect is frightening.

Finally, I note the provocative analysis on this point recently offered by former Counsel to the President John Dean, who has carefully analyzed the nature and context of the President's many assertions about the threats allegedly posed by Iraq and the constitutional implications should they prove false upon further examination. It deserves wide dissemination.

Mr. Speaker, a critical problem that demands constant oversight in a democracy is the tension between an informed Congress and an informed citizenry because both are necessary for a democracy. That tension is against the need for secrecy in some instances and in the interest of national security. That is what I wish to draw Members' attention to today.

From Watergate to Iran contra, to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, we have seen and experienced and learned from the peril of the executive branch's use of secrecy in the name of national security to accomplish unlawful deception and illegal acts.

We face this issue again now in regard to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the flat assertions by the President of the United States that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction pose an imminent threat to the United States. After all, it was these assertions that led many of the Members of the legislature, both in the House of Representatives and in the other body, to support the war, and so did many Americans.

So it is a significant question whether the President's assurance was warranted by the evidence, whether he had something to back up these repeated assertions that the weapons of mass destruction held by the former ruler of Iraq were indeed an imminent threat to the United States.

So where are these weapons of mass destruction? One day the President assured us that they will be found. The next day we are told that he only meant to claim that Iraq had programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that program was under way. But then the day after that his spokesman said never mind, even if Saddam had no weapons imminently threatening us, he was a bad and evil person who deserved to be destroyed.

Now, these contradictions have begun to be noted by more and more people, and I want to report that some in the public are changing their view about this war and what brought us into it as American casualties mount in Iraq, as violence and civilian strife grow worse there, and disease and hunger spread in the aftermath of war.

Now, whatever the ultimate final assessment is that will be made about Iraq, the fundamental problem that I bring to Members' attention this evening is if the President deceives the Congress and the public on an issue as sensitive as war or peace, it raises the greatest constitutional issues about whether he is abusing his office, whether he is violating his oath, and whether he is misleading the American people.

It is particularly critical because this President's doctrine of preventive war, never before employed by any of the preceding Presidents of this great country, suggests that he may or will be trying to persuade America to support other preventive wars in the future. Will that campaign be based on misrepresentation?

Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About the Reason for War

an Impeachable Offense?

(By John W. Dean)

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem.

Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the

use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a

number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United

States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation

can undertake--acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be

false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at

sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of

sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the

question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass

destruction (WMDs) go away--unless, perhaps, they start

another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the

Iraq war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly

resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of

national security, are held to an expectation of the highest

standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist

or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon

Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him

to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's

false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the

matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from

over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions.

But is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

president bush's statements on iraq's weapons of mass destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said

about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus,

I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I

saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as

I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

``Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities

that were used for the production of biological weapons.''--

Untied Nations Address, September 12, 2002.

``Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and

is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those

weapons.

``We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently

authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--

the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.''--

Radio Address, October 5, 2002.

``The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical

and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

``We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of

chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin never gas, VX

nerve gas.

``We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has

a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that

could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons

across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring

ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United

States.

``The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its

nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous

meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his

``nuclear mejahideen''--his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite

photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at

sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes

and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are

used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.''--Cincinnati,

Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002.

``Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein

had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin,

mustard and VX nerve agent.''--State of the Union Address,

January 28, 2003.

``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments

leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and

conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.''--

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003.

should the president get the benefit of the doubt?

When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-

words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of

the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted

them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the united Nations,

it was also being debated on campuses--including those where

I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following

question: Should they believe the President of the United

States? My answer was that they should give the President the

benefit of the doubt, for several reason deriving from the

usual procedures that have operated in every modern White

House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush

White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all

been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential

statements are the result of a process, not a moment's

thought. White Hose speechwriters process raw information,

and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have

both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this

all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President

for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that--at least in every White House and

administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to

Clinton--statements with national security implications

were the most carefully considered of all. The White House

is aware that, in making these statements, the President

is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are

typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be

false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the

President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari

Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic

than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003,

Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, ``We know for a

fact that there are weapons there.''

