Floor Statements

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 6063. While I can appreciate the apparent attempt in the bill to better protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, it not only fails to achieve that objective, but it also presents serious constitutional concerns and other problematic provisions.

First, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption in 18 U.S.C. section 1514 that, if an individual posts a photograph or personal identifying information about a person subject to a protective order, it ``serves no legitimate purpose,'' which is an essentiable element of the offense of harassment and intimidation. This rebuttable presumption would shift the burden of proof in these cases from the accuser to the accused by requiring the accused to prove that posting of the photograph or information about the person served a legitimate purpose. Therefore, under current law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the burden is on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this element of the offense, not the obligation of the accused to prove his innocence. This provision violates the constitutional rights of defendants who may be innocent of the underlying charge and who are entitled to be presumed innocent.

The coincidental inclusion of a protected person in a family photo posted over Facebook or an email, which may be unintentional and coincidental, should not be presumed to be a crime.

What's wrong with the normal process by which the accuser has to show that the posting was for harassment or intimidation? To make an innocent person prove his innocence is not only unnecessary and unfair, but unconstitutional.

In Francis v. Franklin, a 1985 Supreme Court case, the government argued that the constitutional issue regarding the rebuttable presumption there was overcome by the defendant's ability to rebut the presumption. The Supreme Court, however, found that argument unpersuasive. The Court said that a mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State presumes certain predicate facts. Such a presumption can be conclusive or rebuttable. The key is whether it is mandatory, that is, whether the jury must make a presumption, possibly subject to rebuttal, if the State proves certain facts.

In light of the fact that section 3(d)(2) of H.R. 6063 explicitly mandates the court shall presume there was no legitimate purpose, this provision is exactly the kind of mandatory rebuttable presumption that the Court repudiated in the Francis decision.

Another problem with the bill is it adds a new criminal offense of violating a protective order. Minor activities that are not intended to cause harm or distress, such as a phone call or an email, can result in a Federal criminal charge, not as a violation of Federal law protecting a witness from harassment or intimidation--there are already laws against that--but as a technical violation of a civil order.

Judges already have plenty of laws and authority to protect victims and witnesses. There's already a comprehensive statutory scheme in place to assist judges and law enforcement in protecting witnesses in Federal criminal proceedings. In addition to Federal criminal provisions with heavy penalties and the authority for judges to enter protective orders for the protection of all witnesses, including children, the judges have immense contempt and other powers to accomplish this goal. Thus, the additional criminal offense is unnecessary and unproductive. We should stop adding unnecessary criminal laws to the criminal code.

In the previous Congress, we held hearings regarding the general problem of over-criminalization of conduct and the over-federalization of criminal law. Members of both parties then expressed concern over this. We already have over 4,000 Federal criminal offenses in the code, along with an estimated 300,000 Federal regulations that impose criminal penalties, often without clearly setting out what will be subject to criminal liability.

This bill is yet another example of adding more unnecessary crimes and penalties to the Federal code. Moreover, such a provision moves the protection responsibility from the judge in the case to a prosecutor who decides when there is a violation and when to bring charges for the violations. Given the fact that many proceedings involving child witnesses also involve family members of the child witness in emotionally charged situations, the addition of more criminal provisions to this mix is not helpful.

This provision allows the imposition of a Federal felony up to 5 years in prison for a violation. It is unnecessary, overbroad, and harsh, especially given a restraining order can be violated by simply making an innocent phone call.

A further problem with H.R. 6063 is that it would give U.S. marshals the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex offenders. I'm not convinced that extending this extraordinary ex parte judicial authority is appropriate.

Research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be compliant with the law are actually no more apt to commit a criminal offense than those who are compliant. So there is no compelling reason to create a special authority for U.S. marshals in the case of registered or unregistered sex offenders. There's no urgent or imminent threat context in rounding up alleged noncompliant sex offenders which, as we said, are no more likely to commit a crime than those who are compliant with all of the technicalities of the law.

The existing statutory scheme for administrative subpoenas for law enforcement focuses on extreme situations, such as the Presidential threat protection administrative subpoena. We approved that power a few years ago to assist in the protection of the President when the director of the Secret

Service has determined that an imminent threat is posed against the life of the President of the United States, and he has to certify the same to the Secretary of the Treasury. And the Attorney General has the same kind of power in child exploitation cases. Both are Cabinet-level officials.

I offered an amendment to remove the provisions extending this type of judicial authority to the U.S. Marshals Service. Upon the failure of that amendment, I then offered an amendment to continue limiting the authority to issue administrative subpoenas to Cabinet officials to ensure that this extraordinary judicial power is used discreetly and only in circumstances where it is absolutely warranted. Those amendments were defeated; and, therefore, this bill gives more power to the Marshals Service in cases where there is no proven need for the power, more power than the Secret Service has when faced with an imminent threat to the President of the United States.

