Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on January 9, 2009, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for H. Res. 34. I intended to vote ``present.''

Madam Speaker, today I have received a report prepared by the majority staff of the House Judiciary Committee, Committee, detailing numerous abuses by the Bush administration over the past 8 years, and recommending a number of steps to restore an appropriate Constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The report, based largely on oversight activities of the Judiciary Committee, and other committees, over the course of the 110th Congress, is titled ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush.''

Issues examined include: The politicization of the Department of Justice; assaults on individual liberty, including extreme interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens; the misuse of executive branch regulatory authority and Presidential signing statements; misleading manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence; improper retaliation against Administration critics; and excessive secrecy, including non-compliance with congressional oversight.

The report examines how the Bush Administration's legal approach to presidential power has eroded the Constitutional system of checks and balances designed by the Framers to preserve our liberty. It also recommends specific steps that this Congress and the incoming Obama administration should take to restore those checks and balances.

I am having the report posted to the Judiciary Committee Web site, in order to make it available to other members of the committee, to the full House, and to the American public.

I believe this report will be of tremendous benefit helping inform the changes we must make going forward--to repair the damage to our democracy, and to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, ``The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.'' The time has come for the Congress to reverse the wrongheaded and discriminatory Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co. If left intact, this case will not only continue to undermine the validity of our Nation's gender discrimination laws, but also laws that prevent employer discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or age.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I heard the story of Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, in 2007, a majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that employees must file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of the very first discriminatory payroll decision. This means that in order to have her day in court, Ms. Ledbetter would have needed to file suit in 1979, even though there was no way she could have known that discrimination was occurring at that point. And even though each successive payroll left her with fewer dollars than her equally qualified colleagues, the Justices of the Supreme Court argued that Ms. Ledbetter had missed her chance at justice.

Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law. For this, we should be ashamed.

Adding insult to injury, federal and state courts packed with conservative jurists have taken the precedent created by the Roberts Court's Ledbetter decision and expanded upon its logic--for the sole purpose of undermining a wide range of antidiscrimination laws. Because statues which prevent discrimination are extremely similar in form to one another, it has been extremely easy for these jurists to employ the logic found in a gender discrimination case like Goodyear to disenfranchise claimants seeking redress under provisions of the Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and many other laws aimed at ending anti-discrimination.

If enacted, this bill will clarify that each paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay decision is a new violation of employment nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker files a charge within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge would be considered timely.

Madam Speaker, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American workplace. For the sake of ``equal pay for equal work'' and the continued utility of all of our federal discrimination laws, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 12, ``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' I am hopeful that the momentum created with the passage of the Act this past July will propel this important legislation through the Senate and on to our new President's desk as one of the first laws enacted by the 111th Congress. In doing so, our Nation takes the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that men and women receive equal pay for equal work.

The Congress first committed itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 1963, when it passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, full-time working women were paid on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the ensuing 43 years, the wage gap between men and women has narrowed. In 2009, women earn about 77 percent of what men earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap that exists still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary problem in our labor market.

H.R. 12 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st century offices.

H.R. 12 will strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that are performed under similar working conditions within the same physical location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify unequal pay if it is based on: seniority; merit; quality or quantity of production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This legislation clarifies the `any factor other than sex' defense, so that an employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job-related, and necessary for the business.

The bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their coworkers. However, employees such as human resources personnel who have access to payroll information as part of their job would not be protected if they disclose the salaries of other workers.

The bill also adds teeth and accountability by strengthening the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay and in some cases double back pay. The damages would not be capped.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this body to enshrine ``equal pay for equal work'' as the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009, a much needed reform to our election system. As the 111th Congress focuses on election fixes and greater voter protections, this legislation is a critical contribution to such efforts. Prohibitions on voter caging will ensure that our democracy lives up to the belief that every eligible citizen is entitled to the right to vote.

Voter caging, though just recently given media attention, is a disenfranchisement tactic that has been around for over 50 years. This undemocratic tactic often involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, voters' names are placed on a ``caging list,'' that list then being used to challenge voters'' eligibility.

Those suggesting that voter caging is necessary to weed out ineligible voters must recognize this practice is unreliable and dangerous for such purposes. Mail may be returned as undeliverable for any number of reasons unrelated to an individual's eligibility to vote. For example, mail is returned due to typos, transposed numbers, new street names, and improper deliveries.

Voters in my home State of Michigan have been subjected to voter caging controversies in the last two Presidential elections. In the 2008 election, a voter caging strategy meant to politically capitalize on the subprime mortgage crisis was identified. Those voters whose homes had been subjected to foreclosure were targets for caging on the basis that they no longer resided at the addresses at which they registered to vote.

