Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 852) raising awareness and encouraging prevention of stalking by establishing January 2008 as ``National Stalking Awareness Month,'' as amended.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 852, joining the strong bipartisan effort to raise awareness in the toll that stalking takes on our society. Every year, stalking affects approximately 1.4 million Americans of both genders, all races, ages, sexual orientation, disabilities, and economic status.

The consequences of stalking are serious. Stalking can paralyze the victim with fear, which is well founded, because stalking often leads to physical attacks from the victim. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government not only recognize stalking as a crime, but categorize it as a felony.

Stalkers cause their victims severe emotional distress, including anxiety, insomnia, social dysfunction and depression, all of which can affect all aspects on a person's life, including family, social activities and work. In fact, the emotional distress is so disabling that 11 percent of stalking victims have been forced to relocate their homes, 30 percent report seeking psychological counseling, and 74 percent report being stalked in a way that interferes with their employment.

Of course, the ultimate threat of stalking is to the victim's very life.

Over 75 percent of women murdered by an intimate partner had been stalked by that partner, and 54 percent of female murder victims had reported being stalked to police before being killed by their stalkers. With the rapid advancements in technology, stalkers

have ever-increasing access to personal information of their victims, raising their victims' vulnerability to an all-time high.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 852 and recognizing January 2008 as National Stalking Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue and I urge the House to support this important legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3992) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide grants for the improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illnesses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3992, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. Since the 1960s, State mental health hospitals have increasingly reduced their populations of mentally ill individuals in response to a nationwide call for deinstitutionalization.

The move toward deinstitutionalization was based on the fact that mentally ill individuals are constitutionally entitled to refuse treatment, or at least to have it provided in the least restrictive environment. Unfortunately, neither the local governments for the States nor the Federal Government have invested the necessary resources to meet the needs for community-based mental health treatment and services created and needed by deinstitutionalization.

A 2006 report by the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics entitled ``Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates'' suggests that the criminal justice system has become, by default, the primary caregiver of the most seriously mentally ill individuals. The bureau reports that over one-half of the prison and jail population of this country is mentally ill. More specifically, 56 percent of State prisoners, 45 percent of Federal prisoners, and 64 percent of jail inmates have some degree of mental illness.

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill reports that, on any given day, there are at least 284,000 seriously mentally ill people in hospitals and jails in this country, such as people suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or serious depression. However, only 187,000 of them are in mental health facilities. This issue is of particular concern in Virginia, my home State.

In August of 2007, the Virginia General Assembly's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission released a 200-page report on the state of mental health services in Virginia. The report revealed a number of disturbing facts, among them that there are more people with mental illness behind bars in Virginia than there are in mental health facilities, with hospital care accounting for only a fraction of the needs of our State's estimated 400,000 mentally ill individuals in Virginia.

Since deinstitutionalization in Virginia, the daily number of mentally ill adults in State hospitals has dropped

from 11,532 to 1,452, a drop of 87 percent. Of the 6,350 mentally ill individuals in hospitals and jails on a given day, 60 percent were actually in jails because regional mental health facilities are not providing inpatient mental health services.

Since 1991, the number of psychiatric beds available has dropped by 800, or 31 percent, and the beds that are available are concentrated in one area of the State. In fact, there are no freestanding, profitable psychiatric hospitals west of Richmond.

These findings in Virginia are similar to those across the Nation that were discussed at a hearing that we held this spring in our subcommittee which revealed that our criminal justice system is serving as the primary caregiver for our mentally ill individuals.

One piece of good news in all of this focus on mental health in the criminal justice system is that mental health courts have proven to be a helpful tool for helping mentally ill individuals in several communities that have such programs. H.R. 3992 will assist further in this regard.

First, it will reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction grant program, increasing the current authorization from $50 million to $75 million. It will also reauthorize the mental health courts program, and will expand the permissible use of funds to include pretrial services and funding for alternatives to incarceration.

Additionally, H.R. 3992 creates four new grant programs. One will provide grants to States and other law enforcement agencies to help officers learn how to access individuals with mental health illnesses and to work with the local agencies to provide the most effective placement for a person in custody.

Another program will provide grants to help correctional agencies learn how to identify and screen mentally ill prisoners so they can get help while incarcerated, or even be placed in alternatives to incarceration. These grants will also help correctional services plan for reentry into the community.