Despite serious constitutional issues and these other problems, this bill was introduced on June 29 and was marked up in committee 12 days later, on July 10, which was the very next day that Congress was in session. Clearly these provisions need more consideration. For these reasons, I urge that we defeat H.R. 6063.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a cosponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4362. It amends the Federal aggravated identity theft statute to add tax fraud to the list of predicate offenses. The penalty for aggravated identity theft is a mandatory term of imprisonment of 2 years or, for a terrorism offense, 5 years. This bill would, therefore, subject more people to mandatory minimum sentences and, therefore, to all of the problems that have been repeatedly shown to be associated with mandatory minimum sentences.

Fraud and identity theft are a serious and growing problem. But what we do to address the problems of fraud and identity theft should be measured and effective. While I appreciate the sentiments and efforts behind H.R. 4362, I cannot support an effort that seeks to stop one injustice by applying another. Because of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 4362, this bill is not an appropriate or effective solution to the problem of identity theft.

I'm not saying someone who commits these crimes should not be sentenced to 2 or 5 years, or even more. But it is inappropriate and unjust for Congress to sentence an offender based solely on the name of the crime, years before any of the facts or circumstances of the case, or their role in the particular case and the character of the defendant, are known and taken into account.

Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively, and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems, to discriminate against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money, and often to violate common sense. Even if everyone involved in the case, from the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and even the victim, after all of the facts and circumstances of the case are presented at trial by the prosecution and defense, if they all conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case, it must still be imposed. Mandatory minimum sentences, based merely on the name of the crime, remove the sentencing discretion and rationality from the judge, and often require him to impose sentences that violate common sense. This is what brings about the result such as girlfriends who end up with much more time than their crack-dealing boyfriends, and often have to serve terms of 10-20 years or more, teenagers having consensual sex with their girlfriends getting 10 years, or a recent case of Marissa Alexander in Florida, a mother of three and a graduate student, who was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years for discharging a gun to warn off an abusive husband during a dispute. A warning shot. Ironically, if she had intentionally shot and killed him under those circumstances, the maximum penalty for voluntary manslaughter in that State is 15 years. If you want to know how those mandatory minimums pass, just watch this bill.

I offered an amendment at the committee markup of the bill which would have provided a maximum sentence of 4 years and 10 years instead of the 2 or 5, respectively. That way, offenders whose conduct warranted it could be sentenced to higher amounts of time, if it was appropriate, but for those whose conduct did not, such as bit players and those who play a minor role in a minor offense, the judge could arrive at a proper sentence. It is the height of legislative arrogance, in my view, for Congress to conclude that it has a better perspective to arrive at an appropriate sentence in advance, knowing nothing about the facts and circumstances of the case, than a judge charged with that responsibility who has heard all of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has recently expressed

concerns with the bill which indicate that we should have had a legislative hearing on the bill to hear from stakeholders and those who have concerns about the legislation. Even though I support the intent of the sponsors to do more to address identity theft, for the reasons stated, the 2 and 5 year mandatory minimum sentences make this bill indefensible, and I cannot support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6062, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2012.

The Federal justice grants reauthorized under this legislation provide critical funding to State and local jurisdictions in their efforts to combat crime.

Especially during periods of national budgetary constraints affecting the bottom lines of States and local governments, the Byrne JAG grants are particularly important. Across our Nation, many jurisdictions, to shore up their budgets, are actually laying off police officers. When many of our citizens are experiencing economic hardship, we must not add to their burden by allowing public safety to suffer.

H.R. 6062 reaffirms the Federal Government's commitment to assisting State and local governments in their effort to prevent and fight crime. But reauthorization of the Byrne JAG grant program is obviously just a first step. We must also follow through with actually appropriating sufficient funds for the program.

In addition, we should encourage allocation of grant funds to the full range of programs that State and local governments are allowed to fund. Under current law, State and local governments may use Byrne JAG funding for programs or projects that improve law enforcement efforts; prosecution and court programs; prevention and education programs; corrections and community corrections; drug treatment programs; planning, evaluation, and technology projects; and crime victim and witness programs.

Each of these are essential to a comprehensive effort to protect us from crime, and, therefore, all of them should receive significant funding under the Byrne JAG grant program. An imbalance in justice assistance funding creates an imbalance in anticrime efforts. Specifically, an appropriate amount of funding should be allocated to prevent crime, which will help reduce the amount of money needed to fund the after-crime cost of investigation, prosecution, incarceration, and victim assistance.

We must also assist State and local governments to fund public defender programs in recognition of the fact that the public is also protected from injustice when we safeguard the Sixth Amendment rights of our citizens.

