Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the problem of animal fighting has been in the news a lot lately, with the recent indictment of quarterback Michael Vick, who is alleged to have been involved in a major dogfighting ring. As we are debating the bill that provides funding for the Department of Justice, I wanted to express my hope that the Department will devote the needed resources to bring an end to this vicious so-called ``sport.'' It's cruel and barbaric, and often associated with other crimes. I commend the Department for its ongoing work to determine the truth of the allegations in the Vick case, and urge that it continues to expand its efforts to crack down on animal fighting across the country. I also wanted to note that the DOJ's Safe Streets Task Force could play a key role in increasing law enforcement action against dogfighting.

Sadly, animal fighting occurs in all corners of our country, impacting hundreds of thousands of animals every year, and also our communities. Indeed, it is estimated that there are more than 40,000 professional dogfighters nationwide and 10 underground dogfighting magazines. Cockfighting is also a multi-million dollar nationwide industry.

I'm pleased that this Congress took action against animal fighting earlier this year when we passed the Federal Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act and established felony penalties for these crimes. That measure will provide an important additional tool for law enforcement to combat dogfighting and cockfighting enterprises.

To make this new law truly effective, though, we need to encourage the active and ongoing participation of Federal law enforcement. Such participation would bolster protection for our neighborhoods in addition to assuring the welfare of animals. Animal fighting is often associated with illegal gambling and acts of human violence. The Chicago Police Department recently revealed that over a 3 year time period, two-thirds of 332 people arrested for animal abuse crimes in the city were also involved in drug crimes, according to the Humane Society of the United States.

To combat dogfighting and associated crimes, I recommend that the Safe Streets Task Force devote a considerable amount of its attention and funding to the issue of dogfighting.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Federal Year 2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill. By passing this legislation today the House of Representatives is taking a significant step forward toward investing in our Nation's long-term future. This $152 billion investment marks a $10 billion increase over President Bush's 2008 request and a $7 billion increase over the Federal Year 2007 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill. The increases in the appropriation's legislation before us today, will translate into more help for those in need of Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, more affordable higher education, and health care for the uninsured.

Home heating costs have skyrocketed over the last few years. Many people are finding themselves unable to keep up. We in Congress believe that no American should be forced to choose between whether to eat or heat your home. This is why we are increasing Low-Income Home Energy Assistance to $501 million in 2008, an increase that will ensure 1.3 million families are not left out in the cold this winter.

We have also used this appropriation to demonstrate the Democratic Party's commitment to reining in the sharp rise in college costs that continue to be a barrier to so many students. By increasing the Pell Grant from $4,050 to $4,700, an increase which will benefit more than 5.5 million low- and middle-income students, we have taken another major step in the 110th Congress toward making higher education more accessible.

Finally, it is a disgrace that there are 46.6 million Americans without health insurance; in this year's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill we have taken major steps to expand access to health care for the uninsured. For example, the bill provides a $200 million increase in funds allocated to community health center initiatives--enabling these centers to serve an additional 1 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore, the bill provides $75 million for a new initiative to state health access grants--providing start-up grants to states that are ready with plans to expand health care coverage to targeted groups. Finally, H.R. 304 also includes $50 million for an initiative to assist states in providing high-risk insurance pools to support affordable insurance for almost 200,000 people who are medically high-risk.

This is finally a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill with the right priorities, one that puts working Americans first.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in memory of the life of David Ray Ritcheson. I met David when he testified last April before the Judiciary Committee at a legislative hearing on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He had the courage to come forward and testify about the need for that legislation and the impact of hate crimes on communities and families. He spoke from the heart and from experience.

David survived a horrific attack last year that required him to endure countless operations to restore his appearance and body. He was the voice for all who could not speak and did an admirable job. I believe that his story served as a I inspiration that led the House to pass the Hate Crime Prevention Act on May 3 of this year.

It is a tragedy that David will not see the fruit of his labor. The psychological wounds from the crimes inflicted upon him finally caused David to take his life on July 1, 2007.

I hope that this resolution will convey to his family and community the heartfelt condolences of this House.

It is also my hope that the brutal attack that he survived will not define his life. David Ritcheson should be remembered in his community as a friend, a classmate, a football player and a son.

House Resolution 535 is a fitting tribute to David Ray Ritcheson. It honors David as someone unafraid to stand and speak for the victims of hate crimes, so that we could act to protect other communities in the future. He will be remembered and missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this well-deserved resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007. This vital legislation will provide police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers with basic collective bargaining rights, without undermining state authority or existing state laws--providing modest minimum standards to be included in state laws.

