Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Caging Prohibition Act of 2008, a critical contribution to the Congress's election reform efforts as we approach the 2008 election. I would like to acknowledge and thank those that join me in this introduction--Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Xavier Becerra, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, and Gwen Moore and members of my committee, the Judiciary Committee-- Representatives Jerrold Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Steven Cohen, and Keith Ellison.

Madam Speaker, the provision that caused the President to veto the entire Defense bill simply reaffirms the original intent of Congress to allow victims of terrorism to hold countries that commit or provide material support for terrorist acts accountable. As a principal author of the provision, I am pleased that we were able to salvage much of it. But I am disappointed in the change that the President has insisted on.

The President has decided that it is of utmost importance to shield the Iraqi Government from suits by American soldiers who were brutally tortured by the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein, as prisoners of war during the gulf war. The soldiers were not only starved, denied sleep, and exposed to extreme temperatures. They were severely beaten, threatened with castration and dismemberment, and put through mock executions. As a result, they have sustained lasting physical and mental injuries.

These brave soldiers and their families have been waiting many years for justice in our courts. The President, through the actions of his lawyers in the courts, has endeavored to block their progress at every turn. He has even gone so far as to twist a provision Congress included in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, designed to remove restrictions on providing assistance to the new Iraqi Government, into an

astonishing claim that Congress somehow implicitly thereby gave him authority to block court jurisdiction over suits against Iraq--a claim that disregards the understanding of those involved in negotiating that provision, as well as article III of the Constitution and the separation of powers.

And now, despite these new congressional efforts to help those soldiers, the President wants them to continue to wait--for the good, he says, of the new Iraqi Government. In order for the Defense bill to be signed, my colleagues and I have reluctantly had to amend this provision to allow the President to carve out the Iraqi Government entirely.

It is important to note that this change does not affect rights under current law. The President's waiver authority extends only to the provisions being newly enacted in this bill; by its clear terms, it does not extend to current law. There is ongoing litigation regarding the rights of these American soldiers under current law; if the President exercises his new waiver authority, that litigation will proceed unaffected by that waiver.

The difference is that, if the President exercises the waiver authority, these soldiers will not be helped by this new provision we wrote and passed, as we wanted them to be, and as they would be absent the waiver. I believe current law, properly interpreted, already gives them the protection they need to obtain justice. Among other things, I believe it is clear, despite the administration's assertions and one aberrational court holding to the contrary, that Congress intended the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to provide an explicit Federal statutory cause of action against state sponsors of terrorism for the victims. That intent is stated explicitly, among other places, in the House Judiciary Committee's report for the bill in the previous Congress, H. Rept. 103-702.

In the face of sustained efforts by the President to persuade the courts to disregard congressional intent, we wanted to give these soldiers, and other victims of state-sponsored terrorism, another clear path to obtaining justice. But the soldiers who suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein will not get the benefit of this other clear path if the President exercises his waiver authority, as we expect he will.

And there is always a risk that the courts will be persuaded by the arguments of the President and his lawyers, and reach what we believe would be the wrong interpretation, and deny the soldiers' claims under current law. If so, then the waiver will have the effect of further delaying justice, and a very real possibility of making it harder to obtain at all. Because even though the waiver cannot permanently and irrevocably extinguish their claims, another delay may make it all the more difficult to gather the proof when those claims can once again be pursued.

For all these reasons, we did not want to make this change.

And when we ultimately concluded that the President was willing to hold the entire Defense bill hostage unless we did, we tried to limit the harm.

We wanted the President to have to weigh the interests of the victims in justice, and make specific findings to inform us, and the victims, why he believes those interests are outweighed by the interests of the Iraqi Government, and why he believes those interests cannot fairly be reconciled.

We wanted him to have to explain in those findings why he believes it necessary to shelter all of Iraq's assets from legal accountability, even when Iraq is reaping billions upon billions of dollars from its oil fields.