Finally, it is essential that the full range of other programs that assist State and local public safety initiatives, including the COPS program, are adequately funded. The COPS program has funded the hiring of more than 123,000 State and local police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across our Nation, and it has been proven to be extremely effective in reducing crime.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 6062, and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) for his work on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 6062 so that we can reaffirm our commitment to funding public safety programs, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment and Retention Act. This bill would require the Department of Justice to prioritize the placement and retention of personnel in those States and local jurisdictions that have high incidences of homicide and other violent crimes.

The recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers has become increasingly difficult in recent years. These challenges are faced not only by State and local police agencies, but also by Federal law enforcement agencies. Difficulty in recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers is particularly acute in jurisdictions that experience high rates of violent crime.

In fact, the high incidence of crime in a jurisdiction can deter a Federal law enforcement officer from seeking assignment in that jurisdiction and can frequently lead to high turnover. The failure to retain a law enforcement officer has been estimated to result in approximately $100,000 in additional costs for the Department of Justice.

H.R. 1550, as amended, aims to address this problem by directing the Attorney General to give priority in placing and retaining agents in jurisdictions with particularly high crime rates. This bill also requires the Department of Justice to annually provide Congress with a detailed report on how it is implementing this directive.

H.R. 1550 is a modest, but necessary, measure to focus our crime- fighting efforts on the areas most in need.

I, too, want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), for his work in developing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands and the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

I urge the passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago we passed ObamaCare, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, in fact, constitutional.

Even after this ruling, some are ignoring the fact that these reforms are working. We know that there are children with preexisting conditions who now have insurance. We know that there are young adults who have had car accidents and their families did not have to go bankrupt for health care costs because they were able to stay on their parents' policies.

We know that there are seniors who are receiving assistance when they fall in the doughnut hole. We know many people have discovered curable diseases when those diseases were in fact curable because they didn't have to save up for copays and deductibles for their annual checkup. We know that there are people with serious illnesses who no longer fear being kicked off their insurance plans in the middle of treatment when they need the coverage the most. And in 18 months, all Americans will be able to afford a comprehensive health care policy. All of this was done in a fiscally responsible way. And why would anyone want to take away these protections and leave people without health security?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 31st attempt to turn the clock back on the advancements made under the Affordable Care Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The contempt citation pending against Attorney General Holder is unfounded, unfair, and unwise. All of this involves questions about gunwalking. And we know that the Attorney General has handed over thousands of documents in response to multiple subpoenas. So we know that the gunwalking policy began under the Bush administration. We know that President Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, was briefed on the policy, and it continued. We know that when Attorney General Holder found out about it, he shut the program down and called for an investigation.

If we want to know why the policy started, we should ask officials who served when it started during the Bush administration. If we want to know what Attorney General Holder knew about Fast and Furious, we should call the former Acting Director of the ATF, Ken Melson, who is on the record as saying that he would have been the one to have informed the Attorney General, but even he didn't know about Fast and Furious. But unfortunately, requests from the Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to call these witnesses have been rejected.

At this point, there has been no articulation of any useful information about the origins of gunwalking in Fast and Furious or the death of Agent Brian Terry that can be learned from the narrow set of documents still at issue, nor has there been any articulation of any legitimate legislative purpose that can be achieved. And, in fact, Chairman Issa has silenced whistleblowers who testified about legislation to strengthen law enforcement tools on our southwestern boarder.

If the Speaker now insists on holding Attorney General Holder in contempt for failing to respond to more subpoenas, the Speaker should articulate with clarity what general purpose will be served by the response. If nothing legitimately useful is to be learned nor any legislative purpose is to be achieved with continued responses to these subpoenas, then it is time for the Attorney General to get back to work, along with the Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a storied institution of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, Trinity Episcopal Church in Portsmouth, Virginia is celebrating its 250th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed church and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community.

The story of Trinity Episcopal Church begins in 1752 with William Crawford, the founder of Portsmouth, when he designated space at the intersection of High and Court Streets for a parish church. Between 1761 and 1762, the Vestry of Trinity Church was formed. Reverend Charles Smith served as the first parish priest.

During the American Revolution, the church was used by the British garrison, and Trinity's old church bell was cracked celebrating General Cornwallis' surrender. During the War of 1812, Captain Arthur Emmerson III, a lay leader in the congregation, was instrumental in the American victory at the Battle of Craney Island. During the Civil War, the crew of the ironclad C.S.S. Virginia--commonly called the Merrimac-- worshipped at Trinity before boarding the ship to fight in the first battle of the ironclads against the Union ship, U.S.S. Monitor.