Sadly, some members of this body object to H.R. 980 on the grounds that it supposedly ``tramples on state's rights.'' This could not be further from the truth. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act only requires that states and localities have a bargaining process, it does not mandate binding arbitration, it does not allow strikes, and local employers still retain the final say in all budgetary decisions. Furthermore, most states and localities already meet or exceed the bill's minimum requirement of having a process in place that allows police, firefighters and others sit down and talk about their jobs with their employers. For these reasons, it seems to me that the state's rights objections raised by the bill's opponents do not stand up under scrutiny.

Congress has long recognized the benefits of a cooperative working relationship between labor and management. Over the years we have extended collective bargaining rights to letter carriers, postal clerks, public transit employees, and even Congressional employees. It is long past time that we allow public safety employees the basic right to bargain collectively and raise workplace and public safety issues with their employers and in passing H.R. 980 today we will correct this wrong.

Madam Chairman, I rise not to oppose this legislation but to raise a very serious concern about a provision in the bill to mandate that the National Institutes of Health, NIH, change its public access policy for journal articles. Under this provision, the current, voluntary program to provide journal articles to NIH will now become a federally mandated requirement that private and nonprofit sector copyright owners provide their materials for posting--free-of-charge-- by NIH on its publicly available websites.

I sympathize with the laudable goal of widely disseminating the results of publicly-funded research that comprises some of the information contained in these journals. And I am pleased to note that the bill does contain language stating ``that the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.'' I trust that this provision will mean that the agency must cooperate with journal owners and authors to assure that their rights are fully protected and that they receive just compensation for this use of their works.

However, I believe this new mandate will have unintended and negative consequences and will set worrisome precedents that may in the future actually diminish the amount of scientific, technical and medical information available to the public. By severely restricting the scope of protection for a critical class of copyrighted works, this provision could ultimately reduce incentives for publishers to continue to make substantial investments in conducting peer review of research prior to publication.

Finally, this provision could send a mixed message to our trading partners about the importance of intellectual property rights, IPR, to our economy. Such a message may make it difficult to advocate strong IPR protection and enforcement abroad, including the U.S. government's efforts to spread respect for IPR abroad and slow the trend in compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical patents by other nations.

Because this provision contains significant implications for IPR, the Committee on the Judiciary should have been given an opportunity to hold a hearing to further explore the complex issues involved.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the continuation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Since 1997, this program has served as a safety net for our Nation's low-income uninsured children. Today, the number of uninsured low- income children participating in SCHIP has fallen by more than one- third. The

number of minority children that participate in the program has decreased even more drastically.

In 2006, 6.7 million of America's children received health care benefits through SCHIP; of these, 6.2 million came from families whose income was less than $33,200 a year for a family of three. SCHIP working in conjunction with Medicaid through State programs provides necessary preventive, primary and acute health care services for the lowest income children and those with disabilities. Overall, these programs service more than 30 million children.

Children living in both rural and urban areas benefit from the SCHIP program. In rural areas, one in three children is covered either through SCHIP or Medicaid. In spite of this statistic, 17 percent of the children living in these areas remain uninsured. In urban areas one in four children has healthcare coverage through SCHIP or Medicaid, but 19 percent continue to be uninsured.

SCHIP also helps to reduce the number of uninsured minority children. The percentage of low-income African-American and Hispanic children without insurance decreased between 1996 and 2005 because of this program. Prior to SCHIP's enactment, approximately 30 percent of Latino children, 20 percent of African-American children, and 18 percent of Asian-American and Pacific Islander children were uninsured. By 2004, those numbers had dropped to 21 percent, 12 percent, and 8 percent respectively.

Mr. Speaker, let's not undermine the purpose of the SCHIP program. We have a responsibility to our children to provide them with one of the most basic needs in our society, equal access to health care. Let us not ignore the great strides that SCHIP has made in reducing the number of uninsured children. Reauthorize the SCHIP program and keep our children insured.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which will cut excess subsidies paid by the federal government to lenders in the student loan industry and reinvest those funds to allow for the single largest investment in higher education since the GI bill, at no new cost to taxpayers.

Over the last few decades, the cost of a postsecondary education in our country has more than doubled for graduates with student loans, from $9,250 to $19,200--a 108 percent increase (58 percent after accounting for inflation). As the richest nation in the world, we have a moral obligation to eliminate the barriers this de facto economic segregation erects. No child should be forced to forgo the dream of a college education due to fear of debt, and no child should have that potential debt dictate their future career choice.

The College Cost Reduction Act will provide us with a real chance, a $15.1 billion chance, to roll back the spiraling cost of higher education in this country. By cutting interest rates in half on subsidized student loans and increasing the maximum Pell Grant scholarship, this act makes College more affordable and moves more Americans into the middle class.

