Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, legendary jazz artist Dr. Larry Ridley will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 43rd Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Dr. Ridley, an internationally renowned bassist/composer/bandleader/educator, will also perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 19, 2013, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. Dr. Ridley will receive the 2013

CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his contributions to jazz and world culture.

Hugh Wyatt of the New York Daily News described Dr. Ridley as a ``master bassist'' and a ``musician's musician.'' He has been one of the most in-demand bassists of the past six decades, performing with over 150 artists including Wes Montgomery, Carmen McRae, Freddie Hubbard, Thelonious Monk, David Baker, Dizzy Gillespie, Marvin Gaye, Tammi Terrell, and Alicia Keys. Ridley has also recorded over 50 sessions as a sideman. His recordings as a leader include Other Voices and Live at Rutgers University (with the Jazz Legacy Ensemble), and Sum of the Parts.

Dr. Ridley served as Chairman, Music Department, Livingston College of Rutgers University, 1972-1980; Professor of Music, Rutgers University, 1972-1999, and has served as Professor Emeritus at Rutgers, beginning in 1999. He has served as Artist-in-Residence at a number of colleges, universities and institutions including Southern University, College of the Virgin Islands, University of Natal-Durban and the Schomburg Center/New York Public Library, where he has been in residence since 1993.

Dr. Ridley's numerous honors and awards include the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation's Living Legacy Jazz Award (1997), Howard University's Benny Golson Award (2001) and the Don Redman Society's Don Redman Heritage Award (2011). He has also been inducted into The International Association of Jazz Educators Hall of Fame (1998); Down Beat Magazine's Jazz Education Hall of Fame (1999) and received the Rutgers University/ Livingston College Legacy Award (2011).

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Larry Ridley is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contributions as an artist and educator.

Mr. Speaker, legendary jazz artist Bobby Watson will be honored this year by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) at the Jazz Issue Forum and Concert that will take place during the 43nd Annual Legislative Conference (ALC). Mr. Watson, an internationally renowned saxophonist/composer/arranger/bandleader/ educator, will also perform at the concert, which will take place on Thursday, September 19, 2013, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. Mr. Watson will receive the 2013 CBCF ALC Jazz Legacy Award for his contributions to jazz and world culture.

Blessed with sizzling and sinewy sound that Jazz: The Rough Guide described as ``a highly individual, extraordinarily fluid style imbued with powerful feeling,'' Watson was born in Lawrence, Kansas, and grew up in Kansas City, Kansas. He started playing piano at ten, the clarinet one year later, took up the saxophone in the eighth grade, played in various concert and R&B bands in high school. He graduated from the University of Miami in 1975, moved to New York City. Watson joined Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, serving as his Musical Director from 1977 to 1981. He has recorded over one hundred recordings as a sideman and has worked with an impressive array of artists including Max Roach, Joe Williams, Dianne Reeves, Betty Carter and Lou Rawls. He was also a co-founder of the 29th Street Saxophone Quartet.

Watson formed the group, Horizon in 1980. Horizon's six recordings include No Question About It, Midwest Shuffle and Post-Motown Bop. Watson's nearly thirty CD's as a leader include Appointment in Milano, Round Trip, The Year of the Rabbit and his Kansas City opus, The Gates BBQ Suite. Watson's compositions, ``In Case You Missed It,'' ``Love Remains,'' and ``E.T.A,'' are considered modern jazz standards. Prof. Watson taught at William Patterson University in the mid-eighties, and at the Manhattan School of Music from 1986 to 1999. He returned to Kansas City in 2000, where he was selected as the recipient of the first William D. and Mary Grant Missouri Distinguished Professorship in Jazz Studies, the first endowed chair at the University of Missouri- Kansas City Conservatory of Music, where he continues to serve as the Conservatory's Director of Jazz Studies. Watson received Howard University's Benny Golson Award earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Watson is a living jazz treasure and I urge all members to join me in commending him for his magnificent contributions as an artist and educator.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced on September 9, 2013, would establish two public safety grant programs.

Section 2 establishes Shield Police Hiring Grants, to be implemented by the Attorney General, to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that operate in Elevated Need Localities. An ``Elevated Need Locality'' is a county (or unit of local government which is not part of a county) which (1) has a crime rate above the national average, and (2) has had budget reductions during the most recent 5-year period. These law enforcement agencies could apply to the Attorney General to receive funds to hire law enforcement officers, or to rehire officers who have been laid off due to budget reductions.

Grants would last for three years and may be extended by two years at the discretion of the Attorney General.

One hundred million dollars for each fiscal year 2014 through 2019 are authorized to be appropriated for this program.