We wanted the President to have to reaffirm those findings periodically, so that they would not be set in stone.

And we wanted a sunset, to bring a definite end to what we believe is a manifest injustice.

Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve these goals.

What we have been able to do, instead, is to add a new sense of the Congress that the President should work with the Government of Iraq to get fair compensation to these victims. That is, of course, non- binding; but it could also create a new path to justice. And I hope the President will take it to heart, and act on it, and that through one of these paths, the victims will see some semblance of the justice they have been struggling for these many years.

Otherwise, I think the President will have done a grave disservice to these soldiers, who are only 17 in number, and whose treatment at the hands of our enemies, in the service of their country, calls for greater respect than they have been getting.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the passage of H.R. 3524, the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan bill allows public housing agencies to continue to improve the lives of families in public housing through the revitalization of severely distressed public housing. Throughout America, there are tens of thousands of working families who are in desperate need of affordable housing, but are unable to obtain it, due to a shortage of sufficient public housing units. Passage of H.R. 3524 will dramatically improve the lives of those from low and moderate incomes who are having difficulty finding decent and affordable housing.

In Detroit, there are scores of families who are on the public housing waiting list, and are in dire need of affordable housing. Many of these families are forced to stay in homeless shelters, sleep in expensive hotels, or stay with friends and relatives until they can find permanent housing. This bill will provide direct assistance to low-income individuals and families in Detroit who will now have access to more affordable housing units, given that cities and towns across America will have increased federal funding to construct affordable housing units.

H.R. 3524 also ensures that the HOPE VI program does not contribute to the loss of public housing. It requires public housing agencies replace any demolished public housing unit with another comparable unit. Furthermore, the legislation gives agencies flexibility in the location of replacement housing by allowing replacement units to be provided in on- site mixed-income housing developments; and in other areas where the public housing agency has jurisdiction.

One of the most important benefits of H.R. 3524 is that more Americans will receive expanded housing opportunities through ensuring that families are able to move back into replacement housing units by prohibiting unreasonably stringent rescreening policies and making residents who are otherwise eligible for public housing also eligible for a HOPE VI unit.

The bill also encourages resident involvement in the redevelopment planning phases for new affordable housing. This is a critically important provision because it will help ensure that communities impacted by housing redevelopment will have a say in where they are going to live. Also, H.R. 3524 requires the monitoring and tracking of displaced residents by requiring housing authorities to maintain current contact information for each affected household while the mixed-income community is being developed. It is also a progressive bill, in that it implements green building standards in order to provide long-term energy efficiency and savings.

Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 41, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its functions under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285(b).

This bill is essentially identical to H.R. 5414, favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 109th Congress, updated to incorporate enactments that took place after the earlier bill was prepared.

This legislation is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive 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 Web site at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod.

The Committee on the Judiciary hopes to act on this bill after providing an opportunity for public review and comment. In addition to sharing concerns with the Committee, interested persons are invited to submit comments to Ken Paretzky, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515-6711, (202) 226-9061.

Madam Speaker, this bill makes important changes to the national instant check system, designed to help States identify and prevent convicted felons and other dangerous individuals from owning firearms.

As it currently stands, millions of criminal records are not accessible by the instant check system, and millions of additional records fall through the cracks as a result of backlogs and other problems. The bill will help cure these problems by providing the resources and incentives needed to modernize the system and ensure that the records are up to date.

Improving and enhancing the instant check system will help prevent future tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shootings earlier this year, where there is clear reason to know, after due process, that the individual in question should not own a gun.

The House has passed this bill in each of the last two Congresses. Now the Senate has passed it, with changes dealing with the procedures for restoring gun ownership rights.

While I continue to have reservations about the new process for restoring gun ownership rights to individuals previously diagnosed with mental illness, and will be monitoring its implementation very closely, passage of the underlying bill is extremely important.

I want to again thank my good friends Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell, as well as Rick Boucher from the Judiciary Committee, and Lamar Smith, our Ranking Member, for all their work on this important matter.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 863) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds.

