Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time.

At some point tomorrow, the Congressional Black Caucus will be introducing an alternative budget which we will discuss in detail. Unfortunately, we have been allotted only 20 minutes on our side to discuss the details of that proposed, budget and I am delighted that the Committee on the Budget has seen fit to provide us a little bit more time this evening to discuss some of the benefits we believe will enure if the Congressional Black Caucus Budget is adopted.

We will be asking the Members of our House of Representatives to make some basic choices because we believe that a budget is about making choices. There are two choices in particular we will be asking them to consider: Would you rather provide a tax cut to people who make more than $200,000 per year, or would you rather spend approximately $30 billion dollars that you would save if you did not provide that tax cut on a series of things that would benefit our community and have a substantial potential of closing some of the disparities and gaps that have existed for years and years between African American citizens and white citizens in this country?

The second question we will be asking will be: Would you rather spend $7.9 billion on a ballistic missile defense program which has been tested time after time after time and has failed all of those tests, or would you rather spend that $7.8 billion on providing more security to our troops, body armor, personnel support equipment, and other protective gear for our troops, and providing more benefits to our veterans in this country?

This is a basic choice that we at this point need to debate. Our budget that we will be submitting and detailing tomorrow morning when we offer the Congressional Black Caucus substitute budget will ask Congress, What are your priorities?

That is what budget-making is about. And there is no trickery here. It is

straightforward, and we will be asking our Members to make those choices.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for providing the Congressional Black Caucus a little extra time to talk about the CBC budget, and I want to summarize what our proposed budget which we will be introducing tomorrow will do.

It will roll back the tax cuts on people with adjusted gross incomes that exceed $200,000 per year. Most of the revenue raised in the CBC budget will be used to address disparities in America's communities. A substantial portion is reserved to reduce the deficit.

On the military side, we would roll back $7.8 billion in ballistic missile defense spending leaving using $1 billion for research to continue regarding the ballistic missile defense system. All of these funds are spent on other defense items to support our troops, homeland security needs, and veterans program and benefits. The total for defense, homeland security, and veterans is equal to the Republican budget.

The bottom line is that the CBC budget addresses critical domestic challenges and supports our troops. The CBC budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion compared to the House majority's budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded by a reduction of $27 billion in interest payments, compared to the House majority's budget over that 5-year period. We will have a responsible budget, and I look forward to having the support of our colleagues in this body and look forward to discussing the proposed CBC budget in more detail tomorrow when our substitute is presented to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Let me just go through some of the things that the Congressional Black Caucus budget will do in various areas. We are planning to submit this budget tomorrow, and we will be adding an additional $1 billion in the international affairs category for foreign aid to Africa and the Caribbean, Global AIDS Initiative in the State Department, Public Health and Preventable Illness initiatives.

We will be adding half a billion dollars in general science, space and technology in the following areas: NASA Research and Development, NASA Space Shuttle Safety, restore research and development funding for the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy. We will be adding an additional $50 million in the natural resources and environment, historically black colleges and university preservation program.

We will be adding $300 million in the agriculture budget in support of the 1890 land-grant historically black colleges and universities, expanded food and nutrition education programs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Civil Rights. And we will be restoring and modifying some of the Draconian cuts in agriculture programs that affect minorities in particular.

We will be adding $1 billion in commerce and housing credit for SBA loan programs, the 7(a) program, Microloan, and New Market Venture programs, adult training and dislocated worker programs, Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, home ownership initiatives.

We will be adding $150 million in transportation, most of which will go to Amtrak. We will be adding $1.5 billion to community and regional development to restore the cuts that have been proposed by the President in the Community Development Block Grants, increased funding for Brownfields Economic Development, Empowerment Zones, community development, financial institutions, economic development assistance.

We will be adding $23.9 billion in education and training with which we will fully fund the No Child Left Behind. That is $12 billion to fully fund No Child Left Behind.

We will be adding $50 million to elementary and secondary school counseling, vocational training, job training, adult education, Pell grants, Head Start, Individuals With Disabilities, IDEA, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, TRIO, Gaining Early Awareness of Readiness. That is the GEAR-UP program, restoring that. Perkins loans, impact aid.

In the area of health we will be adding $1 billion. In the area of Administration of Justice we will be adding $1 billion. And over on the defense side we are going to be adding money for body armor, personal support equipment, and other protective gear for our troops, ammunition for the Marine Corps, small arms for the Army. We will be adding $4.65 billion for veterans programs, veterans health care, survivor benefit plans, disabled veterans plans, prosthetic needs for veterans, VA medical and prosthetic research, mental health care for veterans. And we will be adding $2 billion in homeland security for rail security and port security.

Now, you are wondering how can the Congressional Black Caucus do all of this? It is simple. Simply roll back the tax cut on people who make above $200,000 a year. And all we are saying to our Members in this body is that these things that I have just described are much higher priorities. Even to people that I know who make more than $200,000 a year, they think these things are higher priorities than getting a little extra tax cut. And I just entreat my Members to please support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is a sane budget. It is good.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act. Despite its name, this bill is anything but fair to the class action device that has provided redress to large numbers of American citizens who have been harmed by the same defendant or a group of defendants.

Class action procedures have made it possible for injured Americans to aggregate small claims that might not otherwise warrant the expense of individual litigation. This bill before us will effectively undermine the utility, practicality, and choice the class action mechanism has offered to injured persons with legitimate claims against powerful entities.