Over the years, Trinity continued to grow and expand, and its congregation felt a great sense of community responsibility, contributing to the well-being of the City of Portsmouth, surrounding neighborhoods and area churches. In the 1890s, Trinity founded the King's Daughters Hospital, which later became Portsmouth General Hospital. In the 1960s, under its noted Rector, the Rev. C. Charles Vache, the congregation was active in the civil rights movement and endorsed the equality of all persons. Its members support organizations such as Portsmouth Volunteers for the Homeless, Oasis Social Ministry Center, and other social agencies, providing breakfasts, dinners, overnight accommodations, and financial support to those in need. Trinity is best known for its Annual Children's Christmas Shoppe, where hundreds of children, guided by members of the parish and community disguised as ``elves,'' can do their own shopping for loved ones. The Episcopal Church Women and the Brotherhood of Trinity take on additional local, national and even international community service projects of their own.

Yet another longstanding Trinity tradition worthy of note is its music. Mentions of organists and accompanying choirs date back to 1823. Instruments housed at Trinity are revered as representative early- American works by their crafters. The choir has received acclaim dating back to the 1860s, when the Rt. Rev. John Johns, Bishop of Virginia, called the Trinity Choir ``the best in the diocese.'' Today, the Trinity Music Series features local musical ensembles and world- renowned artists, working with the Virginia Arts Festival and other community organizations to provide quality music services, recitals and concerts to the public free of charge.

As Trinity Episcopal Church gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future. I would like to congratulate Rev. John R. Throop, D. Min., and all of the members of the Trinity Episcopal Church on the occasion of their 250th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mount Zion Baptist Church in Charles County, Virginia on the occasion of its 200th anniversary. I would like to highlight some moments from the history of the church.

Mount Zion Baptist Church was first established by slaves in 1812. The original church was built on a parcel of land that was purchased for $20. The church worshipped in this sanctuary until it was destroyed by fire. After the sanctuary's destruction, the church was without a place to worship until a new building was deeded to the Church in 1885 and a sanctuary erected in 1886. Mount Zion continues to worship in this sanctuary to this day.

Over the years, the building has undergone many beneficial additions including the construction of a vestibule, choir stand, choir room, annex, Pastor's Study, Secretary's Office, baptismal pool, central heating, and air cooling system as well as new siding, pews, and carpet.

Over the past two hundred years, Mount Zion has been fortunate to have many dedicated pastors including Revs. Silas Richardson, J.H. Harrison, William Sayles, E.T. Banks, J.H. Williams, James Lee, W.H. Gaines, Gandhi G. Hester, Daniel L. Adams, Sr., and its current Pastor, George Magazine. The Church has also been fortunate to receive the service of numerous deacons, trustees and other officials over the years.

Their leadership helped the church thrive over its 200 year history. Examples of this include the organization of the Tones of Zion Gospel Chorus, the Youth Choir, the Male Chorus, the Nurses' Aides, the Christian Education Department, the Missionary Ministry, and publication of ``The Spirit of Zion'' newsletter, as well as additional Worship Sundays and the Wednesday night Praise and Prayer Service.

As Mount Zion Baptist Church gathers to celebrate its 200th anniversary, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future with great expectations. I would like to congratulate Pastor Magazine and all of the members of Mount Zion on this monumental occasion.

Madam Speaker, we need to work together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act; but, unfortunately, H.R. 4970 is seriously flawed and should not pass.

Among its many flaws, it harms immigrant women and fails to protect the LGBT community. It also creates new

mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively, and they've been found to be ineffective in addressing crime, while at the same time they distort the rational sentencing systems, they discriminate against minorities, and they often violate common sense.

Mandatory minimums can be particularly harmful in domestic relations cases, domestic violence cases where the victim and the abuser have a prior relationship, and where the victim of abuse may be less likely to report the abuse knowing that, if convicted, the abuser is certain to go to prison for 5 or 10 years without parole. That's why many organizations dedicated to ending domestic violence and working hard for the reauthorization of VAWA are opposed to the mandatory minimum provisions in the rule.

On top of these problems in the reported bill, the Rules Committee adopted a manager's amendment that, among other problems, deletes protections against discrimination in hiring by religious organizations using VAWA funds.

Since the 1960s, we have had, as a Federal policy, a prohibition against discrimination based on religion when using Federal funds. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had an exemption for churches and other religious organizations using their own funds to be able to consider religion in hiring. However, the manager's amendment specifically allows those groups to discriminate based on religion with Federal funds. We should not pass a bill that allows a person applying for a job paid for with Federal funds to be discriminated against based on religion.

Madam Speaker, we must work hard to reauthorize VAWA; but, unfortunately, H.R. 4970 in its current form is not the version of VAWA we should pass, and the rule does not allow amendments to improve the bill. So I urge defeat of this rule.