During the 2004 election, challengers monitored every single one of Detroit's 254 polling stations. This strategy was consistent with a Michigan lawmaker's effort to ``suppress the Detroit vote.'' It was widely accepted that this statement was synonymous with ``suppress the Black vote,'' as Detroit is 83 percent African American.

Our most vulnerable voters racial minorities, language minorities, low-income people, the homeless, and college students--always seem to be targeted for caging and other voter suppression campaigns. However, all voters are susceptible to voter intimidation and suppression. For example, during the 2004 election, Ohio and Florida caging lists included the names of soldiers whose mail had been returned as undeliverable because they were stationed overseas.

It is because no one is immune to caging and other disenfranchisement tactics, that I have introducing the Caging Prohibition Act. This bill is really quite simple, as it one, requires election officials to corroborate their caging documents with independent evidence before a voter can be deemed ineligible. And two, limits all other challenges that do not come from election officials to those based on personal, first-hand knowledge.

By eliminating caging tactics, we restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity. I ask that my colleagues in the Congress join me in supporting the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. Please stand with me in protecting the very core of our democracy.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2009. During our elections, including the 2008 election, we have witnessed numerous attempts, some of them successful, to disenfranchise our eligible voters. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation, age-old voter disenfranchisement tactics, continue to keep voters away from the polls today.

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act is a critical effort in ensuring fairness and integrity in our elections. It is a direct response to the fraudulent tactics used to undermine our elections. Every eligible voter should be able to vote free of intimidation, harassment, and harm.

Numerous accounts indicate that deceptive practices have been employed throughout the country in our elections. Voters have been told to vote on the wrong day. They have been told they could not vote with outstanding parking tickets. Ultimately, they were misled, deceived, and disenfranchised.

During the 2008 election, a phony flyer circulated in Virginia telling Democratic voters that they were to vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. During the 2006 midterm, Latino voters in Orange County, California, were threatened with incarceration if they voted and African American voters in Prince George's County, Maryland were given fliers with false endorsements. As evidenced in California and Maryland, our most vulnerable voters--immigrants and minorities--are often those voters that are targeted for deceptive practices.

No matter who is targeted for these tactics, however, such actions are despicable and those responsible for them must be held accountable. This country's long history of voter suppression must end now. We must protect the right to vote for all of our citizens and that is what this legislation will enable us to do.

Under this legislation, those that engage in deceptive practices and voter intimidation will be held accountable. Deceptive electioneering practices are clearly defined and prohibited so there is no confusion as to the rights and protections afforded voters.

Additionally, the Federal Government will be held responsible for protecting and advancing the right to vote. The Attorney General and the Department of Justice are required to combat and counteract deceptive practices. These measures will ensure that voters are not left to fend for themselves when their right to vote is threatened.

If we allow deceptive practices and other such behavior to continue, we jeopardize the very core of our democracy, the right to vote. I ask that my colleagues in the Congress stand with me in support of this legislation, so that we may begin eliminating barriers to the polls.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights or VOTER Act of 2009. I introduce this legislation, more than 200 years after the founding of our democracy, because we have yet to realize a government that is truly representative of the principle, ``of the people, by the people.'' Not until every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted, will we have a proper democracy.

Though the 2008 Election did not present the widespread irregularities and improprieties that were witnessed during the 2000 and 2004 Elections, it was still an election in which voter disenfranchisement was attempted and accomplished. Voters' names are still missing from voter rolls. Voter harassment and intimidation continues.

In fact, over the years, the methods that are used to disenfranchise voters have just become more contemporary and sophisticated as evidenced during the 2008 Election. For example, in my home State of Michigan, in the midst of the current subprime mortgage crisis, a strategy to challenge a voter's eligibility based on home foreclosure status was devised. In Virginia, a flyer telling Democrats to vote on Wednesday November 5, 2008, circulated.

Anything short of a perfect election system is unacceptable. I have introduced VOTER so that we may work towards a more perfect system, one that reflects legitimacy, integrity, and inclusivity. VOTER will protect and expand voting rights in Federal elections, as well as ensure the proper administration of Federal elections.

VOTER will:

(1) provide for a uniform Federal write-in absentee ballot;

(2) require States to provide for a verified audit trail;

(3) count provisional ballots cast in the proper State;

(4) properly allocate voting machines and poll workers;

(5) provide for election day voter registration;

(6) protect against improper purging of registration lists;

(7) mandate early voting;

(8) require verification and audit ability for punch cards;

(9) simplify voter registration requirements;

(10) allow voter identification by written affidavit;

(11) provide for a study of nonpartisan election boards;

(12) strengthen the EAC with funding and resources;

(13) require the EAC to (a) enhance training for election officials; (b) require the use of publicly available open source software; (c) provide uniform standards for vote recounts; and (d) prohibit voting machine companies from engaging in political activities;

(14) prohibit deceptive practices and intimidation;

(15) prohibit caging and other questionable challenges;

(16) restore voting rights to former felons; and

(17) treat Election Day as a federal holiday.