In addition, others in the Administration were similarly

quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more

unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs--and even went so far

as to claim he knew ``where they are; they're in the area

around Tikrit and Baghdad.''

Finally, I explained to the students that the political

risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush

would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid

intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their

necks out only to have them chopped off by political

opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was

any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be

telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact,

he would say: ``I have been advised,'' or ``Our intelligence

reports strongly suggest,'' or some such similar hedge. But

Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are

found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently

appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found,

and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very

hard to find--for they existed in large quantities,

``thousands of tons'' of chemical weapons alone. Moreover,

according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of

scientists who could testify, and production equipment also

existed.

So there is all that? And how can we reconcile the White

House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may

not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One that something is

seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national

security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The

other is that the President has deliberately misled the

nation, and the world.

a desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's

Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special

forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction,

which he knew would provide the primary justification for

Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and

drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None

were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and

countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for

WMDs. None were found

During the past two and a half months, according to

reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300

suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited

weapons were found there.

british and american press reaction to the missing WMDs

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious

attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly,

based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are

being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S.

has been milder.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has taken Bush

sharply to task, asserting that it is ``long past time for

this administration to be held accountable.'' ``The public

was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat,'' Krugman

argued. ``If that claim was fraudulent,'' he continued, ``the

selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American

political history--worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-

Contra.'' But most media outlets have reserved judgment as

the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon

announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD

sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to

where the missing WMDs might be.

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International

Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured

Congress that WMDs will indeed be found. And he advised that

a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some

1,400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being

deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out.

According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained

that ``[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply

point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad,'' and remarked

flatly, ``They're simply not there.''

Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide

any explanation of how he could have made his very specific

statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting

evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be

reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos

innocently, if negligently, misinterpreted? Or was his

evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the

statements and reality only increases the sense that the

President's

misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

investigating the iraqi war intelligence reports

Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether

intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious

credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key

questions: ``If America has entered a new age of pre-

emption--when it must strike first because it cannot afford

to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological

weapons--exact intelligence is critical. How will the United

States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a

cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how

will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?''

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's

credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now

called for a Defense Department investigation into what went

wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist

Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s

looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference:

Unless the members of the Administration can find someone

else to blame--informants, surveillance technology, lower-

level personnel, you name it--they may not escape fault

themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war

intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner

(R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said

his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would

jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there

is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure

or misconduct--and either would be a serious problem. When

the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence,

investigations certainly need to be made.

Senator Bob Graham--a former chairman of the Senate

Intelligence Committee--told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he

still hopes they find WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he

has also contemplated three other possible alternative

scenarios: ``One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of

Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because

now the very thing that we were trying to avoid,

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the

hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad

intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was

satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to

present to the American people and to the world those things

that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.''

Senator Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance

that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed,

Graham told CNN ``there's been a pattern of manipulation by

this administration.''

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New

York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who

saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for

Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Senator Graham

requested that the Bush Administration declassify the

information before the Senate voted on the Administration's

resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent

Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then

complained that Tenet's letter only addressed ``findings that

supported the administration's position on Iraq,'' and

ignored information that raised questions about intelligence.

In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by

cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had

manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy

to the decisionmaking process that lead to the Iraqi war also

strongly suggests manipulation, if not misuse of the

intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul

Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity

Fair magazine, said: ``The truth is that for reasons that

have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we

settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which

was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason.'' More

recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along,

that the reason we went after Iraq is that ``[t]he country

swims on a sea of oil.''

worse than watergate? a potential huge scandal if wmds are still

missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to

Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the

first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate

pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally

manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to

authorize, and the public to support, military action to take

control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may

be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being

dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But

the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate

that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the

nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked.

Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security

intelligence data, if proven, could be ``a high crime'' under

the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a

violation of federal criminal law, including the broad

federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony

``to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any

manner or for any purpose.''