Madam Speaker, the possibility of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction being transported through border tunnels is frightening. The possibility of narcotics or trafficking victims being transported through tunnels is disturbing. And I have real concerns about tunnels being used for run-of-the-mill illegal immigration and to smuggle goods or merchandise.

But these things are already illegal. And the penalty for doing any of these things through a tunnel is already double what it would be if the unlawful activity had not made use of a tunnel.

When this bill, H.R. 4119, was in the Judiciary Committee, I commented on what I saw as the redundancies in the bill. We already have laws against constructing or financing a tunnel between the United States and another country. The penalty for violating the law is a fine and up to 20 years in prison. And we have laws against knowing, or recklessly disregarding, that land you own or lease is being used by someone else who is building a tunnel, The penalty for that is a fine and up to 10 years in prison.

H.R. adds attempts to the crimes already available to address border tunnels. Yet, I wonder how many cases there have been where a prosecutor was unable to prosecute someone for attempting to construct a tunnel under the current border tunnel law but would be able to under H.R. 4119? For U.S. prosecutorial jurisdiction, the tunnel would have to be started on the U.S. side and not yet have crossed the border into Mexico to be an attempted border tunnel, because if it has already crossed the border, it IS a border tunnel, so you don't need an attempt law. But even before such an attempt is started, and certainly after it is started, it is already a conspiracy to build a border tunnel, which is already covered by current law.

We have had no hearings in the House on these issues, so it is not clear what information we are operating on in developing this bill. The Department of Homeland Security reports that 154 border tunnels or attempted border tunnels have been found since 1990. Laura Duffy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, stated in testimony before the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control on June 15, 2011, that all of the tunnels discovered thus far were started in Mexico. So if it takes crossing the border to be a border tunnel, and all of them are started in Mexico, the ``attempt'' provision of H.R. 4119 does not seem like a very useful tool in addressing border tunnels. Conspiracy laws, which already exist, would seem to be of better use. And if existing conspiracy charges are not enough of a prosecutorial incentive, it would seem you would want to wait until the tunnel is actually being used so you can really rack up the penalties for drugs, goods or people smuggling which allows a doubling of penalties.

Duffy also stated in her testimony that in prosecuting tunnel-related crimes, the Department of Justice uses the range of drug charges under Title 21 because the drug charges carry ``stiff mandatory minimum sentences and sometimes enable prosecutors to use `career offender' sentencing enhancements.'' When you start doubling such drug penalties under the provisions of the current border tunnel law, you can easily get into sentences of many decades.

In addition to adding attempt and increasing the penalty for conspiracy, H.R. 4119 adds provisions for wire tap, forfeiture, and money laundering, which should always be done carefully, in my view. These are extraordinary government powers that were created and authorized to be used in extraordinary cases and circumstances, not to address ordinary crime. We have come to routinely add these authorities to deal with the crime du jour, further cluttering up an already bloated federal code with multiple, superfluous ways to charge every crime. There are no U.S. restrictions on the use of wiretaps outside the U.S. Since the tunnels are seemingly always started in Mexico, it is not clear what wiretap authorizations add to the investigative process.

We should not be decorating the criminal code with more and more pages. We ought to be simplifying the code. While I do think border tunnels are a serious problem, I believe we already have adequate laws with very harsh penalties to deal with the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis amendment.

The United States locks up a higher portion of its population than any country on Earth. And one of the contributing factors is the high rate of recidivism--people who get out of prison and then turn around, mess up, and return to prison.

Before the Second Chance Act of 2008, the Department of Justice's statistics reflected that about two-thirds of the offenders released from prison--two-thirds--were re-arrested within 2 years. Now that's down in some States to one-half. In my home State of Virginia, which has taken full advantage of the Second Chance Act and has enacted additional initiatives, the rate is down in the 30 percent range. So additional funding of this amendment will be very useful, and it shows that you can save money and reduce crime.

Now we need a lot more money than even this amendment would provide. Each year, 9 million individuals are released from jails, over 720,000 are released from State and Federal prisons, and they need a lot more assistance than even this amendment would do. But this amendment is a major step in the right direction. At least 95 percent of State prisoners will be released at some point, and they have a myriad of needs which, if unmet, will contribute to the risk of re-incarceration.

There are significant mental health problems that the Second Chance Act can address. Substance abuse is highly correlated with crime. Education--those who do not have adequate education will find themselves back in prison. And employment--those who, basically because they don't have an education, have trouble getting jobs, and having a felony record even exacerbates that problem. The Second Chance Act initiatives go a long way in helping. Basic secondary education, vocational training, and intense supervision all contribute to reductions in recidivism.