Passing H.R. 2669 will also provide upfront tuition assistance to students committed to teaching at public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. Furthermore, this legislation provides loan forgiveness to encourage students who choose to pursue careers as public servants. By enacting these provisions, we will be allowing students to become a nurse, public defender, prosecutor or firefighter free from the restraints of debt.

Finally, the College Cost Reduction Act Congress will be making a landmark, $500 million investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribally-Controlled, Native or Predominately Black Institutions, ensuring that students can not only enter college, but count on continued support through graduation.

In the first 50 legislative hours of the 110th Congress, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives took up and passed H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act, which cut the interest rates in half on certain subsidized student loans over the next five years. In passing that legislation, we kept our promise of making college more affordable and accessible. Today, with H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, we build on this effort and once again prove that the 110th Congress is on the job and fighting for a better America.

Madam Speaker, while our national crime rates have fallen over the last decade, we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Over two million prisoners are now held in Federal and State prisons and local jails. Each year, approximately 650,000 people return to their communities following a prison or jail sentence, resulting in more than 6.7 million Americans under some form of criminal justice supervision. In large part, these people are casualties in our war against drugs.

The weight of the drive to incarcerate has fallen disproportionately on the African-American community. Although drug use and sale cuts across racial and socioeconomic lines, law enforcement strategies have targeted street-level drug dealers and users from low-income, predominately minority, urban areas. As a result, the arrest rates per 100,000 for drug offenses are 6 times higher for blacks than for whites. The rate of imprisonment for black men is more than eight-times that of white men; and over the last 10 years, the incarceration rate of black men has increased at 10 times that of white men.

This disproportionate rate of incarceration has created havoc in our communities. One of the most significant costs of these policies is the impact on children, the weakened ties among family members. According to the 2001 national data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 3,500,000 parents were supervised by the correctional system. Prior to incarceration, 64 percent of female prisoners and 44 percent of male prisoners in State facilities lived with their children. Obviously, the long-term generational effects of a social structure in which imprisonment is the norm and law-abiding role models are absent are difficult to measure, but undoubtedly exist.

The social and criminal justice policy decisions generated by the drug war have also resulted in massive collateral damage negatively limiting critically important access to housing, employment, public benefits, education, and political participation.

A vast infrastructure of barriers, often legislatively mandated, combine to erect seemingly insurmountable roadblocks at every turn, creating a host of proscriptions blanketed under a ``one shoe fits all'' regime. For example, in some States, it is impossible for an ex- felon to get a barber's license, an extreme prohibition when cutting hair is a skill that can be acquired in prison.

There is a pressing need to provide the more than 650,000 men and women who re-enter our communities from prison each year with the education and training necessary to obtain and hold onto steady jobs, undergo drug treatment, and get medical and mental health services. For that very reason, I have been active in supporting and introducing re- entry legislation for well over a decade.

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was pleased to join my colleague Danny Davis in this Congress in supporting the Second Chance Act. The Committee passed this legislation on March 28th and we await action on the floor. This bipartisan legislation is a critical step in expanding the foundation for comprehensive re-entry programs at the Federal, State and local level.

The bill focuses on development and support of programs that provide alternatives to incarceration, expand the availability of substance abuse treatment, strengthen families and expand comprehensive re-entry services. The bill is a product of multi-year bipartisan negotiations and enjoys support from across the political spectrum.

The statistics underlying the needs of our prison population are staggering. As detailed by many researchers, these deficiencies include limited education, few job skills or experience, substance and alcohol dependency, and other health problems, including mental health. Evidence from the Department of Justice indicates that the needs of the prison population are not being met under the current system. If we allow them to return to communities with few economic opportunities, where their family and friends are often involved in crime and substance abuse, we can only expect to extend the cycle of recidivism.

For example, 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. Further, over one-third of all jail inmates have some physical or mental disability and 25 percent of jail inmates have been treated at some time for a mental or emotional problem.

In the face of these statistics, I believe that we can be cautiously optimistic in the support of re-entry programming through the Second Chance Act. Researchers at the Washington State Institute for Public Policy have determined that programs employing ``best practices'' have yielded up to 20 percent declines in re-arrest rates. Spread across the thousands of arrests each year, these practices could yield a significant decline in recidivism, with a commensurate reduction in community and victim costs.

Family-centered programs are one of the hallmarks of this legislation. Family-based treatment programs, for example, have proven results for serving the special population of female offenders and substance abusers with children. An evaluation by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of family-based treatment for substance abusing mothers and children found that at six months post treatment, 60 percent of the mothers remain alcohol and drug free, and drug related offenses declined from 28 to 7 percent.

As we move toward passage of the bill, I hope that we are not caught in the trap of attempting to solve this problem on the cheap or over- reacting to misinformation. In past Congresses, there have been objections to the cost of this bill and past re-entry initiatives.

