Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time and for managing the bill so ably.

Well, here we are again, as we take this issue up for a fourth time; and I am again disappointed to say that we are not here for a love of this country or the time-honored Pledge that celebrates it, but to take yet another stab at our independent judiciary. Because the Ninth Circuit did not bend to the resolve of Congress and because the Supreme Court skirted the first amendment claims in the Newdow I decision, Members of this House have introduced this resolution in an attempt to strong-arm judges and manipulate the Supreme Court appointment process. How sad.

So I respectfully take issue with this resolution. While my reverence for the Pledge of Allegiance is unending, my patience with this sort of political maneuvering has long run out. This resolution is a vehicle simply for a conservative litmus test for new judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges, as we currently face both a vacancy and a confirmation of a new Justice.

This resolution was introduced the day after Newdow II, September 14 it was reported; and opponents immediately put it to use in the confirmation process. One conservative group used the case as a vehicle to endorse the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice and to bash Carter-appointed District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton as a judicial activist, even though he was bound by a prior ruling of the Ninth Circuit on the merits. Moreover, the gentleman from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, deliberately invoked the Pledge ruling at the Roberts confirmation hearings.

All of this comes on the heels of our prior Pledge resolution in 2003 that directed the President to appoint and the Senate to confirm circuit judges who would supposedly ``interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text.''

Today is the next step. We urge the Supreme Court to accept an appeal to resolve the conflict between the circuit courts over the constitutionality of the Pledge. While drafters have tried to use the most subtle phrase possible in this series of resolutions, their intent is clear: the resolutions demand the promotion of judges who fall in line with a specific series of conservative ideals and a specific result on the merits.

Our judiciary was meant to be independent. Our Founding Fathers created three distinct branches of government to ensure that no single body could write, interpret, and enforce the laws all at the same time. Today's resolution is part of a series that overreaches the bounds between the legislature and the judiciary and attempts to make puppets of our judges. Our judges should be impartial arbiters, which they cannot be if they are manipulated by the Congress.

Further, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct reveals that no candidate for a judgeship ``make pledges or promises or conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office,'' nor ``make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to

cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.'' So not only do these resolutions make a mockery of our judicial system, they also, my colleagues, subject our judges to potential ethical violations.

While I may disagree with the Newdow decisions, I disagree even more with attempts to influence the constitutional interpretation by politicizing judicial appointments. I respect the Pledge of Allegiance so much that I resent that it is being used as a tool for political jockeying and partisanship. Our Pledge simply deserves better.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation beginning by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has worked very hard with me on the bill. In the past few years, we have dealt with the Department of Justice, which has oftentimes become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them so vaguely that we are not sure what the answer really is. Fortunately, together we worked to address our concerns with the Department of Justice and arrived at the bill before us today.

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. Why is that important? Because in the past few years, the Office of Inspector General has been particularly diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on the 9/ 11 detainees and pushing the Department to change how its procedures are used for handling terrorism suspects.

In addition, the bill reauthorizes the COPS office. That is the Community Oriented Policing Services. Now, we all know that this Clinton administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving, and that is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of the Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing is the backbone in our war on terrorism as community offices are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by the community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides them over $1 billion per year for this program.

An important piece of legislation before us is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. I am particularly proud of it for 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 the work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the most current programs that have been enormously effective, including the ``STOP'' program, which provides State formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victims services providers, including legal assistance for victims.

However, there is a grave concern about this measure before us that I must speak to. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities and their organizations face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities nor does it impose any quotas. And we have all been there on quotas. It does not do that. It simply requires the Department of Justice to describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations, and to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of these racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations. That is all, and to ensure each gets their fair share.

The bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary had this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a manager's amendment. I am very sorry to learn of this news. For while I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I seriously regret this advance that was included in the language that has been stricken. I think it is a tragedy. I think it is a serious misunderstanding of what the law is now. Everybody on the Committee on the Judiciary knows how to avoid quotas and certainly not to give preferences to minorities. This measure was included in our bill because it was important that they begin to get a fair share of proceeds that were being allotted under the bill. It was not to secure anything like a quota, and the bill to me deserves our support. I stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it. I have a very serious problem with the manager's amendment, and will not support that effort.

I rise in support of this legislation. I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Justice with this bill. In the past few years, the Department has become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them vaguely at best. Fortunately, we worked together to address our concerns with the Department and arrived at the bill before us today.

In general, 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 Community Oriented Policing Services, 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.

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.

I do have one grave concern about this bill that must be addressed. We worked very hard during negotiations on this bill to recognize the obstacles that some racial and ethnic minorities face in the mainstream system. We specifically included language that allows programs to target communities of color. This language does not give any preferences to minorities, nor does it impose any quotas. It simply requires the Department of Justice to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share.

The bill passed the Judiciary Committee with this language included. However, late last night I was informed that the majority had decided to strike this important language in a Managers' Amendment. While I support the underlying bill and stress the importance of reauthorizing the Department of Justice programs contained in it, I have serious problems with the Managers' Amendment and will not support that effort.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him for yielding to me because the position that we have adopted that we are being set back by the manager's amendment is agreed to by the women against violence organizations, the civil rights organizations. And we have numerous letters, one from the chair of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which plainly go into the details of the fact that in no way are we trying to establish quotas or favoritism to any one particular group whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a very vital participant in crafting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the head of the Women's Caucus.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we on the committee can agree with everything, which should be being celebrated; but the one thing that is in disagreement creates the greatest amount of discussion. I regret that, but I think the manager's amendment has to be called into account because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color, and I cannot allow this to happen without making the comments that I do.

Let us understand that constitutional law is not some secret body of intelligence that is in the power of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment, which is being taken out because it is thought to cause constitutional problems, is the same amendment that is supported by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, the NAACP, the YWCA and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Abuse.

The bill that passed the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary contain language ensuring that the minorities who are victims of domestic and sexual assault would receive adequate services. That the members of the Committee on the Judiciary agreed upon. This language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations.

Now this was unfortunately removed, but under current law since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand and its decision in Grutter, specific set-asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. There are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Committee on the Judiciary. The same provision has passed in the Senate, and we have lists of constitutional scholars to attest to the fact that this language does not require the distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity.

I urge my colleagues in a sense of fairness, not making political points, that we reject the manager's amendment.

I rise in strong opposition to the Managers' amendment because it would significantly weaken the bill's emphasis on domestic violence grant funding for communities of color.

This is why the amendment is opposed by the groups that are working so hard to prevent rape and sexual assault--the National Network to End Domestic Violence; the Family Violence Prevention Fund; the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence; Legal Momentum; the NAACP; and the Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault.

The bill that passed both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees contains language ensuring that minorities who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault would receive adequate services. The Members of the Judiciary Committee agreed--on a bipartisan basis--that this language was necessary because the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice were ignoring communities of color when considering grants from domestic violence, rape prevention and other organizations.

This is a serious problem because we know that people of color are far less likely than other groups to report incidents of rape and sexual assault. The only way we can reach out to these individuals is by supporting these non-traditional groups.

Unfortunately, between the Judiciary Committee and the floor, this provision--which has been in the bill since its introduction--suddenly became controversial. Out of the blue, the Administration has attempted to argue that there might, possibly be a constitutional problem with this provision.

Under current law, since the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena and Grutter v. Bollinger, specific set asides that are race-based have been subject to strict scrutiny. Clearly, there are no such set asides or quotas in the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee.