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 bill under consideration.

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

Members of the Congress, this important legislation strengthens Federal criminal prohibitions against fraudulent misuse of emergency and disaster relief funds. It passed the Senate earlier this month without opposition. It is a good bill, and one that the House should support.

Reports of fraud surfaced almost immediately after the Federal Emergency Management Agency began distributing funds Congress had appropriated for disaster aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, and Hurricane Wilma. These reports included allegations that funds had been misused to purchase luxury goods, that noneligible persons had applied for and received benefits, and that criminals had established phony Katrina-related Web sites to swindle those who wished to contribute to legitimate disaster assistance efforts.

Last year, the GAO reported that it had identified numerous instances of fraud in connection with Katrina and Rita disaster relief. Although the total amount of cost of these fraud schemes is not yet known, the GAO estimates that it will certainly be in the amounts of billions of dollars.

Despite diligent efforts by Federal law enforcement agencies to prosecute these schemes, current criminal laws are not adequate to the task. The Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act addresses that shortcoming in several respects.

The bill creates a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster relief benefit as to both Federal assistance and private charitable giving, with fines up to $250,000 for an individual, and up to $500,000 for an organization, and prison terms up to 30 years. The bill also increases prison terms for engaging in mail or wire fraud in connection with emergency or disaster relief to the same levels as currently apply in cases involving bank fraud.

The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to revise its sentencing guidelines for fraud or theft in connection with a major disaster emergency declaration in light of the new statutory changes.

It is a bipartisan measure, and will help ensure that disaster assistance funds are received by their intended recipients and used for their intended purposes. I am proud of the work that the Judiciary Committee has done on both sides of the aisle in this matter, and particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) in his management of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the indefatigable member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 62) to correct the enrollment of H.R. 660.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this concurrent resolution enables us to agree with the Senate on H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act, and send that important bill to the President by correcting a PAYGO problem in the version of H.R. 660 that the Senate passed on Monday.

The Senate passed this concurrent resolution last night. When we pass it now, it will have the effect of removing

the problematic provision from the Senate amendment to H.R. 660. We will next turn to final passage of H.R. 660, and it will be sent to the President stripped of that provision.

I pause now to personally commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the wonderful job that he has done in helping us work out the matters that needed final adjustment.

I urge our Members to support this concurrent resolution so we can send this much-needed legislation on its way to final enactment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and for other purposes.

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 bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this is important legislation passed in the House on a strong bipartisan basis to improve the security of Federal judges, other Federal court officers, and their families. It allows judges to redact from their public disclosure forms personal information about their families that could be used to harm them. It provides increased funding for judicial protective services furnished by the United States Marshals and for Federal witness protection programs. It prohibits publishing of personal information about a judge, law enforcement officer or witness with the intent to cause harassment, intimidation or a crime of violence.

It enhances prison terms for assaults and other violent acts with intent to intimidate or interfere with judges and other Federal officers in performance of their official duties.

The House passed this bill in July by voice vote under suspension. The Senate has now passed it with an amendment that makes a few refinements, all of which should be acceptable to the House. It takes a slightly different approach to the enhanced prison terms for assaults and violent acts against judges and other Federal officers.

This legislation has been years in the making, and we are now finally able to send it to the President.

I thank the members of the Judiciary Committee, which I am proud to be the chairman of, but particularly Judge Louie Gohmert, the new ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, who introduced this bill originally in a previous Congress. I also send out congratulations to the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Bobby Scott of Virginia, and committee members Randy Forbes of Virginia and Anthony Weiner of New York. I strongly urge support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The importance of judicial security has been explained by Mr. Gohmert, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime and the floor manager today, and it was underscored by the murders of family members of a Chicago Federal judge in 2005, and then, less than 2 weeks later, the killings of a State judge, a court reporter and a sheriff's deputy in an Atlanta courthouse. These acts of violence, along with numerous others, led to the introduction of this measure before us now, H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act, which, among other things, seeks to improve judicial security, not just for court officers, but to safeguard judges and their families as well.

