Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by Mr. King of Iowa. In my state of Michigan, we are currently fighting a deceptive ballot initiative that would undermine the progress which has been made to attain educational equality. Like that ballot measure, I believe that the King amendment is yet another deceptive attack on affirmative action.

While the amendment looks like a mere reporting requirement, its true purpose is to chill the willingness of universities to consider diversity factors--including not only race and ethnicity, but also gender--even in the narrowly tailored manner that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the University of Michigan cases.

In Gratz and Grutter, the Court explicitly found that universities may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, to promote the educational benefits of a diverse student body. However, even with this ruling by the Court, the chilling factor on legally permissible policies and programs is very real. This month, the New York Times reported that hundreds of universities had modified or given up programs created to promote educational opportunity for minorities in the face of pressure from Washington and further litigation. As one Dean commented in the story, the question was how far these programs could be stretched by these pressures before gains were put at risk.

The chilling effect on university policy is made even worse by the fact that the amendment completely misapprehends the role that diversity factors play in the admission process. The proposed amendment would require universities annually to report the weight given to each factor--including race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, grades, high school class rank, standardized test scores, and so forth-- considered in the admissions process.

As the Supreme Court explained in Grutter and Gratz, however, admissions factor must be considered in an individualized, holistic manner and the weight given to each factor will necessarily vary across applications. Consequently, a factor that was important (or even perhaps decisive) with respect to one application may have little weight with respect to another application.

As a result, it is impossible for a university to state definitively and universally the weight given to race or to any particular admissions factor. In fact, to do so would violate the Court's rulings, which expressly require flexibility in any governmental consideration of race or ethnicity.

Moreover, the proposed amendment contemplates only quantifiable admissions factors, and neglects the role of essays, personal statements, counsel recommendations, and other qualitative factors in the admissions process.

When amendments like this come forward, I believe that we should reflect on the path to equality. It was only 40 years ago that the Federal Government had to send troops into Little Rock to permit African-American children to attend Central High School. The Supreme Court took this into account in reaching its Grutter and Gratz conclusions and made its rulings. It's now time for Washington to step back and let our universities focus on education, instead of litigation and regulation.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to heartily congratulate the people of Haiti on their recent election of President Preval on

February 7, 2006. It was a great triumph for the country to hold ``free and fair'' presidential and legislative elections. Reports were that the elections were peaceful and that 60 percent, over 2.2 million Haitians, many who stood in line for 6 hours or more, participated. This election is a great advancement of a return to normalcy for this great country and its stupendous citizens.

This is a pivotal point in history for Haiti and the world. I now call on the international community, with the U.S. in the lead, to support democracy in this determined country. I am hopeful that this first step will serve as the beginning of national reconciliation of democracy as well as social and economic development for Haiti.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a great opportunity in the amendment brought forward by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). The reason this is a good opportunity, it gets to the heart of what is tearing us apart and preventing us from being as effective as we could in the Middle East. The best way to do that is to clearly express, by statute, the fact that we are not there to build military permanent bases. And the reason is that when we do that we will alleviate a lot of the problem and suspicions that currently exist.

Join us in this bipartisan effort to make sure that American intentions in the Middle East are for the first time explicitly stated by law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from California.

When the president took our country to war, he promised that victory would be swift and that our troops would not stay in Iraq one day longer than necessary.

Three years and 300 billion dollars later, with over 2,300 American soldiers dead and more than ten thousand wounded, victory is nowhere in sight.

The president and vice president, the secretary of defense and high ranking generals have continued to assure the American people that our presence in Iraq is temporary.

Yet, at the same time, the Department of Defense is paying Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root billions of dollars to build 14 ``enduring'' bases in Iraq.

The Iraqis see what is happening on the ground, and they haven't fallen for the Administration's misrepresentation.

According to recent opinion polls, a large majority of Iraqis believe that the U.S. military has no intention to leave Iraq, and that it would stay even is asked by the Iraqi government to leave.

The presence of American troops is fueling the insurgency in Iraq, as acknowledged by General Casey and numerous other experts, and is helping terrorist recruiters build their numbers across the globe.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to continue sending these mixed signals.

If we want to build the Iraqis' confidence about our intentions in their country, if we want to stop adding fuel to the fire of insurgency and terrorism, we must clarify our intent.

Because the Administration is unable to send a clear message about America's intentions in Iraq, Congress must take this responsibility.

We must make our policy of no permanent bases explicit by force of law.

Mr. Chairman, the concern raised in the gentlelady from California's amendment is the same concern that has determined my vote on the underlying bill. The Administration and the majority in this body continue to evade the question of how long we will remain in Iraq, and how much we plan to spend on this war.

It is with deep regret that I vote against passage of this supplemental.

Since Hurricane Katrina wrought havoc on our Gulf coast, I have decried the federal government's stingy approach to aid and reconstruction.

I have joined with my colleagues for years in urging the Administration to provide more funding for veterans' benefits.

I fully support increased LIHEAP funding, as well as aid to Liberia and Sudan.

But, Mr. Chairman, I will not be held hostage by the majority's cynical two-step trick to ensure continued funding for their failed policy in Iraq.

The majority continues to separate Iraq funding from the overall defense budget so that they can hide the true cost of the war and then force the Congress to pass these so-called ``emergency'' supplemental appropriations.

And the majority has bundled this war appropriation with funding for numerous important programs that we all favor, in order to force the legislation through and do an end run around real debate.

I am a Korean War veteran. I support our troops as much as anyone in this body, but I do so by advocating redeployment out of Iraq as soon as it can be safely done. I would vote any time for additional funds to pay for such safe redeployment. For this reason I have signed on to the proposal of my colleague Mr. McGovern, H.R. 4232, the End of the War in Iraq Act.

Mr. Chairman, this vote is not about ``supporting the troops.'' This bill is just one more attempt to tie the Congress' hands by forcing us to give up our only means of control over the war, the power of the purse. I will not be blackmailed into approving funding for an open- ended continuation of our participation in hostilities in Iraq. If the Congress acquiesces on this vote, it is in effect agreeing to fund this disastrous policy for as long as this Administration sees fit. From all indications, no end is in sight.

Mr. Chairman, the price for continuing this war is too high, not only in budgetary terms, but in American lives, Iraqi civilian casualties blamed on America and in the steady increase in the terrorist ranks that this war is provoking around the globe.

The American taxpayers should not have to send one more penny on the Administration's Iraq misadventure. Let's give our troops the supplies they need to get out of Iraq safely. Let's bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, the following Extension of Remarks should have been included during the December 17, 2005 House debate of H.R. 3402:

I rise in support of this legislation, which reauthorizes

the Violence Against Women Act and the Department of Justice.

I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for

reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the

Department of Justice and its programs with this bill. I also

want to thank Senators Biden, Leahy, and Specter for working

with us on this legislation. We worked together to address

everyone's concerns and arrived at the compromise bill before

us today.

Violence Against Women Act

An important piece of the bill is the reauthorization of

the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. This is the third

time we have worked on this bill, and each time we make

dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the

issue. Building on work from previous years, the Act

reauthorizes some of the current programs that have proven

enormously effective, including the STOP program--which

provides state formula grants that help fund collaboration

efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services

providers--and legal assistance for victims.