Some of these initiatives have already been implemented by States, the success of which was observed during the 2008 Election. There are 32 States that currently provide early voting, including Florida, a State that witnessed over one million voters turn out to the polls the weekend before the election. There are also 28 States that currently provide no-excuse absentee voting.

Such practices were critical to managing an unprecedented voter turnout. More than 130 million people turned out to vote in the 2008 Election, the highest turnout in any presidential election. With this many longtime and new voters engaged in the 2008 election process, I suspect that voter participation will only increase in 2012.

As such, we must pledge to fight for election reform in this Congress. The right to vote and to have that vote counted is one of our democracy's most fundamental principles. It is with VOTER that I intend to protect this fundamental principle, and I ask that my colleagues in this Congress join me in this fight for fair and just elections.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. This 111th Congress marks the 20th anniversary of this bill's introduction. Since 1989, I have believed it to be in the best interest of our Nation to formally address one of our greatest historical injustices.

As evidenced by recent events, the sin of slavery is one that continues to weigh heavily upon us. Following the lead of other churches, the Episcopal Church formally apologized for its role in slavery on October 4, 2008. Florida became the sixth state to apologize for slavery on March 26, 2008, following Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey. During the internationally renowned Sundance Film Festival, Traces of the Trade, a documentary in which descendants of the largest U.S. slave trading family confront this painful history, screened in January of 2008.

Just last Congress, the House passed a slavery apology bill on July 29, 2008, in which the House issued a formal apology for slavery. In recognition of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on January 1, 1808, the House and Senate passed legislation creating a commemoration commission, which was signed into law on February 5, 2008, and is currently awaiting funding. Such Federal efforts are significant steps towards proper acknowledgment and understanding of slavery and its implications, but our responsibilities on this matter are even greater.

Establishing a commission to study the institution of slavery in the United States, as well as its consequences that reach into modern day society, is our responsibility. This concept of a commission to address historical wrongs is not unprecedented. In fact, in recent Congresses, commission bills have been put forward.

In 1983, a Presidential Commission determined that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was racist and inhumane, and as a result, the 1988 Civil Liberties Act provided redress for those injured by the internment. However, the interment of Japanese Latin Americans in the United States during World War II was not examined by the Commission, resulting in legislation calling for a commission to examine this oversight. Legislation establishing a commission to review the injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II has also been proposed.

H.R. 40 is no different than these other commission bills. H.R. 40 establishes a commission to examine the institution of slavery and its legacy, like racial disparities in education, housing, and healthcare. Following this examination, the commission would make recommend appropriate remedies to Congress, and as I have indicated before, remedies does not equate to monetary compensation.

In the 110th Congress, I convened the first Congressional hearing on H.R. 40. With witnesses that included Professor Charles Ogletree, Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, and Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, we began a formal dialogue on the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. This Congress, I look forward to continuing this conversation so that our Nation can better understand this part of our history.

Attempts to eradicate today's racial discrimination and disparities will be successful when we understand the past's racial injustices and inequities. A commission can take us into this dark past and bring us into a brighter future. As in years past, I welcome open and constructive discourse on H.R. 40 and this commission in the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, for reasons enumerated elsewhere, I strongly support this bill. It is essential that Congress take this prudent step to provide a short-term bridge loan to help preserve a viable domestic auto industry, and its far-reaching contributions to the overall long-term health of our economy, while appropriately safeguarding the interests of American taxpayers.

The bill we are considering today contains a provision creating a limited antitrust exemption for certain consultations in which a U.S. automaker may be asked to engage with its employees, dealers, suppliers, and other creditors for the purpose of reaching agreement on a restructuring plan for the automaker under the bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to emphasize a few points regarding that provision.

The antitrust laws are the fundamental legal protector of our free market system--the Supreme Court has aptly referred to them as the Magna Carta of the free enterprise system. Exemptions from the antitrust laws can be very harmful and destructive of the basic economic freedom we cherish as Americans.

For that reason, any proposed antitrust exemption should be very carefully considered as to its need. And even if a need can be clearly demonstrated, the exemption should be carefully focused and of limited duration.

In keeping with those considerations, this exemption is temporary and very focused. It is designed to give greater assurance to the various ``interested parties''--the employees, retirees, dealers, suppliers, shareholders, and creditors of a U.S. automaker covered by this bill, listed in section 6(a)(1)(B)--who will be consulting and negotiating with the automaker in an effort to reach agreement on a long-term restructuring plan for the automaker pursuant to the bill.

