Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation.

First, we are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us, but we do know that he says he will not continue doing what he is doing unless we retroactively authorize it and immunize everyone who participated in the illegal activity from any criminal and civil liability.

But for the New York Times disclosure that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations, we would not even know about it now. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are.

Yet rather than finding out what is going on, we are moving forward with this legislation not only to authorize

something in the future but to retroactively legalize whatever has been going on in the past.

Yesterday, under the military tribunal bill, we authorized what had previously been considered torture and retroactively immunized everybody involved in it. Today, we do the same type of retroactive approval and immunization to what may be illegal domestic surveillance.

The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, totally in secret, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court.

So this is not a question of whether or not dangerous terrorists should be wiretapped. Of course they should, and they can be under present law, but in a democratic society with checks and balances, we should insist that some checks and balances occur, either before the wiretap or after the wiretap in the case of an emergency.

This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well. This bill, therefore, should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts to establish a system of military commissions as required by the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case, I am disappointed that a bill of this magnitude is being considered under a closed rule and without assurances that traditional notions of due process, judicial independence, and full compliance with the Geneva Conventions will be in the bill.

One of the most egregious problems of this bill is the creation of a presumption in favor of admitting coerced evidence, along with the continued insistence that a person can be fairly convicted using secret evidence. Another problem with the bill is it strips jurisdictions of civil courts from hearing cases involving plaintiffs who seek redress for violations of the torture provisions of the Geneva Conventions. This bill actually retroactively applies new standards. Now, whether this review of the habeas corpus as statutory or constitutional, it is a good idea; and it is the only way anybody can get a hearing on whether or not they have been tortured by the United States.

Moreover, the only automatic right of appeal would be to an entirely new appellate court of military commission review, with all of the judges appointed by and in the chain of command of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense would be granted wide latitude to depart without judicial scrutiny from the rules and detainee protections the legislation purports to create. It would allow him to do so whenever he deems it practicable or consistent with military or intelligence activities. In an extraordinary move, the bill would retroactively limit the scope of U.S. obligations under common article 3 more than half a century after the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions, and it immunizes all previous violations of the War Crimes Act and other laws against torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in our custody.

This retroactive provision grants immunity to government officials and civilians, such as CIA operatives, interrogators, or those who may have authorized, ordered, or even participated in illegal acts of torture or abuse.

Mr. Speaker, this is a complex bill, and it is before us on a take- it-or-leave-it basis, with no amendments. We should take the time to consider all of these new provisions deliberately to ensure that the legislation does not undermine the United States' commitment to the rule of law, the success of its fight against terrorism, and, most of all, the safety of our United States' servicemen and women.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the passage of H.R. 6166.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6106.

As the gentleman from Louisiana just mentioned, over a year ago our Nation experienced one of the worst natural disasters in our history when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated southeast Louisiana and parts of Mississippi. He mentioned that public and private schools were forced to close, and over 150,000 students were displaced as a direct result of those hurricanes.

Last year, the Hurricane Education Recovery Act was enacted. It authorized the U.S. Secretary of Education to waive selected portions of general education law having to do with State or school district use of Federal funds.

Unfortunately, the waiver is set to expire on September 30, even though the families continue to return to the area and their schools are in need of rebuilding. The waiver is critical because it allows school systems the flexibility to use available Federal funds for the most critical needs. Without the waiver, they would have funding for just about everything they need except those critical immediate needs required to reopen the schools. Without the waiver, they won't be able to spend the money for those critical needs. This waiver has worked well and just needs to be extended.

On September 19, just a few days ago, H.R. 6106 to extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of Education was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal). This legislation is a straightforward extension of the Secretary of Education's waiver authority for an additional fiscal year through 2007.

This bill would not have been possible without the hard work of not only the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) but his Louisiana colleagues, Mr. Melancon and Mr. Jefferson on this side, and I am sure there are others he might want to mention.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help Louisiana continue their recovery effort by supporting the passage of H.R. 6106.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, any time you name a bill using the words ``veterans memorials'' and ``religious protection,'' you can assume that we are just about to cut veterans health care.

Now, if we are going to deal with veterans issues, I would hope that we would fully fund the veterans health care VA expenditures rather than cut them. We ought to do more for veterans pensions, we ought to do more for veterans disability, rather than naming a bill which undermines the freedoms they actually fought for.

Thirty years ago, Mr. Speaker, Congress recognized the importance of passing a law to ensure that those who suffer violations of their constitutional rights or unconstitutional discrimination will be able to obtain legal representation to vindicate their civil rights; but only in cases where they actually win the case will they be able to get help with their attorneys fees.

This bill would rescind the ability of victims whose rights under part of the first amendment have been found to have been violated from receiving reimbursement for attorneys fees and costs. This means that only the most fortunate in our society will be able to enforce their civil rights and seek redress when those rights are violated. It means that the less fortunate can only get those rights if they can raise enough money to enforce them. When the cost of enforcement becomes too great, there will not be any private enforcement and then our constitutional rights will be reduced to hollow pronouncements for the average citizens because only the wealthy will be able to seek enforcement.

But this bill goes actually further, because the bill will specifically deprive victims whose rights have been found to be violated by a court and those whose rights continue to be violated after the court has ordered, from being able to seek remedies other than those provided in the bill, namely injunctive or declaratory relief.

Now, if a school system were to decide to ignore the Constitution and require school children to recite a state-sponsored Protestant prayer in some areas, or a Mormon prayer in others, what would happen? Or if a State or locality were to just declare itself to have a particular established religion, what would happen under the bill? Nothing. Nothing would happen, until such time as you have a wealthy individual willing to fund a lawsuit to try to vindicate the obvious violation of their constitutional rights.