The bill simply requires states to ``describe how they will address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and ``to recognize and meaningfully respond to the needs of racial and ethnic minorities and other underserved populations'' and to ensure that each gets their fair share.

There is no set aside. There is no quota. Considering the needs of certain communities in no way violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and I would hope that the Members of this body would agree with that very common sense notion.

We have consulted with outside and independent constitutional experts and have confirmed that the Administration's last minute arguments do not pass the legal laugh test. For example, an esteemed constitutional scholar at the University of Texas, Professor Douglas Laycock, said the language does not require distribution of money on the basis of race or ethnicity, but rather requires states to be alert and ensure that underserved racial and ethnic populations are not subject to discrimination. ``A state cannot be confident that funds are being administered and awarded in a nondiscriminatory way unless it examines the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. That is all these provisions require.''

We have also received a letter from several other law professors who are experts in the field, including Professor Joan Meier of the George Washington University Law School, Professor Julie Goldscheid of the City University of New York School of Law, Professor Sally Goldfarb of Rutgers University School of Law, and Professor Martha Davis of the Northeastern School of Law. These professors authoritatively state that ``referencing `racial and ethnic minorities' meets the standard most recently laid out by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger. [T]he Federal Government has a compelling interest in assuring that racial and ethnic minorities receive due consideration in the receipt of services, or grants flowing from the Violence Against Women Act. H.R. 3402 does not create quotas or unduly favor racial and ethnic minorities for government benefits. It simply urges that grantors give due consideration to their needs and interests.''

Let me close by noting that in the last several weeks, some have raised questions about the Administration's and Congress' sensitivity to issues of race. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many openly wondered whether it was the race of the victims of the Hurricane that led to a sluggish federal response. The Nation watched and asked why we had left so many people of color behind.

Today, we have a chance to respond to this issue, by telling people of color and other minorities that if you are raped or assaulted, we will do our best to make sure that you have support and counseling. We will do our best to make sure that you are not victimized twice--first by the assailant, and second by the federal bureaucracy.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in supporting the common sense idea of supporting these victims of rape and violence and vote down the Manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that it is not me who changed my position. The gentleman from Wisconsin supported the amendment. The amendment that he is striking in the manager's amendment, the gentleman supported in committee, so how can I be changing my position, please?

I have enjoyed the friendly exchanges we have had over the years, and I look forward to them in the future, but to threaten the House with the fact that an injunction might hold up the entire bill, it should be realized that for an injunction, it must be shown that there is a reasonable chance of passage.

He and I and, I think, probably the court would realize that there is nothing, nothing, in here that would suggest that there would be set- asides or quotas. There is nothing race-based here. He knows it; I know it; the committee knew it. And yet last night we were beset by this last problem. And all of the civil rights groups are arguing the same position.

So I urge that the manager's amendment be turned back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. Chairman, is this the amendment that authorizes the FBI National Gang Intelligence Center?

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support after-care to prisoners enrolled in the RSAT program, but the problem with the amendment is that it contains the irrational requirement that the individuals must be drug-free in order to be eligible for a substance abuse program. Please. If they are drug- free, they will not have to use a substance abuse program. So this requirement in the well-intended amendment defeats the very purpose of a substance abuse program, which is to help drug-addicted individuals overcome drug abuse. For that reason, I cannot join in the support of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, because this amendment supports the efforts to investigate domestic violence and collect data that will help define the next step for Congress to put an end to domestic violence entirely, I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I join in supporting the amendment because it ensures full funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I commend the gentleman on his amendment.

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

The simple problem with the amendment, although well intended, is that it would also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser.

In addition, battered immigrant women who are arrested sometimes receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment; and because they are not, I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of the gentleman from Iowa's amendment, which is to ensure that persons who have been convicted of certain types of abuse be prevented from sponsoring the immigration of family members whom they may, in turn, abuse.

However, while noble in its intent, this amendment is overly broad and could have serious, negative, unintended consequences on innocent immigrants, as it is currently drafted.

First, the amendment makes no distinction as to the degree of the crime or rehabilitation of the offender. A person with a 30-year-old misdemeanor conviction of assault who has successfully completed a domestic violence rehabilitation program, has no further domestic violence convictions and has no other record of violent crime is barred from sponsoring family members just as an abuser with a string of domestic violence convictions culminating in the murder of his wife would be barred.

Second, the amendment does not specify where the crime must have been committed. It may well require DHS to ask foreign governments to investigate and reveal the criminal histories of U.S. legal permanent residents and citizens who have lived in other countries and are now trying to sponsor a family member. This could include countries with long histories of politically motivated persecution or human rights abuses--such as Cuba, Sudan, or Iran--and inquire about the criminal history of one of their citizens who has received asylum or refugee status here due to persecution they suffered in that country. Not only might this lead to inaccurate information from untrustworthy governments, but it also may lead to reprisals against the family members of refugees who fled persecution by the foreign government.

Third, this amendment will also apply to some victims of domestic violence as well as the abusers. Victims sometimes have conviction records for minor domestic violence offenses because police who arrive at the scene of a dispute charge both parties with violent offenses, even though it may later become clear that one party is just a victim, not an abuser. Furthermore, battered immigrant women who are arrested often receive bad legal advice and are often likely to take a plea offer, even when they did nothing wrong. These victims should be exempted from the effects of this amendment.

The safety of immigrant victims can be enhanced by expanding their support system to include close family members. We should not bar victims of domestic violence from sponsoring their children, siblings and other close relatives. If this amendment passes as it is, it will do just that.

Mr. Chairman, I am not encouraging opposition to the King amendment today. However, should the House adopt this amendment, I hope that the House Conferees will work with our colleagues in the other body to ensure that the unintended negative consequences of the amendment are mitigated, while still preserving the vision that is embodied within it.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the amendment as well, and I congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Chairman of the Jazz Forum and Concert that occurs during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference, I rise to salute the lifetime achievements of one of the most distinguished artists in American music history, Dr. Billy Taylor. The following biography, found on the Kennedy Center's web site, chronicles a career of accomplishment deserving of such high recognition, and of this body's thoughtful attention and respect:

``Billy Taylor arrived in New York City on a Friday evening in 1942. He headed for Minton's Playhouse in Harlem, where he was heard by one of his idols, tenor saxophonist, Ben Webster. The following Sunday Taylor began his professional career, playing with Webster's quartet at the Three Deuces alongside Webster, Big Sid Catlett and Charlie Drayton. During this time, Billy was Art Taturn's protege and Jo Jones was his `appointed guardian.''

Taylor worked with Machito's Afro-Cuban band, replaced Erroll Garner in the Slam Stewart Trio, and became a member of the Don Redman Orchestra, the first American jazz band to tour Europe after World War II (1946). He also played on Broadway in Billy Rose's ``The Seven Lively Arts,'' opened for Billie Holiday in ``Holiday on Broadway,'' and played in the pit band for ``Blue Holiday,'' starring Ethel Waters, Mary Lou Williams and the Katherine Dunham dancers.