Section 3 establishes Shield Public Safety Enhancement Grants, to be implemented by the Attorney General, to provide grants to units of local government that has jurisdiction over all or part of an Elevated Need Locality. Local governments could apply to the Attorney General to receive funds to enhance public safety in a number of ways, such as purchasing public safety equipment, funding public safety programs, making infrastructure improvements for the purpose of enhancing public safety, purchasing and installing street lights to deter crime, funding activities related to crime labs, and funding public defender programs. Non-profit organizations operating in Elevated Need Localities may also apply for grants under this program to fund initiatives designed to reduce crime in these jurisdictions.

Grants would be for one year but may be extended at the discretion of the Attorney General.

One hundred million dollars for each fiscal year 2014 through 2019 are authorized to be appropriated for this program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the working people of this great Nation.

My fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus and I are here tonight to honor the Labor Movement. We do so one week after our Nation celebrated its 119th Labor Day, and two weeks after we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Justice. It is only appropriate that we pay homage to both tonight, as the Labor Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are sisters in the fight for dignity, freedom, and justice.

Over the years, Labor Day like many holidays has lost much of its meaning. Today, most Americans simply think of it as the end of summer, or the beginning of school. One last moment to enjoy the beach or the backyard with friends and family.

However, Labor Day is also a day during which we should honor those who paid the ultimate price to secure their children a more perfect union. At Bay View in 1885, at Haymarket in 1886, at Pullman in 1894, and in Memphis in 1968, members of the Labor Movement laid down their lives so that others might earn a living.

My own support for collective bargaining rights started early on with my father, John Conyers Sr., who worked with the United Auto Workers to integrate factories in Detroit, before the Civil Rights Movement took that battle to the buses of Alabama and the lunch counters of North Carolina. His battle--Labor's battle--was one which Dr. Martin Luther King would later recognize as the final frontier for the Civil Rights Movement. Specifically, the availability of jobs that paid a fair wage--wage upon which one could raise a family, plan for old age, and live a life beyond mere survival.

Dr. King once spoke of the Labor Movement as the ``first and pioneer anti-poverty program.'' In his last battle, Dr. King went to Memphis, TN, the city that would claim his life, to stand with the sanitation workers of that city who sought what so many of us take for granted and so many of us only dream of: a fair day's pay, for a fair day's work.

Speaking to the sanitation workers of Memphis, he acknowledged the threats he had received, but he told them that he stood before them unafraid of any man, for he had been to the mountain top, and even if he didn't reach the Promised Land, he knew that others would one day.

Today, we are still on that mountaintop, waiting for the Promised Land. Through the sacrifices of labor and civil rights leaders, we were led out of bondage, but we still have not reached the land promised in the American dream. It is my hope that in the 21st Century, we will see the same progress we saw through the middle part of the 20th Century. I hope to see the middle class prosper, I hope to see management work with labor to produce wonders that we could not hope to achieve without cooperation, and I hope to finally see poverty conquered through the

power of fair wages and honest toil. Together, workers can seize the dream that will slip out of any one person's grasp. Together, workers have the power to ford any river, cross any valley, and come down from the mountain where we have been for too long.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I regretfully rise to express my opposition to H.R. 850, the most recent legislative effort by this body to further increase sanctions on Iran. Although I believe the intentions of the authors of this legislation are good, I believe our shared goal of preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon will actually be harmed by bringing this legislation forward at this critical moment.

In three days, Iran will inaugurate a new president--Hasan Rowhani-- who was elected after he ran on a platform of engaging with the United States and rejecting the extremist policies of his predecessor. Despite the fact that Mr. Rowhani was not the preferred candidate of Supreme Leader Khamenei, he was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Iranian people this past June. In short, the Iranian people rejected an extremist government and voted for the candidate who represented the best opportunity to break with the human rights violations and belligerent policies of the past.

Yet, instead of taking this moment to re-engage with Iran and pursue diplomacy--which is the only way to ultimately prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--we are instead moving forward with new, crippling sanctions before we have the opportunity to see whether President-elect Rowhani's campaign promises will lead to new, positive action. Even worse, this legislation sends a message to the Iranian people that their bravery and massive turnout this past June in the face of violent repression and intimidation from the government, was a futile and irrelevant action in the eyes of the United States.

In addition to this legislation's unfortunate timing, this bill also contains several troubling provisions which diverge significantly from previous Iran sanctions legislation. The bill contains policy language that changes the red line for war with Iran from the clear position laid out by the Obama Administration to a nebulous position that Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapons ``capability.'' The term ``capability'' is not defined in the bill. When dealing with questions of war and peace, it is incumbent that Congress and the Administration speak with one voice and avoid putting forward policy positions are open to interpretation and could pave the way for war.