There appear to be improvements in this bill from the bill we considered last Congress; yet there could and should be more improvements. But the trend thus far this session is to dispense with regular order, deny committee consideration, and to leave Members with 1 to 2 minutes to hurriedly voice our concerns. I can guarantee my colleagues, having practiced law for over 20 years, that the core provisions of this bill will invite prolonged satellite litigation into ill-defined or undefined terms in this bill, clogging the Federal courts and denying prompt justice to worthy claimants.

For example, where ``significant relief'' is sought against a home State defendant, the court has no jurisdiction. What is significant and what is not significant? Also, and worse in my judgment, no longer will a coherent description of the class be sufficient before the trial on the merit proceeds. Under the bill the judge must first know with certainty the absolute number of the plaintiff class, because whether he may or must decline to hear the case depends on whether a ``magic'' number of plaintiffs are citizens of the State where the lawsuit was filed. There are other examples too complicated to address here in the time that we have available.

But let me just say that juxtaposed against the smattering of cases paraded by the supporters of this bill as justification for this upheaval in our justice system are countless class action lawsuits by principled attorneys and courageous plaintiffs that have exposed deliberate wrongdoing, obtained justice for American citizens, and vindicated the values of fair play and equal justice that define our society.

America is distinguished from other countries because of its legal system both criminal and civil. Is it perfect? No. But the majority wages countless legislative assaults on the entire system rather than confined, deliberative, surgical repairs. Under this bill, one bad judge, we condemn all of the judges in the system. One excessive jury award, let us overhaul the entire jury system. One irresponsible lawyer, let us punish all lawyers. And here let us take these actions without any committee hearings, markup, or debate. What could be more irresponsible to our constituents?

Whatever happened to the notion that we were making our court systems convenient to people? In some of our States, the Federal courts are far removed from the places where individual litigants live. And what is it with the notion all of a sudden that my States rights friends believe that the Federal courts and the Federal Government can solve every problem in our society? That is just simply absurd, inconsistent with any kind of consistent philosophy about federalism.

I think we should defeat this flawed bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

There are so many angles that I could approach this debate from, but I am just so delighted today to be able to rise in a bipartisan and biracial coalition to honor four great Americans who contributed so much to us.

I could talk about the fact that North Carolina A&T State University and Bennett College, which was also referred to in the statement of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), both of them are located in my congressional district.

I could talk about the fact that despite the fact that the lunch counter itself is now in the congressional district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), it was also in my congressional district up until the last round of redistricting.

I could talk about the fact that Franklin McCain, one of those four courageous individuals, is a resident of my congressional district, a successful business leader in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, today, one of two surviving members of that famous four.

I could talk about other acts of heroism that came about as a result of these four students sitting down. One recollection that comes to me immediately is, as was happening quite often throughout the South, the power establishment would try to intimidate the black leaders, and the story has it that the powers, the political and business leadership in the City of Greensboro, approached the President of North Carolina A&T State University to try to intimidate him into having his students refrain from this kind of agitation, these sit-ins. And the President of North Carolina A&T, one of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, drew a line in the sand and said, ``there is no way I am intervening to stop my students from agitating against this kind of injustice.''

I could talk about how I got connected to the civil rights movement even in that time, not as a personal involvement, but hearing my mother say to my oldest brother, 4 years older than me at that time, ``Don't you get involved in those demonstrations. It is dangerous out there,'' and then turning on the TV at 6 o'clock that evening and seeing my brother right in the middle of the demonstration that took place in Charlotte, North Carolina, following the Greensboro Four's courageous action.

There are just so many ways that I could approach this debate that bring back so much emotion for me, because not long after that I returned to Charlotte and to North Carolina to join a civil rights law firm that took on school desegregation, that took on employment discrimination, that took on other racial policies and practices that were taking place that were accepted as part of the day until those courageous students at North Carolina A&T said enough is enough.

So this is a wonderful, wonderful day for me just to see the bipartisanship, the biracial support that we have in support of this resolution in this Congress, but knowing full well that some years ago when it was not fashionable, when it was dangerous, when those kids' parents were telling them, I sent you to school to get an education, not to be involved in a demonstration, they stood and said enough is enough; we are going to take action to change America.

And, Mr. Speaker, they did, and today our country is better for it.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for reserving the 1 hour of time this evening for the Congressional Black Caucus to make preliminary comments on the President's proposed budget.

When the Congressional Black Caucus met with President Bush on January 26, we presented a CBC agenda that would close disparities and create opportunity. We outlined six areas in which significant barriers exist that prevent African Americans from enjoying the same quality of life as white Americans. We requested the President's support and asked him to demonstrate it both verbally and substantively. Unfortunately, the budget that the President sent to Congress yesterday falls far short of the substantive goals that we hoped the President would have set forth to eliminate disparities.

The first area we presented to the President was in the area of closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education. In his budget, the President proposes eliminating the Perkins loan program, which provides low-interest loans to low- and middle-income college students. This proposal would have disastrous effects on African American college students, many of whom rely heavily on Federal financial aid programs to offset the cost of obtaining higher education. As it is, African Americans attend college at a lower rate than white Americans. If the President succeeds in his plan to eliminate the Perkins loan program, a college education would simply be unaffordable and unattainable for many African American college students.