He played a lot of solo gigs along the northeast corridor--the Earle Theater in Philadelphia, The Royal Theater in Baltimore, the Howard Theater in DC and the Apollo in NYC. In 1949 he got a call to sub for Al Haig with Charlie Parker and Strings at Birdland. This was the beginning of his two-year stint as house pianist at that legendary jazz club. He played with everybody--Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Oscar Pettiford, Art Blakey, Milt Jackson, Zoot Sims, Roy Haynes, and Kenny Dorham among others. Often playing opposite such bands as Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Stan Kenton and Lennie Tristano, his tenure at Birdland was one of Taylor's greatest learning experiences.

Billy made some recordings with his own group during the early 1950's for such labels as Prestige, Riverside, ABC Paramount, Impulse!, Sesac, Mercury and Capital Records. He also recorded albums with Quincy Jones, Sy Oliver, Mundell Lowe, Neal Hefti, Eddie `Lockjaw Davis', Sonny Stitt, Lucky Thompson, Coleman Hawkins and Dinah Washington. He even started his own music publishing company, Duane Music, Inc.

Also about this time Taylor started writing about jazz and giving lectures/clinics to music teachers interested in teaching jazz. He began to witness first-hand, the serious lack of funding for the arts and humanities and began to focus on radio and television in order to gain better exposure for America's classical music. He helped to facilitate many local and national broadcasts featuring jazz artists in live performances. Some in broadcast studios, others in nightclubs, dance halls, and hotels. In 1958 he was named Musical Director of the first series ever produced about jazz, ``The Subject Is Jazz'' (NET). His house band for these 13 programs included Doc Severinsen, Tony Scott, Jimmy Cleveland, Mundell Lowe, Earl May, Eddie Safranski, Ed Thigpen and Osie Johnson. Guests included none other than Willie ``The Lion'' Smith, Duke Ellington, Langston Hughes, Jimmy Rushing, Bill Evans and Aaron Copeland among others.

During the 1960's Taylor was working regularly with his trio and hosting his own daily radio show on New York's WLIB. He was making guest shots on various TV shows and recording for Capital Records, when the Beatles began to nip at the heels of Taylor and other highly successful members of the Capital family like Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, and Peggy Lee. Rather than continue to be neglected, Taylor opted to forget about recordings for the time being and concentrate on radio and television. His success on WLIB led to a post at the popular WNEW, playing jazz for their affluent middle-of-the-road audience. He continued to perform as well during this period, usually with his trio and sometimes with larger ensembles.

In the early 1970's, Taylor was named Musical Director for the popular daily television show, The David Frost Show. Many feel he had the best jazz band on TV at that time. They played an hour jazz concert every night for the studio audience, and at least twice a week, Frost booked guests like Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, or Buddy Rich to play and be interviewed. Two recordings were made with Taylor's band on the Frost show before the show came to an end three and a half years later. Billy Taylor returned to WLIB, this time as program director of the station and began to build the largest jazz audience in New York City. Simultaneously he had his own local television program on New York's Channel 47. It was about this time that Taylor was offered an opportunity to enroll in the doctoral program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He had been an adjunct professor at C. W. Post College in New York and a visiting professor at Howard University, and felt the need to organize his teaching materials so that they might be more effectively used by others. After a few years of intense study, he earned his combined Masters and Doctorate in Music Education (1975). But he sorely missed playing and writing music. He had been appointed to the National Council for the Arts by President Nixon in 1970, and although this was a tremendous honor, the amount of time required to be an effective arts advocate took precious time away from practicing his music. Nonetheless, he tackled the task at hand, alongside his distinguished colleagues, Maurice Abravenel, Eudora Welty, Beverly Sills, and Nancy Hanks, who were doing so much to help make the arts available to everyone. It was a highly productive and rewarding period for Taylor, but not especially creative, musically.

Sometimes things work themselves out in mysterious ways. Maurice Abravenel commissioned Taylor to write ``Suite For Jazz Piano and Orchestra''; T. J. Anderson commissioned him to write ``Make A Joyful Noise''; the University of New Hampshire commissioned him to write a dance suite, ``For Rachel''; the Kentucky Symphony asked him to write ``Impromptu.'' And so, Taylor began to write jazz for ensembles that were larger than his trio. He composed the musical score and lyrics for an off-Broadway production of Wole Soyinka's ``The Lion and The Jewel,'' and some dance music for the original production of ``Your Arms Are Too Short To Box With God.'' (To date, Billy Taylor has over 350 songs to his credit, including the popular, ``I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free,'' which has been recorded by various artists and served as an anthem for the civil rights movement. His latest work, ``Urban Griot,'' is detailed under the Soundpost section of this website.)

All the while, Billy Taylor continued his work in broadcasting, as Musical Director for Tony Brown's Black Journal Tonight (PBS); and from 1977-1982, as host of NPR's most listened to jazz program of its time, ``Jazz Alive.'' By the end of the 1970's he was touring with his trio more than ever, but playing fewer and fewer jazz clubs, which had become crowded, overpriced and excluded young people. Realizing the need to bring his music to a broader audience, Taylor began to focus more on performing in larger venues such as concert halls and performing arts centers, which were a welcome change.

In the early 1980's, Taylor was tapped by Charles Kuralt to become arts correspondent for the popular television program, ``CBS Sunday Morning.'' Still at that post today, he has profiled over 250 well- known and not-so-well-known members of the jazz community. (He received an Emmy Award for his profile on Quincy Jones.) It was during this time that Billy also decided to start his own record company (Taylor Made), but after producing five albums, he realized that it was the music he wanted to be involved in, not the business. He

continued his work as a performer both on the bandstand and on television & radio as well. He hosted his own jazz piano show for Bravo, ``Jazz Counterpoint,'' which featured such artists as George Shearing, Marian McPartland and Ramsey Lewis, along with two different NPR radio series, ``Dizzy's Diamond.'' and ``Taylor Made Piano,'' which traced the history of jazz using the piano to tell the story. Based upon Dr. Taylor's book, ``Jazz Piano,'' ``Taylor Made Piano'' won a Peabody Award and generated more requests for tapes than any previous NPR program. As the 80's drew to a close, Billy Taylor signed with GRP/ Impulse, making some of his most popular recordings, including the re- release of My Fair Lady Loves Jazz (arranged by Quincy Jones), It's A Matter of Pride, Dr. T (featuring Gerry Mulligan) and Homage (featuring the Turtle Island String Quartet) which received a Grammy nomination in 1996.

During the 90's Dr. Taylor was named Artistic Advisor for Jazz to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Since 1994, under the umbrella of Jazz at the Kennedy Center, Taylor has developed one acclaimed concert series after another including the Art Tatum Pianorama, the Louis Armstrong Legacy series, the annual Mary Lou Williams Women in Jazz Festival, Beyond Category, Betty Carter's Jazz Ahead and the Jazz Ambassadors Program. His nationally broadcast NPR series, ``Billy Taylor's Jazz at the Kennedy Center'' is recorded live and features a mix of performances, audience Q & A, and conversations with musical guests. (see the Education/Residencies section of this website). Billy pioneered this play a little, talk a little format in the early 80's, with his ``Jazz Models & Mentors'' series, presented four times a year at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Taylor performs regularly with his current trio (Chip Jackson/bass & Winard Harper/drums) as well as with his long time friend, pianist Ramsey Lewis. When he's not touring, composing or recording, he can be found in classrooms throughout the country, conducting master classes, workshops and lecture/demonstrations. As he approaches his 80th birthday, Billy Taylor remains vigorously dedicated to nurturing jazz and creating new forums and opportunities for the artists who perform it. He encompasses that rare combination of creativity, intelligence, vision, commitment and leadership, all qualities that make him one of our most cherished national treasures.''