Although the security of all Federal buildings increased in the wake of the 1995 April bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the importance of judicial security was brought more particularly to the Nation's attention by reports of the murders of family members of a Chicago Federal judge and the killings less than 2 weeks later of a State judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy in an Atlanta courthouse. Another incident occurred in June of 2006 when a sniper shot a State judge in Reno, Nevada through the window of the judge's own office.

Supreme Court Justices have also been intended targets of violence and death threats. Last year it was revealed that home-baked cookies infused with poison were mailed to all nine Justices in the year 2005. According to one media report, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was quoted as saying that each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court.

All three branches of the Federal Government play unique roles in helping to ensure the safety of judges and the security of the Federal courts. In this joint effort, the role of Congress is to authorize programs, appropriate funds and provide oversight of judicial security.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body of the Federal judiciary, governs the administration of the United States courts. The Conference's Committee on Judicial Security monitors the security of the judiciary, including the protection of court facilities and proceedings, judicial officers, and court staff at Federal court facilities and other locations, and makes policy recommendations to the Conference. As the central support entity for the judicial branch, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts implements Judicial Conference policies, including security measures.

By law, the United States Marshals Service within the Department of Justice has primary responsibility for the security of the judiciary, including the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of Federal judges and court personnel at facilities and off-site as well. They also provide protection details for those who are targets of threats and attacks, and provides other law enforcement services for the Department of Justice. Within the Marshals Service, the Judicial Security Division is specifically responsible for providing security services and staff support to the Federal judiciary, including personal protection for judges and physical security of Federal courthouses.

The USMS, the Marshals Service, conducts threat assessments when they are directed against individuals, including Federal judges, but also United States attorneys, court staff and family members, and then determines the level of security that is necessary for developing security plans and assigning the required resources to ensure their safety. A deputy marshal is required to attend any sessions of the court at the request of the presiding judge. A judicial security inspector, a senior level deputy marshal, is assigned to each judicial district to evaluate courthouse security and procedures and to coordinate scheduling, posting and other matters related to court security officers. The inspectors also conduct security surveys at judges' homes and recommend improvements.

To enhance its capability to strengthen protection of the judiciary, the Marshals Service established the Office of Protective Intelligence in the year 2004 to review and analyze intelligence information about the security of those under Marshals Service protection. On a daily basis, the OPI issues security advisories, intelligence bulletins and many other things that I, although I would like to go into it, time does not permit the opportunity to explain in further detail.

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

Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 51, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to national and commercial space programs. It was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as part of its functions under 2 U.S.C. 285(b).

This bill is the successor to H.R. 3039, introduced in the 109th Congress. It has been updated to include provisions enacted after the

earlier bill was prepared. It also contains changes made in response to comments received subsequent to the introduction of the previous bill.

This legislation is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive 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/codification/legisIation.shtml.

The Committee on the Judiciary hopes to act on this bill after providing an opportunity for public review and comment. In addition to sharing concerns with the Committee, interested persons are invited to submit comments to Rob Sukol, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This agreement with the Senate builds on the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act passed this summer. The ambitious legislation before us today, which includes wide-ranging solutions from 10 House committees, invests in the future of America and puts our Nation on a path toward energy independence. It will strengthen national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy, create new jobs, and begin to reduce the threat of global warming.

The Energy Independence and Security Act includes several provisions that will strengthen our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. All told, this legislation will slash U.S. oil consumption by over 4 million barrels per day by 2030--more than twice our current daily imports from the Persian Gulf. I want to applaud Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dingell for reaching an agreement on fuel economy standards that is supported by both environmentalists and the automobile industry. This bill will raise CAFE standards for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020--the first increase in 32 years. It ensures that this fuel economy standard will be reached, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring that we keep American manufacturing jobs and continue domestic production of smaller vehicles.