African American college enrollment rates are 10 percent lower than white college enrollment rates. College graduation rates are even worse for African American students. Only 46 percent of African American freshmen ever graduate from college, compared to 67 percent of white freshmen. According to the Education Trust, the typical American college or university has a graduation rate gap between white and African American students of over 10 percentage points. A quarter of institutions have a gap of 20 percentage points or more.

In a recent study by the Luna Foundation For Education, the Foundation found that the single most important financial variable influencing whether or not a student will attend college is the amount of need-based financial aid being provided. In spite of these disparities, the President seeks to not only eliminate the Perkins loan program, but he is proposing to eliminate the Gear Up and the TRIO programs as well.

The sole purpose of the Gear Up program, which our Congressional Black Caucus colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) introduced, and the TRIO program, both of those programs are designed to prepare low-income and disadvantaged students for college. In other words, the President, through his budget, wants to eliminate the very programs that would help close the achievement and opportunity gaps in education. In fact, one out of every three programs that the President proposes to cut or eliminate in his budget is in the Department of Education. So the President has not been

responsive at all to the CBC agenda in that area.

The second area we outlined to the President was in the area of health care, providing quality health care for every American. The President's proposed budget slashes at least $45 billion from the Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to 50 million low- income children, working families, seniors, and others who would otherwise be uninsured. The President's proposed cuts to Medicaid would have devastating effects on the working poor and would have particularly devastating effects on African Americans.

According to Families USA, African Americans are generally less likely to receive employer-based health care because African Americans are more likely than whites to work in positions where health care benefits are not offered, work for companies, typically small companies, that cannot afford to pay for employee health insurance, and to be unable to afford health insurance premiums when coverage is offered.

The third area we asked the President to respond to was in the area of economic security, building wealth, and business employment. The African American unemployment rate is consistently more than double the average national average. In inner cities, that number is even larger. Yet, the President proposes cutting the budget for the Department of Labor by 4.4 percent, including Workforce Investment Act State grants. Further, while the African American homeownership rate is over 20 percentage points behind that of white Americans, the President proposes cutting funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by almost $3.7 billion.

We asked the President to address disparities in foreign policy, eradicating poverty, hunger, and armed conflicts around the world, especially in Africa and the Caribbean, which is a major component of the CBC's agenda. Unfortunately, the President's budget offered no solutions on how to strengthen the economic stability and self- sufficiency of countries in the African Diaspora.

The Caucus supports reducing the heavy burden that debt has on many countries and reengaging with the United Nations, regional organizations, and countries throughout the world to help promote civil society, global health, fair trade, and peace. While we applaud the President for his proposal to fund the global initiative to fight HIV/ AIDS, we implore him to also provide financial assistance to end the fighting in African countries that are engaged in civil war and in genocide.

We asked the President to help address retirement security for African Americans and the disparities that exist there. During the last several weeks, President Bush has traveled the country, selling his Social Security reform proposal to the American people. Because African Americans rely heavily on the survivor disability and retirement benefits provided by Social Security, the CBC is extremely interested in the details of this proposal. Contrary to the President's claims, African Americans receive a higher rate of return than whites, due to their heavier reliance on the full range of benefits offered by Social Security.

The CBC has made it clear to the President that we are against any proposal that would result in future benefit cuts or divert payroll taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund. African Americans are 8 percent of all retired beneficiaries, 13 percent of survivor beneficiaries, and 18 percent of all disability recipients. Social Security is the only source of retirement income for 40 percent of older Americans, and if those benefits were reduced, the poverty rate for older African Americans would double almost overnight.

Social Security is one of the most effective programs in the history of the United States and is essential to the livelihood of African Americans.

We asked the President to ensure justice for every American. The CBC supports criminal and juvenile justice reform that focuses greater emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation, reduces recidivism by successfully reintegrating former inmates into society, and ends arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences.

We also strongly support preserving affirmative action until all the effects of past and present discrimination have been eliminated.

While the President's budget does include $75 million for a prisoner reentry initiative, much more rehabilitation needs to be done for prisoners while they are in prison.

In addition, we are disappointed to report that the President's fiscal year budget proposes to cut funding for the Justice Department's civil rights division even while we all know that more enforcement is necessary. And despite that fact our election system does not work properly, the President's budget proposes to eliminate grants to States for election reform.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the budget that the President sent to Congress yesterday reflects priorities and values that are not in line with those held by the majority of American families or by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Today the President told reporters that his budget sets priorities. He went on to say, ``Our priorities are winning the war on terror, protecting our homeland, and growing our economy.'' I would say to the President that while we fight the war on terror, America's families also want to fight the war on poverty. While we protect our homeland, we must also ensure that American families are able to buy affordable homes. While we must grow our economy, we must also provide retirement security for American families in times of economic downturn. These, Mr. President, are America's priorities.

I hope the President will work with the Congressional Black Caucus to turn these priorities into realities.

Mr. Speaker, the following is a summary of some of the draconian cuts that the President has proposed in his budget.

Bush Administration FY 2006 Housing Budget--Continuing the Assault on

the Most Vulnerable

The Bush Administration's FY 2006 Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) budget makes deep cuts to a wide

range of housing programs that serve low-income families, the

elderly, and disabled persons. Overall, the HUD budget is cut

by 11.5 percent. Critical housing and community development

programs (CDBG, Brownfields cleanup, and Empowerment Zones)

are eliminated and are consolidated into a new program in the

Commerce Department, with an overall funding cut of 35

percent. The biggest funding cuts are targeted at those

programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens, as follows:

the poor

CDBG: Transfers CDBG flexible block grants to the Commerce

Department, with a 35 percent cut. This proposal would result

in $1.16 billion less in funding for low-income housing than

last year.