In March 2005, Dr. Taylor retired from concert performance.

Mr. Speaker, for decades Ralph Nader has forced Washington to confront crucial issues that otherwise might be swept under the rug. True to form, he now has called to our attention an important question regarding the candidacy of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. His statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on that nomination raises issues in many areas important for all of us in Congress. Important areas of focus are access to the courts.

Mr. Nader's statement follows:

Washington, DC,

September 12, 2005.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the

nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the position of

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I

ask that this statement be made part of the printed hearing

record.

In 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton

to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States. In that testimony I called attention to the

importance of balance in the way our laws handle the

challenges of corporate power in America.

I said: ``For our political economy, no issue is more

consequential than the distribution and impact of corporate

power. Historically, our country periodically has tried to

redress the imbalance between organized economic power and

people rights and remedies. From the agrarian populist revolt

by the farmers in the late 19th and early 20th century, to

the rise of the federal and state regulatory agencies, to the

surging trade unionism, to the opening of the courts for

broader non-property values to have their day, to the

strengthening of civil rights and civil liberties, consumer,

women's and environmental laws and institutions, corporate

power was partially disciplined by the rule of law.''

Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court

Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our

democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported

systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations

have no allegiance to any country or community, and the

devastation and other injustices they visit upon

communities throughout the United States and around the

globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that

should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the

people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these

hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to

the corporate issues of our times.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``I hope we shall . . .

crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed

corporations, which dare already to challenge our government

to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our

country.'' Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of

Enron Corp., HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia

Communications Corp. to name only a few, along with the drug,

tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic

industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over

the abuses of the ``moneyed corporations'' of Jefferson's

day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by

a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and other

donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate in

our country and consequently drive our society to imperatives

that are increasingly more corporate than civic.

You will hear about Judge Roberts from several

perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and

testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and

the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and

profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An

important procedural and substantive corollary is the

important role our civil justice system plays in expanding

the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the

ability to hold ``wrongdoers'' accountable in a court of law.

``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one

commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice,'' said the famous

jurist, Learned Hand.

Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other

institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the

civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and

override the province of juries and judges. Some companies,

led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to

promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too

unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is

contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in

particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution.

The civil jury system of the United States embraces a

fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens

applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions

on the facts in cases that often involve powerful

wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in

the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by

this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable

by the leaders of the American revolution against King

George III. But the civil jury is more than a process

toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury

is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection

of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of

many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in

the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and

by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society.

Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions

contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of

advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful

and the powerless--whether between companies and

consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between

officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing

the evolution of the common law and the civil jury

provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this

progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist

wrote, `` The founders of our Nation considered the right

of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark

against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious

to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be

added, to that of the judiciary.''

As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the

Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those

that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning

by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the

views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan &

Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice

system.

In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the

Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial

and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you

to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly

focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality

they constitute the broad kind of ``litmus test'' that should

be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short,

does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of

competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to

broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our

democracy--even if it means the rights of the giant

corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to

protect the rights of the individual citizen and of

our communities--rural or urban, large or small?

In pursuing its own line of questions, the Committee should

not let its exploration of the nominee's views be

artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two

reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons

are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express

their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes

before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide

legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute

in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees

claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say

whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to

abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking

such abstract questions. They face a particular statute,

challenged by a particular party directly affected in a

particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn

on all those particulars.

This second response has a degree of merit--and undercuts

the first reason for refusing to answer most questions.

Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in

what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is

not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They

should not say how they would decide an actual pending case,

but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues

because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any

actual dispute--such disputes are invariably context-

specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the

doctrine that treats a corporation as a ``person'' entitled

to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this

issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an

issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may

depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media?

multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much

more.

Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she

disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold

that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that

he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance--or a

party making a new argument--may lead the nominee to hold

otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she

will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said

has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public

speeches, do they not?

It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any

purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer

is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds

the nominee once he or she receives an office with life

tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But

especially with a nominee who has a limited public record,

the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and

quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process

for example. At any rate they have that potential--if

Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self-

serving refusal to answer questions.

At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish

the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses

to your questions by asking:

What criteria are you using to determine if you will

directly answer or not answer questions posed to you by

members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

If the Court has recently ruled on a matter, will you

provide the Committee with your views on the Court's ruling?

If a matter is long settled, will you provide the Committee

with your views on the Court's ruling?

Once this baseline has been established, the following

questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some

major issues of our day.

1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking as a prominent corporate

attorney, once said: ``There is one point I want to make

clear: we believe in the arguments that we make.'' Do you

believe the arguments you have made on behalf of your

corporate clients?

2. Do you believe limits on television station ownership

abridge the free speech rights of corporate broadcasters?

3. What is your view of the First Amendment rights of the

listeners being paramount to those of the broadcasters as

articulated by the Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,

395 U.S. 367 (1969)?

4. Do you see a problem when corporations are treated as

equal participants, with every right to use their First

Amendment rights to dominate public policy debates such as

those that occur in state and local referenda?

5. Do you believe the Court should uphold state and

Congressional limits on corporate political expression in

order to equalize contributions to public debates?

6. Do you believe that a strict reading of the Constitution

provides for the treatment of corporations as ``persons''

under the law for purposes of equal protection, freedom of

speech or due process of law? And, if so, what in the

Constitution's text provides a basis for this belief?

7. Many observers complain that law firms representing

large corporations routinely abuse the discovery process in

order to delay and harass their opponents. Have you observed

that phenomenon? If so, what should be done about it?

8. In 1986, in Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util.

Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) the Supreme Court (5 to 3)

struck down a state regulation as violating a utility

company's ``right of conscience'' under the First Amendment.

What makes the case particularly unsettling is its

disconnectedness to opinions past and future. As Justice

Rehnquist observed in his lengthy dissenting opinion in the

case, ``the two constitutional liberties most closely

analogous to the right to refrain from speaking--the Fifth

Amendment right to remain silent and the constitutional right

of privacy--have been denied to corporations based on their

corporate status.'' Do you think it makes sense to attribute

a right of conscience to a commercial corporation?

9. Would any trade agreement, such as GATT, NAFTA, or CAFTA

ever require Senate ratification as a treaty?

10. Does the President have complete discretion to

determine whether an international trade or other agreement

must be submitted to the Senate for two-thirds treaty

approval? If not, what are the criteria that determine when

an international agreement must be submitted to the Senate

for two-thirds treaty approval?

11. Are there limits on Congress' power to strip federal

courts of jurisdiction over a particular issue? If so, what

are such limits?

12. Do you believe victims of defective products that meet

federal standards should be limited from recovering damages

from the manufacturers of the defective products?

13. Do you believe Congress should federalize and pre-empt

state products liability common law in any or all sectors?

14. Plaintiffs' trial lawyers have been blamed by their

corporate critics for all sorts of problems with the economy

and legal profession. Do you believe that those representing

injured persons in product liability and medical malpractice

cases are harming America?

15. So-called tort-reform is aimed at restricting the

amount of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, a

party can receive. Are you concerned that this interferes

with the traditional role of juries and judges to find facts

and mete out appropriate justice?

16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor

defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so,

how?

17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no

substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a

statement of principle or reminder of limited government.

Do you agree?