So, Madam Chair, if we are to lower crime rates, you can't think of a better investment than this amendment that we're considering today. We can save money and reduce crime and reduce victims. Please support the Davis amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is a difference in indigent legal representation in criminal cases and civil cases. The criminal defense, it's required by the Constitution that you have to provide that, and whatever it costs, the defendant is entitled to representation. In civil court, you don't have that technical requirement. But some of the cases where people need but cannot afford attorneys deal with some of the most important parts of our life: housing, family law, divorce, child custody, consumer rip-offs, health care, things where you actually need representation that legal aid provides.

Legal aid programs cannot meet the needs of their demands right now. Most legal aid programs, as the gentleman from Virginia said, turn down a lot more than they can take. And because of the recession, the demand is much higher than it has been in the past.

When you talk about rights, rights without remedies are no rights at all. When rights in our democracy depend on the generosity of a few pro bono attorneys, we're actually violating our democratic values.

As my colleague again mentioned, traditional Federal funding is down and another traditional funding for legal aid services--Interest on Lawyers Trust Account--is also way down because interest rates are at historic lows.

Mr. Chairman, we should support our democratic principles and support legal aid services and oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made that we depend on volunteer attorneys. We don't ask for physicians to volunteer. We don't depend on volunteer homebuilders or grocers or police officers or teachers. We shouldn't depend on essential services by asking only volunteers to meet the need. There are volunteer attorneys who volunteer a lot of time. But in terms of essential services, we shouldn't have a system where we depend on those volunteers. I would hope we would defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying Republican budget. The CBC budget is a plan that significantly reduces our deficit over the next decade while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society. Deficit reduction is about making tough choices, but the path to fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable communities.

Our budget makes those tough choices, but it doesn't jeopardize Social Security, turn Medicaid into a block grant, or dismantle the Medicare guarantee. The fundamental choice we have to make is a choice between millionaires and Medicare.

The CBC budget extends the Bush-era tax cuts only for hardworking middle class American families but pays for this extension through tax reform by closing corporate loopholes and giveaways, deterring aggressive speculation in the stock market--the speculation that helped create the 2008 fiscal crisis and the recent gas price increase--and we ensure that millionaires who benefited most from income growth, tax cuts, and bailouts in the last decade contribute their fair share.

With additional revenue, the CBC budget restores funding for important programs cut in the Budget Control Act of 2011, we cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs, and we match the Democratic alternative on defense spending. Our budget also makes targeted investments that will create jobs in the short term by funding transportation and infrastructure projects, and our budget will ensure our long-term prosperity by investing in education and job training initiatives, including an increase in the maximum Pell Grant by nearly $1,000, to $6,500.

The CBC budget will positively impact every sector of our economy, cement the foundation of a strong economic recovery, and reduce the deficit by $770 billion more over the next decade than the Republican budget, as this chart shows.

The CBC budget outlines specific recommendations to achieve this goal. The Republican budget, on the other hand, simply instructs the Ways and Means Committee to find $4 trillion in new revenues and then instructs the Appropriations Committee to find spending cuts in the range of almost a trillion dollars. In light of the fact that the supercommittee failed to find $1.2 trillion, it is unlikely that anybody will figure out how to fill this $5 trillion hole in the Republican budget. But even if they do, the CBC budget still has $770 billion more in deficit reduction than the Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, there is a clear difference between the Republican budget and the CBC budget, and that difference is the CBC budget chooses Medicare over millionaires. I urge my colleagues to support the Cleaver amendment to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future for America.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that the gentleman from Utah has suggested the need to reduce the deficit. The Congressional Black Caucus budget beats the Republican budget by $770 billion. Then he talks about tax increases, but doesn't mention the fine print in the Republican budget that instructs the Ways and Means Committee to find $4 trillion in tax increases.

So, if fiscal responsibility is the idea, the budget of the Congressional Black Caucus beats the Republican budget by $770 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise, on behalf of Congressman Scott Rigell and myself, to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Hampton High School Crabbers basketball team had a remarkable season. On March 11, Coach Walter Brower and the Crabbers won their first Virginia state basketball championship since 1997, their fifth overall, by defeating Petersburg High School of Petersburg, 64 51, at the VCU Siegel Center in Richmond, Virginia.

After not making it to last year's Eastern Region Tournament, the Crabbers came into this season as unlikely to win the state championship. However, as a result of tireless work on the part of both Hampton's players and coaches, the team was able to rise to a level that, given their performance last year, few would have thought achievable.

After three straight close games to begin the Virginia High School League tournament, including a near loss to the Bayside Marlins from Virginia Beach, the Crabbers never trailed their opponents in their final two games.

Although very accomplished in basketball, Hampton High's legacy of excellence is not limited to the field of athletics. Under the direction of Principal Myra Chambers, the Hampton faculty seeks to inspire all students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities.