One important aspect of this legislation is the new program

we created specifically tailored to address the needs of

communities of color. In the original VAWA, Congress intended

for all underserved communities to have a fair chance at

addressing these issues. However, all to often racial and

ethnic minorities are overlooked. In this legislation,

Congress has included language referencing culturally

specific communities in an attempt to respond to the needs of

racial and ethnic minorities. Inserting this language into

the bill is a monumental victory for communities of color.

In Indian Country (especially in non-Public Law 280

States), non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence and

sexual assault crimes against Indian victims cannot be

prosecuted by tribes or by states. Only the United States

has the jurisdiction to prosecute such perpetrators.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Justice frequently

lacks the prosecutorial resources necessary to pursue

these cases. The Attorney General of the United States has

the authority, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 543, to cross-

designate prosecuting attorneys appointed by the Tribal

Governments as Special Assistant United States Attorneys.

The Committee urges the Attorney General to close the

jurisdictional gap by cross-designating tribal prosecutors

as Special Assistant United States Attorneys for the

purpose of enforcing 18 U.S.C. 2261, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, 18

U.S.C. 2262, 18 U.S.C. 2265, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), and 18

U.S.C. 922(g)(9). Any tribal prosecutors appointed as

Special Assistant United States Attorneys pursuant to this

process should undergo training on the federal crimes

enumerated above; such training should be developed and

offered in conjunction with experts on tribal law and

domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

stalking. The progress of these cross-designations and

trainings should be a subject for review through the

consultation process described in Section 1002 of Title X

of this Act.

Title VI--Section 605

The intent of Congress in this section is to ensure that

Federal, State, tribal, territorial and local confidentiality

protections put into place to protect the safety of victims

of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and

stalking are not undercut by broad data collection programs.

For the purposes of this section, Congress finds that any

data that meets the definition of ``personally identifying

information'' cannot be altered to become ``non-personally

identifying information'' simply by being altered

technologically for the purposes of limiting access to such

information.

Any data that can be construed to fall under the definition

of ``personally identifying information'' shall remain

defined as such and shall be protected as mandated in this

section as long as a Homeless Management Information System

(HMIS) database is maintained.

Congress notes that participation in an HMIS or other

database may be mandated for other non-victim service

provider grantees. Any victim service program prohibited from

participation in an HMIS or other shared database under this

statute may not be penalized for compliance with this

statute, either directly or indirectly through mechanisms

such as the withholding of incentives.

Title VI--Sections 606 and 607

Congress notes that employees or volunteers of victim

service providers who are signing certification documents

should be trained service providers. An employee or volunteer

serving solely in an administrative capacity is not

appropriate to sign a certification form.

Congress notes that these sections should not be construed

to require public housing authorities to adopt a preference

for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, or stalking. Public housing authorities are

encouraged to adopt such a preference, but that decision is

at the discretion of the public housing authority, consistent

with applicable law and regulation.

Congress notes that the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) may want to issue guidance or

regulations to assist with the implementation of these

sections. Certain nonprofit organizations and other

government agencies that have expertise in domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, or in housing

law and policy, can provide valuable guidance to HUD in

creating such guidance and regulations. HUD is directed to

work with such expert nonprofit organizations and government

agencies in drafting guidance, regulations, and any other

communication to local housing authorities and assisted

housing providers regarding these sections, including the

Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook, the Housing Choice

Voucher Program Guidebook, and any HUD-approved forms used

for certification as a qualifying victim under these

sections.

Congress notes that under these sections, in order to show

an `actual and imminent threat,' a housing or subsidy

provider must demonstrate, using forms of evidence admissible

under current law, that the tenant's continued tenancy or

assistance directly and imminently causes a distinct harm

to the safety of the landlord, the subsidy or service

provider, other tenants, or those employed at or providing

service to the property, but not necessarily a specific

physical harm to the intended victim. Nothing in these

sections should be construed to negate any tenant's

responsibility to follow all terms and obligations of a

lease.

Congress notes that bifurcation of a lease under these

sections allows a public housing agency, owner or manager to

terminate a person or person's rights and obligations under

the lease agreement while maintaining the rights and

obligations of other lease parties. Nothing in these sections

should be construed to obligate a public housing agency,

owner or manager to maintain or enter a lease agreement with

any individual who is not eligible for tenancy or assistance.

The bill also goes a long way in helping immigrants

subjected to domestic violence to secure their right to stay

in the country and seek shelter from those who batter them by

expanding the class of victims who can seek immigration

status by self-petitioning through VAWA. For example, the

bill protects victims of child abuse from aging out by

allowing for victims to self petition up to the age of 25,

parents abused by U.S. citizen children by allowing them to

file for relief under VAWA, and victims with prima facie

cases as a VAWA self-petitioner, or for a T or U visa, from

removal or deportation. It also limits detention for victims

who have pending petitions or applications for relief.

This legislation is crucial in our plight to combat

violence against women.

Justice Department Reauthorization

In addition, the bill provides funding for the various

offices within the Department. In this regard, I would like

to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General

over $70 million for its responsibilities. In the past few

years, the OIG has been diligent in overseeing the

Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11

detainees and pushing the Department to change how its

procedures for handling terrorism suspects.

The bill reauthorizes the COPS office. We all know that

this Clinton Administration program has been increasingly

vital in crime prevention and crime solving. That is why COPS

has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of Police, the

largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local

policing also is the backbone in our war on terrorism, as

community officers are more likely to know the witnesses and

more likely to be trusted by community residents who have

information about potential attacks. This bill provides over

$1 billion per year for this program.

The bill also includes language offered by Rep. Adam Schiff

to require the Attorney General to report to Congress on the

number of persons detained on suspicion of terrorism. This is

important because the Department has thwarted congressional

and judicial efforts to obtain justification for terrorism

detainees. The Department's Office of the Inspector General

found that the Department and its components had abused

terrorism suspects, pushing them into walls, leaving them in

legal limbo, and depriving them of access to family or

counsel. With these reports, Congress can better determine

whether the Department is overstepping its bounds again.

Finally, I am pleased the Chairman agreed with me that we

needed to amend the emergency sessions authority for federal

courts. Just a few months ago, we authorized federal courts

to change locations in situations of natural disasters or

other emergencies that make their courthouses unusable. This

bill now ensures that, in those situations, indigent

defendants will be provided with transportation and

subsistence costs for the new location so that they will not

be left to fend for themselves in disaster.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am happy to be here today to join the debate around this bill. I am hoping that my good friend, the chairman of the committee, will somewhere in the course of this suspension explain to us why three bills were mentioned but one that was added by the majority of the House, H.R. 3132, which deals with hate crimes and is arguably one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by the Congress, was inexplicably left off. This makes the process very mysterious to me, because

hate crimes is a very important part of any Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act that is before us, and I am very disappointed that somewhere in the night this bill was dropped so that we are now combining three instead of four bills.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile; it is a Federal crime to possess cocaine. It ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to his death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should, and I hope we will through some parliamentary mechanism, seize upon the historic opportunity that is before us to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity. But instead of supporting this principle, the measure before us takes an opposite direction. I am really, really sorry about this because it does the House an injustice.

I am also, at the same time, wishing to register notice that an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), which was adopted and would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense, was also dropped. This is very troubling. Still others will talk about the 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalties that have become eligible by offenses in this new bill.