18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th

Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states

from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly

contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you

familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive?

19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a

contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive

contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an

arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title

VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's

compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause

require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can

that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear

their own attorney's fees?

20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state

law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law

is said to preempt state law?

21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by

federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands

that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to

override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption

against preemption is not similar to the plain statement

rule, explain how it is different?

22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in

cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance,

drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is

said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary

remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that

the federal government regulates?

23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law-

based medical malpractice system?

24. What are your views on the ``American rule'' as opposed

to the English rule under which the losing party in

litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including

attorney's fees?

25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional

funding levels for federally funded legal services programs

over the last two decades? Should government be responsible

for funding representation for poor people in civil

litigation where important property or liberty interests are

at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private

function?

26. Some scholars and judges believe that ``Originalism''

is the only principled method of constitutional

interpretation. Do you agree?

27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is

Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in

war?

28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making

discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution

meet the test of of Article One, Section Eight of the

Constitution?

29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?

30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In

other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush

v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a

political entity (city, county, state) holding an election

use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots,

standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error

rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are

different from one methodology to another?

31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to

make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would

such amendments be constitutional?

32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court

should be televised in the way C-SPAN televises Congressional

deliberations?

33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act

functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major

problems facing the Act?

34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia

Dept. of Health and

Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) case, the Court rejected

the argument that a party that has failed to secure a

judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but

has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the

lawsuit brought about a voluntary change (the catalyst

theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled to attorney's

fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory of fee

recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision apply

across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If not, to

what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to apply and

to what kinds is its application more doubtful?

35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen

Litigation Group notes, ``The Bush administration says that

Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA

cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it

enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases

settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued

to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights

statute in every conceivable situation.'' What approach (or

approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional

enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon

decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of

reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning

in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is

applying the Buckhannon decision correctly?

36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical

perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal

judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in

``unpublished'' form, i.e., where the relevant court accords

no precedential effect to the decision for other cases?

37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded

by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by

such corporations) that have matters of interest to the

corporations before the courts?

38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate

position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to

work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is

illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government

lawyers have a ``right of conscience'' like other

professionals?

39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal

judges continue to be involved in once they assume their

judicial positions?

40. How many hours or what percent of their work time do

you think partners in major firms should devote to pro bono

work each year?

41. How many hours on average did you bill per year as a

partner and at what rates?

42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an

associate?

43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and

approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro

bono work?

44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written

books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing

practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the

Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled

Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling

and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing

practices are ``a pervasive problem in law firms across the

country''--do you agree?

45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when

you were in private practice?

46. If so, what was the nature of and who were the

protagonists of such practices?

I hope these questions, whether asked orally or submitted

to the nominee in writing for response, spark a robust,

constructive debate between the Committee members and the

nominee. Such exchanges should provide the Senate and the

larger public with insights into how Judge John G. Roberts

will, if confirmed as Chief Justice, perform his duties.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a proud moment in our history, and I begin by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the work he has done in helping me bring this concurrent resolution to the floor today.

Why is this historic? Because the impetus to reconnect with this struggle for racial justice in America began with this humble lady, a seamstress in Alabama, who on December 1, 1955, chose to no longer obey the ordinance that blacks sit in the back of the bus and if it was full, then they give up the bus to white passengers.

It is hard to conceive of the total segregation that this Nation was immersed in. On that day, she refused to obey a bus driver's order; and it began the chain of actions and organizations and commitments that led to a resurgence of the civil rights movement as we know it.

Her arrest sparked a boycott of the Montgomery city bus lines. It went on for over a year as more and more people of all backgrounds and colors and economic classes joined in. Finally this matter reached, in November of 1956, the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that desegregation codes deny under the 14th amendment the equal protection of laws to African Americans.

This is a great moment because the present is tied to the past. The other body is in the process of determining who the next Chief Justice of that Supreme Court will be.

Hurricane Katrina has made us remember how deeply poverty and race have brought most of the hardship upon people of color in New Orleans and in Mississippi where the havoc is still being counted, 400 deaths now known; but the number is sure to go far, far beyond that.

Now a word about Rosa Parks herself because I happen to be connected with this, meeting her through my work with Dr. Martin Luther King as an attorney and then getting to know her when she left Montgomery and came to Detroit.

She was so modest. They said she got fired from her job a month after the boycott. Here is what she said in the book she wrote: ``A month after the boycott began, I lost my $25-a-week job when the Montgomery Fair department store closed its tailor shop. I was given no indication from the store that my boycott activities were the reason I lost my job. People always wanted to say it was because of my involvement in the boycott. I cannot say this is true. I do not like to form in my mind something I do not have any proof of.'' That exemplifies this incredible humbleness that marked everything that she did.

I said the first person I am going to bring into my congressional office staff is Rosa Parks, and she accepted. Never once have I ever heard her raise her voice in anger. Never once have I heard her speak negative or unkind remarks about anybody, this persona, this modest woman of incredible determination who, by the way, brought Martin Luther King into Montgomery to help lead the Montgomery bus boycott, which was the start of his career as a civil rights leader. Yet this humble woman, quiet, dignified, always pleasantly composed, was able to bring forward this and other countless acts of civil disobedience which resulted in us changing the way that America operates.

It was Rosa Parks that did all of this; and what I wanted to do was let Members know that she, by bringing Martin King into this matter, was able to begin a civil rights movement much, much larger than the boycott itself.

She then started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self- Development, a nonprofit organization that sought to motivate youth. On this recognition of the 50th anniversary of that refusal to give up her seat, I am very proud that the Congress has chosen to join in with us by way of this concurrent resolution and remember this incredible point in American history.

I lift up the name of Ms. Elaine Steele, who has been with Rosa Parks for years and years as her assistant, as her counselor, as her dearest friend, and attorney Gregory J. Reed who has given her the legal background and support that she has needed from time to time.

This is a great day in the history of America that we remember. It is a great day in the Congress that we can remember that Martin King challenged his own country which he loved very much. But when he felt it was wrong, dissent was the highest form of patriotism that he could exemplify what this country stood for. And civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, by displaying her defiant act of courage 50 years ago, has made this country more of what it ought to be than anyone else that I can think of.

So I join with my colleagues in celebrating the ideals of Ms. Parks and the civil rights movement.

Today we honor Rosa Parks and her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago. On December 1, 1955, Ms. Parks refused to obey a bus driver's order that she give up her bus seat in the black section to a white man because the white section was full.

It is the courage, dignity, and determination that Ms. Parks exemplified on this day that allows most historians to credit her with beginning the modern day civil rights movement. Ms. Parks' actions on December 1, 1955 led to the desegregation of American society and enabled all of this Nation's citizens to realize freedom and equality.

The arrest of Ms. Parks led African-Americans and sympathizers of other races to boycott the Montgomery city bus line until the buses in Montgomery were desegregated. The 381-day Montgomery bus boycott encouraged other courageous people across the United States to organize in protest and demand equal rights for all.

The fearless acts of civil disobedience displayed by Rosa Parks and others resulted in the United States Supreme Court, on November 13, 1956, affirming a district court decision that held that Montgomery segregation codes deny and deprive African-Americans of the equal protection of the laws. This decision would lead to other landmark Supreme Court decisions in which the Court would rule in the interest of justice and equality.