Some of these interested parties are reportedly uncertain as to how their participation in these consultations might raise issues under the antitrust laws. With the urgent need to move quickly on this legislation, it has not been possible to sit down with them and understand the precise nature of their concerns. Based on similar concerns that are raised from time to time in various quarters, the concerns may well be misplaced, reflecting a lack of understanding about the antitrust laws, which prohibit only conduct that harms competition, permitting the wide range of conduct that does not harm competition.

While these concerns may be misplaced, however, they appear to be genuine and held in good faith, and could therefore have the effect of discouraging the kinds of participation that is needed from all interested parties in order to enable the restructuring plans to succeed. To help avert this risk, this antitrust exemption has been carefully crafted to provide sufficient reassurance and guidance to interested parties, while avoiding the risk of shielding truly anticompetitive conduct from effective antitrust enforcement.

First, the limited exemption covers only the discussions, consultations, and meetings among an eligible auto manufacturer and its own interested parties. It does not cover joint activity among two or more automakers, which could create more risk of harm to competition. It also does not cover action taking place outside those discussions, consultations, and meetings.

Second, the limited exemption fully preserves the authority of the Federal antitrust agencies to bring enforcement action for injunctive relief to stop anticompetitive conduct should it occur. Merger enforcement authority is also preserved.

Similarly, the so-called ``per se'' offenses, such as price fixing, market allocation, and boycott, remain fully subject to antitrust enforcement. These are not kinds of conduct that someone innocently stumbles into. They are intentional schemes to subvert competition, and can be extremely harmful to the free market system and the economy.

Third, in the event that the discussions, consultations, and meetings continue for an extended period, the exemption sunsets after 3 years. In all likelihood, the exemption will quickly prove unnecessary. If not, and if the negotiations are still ongoing as the end of the 3-year period approaches, Congress can always consider extending the sunset if the exemption is truly warranted. The sunset is consistent with the recommendation of the Antitrust Modernization Commission that any antitrust exemption should be temporary.

Finally, in order to encourage whatever further guidance may be appropriate, the provision requires that, to the extent practicable, the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies be given reasonable advance notice of any discussion, consultation, or meeting covered by the provision, and the opportunity to participate.

As carefully crafted, this provision should provide whatever guidance and reassurance the interested parties may need that their good-faith efforts to cooperate in achieving the bill's important objectives for this important bedrock American industry will not inadvertently create antitrust problems, while at the same time taking appropriate care not to inadvertently immunize truly anticompetitive conduct that could severely harm the long-term health of this industry, the many economic sectors it touches, and the American economy itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321. With this vote today, the Congress is acting decisively to protect American auto workers and dealers in every Congressional district in the country and sets Detroit on the path to near-term and long-term economic viability.

We cannot forget that the auto industry is the backbone of our domestic manufacturing sector--the very sector which drives our economy. Additionally, should one or more of the Big Three automakers fail, it would mean the loss of more than 100,000 jobs directly associated with the industry in my home state of Michigan and more than 3 million jobs around the country indirectly associated with the industry, such as auto dealers and auto part suppliers.

At the same time, I and my fellow Members in the Congress are wary of bailing out or rewarding companies that have so often pursued their own interests at the expense of the public good. Whether it was fighting to undermine more demanding fuel efficiency standards or dragging their feel when it came to developing electric car and hybrid technology, the Big 3 are in a large way responsible for the predicament they find themselves in today.

Now, the executives of Big 3 have come to Capitol Hill, not as titans of industry, but as caretakers of uncompetitive behemoths on the verge of collapse. They are in no position to make demands of the American people and the aid offered by the Congress today reflects that reality.

I believe that the aid package offered to the Big 3 here today extracts real, tangible, expansive reforms from the industry. With this bill we are sending a clear message to Detroit: If you are to survive, you must dramatically alter your business models, slim your corporate structure, spin off unprofitable lines, invest in the technologies of the future, and, above all else, cease producing the gas-guzzling steel chariots of the past. There is no alternative to these reforms. This bridge loan will only work if it truly serves as a bridge to the future and not as a cushion slowing inevitable decline.

Over the last month, there has been much discussion about the need for a strong central figure to oversee the dramatic changes being undertaken by the auto industry. I called for the creation of such a position and I am heartened to see that an auto czar-type position is established with this legislation.

If Detroit does its part, the Congress can and will do much to make the American auto industry the world and industry leader it once was. The $25 billion authorized in the 2007 Energy Bill and appropriated by the Congress to retrofit the Big 3's aging factories was a step in the right direction. It was my hope that this money would be left untouched during the current debate, so that it could continue to further the original purposes the Congress intended. I remain hopeful that the $15 billion appropriated for the auto companies in this Act will be refunded when we return in January with a larger Democratic majority and a change-minded new President.