As a direct descendent of the Syms-Eaton School, the first free school in America established in the American colonies, Hampton High has continued to uphold a tradition rooted in excellent public education. Affectionately known as the ``little Pentagon,'' Hampton has been selected in the past as one of the best schools in the United States when it received the national Award of Academic Excellence from the Department of Education. Hampton's commendation for this award read in part: Hampton High has seen ``the glory of a maturing nation and the pain of depression and warfare. Yet through it all, the school has always respected and upheld the traditional values of educational achievement and pride in one's community. . . .''

So, on this occasion, we would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Walter Brower, his coaching staff, the players on the Hampton High School Crabbers and to all Hampton High School students, families, friends and fans, for their continued dedication to excellence in winning the Group AAA Virginia High School League state basketball championship of 2012.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have difficult choices to make when it comes to addressing our budget deficit, but the Republican budget makes the wrong choices by deeply cutting vital programs like Medicare, Medicaid, education, job training, and transportation to pay for massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans.

Our Nation's communities of color have been hardest hit by the effects of the Great Recession, and the Republican budget does little to address the priorities of these communities. Even

as our Nation's economy has created nearly 3.9 million private sector jobs since February 2010, communities of color still are experiencing disproportionately higher rates of unemployment, home foreclosure, educational disadvantages, and economic hardship. As a result, vulnerable communities are increasingly relying on public programs to meet their basic needs.

With the passage of the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, then the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, these same vital programs have been slashed and targeted with even deeper cuts in the House Republican budget even as tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are extended without problems.

The Congressional Black Caucus has a long history of submitting fiscally sound and morally responsible alternatives to budgets proposed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. The CBC alternative budget for fiscal year 2013 continues that long tradition, putting forth a plan that reduces the deficit over the next decade. It alleviates some of the harm inflicted by the Budget Control Act, and increases economic opportunities and job creation by ensuring sustained investments in education, job training, transportation, infrastructure, and advanced research and development. The Congressional Black Caucus budget proposes significant increases in these functions of the budget for fiscal year 2013 to further accelerate our economic recovery and ensure a recovery is felt in every corner of our Nation. At the same time, the CBC budget protects and enhances the social safety net that saved millions of families from poverty during the Great Recession.

Unlike the proposed Republican budget, the CBC budget does not significantly reduce Medicaid or cut food assistance or force seniors to contribute more of their hard-earned money towards their health care expenses by dismantling Medicare and other vital support services. The CBC budget achieves all of this by making tough but responsible decisions to pay for tax cut extensions by making our tax system fairer, closing corporate loopholes and preferences that have contributed to the loss of American jobs.

Deficit reduction and the path of fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. We cannot win the future by leaving our most vulnerable behind. Our success as a Nation is interwoven in the success of every community, and this goal is reflected in the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget for fiscal year 2013.

Now let me go through some of the details of the budget, because many of the budgets that have been presented in the past have missing numbers or unspecified cuts or things that you know aren't going to happen. These are our recommendations for a budget and where we are on the bottom line.

The CBC budget assumes as its baseline all of the President's spending and revenue assumptions. The CBC budget then not only extends certain tax cuts but also pays for all of the tax cuts for hardworking, middle-class Americans, and then it enacts tax reform measures to pay for the extension, raising nearly $4 trillion in new revenue over the next decade.

We do that by:

Reining in Wall Street speculation with a financial speculation tax that will raise approximately $840.9 billion over 10 years;

Ensuring Wall Street bankers pay the same tax rates as working Americans by taxing carried interest, dividends, and capital gains as ordinary income, which will raise almost $1 trillion over 10 years;

Enacting the Buffett Rule and adding a millionaire surcharge similar to the legislation that was in the House version of the Affordable Care Act. That will raise approximately $600 billion over 10 years;

Closing certain tax loopholes and preferences. There are so many of them that, by closing those loopholes and deductions, we can raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years; and

Ending the mortgage interest deduction for vacation homes and yachts, which will add a few billion dollars over 10 years.

The bill also protects Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, welfare under TANF, unemployment insurance, and other vital safety net programs that are hit hard by the Republican budget.

We restore important funding for programs that were cut under the Budget Control Act, cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs, match the Democratic alternative budget on defense, and invest another $153 billion over the next decade in vital programs that will accelerate our economy and support hardworking American families.