In the years following the Montgomery bus boycott, Ms. Parks moved to Detroit, MI in 1957 and continued her civil rights work by working in my district office. Ms. Parks was with the office from 1965 until 1988. In the more than 20 years that Ms. Parks was in the office, she worked with a tireless spirit for the people of Detroit and other Americans.

In 1987, she started the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit, a nonprofit organization which motivates youth to reach their highest potential. So it is with great pleasure and honor that I stand today to recognize not only a civil rights pioneer, but a member of my staff, a constituent, and a friend.

It is in this recognition of the 50th anniversary of Ms. Parks' refusal to give up her seat on the bus, that I ask the Congress and the great people of this Nation to work with the same courage, dignity, and determination exemplified by her to address modern day inequalities and injustices. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, these inequalities and injustices are at the forefront of public consciousness and it is our job to do something about it.

Ms. Parks has said, ``Until everyone can enjoy the same opportunities, people cannot be equal. I am glad that segregation is no longer considered acceptable, but the fight for equal rights must go on until we have the same privileges and opportunities as those who are in power.''

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks displayed a defiant act of courage 50 years ago to better this country for all of its citizens. I know that this Congress and the people of this Nation can work to further the ideals of Ms. Parks and the civil rights movement.

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

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

It is with reluctance that I rise in opposition to this legislation. I cannot support it, and I am reluctant about that because it has been my intention to work with everyone on the committee to eliminate the problems of this bill, the excesses and flaws that are in it now; and my suggestions have not been received, and the bill has been put together in an extremely hasty manner that I believe will insulate negligent and dangerous behavior that we would otherwise have no inclination to do.

I begin by pointing out that we already have a Volunteer Protection Act in the law, passed in the year 1997, which protects volunteers. This bill had hearings. It was carefully crafted and bipartisan in nature. It protects volunteers from their good deeds, but not from their misconduct.

This bill, unfortunately, goes much further. And the problems that I have referred to and will continue to refer to are the result of the fact that this bill has never had a hearing: in no subcommittee, not in the full Committee on the Judiciary. There have never been witnesses to testify for or against it. There has never been a markup. Nothing. We come today with a measure that has been pulled out of the air. We have not heard from a single interested party as to why the bill is necessary. We have not received so much as a shred of evidence that there is any shortage of volunteers to assist in Hurricane Katrina as a result of our civil justice system.

So I point out to the Members that in the first instance the bill is not limited to protection of volunteers. It would protect many organizations, public and private, that might be involved in Hurricane Katrina, which could be government organizations. It could even protect the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It could protect cities and counties and States. It could protect business entities.

This bill is off the charts. And in the past, when we were more carefully considering the matter, we decided not to cover these entities because we did not want to protect firms that retain people who were criminals. We did not want to give comfort to drug addicts who may be working there or even sex offenders from liability that they might be involved with. This bill creates a green light for all kinds of behavior, that it will now receive a protection. For the life of me, I cannot suggest one reason why we ought to pass this measure. I am not aware of any business or even a nonprofit entity that has asked this committee for relief from liability in order to help out in Katrina.

Nobody knows about it. This is a phantom measure that has come out of nowhere, and if it is just to pass the time of day and keep us busy, it is probably doing a great harm to our civil justice system.

The bill goes beyond the Volunteer Protection Act to, if the Members can grasp this, immunize gross negligence and intentional conduct. We would immunize negligent and purposeful misconduct. Never in the history of Congress have we ever considered immunizing such actions. Why should we do it today? There is no reason to protect such blatant wrongdoing from such important responsibility.

The drafting that I have talked about is so broad, it would protect unlicensed volunteers who are attempting to operate as professionals. This would include individuals who provide medical treatment without training if something like that were to come along. It could protect people flying airplanes without licenses. Under this measure, an individual could travel to Louisiana without a license to conduct surgery and claim in a civil action that he has a liability waiver coming from this bill.

This measure would even go further. It would insulate simple traffic accidents from liability. A person working

around the Katrina disaster could negligently have an accident and injure a child on the way to New Orleans, and the family would be left with no recourse whatsoever. I can imagine that this bill will be brought up in civil cases in ways that we have never had an opportunity to contemplate.

So I make a simple proposition. Why do we not just move this bill off the floor, set up the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary that is anxiously waiting to schedule witnesses for the bill, and have them do their work and bring it to the full committee where it may receive even further amendments and inquiry?

It makes no sense to exempt irresponsible people from their own negligence. It would even insulate nursing homes, hello, from civil liability who use volunteers and their failure to evacuate resulted in death. One could lose their loved one as a result of negligence by a nursing home; and if they raise these protections that are involved in this legislation, the person bringing the action could be left without compensation.

We are setting up, whether we admit it or not, a two-tier system of civil justice. One for the people that were able and could afford to escape Katrina who will have their full right in the civil justice system, just as all people always have, but a lesser system for indigent individuals, many of whom, if not most, are, in fact, minorities, who may have, and I hope this is very few, but some who may have suffered abuse as a result of additional negligence and misconduct.

So what we have here is a horrible attempt to insulate volunteer liability, but it has been put together in such a way that we have a piece of legislation that I do not think can withstand the reasonable scrutiny of the Members of this body. If we adopt this unthinking bill without bothering to figure out what we are doing and who we are further exposing to harm, we may, in all likelihood, be compounding the tragedy that exists to which we are trying to bring some closure to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a response to my friend, the previous speaker, to let him know that the examples that he made are quite logical and quite rational. We think that they should be given protection. But we do not want what is in this bill that goes way beyond that kind of protection, because we would give protection for gross negligence, and it is in that respect that I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), our subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia's example tells us the whole thing. This is over the edge. It is not that we do not want to give protection, but this goes way, way too far.

Now, I remind my colleagues that the problem that we have here is that there have never been any hearings. There have never been any markups. There have never been any witnesses. There has never been a full committee hearing. Nobody has ever seen this measure before today when it is now on the floor.

It sounds great, volunteer liability legislation. But that is what we did with the Volunteer Protection Act in 1997. That was carefully crafted, bipartisan in nature, and covers all of this activity.

We go way beyond volunteer protection to immunize what could be misconduct of a deliberate and blatant nature, that can immunize negligence of the grossest sort, and never in the history have we ever imagined, thought of immunizing such actions. So there is no reason to protect such blatant wrongdoing from responsibility.

And it is a fatal flaw of this legislation. I urge that it be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for appropriate action.

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

Mr. Chairman, I come reluctantly before you to re- express my desire to protect all our children from predators, and I am confident that I speak for all Members when we say that each new abduction brings a concern, an outrage that we all feel.

Child molesters prey on those that are most vulnerable in our society, and we must stop them. But how can we stop them if we are primarily creating 36 new mandatory minimum criminal penalties that are completely arbitrary, that have been shown to be ineffective at reducing crime, and a consummate waste of taxpayer money? But that is not the only reason.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all inmates in the Federal and State prisons are serving life sentences, an 83 percent increase since 1992. In two States, New York and California, 20 percent of the people in prison are serving life sentences. And what do we have to show for these statistics? Well, a system that currently houses more than 2 million Americans, almost four times the number of individuals incarcerated in 1985, at a cost of $40 billion to run and operate.

We create additional new death penalty eligibility offenses. This spring, 120 death row inmates were exonerated due to proof of their innocence. So, in the end, if we are truly serious about protecting our children from acts of sexual exploitation and violence, we have got to turn to prevention. We have got to use preventative solutions that really try to get to the root of the problem instead of after-the-fact criminal penalties that do not address the issue.