Public Housing. Eliminates HOPE VI public housing

revitalization program, and rescinds the $143 million funded

in FY05. Also cuts ongoing funding for public housing by $270

million. The overall request is 30 percent lower in real

terms than when the Bush Administration took office.

HOME Block Grants. Cuts HOME block grants by $66 million (a

4 percent cut).

Section 8 vouchers. Purports to fully fund voucher

renewals. But, the budget promises that legislation will be

introduced later to renew the Administration block grant

proposal--to gut the targeting of funds to the poorest

families and the maintenance of affordable voucher rent

levels.

AIDS Housing (HOPWA). Cuts HOPWA funding by $14 million (a

5 percent cut).

Lead Paint Abatement. Cuts funding for lead paint abatement

by $48 million (a 29 percent cut).

the disabled

Cuts 50 percent from the Section 811 disabled housing

program (from $238 m. to $119 m). Also eliminates the Federal

role in funding construction of new housing for the disabled.

minorities

Fair Housing: Cuts the Fair Housing budget by 16 percent.

Minority Higher Education Institutions. Cuts Section 107

grants by 16 percent. Section 107 grants fund Historically

Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving

Institutions, Community Development Work Study, and other

related programs.

La Raza. Eliminates funding for the National Council of La

Raza for affordable housing activities and technical

assistance (funded at $4.8 million in FY 2005).

rural housing

Rural Housing Service. Cuts funding by 73 percent for

Section 515, the core RHS affordable housing program. Also

eliminates the Section 515 program's authority to fund new

construction.

HUD Rural Housing an Economic Development Program.

Eliminates this $24 million program, consolidating it with 17

other programs in the Commerce Dept.

native American housing

Cuts funding for Native American housing block grants by

$110 million, a 16 percent cut.

Eliminates funding for the National American Indian Housing

Council ($2.4 m. in FY 05).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more basic to democracy than assuring that everyone who wants to vote is provided that opportunity and that each person's vote is counted in the result.

In the last two election cycles, our country, which has held itself out as the world's model of an example of true democracy has fallen woefully short of meriting that title. The United States cannot continue to claim that it stands for and is willing to fight for democracy and the rights of people to vote in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world while not being willing to do whatever is necessary to guarantee the vote of all of our citizens here at home. Equal access, convenience of voting, quality of voting machines, and other means to assure democracy must not be a function of economic status, race, where citizens live, or any other variable. We must do whatever is necessary to assure equality in voting rights, opportunity and access for all our citizens, and if our democracy is to be protected, the eyes of the world will be watching to see how we respond to this, not treat it as frivolous when people are not allowed to vote.

That is why I applaud the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for her leadership and for allowing this body to have a discussion about the basic right to vote in America.

For me this is not about whether George Bush won or lost the last election. I am planning to vote to certify. I will tell the Members that. But there is nothing more basic than the right to vote, and if we pretend that this is frivolous, then we are not going to move forward and do anything in response to what is going on.

Two days ago we took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, that at least three amendments in the Constitution which guarantee equal access to the ballot, and yet we are saying that people who did not get an opportunity to vote, who did not have equal access to the vote, are raising frivolous issues? Come on, give me a break. We should not be about denying or abridging that right, and I stand here in full support of it. We have got to improve the Help America Vote Act. We took the first step 2 years ago. We have got to take additional steps to make sure that every single person who seeks the right to vote is given that right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission recommended the creation of an independent bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil rights and civil liberties, in recognition of the fact that in this difficult area of securing America we were going into some very uncharted areas.

We crafted a provision in the Committee on the Judiciary which has been substantially watered down in this version of the bill. I simply want to submit for the Record a statement that describes that process. I intend to vote for the bill, but have some concerns about whether this bipartisan board of compliance is independent enough or bipartisan enough or is really going to have any authority to do anything to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights after we pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include a more detailed description of my concerns for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, because I take the protection of our constitutional rights and liberties very seriously, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill to establish an independent, bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil rights and liberties and the Judiciary Committee bill included a version of the oversight board. Since that time, there has been a false comparison between the board I recommended and that in the Senate bill to an advisory board created by the President by executive order. The President's board is not and should not be the guidepost for what satisfies the mandate of the 9/11 Commission. The President's board consists of Administration insiders with advisory functions.

Now I know that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission have endorsed this conference report and characterize the Privacy and Civil Liberties board as independent. I respectfully disagree. The board created by this bill may turn out to be worse than no board at all. It's members are handpicked by the President and serve at his pleasure. That does not create independence. There is no rights of the board to obtain by subpoena information needed to perform its functions. There is no public reporting requirement. And, there is a gaping hole that permits the government to assert a national security or law enforcement exception to the Board's access to government information that may very well reveal whether the rights of our citizens are being violated.

We all agree that our nation must adjust to confront the terrorist threat, but in doing so we cannot undermine the principles for which Americans stand. One need not look far to imagine the types of abuses that a strong, independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board could expose and prevent. Should innocent Americans be held merely on suspicion, without the opportunity to consult with counsel, without the ability to speak with their family? Should Americans be willing to miss graduations, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, because their names are erroneously on a no-fly list? If Senator Kennedy, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Young find themselves detained as suspected terrorists, who will be next?