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned,

he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives

for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents

are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the

executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of

presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for

his political purposes were in the interest of national

security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to

manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their

intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the national

into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the

case.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner. We have worked hard, along with a number of standard development organizations, technology companies and other private interests to craft a bill that will provide some important protections to encourage nonprofit standard development organizations, or SDOs, to continue their critical work of collaborating to set pro-competitive standards in this industries. SDOs set thousands of standards that keep us safe and provide uniformity for everything from fire protections to computer systems to building construction, for example.

This bill provides a commonsense safe harbor for standard development organizations. Those that voluntarily disclose their activities to federal antitrust authorities will only be subject to single damages should a lawsuit later arise. Those who refuse to disclose their activities, or those who take actions beyond their disclosure, will still be subject to treble damages under the antitrust statutes. This bill does not exempt anyone from the antitrust laws, but it does apply the rule of reason to SDOs. Therefore the procompetitive market effects will be balanced against the anticompetitive market effects of an action before a violation of the antitrust laws is found. Organizations that commit per se violations--making agreements or standards about price, market share or territory division, for example--will still be fully liable for their actions.

The rationale for such favored treatment is the SDOs, as nonprofits that serve a cross-section of an industry, are unlikely themselves to engage in anticompetitive activities. However, if free from the threat of treble damages, they can increase efficiency and facilitate the gathering a wealth of technical expertise from a wide array of interests to enhance product quality and safety while reducing costs.

This is the third bipartisan bill in the last 20 years that has provided some limitation on damages for antitrust liability in order to encourage cooperative behaviors by entities seeking to engage in procompetitive activities. This policy has worked well for research and joint ventures under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 and I trust it will improve the creative environment for standards setting organizations as well. An expansion of this policy to standard development organizations will allow them to improve their innovative efforts, involve a wider range of industries and technical entities, and improve product safety and development.

I'd like to thank the chairman for his cooperative efforts on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, you might remember a failed experiment the U.S. government tried in the 1920s called Prohibition. Today, Congress is rushing to pass a similar ill-conceived prohibition of Internet gambling. Gaming prohibitionists believe they can stop the millions of Americans who gamble online by prohibiting the use of credit cards to gamble on the Internet. Just as outlawing alcohol did not work in the 1920s, current attempts to prohibit online gaming will not work, either. Let me explain why.

In addition to the problems I addressed earlier, this bill lacks a number of important protections. It does not require that the businesses getting the special exception be licensed for Internet gambling, any kind of license will do. It does not require that these businesses keep minors from gambling as a condition of the license. It does not even require that these businesses limit the amount that can be gambled to protect problem gamblers.

And what about lotteries? Family values conservatives fight the lotteries in State after State. They say that there is no greater evil than State-sponsored gambling. The Justice Department said in their testimony that this bill would ``absolutely'' allow Internet gambling on lotteries.

This is not just my interpretation of this bill. The Free Congress Foundation, led by conservative activist Paul Weyrich, says this bill expands gambling. The Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Reverend Lou Sheldon, says this bill expands gambling. The United States Justice Department says this bill expands gambling.

And while many powerful gambling interests receive an exemption, less favored interests get the short end of the stick. Native Americans became more tightly regulated than the horse racing industries. It is unfair and unjustifiable public policy.

Instead of imposing an Internet gambling prohibition that will actually expand gambling for some and drive other types of Internet gambling offshore and into the hands of unscrupulous merchants, I believe Congress should examine the feasibility of strictly licensing and regulating the online gaming industry. A regulated gambling industry will ensure that gaming companies play fair and drive out dishonest operators. It also preserves State's rights.

The rules should be simple: if a State does not want to allow gambling in its borders, a licensed operator should exclude that State's residents from being able to gamble on its website.

That is why I introduced H.R. 1223, the ``Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Commission Act.'' The bill will create a national Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Study Commission to evaluate how best to regulate and control online gambling in America to protect consumers and prevent criminal elements from penetrating this industry. In addition, the Commission will study whether the problems identified by gambling prohibitionists--money laundering, underage gambling, and gambling addictions--are better addressed by an ineffective ban or by an online gaming industry that is tightly regulated by the States.