I must point out that Section 101, the demonstration projects at the heart of the legislation, works out to less that $200 for each of the more than 650,000 people released into the community each year. Moreover, there are no perks--Blackberries or cosmetic surgery--for ex- offenders. This bill is a truly modest measure when balanced against the more than $60 billion each year spent on incarceration.

If we are going to continue to send more and more people to prison with longer and longer sentences, we should do as much as we reasonably can to assure that when they do return they don't go back to prison due to new crimes. The primary reason for doing so is not to benefit offenders, although it does--the primary reason for doing so is because it better assures that all of us and other members of the public will not be victims of crime due to recidivism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ``H.R. 2956, The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act,'' and had I been on the floor today, I would have voted ``yes.''

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to the fact that I was given the high honor of receiving the NAACP Spingarn Award. However, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. One of our greatest responsibilities is the protection of our soldiers. The Democrats are determined to end this war and bring our young men and women back home. H.R. 2956 will now provide such a policy that will allow us to meet our national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region by maintaining a minimal force. The Administration has provided a failed policy and it is time for a new direction. We understand that this transition must be well thought out and handled responsibly; with a view toward an enduring national security interest in the region.

This legislation, acknowledges that our military has accomplished the mission they were given in the original 2002 authorization to use force and that Iraq must now take leadership for its own future. For years Democrats have advocated for the responsible redeployment of American forces from Iraq. The relocation and redistribution of our soldiers is long overdue and enough American lives have been sacrificed for a failed policy. Democrats have argued that the Iraqis must take primary accountability for their country and their security. American presence in Iraq must be re-focused away from playing referee in a civil war. We must focus and limit our efforts to military missions such as counter- terrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting American personnel at the embassy.

The bill requires American forces to begin redeploying within 120 days and to complete the transition to a limited presence by April 1, 2008. The bill also requires a comprehensive strategy by January 1, 2008 for U.S. policy in Iraq, including a discussion of American national security interests in Iraq and the broader region, the specific missions remaining forces would undertake, and minimum force levels required to accomplish them. Finally, it requires the President to submit updates on the use of and need for any forces remaining in Iraq every 90 days starting on July 1, 2008. The President has been given ample time to bring our soldiers home. It is now time for us to act on their behalf.

I am committed to the homecoming of our brave men and women who have so valiantly completed their mission. So, I am honored to support this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I regret that I will be unable to vote ``yes'' tonight for passage of H.R. 1851. I was scheduled to be in Detroit in order to receive the NAACP's most prestigious award, the ``Spingarn award.'' I applaud the vision, courage and compassion of Representative Maxine Waters for introducing the ``Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1851.'' I strongly support the legislation, because it expands Section 8 vouchers for working families in America who are in desperate need of affordable housing by creating 20,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers in each of the next 5 years for a total of 100,000 new vouchers.

In a nation where affordable housing is scarce, and family homeless shelters continue to be built across the nation, passage of H.R. 1851 is a vitally important step in having the Federal Government take the lead in expanding affordable housing for deserving families and children in America. There are approximately 16,000 individuals and families who are currently on the Detroit Public Housing Waiting List. H.R. 1851 will help reduce the affordable housing crisis in Detroit, by increasing the availability of housing units through the expansion of Section 8 housing. It clearly does not make sense, nor is it fair, to have apartments available for rent in Detroit, but not enough citizens to move into them, only because there have not been a sufficient supply of Section 8 vouchers in the past.

H.R. 1851 also changes rent calculation, recertification, and inspection rules for the voucher, public housing, and project based Section 8 programs, to reduce costs and compliance burdens for public housing agencies, landlords, and families. These changes are made while maintaining rules that target scarce resources to those families most in need and while maintaining rent calculation rules that ensure rents are affordable. This will mean that Section 8 apartments will now become more affordable due to changes in rent calculation formulas mandated in H.R. 1851.

H.R. 1851 also permits public housing agencies across this country to allow families in need of affordable housing to use a Section 8 housing voucher as a down payment on a first time home purchase. Passage of this legislation means scores of working families in Detroit, many who have saved and sacrificed the entire lives to buy a home, will be now able to do so.

The ``Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1851.'' Is a critically important piece of legislation because it reforms HUD Section 8 guidelines to ensure that the approximately $1.4 billion in unused Section 8 funds will now be spent. This legislation mandates reforms in the Section 8 program that will eliminate inefficiencies, streamline paper work, and provide more incentives for public housing agencies to assist more families who qualify for Section 8 housing.

Having an additional $1.4 billion dollars to be used for Section 8 housing vouchers means that there will be a substantial increase in families in Detroit who will live in safe and decent affordable housing. There are too many working families in Detroit, and across this nation, who are living in homeless shelters, expensive inner city hotels, and staying with friends and relatives until they can locate housing. This is a moral outrage. All Americans deserve safe, decent, and affordable permanent housing.