Let me be clear--this bill is far from perfect. I would have preferred that a provision that mandates that bridge loan recipients withdraw from their suit against California's higher tailpipe emission standards remain in the bill. Stripping this provision will accomplish little. As my colleagues in the upper body, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Bill Nelson of Florida, have noted, GM and Ford have laid out business plans indicating that they intend to outperform the California fuel economy standards within a few years anyway. The fact that blocking these suits would have absolutely no effect on the Big 3's bottom lines makes these taxpayer subsidized lawsuits even more outrageous.

I also think we must acknowledge the failures in leadership which have contributed to the dire straits the Big 3 find themselves in at this time. The New York Times and others have called for the resignation of the Big 3's CEOs, citing their complicity in the current crisis and their lack of foresight and competitive instincts. I support this call because even now, there is tremendous evidence that the leadership of the Big 3 just doesn't get it.

Just today, in an interview on Fox News Channel, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz stated that Americans want more sports utility vehicles and large pickup trucks and that small vehicles are a bad investment.

I strongly encourage the ``Auto Czar,'' or ``President's Designee'' as it is referred to in this legislation, to push for the removal of any and all executives at the Big 3 who stand in the way of a greener, more fuel efficient auto industry.

Finally, it should not go unnoticed that during the final legislative debate overseen by the 43rd President of the United States, the current Administration chose to fight tooth and nail against strong measures aimed at furthering the fight against global warming and promoting energy independence. We are only here today because Treasury Secretary Paulson could find $300 billion to invest in Wall Street financiers who manipulated securities and other financial tools for a living, but couldn't find $15 billion to help working men and women who create products made and consumed here in the United States of America. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the will of the American people, this lame duck President yet again fought against progress. It is a fitting reminder of the politics that we leave behind with this vote today and, hopefully, of the brighter days that await us.

I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, many people, trapped in a cycle of despair, feel that there is no way out of homelessness, addiction, or prostitution. Exploitative pimps, callously indifferent law enforcement, and a lack of social services combine to make it almost impossible for some to escape the streets. Norma Hotaling not only successfully left that life, but has devoted herself to leading the fight to help those who remain behind.

Ms. Hotaling founded the organization Stand Against Global Exploitation (SAGE). SAGE is devoted to helping women and men who have suffered rape, sexual assault, molestation or violence in the difficult transition from victim to survivor. As her organization has said, ``Norma [is] determined to make it easier for other women, men and youth who wanted to leave the sex trade and addiction behind, and find their way from the harsh effects of sexual exploitation to restored wellness, confidence, vocation, and overall wholeness.''

Through peer counselling--often by survivors--SAGE not only provides psychological and social services to prostitutes and those exiting prostitution, but also empowers the women once they have left the streets. Ms. Hotaling's efforts show that therapy should not be thought of as a luxury for the wealthy: everyone should be able to get psychological services.

Norma Hotaling is a trailblazer. She encourages psychologists around the countries to work with their local law enforcement offices to help women and children exploited by prostitution. She founded San Francisco's internationally recognized ``john school'' in which arrested clients confront the reality of prostitution. Her outreach programs in jails and on the street raise awareness among at-risk populations about how commercial sexual exploitation can lead to addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Sadly, Ms. Hotaling is now in an even graver fight--the fight against cancer. We wish her comfort, and all the best. She is supported in her fight by thousands of people whose lives she has touched. Norma Hotaling's life is an inspiration, and her example will continue to inform our own fight against modern slavery and exploitation.

Madam Speaker, while I am personally opposed to this bill, and have set forth my reasons elsewhere in this debate, the Judiciary Committee has nevertheless assisted the bill's drafters in an effort to help ensure that it does not inadvertently impair fundamental legal rights and protections.

In that regard, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to further illuminate Congress's intent with respect to three provisions in section 119 of the bill, the section regarding judicial review and related matters.

First, the limitation on injunctive and other equitable relief in section 119(a)(2)(A). This provision is written in light of the expected need for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, ``TARP,'' established under the bill in the Treasury Department to be able to act quickly on its decisions to purchase particular assets in the marketplace.

Accordingly, the grounds for obtaining injunctive or other equitable relief, which could potentially impair the efficiency of the TARP's response to breaking market developments, is limited to remedying constitutional violations, while all underlying rights, and the availability of monetary damages where warranted, are preserved. Moreover, even in cases of constitutional remedy, there are special provisions in section 119(a)(2)(B)-(D) for expediting resolution of the matter in court.