Do these sick people check the statutes to find out what the newest penalties are or whether they are mandatory or not or whether they can carry additional incarceration terms? I doubt it.

Finally, we have people that have written, professionals, scientific researchers treatment professionals, child advocates, who have serious reservations about this measure, H.R. 3132.

From the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the Editor-in-Chief on Child Maltreatment, the Journal of American Professional Society of the Abuse of Children, the Director of Crimes Against Children Research Center, the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Dr. Friedrich of the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School, from the Board of Directors Association of the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, all these letters have poured in urging that we put more prevention into this measure rather than less.

Please let us turn this measure back.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates a national Office of Children's Safety within the Department of Justice, which would be run by a Presidential appointment and would report to the Attorney General. The director's duties would be to track State compliance with new registration requirements in the bill and report back to Congress on their progress. It would coordinate the Federal Government's response to the sexual abuse of minors and provide expertise and resources for the unique crime of child sexual abuse to States, local, and Federal authorities.

It is important that this amendment, if accepted, be run by someone qualified for the job. The FEMA incident illustrates this part of the provision.

The large number of sexually exploited children in this country is certainly an emergency. That is why I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure our Department of Justice makes combating the exploitation of children one of its highest priorities.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment. I would be happy to work on any suggested improvements to the amendment.

I think we have special offices in the Department of Justice concerning Violence Against Women and Cops on the Beat programs, and I think our children deserve no less.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while there are many different grant programs in the Department of Justice providing resources for initiatives fighting violent or sexual assault, we have not found any that are directly and specifically at local law enforcement's ability to protect children from sexual predators.

This provision takes an important step to make sure that after offenders are prosecuted and released, they are registered and made publicly known. However, it does nothing to prevent the abuse from happening in the first place, nor does it help officers investigate and track down offenders after complaints. So this amendment would not only help fund local sheriff and police units, implementation and enforcement of the registration, but would provide funds to make sure that local units have the resources necessary to pursue child abusers, including additional staff, training of existing personnel, and computers and software necessary to investigate predators who find children over the Internet.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his consideration.

There are few needs as pressing as the importance of stopping the sexual abuse of children, and I appreciate the fact that we are providing special grant programs for prescription drug abuse, telemarketing fraud; and now we can find a way to fund programs to protect the most vulnerable in our society, our children. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer amendment No. 23 at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the bill to address a blight on our society, the scourge of hate violence. Because, currently, we lack sufficient data to assist in determining how to address bias crime directed toward children. This amendment would correct that oversight.

For the year 2003, for example, the most recent available data, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an offender's irrational antagonism towards some personal attribute associated with the victim.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment.

Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 separate criminal offenses. FBI data has also revealed that a disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the perpetrators of hate violence were children, young people under 18 years of age.

The FBI's annual Hate Crime Statistics Act report provides the best snapshot of the magnitude of the hate violence problem in America. However, there is a paucity of regularly published information about juvenile hate crime offenses because the statute does not require data analysis for gender or juvenile categories.

This is an important omission, as indicated by a special DOJ report on the subject in 2001. This report, which carefully analyzed nearly 3,000 of the 24,000 hate crimes to the FBI from 1997 to 1999, revealed that a disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the perpetrators of hate violence were young people under 18 years of age. For example: 30 percent of all victims of bias-motivated aggravated assaults and 34 percent of the victims of simple assault were under 18.

As we address legislation for the protection of children, we should utilize the full extent of Federal resources and data collection plays an important role. I hope that this amend will find broad support so that we can work to eliminate hate violence directed against young people.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, this question of the well-being of our Nation's children is a result of the fact that children have increasingly become targets for identity theft. There have been sharp rises in incidents of fraud involving children's Social Security numbers which have been documented. Crimes using the stolen data are typically credit card frauds or the issuance of fraudulent driver's licenses. However, it is not too farfetched to think that the misappropriations of the personally identifiable information of a person who has not attained the age of 18 could be used in a way that could bring about many of the offenses set forth in this Act.

So the objective of the amendment crafted by the gentlewoman from Texas is to protect our children at all costs, and this amendment would do this by making it a crime to knowingly misappropriate the personal identification information of a minor in interstate or foreign commerce. The offense would be punishable by fines or imprisonment not to exceed 10 years.

Identity thieves often target children for these type of crimes because they are much less likely to notice that someone else is using their identity.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I think that covers it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important consideration; and I offer this amendment to address a problem, the scourge of hate violence, and hope that my colleagues will carefully consider the merits of the proposal.

The larger measure before us, H.R. 3132, finally gives us an opportunity to pass a hate crimes legislation that has been supported by a majority of the House and the Senate for three Congresses. Regularly, on motions to instruct, this House voted 232 to 192 in support of hate crimes legislation. Clearly, after a series of procedural votes in favor of the bill, the time has come for us to act on the substance; and this is what brings me to the well today.

In 2003, for the most available data, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an offender's irrational antagonism towards some personal attribute associated with the victim. Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 separate criminal offenses. While every State reported at least a small number of incidents, it is important to note that the reporting by law enforcement is voluntary, and it is widely believed that hate crimes are seriously underreported.

Children are not immune from this violence. The FBI data has revealed that a disproportionately high percentage of both victims and perpetrators of hate violence were children, young people under 18 years of age. A Department of Justice report, a special one on the subject, in 2001 carefully analyzed nearly 3,000 of the 24,000 hate crimes reported and revealed 30 percent of all victims of bias- motivated aggravated assaults, and 34 percent of the victims of simple assault were under 18.

So that is the problem. Despite the pervasiveness of the problem, current

law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents against protected classes that occur only during the exercise of federally protected activities such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victims' perceived sexual orientation, gender disability, or gender identity.

This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four States have no hate crime laws on the books and 21 others have weak hate crime laws.

So the amendment will make it easier for the Federal authorities to prosecute bias crimes, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act helped Federal prosecutors combat church arsonists, that is, by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law.

State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation with the enhanced support of the Federal Government. Through an intergovernmental assistance program created by this legislation, the Department of Justice will provide technical, forensic, or prosecutorial assistance to State and local law officials in cases of bias crime.

The proposal also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to State and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

I hope in supporting H.R. 3132 we can also move forward in this important area of hate crimes with reference to protecting children.

Behind each of the statistics cited above lies an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Let us be clear that a significant number of children lie within these statistics.

These discrete communities have learned the hard way that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. This amendment is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and they should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

I hope that in supporting H.R. 3132 we can also move forward in this area, hate crimes, that is equally important to protecting children.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his generosity in yielding to me.

Members of the Committee, there is an historical underlying importance about what we are discussing here. I mention its importance. We have never had on the Federal books, in Federal law, a prohibition against killing someone because of their race. Dr. E.B. DuBois and the NAACP brought this up in the 1930s. It was debated even further back during Reconstruction. We are at a very critical, important point.

This House has approved this, but we have never dealt with it substantively before this afternoon. So I urge the Members to seriously consider the historical nature of what it is we are considering here. This is the first substantive consideration of a hate crimes measure that makes it a Federal violation of criminal law to kill a person because of their race. It is exceedingly important from that point of view.