Until now, Republicans and Democrats have stood together against those who wanted to regulate the Internet, restrict its boundaries, or use it for some special purpose. Except in the narrow areas of child pornography and other obvious criminal activities, Congress has rejected attempts to make Internet Service Providers, credit card companies, and the technology industry policemen for the Internet. We should not head down this road now.

Attempts to prohibit Internet gambling in the name of fighting crime and protecting children and problem gamblers will have the opposite effect. Prohibition will simply drive the gaming industry offshore, thereby attracting the least desirable operators who will be out of the reach of law enforcement. A far better approach is to allow the States to strictly license

and regulate the Internet gambling industry, to foster honest merchants who are subject to U.S. consumer protection and criminal laws.

There are many different concerns with this bill, some of which I just mentioned. These concerns range from doubts about the desirability of having government regulate the personal behavior of competent adults to the fact that the bill, under the guise of banning Internet gambling, actually enables some favored gambling industries on-line. There are concerns about the bill's fundamental unfairness to native American tribal governments, and concerns about the precedent of deputizing financial institutions to regulate the Internet. For all of these concerns, I urge you to vote, ``no'' on H.R. 2143.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, what an exciting day on the floor of the House. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act just happens to have one problem: It accepts horse racing. Now, can somebody explain to me why that is so? We are going to ban Internet gambling except horse racing. Why?

Well, it is because the horse racing lobbyists and the dog racing lobbyists have said that is what we ought to do. Why did they write a bill like this? This is a bill that expands gambling, expands gambling by accepting two industries.

Now I have been in touch with Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition and Paul of the Free Congress Foundation, and they have told me this is a bad, bad bill, not to do it. We have a wire act from 1961 that has forbidden gambling, and now we are making the exception for horse racing. Can someone suggest why this bill was written this way? Anyone on the floor, I yield.

I did not think so.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this is on the consent calendar is that the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Members in the House, agree that we should take steps to make sure citizenship is granted to some 37,000 military people who happen to be noncitizens. And it is in that spirit that I rise to commend the ranking subcommittee chair, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), and the subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the full committee, and all of the members on the Committee on the Judiciary that worked on this.

We are trying to still improve this measure as it goes to conference, and I would like to urge everyone to give it a rousing vote this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, since this Nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Many of these immigrants have not only payed taxes and adopted the American way of life, they have honorably defended our Nation as members of the military.

During the recent war with Iraq, immigrant soldiers have continued to defend our country in large numbers, and tragically 10 noncitizens have lost their lives. It is important that we honor the extraordinary contributions these immigrants make to the Armed Forces by facilitating their naturalization and establishing important protections for their families if they are killed in action. Surely, if these immigrants are willing to risk their lives for our country, the least we can do is grant them the citizenship they so greatly desire.

Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigrant laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending.

And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family. This is hardly a way to show our thanks to families that have sacrificed their loved ones in the name of our country.

H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, reduces the 3 year military requirement to naturalize to 1 year, waives fees for naturalization petitions, and allows surviving family members of citizens and posthumous granted citizens to apply for immigration benefits. These substantive changes to immigration law will surely benefit those defending our Nation and will ensure that immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice to our nation.

This is not a perfect bill. For example, it does not go as far as I would have liked in helping the families of deceased servicemen and women obtain green cards. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 immigration laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country.

I am also concerned with two amendments added to this legislation in the Judiciary Committee. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms within his first 5 years of military service. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace.

The second amendment added to the bill in the Judiciary Committee will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parents of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.

