Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to events in my congressional district, I was unable to vote today. If I were present, I would have voted ``yea'' to H. Res. 230, recognizing the historical significance of the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo and ``yea'' to H. Con. Res. 111.

Thank you, Judge Hastings.

I want to thank everybody on the Committee on Rules about the careful consideration they have given me and the legislation. We had a great discussion yesterday that will no doubt continue on.

I wanted to assure Dr. Foxx that there can be nonhate crime. There is plenty of it. As a matter of fact, most of the crime that is committed is not hate-based. Robbery is not hate-based. Breaking and entry is not hate-based.

And I wanted to tell my distinguished colleague on the committee, Mr. Franks, that it is too late not to decide to create a special category for hate crime, because had he been on the committee in 1968, he would have been invited to the White House when President Johnson invited in the Southern governors to explain to them that cross-burning had gotten so out of hand that it could no longer be classified as a State crime, that it had to be federalized with an attempt to contain it. As a matter of fact, they did contain it.

To our distinguished Member, Mr. Blunt, I want him to be very relaxed in his getting of rest every night. There is no religious infringement whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we kept saying it so much that we finally put it into the bill itself. If you look at the last section in the bill, Section 8, it says in as clear a language as we could construct that anything protected by the Constitution cannot be eviscerated or modified by this hate crimes act, which has been going on now for 31 years.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 1913) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield control of 10 minutes of the debate to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Members of the House, the measure before us enables the Department of Justice to come to the aid of State and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting bias-based brutality and helping defer the costs when they overwhelm State and local resources. And when necessary--and if approved by the highest, Senate-confirmed Department officials--it authorizes the Department to step in and prosecute at the Federal level.

What we are doing here today is expanding existing Federal hate crimes law beyond the confines of protecting access to a limited set of specified protected activities. What we do is add to the current list of group characteristics deservedly recognized for protection, the reason being due to their being well-known targets for bias-based violence. So we add new ones that also clearly belong on the list, and this is after careful scrutiny and hearings on this issue--they are sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability.

These crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat of violence. So the groups in the bill differ from other groups that some have been trying to add on--and I understand some of their reasons for that--but which do not share the same kind of history of being targeted over a period of time for hate-based violence.

Our approach is consistent with the judgment made by the States that have hate crimes laws--45 of them. They have made the same judgment as we have made for Federal law, that these many other groups should be protected elsewhere in the law, not in hate crimes law.

I close by reminding Members that under Lyndon Johnson in 1968 we first started the hate crimes bill under the church arson bill. The President called us into the White House with the governors of southern States to advise them that the burning of churches, the arson, the cross burnings were so out of control in many States that there was no other remedy except by Federal statute. The Federal Government would have to be authorized to intercede where they invited them to do so. From that has grown this bill, based on law that has been tested in the Supreme Court and many other lower courts.

And so we come before you with a bill that does not encroach upon the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or the part of the Constitution that leaves all other powers to the States. I urge your continued careful consideration of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, himself a longtime member of the bar and a supporter of civil rights, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York.

I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson- Lee, for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield 2 minutes to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, who is also a chairperson of another subcommittee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Steve Cohen, a State legislator and lawyer for more than 24 years.

I am pleased to yield now 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize for 1 minute the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been the cochair of the Progressive Caucus for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to give 2 minutes to the Crime Subcommittee chairman for many years, Bobby Scott of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Eliot Engel.

Mr. Speaker, would you advise us with regard to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from Maryland, an attorney herself, Donna Edwards, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the remainder of the time that I previously yielded to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Wisconsin who has served ably on the Committee on the Judiciary for a number of years, Tammy Baldwin, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is Chair of the Finance Committee but previously has served his entire career on the House Judiciary Committee, and his name is Barney Frank.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

I would like to congratulate the Members of the House for the debate that's occurred on the hate crimes legislation because of the very effective way that they have communicated their reservations about the way we approached the subject.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there would be agreement to dispense with that portion of the motion dealing with the armed services.

No, sir, I do not.

I rise in opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you.

I suppose this is the parliamentary part of the legislative process that a motion to recommit has to be entertained, but before I begin my discussion about the regrets of it, I still insist on complimenting the Members of the House of Representatives who have understood that there are particular acts of violence against the law that are intolerable and should be dealt with as effectively as possible.

The question is what is the most effective way.

Now, what we have been proposing, since 1968, during the civil rights era, where there was an inability to seek prosecution of violators of civil rights laws at the State level, a southern President, Lyndon Johnson, began realizing that there had to be a Federal method of dealing with certain crimes that were not only violent to the victims but served to send a message of intimidation to others in that same class or group. Those groups, we have listed.