Another program provides grants to States to coordinate and improve the treatment of mentally ill offenders, including facilitating information sharing between agencies. The grant will also encourage States to promote evidence-based practices to improve treatment and services.

Lastly, a new program will provide States and units of local government to improve the treatment of female offenders with mental illnesses and create family support services and intensive case management.

The total cost for the new programs will be $35 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2013. That amount is much less than we are currently spending on incarcerating mentally ill offenders who often have to be placed not only in isolated cells, but also in isolated areas to avoid disturbance of other inmates.

Despite common misconceptions, the majority of mentally ill people who are arrested and incarcerated are low-level, nonviolent offenders. These programs will help jurisdictions to assist mentally ill persons and help keep them from unnecessarily going to jails and prisons.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I include for the Record a letter from the Council of State Governments Justice Center in support of this legislation.

Justice Center,

The Council of State Governments,

Bethesda, MD, October 24, 2007.

Hon. Robert c. Scott,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Randy Forbes,

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Scott and Forbes: On behalf of the Council

of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, we want to thank

you for introducing the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and

Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of

2007''. We are grateful to you for your leadership and

continued support of the program.

The CSG Justice Center serves all states to promote

effective data-driven practices--particularly in areas in

which the criminal justice system intersects with other

systems, such as mental health--to increase public safety and

strengthen communities. Consistent with this mission, we have

committed for some time to convening and supporting leaders

in the criminal justice and mental health systems to improve

the criminal justice system's response to people with mental

illness.

Since the authorization of the Mentally Ill Offender Act,

the program has helped states and counties design and

implement collaborative efforts between the criminal justice

and mental health systems. The grants can be used for a broad

range of activities, including mental health courts, mental

health and substance abuse treatment for incarcerated

mentally ill offenders, community re-entry services, and

cross-training of criminal justice, law enforcement, and

mental health personnel.

As you know, approximately 16 percent of the adult jail and

prison population (350,000 individuals) has a serious mental

illness, according to a study by the Justice Department's

Bureau of Justice Statistics. The DOJ also estimates that the

prevalence of emotional disturbances among youth in our

juvenile justice facilities is even higher. Many of these

individuals have not been charged with violent crimes, but

rather low level misdemeanors. Treating offenders with mental

illnesses in the community can save money by avoiding the

high cost-per-day of jail and prison stays and expensive

psychiatric services during incarceration. The Mentally Ill

Offender program provides assistance to states and

communities to develop new--or expand existing--programs that

can both increase public safety and help these individuals

return to productive lives.

We are very grateful for your continued leadership on this

important issue. We look forward to working with you in

support of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime

Reduction Reauthorization Act. Its enactment is one of our

top federal priorities.

Sincerely,

Michael Festa,

Executive Secretary of Elder Affairs, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

Thomas Stickrath,

Director. Ohio Department of Youth Service.

Sharon Keller,

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas.

Pat Colloton,

Kansas House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3971) to encourage States to report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3971 is entitled the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2008. It will reauthorize the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 which actually expired on December 31, 2006.

This is a bipartisan effort which I introduced with my colleague from Virginia, Representative Randy Forbes, and who was, at that time, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime. Its purpose is to provide continued and improved oversight over the conduct of law enforcement officials during arrest and imprisonment of fellow citizens.

Before the enactment of the Death in Custody Act of 2000, States and localities had no uniform requirements for reporting the circumstances surrounding the deaths of persons in their custody, and some had no system for requiring such reports. The lack of uniform reporting requirements made it impossible to ascertain how many people were dying in custody and from what causes, although estimates by those concerned suggested that there were more than 1,000 deaths in custody each year, some under very suspicious circumstances.

Consequently, an environment of suspicion and concern arose surrounding

many of those deaths. Some that were ruled suicides or deaths from natural causes were suspected of being homicides committed by officers, fellow prisoners or others. Indifference to prisoner rights and the safety of those in custody made scrutiny of suspected deaths a low priority, so such questionable causes were rarely investigated.

In the mid-1980s, researchers, reporters, prison and jail accreditation organizations, prison reformers, activists, and others began to give more scrutiny to the death rate in our Nation's jails and prisons and to the fact that such deaths were not being routinely reported to anybody.