H.R. 1954 is a positive step in loosening the rigid restrictions immigration law has imposed on immigrant soldiers and their families. H.R. 1954 would: (a) Expedite the naturalization process by allowing military members to naturalize after serving 1 year in the military, waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies to take place abroad; (b) waive posthumous citizenship fees; and (c) ensure the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses, parents legally present in the United States, and unmarried children of citizen or posthumous granted citizen soldiers killed as a result of military service to self petition for immigration benefits or continue to pursue already filed petitions as if the U.S. citizen had not died. These substantive changes to immigration law will benefit those defending our Nation and will help ensure that many immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice. I am disappointed, however, that the bill passed by the committee is not more generous in addressing the unique needs of immigrant families and, in some cases, makes existing law worse.

More than 37,000 noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and some of the first U.S. casualties in the current war in Iraq were noncitizens. Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigration laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending. And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family.

H.R. 1954 makes many meaningful improvements to existing law. However, I would have preferred that the committee go much further in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. One of the unjust consequences of the 1996 immigration laws is that many individuals in the U.S. became ineligible for permanent residence due to a prior unlawful entry or a minor scrape with the law many years prior. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country. In response, Reps. Howard Berman and Linda Sanchez offered an amendment, defeated by a party line vote, that would have waived certain documentation requirements, and authorized the Department of Homeland Security, on a discretionary basis, to waive categories of inadmissibility for spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in service to the military. This proposal would have balanced the goal of honoring the sacrifice these families have made with our duty to national security.

I further believe that this bill does not go far enough in extending immigration benefits to all noncitizens serving the U.S. military, including the Selected Reservists. Current law grants the President authority to designate by Executive order a period of military hostilities that would trigger immediate naturalization eligibility for active duty members of the Armed Forces. Unlike traditional members of the Armed Forces, Selected Reservists are not eligible for immediate citizenship under this law if they do not serve in combat during times of hostility. Rep. Zoe Lofgren offered an amendment, defeated by voice vote, that would have applied immediate naturalization benefits to Select Reservists during times of hostility regardless of whether they serve in combat. This amendment would have addressed the fact that the rationale for providing benefits to members of the Armed Forces and members of the Select Reserves is nearly identical because during times of hostility they both must be ready to leave family, friends, and familiar surroundings at a moment's notice and potentially die for their country.

I take great issue with two amendments added to this legislation by Rep. Steve King. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace. I understand Rep. King's desire to make the bill parallel to current law in 329(c) of the INA, but he overlooks that 329(c) applies exclusively to a special case in which members of the Armed Forces are eligible for immediate naturalization during a time of hostility without the requirement of any prior service or commitment to the military. The provision added to H.R. 1954 would bestow conditional citizenship on all immigrants naturalized through a demonstrated commitment to military service and would create a perverse incentive for noncitizens not to join the military. Moreover, this language would allow military authorities to routinely make legal decisions that in effect would deprive a U.S. citizen of his or her citizenship. In some cases, these decisions would be based on conduct that would be completely lawful in civilian contexts, but is considered a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The second amendment added to the bill by Representative King will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parent of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved and parents who lawfully reside in the United States, but have left the country temporarily at the time of their child's death. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.

I reiterate that the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 does not go far enough in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. Moreover, amendments added to the bill in the Judiciary committee would punish noncitizen soldiers and their families, rather than reward them for their service and sacrifice, by creating a conditional class of citizenship and putting additional restrictions on immigrant parents of soldiers.

While this bill is not perfect, it does make many meaningful improvements to existing immigration law and takes a significant step help our soldiers and their families be granted the citizenship they so greatly desire. It is my hope that as this bill goes to conference will seriously consider the negative repercussions these two amendments will have on the people this bill intends to honor. It is for these reasons that I think we can all support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank very much the ranking member of the subcommittee on Judiciary that is managing this bill, I want to thank him for the great work that he and the Judiciary staff have done in trying to bring some understanding to the significance of what we are doing here today.

First of all, let us begin the discussion by recognizing that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is a political term or a rhetorical term. It is not found in the medical journals. It is not found in the textbooks on medicine. The reason is that it was invented in the Congress. Okay?