These groups are being denied the most fundamental protection of liberty. They are targeted for the most extreme violence by extremists who have decided, in their own warped view of how we should exist among each other in our society, as people who don't deserve to have life.

The groups that are on this protected list and are identified as where hate crime laws kick in are being protected in the same way that has been going on all the way back these many years, since 1968.

The targets are not only the particular individuals who are attacked, but an extension of everyone in the group. The unmistakable intended threat to all is that not only are you not welcome, but you are despised, and you are not safe, and we are coming after you.

But this motion seeks simply to ignore these essential facts.

Let me talk about the three areas mentioned. The armed services, for example. While people who are disturbed at governmental policies and may direct anger at the military, members of the armed services are not victims of bias-based prejudice or hatred. To the contrary, they are honored for their service to our Nation, with national holidays in their honor, memorials, and other economic benefits, all of which are deserved. But they are not in the same situation as the groups we are seeking to protect in this bill. Besides, specific protections for members of the armed services already exist in the Federal law----it makes killing someone in the military a capital crime.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the President for his leadership and commitment to improve the United States' relationship with Cuba.

Lifting restrictions on family members' travels to the island and removing restrictions on remittances to Cuban families responds to both Cuban-American and Cubans' needs as well as it builds bridges between the American and the Cuban people.

I believe that keeping the family ties alive and allowing family members to assist one another are essential for Cuban citizens' quest for reform and a critical step towards the building of a trustworthy relationship.

Cuban-Americans are the best ambassadors to the Cuban people for democracy's core values. Diplomatic relations can begin with familial and cultural exchanges. This is especially true with Jazz music, which has always shown the sense of freedom.

Cuba has a rich musical tradition that has many admirers throughout the World, particularly in America. As more Cuban-Americans travel to Cuba, there will be increased opportunities to access this rich tradition. Reaching out in an effort to expand our common interest in culture and the arts will deepen our understanding of one another and serve as a bridge builder to more substantial bilateral relations.

In that spirit, I would like to submit this letter, from the US-Cuba Cultural Exchange, into the Record. This letter, written last March, urges the President to build a respectful and critical dialogue between the United States and Cuba through cultural exchange.

US-Cuba Cultural Exchange,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 3, 2009.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Obama: We are artists, arts presenters, arts

educators, cultural entrepreneurs and scholars, and cultural

heritage and policy professionals from diverse political

persuasions. We have been adversely affected by the cultural

embargo imposed by the U.S. government against both Cuban and

American artists and cultural institutions. We are writing to

request that you make concrete changes in U.S. policy towards

Cuba that will allow for the uninhibited flow of art,

culture, information, ideas and debates, as well as travel by

artists, cultural workers and professionals, and arts and

cultural aficionados between the two countries.

U.S. policies towards Cuba--worsened many times over by the

previous administration and criticized throughout the world--

have prevented us from engaging in critical communication and

collaboration with our Cuban counterparts, compromising our

nation's cherished ideals of freedom of expression and

preventing cultural interchange between two societies that

share a historic relationship lasting over two centuries.

In 2007 we requested policy changes from the Bush

Administration so that respectful, critical dialogue and

principled exchange could take place between the peoples of

Cuba and the United States and our respective governments.

Our petition fell on deaf ears. As citizens, artists,

scholars, educators and cultural workers from all artistic

practices and from advocacy and service organizations in the

arts, we now call upon your Administration to:

1. open a respectful dialogue with the government and

people of Cuba in accord with established protocols supported

by the community of nations;

2. end the travel ban that prevents U.S. citizens from

visiting Cuba, and allow for Cuban artists and scholars to

visit the United States, thus eliminating the censorship of

art and ideas, and

3. initiate, by working with the U.S. Congress, a process

that can result in the development of normal, respectful

bilateral relations between our countries.

The artistic and cultural communities in the United States

and in Cuba are catalysts of imagination and creativity. We

are committed to serve as bridges for our fellow citizens.

Now, we need our government to take leadership and re-open

the pathways of exchange.

We look forward to working with you to advance the

interests of the United States and of Cuba.