In fact, by 1986, only 25 States and the District of Columbia even had jail inspection units. Moreover, even the States that did report deaths did it on the basis of different reporting standards. The insufficient data and the lack of uniformity of the data collected made oversight of prisoner safety woefully inadequate.

However, the interest in oversight that emerged shed light on the conditions in State and local jails, which began a rising tide of wrongful death litigation. The increasing litigation forced some measure of accountability, and conditions somewhat improved. Moreover, activism and news of the litigation spurned by media interests, and that shed further light on the conditions in our present jails and prisons.

The watershed moment for bringing the death in custody rate to national attention occurred in 1995. After a 1-year investigation by journalist Mike Masterson into prison conditions and the death rate of persons in custody, the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey ran a series of award-winning editorials that brought the seriousness of the lack of reporting to the Nation's attention. The editorials went on to detail abuses, including racially motivated violence, overzealous police investigations, cover-ups and general law enforcement incompetence, which prompted Congress to take action.

Following successive introduction of bills in several Congresses by my colleagues from Arkansas, first Representative Tim Hutchinson, then later Representative Asa Hutchinson, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was passed. The law required States receiving certain Federal grants to comply with reporting requirements established by the Attorney General.

Since the enactment in 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has compiled a number of statistics detailing the circumstances of prisoner deaths, the rate of deaths in prison and jails, and the rate of deaths based on the size of various facilities and so forth. But the most astounding statistic reported since the enactment of the bill before is the latest Bureau of Justice statistics report dated August 2005, which shows a 64 percent decline in suicides and a 93 percent decline in homicides in custody since 1980. Those statistics showing a significant decline in the death rate in our Nation's prisons and jails since stricter oversight has been in place suggest that the oversight measures, such as the Death in Custody Reporting Act, play an important role in ensuring the safety and security of prisoners who are in the custody of State facilities.

In considering the reauthorization of the bill, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security examined the statistics and heard testimony from witnesses whose testimony also supported the suggestion that oversight has actually improved conditions. Convinced of the effectiveness of the Death in Custody Act, we resolved to not only reauthorize it but also improve it.

To ascertain the most effective use of the statistical data, H.R. 3971 differs from the original bill in that it authorizes $500,000 for a study to determine which policies and procedures have, in fact, led to or at least assisted the decreasing death rate among prisoners.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Forbes, for his support of the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 261, introduced by my friend and colleague from Virginia's Second Congressional District, Congresswoman Thelma Drake, to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the sailing of the Navy's ``Great White Fleet'' from Hampton Roads, Virginia.

On December 16, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt dispatched sixteen new battleships at the 1907 Jamestown Exposition on a global deployment to show the world that the United States had emerged as a global naval power. These sixteen ships were painted white, with gilded scrollwork on their bows, and became known as the ``Great White Fleet.''

Made up of four squadrons of four battleships each and manned by 14,000 sailors, the ships sailed 43,000 miles and made 20 port calls on six continents in 14 months. The fleet helped shore up American diplomatic efforts and friendships around the world, proving the success of pragmatic diplomatic policy. The fleet was greeted enthusiastically in nearly every port, where people in the thousands turned out to see America's new fleet. The fleet also responded to one of the worst earthquakes in European history by diverting to Sicily to offer humanitarian aid to the people of Italy.

On February 22, 1909, President Roosevelt returned to Hampton Roads, Virginia to witness the triumphant return of the ``Great White Fleet.'' President Roosevelt saw the fleet's successful global voyage as one of his administration's major accomplishments by enhancing the role of the United States in international affairs. Few can deny the historical importance of President Roosevelt's decision to deploy the ``Great White Fleet'' around the world.

Seven of the 16 great battleships that constituted the ``Great White Fleet'' were built in my hometown of Newport News, Virginia at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, today known as Northrop Grumman Newport News. Although the ``Great White Fleet'' demonstrated that America was an emerging seapower, the success of the ``Great White Fleet'' made Newport News and the Hampton Roads area a powerhouse for shipbuilding. One hundred years later, Northrop Grumman Newport News is still leading the way in the shipbuilding industry by building some of the most powerful and advanced ships for the United States Navy. Northrop Grumman Newport News has already begun work on the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, the newest

and most advanced generation of air craft carrier, to lead the U.S. Navy into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, the voyage of the ``Great White Fleet'' has proven to be a pivotal event in the history of this great Nation. While impacting the entire United States, the impression of the ``Great White Fleet'' can be most felt in Hampton Roads, Virginia. In addition to being home to one of the Nation's most important shipbuilding facilities at Newport News, the world's largest naval base is located just across the Hampton Roads in Norfolk, Virginia. The citizens of Hampton Roads should feel very proud about the role of our region in one of the most important nautical voyages in American history. I urge my colleagues to support this important concurrent resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, arson is indeed a very serious problem, costing over $1 billion in property damage annually and endangering the lives of citizens and especially our firefighters. Arson has also one of the lowest arrest and conviction rates, and law enforcement needs new tools to enhance their capabilities to solve arson crimes.