In short, just as we need to make adjustments as we fight terrorism, we also need a board with teeth, one that can make sure that fighting terrorism is done in a manner that does not change the fundamental nature of our society. The 9/11 Commission Report stated:

We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrist attack at home. Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.

I believe that we have missed the opportunity to say to the world and to the terrorists

who would harm us that we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to detect and prevent further attacks but at the same time with equal vigor, we will protect the time-honored values and freedoms that makes our nation great.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a nonprofit organization created by Congress in 1974 to ensure that Americans have access to our justice system regardless of their economic means. For three decades, LSC has lived up to the noble purpose for which it was created--providing legal assistance in civil matters to tens of millions of low-income Americans who would otherwise have gone without counsel. The Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 was passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress and, thirty years later, broad bipartisan support for a strong federal role in equal justice efforts remains. LSC's past and current leaders, as well as the thousands of advocates who work for LSC-funded legal services programs throughout America, deserve credit for the vital work they do every day on behalf of clients in desperate need of qualified counsel.

Today, there are currently more than 45.2 million Americans who qualify for assistance from one of LSC's 143 grantees nationwide. Legal services' clients are as diverse as our nation, encompassing all races; ethnic groups and ages. They include the working poor, veterans, family farmers, people with disabilities and victims of natural disasters. More than two-thirds of LSC clients are women--most of them mothers.

The legal problems faced by those living in poverty can have serious, long-term consequences for children and, as a result, for society as a whole. The most common types of cases handled by LSC-funded advocates address family law, housing, employment, government benefits and consumer-related issues. For low-income individuals and families, legal services advocacy in these and other areas represents their only means of access to the justice system.

In addition to helping people resolve some of their immediate economic and legal needs, LSC programs also educate people on their rights and responsibilities under the law. With this information, clients can use their knowledge to work within the justice system to re-establish economic independence. With LSC's help, families can maintain their incomes, homes, health benefits and their dignity.

More than two centuries ago, our founding fathers enshrined the importance of equal justice in the preamble to the Constitution, identifying the obligation ``to establish justice'' as the first specific function of the new government. Justice, then, is not simply another government asperation; it is the historic mandate of a free society. On the occasion of the LSC's 30th anniversary, members of Congress should take note and pay homage to the Legal Services Corporation and the critical role it has played in helping America live up to this mandate and our highest ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, which will be a very short amount of time, just to make two points.

Number one, the chairman of my committee and I have served so long together that he did not even flinch when I was debating a bill that I thought was all part of one big parcel, because he has seen me many times debate something that we were not discussing in committee, so it did not come as any surprise to him at all. He did not even flinch.

So I think on that what I will do is roll the statement that I read on S. 150 into this debate. That was the discussion on the last bill. I thought we were doing this, all this part and parcel of one big bill here, rather than in two stages. So I hope I can just roll that last statement on to this debate and save myself from having to read it again.

Second, I would just say to the gentleman on his ``do not surprise us in the next Congress'' that I think there has been a long-term agreement and commitment to making the Internet exempt from taxation a permanent moratorium. The thing that has held that up is that, at the same time, States and local governments have wanted to work out a national uniform system for taxing remote sales that take place over the Internet so that they do not lose substantial revenues from that source. So I think if we could come up with a system to put into place some uniform standards for taxation of remote sales over the Internet, making the moratorium on Internet access would be a no-brainer and a very noncontroversial step.

So I would hope that I would be able to join the chairman of the full committee in supporting a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes, but I would be able to do that only if we can work out this other deal having to do

with putting in place a taxation system for taxation of remote sales that are taking place over the Internet.

Because what is happening now is that brick and mortar retailers in all of our communities are collecting sales taxes on sales that are taking place in those brick and mortar stores and, at the same time, people are able to buy over the Internet the same product and be exempt from paying taxes on it because there is no uniform way for collecting those taxes at remote locations. That is costing local governments and State governments in some cases enormous amounts of tax revenues, because most of them are supported by sales taxes or local property taxes, and this is eroding a primary base of tax income for local communities and State communities.

So if we can get that part of this equation worked out, I think the chairman would see a virtual landslide of support for making the moratorium on Internet access a permanent moratorium, and I would be right in the lead of the march with my chairman, and I hope he will join us in trying to make that happen in the next term of Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 150, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, and urge my colleagues to support its passage. It has been a long journey to get here, but I believe that the compromise forged in the Senate preserves the goals we sought here in the House both at the subcommittee and full committee levels.

Specifically, S. 150 extends the existing moratorium against taxes on Internet access by all State and local governments, including those that were previously grandfathered by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and there is a new grandfather for States that imposed taxes on access to the Internet until November 1, 2005. Although this bill will necessarily result in the potential loss of some revenue to some States, it will promote the continued development, emergence, and widespread access to the Internet; and it will do so in a fair and technologically neutral manner.

During the proceedings on this bill in the House, I, together with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, on which I am the ranking member, offered an amendment to help clarify the meaning of Internet access and to put an end to the current confusion that has led to discriminatory and inconsistent State taxation on Internet access. The bill before us today represents a compromise on that amendment which is supported by the relevant stakeholders, including the industry and the State and local government representatives.