Sincerely,

(Sampling of over 1,100 signatures from arts & culture as of March 2,

2009)

Patch Adams; Michael Alexander, Exec Dir, Grand

Performances* & Chair, California Arts Council*; Stuart

A. Ashman, Cabinet Secretary, State of New Mexico

Cultural Affairs; Stephen Bailey, Executive Director/

CEO, Grand Opera House; Amiri & Amina Baraka; Harry

Belafonte; Laura Bickford, Film Producer; Beth Boone,

Artistic & Executive Director, Miami Light Project;

Jackson Browne, Songwriter; Jimmy Cobb, NEA Jazz

Master, Drums; James Early, Artists & Intellectuals in

Defense of Humanity; Charles Fishman, Executive

Producer, Duke Ellington Jazz Festival; Danny Glover,

Activist-Actor; Charlie Haden, Educator/Musician;

Herbie Hancock, Musician/Chairman, Thelonious Monk

Institute of Jazz.*

Donald Harrison, Musician & Composer; Louis Head, US-Cuba

Cultural Exchange; Oscar Hernandez, Musician/Composer;

Mike Kappus, President, The Rosebud Agency; Robert

Kraft, President, Fox Music; Vivien Lesnik Weisman,

Filmmaker; Sandra Levinson, Director, Cuban Art Space/

Center for Cuban Studies; Bill Martinez, Arts Attorney

& Presenter, Martinez & Associates; Graham Nash; Lukas

Nelson, Musician; Arturo O'Farrill, Musician & Founder,

Afro Latin Jazz Alliance & 2009 Grammy Award Winner;

Michael Orlove, Senior Program Dir, Chicago Department

of Cultural Affairs; Eddie Palmieri; Armando Peraza,

Musician; Dafnis Prieto, Musician.

Bonnie Raitt, Musician & Activist; Awilda Rivera, Radio

Personality, WBGO-Jazz 88; Tito Rodriguez, Jr.,

Musician, Tito Rodriguez, Jr. Orchestra; Ann Rosenthal/

Cathy Zimmerman, Co-Dirs, MAPP International

Productions; David Rubinson, Music Producer; Poncho

Sanchez, Musician; Carlos Santana, Musician; Pete

Seeger; Scott Southard, Director, International Music

Network; Mavis Staples and

Yvonne Staples, Singers; Ned Sublette, Independent

Scholar; Yosvany Terry, Saxophonist & Composer; Dave

Valentin, Latin Jazz Artist & Grammy Award Winner;

Jesse ``Chuy'' Varela, Broadcaster/Writer, KCSM-FM 91/

SF Chronicle; Howard Zinn, Author & Playwright.

Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 53, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to small business. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285b to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

The bill restates the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, along with related provisions in other Acts, as a new positive law title of the United States Code. The new positive law title replaces the existing provisions, which are repealed by the bill.

This bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent

overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect.

The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel website at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod. Interested parties are invited to submit comments to Tim Trushel, Assistant Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515-6711, (202) 226-2411, as well as to the Committee.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 985, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, creates a qualified privilege to protect journalists from being compelled by Federal authorities to disclose confidential sources or other non-public information they have collected in the course of their reporting.

A court could still compel disclosure when the public interest justifies it--in cases of terrorism or other significant national security threats, for example, or to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm, or in pursuit of individuals who have illegally revealed confidential private information or sensitive national security secrets.

In this way, the bill strikes a careful balance between the public's right to know and the needs of law enforcement, national security, and the fair administration of justice.

The protections of this bill have never been more crucial to a free press and an informed public. In recent years, the press has been under assault, as reporters are increasingly being subpoenaed--and in some cases imprisoned--for refusing to open their notebooks and disclose their confidential sources.

Right now, for example, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Detroit Free Press named David Ashenfelter faces possible contempt charges for refusing to disclose sources who exposed serious prosecutorial misconduct. In the last Congress, Pulitzer Prize-winner Bill Safire and others testified on the importance of this bill. President Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson also strongly supports press shield legislation.

H.R. 985 has been carefully tailored through the legislative process and represents a well-considered, bipartisan, consensus approach. The bill was significantly revised and amended during the proceedings of the last Congress to address concerns of Members and the Executive Branch that it strike a more sensitive balance in the areas of terrorism, national security, and other critical areas. These changes and revisions markedly strengthened the bill, and it passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 398 to 21.

This legislation has the strong support of members on both sides of the aisle. It is also supported by more than 100 editorial boards, and a diverse group of over 50 media companies and organizations, including the Newspaper Association of America, the Associated Press, the National Association of Broadcasters, News Corp., as well as CNN and all the broadcast networks. This broad and bipartisan support only underscores the importance of this measure.

Even a bill with such strong support is still open to improvement, however, and I would like to identify one aspect of the revisions introduced during the last Congress that may have some unwelcome and unintended consequences. At that time, we appropriately revised the definition of a ``covered person'' to include the requirement that the person be ``regularly'' engaged in journalism. That limitation ensures that a person cannot claim the protections of the Act by simply putting up a Web site and claiming to be a reporter after receiving a Federal subpoena.