Unfortunately, the evidence presented in committee was that the State of California already has a registry similar to the one contemplated in the bill and no arsons have been solved by that database.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would need to point out another concern I have with H.R. 1759 in its current form. That concern relates to the treatment of juveniles under the proposed bill. Juveniles who are charged and convicted as adults for arson offenses would be required to register in the newly created arson offender registry. As research clearly indicates, of all offenders, juveniles are the least culpable due to immature brain development, and they have the greatest capacity for rehabilitation. Branding them as an offender in a State or national register is not only improper, it's counterproductive.

Requiring young offenders to register in a State or national offender database counters the concept of ensuring the proper development of juveniles because it is inconsistent with rehabilitative efforts. Although H.R. 1759 properly ensures that only law enforcement will have access to information on the registries, law enforcement officers will undoubtedly use the information to label and target youth for further arrests. Once law enforcement has certain youngsters on their radar, those youngsters would be targets and more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for even minor nonviolent conduct because law enforcement officials have their names on a list.

In summary, I agree that law enforcement needs effective tools to combat the devastation of arson causes, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her hard work in developing the bill and making many improvements in the bill from its original form. However, I still have concerns about the cost effectiveness of the proposal in the bill as well as concerns, the impact the legislation will have on juvenile offenders.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the slaughtering of individuals simply because they are a member of a certain ethnic or racial group has occurred throughout history, and, regrettably, continues today. As we witnessed, as many as 800,000 of the Tutsi minority, men, women and children, were murdered in Rwanda. Mass violence has occurred against civilians in Bosnia, where up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys were systematically executed.

The obligations of the United States under the Genocide Convention are in the criminal code in title 18 beginning at section 1091. Genocide is defined as having the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The code offers severe punishment for anyone who commits genocide within the United States. The law also makes it a Federal crime for a U.S. national to commit genocide anywhere in the world. Fortunately, there has not been a need to use the law against anyone now covered by it. However, by only covering genocide if it is committed in this country or committed by a U.S. national, we leave a gap which allows non-U.S. persons who commit genocide elsewhere to come to this country with impunity under our laws.

To this end, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) introduced identical legislation designed to amend title 18 of the United States Code to expand jurisdiction of genocide over the following categories of people who have committed genocide outside of the United States: (1) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (2) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or (3) an individual physically present in the United States.

Similar to the legislation before us, many other Federal laws, including

those laws that criminalize torture, allow for the extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the United States by those present in the United States.

Genocide continues to be a threat in the world and we should attack it wherever we find it. In Darfur, we see the tragic replay of suffering and death. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed, raped, tortured, or forced to flee, and over 2 million people have been driven from their homes. For them, the commitment of ``never again'' after the Holocaust rings hollow. The United States should have the ability to prosecute those who find safe haven in the United States for their acts of genocide. The Genocide Accountability Act would end this impunity gap in the genocide law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007. Human trafficking for exploitive labor, sex or other exploitive reasons, is equivalent to modern-day slavery in many instances and requires a concerted effort among the nations of the world not only to control it, but eventually to end it. I am pleased that the United States is leading an effort to root out this dreadful form of misery and suffering, and I am proud to be part of that effort.

Of course, we need to make sure that we do what we can to stop and prevent it here in the United States. In this regard, I am particularly pleased with the provisions in the bill which strengthen the ability of the Department of Justice to deal with abusive commercial sex traffickers who have been able to victimize women and children with relative impunity because of the difficulty of getting victims to testify as to force, fraud or coercive tactics or to show that they were trafficked across State lines.