It should be kept in mind that the bill provides for a number of avenues to protect against possible overreaching by the Secretary or the TARP, including a special Inspector General, ongoing Government Accountability Office review, and a congressional oversight panel. Nor do the limits alter the normal rules governing agency rulemaking or adjudication, which are not the sort of actions that require the same kind of rapid response envisioned for TARP's marketplace decisions.

Second, the provision regarding homeowners' rights in section 119(b)(1). This provision clarifies that a sale of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities to the TARP in no way impairs the claims or defenses of the homeowners whose mortgages are involved. All rights and interests of the homeowners, whether under the terms of the mortgage instrument or under law, are fully preserved. This means, among other things, that the TARP, in acquiring interests in these securities, does not thereby obtain the right to use any of the extraordinary collection methods and other recourse that is available solely to the Government, which it has been given for collecting fines and other debts owed directly to the Government which the homeowners here did not contract to be subject to.

This provision does not prevent modifications to which the homeowner agrees, such as a reduction in interest rate, reduction in loan principal, waiver of fees and unpaid interest, or other forbearance that enables the homeowner to avoid foreclosure, continue living in the home, and keep the mortgage. In fact, this provision is designed to encourage TARP to consider such modifications whenever prudent.

And it often will be, benefitting the investors in the mortgage- backed debt as well as the homeowners involved. The costs of foreclosure to the investors--leaving aside the costs to the homeowner, and the community of which the homeowner is a part--will generally far exceed the costs to investors of a mortgage modification.

Indeed, taking into account costs such as foreclosure expenses, damage to vacant homes, maintenance, the loss from sales of vacant property in a declining market, the net recovery by investors in a foreclosure situation can be a small fraction of the amount owed on the mortgage. Many foreclosed homes end up being sold in bulk through distress sales, for only a few thousand dollars each. And all of this feeds a vicious circle of increasing foreclosures and declining home values.

Loan modifications are almost invariably better for the investors, who continue to receive a steady stream of mortgage payments, as well as for the homeowner, who is able to stay in the home, for the neighborhood that keeps more of its homes occupied and property values supported, and for the entire community that benefits from the homeowner's economic contributions.

Third, the savings clause in section 119(b)(2). As written, this provision is a combination of two separate sentences. And the first sentence has two separate purposes.

One purpose of the first sentence is to preserve current and future responsibility for wrongdoing, and to ensure that this legislation is not interpreted to relieve wrongdoers from accountability or liability to those whom they have harmed. The Congress is aware of civil litigation brought by shareholders, ERISA participants, or by or on behalf of financial institutions, against officers, directors, and in some cases counterparties whose alleged misconduct caused or contributed to their losses. The Congress is also aware of media reports of criminal investigations.

These matters are for the justice system to resolve. The Secretary, and the Executive Branch in general, should cooperate as appropriate with public and private efforts to recover losses from wrongdoers in the financial market, whether those efforts are brought by a governmental entity, securities purchasers, employees, or the corporation itself, or are asserted on behalf of the corporation derivatively. Nothing in this Act is intended to impair any legal rights as against private parties to recover for or redress wrongdoing under Federal or State law.

The other purpose of the first sentence is to clarify, similarly as with mortgage-backed securities in section 119(b)(1), that a transfer of nonmortgage financial assets to the TARP does not impair any of the underlying rights, claims, and defenses of borrowers who are not in privity with the TARP and have not contracted for or consented to any such impairment.

This does not affect the ability of the TARP and the financial institution transferring the assets to contract between themselves as to which rights and obligations related to those assets will be assumed by Treasury, and which rights and obligations will be retained by the financial institution. Rather, it clarifies that whichever of them deals with the borrower going forward must do so on the same terms, and owes the same duties, as under the original agreement, so that the rights the borrower contracted for or enjoys under law are in no way impaired. Again, this means, among other things, that the TARP, in acquiring these assets, does not thereby obtain the right to use any of the extraordinary collection methods and other recourse that are available solely to the Government, which it has been given for collecting fines and other debts owed directly to it--which the borrowers here did not contract to be subject to.

The second sentence in section 119(b)(2) addresses what has come to be termed ``tranche warfare''--litigation among the various categories, or tranches, of investors in structured mortgage-backed securities, each vying for primacy in any modification of terms, at each other's expense. This sentence clarifies that, except as established by contract, a servicer of pooled residential mortgages that become subject to the TARP, if that servicer owes any duty to ensure that net present value of payments on a loan exceeds anticipated recovery in foreclosure, owes that duty not to any individual investor or faction of investors, but to the investors as a whole.