At the same time, however, we also added a requirement that, to be covered by the Act, a person must earn a ``substantial portion of the person's livelihood'' or ``substantial financial gain'' from reporting activities. I appreciate the effort to strike a careful balance reflected in this change, but I have some concern that, as media evolves and online reporting and citizen journalism become more and more prominent, this definition may deny credible, responsible reporters and commentators the protection of the Act, which I do not believe is Congress's intent.

Furthermore, in an era of mass layoffs in the news business, some displaced journalists may elect to continue their reporting on a part- time or freelance basis, or may simply carry on their work in the public interest on their own time even if they obtain other employment outside the professional press. To my mind, such persons should retain the protection of the Act, but the language may be ambiguous in this type of situation.

Finally, while I appreciate that the current definition of ``covered person'' will cover many responsible, established bloggers, more and more good and significant reporting is being done by small, local blogs or by true volunteers who engage in journalism on their own time, but do so with credibility, professionalism, and integrity. Not all bloggers meet these standards, of course, but many do, and I would hope they will be entitled to the protections of the Act in its final form. Indeed, given the sensationalistic quality of a good deal of modern professional ``journalism,'' it strikes me as somewhat arbitrary to exclude serious political reporters and commentators from coverage simply because of the technology they use or the price they charge.

I note that the Senate version of this legislation uses a more functional test to define a ``covered person,'' focusing on the nature and regularity of the person's activities rather than the financial compensation that they earn. Such an approach appears to strike a thoughtful balance between covering people who have the earned the right to be considered journalists, but denying coverage in situations where it is more likely to be inappropriate or exploited. I am hopeful that as this bill continues through the legislative process, we will look closely at the Senate language and consider adopting it into the final law.

I would like to commend my Judiciary Committee colleague Rick Boucher of Virginia, the lead sponsor of this bill, for his tireless work on this issue.

I would also like to recognize Mike Pence of Indiana and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia for their efforts in strengthening the bill and ensuring that we could bring a truly bipartisan measure to the House.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, along with Representatives Kirk, Frank, Biggert, Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Nadler, Bono Mack and Polis. This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and amend federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes. Last Congress, this legislation passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 237-180. Bipartisan majorities have also voted in favor of hate crimes legislation for the last three consecutive Congresses. With a strong statement of Presidential support, the time has finally come for the enactment of this important legislation.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has attracted the support of nearly 300 civil rights, education, religious, and civic organizations. Importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill--including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and 31 state Attorneys General.

At a time when our nation is celebrating its diversity, bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent

and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. In the wake of the November Presidential election, the Southern Poverty Law Center has detailed hundreds of hate crime incidents, vandalism and threats, including the election-night assault of Alie Kamara on Staten Island by two teenagers who shouted racial epithets and ``Obama!'' as they beat him. Moreover, statistics have shown hate crimes against Latinos and Asian Americans rising steadily over the past four years as the immigration has grown more intense. In the last eight months, there have three brutal hate- related murders of Latinos in New York and Pennsylvania. While intolerance may be in retreat, its presence is still felt in many minority communities.

The FBI has the best national data on reported hate crime, though the program is voluntary. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 118,000 hate crimes. For the year 2007, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed against an individual because of their personal characteristics. Law enforcement agencies identified 9,535 victims arising from 9,006 separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially motivated bias accounted for approximately half (50.8 %) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,400 incidents (18.4 %) and sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,265 incidents--(16.6 %), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 1,007 incidents--(13.2%). While these numbers are disturbing, it is important to note that, for a variety of reasons, hate crimes are seriously under-reported.

Despite the deep impact of hate violence on communities, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin--but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federal government must have authority to be involved in investigating and prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do so.

This legislation, which is identical to the version approved in the 110th Congress, will strengthen existing federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arson: by addressing the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law. The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute. This bill will only apply to criminal conduct that is already being prosecuted.

State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. The federal government will continue to defer to state and local authorities in the vast majority of cases; the Attorney General or other high ranking Justice Department official must approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal restraint. However, in appropriate circumstances, the federal government will be able to provide support for local prosecutions--an intergovernmental grant program created by this legislation will make Justice Department technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance available. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Hate crime statistics do not speak for themselves. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into widespread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience. They should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

Madam Chair, last fall the American people voted for change and today we are seeing its vision implemented. As such, I rise in strong support of the Democratic budget.

For too long America has been distracted with misplaced priorities such as unnecessary wars, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, and spending on unnecessary weapons systems. At the same time, our leaders were often negligent when it came to honouring our solemn commitment to the hard working men and women of America. It will take time to reverse failed Republican policies, but I believe the Democratic budget will lead America in a new direction by providing urgently needed health care reform, bringing back our tradition of progressive taxation, improving our education, and confronting global warming.