The bill before us is different from other bills that have attempted to ban abortion because this bill has now determined that they would get around the Supreme Court ban on these procedures which require the health of the mother be taken into consideration by saying, we have a bill here that has about 14 pages of findings, congressional findings, that now make it unnecessary to follow Roe v. Wade and the other major case that precludes these bills from being constitutional. They have been struck down repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. But this bill is now going to be okay because we have congressional findings.

Flash to the Congress. All congressional findings are not approved by the Supreme Court. Sorry about that, gentlemen. We have here, that I will put into the Record, and I hope we will have some discussion on it, the Turner Broadcasting case, Supreme Court case; the Morrison case, the Penhurst case, we go on and on with a long list of cases that say all findings are not findings and that therefore the Supreme Court is going to say, oh, okay, you had two or three doctors testify before your subcommittee and from this you draw findings and so, therefore, now all the Supreme Court decisions about the protection of the health and life of the mother are void. Not so.

The reason is that H.R. 760 simply states that the district court erred in its finding of fact and law, but as a matter of fact, this bill does not add a health exception, but instead simply states that the procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that therefore their use pose no risk to the mother's health.

We listen to some doctors, we then determine that we have now exceptions and we pack them into this bill and we say, That's it. We don't need to determine that the health and welfare of the mother is as critical as the Supreme Court used to think because now we have findings, congressional findings. And the Supreme Court has got to follow congressional findings. Right? Wrong.

It would seem that on the basis that this was done, it will be pretty easy for the Supreme Court to look behind this bill, H.R. 760.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has accorded some deference to congressional findings as Congress is the legislative body representing the people. The Court has ruled that it is not necessary for Congress to present conclusive evidence when declaring findings, and Congress has the discretion to weigh evidence and make reasonable inferences.

Nonetheless, the courts do not blindly follow congressional findings. In numerous cases, including Turner, Morrison, and Pennhurst, courts review evidence and look at sworn testimony that is subject to cross- examination before coming to a conclusion. Thus, the implication in H.R. 760 that courts strictly defer to congressional findings is not correct.

H.R. 760 cites Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (``Turner I'') and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (``Turner II'') to show that the Court pays great deference to congressional findings. However, in Turner I and Turner II, the Court deferred to the overwhelming array of factual evidence presented by Congress. Evidence presented included extensive case law, Senate Reports, numerous hearings held by numerous committees and subcommittees, declarations, and reports. The Court paid great deference to the factual propositions Congress presented. The Court stated that Congress could weight the evidence it uncovered and make ``reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.''

The key difference is that H.R. 760 simply states that the District Court erred in its findings of fact and law. Gainsaying, no matter how presented, is not the same as fact findings. For example, H.R. 760 does not add a health exception but instead simply states that the procedures covered by the bill are not necessary and that their probation poses no risk to the mother's health. This declaration goes directly against the ruling of the Supreme Court in Stenberg and the findings of fact in the lower court. The ``findings,'' in effect, are an attempt to overturn Stenberg. Congress cannot simply refute findings of fact made by the District Court by presenting its own ``findings'' that are contrary to the evidence the Court depended upon to make its ruling.

In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, a patient at a Pennsylvania hospital for the mentally retarded challenged the conditions of the hospital. The patient claimed Pennhurst Hospital had violated the terms of Sec. 6010 of the Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1976 (``DDABRA''). Sec. Sec. 6010(1) and (2) of the DDABRA was ``the bill of rights provision,'' and it ``grant[ed] to mentally retarded persons a right to `appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation' in `the setting that is least restrictive of . . . personal liberty.' ``In Sec. 6010, Congress made a series of findings that were repudiated by the Court. The Court found that Sec. 6010 ``is simply a general statement of `findings' '' and ``does no more than express a congressional preference for a certain kind of treatment.'' The Court held that the ``bill of rights'' did not create a requirement for States to provide the least restrictive environment or to provide certain kinds of treatment to the mentally retarded.

Likewise, in United States v. Morrison, the Court struck down a section of the Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') as a violation of the Commerce Clause in the face of overwhelming congressional findings that domestic violence affected interstate commerce. The Court stated, ``[T]he existence of congressional findings is not sufficient, by itself, to sustain the constitutionality of Commerce Clause legislation.'' Therefore, although the Court defers to congressional findings, findings alone are not sufficient to make an unconstitutional act constitutional.