Under the leadership of Representative Maxine Waters, passage of H.R. 1851 shows how we as Democrats have always had a historical commitment to expanding affordable housing to working families, and will continue to do so.

If we are to be a truly compassionate and moral nation, all individuals and families, regardless of income, race, or employment status must have as a fundamental human and civil right safe, decent, and affordable housing. Passage of H.R. 1851 is a critically important piece of legislation that will move America closer to this goal. Now, 100,000 additional Americans will have the opportunity to either become home owners, or move into an apartment, something that we can all agree on should be one of the highest priorities of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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, 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.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, our Nation's judiciary has been the repeated targets of death threats and sometimes even violent acts. In 2005, for example, the family members of a Federal judge in Chicago were murdered. Two weeks later, a State judge, court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy were killed in an Atlanta courthouse. And so it is these acts of violence in the judiciary that bring us together.

Along with others, we have begun on the Judiciary Committee to realize the need for legislation that will perhaps try to deal more effectively with these concerns of safety in the courts. So I am pleased that the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott; and Judge Louie Gohmert of Texas, a distinguished member of the committee, have joined with me in this effort.

What we seek to do is improve the security for court officers and the safeguards of judges and their families. We achieve this objective by making several revisions in the current law.

First, we make the current redaction authority of Federal judges under the Ethics and Government Act permanent. What this provision will do is prevent would-be aggrieved litigants and others who might use a Federal judge's personal information to determine how they might threaten him or her or a family member of the court.

Another thing we do in this legislation is authorize an additional $120 million for the United States Marshals Service over the course of the next 6 years. These monies will enable the service to increase ongoing investigations and expand protective services that are currently provided to the Federal judiciary. This is a long overdue item, and we were glad that we reached authorizing agreement on it.

The bill also makes it a Federal offense to publish the personal information of a judge, law enforcement officer, or witness with the intent to cause some act of intimidation or harassment, or to commit a crime of violence. This measure authorizes $100 million over the course of the next 5 fiscal years to create and expand the witness protection programs to assist witnesses and victims of crime.

It has taken a couple years to put these various pieces together in the bill, and we think that time for its passage is immediate, if not overdue, and I urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to this very commonsense proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for these closing remarks.

I agree with Howard Coble, the gentleman from North Carolina, that our Nation's court system and those who work there must function in a safe and professional environment, and that is what we are improving in this measure. We have worked together in great harmony and cooperation, and the measure helps in a substantial way to promote better security for our judiciary and other court personnel, and I urge our colleagues to support the passage of this critical measure.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1979) to require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization, 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, this measure is a commonsense requirement with respect to the process of notarizing documents that occur in every State, every city, every county. And what we do in H.R. 1979 is simply to require Federal and State courts to recognize documents lawfully notarized in any State of the Union when interstate commerce is, in fact, involved.

As we all know, notary publics play a critical role in ensuring that the signer of a document is, indeed, who he or she claims to be and that the person has willingly and without coercion signed the document. By performing these two tasks, the notary public serves as an indispensable first line of defense against fraudulent acts and other manipulations of contracts and other documents.

Although the purpose of notarizations is the same across our Nation, each State has, in the course of time, established its own laws governing the recognition of notarized documents. And some things are required in some places, and other things are required in others. And so the lack of consistent technical rules and the resultant formalities make it unnecessarily difficult for courts to recognize out-of-State notarizations. Some places impose certain technical requirements, such as dictating that the ink seals must be used, while others require embossers. Some States demand very particular language in the acknowledgment certificate and will, accordingly, reject out-of-State notarizations that lack the same language that they require in their State. And there are many other little details that create snafus, create problems in accepting documents that have been notarized and may be different in some small technical way. These inconsistencies, of course, do not further the goals of notarization. In fact, this problem has led to the bill that we have before us. And I'm very pleased to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and Mr. Artur Davis, also of Alabama, Mr. Braley of Iowa, who have all together introduced this measure. And so what we're seeing here is that we propose to grant relief to these kinds of snafus that occur in accepting out-of-State notarizations.

H.R. 1979 is supported by the National Notary Association, countless numbers of notary publics in many States, the academics that follow this arcane area of the law, and we think that they are correct, that we're making an important revision in how notarized documents are recognized by the courts, all courts. And it's in that spirit that I introduce or urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1979.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the author of this bill, Mr. Aderholt, and always I am pleased to come to the floor with the floor manager on the Republican side, Mr. Coble.

