Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. As an elected official tasked with the tremendous responsibility of protecting the taxpayers' interests and money, I cannot in good conscience support this fundamentally flawed legislation before us today.

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I am often required to engage in oversight of the enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws, the statutes which ensure the competitive balance of our free market economy. One of the important things I have learned during my tenure is that the free market serves America best when it keeps prices low for the people on Main Street and doesn't cater to the titans of Wall Street. The only way this properly functioning market can be realized, is when no corporation or bank is allowed to become too big or too powerful to fail. Otherwise, corporations grow too bold, and begin to take more risks than a prudent business afraid of bankruptcy should.

For the last 8 years, President Bush has governed from the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street; leaving Main Street behind. Desperately needed priorities like children's health insurance and heating fuel for the poor have gone unfulfilled, while the top one tenth of one percent have benefited from dramatic cuts to the capital gains and income taxes. During this same time, President Bush's Justice Department sat by as the financial juggernauts grew larger and larger and their financial wheeling and dealing grew more and more reckless.

Now, President Bush has proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street. And why is the Congress held hostage? Because financial institutions and investment banks are too big to be allowed to fail. Unless the American tax payer foots the bill for Wall Street's risky behavior, credit will freeze, investment will cease, and the economy will crash and burn.

Or so the President's former Goldman Sachs executive, Treasury Secretary Paulson, would have us believe. I am not sure, considering the source here.

True, buying the worthless mortgage backed securities from these firms and banks would likely improve their ability to lend. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this approach also magically turns institutions on the verge of collapse back into profitable business ventures.

If injecting credit into our financial industry is the solution to the current supposed credit squeeze, why hasn't this body been given the option to vote for other proposals, like giving tax payers a no- risk equity stake in the bailout recipients or supporting the direct injection of capitol into the financial industry, as we did during the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s? The likely reason is because Wall Street would have to give up a piece of its wealth; something this crony-capitalist Administration is loathe to do.

Although the President's radical proposal has gradually been improved over the last week by the Leadership, the fundamental structure and capital delivery method remains flawed. No number of federal loan modifications or oversight boards will alter that.

People all over the country are up in arms over this bailout, not because it's not necessary, but because it is just more of the same. The American people can't take another transfer of wealth from the working class to the upper crust. I encourage my colleagues to vote today to scrap this deal so that we can put together a real plan that addresses the credit crunch by directly injecting capital into the markets, updating our outdated regulatory structure, helping people who are struggling to stay in their homes, legitimately providing for the recoupment of taxpayer dollars, and restoring the competitive balance of the free market by ensuring that no firm is too big to fail.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy.

The Sentencing Project reports that, since 1997, 19 States have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in more than 760,00 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, an estimated 5 million people will continue to be ineligible to vote in November's Presidential election, including nearly 4 million who reside in the 35 States that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or people who have completed their sentence from voting.

I believe that such prohibitions on the right to vote undermine both the voting system and the fundamental rights of ex-offenders. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived legitimate voters of their rights. Moreover, in Ohio, an erroneous interpretation of State law by the Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons of even the right to register. Only Federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system.

Earlier this year, President Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, signaling a greater awareness of the need to implement policies to aid the reintegration of our ex-felon community. This legislation is the next step in restoring the ex-felon community to full citizenship. Denying voting rights to ex-offenders denies them the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders and serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society.

The legislation is a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons while protecting State prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. The legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to Federal elections. As such, our bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding Federal voting rights laws.

In past Congresses, voting restoration legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others.

The practice of many States denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and property. I believe that we fail not only ex- offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive.

Just like poll taxes and literacy tests prevented an entire class of citizens, namely African Americans, from integrating into society after centuries of slavery, felon disenfranchisement laws prevent ex- offenders from reintegrating into society after retribution. It is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. CONYERS: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 6598. A bill

to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain

conduct relating to the use of horses for human consumption,

with an amendment (Rept. 110-901, Pt. 1); Referred to the

Committee on Agriculture for a period ending not later than

September 29, 2008, for consideration of such provisions of

the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of

that committee pursuant to clause 1(a), rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3325) to enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, 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.

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

S. 3325 is an important bill that provides resources and enhanced enforcement to combat intellectual property crimes.

On May 8 of this year, the House passed H.R. 4279, the PRO-IP Act, by a vote of 410-11. The Senate has returned the bill and made modifications.

I think this bill retains most of the most basic and fundamental reforms that we accomplished, including changes to civil and criminal IP laws that will afford rights holders more protection and the enhancements in penalties for IP violators who endanger public health and safety.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield Chairman Howard Berman from California as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the California delegation, Zoe Lofgren.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 431) to require convicted sex offenders to register online identifiers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 3605) to extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history background checks, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1738) to establish a Special Counsel for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to improve the Internet Crimes Against

Children Task Force, to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, and to make other improvements to increase the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute predators.