Additionally, the bill places significant restrictions on the President's ability to waive sanctions in exchange for positive action by Iran on the nuclear issue. In doing so, the bill threatens to fracture the unprecedented international coalition working to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon.

For all of these reasons, both procedural and substantive, I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on July 31, 2013, I inadvertently cast a ``nay'' vote on agreeing to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1911. I intended to vote ``yea.''

On July 31, 2013, I was not present to vote on passage of H.R. 850. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 48 years of Medicare's existence.

The benefits Medicare has brought to older Americans are almost boundless. Millions of Americans have lived longer, more productive, healthier lives because of the medical care they received under this program. Many would have incurred financial ruin, suffered needlessly and died prematurely otherwise.

I voted for Medicare during my first summer as a congressman, back in 1965, during a time that was very different from the America of today.

For several years, President Lyndon Johnson had been calling for Congressional action to address the overwhelming need to extend medical care to all seniors, as only half of older adults had any health insurance during that era.

Responding to President Johnson's call for a Medicare bill, and following my own convictions, I joined with Rep. Cecil King of California and introduced in January of 1965, as my very first piece of legislation, a bill that would have provided hospital care under Social Security and an increase of benefits.

I said, at the time, ``Our senior citizens have far too long been neglected in this the most prosperous of societies on earth. Many of them, after leading productive lives prior to their twilight years, have been so overburdened with medical costs that they have been denied the rewards that should come with retirement.''

We have five decades of evidence that indicates the solution to our nation's healthcare crisis isn't cutting Medicare. It's strengthening Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone.

However the Affordable Care Act ultimately plays out, we know two things for certain: Millions of Americans will remain uncovered and the for-profit insurance industry will remain in charge of prices and life- and-death treatment decisions. The only way to ensure everyone is covered is with Medicare-for-All, single payer system.

The richest country in the history of humanity has a moral obligation to cover all of its inhabitants with health care coverage. We believe health care is a right, and should not be treated as a benefit reserved for the privileged.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we celebrate Medicare's birthday, I urge Congress to fulfill Medicare's promise and enact H.R. 676, single-payer legislation and enshrine health care as a fundamental right recognized by our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I attended a meeting at the White House with the President of the United States. As such, I was unfortunately not able to be present for the following vote:

On final passage of H.R. 2879, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 367, the ``Regulations from the Executive in Need of Need of Scrutiny Act.''

Without question, this bill will have dangerous consequences for all Americans by creating an unworkable approval process that will make it nearly impossible for many new regulations to go into effect.

It does this by imposing impossibly unrealistic deadlines by which Congress must consider and pass exceedingly complex and technical regulations in order for such regulations to take effect.

Under H.R. 367, Congress would have only 70 legislative days within which to act after it receives a major rule.

Now, let us put this in some perspective. Over the past few years, the average number of major rules promulgated each year is about 85.

In 2010, for instance, 94 major rules were issued. But keep in mind the following fact: there were just 116 legislative days in the House during 2010.

Worse yet, the bill restricts the days on which these major rules may be considered in the House, which--for last year--would have been just 10 days.

Assuming there is just an average number of major rules, the House would have to consider an average of 8 separate major rules on each of those days.

And, if the REINS Act were to become law today, there would be only 5 days left in 2013 on which the House could consider the merits of major rules.

Under H.R. 367, there is just no way Congress could possibly have the time to consider all the major rules issued during the year.

And, if Congress fails to act within this mandatory time frame, the regulation cannot be considered until the next Congress.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a prior iteration of the REINS Act back in 1983. He said that such legislation would ``hobbl[e] agency rulemaking by requiring affirmative Congressional assent to all major rules'' and would ``seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies.''

The bottom line is that the bill would at least significantly delay rulemaking and at worst bring it to a halt.

Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of their lives.

According to the Government Accountability Office, if the REINS Act were in effect now it would delay or possibly derail at least 32 major proposed regulations issued this year and 68 such rules issued last year.

Among other things, these proposed regulations pertain to:

reimbursement rates for end-stage renal disease Medicare providers;

payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children Program;

various Federal student loan programs;

the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape;

meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010;

the Transportation Department's Certified Medical Examiners National Registry;

Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States;

the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and the Patent and Trademark Office's proposal setting and adjusting patent fees.

And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections that the REINS Act would jeopardize. I could go on and on.

This explains why nearly 70 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose this bill.

Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. It warns that H.R. 367 ``would delay and, in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the American public, and cause unnecessary confusion.''

Finally, H.R. 367 will give anti-regulatory interests yet another opportunity to derail rulemaking.