Everyday, we hear more bad news about companies laying off their workers--a sad occurrence that has increased the already alarming levels of Americans who lack access to health insurance. Madam Chair, access to health care is a human right and enacting today's legislation will bring us one step closer to desperately needed reform. This bill will do so by improving quality, expanding coverage, addressing the rising costs that create so much budget heartache for hardworking citizens. This bill will also add an important provision into the Budget Reconciliation which will allow for expedited consideration for health reform later this year. I enthusiastically support the inclusion of this provision as a means to move this critical legislation to the President's desk this year.

At the State of the Union, President Obama made it clear he wanted to cut the budget deficit in half; this budget fulfils that promise. Today's legislation takes the record deficit that President Obama and the 111th Congress inherited in 2009, and cuts it to $586 billion in 2013.

Madam Chair, for too long the broken ideology of trickle down economics has promoted tax cuts for the very rich as the solution to our nation's economic woes. After years of economic decline and stagnation it is evident this ideology is not viable. The Democratic budget will instead provide over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to nearly 9 out of 10 Americans. This is done by giving Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief, eliminating the estate tax, giving hard working a fair shot at higher education with tax relief in higher education. The Democratic budget funds these tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes and the ``tax gap.''

In this era of global competition, it is imperative that we give our students the world class education without staggering amounts of debts. The bill will continue to increase Pell grant funding, expand early childhood education programs, and expand federal school meals initiatives.

While some may see that this budget is too ambitious, I say that the state of our economy demand nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chairman, I am happy that my friend on Judiciary, Dan Lungren, is managing the time on the other side because he will remember that it was last Thursday that the Republicans held a press conference and announced their non-budget budget with--but then they said that it's coming out. And then yesterday the Republican budget came out, and it had a few numbers in it.

And I am intrigued by, I think it's a general Republican assumption that with a stimulus plan by the present administration to create jobs, to give relief to the poor, to give relief to people who are in distressed markets, we are now saying that the President's budget is going to--as my friend from Michigan, Mike Rogers, just enunciated on the floor--that your electric bills will go up and all costs will rise under the Democratic budget.

Now, clearly both of these can't be the same. There is something missing here. And what I submit is that we have a progressive budget that goes beyond the good budget offered by the President. But to be comparing, as someone--I think it was the gentleman from California was just talking about--how can you be cutting all of this out of national defense?

Well, easy. Wasting money and having fraud is not a way of protecting the Nation. And the OMB has found billions of dollars of fraud. So that's what we're taking out of the military budget. That doesn't make the country weaker. It makes the country stronger.

I can't. And furthermore, we're talking about cutting out all of these ancient missile systems. I am sure that the gentleman from California, a veteran legislator in his second career back here, knows that there are a lot of these exotic missile systems that don't work any more. You can't use them in the Middle East or in the kind of warfare that we're fighting when we're fighting against terrorists and insurgents. And people are just fed up with it.

Madam Chair, as we all know, the recession we are facing today is the most severe since the Great Depression. It is evident that the Bush Administration's economic policies have failed us. With a new President, we now have the ability to begin to repair our economy and get our country back on track.

Madam Chair, we must significantly cut our bloated defense spending. I agree with my friend and fellow chair, Representative Barney Frank, that we should reduce defense spending by at least 25 percent. The CPC budget does this by withdrawing our troops from the senseless war in Iraq, saving American tax payers $105 billion in 2010, and by ending the procurement of antiquated Cold War weapons systems that no longer further our common national defense. These actions will save another $60 billion, yes $60 billion dollars, per year. This budget will also address the root causes of terrorism by enacting and fully funding the SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. This is a more effective, targeted, and nuanced national security strategy that will focus more of our resources on the critical issues that affect our national security: nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and multilateralism.

Furthermore, the CPC budget will offer serious reform that will bring back America's tradition of progressive taxation. First, it eliminates the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent, increasing government revenues by $84 billion. Moreover, the bill will force banks, who helped create this financial disaster, to self finance their received bail outs by implanting a one quarter of 1 percent tax on all stock and futures trading. Lastly, it will end outrageous overseas corporate tax havens in the Caribbean, Switzerland, and all elsewhere--bringing $100 billion in taxes back to the American treasury.

With these extra $300 billion government revenues the CPC budget will help hard working Americans through these tough economic times. Specifically, the budget alternative adds funding for job training, puts Americans to work with robust transportation funding, extends COBRA health benefits, and provides extra food stamps for the poor, women, and infants.