Accordingly, the servicer, in agreeing to or implementing a modification or workout plan shall be deemed to be acting in the best interests of all such investors or holders of beneficial interests if the servicer takes reasonable loss mitigation actions, including partial payments. This clarification is intended to further encourage modifications to mortgage loans when, in the judgment of the loan servicer, in the overall interests of the investors.

Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote for the second time this week on Secretary Paulson's flawed bailout legislation. His plan lacks the

core principles needed to improve the economy. To be a viable plan, the legislation must include (1) enacting a moratorium on foreclosures, (2) restructuring mortgages to make them more affordable, and (3) prohibiting interest rate increases associated with subprime loans. These initiatives can be achieved without spending one dollar of the taxpayer's money. In addition, empowering the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee all depositors and bond holders would provide immediate liquidity to credit markets.

If the Congress acts imprudently today, we may end up draining our national treasury of over $700 billion in resources without curing our economic ills. Such a decision could effectively tie the hands of the next President and kill universal health care and job programs before they are ever drafted.

I agree with former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz and other leading economists that action must be taken to tackle the problem posed by the tightening of the credit market. I simply disagree with the administration's proposed solution.

Although it hasn't been reported in the mainstream media, there are real legislative alternatives to this bailout that have been vetted by some of the best economic minds in the Congress.

One plan, offered by Representative Peter DeFazio and other members of the so-called ``Bailout Skeptics'' Caucus, proposes some common sense changes to Securities and Exchange Commission rules and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation policies. I have cosponsored this legislation because I believe it will efficiently free-up capital, protect the taxpayer, and give the next President the fiscal flexibility he will need to address the dire problems brought about by the current economic slowdown.

Another plan, proposed by billionaire financier George Soros, mimics a successful model used in Norway and Sweden. The plan would inject credit into the markets in a direct and low-risk manner by empowering the Treasury Department to purchase preferred stock and discounted common stock from faltering lenders. I called for this type of direct capital deployment measure earlier this week, because it would provide the taxpayers with a tangible return on their investment and keep toxic mortgage-backed securities off the government's books.

On top of these plans, I and many of my progressive colleagues have continually advocated for bankruptcy reform that would give judges the freedom to renegotiate home mortgages during court proceedings. National Assistance Corporation of America CEO Bruce Marks and I agree that this reform is a necessary component of any bailout plan.

Most Americans have never heard of any of these alternative proposals because they have only been presented with a single, flawed narrative-- either accept this bailout plan or tempt economic catastrophe. This is a false choice that, unfortunately, has been successfully peddled by the President's fear-mongers and broadcast by a compliant media.

The tactic being used by Paulson creates an atmosphere of fear. The events of the last two weeks are reminiscent of the days leading up to the adoption of the Patriot Act, and to the invasion of Iraq--times where fear-mongering dampened the careful and deliberate consideration of alternative courses of action. This time, instead of scaring the American people with tales of weapons of mass destruction or planes piloted by terrorists, the President bullies the taxpayer with dire warnings of a credit freeze that will bring our economy to its knees.

There are serious options for dealing with this crisis that don't involve giving away billions to the richest, most irresponsible businessmen. My vote against the bailout today is not a do-nothing vote; it is a vote for a real solution. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Detroiters, Michiganders, Americans, and billions of people around the world are depending on us to get it right.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude for my fellow jazz enthusiast and Detroiter, Ed Love. For more than 24 years, Ed Love has delighted listeners with ``Destination Jazz: The Ed Love Program,'' on weekdays from 7 p.m. to midnight on WDET 101.9 FM. Ed's passion for jazz and radio extends all the way back to his youth in Kansas, when he was an avid listener of his mother's records and hosts like Dick Martin of WWL in New Orleans. After graduating from broadcasting school, Ed worked for Armed Forces Radio in several states and in the Philippines. Starting in 1960, he worked at various stations throughout Detroit until joining WDET in 1983. Ed has not only entertained Detroit radio listeners throughout his impressive career, but also spent six years hosting a nationally syndicated program entitled ``The Evolution of Jazz,'' educating and entertaining listeners on 125 stations from coast to coast.

Ed was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz with the ``Distinguished Achievement Award'' from the Motor City Music Foundation. Ed was recognized by the Friends of the Detroit Institute of Arts with the ``Dr. Alian Locke Award'' in 1999 for his contributions to the arts. He's earned two ``Spirit of Detroit Awards'' from Detroit Mayors Coleman A. Young and Dennis W. Archer. The Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan Senate, the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Broadcast Awards have all recognized him for his profound knowledge and love of jazz. The Southeast Michigan Jazz Association (SEMJA) recognized Ed for his outstanding contribution to jazz and the arts. In 2005, Ed received the ``Detroit Jazz Guardian'' Award from the Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts and the Detroit International Jazz Festival. Ed was also honored in 2005 with the ``Distinguished Arts Achievement'' award from the Oakland County chapter of The Links. He has also served as the senior program consultant for the Detroit International Jazz Festival since 2000.