Major rules are the product of an intensive, multi-year process, based on extensive input received from the public and affected entities through a notice and comment period.

Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise.

Under the bill's short-circuited process, however, Congress will not realistically be able to second-guess the merits of these rules.

Instead, we in Congress will be bombarded with visits, phone calls, and talking points from industry lobbyists and well-funded special interests that can use every resource available to persuade us of the validity of their views.

Superficially, it may seem like a good idea to make Congress the final arbiter of all significant regulatory decisions. After all, Members of Congress are elected and regulators are not.

But realistically, we simply lack the expertise and resources to make the requisite prudential decisions about the bona fides of these rules, particularly given the limited time frame we have to act under the bill.

An example of how this legislation would work:

I recently introduced H.R. 2480, the Nurse and Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2013, which would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate a regulation that protects our caretakers from debilitating injuries. Nursing professionals and health care aids have among the highest rates of back, neck, and shoulder injuries of any profession, due to the trauma of lifting, supporting, and repositioning patients. Through a straightforward regulation that promotes safe patient handling practices, including the use of mechanical devices, this regulation could save, millions of dollars each year, and countless years of experience.

Now even if the House and Senate pass H.R. 2480 and the experts with OSHA develop the proper standards to prevent these debilitating injuries, under the REINS Act, any resulting regulations would have to be assessed by Congress and voted on in a short time frame. Let's be honest, who in this body know about ergonomics and the technical aspects of a nurse's day to day job?

Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2013, along with additional cosponsors. This legislation represents a comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. This legislation is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice of profiling.

This legislation can be traced back to the data collection efforts of the late 1990's that were designed to determine whether racial profiling was a fact versus an urban legend. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice.

Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities.

During our 112th Congress Judiciary Committee hearing on racial profiling, we approached the issue from the perspective of ``smart policing'' and what makes sense in a time of austerity for protecting public safety. I believe that it became clear during the hearing that enough agreement exists to allow us to re-open the bipartisan dialogue on racial profiling commenced by President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft.

Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias--and we value their service highly--the specter of racial profiling has contaminated the relationship between the police and minority communities to such a degree that federal action is justified to begin addressing the issue.

While the Department of Justice promulgated a series of guidelines in 2003 which were designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, these measures do not reach the vast majority of racial profiling complaints arising from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the guidelines provide no enforcement mechanism or methods for identifying law enforcement agencies not in compliance and, therefore, fail to resolve the racial profiling problem nationwide. In this instance, there is no substitute for comprehensive federal anti-profiling legislation.

The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate the well documented problem of racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice.

Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices.

Recent events demonstrate that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. Though the death of Trayvon Martin was not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct are so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate.

Ultimately, he is one of too many individuals across the country who have been victimized

by a perception of criminality simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. These individuals are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American.

Decades ago, in the face of shocking violence, the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation made it clear that race should not affect the treatment of an individual American under the law. I believe that thousands of pedestrian and traffic stops of innocent minorities and the killing of innocent teen calls for a similar federal response. The practice of using race as a criterion in law enforcement undermines the progress we have made toward racial equality. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise today because our Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act is insufficient to maintain our national transportation infrastructure and invest properly in community development and safe, affordable housing.

This Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act really guts investments critical to strong, sustainable communities. And, in particular, it decimates the Community Development Block Grants program, slashing it in half to the lowest level since the program began in 1975.

This isn't just something that hurts Democrats. It hurts Republicans, it hurts everybody. It's across the board. And so, for the Community Development Block Grant program to work and ensure access to decent, affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses, we've got to reject this proposal before us.

Communities across the country rely on the Community Development Block Grant to provide critical services for low-income people and their families, as well as economic development assistance to small businesses and infrastructure improvements.

To this day, the Community Development Block Grant remains the principal source of revenue for localities to use in devising flexible solutions to prevent economic and social deterioration in lower-income neighborhoods and communities throughout the Nation.

These grants are an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities, making a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the Nation.

Now, Detroit is a longstanding Community Development Block Grant grantee, receiving an average of $33 million in annual funding, while Wayne County, which Detroit is in, receives an additional $5.3 million. Yet, this proposal in the appropriations bill would drastically cut these funds.

The CDBG program in Detroit and Wayne County, includes preserving low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, offering a range of housing choices, constructing urban infrastructure, improving the appearance of urban and rural communities, increasing the quality of neighborhood- based living, and decreasing negative environmental impacts.

For my conservative friends to continue to focus solely on reducing the deficit, in particular doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans, is unnecessary and not appreciated. Although deficit reduction is an important task, Congress can't balance

the budget on the backs of working families. And sharply reducing programs like the Community Development Block Grant and HOME is going the wrong direction.