In these dire times, the Progressive Caucus budget will help us realign our fiscal policy with our values as a nation. As we cut useless defense spending and misdirected tax cuts for the wealthy, while providing aid to the middle and working classes, we will make an important statement: America honors work and those who play by the rules; we appreciate the success of the wealthy, but we expect them to reciprocate when it comes to promoting the common good. America will strengthen its national security by working with our allies around the world and by showing compassion to our brothers and sisters who lack our economic blessings. Finally, and most importantly, America is a flexible country that can and will change with the times, make smart investments, and lead the world in a new economic direction. I encourage my colleagues to support the Progressive Caucus' alternative budget so that we may move forward as a nation that honors work, justice, and peace.

Madam Chair, now more then ever Americans are seeking government to help them during these uncertain times. For too long, Members on the other side advocated for no government intervention, citing the mantra of extreme free market capitalism. Now we are seeing the devastating consequences. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is one way to confront our pressing issues and move America forward.

Today's legislation addresses minority health needs. It calls for significant increases in funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative, Ryan White CARE Act, and CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and Viral Hepatitis. Furthermore, the CBC budget calls for a $200 million increase in funding for the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH. These programs will promote better public health services to the many who depend on these programs.

Madam Chair, in the richest country in the world, access to housing is a human right. After many years of underfunding of the nation's affordable housing programs, the CBC fully funds Section 8 public housing to 100% of need. Furthermore, the bill calls for $360

million increase to housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA). Lastly, the CBC urges an increase in funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which allows states, localities, and nonprofits to buy up and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties.

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I whole heartily support The CBC efforts to reduce juvenile crime and efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. Today's legislation would fully fund the Second Chance Act, an important bill that gives assistance ex-offenders during their reclamation to society and may ultimately reduce crime. Furthermore, the CBC budget will increase funding for the Justice Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance.

During these tough economic times, we need expanded and improved access to high quality education. The CBC budget supports the President' to expand the Pell Grant program to hardworking students. It is a national shame that the Bush administration woefully underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act and the today's legislation calls for substantial increase in funding level. Furthermore, CBC budget calls on Congress to fully fund Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR UP, Youth Build, and vocational education programs.

I could go on about the features of this legislation but clearly it puts Americans first. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``John Hope Franklin Tulsa-Greenwood Race Riot Claims Accountability Act of 2009,'' along with Representative Nadler. This legislation will extend the statute of limitations to allow the survivors of the Tulsa-Greenwood Riot of 1921 to seek a determination on the merits of their civil rights and other claims against the perpetrators of the Riot in a court of law.

This legislation is named in honor of the late Dr. John Hope Franklin, the noted historian, who was a first-hand witness to the destructive impact that the riot had on the African-American community of Tulsa. Dr. Franklin made numerous scholarly contributions to the understanding of the long term effects of the riot on the city and worked to keep the issue alive in history and on the minds of policymakers. On April 24, 2007, he served as a witness, testifying in favor of the legislation, and its passage would be a fitting tribute to his memory and to a community which has never received its fair day in court.

The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was one of the nation's most prosperous African-American communities entering the decade of the Nineteen Twenties. Serving over 8,000 residents, the community boasted two newspapers, over a dozen churches, and hundreds of African-American-owned businesses, with the commercial district known nationally as the ``Negro Wall Street.'' In May 1921, all that came to an end as 42 square blocks of the community were burned to the ground and up to 300 of its residents were killed by a racist mob. In the wake of the violence, the State and local governments quashed claims for redress and effectively erased the incident from official memory.

The 1921 Tulsa Race Riot was one of the most destructive and costly attacks upon an American community in our nation's history. However, no convictions were obtained for the incidents of murder, arson or larceny connected with the riot, and none of the more than 100 contemporaneously filed lawsuits by residents and property owners was successful in recovering damages from insurance companies to assist in the reconstruction of the community.

The case of the Tulsa-Greenwood Riot victims is worthy of congressional attention because substantial evidence suggests that governmental officials deputized and armed the mob and that the National Guard joined in the destruction. The report commissioned by the Oklahoma State Legislature in 1997, and published in 2001, uncovered new information and detailed, for the first time, the extent of the involvement by the State and city government in prosecuting and erasing evidence of the riot. This new evidence was crucial for the formulation of a substantial case, but its timeliness raised issues at law, and resulted in a dismissal on statute of limitation grounds. In dismissing the survivor's claims, however, the Court found that extraordinary circumstances

might support extending the statute of limitations, but that Congress did not establish rules applicable to the case at bar. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to provide closure for a group of claimants--all over 90 years old--and the ability close the book on a tragic chapter in history.