In all other classrooms and all other localities where you don't have a wealthy individual to fund the lawsuit, nothing will happen, because the perpetrators of the violation will know that there is no sanction. Nothing can happen. The only thing that can happen is you just sit around and wait for a court to declare that you are in violation. Nothing else can happen. And even after that finding occurs, nothing will happen until the court actually starts enforcing the court order, and you will need additional attorneys fees to go in and get that order.

This just invites violations of the law because we know there is no sanction for violating the first amendment. We know that the establishment clause, part of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, will be the only part of the Constitution without any remedy to effectively enforce the provisions of that Constitution. That is why virtually every civil rights group, religious organization and legal organization opposes the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I hope we oppose the bill too.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that letters from over a dozen organizations in opposition to this bill be entered into the Record to the extent that some of them have not been entered in the Record so far.

Mr. Speaker, first, this bill does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies and does nothing to stop a minor from crossing State lines to get an abortion on her own. Rather, it creates criminal penalties for those trusted confidants whom the woman turns to when she find herself in a difficult situation.

In an ideal world, young women should turn to their parents for advice, guidance, and comfort. But in the real world, this is not always the case. And in some scenarios, parental involvement is not even in the best interest of the girl.

This bill would impose criminal penalties on anyone who assists a young woman to cross a State line in order to obtain an abortion, whether it is a grandparent, an aunt, older sibling, or trusted friend. In addition, because of the way the law is written, it would even impose criminal penalties on a cab driver who drops off a young woman at an abortion clinic if that clinic happens to be across the State line.

Further, there are unrealistic and unworkable mandates involving the notice provisions in the bill which also potentially violate principles of confidentiality. And so this bill threatens to increase the risk of harm to young women in difficult family situations by delaying access to appropriate medical care, and that is why the bill is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill raises numerous constitutional questions. The Supreme Court has made clear that any valid abortion law must have an adequate medical emergency exception. The Court has also ruled that access to medical care in emergencies must also be maintained. The provisions contained in the bill have limited access in situations, and so the bill is clearly inconsistent with established constitutional law.

Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent. It does not prevent unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Rather, it encourages young girls to make difficult decisions on their own without help, increasing the potential harm to their physical and emotional well-being. That is why it is not supported by medical organizations with expertise in this field. Furthermore, it raises serious constitutional questions. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5092. I join with the gentleman from North Carolina, the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coble, in developing this bill, which will focus on improving the due process and effectiveness in ATF enforcement of Federal gun laws and regulations.

Currently as many as 98 percent of violations cited by ATF against gun dealers result in nothing more than a letter of reprimand or meeting with ATF officials at their office, backed by some threats of revocation. There are complaints, on the one hand, that the enforcement system treats Federal firearms licensees unfairly by focusing too much on minor technical violations with threats of revocation. So, on the occasional, though rare, occasion, where the gun dealer's license is actually revoked for what is perceived to be a minor violation, it generates perceptions of unfairness and breeds disrespect of the regulatory process.

If a violation is challenged, the system perpetuates a further appearance of unfairness by using ATF employees, responsible to their supervisors, to decide the case. On the other hand, there are complaints that ATF is unable to effectively license the licensees, because the only available sanction is revocation, and licensees note they are unlikely to be revoked for anything more than a serious violation. Therefore, they can be casual with a lesser violation since they are unlikely to receive anything less than a warning.

H.R. 5092 addresses these problems with a system of intermediate sanctions, applied on a graduated basis. For violations the ATF designates as minor, the bill makes available to the ATF fines of up to $1,000, with cumulative fines up to $5,000 per inspection process. After two incidences of minor violations, suspensions up to 30 days are available.

For violations designated as serious, there can be fines up to $2,500 per violation, up to $15,000 per inspection; and in addition to such fines, suspensions up to 90 days or revocation are also available. The ATF will decide by regulation what constitutes a minor violation or a major violation. But anything which actually endangers the public will count as a major violation.

I would also note that, under the bill, any violation that results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person, or prevents the dealer from complying with gun tracing or anything like that, must be considered a major violation. Therefore, the suggestion that the bill allows for unaccounted-for guns to be treated as a minor violation is not true.

To ensure fairness in the process, the bill revamps the hearing process by requiring that hearings be conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, for minor violations, virtually all of which are now treated with just a letter of reprimand or warning, the bill provides for substantial fines and treats repeat offenders with suspensions and/or additional fines. For major violations, the vast majority of which also result only in a letter of reprimand or a warning, the bill provides for even more substantial fines, longer suspensions or revocations. That will result in improved, fair and meaningful enforcement of our gun laws.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Maintaining school safety is an important objective of school administrators and communities around the country, but this bill will only serve to complicate the lives of school officials and probably violate students' Constitutional rights in the process.

In 1969, the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969) that students do not ``shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.'' While Tinker was a free speech case, the principle applies here as well. The vague legislative language of H.R. 5295 would lead school officials to believe that they have the authority to conduct searches that could be at odds with the standards set out by the Supreme Court in the 1985 decision of New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the 1 guiding case on this issue, in which the Court attempted to strike a balance between student privacy and school discipline and safety.

While this bill correctly requires that school officials have ``reasonable suspicion'' before conducting a search of a student, it describes too broadly the purpose and the scope of the search that school administrators can conduct. The bill incorrectly suggests that school officials can conduct random, wide scale searches of students without having any individualized suspicion that a particular student to be searched is participating in criminal activity or breaking the school rules.