In the wake of the collapse of the International Association of Jazz Educators, Ed Love and other jazz advocates will be even more important in the preservation of one of our Nation's treasures and original art forms, jazz. I know that as long as jazz has stewards like Ed Love, we can be assured that it will be taught and will thrive the future. Through his work, Ed Love has and will continue to inspire generations of performers, educators, and students for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3197) to amend title 11, United States Code, to exempt for a limited period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3197.

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

The consumer bankruptcy overhaul signed into law 3 years ago adds a means test that presumes a debtor is abusing the law if he or she has income that exceeds a modest threshold, and thereby forces the debtor into a multiyear repayment plan.

This bill, S. 3197, excepts qualifying National Guard and Reserve members from that presumption of abuse. We have the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to thank for this.

With half a million members of the National Guard and Reserve called to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, many serving multiple tours of duty, the financial toll on their families has been severe.

It's estimated that up to 26 percent of National Guard members deployed experience money problems as a direct result. And so the measure before us makes an exception-to-the-means test presumption of abuse for National Guard and Reserve members who serve 90 days since September 11, 2001, and for a year and a half after they leave service. I'm heartened to know that we now have the opportunity to provide this modest but important relief to these brave men and women in the service.

I also commend Ranking Member Lamar Smith of Texas who has helped make this a bipartisan endeavor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Chair of the California delegation, Zoe Lofgren, for as much time as she needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of this bill, Jan Schakowsky, who is a sterling member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

I yield now 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, a Member not always heard on the floor, Dennis Kucinich.

Will the gentleman yield to me briefly?

We keep saying that the gentleman from Utah is on the floor for the last time, but the last time always becomes one more time.

I want him specifically remembered for the cooperation and leadership he gave in the committee and on the floor in terms of broadband legislation, the credit card interchange consideration, the very complex issues of immigration, on literally all of the civil liberties issues that have come before us, and Internet gambling. He's given us his attention and helpfulness. We appreciate it so very, very much, Chris.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Andre Carson.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3641) to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

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

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

I would like to remind our Members that the measure before us reauthorizes funding for the National Crime Victims Law Institute, which supports critical crime victims' legal assistance programs that help crime victims enforce their legal rights in a number of vital respects.

Many of these programs provide financial assistance directly to crime victims. Others help victims receive proper notification of case developments, and still other assistance may come in the form of providing staff for victims' rights organizations and legal assistance to victims. Some of these victims are elderly, some are poor, and some are people that just can't afford any legal costs at all.

Violent crime victims may be emotionally and physically traumatized and therefore unable to assert their rights effectively, and victims of identity theft may be financially devastated as a result of loss of savings or destroyed credit.

So I am very pleased to bring this measure to the floor, and I urge support for it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the efforts of the United States Marshals Service for its pioneering program to encourage hundreds and thousands of individuals wanted for non-violent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender to the law in a faith-based or other neutral setting. The initiative was conceived and is administered by the Marshals Service in states that have particularly high numbers of fugitive warrants.

The goal of Fugitive Safe Surrender is to reduce the risk to law enforcement officers who pursue fugitives, to the neighborhoods and communities where they hide, and to the fugitives themselves. Authorized by Congress in July 2006, it is believed to be the first program of its kind in the Nation.

In Detroit, Michigan, where the majority of my constituents reside, Fugitive Safe Surrender took place in June 2008, under the leadership of Robert M. Grubbs, United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Michigan. Over the course of the four-day surrender period, more than 6,500 individuals with outstanding warrants took advantage of the opportunity to surrender to law enforcement and help pave the way for a more successful future for themselves and their families. The credit for this outstanding success goes to the many city workers, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, clerks, and community leaders who contributed their time, efforts and leadership to administering the program. I am proud to salute the leadership of Dr. Edgar Vann, pastor of Second Ebeneezer Church, who allowed the Marshals Service to use his beautiful facility and who devoted countless hours to mentoring government officials and fugitives during the process.

This brilliant initiative was conceived by Peter J. Elliott, United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio, after the death of Cleveland Police Officer Wayne Leon at the hands of a wanted fugitive. He believes that ``desperate people commit desperate acts.'' Marshal Elliot has helped lead the program in ten cities and has been urged by mayors from across the country to implement the program in their cities. As the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I applaud Marshal Elliot for his courage to `think outside the box,' and his leadership in pairing law enforcement with communities in an amazingly successful effort to apprehend fugitives while giving thousands of individuals a second chance at life.