Racism, and its violent manifestations, are part of nation's past that we cannot avoid. With the prosecution of historical civil rights claims, both civil and criminal, we encourage a process of truth and reconciliation which can heal historic wounds. In this case, the Court took ``no great comfort'' in finding that there was no legal avenue through which the plaintiffs could bring their claims. The ``Tulsa- Greenwood Riot Accountability Act'' would simply give Tulsans and all Oklahomans, white and black, victims and non-victims, their day in court. Without that opportunity, we will all continue to be victims of our past.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1575) to petition the courts to avoid fraudulent transfers of excessive compensation made by entities that have received extraordinary Federal financial assistance on or after September 1, 2008, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days to revise their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Members of the House, this is a modest effort to safeguard taxpayer funds and rein in the out-of-control compensation and bonus abuses by companies that have used Federal Government-supplied capital to stay out of bankruptcy.

Essentially, the two main provisions in it are first, it supplements existing fraud laws to allow the Attorney General to use the courts to challenge, on a case-by-case basis, the most egregious bonuses by entities receiving more than $5 billion in direct capital investments. This measure is directly based on fraudulent transfer laws that are in the United States Code, codified, or a matter of common law in every State that goes back to Elizabethan times, if anyone would care to research that.

Secondly, we authorize the Attorney General to subpoena necessary information relevant to the bonuses. But, unlike other measures, this act applies to bonuses made as far back as the fall of 2008, so that it could apply to year-end bonuses made by AIG and Merrill Lynch. And so it also can be applied to foreigners, since we found out that a majority of AIG bonuses, as determined by Attorney General Cuomo, were not received by Americans, and that, for some reason, foreign individuals appear less likely to return their bonuses voluntarily.

So, this is a very important complement to everything else that's going on. And later on I'll introduce records for those constitutional Members of the body that want to be assured that this is a constitutional matter. We have Laurence Tribe and three other professors who have analysis of the constitutionality of this measure to be inserted into the Record at the appropriate time.

I'll reserve, now, the balance of my time.

I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee from which this measure came, Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, who has served with great effectiveness on the Judiciary Committee, and I would yield her as much time as she may consume (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I close regretfully lamenting the comments of my good friend, Lamar Smith, the ranking member on this committee, because he may not have sensed the outrage of the American people in terms of the fact that these outrageous bonuses were being arrogantly issued out with government funds that were by the billions, that were going to corporations to supposedly save them from bankruptcy. And so for him to ignore the fact that at least 47 States already have these laws, to think that there would be a constitutional problem with the government in this very limited case directing the courts to, on a case-by-case basis, review their appropriateness is rather astounding.

So I would like to personally make myself available, particularly to new Members of this great body of the 111th Congress, to please consult with me before you do anything that will prevent us from having a long friendship and get to know each other a lot better in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the other two law professor letters for the Record.

March 24, 2009.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Conyers and Congressman Smith: I am

writing to express my opinion that the fraudulent transfer

provisions of H.R. 1575 pass constitutional muster. I am

writing in my capacity as an expert on fraudulent transfer

law, not on behalf of any group or individual.

I am the Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor

at the University of Chicago. I joined Chicago's faculty in

1980, was Director of its law and economics program from 1992

to 1994, and served as its Dean from 1994 to 1999. I have

been a visiting professor at Stanford, Harvard, and Yale.

Currently a Director of the American College of Bankruptcy, I

was Vice Chair of the National Bankruptcy Conference from

1997 until 2004. My publications include a number of articles

on fraudulent transfer law.

I begin by emphasizing that the fraudulent transfer

provision of H.R. 1575 has modest scope. It creates a new

federal procedure, but the substantive right in question has

existed under state law for a long time. In every

jurisdiction, creditors (including the United States) have

the ability to avoid transfers made by an insolvent or

financially troubled debtor for less than reasonably

equivalent value. Indeed, more than half the states have

enacted the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (``UFTA''), which

uses nearly identical statutory language.

Apart from the UFTA being a state-based procedure and

generally broader in scope, the only substantive difference

between the UFTA and H.R. 1575 is on the narrow question of

the time at which insolvency or unreasonably small capital is

judged. Under H.R. 1575, it is at the time of the payment,

while under the UFTA. It is the time that the contract is

entered into. Such a difference, however, should not be of

great moment. Congress has enacted fraudulent transfer rules

before (typically in bankruptcy legislation) and has departed

more substantially from the nonbankruptcy rule. For example,

the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act

of 2005 enacted a fraudulent transfer provision that allows

recovery against insider employees who receive more than

reasonably equivalent value and it contains no insolvency

requirement or unreasonably small capital requirement at all.

Because H.R. 1575 largely replicates rights that the United

States already possesses under state law, there seems little

doubt that Congress has the power to enact it. While the

statute does reach, among other things, transfers that have

already taken place, this has been the case with previous

fraudulent conveyance statutes enacted by Congress, most

recently in 2005. I am not aware that anyone has ever

suggested that these were constitutionally suspect.