When schools officials do not focus student searches on individuals who are suspected of violating the law or school rules, the results of the searches are often fruitless. School administrators will do more to improve children's safety by concentrating on suspicious behavior and credible information from teachers and students that school rules or criminal laws are being broken, than by conducting widespread unsubstantiated searches.

While this legislation is well intentioned, it nonetheless constitutes bad policy and is constitutionally unsound. Even if the language in the bill accurately reflects today's constitutional standards, Court decisions are often modified by subsequent decisions. School officials may therefore find themselves in the future caught between complying with an obsolete statute or obeying the modified Court decision and risking the loss of funding under this bill.

School districts have a long history of abiding by search and seizure policies that are consistent with court rulings. This legislative directive is unnecessary and will only serve to further complicate the lives of students and teachers. This is the reason why the American Federation of Teachers, National School Board Association, the Council of the Great City Schools, the National PTA, the American Association of School Administrators and the ACLU all oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4484, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, because it will sacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all American citizens by the Constitution--the right to vote. Contrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of our electoral process by imposing unnecessary barriers to full participation in federal elections. The bill's requirements of proof of citizenship and photo identification as a prerequisite to voting may appear innocuous, but in reality they will create an

unprecedented regime of disenfranchisement aimed at seniors, minority voters, low income voters, students and voters with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes an undue burden on eligible voters. As the United States District Court found last year in Common Cause v. Billups, 406 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia law requiring ID at the polls, ``photo identification requirements unconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of eligible American citizens.'' The district judge issued an immediate injunction against the law, likening it to a segregation-era poll tax because the digital picture ID would cost voters $20. The court found that these provisions disproportionately affect traditionally disenfranchised voters, including senior citizens, minority voters, poor voters, disabled voters and young voters.

And the decisions keep coming. A state judge yesterday again rejected the Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, writing in his decision, ``This cannot be.'' In his ruling, the judge said that the law places too much of a burden on voters, and ``Any attempt by the legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny''. Lake v. Perdue, No. CV 119207 (Ga. Super. Ct. Sept. 19, 2006) In Michigan, the photo ID requirement was declared unconstitutional by the State's attorney general and his decision is now being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania, a similar voter ID bill was vetoed by the governor.

Proponents of this bill claim that these draconian constraints are necessary to guard against identity fraud at the Nation's polling places. The truth, however tells a far different story. According to the United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871 votes cast since 2002, only about 80 voters were convicted of federal election fraud. Mr. Speaker, when we compare the number of eligible voters that will be disenfranchised because of this bill to the number of documented cases of fraud, it's clear that this bill will do more harm than good--the cure is clearly worse than the disease.

Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe that the same Congress that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act two months ago could now seriously contemplate passage of this bill. There is plenty that needs to be done to fix our electoral system, but instead of addressing problems that don't exist, it is our responsibility to ensure that we have a model system of choosing our elected officials--one that exemplifies the true principle of democracy and serves as an example to other nations around the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I rise in strong support of this resolution.

On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor, but also Clark Airfield in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of Americans died that day, but also thousands of Filipino soldiers lost their lives. This one act of war united the American and Filipino people in the noble cause of ending tyranny in the Pacific.

In 1946, President Harry Truman cited that during the war the Philippine Army veterans ``fought with gallantry and courage under the most difficult conditions.'' He also declared that it was the ``moral obligation of the United States to look after the welfare of the Philippine Army veterans.'' In fact, it was with that promise that many of the veterans joined our military efforts, many losing their lives, others suffering lifetime injuries.

Our promise, however, remains unfulfilled. We promised to make them eligible for veterans benefits, but, unfortunately, in 1946, Congress withdrew those benefits.

Now, nearly 60 years later, our Filipino veterans are still looking to see our promise fulfilled. We saw some progress in 2003 when we passed the Veterans Benefit Act, which increased VA benefits for U.S. residents who are Filipino veterans and made the new Philippine Scouts living in the United States eligible for burial in VA national cemeteries.

The United States is indebted to the 120,000 Filipino veterans of World War II for their extraordinary sacrifices. While we can never fully repay our veterans for the sacrifices made on our behalf, today we stop to remember those who gave their lives for our freedom and to thank those who are still with us for their courage and dedication to our country.

Although no longer a territory of the United States, the Philippines and the United States are bound by the countless sacrifices the Filipino veterans made during World War II. We are also bound by countless contributions and achievements of Americans of Filipino descent in every field of human endeavor, including the sciences, business, education, medicine, the arts, athletics, and government.

As the only Member of Congress with any Filipino ancestry, I am honored to come before the House today to honor the Filipino veterans of World War II and urge my colleagues not only to support this resolution, but to also pass legislation to grant the Filipino veterans the equity that they were promised

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act.

The Federal Prison Industries program was signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression. This program was enacted as a way to protect the public by teaching prisoners real work habits and skills, so that when they are released, they will be better able to find and hold a job to support themselves and their families and be less likely to commit crimes in the future.

It is clear that the program has done just that. Follow-up studies covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who participate in Prison Industries are much more likely to be employed and much less likely to commit crimes than prisoners who do not participate in the program. While this certainly benefits offenders and their families, the real public policy benefit is that, as a result of this program, there are fewer victims of crime.

Contrary to the indication given by the proponents of this bill, the FPI program does not have a significant impact on business and labor. In its first year of operation, the percent of Federal contract procurement from FPI represented one-fourth of 1 percent of total annual Federal agency procurement dollars; and it is the same today, one-fourth of 1 percent, and this is just Federal procurement. It is obviously a minuscule portion of the total economy.