As with Pennhurst, the ``findings'' in H.R. 760 express a congressional preference, and it is unlikely that any court would defer to the findings. The language in the proposed bill is similar to the challenged language in Pennhurst in that the ``findings'' include precatory language. For example, the ``findings'' include the statement that so-called ``partial-birth'' abortions are never medically necessary even though the Court in Stenberg concluded otherwise.

H.R. 760 also purports to rely on the Supreme Court's holding in Katzenbach v. Morgan for the proposition that the Court will employ a ``highly deferential review of Congress's factual conclusions.'' However, Katzenbach involved Congress's power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to craft a remedy to a 14th amendment violation Congress had identified. Congress went beyond what the Supreme Court had deemed required as a remedy by the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court held that provisions of the Voting Rights Act prohibiting the enforcement of a New York law requiring the ability to read and write English as a condition of voting was an appropriate exercise of Congress's section 5 powers. Specifically, the Court said that while Congress could use its enforcement power to provide additional protections for a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, it could not narrow that right. H.R. 760 would do exactly the opposite of what the Court approved in Katzenbach in that it narrows, rather than enforces a right protected under the 14th Amendment; in this case, the right to choose as delineated in Roe.

Moreover, in the intervening years, the Court has become far less deferential to Congress's enforcement powers under sec. 5, and to Congress as a finder of fact.

It is unclear what types of procedures are covered by the legislation. Although some believe the legislation would apply to an abortion technique known as ``Dilation and Extraction'' (D & X), or ``Intact Dilation and Evacuation,'' it is not clear the term would be limited to a particular and identifiable practice. For example, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists has noted that the definitions in the bill ``are vague and do not delineate a specified procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques.'' As a result, the bill could well apply to additional abortion procedures known as D & E (Dilation and Evacuation), and induction.

In the wake of the controversies over partial birth abortions, a number of states have taken up similar legislation. Like the federal bill, most of the state measures are so vague and so broad that they cover a wide range of abortion methods.

The overwhelming majority of courts to have ruled on challenges to state so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' bans have declared the bans unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. In the last three years, medical providers have challenged the state statutes that ban ``partial-birth abortion'' in twenty states. In eighteen of those states--Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin--the bans are currently enjoined, in whole or in part. In a nineteenth, Alabama, the state attorney general has limited the ban's enforcement to post- viability abortions. In only one state, Virginia, has a court considered the constitutional challenges but nevertheless permitted enforcement of the statute pending further proceedings. Six federal district courts have entered permanent injunctions against statutes that are virtually identical, word for word, with H.R. 760.

The reality concerning quantitative data is that there is no national figures on the absolute number of D & X procedures performed. The two authorities which have the most comprehensive information on abortion-- the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) do not compile data on the number of D & X procedures before or after viability.

According to AGI, in the most recent year for which data is available--1996--the total number of abortions nationally fell to 1.35 million from a high of 1.61 million in 1990. Of these, ``an estimated total of 31 providers performed the [D&X] procedure 2,200 times in 2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this method.''

Proponents of H.R. 760 also ignore the fact that most women do not simply elect to delay the time of their abortion or gratuitously choose the D & X procedure. The causes for delay are varied, including a dearth of abortion providers in many poor or rural areas, lack of availability of Medicaid funding, fear of violence at local clinics, teenagers fearful of notifying their parents or subject to delays caused by notice and informational requirements, and women who only learn of severe fetal abnormalities as a result of late term ultrasound or amniocentesis tests (which is subject to a mandatory wait for results). Physicians will not recommend a particular type of abortion procedure--D & X or otherwise--unless they believe it to be the safest for their patients.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a telling report entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. The report documented many troubling findings which unfortunately, health experts in the underserved communities have been crying out about for decades. It documents the case that the American health care system was set up so that African Americans, Hispanics, and other underserved minorities would receive ``second class back of the bus health care'' in public hospitals and community clinic--many of which are on the verge of economic collapse.