So I am hopeful that we can work out some kind of agreement or acknowledgment about the unusual parliamentary process by which this matter has been brought to us.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation and the manner by which it comes before us today. Introduced just over two months ago, this legislation, all 164 pages, has managed to completely circumvent the traditional legislative process.

Without the benefit of a single hearing or committee markup, the legislation has somehow found its way here to the floor of the House of Representatives. To make matters worse, it's being considered under suspension of the rules, leaving with reasonable concerns no opportunity to offer modest amendments.

Some might suggest that hearings or markups aren't necessary under these circumstances; since this measure, in large part, is a combination of three different bills, H.R. 3132; H.R. 1279; and H.R. 1751, which have all been considered by this body in the past. But, I strongly disagree. This measure differs from those various proposals in several meaningful ways.

First and foremost, this measure fails to include the hate crimes amendment that I offered--and which was adopted by a 223-199 vote as part of H.R. 3132. My hate crimes amendment arguably is one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by this Congress in the last 30 years.

The FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate motivated violence since the September 11th terrorist attacks. While the overall crime rate has grown by approximately two percent, the number of reported hate crimes have increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001, a 20.7 percent increase. Racial bias again represented the largest percentage of bias-motivated incidents, 44.9 percent; followed by Ethnic/National Origin Bias, 21.6 percent; Religious Bias, 18.8 percent, Sexual Orientation Bias, 14.3 percent; and Disability Bias, 0.4 percent).

It's worth noting that the amendment I offered would not have created new law. It simply would have amended existing law. Namely, section 245 of title 18, passed in 1968, which allowed Federal prosecution of attacks on the Freedom Riders during their historical civil rights work in the South.

The amendment of Section 245 would make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious, ethnic and gender-based violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law.

Current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents that occur during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting, and does not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four states have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 states have extremely weak hate crimes laws.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should seize upon this historic opportunity to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity, instead of supporting legislation, such as the measure before us today, that takes us in the opposite direction.

Second, this measure fails to include an amendment offered by Mr. Nadler--also adopted by voice-vote--which would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense.

By now, members of this body are painfully aware of the fact that sex offenders often use firearms to prey upon their unsuspecting victims. In fact, not long ago Keith Dwayne Lyons, a high-risk sex offender, was convicted of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

According to published police reports, Mr. Lyons was aided by the use of a firearm in carrying out his crime. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding such tragedies, it appears to be the wisdom of a small minority that the bill before us is not the proper vehicle to address such matters and prevent them from reoccurring in the future.

Finally, the measure under consideration today includes a complex system of categories whereby sex offenders are classified based upon the nature of their offense. They are also routinely forced to verify the accuracy of their registry information based upon this system.

This new system of registration and registry verification has never been discussed by members of our committee. While some may certainly welcome such a system, others most likely will not. In either event, a change of this magnitude should not be undertaken without adequate thought, consideration and debate.

Setting aside these issues, I remained deeply concerned by the legislation's inclusion of at least 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalty eligible offenses. In the past, I've gone to great lengths to explain my deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty, so I won't repeat many of those arguments here. Except, to say that such penalties are completely arbitrary, ineffective at reducing crime and a total waste of taxpayers' money.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all inmates in state and Federal prisons are serving life sentences, a near 83 percent increase from 1992. In two states alone, New York and California, almost 20 percent of inmates are serving life sentences.

And, what do we have to show for such statistics? The answer is simple. A prison system that currently houses more than 2.1 million Americans and costs an estimated $40 billion a year to run and operate.

In the end, the list of lingering concerns associated with this bill is quite staggering.

Over 33 scientific researchers, treatment professionals and child advocates have written in to express their concerns regarding the bill's overly harsh treatment of juveniles.

Advocates from the immigration community have written in to complain about the bill's provisions which will likely encourage state and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal immigration laws.

And, groups ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Library Association have expressed serious concerns that the provisions outlined in title 6 of the bill will create criminal liability for the producers and distributors of mainstream novels, photographs, Internet content, movies, and TV shows.

With so many outstanding issues and no opportunity to offer even modest amendments, it's hard to see how anyone could lend their support to this measure.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and no one has worked harder in this area than he.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has worked on a number of issues connected with the measure presently being debated.

Madam Speaker, I yield 16 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, what are we here for, to let the other body off the hook? Anything they do not like, we have to take out? I do not follow that reasoning at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

February 23, 2006.

In New Jersey, the Office of the Public Defender represents

all indigent persons entitled to a court hearing concerning

the Megan's Law tier classification and community

notification proposed for them by the State. Over the past

ten years the Office has served as counsel for 60% of persons

challenging their tier levels in New Jersey--nearly 3000

cases in a state where approximately 5000 such cases have

been adjudicated.

Based upon our long and extensive experience with New

Jersey's system of notification and its registrants, as well

as our contact with renowned experts in the field of sex

offender recidivism, we believe we have a unique perspective

to provide the House with comments concerning H.R. 4472 (the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005),

currently pending a vote on the House floor.

Our comments focus on four aspects of the current bill.

First, unlike the Senate bill on the same topic (S. 1086) the

House bill will have a significantly negative impact on many

juveniles, subjecting them to notification in their

neighborhoods and via the Internet for possibly 20 years.

This would inflict undue hardship which, given the low risk

of re-offense juvenile sex offenders pose to the public and

their strong amenability to treatment, is often not justified

by a public safety need.

Second, the notification required by H.R. 4472 will apply

to thousands of persons in each state, requiring notice to

registrants' neighborhoods and around their work and school,

and via the Internet. The proposed notification would include

home addresses and places of employment. Neighborhood

notification is currently reserved only for New Jersey's

approximately 160 high risk offenders, but as proposed under

H.R. 4472 would apply to thousands of registrants. Based on

our firsthand experience this form of notification will

predictably lead to large numbers of offenders becoming

homeless and unemployed.

Because this form of notification will undermine the

ability of many registrants to maintain stable housing,

steady employment and ongoing treatment, it will have a

marked impact on registrants' risk levels and opportunities

to remain offense free, and thus will negatively affect

public safety.

Third, by impacting on registrants' abilities to provide

for their most basic needs, H.R. 4472 will severely impede

the implementation of sex offender monitoring programs like

New Jersey's Community Supervision for Life and Parole for

Life programs, which are designed to prevent future

reoffending by registrants. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.3. As

discussed below, due to the form of neighborhood notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 parole officers will be unable to keep

registrants in jobs, maintain their stable home environments

and continue registrants' treatments as those monitoring

programs require. In this way, H.R. 4472 will frustrate New

Jersey's longstanding efforts to monitor sex offenders and

will compromise, not further, community safety.

Fourth,the bill subjects all registrants, including many

juveniles, to the identical

form of Internet and community based notification, without an

individualized risk assessment, despite vast differences

among offenders' risk-of-re-offense levels. By treating

persons with vastly different risk levels identically, H.R.

4472 creates the misimpression that all offenders pose the

same risk. Thus, the bill dilutes the value of notification

and diverts attention from those posing the greatest risk.

1. H.R. Will Inflict Undue Hardship on Juvenile Offenders

Without a Corresponding Benefit to Public Safety.

Sections 111 and 122 of the bill would provide a limited

exception from public notification for juveniles. However,

the bill would require juvenile offenders deemed a tier II to

be subject to 20 years of public notification to communities

and via the Internet. Sec. 111 (6). Some young juveniles may

even unfairly be deemed a tier III since the victim involved

would likely be less than 13 years of age. See Sec. 111 (7).