Critics, who were philosophically opposed to the program back in the 1930s and they are still opposed today, suggest that FPI has caused substantial losses in jobs for law-abiding citizens. The furniture and apparel industries are the two industries in which FPI has traditionally done most of its work. When asked under oath, representatives of these industries testified that the FPI sales represent an insignificant and negligible portion of their industries. At our last hearing, the office furniture industry representative was not able to point to any loss to his industry caused by FPI.

I am the first to concede that there may be problems with FPI that need improvement, and we have made improvements through activities in Congress and the FPI board over the last 10 years. While it is understandable that every company that does not get a contract that FPI gets may be disappointed, just as they would be disappointed if another company got the same contract, the public safety and institutional safety and management benefits of this program have an insignificant impact on business and labor, and it is a public policy success story.

All able inmates in the Federal system are required, by law, to work. Non-FPI inmate jobs pay about $0.12 to $0.30 an hour, while FPI jobs pay about $1 up to $1.15 per hour. There are currently enough FPI jobs for only 18 percent of the work-eligible population. The other 82 percent of the prisoners work in non-FPI-related maintenance jobs.

In 2000, FPI jobs represented 25 percent of the prison jobs. In recent years, however, because we have passed restrictions like there are in this bill, there are fewer jobs and that has caused the elimination of over 2,000 jobs at the same time that the prison population has increased by 23,000 inmates, and it is still increasing. This bill will shrink FPI jobs even more.

We need to promote, not reduce, Federal Prison Industries jobs because the FPI program strongly supports education. To hold down an FPI job, an inmate must have completed high school, or be making steady progress towards obtaining a GED, and maintain a good record of behavior. This is not only true for those who hold FPI jobs but also those who are on the waiting list for a job, as well as those seeking to establish eligibility to be placed on the waiting list; and once in an FPI job, an inmate cannot earn more than $0.40 an hour until he earns a GED. That is why FPI is not only a great job skills development and education development tool, but it is also a great management tool to help ensure prisons operate efficiently and safely for prison employees as well as inmates. I have never met a prison administrator who does not support this program.

Few offenders enter the program with marketable work skills. The vast majority do not even have basic work habits, such as showing up for work on time each day and working cooperatively and productively with others. Such work habits are required to maintain an FPI job. These are the same work habits required to be a good, productive, desirable worker anywhere, and that is why inmates who have FPI work experience have been found to be significantly more employable than those that do not.

I oppose this bill because it will obviously reduce job opportunities. The bill amends the current requirement in law for agencies to purchase goods from FPI and establishes a competitive bid process for agency purchases of goods and services from FPI, unless the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons certify that they cannot safely run the prisons without the particular contract award. It is unrealistic to expect that any official would publicly admit such a level of incompetence in order to obtain a contract, so it is unlikely that that provision will ever be used.

The bill claims to make an effort to replace mandatory source and service contracts by providing a transition preference program for agencies using FPI, by authorizing new options such as providing products or services to charitable and nonprofit organizations contingent on appropriations, by allowing FPI to provide services and products to Federal agencies on a noncompetitive basis if they would otherwise be provided from offshore, and by authorizing work training programs for FPI to produce goods and services for private companies if the goods and services are not produced anywhere in the United States.

However, there is no basis for concluding that these authorities would replace the loss of jobs now available and legally sanctioned, and it is unlikely to suspect that the appropriations would be made or that the job training programs will be sufficient because most of the job training programs are 2 years at most. Obviously, people with longer sentences cannot benefit from that.

So before we decimate what the Department of Justice defines as the most important rehabilitation program, without a reliable replacement for those jobs, I believe we should direct a comprehensive study of its impact on labor and business and its beneficial impact on public safety before we do anything else.

In the face of all the good that this program does, I do not believe that we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would defeat the bill and we maintain these jobs.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would tell my friend from Michigan that you would get my support if you just guaranteed that the jobs would be there. We need people working on these jobs. If they are working on jobs, there will be less crime. So anything that will guarantee the jobs I can support.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Conyers giving

me the opportunity to respond to my friend from North Carolina, who suggested that I was misguided by opposing the bill. Perhaps I am misguided, because the bill increases crime and I am trying to reduce crime.

We know that increasing jobs will reduce crime. This bill, we know, reduces jobs. The goal of FPI has been traditionally for 25 percent of the jobs to be FPI jobs. As a result of the initiatives in this bill, many of which were enacted in 2001, the percentage of jobs has gone from 25 to 18, 2,000 fewer jobs. And if we had maintained the 25 percent, there would be 9,000 more people working in FPI jobs, with a much lower chance of getting into trouble when they are released.

This reduction in jobs will increase crime. Maybe opposing an increase in crime is misguided, but I think we ought to reguide ourselves and support those initiatives, which will actually reduce crime, not increase crime, as this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because, as I indicated, as a result of the initiatives that are in this bill, we have already lost thousands of jobs. And if we had had the law as it was in 2000, we would have about 9,000 more people working.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has said there are other alternatives. If we were guaranteed funding for that, I would support it. The problem is that the FPI pays for itself, so it doesn't need appropriation. If we can guarantee the funding, there wouldn't be any debate on this. The job training also may not have funding. So we don't know that that is going to take place. So there is no guarantee.

The problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee for funding. The FPI program pays for itself, and has been paying for itself for over 70 years. It works well. We know it works, and the replacements are just speculative.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, we will work together on the funding, no question about that. Furthermore, there is not a one-to-one replacement. You have about four people in prison working on what would otherwise be one job.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also authorize the Justice Department to acquire products from the Federal Prison Industries on a noncompetitive basis as deemed appropriate by the Attorney General.

Along with the Bureau of Prisons, the Attorney General has the responsibility for the safe, productive operation of Federal prisons and should, therefore, have the authority to ensure that all operations under his control are available to be directed to this effort. And insofar as Federal Prison Industries program is concerned, we know it is an effective tool to help the prison operations.

This could be a much more realistic option for the Attorney General to ensure against disruption at a prison from the loss of jobs and contracts than the notion in the bill that he would have to declare the prison unmanageable without a particular contract. That is what is in the bill.

It is not the wholesale authority for the Attorney General to direct any agency to award all of its FPI contracts, but only as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Attorney General, and it only covers Justice Department agencies.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to create jobs and manage the prisons. That is what this amendment would help the Attorney General do. I hope it would be the body's pleasure to adopt the amendment.

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

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

I would close by saying this amendment would allow the Attorney General to make sure that there are enough jobs in the Federal Prison Industries to help manage the prisons. We know the more jobs there are, the less crime there will be in the future. That is the purpose of this amendment, managing the prisons and reducing crime.

I would hope we would adopt that goal by allowing prisons to be managed better and reducing crime by adopting the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the level of service contracts now being performed by FPI to continue at that level while prohibiting further expansion. There is no mandatory source provision for service contracts so they are already competitive. Most of the contracts involve work that would otherwise be done offshore, so FPI's competition is with foreign workers, not Americans.

There have been no complaints about service contracts. Service contracts constitute a significant portion of the inmate work opportunities now in the program. None of these authorities individually or combined in the bill will realistically produce sufficient work opportunities for inmates to replace the loss of jobs from the elimination of mandatory source and the loss of current service contract jobs.

Stable FPI jobs are critical to the efficient and safe operation of Federal prisons and the rehabilitation of inmates which correlates directly with public safety. There is no record to suggest that this part of FPI is broken beyond the philosophical view that it represents some kind of unfair competition to American businesses and workers; but in this case, there is virtually no competition. The reality is that this is not true, and no one has suggested that FPI service contracts today have any significant impact on American businesses or workers.

Let us at least continue the level of service contracts we have now in an effort to reduce crime in the future. We are trying to reduce crime, trying to help manage the prisons. This will be go a little way into preserving some of those opportunities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and just acknowledge this amendment is just designed to preserve a few of the jobs that we have got left. The amendments that passed in 2000 and 2001 have cost. If they had not passed, we would have 9,000 more jobs than we have now. We have already lost jobs. We would have had a lot more jobs than we had.

We are just trying to preserve job opportunities, which have been shown to reduce crime. Now, I know it has already been said that trying to reduce crime is misguided around here, but that is the goal of the bill, and everybody who has studied it knows that is what would happen. If you have more jobs, you will have less crime. That is all we are trying to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. Historically Black Colleges and Universities play a critical role in the American higher education system. This year's theme--``The Tradition Continues: New Successes and Challenges''--is especially fitting considering the precarious state of affairs of higher education funding and student aid for all institutions of higher education. These theme is also appropriate as many HBCUs around the country welcomed students displaced last year by Hurricane Katrina.

For most of America's history, African Americans who received a college education could only get it from and HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education. In 1965, Congress officially defined an HBCU in Title III of the Higher Education Act as an institution: whose principal mission was the education of black Americans; that is accredited; and that was established before 1964.

The first HBCU, Cheney University in Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837. Today, there are 105 Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am proud to have 5 HBCUs in my home State of Virginia: Hampton University, Norfolk State University, Saint Paul's College, Virginia State University, and Virginia Union University.

HBCUs graduate far more than their share of African American professionals. While the 105 HBCUs represent just 3 percent of the Nation's institutions of higher learning, they graduate nearly one- quarter of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees.

HBCUs, because of their unique sensibility to the special needs of young African American minds, remain the institutions that demonstrate the most effective ability to graduate African American students who are poised to be competitive in the corporate, research, academic, governmental and military arenas.

Consider these statistics:

Experts in their chosen field

Over half of all African American professionals are graduates of HBCUs.

Nine of the top ten colleges that graduate the most African Americans who go on to earn Ph.D.s are HBCUs.

More than 50 percent of the Nation's African American public school teachers and 70 percent of African American dentists earned degrees at HBCUs.

HBCUs Spelman College and Bennett College produce over half of the nation's African American female doctorates in all science fields.

Excellent Institutions

As ranked by Black Enterprise in 2003, seven of the top ten ``Top Colleges and Universities for African Americans,'' including the top six, were HBCUs.

HBCU Xavier University #1 nationally in placing African-Americans into medical school.

HBCUs also dominate the upper echelon in terms of numbers of African American graduates per school for the last academic year

Seven of the top eight producers of African-American baccalaureates overall were HBCUs, including #1 Florida A&M University and #2 Howard University.

Sixteen of the top 21 producers of African American baccalaureates in biological and biomedical sciences were HBCUs, including the entire top six: Xavier University of LA (#1), Hampton University (#2), Howard University (#3), Morgan State University (#4), Jackson State University (#5), and Tennessee State University (#6).

Eight of the top nine producers of African American baccalaureates in mathematics and statistics were HBCUs: #1 Morehouse College, #2 South Carolina State University, #3 Alabama State University, #3 Spelman College, #5 Southern University and A&M College, #6 Tennessee State University, #7 Hampton University, and #9 Howard University.