Minority Americans are at least twice as likely as white Americans to be uninsured. More than 30 percent of Latinos and 20 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance--and the gap has been widening over the last decade. Astoundingly, minorities now account for two thirds of the new AIDS cases, and HIV infection is the leading cause of death among younger African Americans. Yet, African Americans are 41 percent-73 percent less likely than whites to receive particular drug therapies.

African American women are far less likely to receive a mammogram than white women and are at far greater risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Black men are also 1.5 times more likely to develop prostate cancer than white men, and they are three times more likely to die of the disease. Even more disturbing, African American children are plagued by asthma. They are twice as likely to be diagnosed with the disease and a whopping six times as likely to die from it as white children. Just last month the Harlem Hospital found that an incredible 25 percent of children in central Harlem has asthma--one of the highest rates ever documented in an American neighborhood. Add to all the previously noted findings the fact that African American infant mortality rates are three times higher than the rate for white American babies, and the diagnosis for the future of the African American family seems not only chilling but painfully malignant.

Under George W. Bush and the Republicans, the current health disparities are likely to get worse--the principle reason is that they are gutting health care in general and Medicaid in particular. Medicaid is the bedrock of health coverage for poor Americans in general and minorities in particular--it insures one out of five children in America and two thirds of all nursing home residents.

Because of the budget crisis in the states, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has predicted that as many as 1.7 million Americans could lose health coverage entirely under Medicaid cut back proposals in the states. Amazingly, the Bush Administration is opposing efforts to help the States pay their Medicaid responsibilities and help keep poor and minority Americans insured.

This Congress I have been dedicated to bridging the gap in health care disparities amongst Americans. I have introduced a bill that would provide universal health care for all Americans. H.R. 676, ``Medicare For All'' is a national health insurance bill endorsed by 4000 physicians across the country. I also reintroduced H. Con. Res. 99, a resolution that commits to covering all of the uninsured by 2005. Just last month, the Congressional Black Caucus launched campaign to end racial disparities in healthcare by backing my universal healthcare resolution. I am also planning to introduce legislation that will bring Medicaid to anyone earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level. This will allow almost all working poor and unemployed Americans to have health coverage. It will also ensure that major urban hospitals can receive sufficient reimbursements so that they are not forced to shut their doors.

In 2003, in without a doubt the most powerful and wealthy society in the history of the

world, there is absolutely no excuse for the health disparities that are crippling and killing off our African American and minority communities. I urge my colleagues today to support the efforts of the CBC and others who are fighting to improve the health of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Judicial Use of Discretion to Guarantee Equity in Sentencing Act of 2003'' or ``JUDGES Act,'' legislation that restores the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary by repealing many of the criminal sentencing provisions recently enacted in section 401 of the PROTECT Act of 2003. I am joined by Representatives Berman, Delahunt, Watt, Waters, Jackson-Lee, Linda Sanchez, Sanders, Lee, McDermott, Filner, Millender-McDonald, Tubbs Jones, and Honda.

Section 401 of the PROTECT Act was passed into law despite the many concerns raised by several legal scholars and experts including, Chief Justice Rehnquist, the U.S. Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and various other law school professors and legal commentators. When asked to comment on the legislation, Chief Justice Rehnquist best described the major problems with the controversial provisions when he wrote that the, ``legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.''

The JUDGES Act of 2003 seeks to address these concerns by repealing most of the provisions of section 401, except those that specifically deal with the prevention of the exploitation of children. More specifically, the bill repeals the burdensome reporting requirements imposed on judges, restores the ``due deference'' standard of review, reforms the sentencing guidelines governing the acceptance of responsibility and repeals the changes that section 401 made to the composition of the sentencing commission. The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to carefully study the issue of downward departures and report its findings to Congress within 180 days.

Judges should be free to impose fair and just sentences completely devoid of the political process. The JUDGES Act of 2003 helps to achieve this goal. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.