The principle I pursued in offering the amendment was simple: If we are to prohibit taxes on Internet access, we must do so regardless of how that access is provided. Otherwise, we would give a competitive advantage to those providers covered by the moratorium over those providers that remain subject to taxation. This would limit the choices of consumers and raise the cost of alternative means of accessing the Internet such as DSL. By making the moratorium applicable to all Internet service providers, we have created a level playing field for the consumer. In the process, we have had no intention to otherwise undermine State and local telecommunications tax bases.

With this issue now behind us if we pass this bill, this Congress must turn to the issue of State sales and use taxes. I, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and other colleagues on our subcommittee, have insisted throughout our deliberations to ban Internet access taxes that we remain mindful of the fiscal crisis currently confronting many of our States. Toward that end, the States' attempt to establish a unified tax system that would enable them to impose and collect sales taxes on transactions over the Internet in a manner that is fair and manageable has progressed; and I believe that during the next term of Congress we will be able to work toward a sensible solution to solve the remote sales tax issue when remote sales are taking place over the Internet.

In closing, I believe that S. 150 will ensure that the ban on Internet access taxes is neutral as to technology, speed, and provider. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this and certainly thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), my subcommittee Chair, in his absence, for the tremendous amount of work he has put into this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time either on S. Con. Res. 146, which I thought I was debating the last time, or on S. 150, which I understand we are debating now, so I will be happy, unless the chairman wants to promise me he is going to work with me on this remote sales tax issue and wants to have a dialogue about that, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time, or yield to the chairman if he wants to comment on it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to assure the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that he did not really say anything that I disagree with. Neither did the chairman say anything that I disagree with.

I agree that taxation of Internet access and taxation of remote sales are like apples and oranges. But both of them have economic impact on State and local communities, and just because they are apples and oranges does not mean that they do not have an economic impact. So what has been keeping this from moving forward is that if you take away the Internet access issue and you do not resolve the remote sales issue, then local and State communities are being doubly impacted in some cases, and they would like us to resolve both of those issues. They do not necessarily want us to mix orange juice and apple juice together, but they do want us to be able to drink apple juice at one point and drink orange juice at the other point, and they are not mutually exclusive, and they have a similar impact in local communities.

So I am in full agreement that we ought to make this moratorium permanent on Internet access. I am supporting both of these bills, and I do not think there is any controversy about that.

My only point is we also need to now roll up our sleeves in this next term of Congress and resolve the remote sales tax issue so that we can put all of this to rest, and then we can drink both apple juice and orange juice and enjoy both of them in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Taiwan on its forthcoming National Day, October 10, 2004.

In recent years, Taiwan has impressed the world with its economic and political accomplishments. It is the world's 17th largest economy, with the world's 15th largest trade volume. Clearly, in this time of global economic interdependence, Taiwan has much to offer the world.

I commend President Chen Shui-bain of Taiwan on his efforts to seek greater recognition for his country in the world. President Chen has also committed Taiwan's resources to combating global terrorism and Taiwan is a valued partner of the United States in this effort.

Congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their National Day.

Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, numerous groups have found that, along with the imperative to enhance the flow of information necessary to detect, combat, and prevent future acts of terrorism, comes a parallel and increased imperative to protect the privacy and civil liberties of individuals. These groups believe that balancing security and liberty is not only possible but fundamental to the fight against terror. In other words, they believe that individuals should have personal rights and privacy even after 9/11.

The report of the 9/11 Commission was equally clear on this point, stating that, ``The shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.''

Chief among the Commission's recommendations was the recommendation that an entity within the executive branch be established ``to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' That was a clear unequivocal recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

I find it astonishing that this bill that we are considering today completely ignores this recommendation and fails to create a board to protect the civil liberties of the American people. Refusing to establish a civil liberties watchdog is an insult to the unanimous bipartisan 9/11 Commission report and an affront to the values we cherish.

Further, by refusing to establish a civil liberties watchdog in this bill, the bill is also inconsistent with the bill reported favorably from the Committee on the Judiciary and it is inconsistent with the Senate Bill.

Last month, at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, two members of the Commission testified that the board should have quite robust powers, and that the board should be independent and should be powerful enough so that it gets listened to.

Consistent with these views of the distinguished members of the 9/11 Commission, during the markup of H.R. 10 in the Committee on the Judiciary, I offered an amendment to create a strong bipartisan board to supervise civil liberties compliance. After substantial debate about one aspect of the amendment, whether the board should have subpoena power, the Committee on the Judiciary passed a bill that included a version of my amendment. But it did include a civil liberties board.

It is, therefore, unbelievable that this bill, while giving the government even broader powers that may affect the freedoms of our citizens, flatly rejects the obligations to protect those freedoms from abuse. The American people should not be asked to sacrifice the very liberties they are defending against terrorist attack without the benefit of a board with genuine oversight authority. I request my colleagues to reject this bill and support the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez Substitute, and in particular, its creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board within the Executive branch as unanimously recommended by the 9/11 Commission. After months and months of study, and months and months of hearing testimony and reviewing volumes of documents, the 9/11 Commission unanimously recommended that there be a board ``within the government whose job it is to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.''

Because I take the protection of our constitutional rights and liberties very seriously, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee markup of this bill to establish an independent, bipartisan board to oversee compliance with civil liberties and the Judiciary Committee bill included a version of the oversight board. The Menendez substitute establishes such a board. Now there are those who might suggest that an advisory board created by the President by executive order satisfies the mandate of the 9/11 Commission. It does not. That board consists of Administration insiders with advisory functions.