Three of the top five producers of African American baccalaureates in psychology were HBCUs: #1 Florida A&M University, #3 Hampton University, and #5 Howard University.

While these statistics overwhelmingly demonstrate the importance of HBCUs, the proof of the power of an HBCU is in the success of its graduates. I am proud to serve with 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives that are graduates of these fine institutions.

Mr. Speaker, HBCUs have played an important role in educating African-American students. I would like to commend them for their past efforts and wish them continued success in the future. I am confident that HBCUs will continue to ensure that students of all races receives a quality higher education.

Mr. Speaker, the events of 9/11 were a tragedy and continue to affect Americans and our way of life today. On the anniversary of this sad day, we should be coming together, in a display of unity, understanding and common values, commending those selfless firefighters, police officers and others who provided aid without regard to their own lives, honoring the memory of those who are not with us today, and consulting those who continue to grieve.

Instead, the majority in this body has used this day in our history as an excuse to create more partisan legislation and mislead the American people about the state of America's safety. I am saddened by the use of 9/11 in this distorted manner, and I ask my colleagues to consider, instead, taking action that is more appropriate to mark this tragic event in our lifetime and to prepare ourselves against another such tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the crimes committed against the children named in the bill, those not named, and the suffering of their families is a tragedy for all of us, yet this does not release us from the responsibility to legislate on a sound and reasoned basis. I believe the situation is serious and grave enough to warrant a bill that is based on approaches that have been proven to reduce this scourge in our society, not on sound bites that will merely pander to our emotions.

This bill focuses on establishing a national sex offender registry and an Internet posting system for the public to allegedly track the whereabouts of convicted and released sex offenders, and it also includes a number of gratuitous provisions, such as eight additional and duplicative Federal death penalties and 11 additional Federal mandatory minimum sentences.

Virtually all of the death penalty cases, as with most criminal cases, are State cases. The cases referenced by children named in this bill, because of the grave tragedies they have suffered, are all State offenses, and I don't believe a single one of them would have been covered by Federal law. But I think all the Federal cases, you would think that all of them would be Federal cases from the provisions in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we recently increased Federal sex offenses penalties in the PROTECT Act with mandatory minimums of at least 5 years and some up to mandatory life, even in cases involving consensual sex between teenagers. And these increases came right after the Sentencing Commission had already increased penalties for sex offenses at the direction of Congress. And all of these increases were Federal cases based on the name of the crime and the political appeal of striking out harshly against offenders.

But because of the few cases that are actually under Federal jurisdiction, they will primarily affect Native Americans on reservations, because all of their cases come under Federal jurisdiction. There is no evidence that Native American offenders warrant any harsher treatment than any other offenders.

Now, with no more basis than we had before, just the name of the crime and the continuing political appeal of appearing tough on sex offenders, we are again greatly increasing penalties with more death penalties and increased mandatory minimums, including more mandatory minimums for teenagers having consensual sex.

Now, we can all agree that 35, 45-year-old or even older persons, enticing or transporting a minor across State lines to engage in sexual activity is despicable and should be severely punished. However, the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill include the

18-year-old high school student who entices or transports a 17-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend across State lines.

Under the provisions of the bill, prom night in the Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland area could have nightmarish consequences. And to show how ridiculous it could be, if two teenagers, one 18 and one 17, engage in sexual activity without crossing a State line, you will have, if there is any prosecution at all, it will be a misdemeanor on the part of the 18-year-old. So we have the absurd anomaly of making what is now an infrequently prosecuted misdemeanor into a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for teens who cross State lines to do it. Imposing a 10-year mandatory prison term on teenagers engaged in consensual sex is not responsible legislating.

Rather than taking such cases out of the bill, we are told that we should simply trust the prosecutor. Don't trust the Sentencing Commission's discretion to set guidelines designed to reflect what sentence should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case or the background and role of the offender, rather than simply the name of the case, the name of the provision. And don't trust judges to look at the facts and circumstances of the case, the offender's role and background and guidelines to arrive at an appropriate sentence after hearing all of the evidence at trial. Take the discretion away from these officials and trust prosecutors to decide when to ignore law requiring a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. And trust there are no prosecutors who can be affected by issues such as local political influences.

A few years ago, in Georgia, involving an interracial couple, a teenager got 10 years for having consensual sex with his teenage girlfriend.

The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that they defy common sense. If you deserve the mandatory minimum, you can get it. If it violates common sense, you have to get it anyway.

Many studies have shown that mandatory minimums wasted taxpayers' money, are unfairly applied to minorities, and violate common sense.

The jury is out as to whether publicly accessible sex offender registers will have any beneficial effect on reducing sex crimes, but the studies that have been done indicate that the registries do not have any effect in reducing sex crimes. And I have seen no study that suggests that the policy of posting the name of juvenile delinquents, as this bill does, on the Internet, serves any constructive purpose.

Of course, programs and grants to assist children and to provide the type of sex offender treatment that studies have been shown that can cut recidivism in half are not in this bill.

And so, Mr. Speaker, unlike most of my colleagues we will hear from today, I believe that we can do better than this bill to effectively address the scourge of child sexual assault.

Most of the criminals affected by the mandatory minimums in this bill deserve the punishment in the bill, but they would have gotten it anyway under present law. But a 10-year mandatory minimum for consensual prom night activities does not make sense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of the leading authors of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you, Brother Davis.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor for me to congratulate Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity on our centennial celebration, commemorating 100 years of civil service and social progress.

Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity was founded on December 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, by seven young men known as the Seven Jewels. As the first intercollegiate Greek letter fraternity established for African Americans, Alpha Phi Alpha initially served as a brotherhood and study and support group for minority students at Cornell, but it also recognized the need to help correct the educational, economic, political and social injustices faced by African Americans.

From that, the foundation of Alpha Phi Alpha principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity were laid. Alpha Phi Alpha now has a presence on hundreds of college campuses as well as in hundreds of alumni chapters in 44 States, the District of Columbia, Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean islands.

Over the years, Alpha Phi Alpha has played a fundamental role in the positive development of the character and education of more than 175,000 men, and it has been paramount in the fight to advance civil rights and enhance the socioeconomic status of all in American society.

Notable Alphas include Thurgood Marshall, W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, Martin Luther King, Jr., Edward Brooke, Andrew Young, William Gray, Paul Robeson, and there are countless others who have served or now serve as leaders in government, business, entertainment, science and education.

Today, in Congress, the eight Members have already been identified, but I would like to mention at this time three national programs that have been designed by Alpha Phi Alpha to benefit the future of African Americans and humanity as a whole. Every Alpha chapter is committed to the implementation of these programs.

The Go-to-High-School, Go-to-College program was established in 1922 and focuses on the importance of African American youth completing secondary and collegiate education as a road to advancement. Statistics prove that school completion is the single best predictor for future success, and Alpha Phi Alpha is committed to promoting education among African American youth and the importance of completing one's education.

``A Voteless People is a Hopeless People'' began as an Alpha Phi Alpha program during the 1930s when many African Americans had the right to vote, but were prevented from doing so due to poll taxes, threats of reprisal, and lack of education about the voting process. The program, which focus on voter education and voter registration, also facilitates town meetings and candidate forums to improve political awareness and empowerment.

Project Alpha was started by a chapter in Chicago in the late 1970s and is now a national Alpha program implemented in collaboration with the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. It is designed to provide education, motivation, and skill-building on issues of responsibility, relationships, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases for young males 12 to 15 years of age. Project Alpha reaches hundreds of communities and thousands of teen males to teach them the importance of responsibility in their personal lives.

Mr. Speaker, on this centennial anniversary, it is my privilege to recognize the 100th anniversary of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity; to commend all Alpha brothers, past and present, for their bond of friendship, common ideals and service to the community; and to wish Alpha Phi Alpha success in the next 100 years as it continues to enrich the lives of its members, its alumni, and through them, communities around the world.

Mr. Chairman, anytime we consider legislation like this, one can be assured that veterans benefits have either just been cut or are about to be cut. Instead of addressing the real issues of patriotism, such as the adequacy of health care funding for veterans or the fact that the number of veterans waiting for benefit determinations has increased by approximately 80,000 since last year alone, we are going to use this bill to divert attention from those more pressing issues.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is aimed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Newdow v. U.S. Congress, which held that the words ``under God'' in the Pledge are unconstitutional in the context of public school recitations. I happen to disagree with that decision and I agree with the dissent in that case which stated, ``Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that `under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress someone's belief is so miniscule as to be de minimis. The danger that the phrase represents to our first amendment's freedoms is picayune at best.''

I agree with that language, Mr. Chairman. So as we discuss the constitutionality of ``under God'' in the Pledge, we must recognize that every bill that is introduced, every hearing we have, every vote that we take on the issue enhances the importance of this issue and these actions serve to chip away at the de minimis argument and actually increase the chance that the court will ultimately decide that the Pledge is unconstitutional.

The simple fact is that we need to respect the Constitution and the right of courts to decide whether the Pledge is constitutional or not. But the majority will not do that. H.R. 2389 is a court-stripping bill as the bill does not address the substance of the arguments pro and con, it just prohibits Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding the case.

This bill is a blatant attempt to prevent the judicial branch from doing its job. The foundation of our democracy rests on the principle of checks and balances of power among three coequal branches, and this bill is a flagrant disregard of that principle. In addition, this bill will result in unprecedented confusion as each State court will decide how to interpret the Federal Constitution.

It also sets a poor precedent that at any time we are considering a bill that might be found unconstitutional by the courts, we might just prohibit the courts from saying so by taking away their right to hear the case.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would strip Federal courts from their ability to hear cases that are clearly within Federal jurisdiction because those cases address Federal constitutional rights and individual liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and many rights may be involved because the bill is not limited to cases addressing the words ``under God.'' The recitation of the Pledge may in some situations implicate the right of free speech, the right of freedom of association, the right to free exercise of religion, the establishment clause protections, all guaranteed under the first amendment of the Constitution.

The passage of this bill will mean that there will be no Federal law on a Federal constitutional question, not even a supreme law of the land to guide other Federal or State courts on the matter or to definitively state the law when there are inconsistent decisions in different States. So a Federal constitutional right could be applied inconsistently to American citizens simply because they live in different parts of the country.

The need for a Federal review of many different rights that may be involved is not speculative. For example, Mr. Chairman, even before the words ``under God'' were in the Pledge, the Supreme Court in 1943 held in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette that a compulsory flag salute and accompanying Pledge were unconstitutional when required of a public school student in violation of the student's religious beliefs.

In that case, the lawsuit was originally filed in Federal Court and was never considered in State court. If this legislation passes, State courts won't even have to follow prior Supreme Court precedents. The reason that State courts are prohibited from ignoring Supreme Court precedent is if they

do so, the Supreme Court is there, ready and willing and able to reverse the State court's decision. But no more under this bill. We may well end up with 50 interpretations and applications of a single Federal constitutional right.