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

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

Members, the PROTECT Our Children Act enhances the ability of Federal and State law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute crimes involving the use of the Internet to further the sexual exploitation of children.

Our colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, is the author of this amendment. It passed overwhelmingly last year. And I would yield her as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield to our friend, Nick Lampson, the gentleman from Texas, who has worked on this subject for many years. And I am happy to yield him as much time as he may consume.

I yield back the remaining time on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3598) to amend titles 46 and 18, United States Code, with respect to the operation of submersible vessels and semi- submersible vessels without nationality.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House has passed previously virtually identical legislation, and accordingly I will place my statement in the Record at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the growing national security threat of illicit self-propelled submersible vessels. It makes operation of one of these vessels with intent to avoid detection a felony, as well as subject to civil fines.

In July, the House passed the part of this bill creating the felony. This Senate version adds the civil penalty, to provide even greater deterrence.

Smugglers are operating these vessels with increasing frequency, knowing that there is no effective deterrent. They are designed so that the crew members can readily sink them within scant minutes of being spotted, thereby making efforts by authorities to intercept them exceedingly difficult and highly risky.

And smugglers using these vessels are becoming increasingly violent. Two weeks ago, a cocaine smuggler attempted to kill Coast Guard officers who had boarded his vessel in the dark in the Pacific ocean.

This extreme risk to our brave Coast Guard officers would not have been necessary if operating that vessel in this evasive manner were itself a crime.

I commend the sponsor of the House bill, Dan Lungren of California, for his leadership on this initiative.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3296) to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, the title accurately describes the contents of the bill. It attempts and proposes to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials off the Supreme Court grounds and changes the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice.

Congress has given the Supreme Court Police statutory recognition since 1982, with authority to patrol the Supreme Court buildings and grounds, make arrests, carry firearms, and protect the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, official guests, and employees of the Court while performing official duties.

The Supreme Court Police are also authorized to protect the Justices and employees of the Court while they are away from the Court building, anywhere in the United States. We have extended this authority on several occasions, and this bill does so again, so that it will not expire at the end of this year.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that the Supreme Court Police can continue to perform their critical mission effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5057) to reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2840) to establish a liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite naturalization applications filed by members of the Armed Forces and to establish a deadline for processing such applications.

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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, foreign-born soldiers serving in our Armed Forces are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship, yet they often face delays in the processing of the FBI background check required for naturalization.

S. 2840 would address this backlog by creating an Office of the FBI Liaison within the Department of Homeland Security. This office will help expedite the processing of naturalization applications filed by soldiers, veterans, and spouses and children of active duty soldiers.

The bill requires DHS to adjudicate these naturalization applications within six months, or to inform the applicants of the reasons for the delay and provide them with an estimated date of completion.

It promotes accountability by having the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) report annually to Congress on how many of these naturalization applications that remain pending a year after filing due to delays in background checks.

Approximately 45,000 lawful permanent residents are currently serving in our Armed Forces. More than 13,000 non-citizen military have applied for U.S. citizenship since 2002.

S. 2480 is a good measure that will help ensure that our soldiers and veterans do not face unreasonable hurdles to U.S. citizenship.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ciro Rodriguez, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, as much time as she may need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6146) to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments, as amended.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes a limited, but important, condition on enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in our courts.

It prohibits a federal or state court from enforcing a defamation judgment entered in another country for publication involving a matter of public concern, unless the court first determines that the judgment is consistent with the free-speech clause of our Constitution's First Amendment.

H.R. 6146 responds to the problem of what is sometimes called ``libel tourism.'' This is the disturbing practice of suing authors for defamation in foreign countries rather than in the United States, so as to avoid the speech-protective features of defamation law enshrined in our Constitution.

A much-cited recent example is the lawsuit filed by a Saudi billionaire against an American expert on terrorism, as a result of statements about his activities she made in a book entitled Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It.

The Saudi billionaire sued the American author not in the United States, where the book

was published, but in England, where a mere 23 copies of the book had been sold to on-line buyers.

He sued in England to avail himself of English libel law, which denies authors the important free-speech protections of our First Amendment. This kind of end-run on the Constitution poses an obvious threat to free speech rights in our country.

H.R. 6146, which was introduced by our colleague, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, would go a long way toward eliminating this threat. At the same time, it would not interfere with the judicial systems of other countries, or deprive plaintiffs of their choice of forum.

It would simply require that anyone who seeks to enforce this specific type of defamation judgment in our courts to establish that the judgment does not offend our First Amendment. Many U.S. courts already impose this condition on the enforcement of foreign defamation judgments.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the author of the measure, Steve Cohen, the gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee, as much time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3174) to amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act amends the Federal judicial code to allow members of the United States Armed Services to petition for review by the United States Supreme Court in certain cases when they have been denied relief by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Many Americans would be shocked to learn that soldiers serving their country in uniform are blocked from equal access to the Supreme Court.