In the words of the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, we must establish a board

that is ``robust,'' one that has the authority to secure our freedoms against abuse. We all agree that our Nation must adjust to confront the terrorist threat, but in doing so we cannot undermine the principles for which Americans stand.

One need not look far to imagine the types of abuses that a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board could expose and prevent. Should innocent Americans be held merely on suspicion, without the opportunity to consult with counsel and without the ability to speak with their family? After two years of detention without access to family or counsel, a U.S. citizen was recently released from Guantanamo because he was no longer of ``intelligence value.'' Should Americans be willing to miss graduations, baptisms, weddings, and funerals, because their names are erroneously on a no-fly list? If Senator Kennedy, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Young find themselves detained as suspected terrorists, who will be next? Just last week, a federal district court ruled that the FBI's use of ``national security letters'' to compel the production of customer records from internet service providers was unconstitutional.

In short, just as we need to make adjustments as we fight terrorism, we also need this independent board to make sure that fighting terrorism is done in a manner that does not change the fundamental nature of our society. In closing, let me quote directly from the 9/11 Commission's findings in connection with its recommendation that there be a board to protect civil liberties:

We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty,

since the success of one helps protect the other. The choice

between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is

more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success

of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown us that

insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are

curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to

defend.

The substitute implements the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and should be supported. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.

If this debate were really about whether ``under God'' was going to be in the Constitution, and that was all it was about, I would be right there. I have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance ever since, even before I knew what it meant, and ``under God'' has been in it. I have had no real objection to it, even when I did not understand what it meant.

But this debate is about much, much more than that. It is really about whether there is going to be a constitutional framework in which we operate and who is going to decide ultimately what is constitutional, the United States Supreme Court and the Federal courts of our Nation or the arrogance of my colleagues here in this body. There are actually some people here who believe that they should be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional; and if they do not get the result that they want in any given case, they want to take jurisdiction away from whoever gave them a different result.

So that is what this is about, how do we protect a constitutional framework which historically has had the legislative body doing its job and the courts determining what is constitutional and ultimately the United States Supreme Court determining what is constitutional.

Now, the fear that they might get a result that is different than the one they want has these people here in our body saying to us that we should give that ultimate authority not to the United States Supreme Court but to State courts. So this really is not even about whether ``under God'' is going to be in the pledge or not, even at that level, because if a State court determines that ``under God'' is unconstitutional, then what are we going to do in that case?

In North Carolina, it might be constitutional. In California it may be unconstitutional. We may have 50 different standards about when we can recite ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance under the standards that this bill would allow us to set up.

This is not about whether we retain ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The court has already decided that. This is a great vehicle for the majority to be able to come out here and tell us they believe in God. I believe in God, too, but there are some citizens in this country who do not necessarily believe in a god or who believe that having to profess it publicly is idolatry. We have an obligation to protect their rights, also. They are citizens, also, in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would restore the bill to its original form. The original bill that was introduced, H.R. 2028, actually stripped only the lower courts, not the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear these cases. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who was an original supporter and sponsor of the original bill, both of us submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules asking the Committee on Rules to restore the bill to its original intention, and the Committee on Rules decided it would make my amendment in order, I guess so that it would not send a signal to the Republicans that this is a bipartisan amendment.

So I want to offer this amendment to restore the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to determine constitutionality.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, when I was in law school, one of the first things I learned is that if you win a debate, you sit down and quit arguing about it.

The other side has asked us several times, well, how far does the Supreme Court have to go, how far does the court have to go before we step in?

You have won the lawsuit. Newdow has been reversed.

Get a grip. You have won and you are here asking me, how far the Supreme Court has got to go?

Imagine this, no Supreme Court, no jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, and the State of South Carolina or New York strips out ``under God.'' Who would have decided the case? Who would have decided the case? Nobody would have been there to reverse Newdow. Fifty different States, 50 different rules under your bill.

What happened to the word ``indivisible'' under God? Indivisible. Does indivisible not count anymore? Fifty different rules, is that indivisibility?

What have we got to do? You won the case.

This bill is not about the Pledge of Allegiance. This is an assault on the judiciary and on the right of the American people to a uniform interpretation of what the law is. It is not the Pledge that is in need of protection. It is our constitutionally established system of government. As long as you are in control in asserting it, every time you get a result that you do not like you will be back here.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And were the subject of this Special Order not so immeasurably important, I could spend many minutes talking about the issue that the gentlewoman from Texas just identified that was dealt with in the Committee on the Judiciary.

But if she will be kind enough to allow me, I think I will wait until next week to make that debate. That bill will be on the floor, and hopefully, we will have ample opportunity to point that out.

I am honored today to join my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to be a part of this Special Order which focuses on voter intimidation and efforts that are being made by some in our society to deter people who wish to exercise their democratic rights, the right to vote.

I would be less than honest if I said I was delighted to be here debating this, because I concur with the chairman of our caucus that these many years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we would like to be in a position not to have to be here to engage in these kinds of discussions on the floor of the House concerning voter intimidation, deterrence of voters from exercising their right to vote. And I would add to that that I do not think there would be any people who would be more delighted on November 3 of this year than the Congressional Black Caucus if we could stand up and say on November 3 that we overreacted and did not need to be here today talking about this. But if that eventuality occurs, I am going to get up; I am coming to the floor to say, I am delighted to say that we overreacted, because I will be happy about it.