Today's legislation puts us on a path to reducing global warming. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 24 percent of the total amount the U.S. needs to cut by 2030 to help save the planet. The bill increases the efficiency of buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting. It also makes a historic commitment to American homegrown renewable energy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill before us today will also lower energy costs and create new American jobs. Increased vehicle fuel efficiency will save American families $700 to $1,000 a year at the pump, producing $22 billion in net annual savings for consumers in 2020. The building, appliance, and lighting efficiency provisions will save consumers $400 billion through 2030. In addition, by expanding American-grown biofuels to 36 billion gallons in 2022 and supporting cutting-edge energy research, the bill will help create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. It also provides job training that will prepare workers for 3 million new ``green'' jobs over 10 years.

For too long, our country has lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in recognizing and taking action to address the climate change crisis. Global warming endangers all of us, but threatens to have the most devastating impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our Nation is the richest in the world and one of the largest contributors to global warming, yet, until today, it has not made any substantial efforts towards addressing the problem. I am proud to join with my colleagues as we at long last put America on the path to becoming part of the solution.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the life and career of the Honorable Congresswoman, Julia Carson, who was elected to Congress in 1996, and who died on December 15, 2007. Representative Carson was a most respected friend and colleague of mine and also many other Members of Congress. The Honorable Julia Carson was from the Seventh Congressional District in Indiana. Ms. Carson was a dedicated servant and worked tirelessly for the people of this country and in particular she strongly advocated on behalf of those who were living in poverty or were homeless.

The list of legislative efforts that Representative Carson helped to create in this and in previous congressional terms spanned many issues and these legislative efforts are now a permanent part of the history of this Congress and of this county. In particular Representative Carson gave her support for primary, secondary and college, education; and she believed in ``single payer'' health care, for all citizens of this country; she also believed in equal justice for all and lived a life that reflected some of these fundamental values that were the hallmark of her service to this country.

Congresswoman Julia Carson honored the legacy of the late Mrs. Rosa Louise McCauley Parks when she introduced legislation which came to fruition on March 4, 1999, when Mrs. Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Representative Carson also introduced legislation to have a commemorative postage stamp issued on behalf of Mrs. Rosa Louise McCauley Parks.

Representative Julia Carson will always be remembered by her successful political career and will continue to make her indelible mark in history as a natural politician who steadily strengthened ties between people and who never forgot the community which she loved and served. People who worked with her in Congress will not forget the great sense of humor she would bring to them, when we all were experiencing long and arduous efforts that were often expended in the process of making daily decisions on significant and lengthy congressional efforts.

Her continued efforts in Congress addressed the issues and supported legislation in the following areas: She was a staunch advocate for equal rights for men and women. She demonstrated a sincere concern and fought for the relief and support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In her wisdom, she advocated for many medical advances in veterans health care. Her continued outspoken support for the Second Chance Act of 2007, was well recognized. She spoke out for the support of the National Literacy act of 2007. In times of great suffering she stood tall and commemorated the Rutgers University women's basketball team for their vigor in remaining proud of the skill that the team had achieved. She introduced a bill for establishing the celebrated National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. She honored the life of Arva Johnson, a pioneer in the United States Capitol Police Department, when she became the first African American female to wear the police badge. She supported the Horse Slaughter Protection Act. She recognized the 20 years of service of the world famous, Dr. James Hadley Billington, as Librarian of Congress. Congresswoman Carson supported the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007. She worked for the benefit of all persons to have access to affordable drugs and medicines by supporting the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act. In the era of DNA research Representative Carson supported the Stem Cell enhancement Act of 2007. These are a few of the noble congressional legislative actions that she heartily supported and advocated for in the history of her tenure in the Congress of the United States. We appreciate her great efforts in the progress that has been made from all of her humanitarian efforts.