For over 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. So while Congress has the power to regulate jurisdiction of Federal courts, the court-stripping language of H.R. 2389 grossly exceeds that power in violation of the principles of separation of powers.

If this court-stripping idea had been around in 1954, Congress could have prohibited the Supreme Court from hearing issues involving student assignment to public schools. We never would have had the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, or it could have passed in the 1960s, and the decision in the Federal court in Loving v. Virginia, to overrule the will of the people of Virginia and require Virginia to recognize racially mixed marriages, might not have ever happened.

The judges in those decisions were described just as judges are described today: liberal, rogue, unelected, life-time appointed activist judges. But they made the right decisions in those cases. The truth is that we rely on Federal courts to determine and enforce our constitutional rights.

America is more politically and religiously diverse than it was in 1943, but instead of embracing that diversity, this bill would jeopardize our fundamental rights. We should instead adhere to the wisdom of the Supreme Court in the Barnette case which said, and I quote, ``The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy and place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.''

Mr. Chairman, there are numerous legal, civil rights and religious organizations opposed to this legislation, including the American Bar Association, the ACLU, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti- Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Constitutional Project, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Legal Momentum, the National Women's Law Center and People for the American Way.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to insert those letters into the Record at the appropriate time, and there are other organizations, of course, that are opposed to the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

June 14, 2006.

Protect Separation of Powers and Religious Minorities'

Longstanding Constitutional Rights; Oppose Final Passage

of H.R. 2389.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil

rights, and civil liberties organizations, urge you to oppose

H.R. 2389, the ``Pledge Protection Act,'' misguided

legislation that would strip all federal courts, including

the Supreme Court, from hearing First Amendment challenges to

the Pledge of Allegiance and from enforcing longstanding

constitutional rights in federal court.

The signatories to this letter include organizations that

supported the court challenge to the constitutionality of

including ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance,

organizations that opposed that challenge, and organizations

that took no position on the matter. We are united, however,

in believing that H.R. 2389 threatens the separation of

powers that is a fundamental aspect of our constitutional

structure. Beyond this, while the legislation ostensibly

responds to the controversy surrounding ``under God'' in the

Pledge of Allegiance, this legislation sweeps far more

broadly, with potentially severe constitutional implications

for religious minorities who are adversely affected by

government-mandated recitation of the Pledge.

First and foremost, we are opposed to H.R. 2389 because

this legislation, by entirely stripping all federal courts,

including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over a

particular class of cases, threatens the separation of powers

established by the Constitution, and undermines the unique

function of the federal courts to interpret constitutional

law. This legislation deprives the federal courts of the

ability to hear cases involving religious and free speech

rights of students, parents, and other individuals. The

denial of a federal forum to plaintiffs to vindicate their

constitutional rights would force plaintiffs out of federal

courts, which are specifically suited for the vindication of

federal interests, and into state courts, which may be

hostile or unsympathetic to these federal claims, and which

may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided to

federal judges under Article III of the Constitution.

In addition, as drafted, the bill would deny access to the

federal courts in cases to enforce existing constitutional

rights for religious minorities. Over sixty years ago, the

Supreme Court decided the case of West Virginia State Board

of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). In Barnette,

the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that

mandated schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced

expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and

fined, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In

striking down that statute, the Court reasoned: ``To believe

that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are

voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is

to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our

institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star

in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,

high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in

politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of

opinion.'' 319 U.S. at 639-40.

Moreover, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit, holding unconstitutional two provisions of a

Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge, said,

``It may be useful to note our belief that most citizens of

the United States willingly recite the Pledge of Allegiance

and proudly sing the national anthem. But the rights embodied

in the Constitution, most particularly the First Amendment,

protect the minority--those persons who march to their own

drummers. It is they who need the protection afforded by the

Constitution and it is the responsibility of federal judges

to ensure that protection.'' Circle School v. Pappert, 381

F.3d 172, 183 (3d Cir. 2004).

H.R. 2389 would undermine the longstanding constitutional

rights of religious minorities to seek redress in the federal

courts in cases involving mandatory recitation of the Pledge.

As a result, this legislation will seriously harm religious

minorities and the constitutional free speech rights of

countless individuals.

H.R. 2389 also raises serious legal concerns about the

violation of the principles of separation of powers, equal

protection and due process. The bill undermines public

confidence in the federal courts by expressing outright

hostility toward them, threatens the legitimacy of future

congressional action by removing the federal courts as a

neutral arbiter, and rejects the unifying function of the

federal judiciary by denying federal courts the opportunity

to interpret the law. We strongly believe that this

legislation as drafted will have broad, negative implications

on the ability of individuals to seek enforcement of

previously constitutionally protected rights concerning

mandatory recitation of the Pledge. We therefore urge, in the

strongest terms, your rejection of this misguided and unwise

legislation.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union.

American Humanists Association.

American Jewish Committee.

Americans for Democratic Action.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Anti-Defamation League.

Baptist Joint Committee.

Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ).

Equal Partners in Faith.

Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA).

Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Human Rights Campaign.

Jewish Council For Public Affairs (JCPA).

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education

Fund).

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Council of Negro Women, Inc.

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health

Association (NFPRHA).

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

People For the American Way.

Secular Coalition for America.

Sikh Coalition.

The Interfaith Alliance.

The Workmen's Circle/ Arbeter Ring.

Union for Reform Judaism.

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

Woodhull Freedom Federation.

Mr. Chairman, when I listed the organizations opposed to the bill, I inadvertently left off Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the National Council of Negro Women.