I would say, this is the second major cut for the Community Development Block Grant funding since the Great Recession. The CDBG Coalition, consisting of national organizations representing local elected officials, State and local government practitioners, development organizations, and nonprofit organizations, all strongly oppose these cuts.

These are individuals working daily in their communities, with the most acute awareness of what their communities need. So, in support of them and our constituents, we must fund CDBG formula grants at no less than the $3.3 billion in FY14.

So, Mr. Chairman, once again I ask the Congress to stop trying to balance the budget on the backs of working families.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, last week, July 18, 2013, I was speaking with a documentary group about the civil rights movement, and I was unable to make it to the floor

for rollcall votes 364, 365, and 366. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' for all three.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment will not stop the proper use of the PATRIOT Act or stop the FISA authorities from conducting terrorism and intelligence investigations. I'd never block that.

All this amendment is intending to do is to curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not defund the NSA, and it will continue to allow them to conduct full-fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual investigation.

Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensure that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by this Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment.

I rise in support of this amendment, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Michigan, Representative Justin Amash.

This amendment will prevent mass collection of personal records, such as phone calling information, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. When Congress passed and later revised this provision, we did not intend for it to authorize the bulk, indiscriminate collection of personal information of individuals not under investigation.

However, we have learned that this law has been misused to allow the collection of call detail information on every phone call made in the United States under a bizarre interpretation of the statute's authorization to collect ``relevant'' information. As my colleague and author of the statute, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, has stated, ``This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the legal standard.''

This amendment will not stop the proper use of PATRIOT Act and FISA authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations. All this amendment is intended to do is curtail the ongoing dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans. It does not defund the NSA, and it would continue to allow them to conduct full fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual investigation.

Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our joint commitment to ensuring that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes passed by Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment to demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to protecting individual liberty.

Mr. Speaker, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and subsequent acquittal of his killer by an all white jury is an echo of this nation's past that the African-American community is shocked to experience in the 21st century. It harkens back to the words of interposition and nullification, waking the ghosts of Emmet Till and Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman.

It is simply the nightmare of every parent of an African-American male. Anyone who lacks empathy for Trayvon's parents or who has never experienced the indignity of being held suspect due to his race should take careful note of what this trial will mean for the nation. That issue brings the CBC to the House floor this evening: Where do we go from here. . . .

This weekend, tens-of-thousands across the country rallied for the cause of justice for Trayvon Martin. These crowds included people from across all ages and racial lines. Following King's path of nonviolence protest, they asked for simple justice. Here in Congress, we have been advised that the Department of Justice has an open and active investigation to determine whether Federal charges will be filed in the case. Notably, two African-American men, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, have sought to assure all Americans that justice will be served in the case.

Some have tried to criticize the President and Attorney General for their comments, saying that they are politicizing the case or grandstanding for the black community. I would disagree. Their comments were measured and to the point, seeking to reassure a nation transfixed by the powerful images attached to the incident and trial.

The more interesting point is how a nation, led by two such powerful men, can still hold young black men as a suspect class. When you look at the stop & frisk number in New York, there really is no serious question about whether racial profiling is a reality in America. When I introduced data collection legislation during the 105th Congress, the phenomenon of driving while black was well known in the African- American and Latino communities.

However, some commentators still tried to deny the credibility of people who came forward to tell stories about their treatment by the police. But as the litigation mounted and data was collected, it became obvious that the nation had a serious problem with the use of race by law enforcement. These attitudes, however, were not a product of policing, but rather a product of society. No matter who is in the White House, it seems that race never takes a holiday.

So, where do we go? At the official policy level, we can address the suspect use of race by law enforcement through legislation. This week, I will re-introduce the End Racial Profiling Act. Based upon the work around that legislation, by September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice.

Moreover, many in the law enforcement community have acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin had eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities.

The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to eliminate the well documented problem of racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates that training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal law enforcement training, the collection of data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities that is to be submitted through a standardized form to the Department of Justice.

Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices.

We should be clear, however, that legislation, like ERPA, can only go so far. After all, Trayvon's killer was not a sworn law enforcement officer. Consider legislation the starting point for societal change. His death demonstrates that racial profiling remains a divisive issue that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. Though not the result of a law enforcement encounter, the issues of race and reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct in this case were so closely linked in the minds of the public that his death cannot be separated from the law enforcement profiling debate.

Ultimately, Trayvon Martin is one of too many individuals across the country who have been victimized by a perception of criminality, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. These individuals are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Until we address those broadly held views through important dialogues like this one, too many parents will anxiously await the safe return home of their sons.