I extend my greatest sympathy to the family of Congresswoman Julia Carson on the loss of their mother, a warm and wonderful humanitarian who was an exceptional public figure and who has graciously served this country with her grace, wisdom and gentility.

We will all miss her.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 270) to make corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1593.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this concurrent resolution makes technical and conforming changes to the Second Chance Act, H.R. 1593, to expedite its proper enrollment. The House passed the Second Chance Act in November on suspension by a vote of 347-62. May I note for the Record that this is the 10th year during three Congresses that this legislation has been worked on, debated, had witnesses, been voted on; and now we come here today to make some technical changes and, with our holiday wishes, send this measure on its way.

The Second Chance Act strengthens overall crime-fighting efforts by helping give ex-offenders tools for staying out of trouble, support for job skills, stable living arrangements, substance abuse treatment, health services, and other very basic resources to successfully rejoin society and lead productive and law-abiding lives. It enjoys, clearly, wide bipartisan support.

This concurrent resolution expedites the process of finalizing the bill and sending it to the President in this session of Congress by making a few corrections brought to our attention after the bill passed the House last month, such as standardizing certain criteria in the process for three different kinds of grants and clarifying eligibility for a prison pilot program.

It is a good measure. The corrections here are technical only. And I am proud to bring it to the attention of my colleagues for passage as urgently as possible.

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

I thank my good friend, a ranking member in the Judiciary Committee, for his important work on this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007, along with additional bipartisan cosponsors. As a product of years of extensive consultation with both the law enforcement and civil rights communities, this legislation represents the most comprehensive Federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at large. The introduction of this legislation is a critical step in what should be a nationwide, bipartisan effort to end this divisive practice.

Before September 11, 2001, there was wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling is wrong and should end. Many in the law enforcement community also acknowledged that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity or national origin has eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. What was true before September 11, is even more true today: racial profiling is inappropriate and ineffective as a law enforcement tactic.

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

Our legislation is designed to eliminate racial, ethnic, religious, and national origin profiling that is well documented. While the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias, and we value their service highly, we believe that enough evidence has been presented to warrant federal action. For example, an April 2005 Bureau of Justice Statistics report showed that African Americans and Hispanics experience physical searches and vehicle searches by police significantly more than whites. This is especially disturbing given the fact that in only 3.3 percent of cases for blacks, and 13 percent of cases for Latinos, did they possess criminal evidence, compared to 14.5 percent of cases for whites.

The report also revealed a new troubling trend: While the rate of encounters between police and civilians did not change between the 1999 and 2002 survey, the police dramatically increased their use of force and threat of force overall, from less than 1 percent in 1999 to 1.5 percent in 2002. In addition, law enforcement officials disproportionately used force or threatened to use force against blacks and Latinos, at rates roughly three times more than against whites.

The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to track and eradicate racial profiling by changing the policies and procedures underlying the practice. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by injunctive relief. Second, the receipt of Federal law enforcement funding that goes to State and local governments is conditioned on their adoption of effective policies that prohibit racial profiling.

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

Racial profiling is a divisive practice that strikes at the very foundation of our democracy. When law-abiding citizens are treated differently by those who enforce the law simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, they are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. Decades ago, with the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation, this country made clear that race should not affect the treatment of individual Americans under the law. The practice of using race as a criterion in law enforcement undermines the progress we have made toward racial equality.

With the cooperation of the administration, we have the opportunity to move bipartisan legislation and end the practice of racial profiling. I hope that we do not miss a historic opportunity to heal the rift caused by racial profiling and restore community confidence in law enforcement.

Madam Speaker it is with great pleasure that I introduce Bishop Earl J. Wright, Sr., as the Guest Chaplain for the day. Bishop Wright is a member of the general board, the governing body of the Church of God in Christ, which he helped to create. He also serves as the jurisdictional bishop of the Second Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Southwest Michigan--Church of God in Christ, a district comprised of 19 churches. In addition, he is the pastor of Greater Miller Memorial Church of God in Christ located in Warren, MI, and also the pastor of Davis Memorial Church of God in Christ located in Grand Rapids. Bishop Wright also is a founding and supporting pastor of Miller Memorial Church of God in Christ #2 in Haiti.