The bill also strengthens the ability of the Department of Justice to address domestic sex trafficking by transferring the responsibility of the prosecuting domestic sex trafficking cases from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice to the Criminal Division, both when it is commercial sex trafficking, where force, fraud and coercion can be proved, and when it is trafficking where force, fraud and coercion cannot be proved. The Civil Rights Division continues to have jurisdiction in cases where slavery is involved, but the existence of force, fraud or coercion in commercial sex trafficking cases in and of itself does not constitute the conditions of slavery which the Civil Rights Division prosecutes as a civil rights violation.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your leadership on efforts to address warrantless surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or ``FISA'' and for introducing a bill that corrects many of the shortcomings of the bill that passed the House last August.

The RESTORE Act establishes a strong framework, much stronger than the Administration's PROTECT Act, to fight terrorism effectively, while providing reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy.

One important change in the Restore Act is that it draws the appropriate distinctions based on the physical location and types of targets. There has never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people all of whom are overseas does not need any warrant at all. This bill rightly makes it clear that no court orders are required for the government to conduct surveillance on foreign targets outside the United States, even if the technical surveillance is conducted on U.S. soil. But if any surveillance is intentionally conducted on a U.S. person, this bill makes it clear that the government needs to apply for an individual warrant to conduct that surveillance. And if information on U.S. persons is incidentally collected, the Manager's Amendment to the bill rightly limits dissemination of that information among government agencies.

Second, the bill removes vague and overbroad language from the bill passed in August that would allow the wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was ``concerning'' a foreign target. That, by its own wording, suggests that if two citizens are in the United States talking about somebody overseas, that you could wiretap their communications without a warrant. The bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the communications must be overseas, not just that the subject of their conversation must be overseas.

Third, the RESTORE Act goes a step further than the Administration's bill and allows for the expanded wiretapping authority only in cases involving ``national security,'' as opposed to the over-expansive ``foreign intelligence.'' ``Foreign intelligence'' could include trade, deals or anything involving general foreign affairs activities.

Finally, the RESTORE Act was made even stronger in Committee by requiring the Department of Justice, in its application to the Court, to identify the ``primary purpose'' of its wiretapping. Under the original FISA, when an agent wanted to obtain the authority to conduct electronic surveillance or secret searches, a certificate was necessary detailing what the purpose of the surveillance was in order to obtain the warrant. The standard was altered by the Patriot Act, which provided that obtaining foreign intelligence only has to be ``a significant purpose.''

We have to put this change in context because the Department of Justice has not credibly refuted the allegations that some U.S. Attorneys were fired, because they failed to indict Democrats in time to affect an upcoming election. So if the Department of Justice wiretapped someone when foreign intelligence was not the primary purpose, you have to wonder what the primary purpose was. This bill would allow the surveillance to be conducted but the administration would be required to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap to the secret FISA court.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we do not have to balance security and privacy. It is therefore important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill, it can do under this bill. We just require them to get a warrant before they do it, or if they are in a hurry, get a warrant after they do it, but they can wiretap and get the information. We just provide a modicum of oversight to ensure that our laws are being obeyed. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will establish a grant program at the U.S. Department of Education to encourage and enhance the study of Modeling and Simulation at institutions of higher education.

Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. Modeling and Simulation technology allows us to easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems.

Earlier this year, this body passed by voice vote House Resolution 487, introduced by my Virginia colleague Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, which recognized Modeling and Simulation as a national critical technology.

This critical technology allows us to build and develop computer models of complex systems--whether a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan--to see how certain actions will affect the end result. These simulations help us develop better and practical analogies of real world situations. Modeling and Simulation is a rapidly expanding field and we must ensure that the United States maintains its competitive edge in this field by expanding Modeling and Simulation programs at our institutions of higher education.

The bill that I am introducing today will ensure that this national critical technology is expanded at our Nation's colleges and universities. Specifically, the bill will establish a grant program for colleges and universities to enhance and improve already established Modeling and Simulation programs. Colleges and universities without Modeling and Simulation

programs can also use the grant to establish their own program. The bill will also create a task force at the Department of Education to support the development of the Modeling and Simulation field, including helping to further define the study and identify the best practices of Modeling and Simulation.

I am proud to represent the people and businesses of the Third Congressional District of Virginia who are leading the way in the Modeling and Simulation field. Numerous colleges and universities in the Hampton Roads area, such as Hampton University, Norfolk State University, and Old Dominion University, have Modeling and Simulation programs. Old Dominion University is one of the few universities that has both an undergraduate degree program and a graduate degree program in Modeling and Simulation. ODU's Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk, Virginia is a premier facility that is second to none.