I do not think we can talk about voter intimidation without putting it in a larger context, and that is the context of democracy. All around the world, the United States was recognized by country after country after country as the gold standard for democracy for years and years and years, and I wish I could say that the United States still holds that distinction. Unfortunately, we do not have that distinction anymore.

While we were encouraging the government, the forming government, of South Africa to assure representation of all factions in their new government, we were at the same time in the United States Supreme Court discouraging minority representation in the United States. While we were encouraging the residents of South Africa to make their ballots understandable by putting pictures on the ballots if necessary to identify the candidates, we were at the same time making it impossible for folks to cast ballots that did not have hanging chads and other

problems in the United States. While we were encouraging the folks of South Africa to make it easier for people to vote by allowing voters to cast their votes on Saturdays and Sundays, in the United States, that is anathema to us. Although, it seems to me and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that that would be the ideal to maximize voter participation. So we do not have the honor of holding the gold standard of democracy anymore.

Those of us who believe that, somehow, Florida was the exception rather than the rule are deluding ourselves because not only in Florida were we having problems in 2000, but in every single State where votes were being cast, there were problems with the voting process. And unfortunately, those problems were disproportionately disqualifying minority voters from voting and poor people because they had the worst machines in every jurisdiction.

So if one checks all around America, this is not a Florida problem that we are talking about. This is a national problem that deprives America from being able to hold out its chest and say, we are the gold standard for a democracy. If we ignore that larger context when we talk about voter intimidation and discouraging people from voting, then we miss a major point.

Now, there is intimidation going on, and there is discouragement going on, and I want to make sure that America knows and that everybody knows that we are preparing to be ready for that kind of intimidation, discouragement, roadblocks by police, every kind of negative discouragement of our voters from voting on November 2. We are preparing to combat that.

It is a shame that somebody could show up at our meeting today and hand out a flyer saying, we are recruiting 10,000 lawyers to be available on Election Day in the United States of America. Who could imagine that we would need 10,000 lawyers to assure that people in the United States, in our democracy, get to do what our Constitution says they are entitled to do. There is something wrong with that picture, and I just wanted to be here today to add my voice to the chairman's voice and to our caucus' voice that, on November 2, this simply will not be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let me first agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I do not think anybody really likes frivolous litigation, and this bill provides an opportunity for people to get up and say that. I think if we were to ask either the Republican or the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President that are out there running, all of them will say, no, I do not like frivolous litigation.

The problem here is that my colleagues just do not want to be confused by the facts, because this bill is going to do more to encourage frivolous litigation, potentially, than it is going to do to discourage frivolous litigation. The Judicial Conference of the United States has made that clear in the letter that has been introduced into the

Record in which they say that the provisions of this bill, which go back to the rules that were in effect prior to 1983, those rules were changed because they spawned a whole cottage industry of litigation related to frivolous lawsuits.

So even if this were going to discourage frivolous lawsuits, which they say it would not, you are going to engender a whole new set of problems because what they say happened was Rule 11 motions came to be met with countermotions that sought Rule 11 sanctions for making the original Rule 11 motion. What sense does that make that we would set up a system to encourage people to file countermotions against each other claiming that the other side was frivolous in what they were doing in the lawsuit?

The Judicial Conference is clear that this bill would provide incentives to encourage litigants to keep a frivolous claim in court because if they ever withdrew the frivolous claim, it in effect would be a concession that it was frivolous. So somebody files a lawsuit, realizes they have a bad claim, then has no way of getting out of it because they are afraid to withdraw the claim because somebody is going to hit them with sanctions, and the fact that they withdrew the claim is an admission that it was a frivolous claim. It is going to set up situations where lawyers are put in conflicts of interest with their clients because the client wants to pursue a claim that may be frivolous, the lawyer does not want to pursue it, realizes that the claim is frivolous and cannot back out of it without getting into a conflict of interest with their client. All of that is outlined in the letter from the Judicial Conference.

This is not really about doing something that is going to discourage frivolous lawsuits, this bill is going to encourage frivolous lawsuits and encourage pursuit of frivolous lawsuits in a way that the Judicial Conference has outlined clearly.

There seems to be this mentality, I hate frivolous lawsuits and do not confuse me with the facts because that is not what I am interested in. We should vote this bill down and keep the rules in place that are there that allow judges to make reasonable decisions in their courts.

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions during the 12 years that I have been in this body, I have risen on this floor to chide my colleagues from the Committee on the Judiciary and my colleagues in the House for the arrogant and irresponsible belief that we are somehow smarter than the Founding Fathers, for the belief that process in the system and the form of government that we operate in is less important than the result that we seek on a particular issue.

I think today is the ultimate irresponsible, extreme act in that direction. How arrogant and irresponsible is it to say to our American people that the United States Supreme Court will not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of an issue?

How extreme is that? It just blows my mind. I have trouble coming to grips with the notion that anybody could believe that this is responsible legislating, whether it is constitutional or not, that we would deprive the United States Supreme Court the authority to determine the constitutionality of an issue and disperse it to 50 different supreme courts of the States and not have one court that would be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. How arrogant and irresponsible can we be?

That is exactly what this legislation does today. It says to the American people that the Supreme Court of the United States no longer has the authority to determine constitutional issues. How arrogant, how irresponsible can we be?