We do that by increasing the maximum Pell Grant by $1,000, to a total of $6,500. We invest an additional $25 billion above the President's budget in education and job training in 2013 alone. We also continue unemployment benefits and provide benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks. We invest an additional $50 billion in job creating transportation and infrastructure programs in 2013, alone, and $155 billion above the President's budget over the next decade. We match the independent budget for Veterans Affairs, as recommended by a coalition of veterans' groups. We invest $12 billion more in advanced research and development programs like NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, which will create jobs now and in the future. We have additional funding for housing, foreclosure assistance, and other important programs and community development. We provide an additional $10 billion in vital health care programs, such as community health centers. And we create a public health insurance option under the Affordable Care Act, giving American people a real choice when the exchanges come into effect by allowing them to pick, as one of their choices, a public option. Adopting a public option has been scored as a $100 billion savings over 10 years because those programs will cost less.

When the dust settles, the CBC budget will reduce the deficit by an additional $769 billion as compared to the Republican budget over the next decade. Let me say that again. We will reduce the deficit by an additional $769 billion compared to the Republican budget over the next decade. It is more fiscally responsible. It addresses the needs of our public, and, therefore, I would hope that we would adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget and not the Republican budget that will be presented on the floor.

And I yield back to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for her very strong statement.

Mr. Speaker, we have tough choices to make; and when we start the discussion with how much people will get in tax cuts, you know the rest of the discussion will not be serious. We have decided if you're going to have tax cuts, if you're going to extend them, they have to be paid for. That is the historic contrast between the CBC budget and the Republican budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when people say we have to cut Medicare, they should look at the Republican budget because the only reason you have to cut Medicare is to fund the tax cuts. If you do not extend the tax cuts, you don't have to cut Medicare. When the same budget includes massive tax cuts and cuts in Medicare, people ought to notice that if you don't have the tax cuts, you don't have to cut Medicare.

Now, the Republican budget has virtually dismantled Medicare. It provides a voucher, but I think they like to call it--what?--a premium support something or other. Basically, you dismantle your right to Medicare, and you get some money to go see if you can buy some insurance in the private market. It turns out that the amount of money you're given--I'll call it a voucher--will be about $6,000 short of what you need to get the equivalent of Medicare coverage. That's where the savings is. You don't reduce the cost of health care; you just shift it over to the seniors.

Now, one of the ways they try to convince people to go along with it is they tell people who are paying attention, those over 55, they say, well, it's not going to apply to you. We will continue to plan for about 10 years, and then we'll inflict this scheme on everybody else.

Some people over 55 say, well, that's good, I don't have to worry about it. Well, actually, people over 55 do have to worry about it because the people making the promise that you will be able to have a Cadillac Medicare program when people coming behind have a little motor scooter for their health care, and you think people are going to pay taxes, when they're going to get a motor scooter, for your Cadillac plan--I think the idea that they're going to continue paying those taxes are remote.

You have to notice that 10 years from now, when the decision gets made to

start to inflict this scheme on the younger people, the people who will be keeping the promise for those over 55 aren't the ones that made the promise. They will be new representatives who don't have any commitment to keeping that promise. In fact, election after election, some of the younger people may ask, well, are you going to continue taxing me to support a Medicare program when all I'm going to get is a voucher? I want to know which one of the candidates will either cancel the Medicare for everybody and have everybody get this little voucher thing, or continue the Medicare program for everybody. I want to know if anybody up there is going to tax me for a Medicare program that I'm not going to get. And after five election cycles, the people that survive that will be the ones dealing with the promise that others made.

I doubt if any of them will be able to sustain that kind of pressure. When the time comes, either everybody will get this little voucher thing or everybody will get a Medicare card. The idea that some will get a nice, big Medicare package and everybody else coming behind get a little piece of voucher and think that's going to be sustained for any length of time, I think they've got another thought coming.

So people ought to recognize that even those over 55 have to protect Medicare. And the reason it's being cut is so that millionaires can get their tax cuts. You let those millionaires' tax cuts expire, you don't have to cut Medicare.

Now, as the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands said, we have a responsible budget. We name the cuts that are made. We name the taxes that will be affected. And you can see exactly what we're doing. Unfortunately, in the Republican budget, you get these unspecified cuts, 19 percent on average. Well, you know it's not going to be on average. It's not going to be across the board because some programs won't be cut. You're not going to cut the FBI by 19 percent. You're not going to cut Federal prisons by 19 percent. So all those that you don't cut you end up having to double up to meet your number, you've got to double up on the next one.

So we have no idea what's going to happen, other than all of these kind of unspecified cuts. And hopefully everybody's thinking, well, that's not going to be my program, that's not the one I depend on, when in fact it might not only be 19 percent, it might be 20, 30, 40 percent cuts in those programs.

The fact is that the Congressional Black Caucus budget is a responsible budget, and it comes in almost $800 billion better on the bottom line than the Republican budget that will be the alternative. We have shown that you can be responsible, you can be compassionate, and you can be fiscally responsible. That's the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to