As I said, it has been debated down from Reconstruction times. It was debated during the 1930s. It has been dealt with indirectly here on the floor. The majority of the Members have concurred with it through other procedures. But today, for the very first time, we are now considering this matter.

I commend this to the careful attention of all of my colleagues in this 109th Congress. We have a tremendous opportunity of an historical nature before us, and I hope that we will successfully move this part of the bill forward with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the minority leader on the legislative history she has recounted for the benefit of us who have dealt with this across the years and add that this is a bipartisan measure. I only wish that all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this measure would also join with their voices and their votes with us on this very important day.

We can track back a record that goes back to reconstruction where we have been trying to attempt to successfully pass this measure. So I congratulate the gentlewoman on her explanation of why we are here.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and also thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who has been working on this issue.

First of all, I want to continue the discussion that the gentlewoman has been a leader on since she arrived in Congress. There are a few things that I want to add to this discussion because we have to speak truth to this great tragedy.

The first understanding that we have to arrive at is that many people in New Orleans were in dire straits before the hurricane and the mishandling of the hurricane and floods ever occurred. We are talking about a poverty that is so devastating that many of us, including myself, come in and out of New Orleans and never see what is really going on.

Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of the folks there are African American and poor. We have a tragedy that was waiting to happen. Ever since President Lyndon Johnson made the first efforts against a war on poverty, which was aborted shortly after that, we have neglected, generation after generation, to address this problem.

So the second thing that I would make clear to everybody is that New Orleans is not just the only place that there is such devastating poverty that it shocks one to know what it is. When we go to many other parts of this country, there are huge places of depressed areas, of deprived people, of great suffering, of high unemployment, of tragic failings, and hope is missing in a lot of these places.

So what we are doing is speaking not only about Katrina and New Orleans, but we are really talking about this condition of poverty that spreads across this entire country. And we are now forced, with the classic tragic mishandling of the flood, and this is the first time in the President's public career that he has ever admitted that, because of this Federal bungling, that the responsibility is at his level. Now I can suggest to the Members that one of the reasons that he is doing this is that his ratings are now lower, that in seven previous administrations no second-term President has ever been in the situation that he has. Whether that will change what we do remains to be seen. It may be another Rove tactic to get him to go up, but this discussion precedes what the President is going to say almost at the same time tomorrow. What he says will tell us where we are going and what they do.

At the same time that we are getting ready for the President's mea culpa, let us remember that there has been nobody here talking about rolling back the Medicaid cuts and the food stamp cuts and other restrictions. Those are quietly going forward at the same time that we are saying we have got to do more. And this is not just about volunteer help, which we are grateful for, and corporate contributions. We are talking about the government dealing with this problem.

The last point is that we now have a plan in progress in which the Halliburtons are now coming not only from Iraq but all over to begin to take over the reconstruction efforts. From our members in Mississippi and Louisiana, we find that there are no plans for the small businessmen to participate in the rebuilding. So this is a major issue which requires us not just to get the President straightened out. We have got a budget that will take us into an absolute no-way-out trap if we do not really change the terms of what we are doing.

Poverty is now being challenged. We might not be here were it not for the revelations that have been made by most of the press. And for us to be unaware that the black and the poor in this country are now the victims of one of the most federally bungled cleanups in America, we have gotten rid of the FEMA Director, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, because these are no-bid, multimillion dollars contracts for which they are not even eligible to bid; and then when they subcontract them out, they subcontract them out to other large corporations and not to the small business people who can best contribute and bring the economy back together.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is draw the parameters of where we are today. Today, we are not dealing with the people on the ground that can be of the most help. We have business people, construction people, who actually could be helping, and they cannot get in the door because they do not have the answers to the gentlewoman's questions of where do they go. I have been trying to call the Mayor of New Orleans, and he does not have a phone. Only cell phones, and everybody in America is probably calling him on those one or two phones.

I commend the leader of this Special Order.

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 22: At the end of title I, add the following

new subtitle:

Subtitle C--Children's Safety Office

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 23: At the end of title III insert the

following:

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 24: At the end of title I, add the following

new section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

Offered By: Mr. Conyers

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill, add the following

new title:

Mr. Speaker, today Rep. Mel Watt, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee and twenty four additional original co-sponsors have joined me in introducing the ``Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005'', to protect the thousands of families and small businesses financially devastated by Hurricane Katrina from being penalized by anti-debtor provisions contained in a new bankruptcy law scheduled to take effect on October 17, 2005.

We are concerned that, just as survivors of Hurricane Katrina are beginning to rebuild their lives, the new bankruptcy law, effective October 17, 2005, will result in a further and unintended financial whammy.

Unfortunately, the new bankruptcy law will have the consequence of preventing thousands of devastated families from being able to obtain relief from the massive and unexpected financial obligations they are incurring. The inflexible bankruptcy law will force victims of Hurricane Katrina to repay debt with income they no longer have, file paper work with documents that no longer exist, and travel to courts that are possibly hundreds of miles away. It is simply absurd to place these obstacles between survivors and financial security.

When the Judiciary Committee considered the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act earlier this year, Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment to protect the victims of

natural disaster like those now devastated by Hurricane Katrina. While the amendment was defeated on a party line vote without any debate, we hope that in light of recent events our colleagues will recognize the importance of protecting our most financially vulnerable Americans.

This bill will prevent new bankruptcy provisions from having adverse and unintended consequences for the hundreds of thousands now facing financial catastrophe by providing needed flexibility for victims of natural disasters in bankruptcy proceedings.

This common sense bill will insure that we do not compound a natural disaster with a man made financial disaster. I hope there will be bipartisan support for expedited consideration of this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005, legislation that makes price gouging during a time of a national disaster a Federal crime. I am joined by Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Linda Sanchez, Jerrold Nadler, Martin Meehan, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Bennie Thompson, William Jefferson, Adam Schiff, Joe Crowley, William Delahunt, Zoe Lofgren, Gene Taylor, Chris Van Hollen, Diane Watson, Bobby Scott, Ed Case, Bernie Sanders, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Filner, Dan Boren, Jim McDermott, George Miller, John Larson, Al Green, Julia Carson, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Carolyn Maloney, Emanuel Cleaver, Anthony Weiner, Barbara Lee, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jay Inslee, and Jose Serrano.

Every time a major disaster occurs, we are confronted with scarcity of resources that often results in exorbitant prices for necessary resources such as gas, food and water. While some adjustment to prices may be necessary, unconscionable increases in price are unfair and harmful to consumers, who, at a time of national disaster, are already dealing with significant personal losses. It is unconscionable for the same gasoline that sold for $2.50 per gallon on one day, to be marked up to $3.50 on the next day. Similarly, a hotel room that was promised at $80 per night on the phone; should not be raised $200 per night upon arrival. These instances of price gouging have been occurring throughout the country, even in areas far removed from the direct damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Currently, at least 13 States--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia--have laws that specifically address price gouging in the event of a declared emergency. Unfortunately, there is no Federal statute addressing the issue.

When we have unprecedented natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, and price gouging that harms consumers across the Nation, we need Federal law enforcement available to support the States. As a result, the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005 would make it a violation of the Antitrust Laws for a supplier to charge unconscionable prices for necessary goods or services once a state of emergency has been declared by the President.

This legislation is not only extremely important now, at a time of national disaster, but it is also mindful that we cannot sit around and wait for disaster to strike before putting in place mechanisms that will help consumers in their times of need. I hope the Congress moves quickly to enact the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005.