But the truth is that current law provides virtually no avenue through which active service members who have been convicted by court- martial of certain serious offenses, or who face discharge or dismissal, to ask our Nation's highest court to review their case.

Currently, the Supreme Court can only hear cases where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest court of the military justice system, has either conducted a review of a court-martial, or has granted a service-member's petition for extraordinary relief.

What this means is that when the court of appeals denies review, which it does nearly 90 percent of the time, the Supreme Court is barred from reconsidering the case at the request of the servicemember.

Adding insult to injury, while a servicemember is not able to obtain Supreme Court review if he or she loses at the court of appeals, if the court of appeals rules against the government, the Government can seek review in the Supreme Court.

And a former servicemember who is tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act in civilian court for crimes committed while on active duty also has full right to petition for Supreme Court review.

The Equal Justice for Our Military Act corrects this unfair one- sidedness by allowing an active servicemember to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in any case where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review of a court-marital conviction or has denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

I would like to commend the author of this bill, our colleague Susan Davis of California, for her leadership in working to correct this ongoing injustice, so that our active servicemembers have the same fundamental protection that Americans take for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act. If this body ratifies this agreement today, it will be the first time that a country that is not a member of the Nonproliferation Treaty will have the benefits of nuclear trade without any of the responsibilities associated with possessing unstable, dangerous material on the planet.

Earlier this month, the Nuclear Suppliers Group made the ill-fated decision to approve an India-specific waive from its guidelines requiring full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as a condition for nuclear supply and trade. The decision ends the 34-year global ban on nuclear trade with India, a nation which has defied international norms regarding responsible and acceptable nuclear energy use.

Now, the Bush Administration is attempting bilateral deal with India that would exacerbate and codify the NSG's mistake. Under the deal, India would only have to separate its unregulated military and regulated civilian nuclear programs, not cease the pursuit of additional nuclear weapons. Additionally, India is allowed to keep 1,000 bombs worth of nuclear material outside of IAEA safeguards. In other words, by agreeing to provide material to satisfy India's civilian nuclear needs, America would be freeing up unregulated material for use in its military bomb production program.

How a deal like this brings India into conformance with international norms of state nonproliferation behavior--something the administration claims--is beyond me. Freeing up more unregulated nuclear material for bomb making doesn't sound like a safety measure. It sounds like a recipe for irresponsible use.

The economic benefits of this deal have also been greatly exaggerated by the Bush Administration. Russia and other regional states are already actively negotiating supply deals with India; leaving little opportunity for US energy companies half a world away.

However, more important than the potential economic aspects of the deal for our domestic energy production industry, or even the increased ability of India to create nuclear weapons, is the drastic effect the deal would have on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, one of the most sacrosanct and honored multilateral agreements in international law.

The NPT is the single most effective bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons materials and technology. The treaty currently has 189 signatories and only four non-signatories. Under the treaty, NPT countries which possess nuclear weapons agree not to share weapon making materials or information. Similarly, NPT countries without weapons agree not to pursue these materials or information.

By agreeing to supply a nation that has not agreed to abide by these solemn pledges, this agreement would blow a hole in the NPT. Previously, our government required states to sign the NPT if they wanted to engage in nuclear trade with us. With this deal, the leverage inherent in that tradeoff will be gone. What moral authority will we or the international community have over Iran, or any other NPT signatory for that matter, if it actively seeks nuclear materials in violation of the treaty?

In the waning days of an administration that has shredded international law and our credibility around the world, why is this body prepared today to add to this tarnished legacy? Let there be no doubt, a vote for this bill is a vote for a more dangerous world. For the sake of peace and the sanctity of the rule of law, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6045) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2012.

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

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

Members of the House, I rise to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Peter Visclosky, for helping us provide more bulletproof vests to policemen. It's kind of amazing that we need to pass a law to get more bulletproof vests for policemen.

More than 800,000 police officers put their lives at risk daily to protect our community. Many of them are protected by bullet-resistant armor, but an alarming number of officers are not afforded this protection because of local budget constraints. So this bill created by the gentleman from Indiana tries to take care of this problem.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program was established back in 1998 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in securing protective equipment necessary to safeguard the lives of officers. And the program administered by the Department of Justice provides up to half of the matching grants--50 percent of the matching grants for the purchase of protective vests. Since then, the program has enabled thousands of jurisdictions across our Nation to purchase more than 1.5 million such vests.

It's estimated 3,000 law enforcement officers have survived shootings in part due to their bulletproof vest. In recognition of its vital role in the protection of these officers, the Bulletproof Vest Program has been extended, and it's set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2009 unless we extend it again.

Here we reauthorize the program for an additional 3 years so that to help more of our law enforcement officers, and I doubt if there's a Member in this House that isn't in full support of this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) as much time as he may consume.

We yield back our time.