The grant program established by this legislation will go a long way in helping universities that have Modeling and Simulation programs expand and enhance their programs, as well as helping universities without a Modeling and Simulation program establish their own program. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation to ensure that the United States maintains its competitive advantage in the critical national technology field of Modeling and Simulation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3013) to provide appropriate protection to attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 3013, the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007 on July 12 of this year. At the time, I was joined by eight original bipartisan cosponsors, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers; ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith; Crime Subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Forbes; and other members, Mr. Coble, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Feeney and Mr. Roskam. I would like to take a moment to personally thank each of them for their support.

The purpose of H.R. 3013 is fairly simple and straightforward. It is designed to prevent a practice that has regrettably become too common in many of Federal Government's recent investigations into corporate wrongdoing. I am specifically referring to the government's use of what are called ``coercive waivers'' to gain access to privileged communications that otherwise would remain private and protected under the constitutional doctrine of attorney-client privilege.

Coercing waivers of corporate attorney-client privilege has not always been the practice among Federal prosecutors. Formerly, a company could produce evidence of its ``cooperation'' with prosecutors by providing insight into relevant corporate information, as well as by providing general access to the company's workplace and its employees. Unfortunately, since that time, memoranda issued by the Department of Justice suggest that the policy has changed to one which now exposes corporations to an increased risk of prosecution if they claim this constitutionally protected privilege.

One of the first such memoranda was issued in 1999. The Holder memorandum was designed to provide prosecutors with factors to be considered when determining whether to charge a corporation with criminal activity, and specifically allowed prosecutors, in gauging the extent of a corporation's cooperation, to consider the corporation's willingness to waive attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege.

This memorandum was superceded in 2003 by the Thompson memorandum. This memorandum contained the same language regarding the waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product privileges and also addressed the adverse weight that might be given to a corporation's participation in a joint defense agreement with its officers or employees and its agreement to pay legal fees.

Today, the current Department policies relating to corporate attorney-client privilege and work-product privileges are embodied in the McNulty memorandum, issued in December of last year. While this new memorandum does state that the waiver requests should be the exception rather than the rule, it continues to threaten the viability of attorney-client privilege in business organizations by allowing prosecutors to request a waiver of privilege upon the finding of so- called ``legitimate need.''

I fully recognize the Department may face hurdles when undertaking investigations and prosecutions of corporate malfeasance. We look at the victims of Enron's collapse, the nearly 10,000 individuals who lost their jobs and pensions, their plans for their future, and know how vital it is for Federal prosecutors to have the tools necessary to prosecute these crimes and hold accountable wrongdoers who profit at the expense of ordinary working men and women. However, I also believe that facilitating and even encouraging such investigations should not come at the expense of vital constitutionally protected rights.

H.R. 3013 therefore prohibits the demanding of constitutionally protected materials as a necessary condition of receiving favorable consideration in decisions relating to prosecution and sentencing. This bill is supported by diverse groups such as the American Bar Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Heritage Foundation. That said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank the bipartisan members of the committee who have joined me in supporting this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a letter from the American Bar Association outlining their support for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House would adopt the bill.

American Bar Association,

Chicago, IL, November 8, 2007.

Re H.R. 3013, the ``Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act

of 2007.''

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar

Association (``ABA'') and its more than 415,000 members, I

write to express our strong support for H.R. 3013, the

``Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2007.'' This

bipartisan bill, sponsored by Representatives Bobby Scott,

John Conyers, Lamar Smith, Randy Forbes, and eight other

Members of Congress from both parties, was approved

unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee on August 1 and

will be considered by the full House next week under

suspension of the rules. We urge you to vote in favor of this

important legislation.

H.R. 3013 is a comprehensive reform measure designed to

roll back a number of harmful federal agency policies that

are seriously eroding the attorney-client privilege, the work

product doctrine and the constitutional rights of employees.