And I only want to underscore the fact that communications interstate are so common and frequent that this is a long overdue and important improvement in the relations of legal documents between the citizens of the several States. So I am proud to sign off with you and join in urging that this matter be unanimously supported by the distinguished House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2286) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with respect to bail bond forfeitures.

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

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

Members of the Congress, of the House here, the bail bond system in our country is under considerable pressure. Some would even say that it is broken. The reason is that Federal courts increasingly use bail bonds to ensure that a defendant appear in court but it also is used to make sure that a defendant complies with other requirements while awaiting trial.

As a result of a combination of these factors, there have been critical problems that have developed. When you merge the use of bail bonds, there is presented a greater risk of forfeiture, and, thereby, this has made it much more difficult, especially for those with limited means to obtain these bonds. Frequently, the amount of the bond goes up, sometimes a great deal.

Now, historically, of course, the sole purpose of a bail bond was to ensure that a defendant appears in court. When a bail bond is also used to guarantee compliance with collateral conditions of release, a court may direct the bond to be forfeited should the defendant violate any of these conditions, even if the defendant appears in court. This, of course, heightens the risk of forfeiture and makes it now virtually impossible for many persons to obtain these bonds, because the cost of the bond goes up.

Also, merging the traditional purpose of bail bonds with other conditions of release creates a perverse situation where, ironically, there are less incentives for the defendants who violate these conditions to then appear in court. As a result, thousands of defendants are failing to come to court, which increases the expense and effort by Federal law enforcement officers to secure their presence.

Also, family members and friends of the defendant, who pledge their homes, put the house up for capital, life savings or other assets, are at greater risk of losing their property as well. So, fewer family members and friends feel that they can afford to take the risk of assisting and procuring a bond.

Now, while wealthy defendants can use their own assets for collateral and gain pretrial release, those less-wealthy defendants are incarcerated before trial even when there is little or no risk of flight or threat to the public. Remanding a defendant into pretrial detention when he or she is neither a flight risk nor a danger to society also creates an undue financial burden on our Nation's prison system.

It's also highly unfair to an accused who, of course, thus far, has not been convicted yet of anything. So, hence, the Bail Bond Fairness Act.

What this measure does is attempt to address the problem by restoring the historical purpose of bail bonds; namely, that they be used solely to ensure the defendant's physical presence before a court. Under this measure, a Federal judge has the authority to declare a bail bond forfeited only under the circumstances of where the defendant actually fails to appear in court as ordered, and not simply because the defendant has violated some collateral condition of release.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and am very pleased to commend the leaders and members of the subcommittee on crime for helping us bring this measure forward in such an expeditious manner.

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

I commend the ranking member, Mr. Forbes, for his good work on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the subcommittee chairman on crime, another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to one of the authors of this measure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2286 restores the use of bail bonds to the traditional purpose of ensuring that a defendant appears in court as directed. It removes the risk that a defendant's family and friends will forfeit their homes, savings, or other assets even though the defendant appears, just because of failure to comply with some unrelated collateral condition. And perhaps most importantly, it will increase the appropriate availability of bail bonds to all, not just the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1281) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain deceptive practices in Federal elections, and for other purposes, 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, I am pleased to join the lead sponsors, the gentleman from Illinois, Rahm Emanuel; the gentleman from New Jersey, Rush Holt; the gentleman from California, Xavier Becerra; the gentleman from California, Mike Honda; and the gentleman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, with more than 50 other cosponsors of this important legislation to protect the right to vote. Obviously there is no more important issue that comes before this Congress than protecting the right to vote. It is the cornerstone right of our democracy. Without it, all other rights and privileges enjoyed by us are in jeopardy.

Protecting this right, however, has not been an easy task. Historically, it was not until passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that we began to accord the highest meaning to that right. Less than 40 years later, however, we endured the debacle of the Florida 2000 presidential election.

And the problems continue. In the most recent midterm and presidential elections, we learned of numerous incidents in which deceptive practices were used to thwart and frustrate citizens from exercising the right to vote. Some voters were, believe it or not, told to vote on the wrong day. Wednesday is not the right day to vote in congressional or presidential elections. Others were told that they could not vote without paying outstanding parking tickets. Others were told that they would be imprisoned if they voted without paying overdue utility bills. Ultimately, eligible voters were misled, deceived and disenfranchised in a number of other ways.

It is our collective intent in the Judiciary Committee to end this practice, and we are here talking about seriously protecting the right to vote.

I believe every Member of the House of Representatives cares deeply about this issue, and that is why we must pass the measure under consideration, for this bill explicitly prohibits deceptive practices, provides voters with greater Federal protection and increases the penalty for voter intimidation and misinformation in campaigns.

What makes me proud of this measure is that so many of our organizational friends in the voting rights community and the civil rights community as well have joined us in support of this legislation. Among them are the People For the American Way, the very historic Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Jewish Council For Public Affairs, and the New York City Bar itself.

This is not an entire solution for reforming and improving the election process. Among other things, we also need to reduce our reliance on unverifiable electronic voting machines, which undermine accountability and our citizens' confidence in election results. We also need to ensure a fair allocation of voting machines in polling places, as well as a unified system of educating those who work the polls as to the rules and procedures. We should make election day a national holiday, so no one has to choose between their responsibilities as citizens and their responsibilities to their employers.

But this legislation is an important step and one that we should take today. Let's face it: If we allow the infrastructure of our democracy to remain frazzled and to decay, our citizens will rightly lose confidence in the legitimacy of the voting process, and we should work to keep that from ever happening.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may

consume to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, whose genius brought this measure into existence. He thought long and hard about this before we all got on board.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the coauthor of this bill, who has worked in this area with the Committee on the Judiciary across the years. I have been very pleased about his work in trying to create an effective paper trail and other voter rights initiatives, and I am so happy that he is with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to close by thanking the distinguished ranking member on the Crime Subcommittee, Randy Forbes, for the excellent work that he performs all the time, but especially on this bill. I want no misunderstanding about our appreciation of this bill being about prohibiting deceptive practices against eligible voters.

This is not a measure that deals with prosecuting ineligible voters unless they try to deceive eligible voters. The issue of voter fraud is a very serious one, well publicized, and it is the intention of the Chair of the committee that the Subcommittee on Crime hold hearings on this subject because we think it is an important one that needs to be examined very clearly.

But today, we move forward from the 15th amendment in the Constitution, we move forward from the Voter Rights Act of 1965 that has been amended several times, and we now come to a specific set of practices that have been very detrimental in coercing and intimidating and confusing many voters.

I am so pleased that this committee at this day and time is prepared to deal with preventing voters from being disenfranchised by being misled on their way to polling. It has been documented and we are directly prohibiting these kinds of tactics and we are turning many of them from a misdemeanor into a felony. I congratulate all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and particularly the sponsors of this piece of legislation, and urge support of the bill.

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

I thank my chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day. What we're doing is recalling a difficult period in American history to understand the combined climate at that time that coexisted with fear and violence during the civil rights era. And so we have the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act.

The first thing I want to do is try to recapture, for the moment, all those who were not in the Judiciary Committee the day of the testimony, because it moved both Republicans and Democrats and visitors when we had Myrlie Evers, the widow of Medgar Evers, who was himself a victim of the violence that marked the civil rights era, talking to us about Emmett Till and how this youngster's life was taken.

And it was one of those moments in judiciary history that we were all electrified by the ability of our witnesses to recapture this moment in our history.

It was a remarkable hearing. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, and also I lift up the name of Steve King of Iowa. Everybody was moved by this determination that at this point in American history we are now moving forward at a pace that may not always be recognized, faster than we think. And the reason I say that is that we are now going back into history to make the corrections that law enforcement could have and should have made at that earlier time. So it is to me a very powerful determination of the Committee on the Judiciary to bring H.R. 923 to the floor for the expedited action that is required this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, I can't help but observe that the difference between this crime, the Emmett Till crime of 52 years ago, and today is that passionately held beliefs about justice and fairness could cost you your life. There are only a few people left in America today who put their lives on the line knowingly in this struggle for justice, and the one in this body, the 110th Congress, is none other than John Lewis of Georgia, and I yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. LEWIS OF Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (Mr. Conyers) for those kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is being considered today before the full House of Representatives.

I would like to thank the lead cosponsor of this bill, my good friend, Representative Kenny Hulshof from Missouri, and my good friends in the United States Senate, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont for their distinguished support in this effort.

Again, I must thank Chairman Conyers for all of his help and for all of his support in bringing this bill before us today. Also, Subcommittee Chairs Scott and Nadler for coordinating a powerful hearing on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the sake of history, for the sake of justice, for the sake of closure, the 110th Congress must pass this legislation.

On August 28, 1955, almost 52 years ago, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago, a young African American boy, was visiting his uncle in Money, Mississippi. He was pulled from his bed in the darkness of night. He was beaten until he could hardly be recognized. He was shot in the head, and his body was dumped in the Tallahatchie River, all because somebody said he had been fresh with a white woman.

Several years later, an intelligent and dignified NACP leader named Medgar Evers was gunned down in front of his home in Mississippi in June of 1963. Some historians said it was the injustice of these unsolved two murders that began the mass movement in the American South that we call the modern-day civil rights movement.

Who can forget the NAACP leader and his wife, Harry and Harriette Moore, who were killed by a bomb on Christmas night as they celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary in 1951 in Florida? Who can forget the two black couples lynched about 60 miles east of Atlanta in 1946, or the death of Lemuel Penn, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve from Washington, D.C., who was a veteran trying to get home from Fort Benning, Georgia for a little rest. He was killed in 1964 as members of the KKK drove by him on a highway.

Who can forget Viola Liuzzo, shot down in Alabama in 1965, from the hometown of our chairman, Chairman Conyers from Detroit, trying to bring nonviolent activists back to their home after the Selma-to- Montgomery march?

There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of these crimes that were never brought to justice. There are murderers who have walked free for decades while the families of victims cry out for justice. Passing this bill is the least we can do. And we must do something to right these wrongs.

I will never forget the three civil rights workers, three young men I knew, Andy Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner. They came to Mississippi with a simple mission, to register as many black voters as possible. They were stopped, arrested, taken to jail. Later that night, June 21, 1964, they were taken from jail by the sheriff and his deputy, turned over to the Klan, where they were beaten, shot and killed. They didn't die in Vietnam. They didn't die in Eastern Europe. They died right here in the United States. They died in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Viola Liuzzo didn't die on a road or some street in Baghdad, she died right there in Alabama on Highway 80. Lemuel Penn, Medgar Evers, Emmett Till and countless others didn't die in the Middle East; they died right here in our own country fighting for simple justice.

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation, we have a mission, we have a mandate. The blood of hundreds of innocent men and women is calling out to us. Then, no one came to their aid. But today we can help make it right. Let us move to close this dark chapter in our history. Let us try to wash away the stains on our democracy. So I call on all of my colleagues to pass this legislation and pass it today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters of support for H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act.

Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to express our strong

support for H.R. 923/S. 535, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil

Rights Crime Act. The bill, sponsored by Congressman John

Lewis of Georgia, will give the U.S. Department of Justice

the funding and tools necessary to investigate and prosecute

civil rights era murders.

Ever since our founding by President John F. Kennedy in

1963, the Lawyers' Committee has sought to attain equal

justice under law for all Americans, and the Unsolved Civil

Rights Crime Act is an important step in continuing that

mission.

We are hopeful that the House of Representatives will pass

the bill this week, as June 21 represents an incredibly

symbolic day in the history of the civil rights movement. On

that date in 1964, KKK member Edgar Ray Killen assembled a

mob to hunt down three civil rights workers in Mississippi.

The victims' names were James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and

Michael Schwerner. Those young men sacrificed their lives in

pursuit of equal rights for all Americans, yet their killer

roamed free for decades until a court finally convicted him

on June 21, 2005.

We urge Congress to mark this important anniversary by

passing H.R. 923.

The bill assigns offices within the Justice Department the

specific responsibility of investigating and prosecuting

civil rights murders before 1970. Then, civil rights murder

cases that went to trial often ended in hung juries. However,

today, different attitudes and improved race relations could

result in color-blind justice, and technological advancements

could allow prosecutors to present more persuasive evidence

at trial.

To this end, H.R. 923 will provide the Justice Department

with $11.5 million in funds to carry out their duties, a sum

publicly supported by a D.O.J. representative at a recent

House subcommittee hearing.

At that same hearing, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the widow of

slain civil rights worker Medgar Evers, spoke in support of

the bill. Her husband was assassinated in 1963, and three

decades later, a jury convicted 74 year-old Byron de la

Beckwith of the murder, proof that justice knows no time

limitations.

Although the Lawyers' Committee and Americans-at-large are

thankful that the Evers family and others have received some

level of closure, we know that countless American families

are still waiting to see justice served. Just last week, a

federal jury convicted James Ford Seale of two counts of

kidnapping in relation to the 1964 murders of two African-

American teenagers. Passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved

Crimes Act will help the Justice Department investigate and

prosecute cases similar to the Killen, Seale, and De la

Beckwith trials.

With your support of this measure, aging murderers who have

subverted our legal system for decades could finally face a

court of law. The long-grieving families of numerous victims

could hope to see closure. Perhaps

most importantly, this bill could assist the United States

government in upholding justice, no matter how long overdue.

Again, we urge you to mark this important anniversary by

scheduling a floor vote on H.R. 923/S. 535 this week. Please

feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding

this request.

Sincerely,

John G. Brittain,

Chief Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to the articulate gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the committee, as much time as she may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Forbes. I think this is an important step forward. I have been amazed by the congeniality and the cooperation that has been extended to me by all of the members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Things come around. This is a historic moment. It has been expressed with great articulateness by Members on your side of the aisle, Mr. Forbes, as well as mine. But the witnesses on that day in Judiciary, and Myrlie Evers Williams stands out more than anyone else, were so amazing that I want everyone to go back and read the testimony that just electrified us all.