H.R. 1575 is not an ex post facto law, as it involves only

civil liability. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). Nor

is it a bill of attainder as it applies generally to entities

that have received a particular type of federal funding. The

only remotely colorable constitutional argument against H.R.

1575 is that it violates the due process rights of the

transferees because of the statute's retroactive effect. This

should not, however, create a constitutional problem, as long

as Congress's intent to apply it retroactively is expressed

clearly.

In Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976),

the Supreme Court noted that it ``is by now well established

that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and benefits of

economic life come to the Court with a presumption of

constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining

of a due process violation to establish that the legislature

has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.''

On the rare occasions in which it has struck down

legislation that has had a retroactive effect, the Court has

emphasized that, to constitute a due process violation, it

must cross a significant threshold, such as, in one case,

prospective liability on account of conduct that a company

had ceased many decades before. While ``legislation might be

unconstitutional if it imposes severe retroactive liability

on a limited class of parties that could not have anticipated

the liability, and the extent of that liability is

substantially disproportionate to the parties' experience,''

as a general matter ``Congress has considerable leeway to

fashion economic legislation, including the power to affect

contractual commitments between private parties.'' Eastern

Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 529-30 (1998).

Legislation, such as H.R. 1575, that largely tracks

existing state law cannot take private parties by surprise.

In this case, the basic principle--that financially troubled

debtors cannot give their assets away--has been part of

Anglo-American law for centuries. See Twyne's Case, 3 Coke

80b, 76 Eng. Rep. 809 (1601).

If you or your staff have any questions or would like

further information, I would be happy to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas G. Baird.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 290) honoring the lives, and mourning the loss, of Sergeant Mark Dunakin, Sergeant Ervin Romans, Sergeant Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege, members of the Oakland Police Department in California who were brutally slain in the line of duty.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

This resolution honors the lives and mourns the loss of four Oakland, California, police department officers. These honorable and brave officers were viciously slain by gunfire in the line of duty on Saturday, March 21, 2009. By way of this resolution, the House of Representatives extends its condolences to the families and loved ones of those police officers, and we join with the City of Oakland and the entire Bay Area in grieving the deaths of these exemplary public servants who gave their lives to protect the Oakland community.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud now to yield to the author of this resolution, the distinguished gentlelady from Oakland, California, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Barbara Lee, for as much time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm honored now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the gentlewoman from California.

I'm pleased now to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), a cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who represents the Upper Peninsula and is a former law enforcement person himself.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 985) to maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks as well and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Members of the House, the Free Flow of Information Act creates a qualified privilege to protect journalists from being compelled to disclose confidential sources or other than nonpublic information that they have collected in the course of their reporting.

This is a very important and sensitive matter. I want to point out that the gentleman from Virginia, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, has worked on and authored this bill for a number of years. It has been modified and brought before us. I think that it's of critical importance and continues to deserve the overwhelming support of this body, which it has received.

Right at this moment, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter from the Detroit Free Press, David Ashenfelter, faces possible contempt charges for refusing to disclose sources who exposed serious prosecutorial misconduct. The bill has been carefully tailored, as will be explained.

There's one other person I would like to single out for their excellent testimony in the last Congress, and that is Pulitzer Prize winner William Safire, who gave some very important insights into the scope and significance of this bill.

We think that this is critical. It's supported by editorial boards, media companies, organizations, associations, News Corp, and all broadcast networks. We urge that this measure be given the careful consideration that it is due.

I would also like to single out the gentleman from Indiana, Mike Pence, a distinguished member of the committee, and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, whose efforts were vitally important in strengthening the bill and ensuring that it is a truly bipartisan measure that comes before the House today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of myself and the Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Rick Kaplan, who just recently left the House to take a position with the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Kaplan served in the Office of the General Counsel for 14 months as an Assistant Counsel. We will miss him.

Mr. Kaplan provided invaluable legal advice and representation to our Committee, particularly in connection with a landmark lawsuit that resulted in a decision recognizing the judicial enforceability of congressional subpoenas to executive branch officials. I and my staff relied on his expertise and guidance both in connection with the many tactical and strategic decisions we were required to make in the course of this important case, and in drafting the legal briefs that were filed in court setting forth the Committee's positions.

Mr. Kaplan played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives. He served the House with great distinction, and we know he will serve the Federal Communications Commission with that same level of distinction. On behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, we thank him for his service to the House and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. Speaker, due to events in my congressional district, I was unable to vote today. If I were present, I would vote ``yea'' to H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, and ``nay'' to Representative Mack's amendment. Furthermore, I would vote ``yea'' to H. Res. 224.