Although all of these federal policies raise concerns, the

most problematic is the Department of Justice's policy--set

forth in the 2003 ``Thompson Memorandum'' and 2006 ``McNulty

Memorandum''--that pressures companies and other

organizations to waive their privileges as a condition for

receiving cooperation credit, and hence leniency, during

investigations. In addition, these federal policies contain

separate provisions that violate employees' Sixth Amendment

right to counsel and Fifth Amendment right against self-

incrimination by pressuring companies to not pay their

employees' legal fees during investigations, to fire the

employees for not waiving their rights, or to take other

punitive actions against them long before any guilt has been

established.

Despite the serious concerns raised by congressional

leaders, former Justice Department officials, and the legal

and business communities, the Department of Justice and other

federal agencies have refused to reverse or fundamentally

change their harmful privilege waiver or employee rights

policies. Although the Department reluctantly issued new

cooperation guidelines on December 12, 2006 as part of the

McNulty Memorandum, the new policy falls far short of what is

needed to prevent further erosion of fundamental attorney-

client privilege, work product, and employee legal

protections.

As demonstrated by the report that former Delaware Chief

Justice Norman Veasey recently sent to congressional leaders,

the McNulty Memorandum has not significantly reduced the

incidence of government coerced waiver, and federal

prosecutors continue to routinely demand waiver of the

privilege during investigations despite the new policy. (The

Veasey Report is available at http://www.abanetorg/poladv/ priorities/privilegewaiver/cjveaseyletter.pdf.) As a result,

the Department's new policy continues to seriously weaken the

confidential attorney-client relationship between companies

and their lawyers, which, in turn, impedes the lawyers'

ability to conduct thorough internal investigations and

effectively counsel compliance with the law. This harms

companies, employees and the investing public as well.

In addition, while the McNulty Memorandum bars prosecutors

from requiring companies to not pay their employees' legal

fees in some cases, it continues to allow the practice in

many instances. The new Department policy and other similar

federal policies also continue to deny cooperation credit to

companies that assist employees with their legal defenses or

decline to fire them for exercising their Fifth Amendment

rights. By forcing companies to punish employees long before

any guilt has been shown, these federal policies weaken the

constitutional presumption of innocence and undermine

principles of sound corporate governance.

H.R. 3013 would reverse these harmful policies by

prohibiting federal agencies from pressuring companies or

other organizations to waive their privileges or take certain

unfair punitive actions against their employees as conditions

for receiving cooperation credit during investigations. At

the same time, however, the bill specifically preserves the

ability of prosecutors and other federal officials to obtain

the important, non-privileged factual material they need to

punish wrongdoers and enforce the law. In our view, H.R. 3013

would strike the proper balance between effective law

enforcement and the preservation of essential attorney-client

privilege, work product and employee legal protections, and

we urge you to support the bill during next week's floor

vote.

Thank you for considering the views of the American Bar

Association on this subject, which is of such vital

importance to our system of justice. If you have any

questions regarding the ABA's views or need more information,

please ask your staff to contact Larson Frisby of the ABA

Governmental Affairs Office at (202) 662-1098.

Sincerely,

William H. Neukom,

President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Second Chance Act and would like to commend Mr. Davis from Illinois and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for their continued leadership on this bill and also acknowledge the dedication and tireless efforts of many members of the diverse coalition of national, State and local organizations referred to by Chairman Conyers.

While our national crime rates may have fallen significantly over the last decade, we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Today, over 2.2 million people are incarcerated in Federal and State jails and prisons, a 10-fold increase since 1980 and at a present cost of $65 billion.

As a result of this focus on incarceration, the United States leads the world in per capita incarceration rates, over 700 per 100,000 population. While most of the world locks up about 50 to 200 per 100,000, the United States is first in the world at over 700 per 100,000. And as a result, more than 650,000 people will be released from Federal and State prisons to communities nationwide, along with 9 million people leaving local jails.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that two-thirds of the offenders leave State and Federal prisons are rearrested in 3 years. If we are to reduce the number of inmates returning to prison, we need to provide our ex- offenders with the education and training necessary for them to obtain and hold steady jobs. They also need drug treatment, and medical and mental health services to decrease the chances they will come back to prison.

The Second Chance Act will provide these investments, and every study shows it will not only reduce crime but also save money in the process. Mr. Speaker, it is very infrequent that we have the opportunity to reduce crime and save money. I hope we will take that opportunity today and pass this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, historically black colleges and universities play a pivotal role in America's higher education system and continue to educate many black American students as well as students of other races every year.