Other accolades for Bishop Wright include being appointed the prayer leader for the Detroit National Day of Prayer in 1992. He was acknowledged for his ministries, church and community leadership roles in the international publication Upscale Magazine as 1 of 50 Most Influential Leaders in the United States in the same year. In 1996, the Christian Women Concerned Organization of Detroit selected Bishop Wright as the ``COGIC Pastor of the Year.''

Bishop Wright is married to the lovely and gracious Dr. (Evangelist) Robin L. Wright, supervisor of Japan Jurisdiction--C.O.G.I.C. In addition to being an evangelist, she is also a writer, and a great administrative help to the local churches in Detroit and Southwest Michigan. Together they have five children: Earl, Jr., wife--Elaine; Michael, wife--Robin; Marvalyn; Ben; and Jonathan. He truly acknowledges his family as his first ministry.

The Church of God in Christ is a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in which the word of God is preached, ordinances are administered and the doctrine of sanctification or holiness is emphasized, as being essential to the salvation of mankind. Elder Charles Harrison Mason is the founder and organizer of the Church of God in Christ, and under Bishop Mason's spiritual and apostolic direction, the Church of God in Christ, the church has grown from 10 congregations in 1907, to the largest Pentecostal group in America.

This year the Church of God in Christ celebrated its 100th Annual Holy Convocation; its theme was Celebrating a Glorious Past: Embracing a Promising Future, and it was attended by over 70,000 delegates. In remarking about the convocation, COGIC's Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake, Sr., said, ``In the last century the Church of God in Christ rose from a motley group of sanctified proselytes to a highly respected denomination with more than 6 million members in 64 countries. The Lord has used the Church of God in Christ to accomplish great things in worship, proclamation, urban renewal, and gospel music.'' The Church is also very active in promoting a social justice agenda that reverses the circumstances of black men, families, and urban communities as well as providing comprehensive programs for youth and young adults.

Bishop Wright has shown himself as a true disciple of Christ, relying heavily on his favorite scripture, Romans 4:21, ``And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.'' He exemplifies service to his fellow man, allowing his words to always bring grace to the hearer. He constantly speaks words of hope, spreading the good news to all. He practices evangelism that reflects Christ-like compassion to reach the world with the Gospel. Bishop Earl E. Wright, Sr., is a wonderful man of God and I am happy to know him and to welcome him to the floor of the House of Representatives today as Guest Chaplain.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I introduce Bishop Earl J. Wright, Sr. as the guest chaplain for the day. The bishop is very well known in Detroit, and we have known each other since the 1950s, even before Coleman Young became the first African American mayor of our great city.

He has a number of responsibilities, but the one that I enjoy bringing to the membership's attention is that he is a founding and supporting pastor of Miller Memorial Church of God in Christ Number 2, located in Haiti. And, of course, we are honored to have his lovely and gracious wife, Dr. Robin L. Wright, who is the senior supervisor of the Church of God in Christ's Japanese Jurisdiction. In addition to being an evangelist, she is also a writer and a great help to the bishop.

We have known each other across the years, and I remember coming to him the first time I ran for Congress, and with the late Bishop Bailey, I was able to prevail in my very first election.

The bishop has shown himself as a true disciple of Christ, relying heavily on his favorite scripture, Romans 4:21: ``And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.'' He exemplifies service to his fellow man, allowing his words to always bring grace to the hearer. He constantly speaks words of hope, spreading the good news to all. He practices evangelism that reflects Christ-like compassion to reach the world with the gospel.

Bishop Earl Wright, Sr. is a wonderful man of God, and I'm happy to know him and to welcome him to the floor of the House of Representatives today as guest chaplain.