These tier determinations and the resulting public

notification would occur without any individualized

assessment of whether the juveniles involved posed anything

more than a low risk of re-offense.

Five decades of follow-up studies demonstrate that the vast

majority of juveniles will remain free of sex offense

recidivism. It is consistently found that sex offense

recidivism rates among juveniles are among the lowest of all

such offenders--less than 8% in most treatment follow-up

studies.

Moreover, studies demonstrate that the motivation and

manifestation of sexually inappropriate behaviors of

juveniles are very different than those of adult offenders.

And, children with sexual behavior problems generally respond

well to treatment interventions. If the proposed bill becomes

law, however, it will mean that children will be stigmatized

for life on the basis of their childhood behavior. Despite

the questionable public safety benefits of community

notification with juveniles, it is likely to stigmatize them

fostering peer rejection, isolation, and increased anger.

This impact can prevent juvenile offenders from realizing the

benefits of effective treatments. The proposed notification

and the ensuing stigma will also result in such persons being

denied fair opportunities for employment, education, and

housing despite the low risk of recidivism they typically

pose. Accordingly, the bill will violate the long tradition

in our country of recognizing that most youth who break the

law during childhood can and will mature out of this behavior

with appropriate guidance and treatment.

Thus, the bill would inflict undue hardship on juveniles,

impacting their entire lives, and is not justified by a

public safety need. Rather than resort to such a

counterproductive approach, as the above cited experts

recommend, treatment and supervision should be emphasized for

this group of offenders.

2. The Notification Scheme In H.R. 4472 Will Deprive Many

Registrants, Including Those Who Are a Low or Moderate Risk,

Of The Basic Means To Live Productively In Society With the

Unintended Consequence of Increasing Their Risk Of Re-

Offense.

H.R. 4472 provides that in most cases the same public

notification would be provided to registrant's neighborhoods

and in the vicinity where they work and attend school,

regardless of their danger to the public. Sec. 122(b),(c). In

addition, without determining the actual risk a registrant

poses, that notification will include both a registrant's

home address and the address of his employer. Sec.

114(a)(3),(4). Moreover, the bill applies retroactively to

all applicable offenses.

As set forth above, notification to a registrant's

immediate neighbors is currently reserved for roughly 160

high risk registrants in New Jersey. Due to the impact on an

offender's life that the notice will have, this small number

of registrants is designated ``high risk'' only after an

assessment and court hearing (if requested), showing that the

registrant's risk justifies neighborhood notification. Our

experience demonstrates that notification (whether via the

Internet or provided in a registrant's neighborhood)

containing an employer's name and address will frequently

result in the registrant's termination. This is due to

customers refusing to frequent the business, and neighbors

subjecting the employer to enormous pressure to fire the

offender.

Likewise, New Jersey registrants subject to neighborhood

notification providing their home addresses are often

uprooted from their homes, and eventually become homeless.

Typically this is due to landlords being pressured by

surrounding homeowners to evict the registrant. And in cases

where registrants own their home, significant threats and

vandalism have occurred to drive the offender away. In one

New Jersey case, following notification five bullets were

fired through the front window of a registrant's apartment by

a neighbor, nearly wounding an innocent tenant. Thus, under

H.R. 4472 it is predictable that substantial numbers of

registrants will become homeless.

Registrants pose a much higher risk of re-offense when they

have no job or stable housing. This is agreed upon by studies

in the field of sex offender recidivism, New Jersey's own

actuarial scale for determining registrant risk, as well as

our experience working with registrants over the past ten

years. Therefore, the unintended consequence of providing

many registrants' home addresses and places of employment as

required by H.R. 4472 will be that substantial numbers will

have their re-offense risk increased.

Furthermore, homeless and jobless registrants are, of

course, unable to pay for sex offender and substance abuse

treatment which have been proven to markedly reduce offense

risk. Also, we have witnessed how the desperation caused by

this homeless and jobless state has led our clients to suffer

severe stress, and relapse into substance abuse, and other

high risk behaviors for recidivism. Thus, the notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 to registrants' neighborhoods listing

their place of employment may trigger a new offense, by

removing the supportive components of a person's

rehabilitation. See R. Karl Hanson & Andrew Harris, Solicitor

General of Canada, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism

(1998) at 2 (``recidivists showed increased anger and

subjective distress just prior to offending''); ATSA, The

Registration and Community Notification of the Adult Sexual

Offender at 3 (2005) (notification will ``ostracize[]'' sex

offenders and ``may inadvertently increase their danger.'')

Finally, H.R. 4472 would require notification to be

distributed to neighborhoods in cases involving an intra-

familial offense. As this notification will result in

victims' identities being disclosed to neighbors, the

practice will act as a significant deterrent to having

victims of familial offenses report them to police. Sec. 111

(6), (7). Thus, public notification in cases involving a

single intra-familial offense should be eliminated from the

bill.

Given the predictable consequences of the notification

proposed in H.R. 4472, we submit that notice to a

registrant's neighborhood or around his place of employment

which includes his home address, and any notification

including his place of work, should occur only for high risk

offenders, and only after an individualized risk assessment.

Otherwise, H.R. 4472 will run the danger of destabilizing

large numbers of registrants by having them lose the jobs

and housing essential to maintaining offense-free lives.

As mentioned, the notice proposed by the bill will also

discourage victims of intra-familial offenses from

contacting law enforcement.

3. The Notification Proposed in H.R. 4472 Will Undermine

the Ability of States Like New Jersey to Implement Parole for

Life Programs Which Require Law Enforcement Officers to

Monitor Registrants, and Require Registrants to Maintain

Jobs, Housing and Treatment to Reduce their Risk of Re-

Offense.

Since 1994, every adult registrant in New Jersey who

committed a sex offense has been placed on a form of close

monitoring known as community or parole supervision for life.

See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. The purpose of the program is to

locate and monitor adult registrants, potentially for life,

``as if on parole.'' Id. Applicable State regulations provide

that the registrant must maintain stable housing and a job,

avoid drug or alcohol use (as monitored by urine testing),

occasionally submit to random visits by their parole officer

at home, attend sex offender and/or substance abuse

treatment, as well as other requirements.

The success of this eleven-year-old program depends upon a

parole officer being able to locate the lifetime parolee in

their home, do random drug and alcohol testing, check for

other signs' of instability or loss of employment, and thus

prevent the precursors to re-offending. However, the

notification provisions of H.R. 4472 will lead to large

numbers of offenders becoming homeless and will result in

parole officers being unable to locate registrants and

provide them with the close supervision needed to reduce

recidivism rates. Thus, the State's efforts to assist

registrants in keeping stable housing or a job, basic

requirements of parole, will be frustrated.

When we explained to a New Jersey parole officer that the

proposed legislation will put the addresses of many sex

offenders' employers on the Internet, and be provided to

offenders' neighbors or to persons living around their

employers, she stated that her parolees would ``spiral

downward,'' and that they ``wouldn't care'' about trying to

keep from re-offending. She stated, ``Our job would be so

difficult . . . it's hard enough for them to get jobs.'' She

expressed the view that a significant number might re-offend

because, ``A lot of these things are due to high stress

rates.'' Finally, she expressed concern that most of them

would end up ``in homeless shelters'' where there is an

``increased risk of disappearance or committing a new offense

of some kind''--either a non-sexual criminal offense or

possibly a sexual offense.

In addition to Community and Parole Supervision for Life,

New Jersey also assigns special probation officers to

exclusively monitor sex offenders while on parole (prior to

implementation of their special sentence of community or

parole supervision for life) so they can concentrate on the

particular needs this population presents, and provide the

type of close supervision they require. (Notably, we have

observed that other states appear to be putting more and more

sex offenders on probation for life and similarly long

sentences, even for very minor offenses--so it is likely that

this legislation will strongly affect those states as well.)

When we explained the notification requirements of the bill

to a special probation officer he replied that, ``You'll end

up having many, many people re-offending--what else could

they do?'' When asked if he thought these provisions would

cause many registrants to lose their jobs, he 4 replied,

``Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would want them.'' He

explained that without ``work,

housing, and normal responsibilities'' the registrants would

have ``no self esteem.'' He said that they ``would not listen

to me,'' and would likely ``go out and assault someone

else.''

Thus, there is serious concern that the basic purpose of

the registration provisions of Megan's law (which is to

enable law enforcement to locate registrants in the course of

investigating new offenses, monitor registrants, and explore

allegations of misconduct by such registrants), will be

substantially undermined by the notification provision of

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me just begin by pointing out that in the dissent from the bill reported, there are six precise examples of when the PATRIOT Act has been abused so that no one will be able to say that they don't know where they are. They are on page 2 and 3 of the dissents that have been filed with the committee.

What we have, we have passed the conference report already. It was passed on December 14, 2005. Because of the other body, and the serious objections that they have raised, we are getting now to three other points that are

being raised. Two of the points are the basis of my remarks this afternoon.

The first I would like you to know about in S. 2271 is that amazingly enough, after all the debate, this measure that we are considering today makes section 215 intelligence orders for any tangible thing harder to challenge in court than the current conference report which allows a recipient to challenge the gag order immediately. This measure before us that we will be voting on would make the recipient wait a year, but then to make it really worse, rather than the reviewing court immediately allowing the gag order, allowing the gag as the government's carte blanche assertion of national security is conclusive.

We have added two things. We make the assertion of national security conclusive, plus we make the person that challenges it not able to immediately go to court. This is a setback.

The second thing that we do is that we add no meaningful protection for library records. That is to say that the present conference reports allow immediate challenge. What we do is that according to the National Association of Library Records, we make the protection for library records exempt only if, the national security letters, they don't offer Internet access. But the American Library Association puts the number of libraries without Internet access at nearly zero.

What we have done is create a fig leaf that really does nothing to give the meaningful protection that the library association has requested and that we tried to get through in our legislation. So it is with great reluctance that even on two out of the three measures that are before us in this very small bill, we find that this is unsupportable.

In addition, finally, what this measure doesn't do is address any of the core problems with the PATRIOT Act, the main one being that we have asked for moderate changes that would have ensured that these extraordinary new powers are directed solely at terrorists or to those associated with terrorists, and this measure fails to do that. For those reasons, I am unable to support this measure and urge that it be defeated.

There is no more difficult task we have as legislators than balancing our Nation's need for security against our citizens' civil liberties. Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11, and in the midst of a war against terror without any clear endpoint, it is increasingly clear that we are failing in that task.

We failed when we rushed through the first PATRIOT Act while the wreck of the World Trade Center was still smoldering. We failed when we refused to address the repeated civil liberties abuses by our own government, including the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. And today, we are failing yet again, by taking up S. 2771. Not only is the bill substantively dangerous, it does nothing to respond to the serious flaws in the conference report.

First, the bill is dangerous because it makes it practically impossible to challenge the gag orders that come with secretive 215 orders. It would not only make the recipient wait at least one full year before challenging a gag order, it deems government certifications concerning possible harm to national security to be ``conclusive.'' This is far worse than what is proposed by the conference report which would allow the FISA court to ensure that the law and the Constitution are not violated.

Second, the bill operates as a mere fig leaf, covering over serious problems in the underlying conference report. For example, the bill pretends to protect libraries from receiving National Security Letters, but then revokes that protection if the library offers internet access. The bill does nothing to prevent the government from using security letters to obtain confidential information having nothing to do with terrorism; nothing to protect secret physical searches of homes and offices; and nothing to rein in abusive roving wiretap orders.

If we are serious about combating terror in the 21st century, we must move beyond symbolic gestures and color coded threat levels, and begin to make the hard choices needed to protect our Nation. If we really want to prevent terrorists from targeting our citizens and our cities, we need keep assault weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists. And if we really want to protect our people and secure our ports and other transportation hubs, the administration needs to honor the letter and the spirit of our security laws and fully fund our homeland security needs.

The legislation before us today endangers our civil liberties, while doing nothing meaningful to protect our citizens. I urge a no vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Virginia, I yield myself 45 seconds, because this is getting a little bit out of hand.

The assertion has been made that none of the 16 provisions have violated the law, but two Federal District Courts in New York and Connecticut have found that the national security letters themselves are illegal. Two courts, that the national security letters were held to be illegal. And to say that there have been no abuses, read pages 2 and 3 of the dissent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee about all of the violations that have gone on.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, just to keep the record straight, in 1986, national security letters were limited to terrorists. The PATRIOT Act lowered the standard to anything relevant to an investigation, and now over 30,000 are issued every year. The sham fix does not help us at all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Madam Speaker, it has been said that there have been no abuses of the PATRIOT Act. Let me just run down what has already been reported, and probably there have been more, since we filed our report.

It was used against Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim American, to tap his phone, seize his property, copy his computer files, spy on his children, take his DNA, all without his knowledge.

It has been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim scholar to teach at Notre Dame University. It has been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and Web surfing on its system, and then gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times it has

been used to obtain reading records from libraries and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice, voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act, for reading information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.

Finally, it has been used to charge and detain and prosecute Muslim students in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable material.

Let us not support this PATRIOT Act today.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill with great enthusiasm. I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). No one has worked harder on the committee than this gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise proudly in support of this legislation and thank the chairman of the committee and his staff and others for working with us to ensure that this bill does not overreach.

The measure was designed to target illegitimate actors who trade in counterfeit trademarks, ranging from auto parts to fake labels for handbags or cologne. We all agree that manufacturers have a right to ensure that fake goods are not marketed in their names and that their own goods are not marketed under fake names.

The bill as originally written, however, went further than that. It was vague on the issue of whether someone other than the manufacturer could affix marks to goods that correctly identify the source of the goods. This struck at the very heart of the parallel market in which third parties lawfully obtain genuine goods and make them available in discount stores without deception. Not only has this practice been upheld by the Supreme Court, but it also saves consumers billions of dollars each year.

Through negotiation with the majority and affected parties, we have been able to revise the legislation to protect manufacturers, target illegitimate actors, and leave a legitimate industry unscathed. More specifically, because the bill amends the definition of a counterfeit trademark to include packaging and labeling formats which can be used lawfully by a variety of businesses, the new language clarifies that the repackaging of goods that were made under the authority of the United States trademark owner is not prohibited.

Such repackaging can include combining single products into gift sets, separating combination sets of goods into individual items for resale, inserting coupons into original packaging or repackaged items, affixing labels to track or otherwise identify products, removing goods from original packaging for customized retail displays, and moving products from large end caps or display modules into smaller cases.

In deciding whether to bring a cause of action under the new law in situations involving the repackaging of genuine goods, it is expected that the government will consider evidence that clearly shows an intent to deceive or confuse. Such evidence could come in the form of altering, concealing or obliterating expiration dates or information important to the consumer use of the product; for example: safety and health information about the quality, performance or use of the product or service; statements or other markings that a used, discarded or refurbished product is new; or statements or other markings that the product meets testing and certification requirements. Also relevant to a decision to bring a criminal action would be a meaningful variance from product testing and certification requirements, placing seals on product containers that have been opened or otherwise adulterating the genuine product.

Finally, the bill was modified to clarify that it was not intended to allow criminal actions against persons who, with no intent to deceive or confuse, traffic in goods or services that were originally manufactured under the authority of the United States trademark owner. In this regard, the phrase ``the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive''

is not intended to create a new element for this cause of action but, instead, reiterates what is already reflected in the definition of ``counterfeit mark.''

So I congratulate the bipartisan effort that made this measure far more useful and appealing, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which honors the career of one of this Nation's most respected jurists, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Not only did Justice O'Connor leave an indelible impression on the law but also on the legal profession itself.

As an Associate Justice, Mrs. O'Connor had a well-deserved reputation for being the swing vote on seminal cases. From campaign finance laws to affirmative action and sexual orientation discrimination, many Supreme Court lawyers tailored their arguments to her because of her ability and willingness to see the complexity of the issues that came before the court.

She also left her mark on the diversity of the legal profession. When she graduated from law school in 1952, ranked no less than 3rd in her class of 102 students, gender discrimination kept her from jobs at law firms. This was a time when women comprised only 4 percent of law graduates. Instead, she turned to public service and embarked upon a stellar career as a State prosecutor, State legislator, and State judge.

It was in her capacity as an Arizona Court of Appeals judge in 1981 that Justice O'Connor came to the attention of the White House. President Reagan nominated her to fill the seat of Justice Potter Stewart. On September 21, 1981, the Senate unanimously confirmed her to be the 102d Justice of the Supreme Court and the 1st female justice in history.

With Justice O'Connor as an example, the ranks of female lawyers have grown tremendously in this country. In 1981, the year of her appointment, women made up 35 percent of law students. In 2004, they made up approximately 50 percent. It would be impossible to overstate Justice O'Connor's role in that achievement. I thank her for her service to our country and wish her the best.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Green, for yielding just briefly to add to your remarks. I am pleased to join with you and with the chairman of Judiciary, James Sensenbrenner, in this 97th anniversary remembrance of the greatest civil rights organization that we have in this country. I can say to Congressman Green that your initiation of this resolution recognizing the 97th anniversary of the NAACP could not be more timely.

I just want to add one name. We are all mentioning all of these names in the course of 97 years. We are dealing with the most serious social problem in America that has never yet been resolved that we have been working on. We have a voter rights extension bill in the Committee on the Judiciary about to come forward.

We are bringing people together. We are working as hard as we can.

And I was just at a meeting yesterday in which I was reminded that we have the likes of Ted Shaw of the Legal Defense Fund; Greg Moore, the executive director of the National Voter Fund; and in Detroit we have the largest branch in the United States, with a current membership of more than 45,000 people, led by Reverend Wendell Anthony of Fellowship Chapel. So all of this makes such a rich history.

And I am glad, now that we have done Black History Month, that we have come along with this 97th anniversary resolution, because this issue has to be studied every month. We have to examine where we are and where we are going. And I am so pleased at all the Members on the floor here and many others that will be submitting statements which recognize the depth, the importance and the significance of a resolution recognizing nearly 100 years of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in this long struggle, hard-fought struggle that has promoted goodwill and tried to make America live up to the promise of our constitutional democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Congressman Silvestre Reyes for offering House Resolution 668, a resolution which celebrates this year's 40th anniversary of Texas Western's 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship.

The year of 1966 marked a number of ``firsts'' by African Americans. The Honorable Robert C. Weaver became the first African American Cabinet member with his appointment as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Edward Brooke became the first popularly elected African American to the United States Senate, and it also marked the first time a collegiate basketball team, the Texas Western Miners, sporting an all African American line-up won the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship.

What made this victory important, and what we are commemorating here today, is not the fact that a team starting all African American student athletes beat a team of all White student athletes. We commemorate rather, the closing of one more chapter of segregation and bigotry to a new chapter where we judge an individual on the content of their character and qualifications and not on the color of their skin.

The Texas Western Miners, in their victory over the University of Kentucky Wildcats, opened up numerous opportunities for student athletes of all races and creeds to attend college, participate in sports, and become eligible for athletic scholarships. The fact that the impact that this victory did so much to change the perception of African-American athletes and to speed the desegregation of intercollegiate sports, has lead many people to label this historic event as the Brown v. Board of Education of athletics.

Finally, any tribute to the Minors would be incomplete without acknowledging their coach, Don Haskins. Coach Haskins is to be commended for his continued commitment to build on the foundation of integration that he inherited at Texas Western--the first college in a Southern state to integrate its athletic teams--and for his courage in facing collegiate basketball's racial issues directly.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259, which authorizes the President to award the Tuskegee Airmen with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. In 1941, an experiment that began as an effort to prove the validity of a 1925 study that claimed African Americans lacked both the intelligence and courage to fly planes during combat, finished as a monumental testament that African Americans had both the aptitude, skill and valor, to not only become military pilots, but to meet and exceed any challenge presented. I also want to take this time to thank and congratulate my good friend and colleague, Representative Charlie Rangel for introducing this legislation.

The story of the Tuskegee Airmen began when Yancy Williams, a Howard college student sued the U.S. Government for the right to participate as an aviation cadet. The Government was forced to either prove that blacks could not learn to fly or to accept them into their civilian pilot training program. As a result, a separate, all-black training facility was built by the Army Air Corps at Tuskegee Army Airfield. Though great racism existed at that time, and many of the original instructors were white, there was very little bias and prejudice reported by instructors during the training.

The first class of the Tuskegee Airmen graduated 5 of 13 cadets, who were made a part of the famous 99th Fighting Squadron. Additional pilots were assigned to the 332nd Fighter Group. Though it was 8 months after the second class graduated, the 99th Fighting Squadron finally deployed to the North Africa as a part of the Allied Armies. The Airmen soon built their reputation as both talented and fearless. The Germans nicknamed them ``Schawarte Vogelmenshen'' or Black Birdmen, they also earned the nickname, Redtail Angels, from American bombing crews, due to their reputation for being the only unit who never lost a bomber to enemy fighters during escort missions.

In all, between 1942 and 1946, 926 black pilots earned their wings and commissions and 450 of those pilots saw combat during World War II. As a result of their combat service, the Tuskegee Airmen logged 15,533 sorties in the skies over North Africa, Italy and Germany. They destroyed or damaged 409 enemy aircraft, fuel and ammunitions dumps and escorted 200 bomber missions. In total, the Tuskegee Airmen were awarded 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 8 Purple Hearts, 14 Bronze Stars, 744 Air Medals and Clusters and 3 Distinguished Unit Citations. This record is a soaring achievement that speaks to the depth of talent, heart and courage that they all exemplified. There were also huge human costs for their sacrifice as the Airmen suffered 66 combat deaths, and 33 were captured as prisoners of war. The sacrifice and contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen were the catalyst for President Truman issuing Executive Order 9981, which as of July 26, 1948, desegregated the United States Armed Forces.

The Tuskegee Airmen's contribution to this country is immeasurable. Their display of heroism and perseverance deserves our eternal gratitude. The Tuskegee Airmen are indeed justified of receiving Congress's highest honor, the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which honors the life of my friend, Shirley Horn. Shirley, who passed away on October 20, 2005, was one of this country's last great jazz vocalists, one in the triumvirate of ElIa Fitzgerald and Carmen McRae. Her luminous voice gave rise to whispery vocals that made songs lucky to be sung by her. Many fans noted that her songs simply melted in the air. She was a giant in the world of music and will forever remain an icon of American culture. I had the privilege of sharing my memories of her at her memorial service last year, surrounded by her family and countless friends.

Shirley was born here in Washington in 1934 and started her career in music at the age of ten on her grandmother's piano, unaware of the impact she would have on the world. She studied music at Howard University and was invited to attend the prestigious Juilliard School in New York. While financial difficulties at home kept her from Juilliard, they did not impede her spirit and drive.

While she started as a piano virtuoso, she was seventeen when she was coaxed into singing at a Washington, DC club called One Step Down. A customer promised her a turquoise teddy bear if she would sing ``My Melancholy Baby.'' Shirley said she was so shy, but she wanted that teddy bear enough to sing the song.

It was none other than Miles Davis and Quincy Jones who plucked her from that local club to international fame, and the story is worth repeating. Miles called her out of the blue after the release of her very first album, ``Embers and Ashes,'' and asked her to open for him at the Village Vanguard in New York. Not surprisingly for a young artist, she thought it was a joke and did not believe it until she went to New York and actually heard Miles's children singing from the album. Miles and his trumpet later joined a concert of hers but would not come out from behind a pillar while playing ``My Funny Valentine.''

With encouragement from Miles and Quincy, two other jazz icons, Shirley went on to record over two dozen albums and was lauded with numerous awards. After seven consecutive Grammy nominations, she won in 1998 for best jazz vocal performance. It was fitting that the winning album was ``I Remember Miles,'' a tribute to her mentor and friend, Miles Davis. I cannot think of a more fitting honor for Shirley and Miles.

But her contributions to music go far beyond one album. On recordings for Verve Records, she collaborated with Miles Davis, Wynton Marsalis, Gary Bartz, and Toots Thielman. She even recorded the soundtrack for the movie ``For Love of Ivy.'' The person who asked her to do the soundtrack was the star of the film, Sidney Poitier. She also recorded a tribute album to Ray Charles called ``Here's to Life, Light out of Darkness.''

She also was elected into the Lionel Hampton Jazz Hall of Fame, received an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music, and won the 2003 Jazz at Lincoln Center Award.

Importantly, she never forgot her family or her background. She lived mainly in Washington during the early part of her career so that she could take care of her daughter. Recording equipment and jazz legends like Elvin Jones came to her house to record albums.

She even remembered how one person could make a difference in the lives of others. Just as Miles recognized her talent and took her under his wing, Shirley reached out to a young drummer named Aaron Weiman and took him under her wing. And none other than pianists-singers Diana Krall and Norah Jones count her as mentors.

I again express my deepest sympathies to her family and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Takoma Park, MD,

February 14, 2006.

Representative John Conyers, Jr.,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Conyers: I am writing in support of House

Concurrent Resolution 300, saluting the life and music of

Shirley Horn.

Shirley Horn was an American original. She was an

outstanding jazz singer and musician. She lived that uniquely

American music, jazz, respected its traditions: and passed

them on for all to share. In small clubs, and in large

auditoriums, Shirley Horn performed throughout the United

States and around the world. This resolution honors Shirley

for all time. It is richly deserved. I applaud its

introduction and urge the House to vote to pass it.

Shirley Horn worshiped words and the stories they told--and

her renditions of standards and other songs were lyrical

magic.

When we first met, she sat right next to me at the piano

for a whole night at Washington's famous and now defunct jazz

club, the One Step Down. At first, I was intimidated by a

giant of America's music sitting no more than three feet

away. This was someone who worked with Miles Davis and so

many other greats! But, she was warm and infinitely gracious

to a young, developing pianist. A wonderful friendship grew

over the last 7 years of her life and Shirley Horn became my

`third' grandma.

Through the terrible illness that eventually took her life,

she always thought about leaving her hospital bed and playing

music. She yearned to sing, play piano, and perform alongside

her long-time band members, Steve Williams on drums and Ed

Howard on bass.

Her love of lyric and melody inspired me, musicians and

singers, and audiences around the world. Shirley was

wonderful at making all the songs she sung and played

beautiful, rich, and full of emotion and stories.

She made famous a song entitled'' Here's to Life'' written

by Phyllis Molinary and Artie Butler. This was the closing

song at many of her concerts. She ended with the last lyric,

which was ``Here's to life / Here's to Love / Here's to

You.''

Here's to you, Shirley,

I urge all house members to support House Concurrent

Resolution 300.

Aaron Weiman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Rose Nader, who at age 99 died on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 of congestive heart failure. Mrs. Nader was both tender and tenacious. She was a woman who taught her children the importance of service to their community, a love of the environment and concern for the well being of others. As you can see, Mrs. Nader indeed lived an honorable life.

David Halberstam captured her well when he said, ``I thought she was a remarkble person who lived a remarkable life, going literally from one century to another.''

She was strong, loving, hard-working and modest. All of the virtues were hers. I used to ponder how much she and her husband had seen in their lives for it was a great American story. They had come here in the twenties with little more than their hopes and their capacity for hard work, and in just one generation they had seen their own children prosper--enriching what was around them and being enriched at the same time.

What I will remember is her kindness to our family over the years, her sense of obligation to others, and a belief that citizenship demanded a daily commitment.

And of course her modesty, in the mid-sixties, back when Life Magazine was still powerful, the editors put Ralph on the cover. My mother, thrilled by this, immediately called Rose to tell her.

``Yes,'' said Mrs. Nader, ``that's nice. I must get out and get a copy.'' We all loved that, the ``a copy'' reference.

I would also like to include a reprint of an article written by Albert Bernstein that appeared in the Washington Post on January 26, 2006:

Mrs. Nader, who jousted with politicians and complacency as

a small-town activist and was the mother of consumer advocate

Ralph Nader.

Mrs. Nader developed a certain civic renown in 1955 when

she confronted Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.), the father and

grandfather of presidents. When Senator Bush visited Winsted,

following a catastrophic flood, he was approached by Mrs.

Nader at a public gathering public gathering. When he offered

his hand in an obligatory fashion, Mrs. Nader latched on and

refused to free him until he promised to help a dry-dam

proposal move forward. This was fulfilled.

Later, she advocated building a community center for

children, forming a speakers club that would bring worldly

lecturers to the town, and expanding and preserving a local

hospital.

At home, she could be implacable, particularly about food.

She emphasized homemade items over packaged goods whose

contents she found bewildering. She prohibited hot dogs and

later beef because of the presence of a growth-stimulating

hormone linked to cancer.

She sweetened food with honey, not sugar, and pushed her

children to eat chickpeas instead of candy bars on their way

to school. When news of this was publicized during Ralph

Nader's rise to prominence, the Wall Street Journal editorial

page likened his mother to a Puritan.

This characterization was laughed at by her children, even

as they promoted the story involving her distrustful

relationship with chocolate.

Mrs. Nader later said: ``When the children convinced me

that chocolate-frosted birthday cakes were what all the other

children wanted, I frosted the cake, but after the candles

were blown out and before they cut into the cake, I removed

the frosting. Some people might say I was severe, but it

became a family joke.''

She later wrote a cookbook.

Rose Bouziane was born in Zahle, Lebanon, on Feb. 7, 1906,

to a sheep broker and a teacher. She taught high school

French and Arabic before her marriage in 1925 to businessman

Nathra Nader.

After immigrating to the United States, they settled in

Connecticut, where his Main Street bakery-restaurant-general

store in Winsted, in the northwestern corner of the state,

became a redoubt for residents bemoaning actions or inactions

at the town hall.

On occasion, Mrs. Nader used newspaper opinion pages to

express her views.

Writing in the New York Times in 1982, she denounced the

use of ``credibility phrases,'' such as ``frankly,'' ``to

tell you the truth'' and ``in all honesty,'' that sometimes

preceded a political statement or sales pitch. They gave her

``the pervasive feeling that distrust is so widespread that

people need to use such language to be believed.''

In another editorial, she embraced mass mailings from issue

groups that are commonly dismissed as ``junk mail.'' She

wrote that they often come from people ``who care about their

times.''

Her husband died in 1991. A son, Shafeek Nader, died in

1986.

Besides Ralph Nader of Washington, survivors include two

daughters, Claire Nader of Washington and Winsted and Laura

Nader of Berkeley, Calif.; a sister; three grandchildren; and

three great-grandchildren.

Ralph Nader once said his mother ``took us out in the yard

one day and asked us if we knew the price of eggs, of apples,

of bananas. Then she asked us to put a price on clean air,

the sunshine, the song of birds--and we were stunned.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the priorities set forth in the President's Budget which hides the true costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, finances tax cuts on the backs of the poor, slashes Medicare and Medicaid, and favors special interests over the interests of the American people.

Before the State of the Union address, I along with several other Members of Congress, sent President Bush a letter asking him to make sure that he tells the American people the truth. During the State of Union, President Bush said that his budget would cut the deficit in half by 2009. Unfortunately, it seems that the President did not read our letter.

The President's budget is misleading in the projected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2001, approximately $370 billion has been provided to finance the wars and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than $260 billion of that amount has been funneled into Iraq. In his budget, the President has set aside $50 billion in 2007 for Iraq and Afghanistan, but has not allotted any money beyond 2007. While I welcome a swift end to the war in Iraq, the assumption that this country will not spend a dime in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2007 is farfetched.

The President's budget is misleading in not including the 10 year costs of repairing the Alternative Minimum Tax. While the President has included a 1-year provision to mitigate the AMT's impact on the middle class, it omits the cost of the full repair to the AMT. This cost is projected to increase the deficit by $844 billion over the next 10 years.

Besides being disingenuous, this budget exacts a financial toll on our nation's disadvantaged citizens while helping to finance billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. The cost to make the President's tax cuts permanent is $1.35 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, the President's budget cuts significant social programs, including cuts in job training, education, food stamps, and environmental protection efforts.

Most alarmingly, this budget would allow the Federal Government to turn its back on those Americans who struggle to maintain their

health. The President's budget cuts Medicaid by $17.2 billion over 5 years, thereby jeopardizing the care of this country's most vulnerable Americans. The budget also cuts Medicare spending by $105 billion over the next 10 years, in part by reducing payments for providers. Furthermore, the President's budget proposes real cuts to the National Institute of Health. At a time when we are making significant progress in finding cures to cancer and heart disease, and the threat of serious new diseases such as Avian flu and other pandemics loom, the President is proposing to slow scientific and medical advancement.

The President's budget also fails to reduce the cost of health care or address the rising number of uninsured Americans. At a time when there are already 46 million Americans without any health coverage, this budget is wrong for our country.

This shameful budget rewards well-connected wealthy interests at the expense of the poor. Because the President's budget promotes the wrong priorities for our country, it should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Rose Nader, who at age 99 died on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, of congestive

heart failure. As you can see, Mrs. Nader indeed lived an honorable life.

Below is a reprint of her obituary that appeared in the Washington Post on January 26, 2006:

Mrs. Nader, who jousted with politicians and complacency as

a small-town activist and was the mother of consumer advocate

Ralph Nader.

Mrs. Nader developed a certain civic renown in 1955 when

she confronted Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.), the father and

grandfather of presidents. When Senator Bush visited Winsted,

following a catastrophic flood, he was approached by Mrs.

Nader at a public gathering. When he offered his hand in an

obligatory fashion, Mrs. Nader latched on and refused to free

him until he promised to help a dry-dam proposal move

forward. This was fulfilled.

Later, she advocated building a community center for

children, forming a speakers club that would bring worldly

lecturers to the town, and expanding and preserving a local

hospital.

At home, she could be implacable, particularly about food.

She emphasized homemade items over packaged goods whose

contents she found bewildering. She prohibited hot dogs and

later beef because of the presence of a growth-stimulating

hormone linked to cancer.

She sweetened food with honey, not sugar, and pushed her

children to eat chickpeas instead of candy bars on their way

to school. When news of this was publicized during Ralph

Nader's rise to prominence, the Wall Street Journal editorial

page likened his mother to a Puritan.

This characterization was laughed at by her children, even

as they promoted the story involving her distrustful

relationship with chocolate.

Mrs. Nader later said: ``When the children convinced me

that chocolate-frosted birthday cakes were what all the other

children wanted, I frosted the cake, but after the candles

were blown out and before they cut into the cake, I removed

the frosting. Some people might say I was severe, but it

became a family joke.''

She later wrote a cookbook.

Rose Bouziane was born in Zahle, Lebanon, on Feb. 7, 1906,

to a sheep broker and a teacher. She taught high school

French and Arabic before her marriage in 1925 to businessman

Nathra Nader.

After immigrating to the United States, they settled in

Connecticut, where his Main Street bakery-restaurant-general

store in Winsted, in the northwestern corner of the state,

became a redoubt for residents bemoaning actions or inactions

at the town hall.

On occasion, Mrs. Nader used newspaper opinion pages to

express her views.

Writing in the New York Times in 1982, she denounced the

use of ``credibility phrases,'' such as ``frankly,'' ``to

tell you the truth'' and ``in all honesty,'' that sometimes

preceded a political statement or sales pitch. They gave her

``the pervasive feeling that distrust is so widespread that

people need to use such language to be believed.''

In another editorial, she embraced mass mailings from issue

groups that are commonly dismissed as ``junk mail.'' She

wrote that they often come from people ``who care about their

times.''

Her husband died in 1991. A son, Shafeek Nader, died in

1986.

Besides Ralph Nader of Washington, survivors include two

daughters, Claire Nader of Washington and Winsted and Laura

Nader of Berkeley, Calif.; a sister; three grandchildren; and

three great-grandchildren.

Ralph Nader once said his mother ``took us out in the yard

one day and asked us if we knew the price of eggs, of apples,

of bananas. Then she asked us to put a price on clean air,

the sunshine, the song of birds--and we were stunned.''