Today, we have over 100 historically black colleges and universities in the Nation, 5 percent of our colleges and universities; yet these institutions award almost 30 percent of all college degrees obtained by African Americans. In some areas of science, math and engineering, these colleges account for almost half or more of such degrees awarded to African Americans. HBCUs are also responsible for a large number of graduate and professional degrees earned by African Americans.

This bill will provide the necessary capital that will ensure that HBCUs have all of the options available to them in order to maintain their excellent standard of education.

This bill is supported by the Department of Education and three historically black college and university advocacy groups; the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, or NAFEO; Thurgood Marshall College Fund; and the United Negro College Fund.

I would like to thank the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, and particularly thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, as well as their staffs who worked so hard to address this issue in a timely manner. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007, introduced by my colleague from Virginia's Ninth Congressional District, Congressman Rick Boucher. I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this important conservation legislation in this Congress and in the last Congress and I commend Congressman Boucher for all his hard work on this bill over the years.

This bipartisan bill will protect approximately 54,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia through the designation of additional wilderness areas and the creation of new National Scenic Areas. Although mechanized traffic and equipment would be prohibited in much of these areas, recreational activities would be permitted and encouraged throughout these new designations contributing to the local economy of Southwest Virginia. Protecting these additional acres of pristine forest will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the natural beauty of Southwest Virginia. We must also be vigilant in protecting environmentally sensitive areas by promoting responsible land use plans, which this bill does.

The bill before us today was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote, is endorsed by the U.S. Forest Service, and is supported by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, members from both parties in the Virginia delegation, both of Virginia's Senators, John Warner and Jim Webb, the Board of Supervisors in Bland County, Craig County, Montgomery County, and Smyth County, and various environmental organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, the Garden Club of Virginia, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Virginia Wilderness Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is vitally important to conservation efforts in the Commonwealth of Virginia and to guaranteeing that future generations of Americans can experience the natural wonder and beauty of Southwest Virginia. I applaud Congressman Boucher and his staff for all of their hard work on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation and I encourage each of them to experience firsthand the pristine natural beauty of Southwest Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. While the bill vetoed by President Bush was a watered down version of the bill passed by the House, it was at least a step in the right direction.

The SCHIP bill that Congress sent to the President was a bipartisan effort that renews and improves the Children's Health Insurance program, providing health care coverage for 10 million children. This bill preserves coverage for the 6 million children currently covered by SCHIP and expands coverage to nearly 4 million more uninsured children.

Madam Speaker, two-thirds of Americas' uninsured children are currently eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled for various reasons. This bill gives states the resources and incentives to enroll, those children.

The President's budget proposal would have increased SCHIP by $5 billion over the next 5 years. This increase fails to cover the costs of simply maintaining the current SCHIP enrollment of 6 million children. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 5 years, the President's budget would result in over 1 million children losing their SCHIP coverage.

Madam Speaker, the SCHIP reauthorization is supposed to be a bill to expand coverage, not reduce it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 222, which honors the NASA Langley Research Center on its 90th Anniversary. Started in 1917 as the nation's first aeronautical research laboratory, NASA Langley has become a world leader in aeronautics research and has led the charge in developing technology to improve the field of aeronautics. NASA Langley has worked to improve aircraft landing systems, the shape of aircraft wings, and the safety of hypersonic flight. NASA Langley also tests the configuration of many commercial and military aircraft models in its unique wind tunnel system. Finally, the Center is conducting work to enable pilots to better land in bad weather through the use of satellite and global positioning information. These improvements have led and will continue to lead to critical advances in both commercial and military aircraft. The increased safety resulting from these advances benefits us all.

NASA Langley has also played a key role in furthering space exploration. From the first manned space exploration mission to sending landers and rovers to Mars, NASA Langley has made significant contributions to make these journeys possible. NASA Langley trained the original seven astronauts who flew with the Mercury 7 mission--the first national manned space flight. The Center also led the Viking mission to Mars--the first successful U.S. to that planet. After the Columbia shuttle tragedy in 2003, NASA Langley performed critical work to determine how to return shuttles safely to space, including conducing research in aero-thermodynamics and structures and materials used in space shuttle technology. These missions have helped to keep the U.S. at the forefront of space exploration.

NASA Langley is also doing its part to get the next generation prepared and excited about working for NASA. Through its education programs, NASA reaches out to students to get them involved and excited about the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (or