Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill because it does nothing to reduce corruption and lobbying.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was adopted in the Judiciary Committee. That language was subsequently stripped from the bill by the Rules Committee. That amendment would have simply required a study of the practice by which some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingent fees for obtaining earmarks in appropriations bills. Now, when you combine that idea with the K Street Project where you are supposed to be hiring a Republican lobbyist who is supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see just how ugly a practice this can be. My amendment would have simply asked for a study of the prevalence of that practice.

Mr. Chairman, these kinds of contracts are illegal when lobbyists are representing foreign governments and are illegal in some activities involving the Executive Branch. They are illegal in 39 State legislatures. However, it does not appear to be illegal lobbying Congress under Federal law. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum dated September 21, 2000 cites a legal treatise which says that these contracts furnish the strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and sinister influences and are utterly void against public policy.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was cited in that same memorandum as saying that they have a tendency in such contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. In fact, an 1853 Supreme Court case said that common law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy, or which tends to corrupt or contaminate by improper influences the integrity of our social or political institutions.

Mr. Chairman, true lobbying reform ought to remove corruption from lobbying, and if we are going to be serious about that, we ought to at least study the prevalence of these contracts which everybody knows has a corrupting influence. By removing the amendment, it is clear that that was not the purpose of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Congressional Research Service,

Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 2000.

memorandum

Subject: Contingency Fees for Lobbying Activities.

From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law

Division.

This memorandum is prepared in response to requests from

congressional offices for information about whether one may

lawfully have a contingency fee arrangement for ``lobbying''

activities in which the fee for such lobbying activities is

contingent upon the success of ``lobbying'' efforts in having

legislation passed in the United States Congress.

There is no statute under federal law which expressly

addresses the issue of contingency fees with respect to all

lobbying activities generally before the Congress.

Contingency fees may be expressly barred, however, under

certain circumstances. There is in federal law an express

prohibition against contingency fee arrangements with respect

to seeking certain contracts with the agencies of the Federal

Government. Activities which might generally or colloquially

be called ``lobbying,'' but which involve making

representations on behalf of private parties before federal

agencies to obtain certain government contracts, may thus be

subject to the contingency prohibitions. The reason for such

ban has been explained as follows: ``Contractors'

arrangements to pay contingent fees for soliciting or

obtaining Government contracts have long been considered

contrary to public policy because such arrangements may lead

to attempted or actual exercise of improper influence ....''

Contingency fees are also prohibited for lobbying the

Congress by persons who must register as agents of foreign

principals under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The

prohibition is upon agreements where the amount of payment

``is contingent in whole or in part upon the success of any

political activities carried on by such agent.'' The covered

``political activities'' of such agents under the Foreign

Agents Registration Act include any activity which the agent

``intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of

the Government of the United States ... with reference to

formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign

policies of the United States ...,'' and thus include the

activities of ``lobbying'' Members and staff of Congress on

legislation or appropriations.

Although there is no general, express federal law barring

all contingency fees for successful lobbying before Congress,

there is a long history of judicial precedent and traditional

judicial opinion which indicates that such contingency fee

arrangements, when in reference to ``lobbying'' and the use

of influence before a legislature on general legislation, are

void from their origin (ab initio) for public policy reasons,

and therefore would be denied enforcement in the courts. In

some instances contingency fee arrangements based on the

success of legislation have been upheld in a few courts,

however, when the duties contracted for were professional

services that did not involve traditional, statutorily

defined ``lobbying'' or the use of personal influence before

the legislature, or where the client had a legitimate claim

or legal right to be asserted in a matter before the

legislature (e.g., ``debt legislation'').

The concern of potential temptations from overzealousness

and undue influences which certain ``all or nothing''

contingency arrangements might engender has also been the

reason behind the public policy disfavoring contingency fees

in the case of lobbying the legislature. As summarized in one

legal treatise: ``Agreements under which the compensation for

procuring or influencing legislative action is made

contingent upon the success of the undertaking furnish the

strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and

sinister influences to the end that the desired legislation

may be secured, and there is a long line of cases which holds

that if the agreement is one in which the compensation is

contingent upon success in accomplishing the end sought, it

is utterly void as against public policy.''

The United Stats Supreme Court addressed the issue in

Hazelton v. Sheckells, in 1906. In that case the Court

refused specific performance of a contract to convey a deed

as compensation for services where ``the services

contemplated as a partial consideration of the promise to

convey were services in procuring legislation upon a matter

of public interest, in respect of which neither of the

parties had any claim against the United States.'' As

established in the conveyance document, such agreement

``was in substance a contingent fee,'' dependent upon the

passage of legislation by the Congress. Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, explained that it

was the ``tendency'' in such contract agreements to

provide incentives towards corruption, and not necessarily

any actual corrupt activity in a particular contract or

case, that made these contingent arrangements void for

public policy reasons. Thus, the Court found that even

though the services in this case were legitimate, that

``[t]he objection to them rests in their tendency, not in

what was done in the particular case,'' especially since

if there had been undue or improper influence ``it

probably would be hidden and would not appear.'' The Court

stated that ``in its inception'' the contingency fee

arrangement ``necessarily invited and tended to induce

improper solicitations, and it intensified the inducement

by the contingency of the reward.'' The Court found that

earlier Supreme Court precedent had established ``that all

contracts for a contingent compensation for obtaining

legislation were void,'' and refused to enforce the

contract in question.

The judicial disfavor expressed by the Supreme Court for

contingency contracts for lobbying on general legislation

dates back at least to 1853, when in Marshal v. Baltimore &

Ohio R.R., supra, the Court with reference to secret

contingent contracts explained:

``It is an undoubted principle of the common law, that it

will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act . .

. which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy;

or which tends to corrupt or contaminate, by improper

influences, the integrity of our social or political

institutions. . . . Legislators should act from high

consideration of public duty. Public policy and sound

morality do therefore imperatively require that courts should

put the stamp of disapprobation on every act, and pronounce

void every contract the ultimate or probable tendency of

which would be to sully the purity or mislead the judgments

of those to whom the high trust of legislation is confided.

``. . . Bribes in the shape of high contingent

compensation, must necessarily lead to the use of improper

means and the exercise of undue influence. Their necessary

consequence is the demoralization of the agent who covenants

for them; he is soon brought to believe that any means which

will produce so beneficial a result to himself are ``proper

means''; and that a share of these profits may have the same

effect of quickening the perceptions and warming the zeal of

influential or ``careless'' members in favor of his bill.''

In a more recent federal case on this subject, a United

States Court of Appeals in 1996, in Florida League of

Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, upheld against a

constitutional challenge on First Amendment

grounds the State of Florida's specific legislative ban on

contingency fee contracts for lobbying. The court there

reaffirmed, albeit reluctantly, the long-recognized judicial

precedents concerning the general public policy against such

contingency fees for lobbying. The court noted that there was

no direct precedent overturning the older Supreme Court cases

directly on point on contingency fees and lobbying, but did

seem sympathetic and responsive to the plaintiff's arguments

that more modern cases on the First Amendment and

compensation for advocacy might eventually warrant a

different outcome on this issue:

``Florida points out that in cases decided well before the

articulation of `exacting scrutiny,' the Supreme Court

specifically held that contracts to lobby for a legislative

result, with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative

outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy . . .

[citations omitted]. The League does not contest the

applicability of these older decisions to this case. And, we

are persuaded that these decisions permit a legislature to

prohibit contingent compensation. The League, however,

suggested at argument that the extensive, interim

developments of First Amendment law established conclusively

that the Supreme Court today would strike a contingent-fee

ban on lobbying.

``This prediction may be accurate, but we are not at

liberty to disregard binding case law that is so closely on

point and has been only weakened, rather than directly

overruled, by the Supreme Court.''

As to State statutory bans on contingency fees for

lobbying, it should be noted that as of this writing most of

the States (39) have existing in their state codes an express

prohibition against such contingency fees for lobbying

activities. See, for example, Alabama (Sec. 36-25-23(c),

Michie's Ala. Code); Alaska (sec. 24.45.121 (a)(6), Alaska

Statutes); Arizona (sec. 41-1233(1), Arizona Rev. Statutes);

California (Government Code, Sec. 86205(f), Annotated Calif.

Codes); Colorado (sec. 24-6-308, Colorado Rev. Statutes);

Connecticut (Sec. 1-97(b), Conn. Gen. Statutes Ann.); Florida

(Sec. 11.047 [legislature]; Sec. 112.3217 [executive branch],

Florida Statutes Ann.); Georgia (sec. 28-7-3, Official Code

of Georgia Ann.); Hawaii (sec. 97-5, Hawaii Rev. Statutes

Ann.); Idaho (sec. 67-6621(b)(6), Idaho Code); Illinois

(S.H.A. 25 ILCS 170/8); Indiana (sec. 2-7-5-5, Burns Ind.

Statutes Ann.); Kansas (sec. 46-267, Kansas Statutes Ann.);

Kentucky (sec. 6.811(9), Kentucky Rev. Statutes); Maine

(Title 3, Sec. 318, Maine Rev. Statutes Ann.); Maryland

(State Government, Sec. 15-706, Michie's Ann. Code of Md.);

Massachusetts (Ch. 3, Sec. 42, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.);

Michigan (sec. 4.421(1) Mich. Compiled Laws Ann.);

Minnesota (sec. 10A.06, Minn. Statutes Ann.); Mississippi

(sec. 5-8-13(1), West's Ann. Miss. Code); Nebraska (sec.

49-1492(1), Revised Statutes of Neb.); Nevada (sec.

218.942(4), Nev. Revised Statutes Ann.); New Mexico (sec.

2-11-8, New Mexico Statutes); New York (Book 31,

Legislative Law, Sec. 1-k, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of

N.Y. Ann.); North Carolina (sec. 120-47.5(1), Gen.

Statutes of N.C.); North Dakota (54-05.1-06, N.D. Century

Code Ann.); Ohio (sec. 101-77, Page's Ohio Rev. Code

Ann.); Oklahoma (Title 21, Sec. 334, Oklahoma Statutes

Ann.); Oregon (sec. 171.756(3), Oregon Rev. Statutes);

Pennsylvania (65 Pa. Cons. Statutes Ann. Sec. 1307(a));

Rhode Island (sec. 22-10-12, Gen. Laws of R.I.); South

Carolina (Sec. 2-17-110(A), Code of Laws of S.C.); South

Dakota (sec. 2-12-6, S.D. Codified Laws); Texas

(Government Code, 305.022, Vernon's Texas Codes Ann.);

Utah (sec. 36-11-301 (Utah Code Ann.); Vermont (Title 2,

266(1), Vt. Statutes Ann.); Virginia (Sec. 2.1-791, Code

of Va.); Washington (Sec. 42.17.230(f), West's Rev. Code

of Wash. Ann.); Wisconsin (sec. 13.625(d), Wise. Statutes

Ann.).

As noted, the weight of judicial opinion has been either to

uphold such restrictions against challenges, or in some cases

in the absence of an express statute to judicially find such

contingency fee arrangements void for public policy reasons.

In one instance in the 1980's, however, a provision, enacted

as a result of a state initiative, barring all contingency

fees for legislative lobbying activities was struck down by a

state court as an overbroad intrusion into the right to

petition the government. The Supreme Court of Montana found

the law ``overbroad because it precludes contingent fee

agreements that are properly motivated as well as those that

are improperly motivated'' and as such, the ``ability of

individuals and organizations to fully exercise their right

to petition the government may be severely curtailed by this

broad prohibition.''

While the existing state of the law is clearly for most

States to continue to expressly prohibit by law contingency

fee agreements with respect to legislative lobbying on

general legislation, and to have those prohibitions upheld

(or to consider such contingency agreements void for public

policy reasons where there is no express law, as is the case

with respect to lobbying before Congress), other

interpretations have permitted such arrangements where an

agent, attorney or representative is seeking legislation

based upon a claim or similar legal interest or right to be

asserted against the government, or when such action involves

conduct and activity that is done in the normal course of

client representation by an attorney and is not expressly

contemplated by the original contract.

There have also been cases where legitimate professional

services are contracted for, such as, for example, the

drafting of legislative language, as opposed to merely

engaging another's ``influence'' to ``lobby,'' when such an

arrangement for services, even if based on the contingency of

the passage of legislation, has been permitted. Such cases

have been described as related to contracts where the

``services rendered thereunder did not partake of anything in

the nature of lobbying....'' Although relating to

legislation, the services in question were not necessarily

within a specific or narrow definition of ``lobbying'' in the

sense that nothing that was contracted for involved any

activities attempting to ``exert private or personal

influence with members of the legislature, or in interviewing

or bringing pressure to bear on them....'' In making

arguments for allowing such contingent fees in cases of

professional services rendered in relation to legislation

where no undue influences are contemplated or used, and no

traditional ``lobbying'' is conducted, it has been suggested

that such permissibility of the fee arrangement would have no

more ``influencing'' tendency than in the permissible

instance of one representing oneself before the legislature

(and thus having an even greater financial stake than an

agent in the outcome), or if an agent or attorney represented

a client before a judicial panel, i.e., a court.

Jack Maskell,

Legislative Attorney.

Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment that was adopted in the Judiciary Committee, and the adoption of this rule would eliminate that amendment.

That amendment would have created just a study of a practice where some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingency fees for getting earmarks. Now, when you combine this idea with the K Street Project where you are supposed to be hiring Republican lobbyists who are supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see how ugly a practice this can get. I just asked for a study.

And, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal for agents of foreign governments. They are illegal in some executive branch lobbying. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum cited these as bad because they furnish the strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and sinister influences to the end that the desired legislation may be secured, and there is a long line of cases in which it

is utterly void against public policy. The CRS memo cites Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906, saying that it is the tendency in such contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. An 1853 Supreme Court case said that it is an undoubted principle of the common law, that it will not lend its aid to enforce a contract such as this to do an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy or which tends to corrupt or contaminate.

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of contracts are illegal in 39 States because of their corrupting influence. If we are going to have a bill that suggests it is going to do something about corruption, what is wrong with at least studying the prevalence of these contracts which do not appear to be illegal in the Federal Government but everybody knows have a corrupting influence?

I would hope that we would defeat the rule so that my amendment, which was adopted in the Judiciary Committee, can be reinserted back into the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the primary academic freedom enjoyed by a university is the freedom to choose whom to admit. Most recently, this principle was reaffirmed in the 2003 decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The Supreme Court has also recognized that, in exercising this academic freedom, universities may constitutionally consider race and ethnicity, among other factors, to promote the educational benefits of a diverse student body. At the same time, universities must regularly review their admissions policies to ensure that they consider individual admissions factors only as needed to promote their institutional mission.

The King amendment tramples academic freedom and chills universities' willingness to consider diversity factors even in the narrowly tailored manner that the Supreme Court has upheld. It creates a burdensome reporting requirement that acts as a disincentive for universities to exercise their academic freedom as permitted by the Court. Furthermore, over reliance on admissions criteria such as standardized tests, which have been found to be culturally biased, may also get caught up in the King amendment.

The King amendment also jeopardizes the privacy and confidentiality of individual student applicants. Educational institutions are prohibited by law from disclosing personally identifiable information from students' education records without consent. In fact, even release of information for educational research purposes is permitted only if the information is released in such a way that student identities are not traceable, The King amendment would, in contradiction of this law, require release of raw admissions data for applicants in a manner that would not ensure applicant confidentiality.

The King amendment incorrectly assumes that there is a weight given to each admissions factor by universities. However, as the Supreme Court explained in Gratz and Grutter, admissions factors must be considered in an individualized holistic manner and therefore weight will necessarily vary from one application to the next.

Finally, the King amendment is opposed by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the American Council on Education.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should not trample on the rights of universities to exercise academic freedom. Nor should we pass an amendment that would violate student privacy rights. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Republican leadership brought their higher education bill to the floor. Their claim was that it would strengthen and improve the nation's higher education system by expanding college access for low- and middle-income students. But in reality it fails to provide urgently needed assistance for millions of low- and middle-class families that are trying to figure out how to pay for their children to go to college.

This past December House Republicans voted to cut the student loan programs by $12 billion and these cuts included many significant changes to the Higher Education Act, none of which expand access to college or make college more affordable for students and their families. The bill put forward by the majority does nothing to make up for these draconian cuts.

Today Mr. Chairman, we offer our substitute in an attempt to make students whole again. Our substitute offers real financial assistance to needy families. It cuts interest rates in half for borrowers in most need by lowering the cost of college by $2.4 billion for students and their families. It lowers the cost of student loan interest rates for middle and low-income families. Specifically, we offer a 3.4 percent fixed interest rate to students who take out subsidized loans between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.

Our Substitute also helps boost college participation rates for minority students. It establishes a graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program. It establishes a Predominantly Black Institution program that would boost college opportunities for low-income and first-generation Black college students. Our substitute also increases the tribal college minimum grant and stabilizes tribal college construction by ensuring that funds for used for construction under HEA are guaranteed.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of tuition should not stand between a qualified student and a college education. Congress should not miss an opportunity to help American families pay for college. Our bill offers families a real solution to the problem of rising tuition costs. We make good on our promise to put a college education within the reach of American students and families. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Mr. Chairman, on the afternoon of March 16, 2006, I was at the White House for a meeting with the President and was unavoidably detained, thereby causing me to miss five rollcall votes. I would like to submit this statement for the record to reflect how I would have voted had I been present.

On rollcall No. 55, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 56, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 57, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 58, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 59, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us purports to strengthen and improve the Nation's higher education system by expanding college access for low- and middle-income students, but in reality, it fails to provide the urgently needed assistance for millions of low- and middle-income families that are trying to figure out how to pay for their children to go to college.

This past December, the House majority voted to cut the student loan program by $12 billion, and these cuts included many significant changes in the Higher Education Act, none of which expand access to college or make college more affordable for students and their families. This bill, put forward by the majority, does nothing to make up for those draconian cuts.

Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute will be offered later this afternoon, which will offer real financial assistance to needy families. For example, it will lower the costs of student loan interest rates for middle- and low-income families, specifically by lowering the direct and Federal Family Education Loans by cutting them in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

That substitute will also repeal what is called the Pell tuition sensitivity by making sure that all students receive the full benefit of the Pell Grant program without regard to whether they are attending a 2-year community college or a private 4-year institution.

That substitute will also boost college participation rates for minority students, establishing graduate Hispanic Serving Institution programs. It also establishes a Predominantly Black Institution program that would boost college opportunities for low-income and first- generation African American college students.

Our substitute will also increase the tribal college minimum grant and stabilization of tribal college construction by ensuring that the title III program currently used for construction is guaranteed.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that a college education significantly increases the future earning power for students today, and the cost of tuition should not stand between a qualified student and a college education. The Democratic alternative will offer families a real solution to the problem of rising tuition costs and make good on our promise to put college education within the reach of American students and families. The underlying bill does not.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to support the Democratic substitute, and if it is not adopted, to oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, in a couple of days we will be taking up the budget, and as people talk about fiscal responsibility, this chart is the chart they are talking about.

This chart shows the deficit over the years, how President Clinton took a $290 billion deficit and converted it into a $238 billion surplus, and as soon as this President came in, there has been a complete collapse.

As you talk about the budget, remember this chart. When President Clinton left office, we had a projected surplus of over $5.5 trillion. Now we have for those same 10 years a projected deficit of $3.3 trillion. The war, $300 billion, that is .3. Katrina, $200 billion, that is .2. An almost $9 trillion deterioration in the deficit.

And we didn't create any jobs. When they talk about economic improvement, this is the number of jobs created since Herbert Hoover, by administration. This administration, the worst since Herbert Hoover.

We need to get our economy straight. We need to get our budget straight, and we can do it if we take the same kind of initiatives we took in the 1990s.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult bill to try to debate because it includes a lot of different bills, everything except the hate crimes bill, which had broad support at least on this side. It includes a variety of slogans and sound bites, many of which have actually been shown to increase crime, disrupt orderly, proportionate, and fair sentencing, it wastes money and violates common sense.

Among these approaches are trying more juveniles as adults, the mandatory minimums, new death penalties, and habeas corpus restrictions, which is a process by which dozens of innocent people on death row have been able to show their innocence and escape the death penalty because they were innocent of the underlying charges. It also includes a national sex offender registry that includes misdemeanors and juveniles in the same kind of registration as the most serious predatory offenses.

If we are going to be serious about dealing with child sexual abuse, we ought to face the fact that virtually all of the abusers are either related to the child or at least known to the child's family. No studies have shown that these things actually reduce child abuse; and, in fact, anecdotal evidence would suggest that we might be actually increasing crime. Because the people who are the subject of these are unable to get a job, unable to live in any kind of neighborhood, have nothing to lose, the restrictive covenants now restricting where they can live, and all of these things may in fact increase crime. But there are certainly no studies to show that they have reduced by any measurable amounts the amount of child sexual abuse.

We are treating more juveniles as adults. That thing has been studied over and over again, and we know that treating more juveniles as adults will increase the crime rates. In every State, the most heinous crimes are already subject to juveniles being treated as adults. So if this passes, we are talking about those who are not now treated as adults who would be treated as adults under this bill. Those are the marginal cases.

We know that those marginal cases sent to adult court will not have education and psychological services and family services available in the juvenile court. They will either be locked up with adults or just released on probation. Whatever the adult court judge does will be more likely to have crime in the future than if the juvenile court can provide those services.

We know how to reduce juvenile crime. It is the prevention programs. And unlike many bills, there is actually some money in this bill for prevention programs. They work. So those provisions are actually meaningful. We also have reentry programs in here. They work and have been proven to reduce recidivism. So there are at least some provisions of the bill that have something to recommend them.

But the mandatory minimums in the bill have been studied. We know from all the studies that mandatory minimums have been shown to waste money, discriminate against minorities, and violate common sense. This bill includes mandatory minimums for juveniles that includes a 20-year mandatory minimum for a fistfight that results in a serious injury, and 10 years mandatory minimum if there is no serious injury; 10 years mandatory minimum for a fistfight in a school yard. This bill cannot be serious.

We have death penalties which have been proven to have no effect on crime. Innocent people are convicted. We have a habeas corpus provision that will eliminate the possibility that many of those who are innocent on death row, and we know there are many of them, will not have the opportunity to have their cases adjudicated.

We saw in the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito, when he was asked if an innocent person had a constitutional right against execution, and he didn't give a straight answer. We need to make sure people's rights are protected and that habeas corpus provisions are eliminated from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a letter that says, ``For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children.'' It continues, ``In some instances, the proposed amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is required of those needing to comply, and in others, they impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.''

The letter is signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Screen Actors Guild, American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Association of Law Libraries and others.

February 7, 2006.

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our

continuing concern with the legislative language contained in

S. 2140, the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation of Children

Act that would significantly expand the scope of Title 18

U.S.C. Sec. 2257. As you know, we strongly support the

objective of increasing the Justice Department's ability to

combat child pornography and exploitation. The members of our

broad coalition are committed to protecting children from

exploitation. That is why we appreciate and acknowledge the

efforts of the sponsors of S. 2140 to address many of the

issues raised by prior attempts to amend Sec. 2257. However,

serious concerns remain.

S. 2140 would significantly expand the types and categories

of conduct that would trigger the requirements of Sec. 2257.

For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array

of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been

linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children. S.

2140 dramatically expands the class of persons required to

keep records and to label products under Sec. 2257. Many

affected by the proposed expansion are businesses and

individuals that have no actual contact or relationship with

the performers in question. In some instances, the proposed

amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is

required of those needing to comply, and in others, they

impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.

Expansion of Sec. 2257 as envisioned by the proposed

legislation will likely divert even more resources toward

legal challenges to the statute and away from the

legislation's primary objective of prosecuting those who

sexually exploit children.

It is important to note that since Sec. 2257 was passed in

1988, the inspection regime of the law has, to our knowledge,

never been used. Rather than expanding the scope of Sec. 2257

to cover a myriad of lawful, legitimate, Main-street

businesses, we believe effective enforcement of the existing

regime is first necessary. Accordingly, any amendments to the

statute should be narrow and focused on individuals that seek

to harm young people.

Finally, from the outset of this process, we have been

prepared to discuss the serious concerns our coalition has

with the proposals to amend Sec. 2257. However, we are not

involved in the negotiation of the current bill language.

While we remain committed to working with all interested

parties, we do not believe that in its current form, S. 2140

addresses the myriad of legitimate concerns raised by our

coalition.

We applaud you for your continued leadership and dedication

to protecting children

and reiterate our commitment to work with you to address this

serious issue.

Sincerely,

United States Chamber of Commerce; Video Software Dealers

Association; Americans for Tax Reform; American Library

Association; American Conservative Union; National

Association of Broadcasters; National Cable &

Telecommunications Association; Motion Picture

Association of America; Screen Actors Guild; Media

Freedom Project; American Hotel and Lodging

Association; The American Federation of Television and

Radio Artists; Magazine Publishers of America;

Directors Guild of America; Digital Media Association;

Computer & Communications Industry Association;

Association of Research Libraries; The Creative

Coalition; Association of National Advertisers;

Association of American Publishers; American

Association of Advertising Agencies; American

Advertising Federation; American Booksellers Foundation

for Free Expression; Publishers Marketing Association;

Freedom to Read Foundation; American Association of Law

Libraries

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

Oppose H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act

of 2005

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of

thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-

wide, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 4472, the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005

(``Omnibus Crime''). H.R.4472 would create ten new federal

death penalties and almost 30 new discriminatory mandatory

minimums that infringe upon protected First Amendment speech,

effectively eliminate federal and state prisoners' ability to

challenge

wrongful convictions in federal court, make it more difficult

to monitor sex offenders and create more serious juvenile

offenders by incarcerating children in adult prisons. H.R.

4472 is scheduled for a vote on the House floor on Wednesday,

March 8, 2006; we strongly urge you to oppose this

legislation.

Congress Should Not Expand The Federal Death Penalty Until It Ensures

Innocent People Are Not On Death Row

The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 123

prisoners on death row have now been exonerated. Chronic

problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial

disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United

States. The expansion of the death penalty for gang and other

crimes creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application

of the death penalty.

In addition to expanding the number of federal death

penalty crimes, this bill also expands venue in capital

cases, making any location even tangentially related to the

crime a possible site for the trial. This raises

constitutional as well as public policy concerns. The U.S.

Constitution states that ``the Trial of all Crimes . . .

shall be by Jury; and shall be held in the State where the

said Crimes shall have been committed.'' This concept is

important in order to prevent undue hardship and partiality

when an accused person is prosecuted in a place that has no

significant connection to the offense with which he is

charged. This proposed change in H.R. 4472 would increase the

inequities that already exist in the federal death penalty

system, giving prosecutors tremendous discretion to ``forum

shop'' for the most death-friendly jurisdiction in which to

try their case.

In carjacking cases, this legislation would effectively

relieve the government from having to prove that a person

intended to cause the death of a person before being subject

to the death penalty. This provision is likely

unconstitutional in the context of capital cases. In

addition, the bill would allow the death penalty for attempt

and conspiracy in carjacking cases, which we believe is

unconstitutional.

H.R. 4472 Erodes Federal Judges' Sentencing Discretion by Proposing

Harsher Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This legislation would create 29 new mandatory minimum

sentences that would result in unfair and discriminatory

prison terms. Many of the criminal penalties in this bill are

increased to mandatory minimum sentences, including the

sentence for second-degree murder that would be a mandatory

sentence of 30 years. Although, in theory, mandatory

minimums were created to address disparate sentences that

resulted from indeterminate sentencing systems, in reality

they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor.

Prosecutors hold all the power over whether a defendant

gets a plea bargain in order for that defendant to avoid

the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and

inequitable sentences for people who commit similar

crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory

minimums were created to address.

people could be convicted of a ``gang'' crime even if they are not

members of a gang

This legislation would impose severe penalties for a

collective group of three or more people who commit ``gang''

crimes. This bill amends the already broad definition of

``criminal street gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard

of a formal or informal group or association of three (3) or

more people who commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The

number of people required to form a gang decreases from five

(5) people in an ongoing group under current law to three (3)

people who could just be associates or casual acquaintances

under this proposed legislation. Under current law it is

essential to establish that a gang had committed a

``continuing series of offenses.'' By eliminating this

requirement, H.R. 4472 defeats the purpose of a gang law,

i.e. to target criminal activity that has some type of

connection to a tight knit group of people that exists for

the purpose of engaging in illegal activities.

H.R. 4472 Jeopardizes a Person's Right to a Fair Trial

Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not

commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed

in this legislation. The Omnibus Crime bill proposes to

extend the statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of

violence. Generally, the statute of limitations for non-

capital federal crimes is five (5) years after the offense is

committed. Fifteen years after a crime is committed, alibi

witnesses could have disappeared or died, other witnesses'

memories could have faded and evidence may be unreliable. The

use of questionable evidence could affect a person's ability

to defend him or herself against charges and to receive a

fair trial.

This legislation would also preclude defense attorneys in

child pornography cases from obtaining possession of the

alleged child pornography, possibly depriving the defendant

of a fair trial. This provision is entirely unnecessary,

since federal courts routinely issue extremely restrictive

protective orders regarding alleged child pornography. These

protective orders preclude duplication or review of the

alleged child pornography except as necessary for the

preparation of the defense. Giving the government sole

possession of the material may well harm the defendant's

case. Forensic analysis is often critical in determining

whether the material is, in fact, child pornography.

Title VI Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Speech Under the

First Amendment

The legislation would require record keeping for simulated

sexual conduct. Simulated sexual conduct that is not obscene

is protected under the First Amendment. ``Laws that burden

material protected by the First Amendment must be approached

from a skeptical point of view and must be given strict

scrutiny.'' The fact that those laws only burden rather than

prohibit protected material does not save them

constitutionally.

This provision of the bill infringes upon protected speech

and is not narrowly tailored to solve the problems of child

pornography. Understandably, mainstream producers will comply

with the law, but those who are intent on making child

pornography are unlikely to do so. This provision is

therefore constitutionally suspect.

Federal Courts Would Essentially Be Unable To Release Some People on

Death Row Who Were Wrongfully Convicted

Most habeas corpus petitions that challenge a person's

death or criminal sentence are brought to federal court based

on a constitutional error that under the law is considered

``harmless'' or ``non-prejudicial.'' These types of legal

errors do not involve substantial rights and do not

necessarily result in a person being released from custody.

H.R. 4472 would prevent federal courts from hearing claims in

death penalty cases that involve claims of cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment or whether a

defendant's lawyer was ineffective during the sentencing

phase of a capital case.

This provision of the bill has serious implications for the

independence of the federal judiciary. Congress' attempt to

strip Article III courts of their constitutional habeas

corpus jurisdiction is unconstitutional under the doctrine of

Separation of Powers. Removing jurisdiction over many habeas

claims from Federal courts ignores the Separation of Powers

doctrine by eliminating the role of the courts in upholding

constitutional rights of prisoners.

H.R. 4472 Would Result in the Routine Collection and Permanent

Retention of DNA Samples and Profiles From Innocent People

The ``Violence Against Women Act of 2005'' (VAWA) was

signed into law on January 5, 2006, (P.L. No: 109-162) and

dramatically expands the government's authority to collect

and permanently retain DNA samples. Under this law, persons

who are merely arrested or detained by federal authorities

would be forced to have their DNA collected and stored

alongside those of convicted felons in the Federal DNA

database. However, under current law, DNA samples that are

voluntarily submitted to law enforcement authorities are not

included in the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS). In

addition, DNA profiles of individuals arrested but not

convicted of crimes can be expunged from CODIS upon receipt

of a ``certified copy of a final court order establishing

that such charge has been dismissed or has resulted in an

acquittal.''

However, H.R. 4472 would permit voluntarily submitted

samples to be included in CODIS and would eliminate the

expungement provision for people whose DNA was incorporated

in the federal database based on an arrest that never

resulted in a conviction. Retaining a person's DNA in a

criminal database renders him or her an automatic suspect for

any future crime. This is problematic for any category of

tested persons, but especially for those who have been

arrested but not convicted of a crime.

In addition, the Omnibus Crime bill would allow states to

upload to CODIS DNA samples submitted voluntarily in order to

eliminate people as suspects of a crime. This will increase

the use by law enforcement of DNA ``sweeps'' and reducing the

willingness of citizens to cooperate with the police.

H.R. 4472 Will Make It More Difficult To Monitor Sex Offenders by

Simply Forcing Offenders Underground

The proposed legislation requires sex offenders to update

registry information within 5 days of a change in residence,

employment or student status. This requirement is unrealistic

and works against the goal of being able to monitor sex

offenders. If the registration requirements are unrealistic,

offenders will fail to register and end up underground, which

is contrary to the goal of tracking and locating them. Under

the Omnibus Crime bill, states will be required to verify sex

offender registry information in persons possibly as

frequently as once every three months and required to verify

their residences as often as once every month depending on

the class of offender. This will be an enormous burden on the

states to create and implement systems to track sex offenders

on a monthly basis.

The bill will also require the work addresses of sex

offenders to be available on the Internet. Publicizing

information about employers and their addresses on the

Internet could ultimately lead to employers refusing to hire

former sex offenders. Research has shown that significant

supervision upon release and involvement in productive

activities are critical to preventing sex offenders from

reoffending. Limiting the opportunities

of sex offenders to maintain gainful employment is counter-

productive to their rehabilitation as well as to keeping

communities safe.

Children Would Be Put in Federal Prison With Little Opportunity for

Education or Rehabilitation

Under the Omnibus Crime bill, more children will become

hardened criminals after being tried in Federal court and

incarcerated in adult prisons. H.R. 4472 would give

prosecutors the discretion to determine when to try a young

person in Federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is 16

years of age or older and commits a crime of violence. The

decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot

be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This

unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult Federal

court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not

routinely prosecuted in the Federal system and there are no

resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose

H.R. 4472 when the House votes on the bill on March 8, 2006.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson,

Director,

Jesselyn McCurdy,

Legislative Counsel

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, let me just first say I believe it is inappropriate to even discuss the PATRIOT Act until we have had hearings to find out what is going on with the NSA wiretaps. The PATRIOT Act could be, in fact, irrelevant if you are wiretapping at will, as the President has suggested; and we want to know exactly what is going on with those wiretaps before we do anything else. But this bill is on the floor, so we have to discuss that.

Unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill because it still continues to require no finding of individualized suspicion as a trigger to the secret record search powers in sections 215 and 505. That means that innocent Americans can have their sensitive records searched without any showing that they are an agent of a terrorist organization or scheming with terrorist organizations or doing anything illegal. Instead, this continues the problems in the original PATRIOT Act. This bill addresses several of the problems, but doesn't actually solve them.

One thing it helps is the fact that the recipient of a national security letter will be able to consult a lawyer without having to notify the government of the attorney's name. This is merely cosmetic, because that has actually been the recent practice.

In terms of these interstate letters, the bill addresses the right to challenge the gag order which applies to the secret orders under 215, as well as the national security letters; but it says that you can't make the challenge for 1 year. It codifies a 1-year period during which you can't do anything. That makes the present law worse. Presumably, you could go in right away to challenge the NSA and see the secret orders; but now you have to wait a year, and at the end of the year, you can't do anything, because all the government has to do is certify that the gag order needs to stay in effect. The judge has no discretion as to overturning that certification. So although this issue is addressed, it is actually made worse.

Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a question on the protection of privacy of library patrons in terms of the Internet service providers as to whether or not the library is an Internet service provider. The language is a little bit confusing.

Madam Speaker, I would enter into the Record a colloquy between the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, the chief patron of the bill. Assuming that he means what he said he meant on the floor of the Senate, we don't have a problem with it. So I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record the colloquy between the two Senators as to what section 5 actually means.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce this. It represents the intent of the chief sponsor of the bill, which we agree with, although I understand the manager of the bill in the House may not.

Colloquy Between Senators John Sununu and Dick Durbin on Section 5 of

S. 2271, February 16, 2006

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment, I wish to

address the bill pending before the Senate, and that is S.

2271.

I commend Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who is here

in the Chamber. Were it not for his hard work, we would not

be here today. For weeks, while many of us were doing other

things back home, Senator Sununu was working assiduously with

the White House to find a way to address some very vexing and

challenging issues when it came to modifying the PATRIOT Act.

He has done an excellent job. I commend him and tell him that

I have enjoyed working with him over the last 2 years, where

we have crossed party lines and tried to find ways to keep

the PATRIOT Act as a tool to make America safe but also at

the same time to protect our basic liberties.

Every step of the way, as we considered changes to the

PATRIOT Act, we have been supported by our Nation's

librarians. These are wonderful men and women--

professionals--who are dedicated to the libraries across

America, which are such rich resources. I thank the

librarians of America, especially for their heroic efforts to

amend the PATRIOT Act in a responsible way and, equally as

important, to defend our Constitution.

I understand that section 5 of Senator Sununu's bill, S.

2271, will help protect the privacy of Americans' library

records. I ask the indulgence of the Chair that I might enter

into a colloquy with Senator Sununu relative to section 5.

I would like to ask Senator Sununu, through the Chair, if

he could explain to me what section 5 will accomplish.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor

today and pleased to be able to see the light at the end of

the tunnel on PATRIOT reauthorization, thanks to the work of

Senator Durbin and others. We have legislation before us that

will make the adjustments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization

conference report mentioned by the Senator from Illinois. He

specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation. As he

began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current

law regarding the applicability of National Security Letters

to libraries.

A National Security Letter is a type of administrative

subpoena, a powerful tool available to law enforcement

officials, to get access to documents. It is a document

signed by an FBI agent that requires a business to provide

certain kinds of personal records on their customers to the

Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a judge

before being issued.

What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language

that states that libraries operating in their traditional

functions: lending books, providing access to digital books

or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access

to the Internet would not be subject to a national security

letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing

in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain

library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from

Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing

National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it

could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as

they do communication service providers such as a telephone

company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom

consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet

and send and receive e-mail.

Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library

providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a

national security letter, simply by virtue of making that

access available to the public.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. It is

my understanding that most public libraries, as he explained,

offer Internet access to the public. Because of this, they

are concerned that the Government might consider them to be

communications service providers similar to the traditional

providers, such as AT&T, Verizon, and AOL.

So if I understand it correctly, your bill clarifies that

libraries, simply because they provide basic Internet access,

are not communications service providers under the law and

are not subject to national security letters as a result. I

ask the Senator from New Hampshire, through the Chair, is

that a correct conclusion?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the

conclusion of the Senator from Illinois is correct, A library

providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a

National Security Letter as a result of that particular

service and other services that are very much in keeping with

the traditional role of libraries.

Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access

gives library patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail

by, for example, accessing an Internet-based e-mail service.

But in that case, it is the Web site operator who is

providing the communication service--the Internet

communication service provider itself--and not the library,

which is simply making available a computer with access to

the Internet.

So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from

Illinois and others who have worked very long and hard on

this and other provisions. I think it does add clarity to the

law as he described, in addition to providing other

improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil

liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing

law enforcement with the tools that they need in their

terrorism investigations while, at the same time, balancing

those powers with the need to protect civil liberties. I

think, in the legislation before us, we have added clarity to

the law in giving access to the courts to object to section

215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive

provision dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient

of a National Security Letter to disclose the name of their

attorney to the FBI.

All of these are improvements to the underlying

legislation, and I recognize that we had a overwhelming,

bipartisan vote today to move forward on this package. I

anticipate that we will have similar bipartisan votes in the

days ahead to conclude work on this legislation and get a

much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, as

well, because that clarification is important. So if a

library offers basic Internet access, and within that access

a patron can, for example, send and receive e-mail by

accessing an Internet-based e-mail service such as Hotmail,

for example, that does not mean the library is a

communications service provider and, therefore, it does not

mean that a library could be subject to these national

security letters of investigation.

By way of comparison, a gas station that has a pay phone

isn't a telephone company. So a library that has Internet

access, where a person can find an Internet e-mail service,

is not a communications service provider; therefore, it would

not fall under the purview of the NSL provision in 18 U.S.C.

2709. It is a critically important distinction. I thank the

Senator from New Hampshire for making that clear and for all

of his good work on this bill.

Libraries are fundamental to America. They symbolize our

access to education. They are available to everyone,

regardless of social or economic status.

When we first introduced the SAFE Act, I went to the

Chicago Public Library to make the announcement. The library

was established in 1873, and for over 130 years it has

given the people of the City of Chicago the ability to read

and learn and communicate. Here is what the mission statement

says at that public library:

We welcome and support all people and their enjoyment of

reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. We believe in the

freedom to read, to learn, and to discover.

We have to ensure, in the Senate and in Congress, in the

bills that we pass, including the PATRIOT Act, that this

freedom to read, learn, and discover is preserved for our

children and our grandchildren.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated before, we need to have hearings on the NSA wiretaps. The question there is not whether or not the wiretaps can take place, but whether or not they take place in the concept of checks and balances.

Also, we need to know what kinds of wiretaps are going on, and it would be nice to have hearings on that before we consider the PATRIOT Act. But when one of the previous speakers talked about the due process involved, we have to remind people that the due process is not for the person whose records are being gathered, but due process on the library that does not have enough money to operate the library, whether or not they have a right to go out and hire a lawyer to protect somebody else's rights.

The person affected does not have any rights in this situation. It is just the library and their own good will. If they want to go out and protect somebody's rights, they have that opportunity. These are extraordinary rights, police rights and police powers; and we need to make sure that people actually understand what is going on here.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.

The bill amends existing law in a matter designed to intensify the effort to prevent counterfeiting of goods. Counterfeited goods victimize the manufacturer and shortchange purchasers with substandard products. They also expose all of us to risks from unsafe products and deprive Americans of jobs and other benefits from commerce when the authentic goods are not sold.

The sale of counterfeit goods is illegal. This bill clarifies any ambiguity there may be in present law. Madam Speaker, when we began working on this bill on a bipartisan basis at the subcommittee level, there was a concern when drafted that the bill went too far and actually criminalizes current legitimate, time-honored practices by law-abiding merchants who legally purchased authentic goods and repackage them in various ways to enhance sales of such goods.

We forged an agreement which addressed this potential problem to the satisfaction of all those who had expressed concerns about it. So this bill addresses the problem of counterfeiting of manufactured goods in a manner that should now be considered non-controversial.

Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding to me.

My colleague from Virginia, you have done an excellent job in outlining what the problem is.

I like to use charts as I describe what the problem is. Our previous speaker indicated, the Truth Squad, as to what the truth is. I would like to point out exactly what he is talking about because this chart shows the deficit back through the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton administrations, up to a surplus and what has happened in the last 5 years.

When they talk about bragging about fiscal responsibility from the Republican side, this is the line they are talking about, the one they are bragging about right here.

When they ask what the Democratic plan is to get us out of this mess, I would say, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is this blue line right here. That is what we had under President Clinton. My colleague from Virginia will remember in 1993 the first budget passed under the Clinton administration. It passed without a single Republican vote, House or Senate, and we took that budget and took it up to a surplus.

In 1995, when the Republicans came in and took control of Congress, they passed a different kind of budget, and President Clinton vetoed that budget. In fact, they threatened to close down the government if he did not sign those tax cuts, and he vetoed it again and the government was shut down. President Clinton would not sign an irresponsible budget. And as a result, we have almost a straight line up into a surplus.

When President Bush came in, everything collapsed. They stopped paying for tax cuts or paying for spending cuts. Pay-as-you-go dissolved, and here is what you have. And this is the line they are bragging about.

Now, unfortunately, it is going to get worse before it gets better. The President says that he wants to cut the deficit in half in 5 years. That is a fairly, what I would say, modest goal, taking into consideration the fact that you had a huge surplus to begin with to say that you are only going to clean up half of the mess, but the fact is he cannot even do it if we make the tax cuts permanent and do other things that he has suggested. And they are passing.

This is the line we are going to follow for the next 10 years. Deep into deficits. This green line is the promise, which is not much, but the red line is what we are going to probably do.

This little blue line up here is an interesting line because that is the budget from this administration in 2003 before they continued cutting taxes. They showed that by now we would be up into surplus. 2003 is significant because that is after 2001. After the war we still had projected, before we continued to mess up the budget, we were supposed to be in surplus now, but here we are deep in the ditch. In fact, as my colleague from Virginia has indicated, we had, when this administration started, a projected $5.6 trillion surplus for the following decade. We have dropped almost $9 trillion to, the same year, a $3.3 trillion deficit, a turnaround of $8.9 trillion.

Now, let us put that number in perspective because it is a big number. If you add up everybody's individual income tax, what everybody pays on April 15, every individual, what your individual tax is, it averages year by year to be about $800 billion. An average deterioration in the budget, almost $900 billion, deterioration in the budget. And when you talk about the war, the gentleman mentioned less than $500 billion, 0.5.

Talk about Katrina, $200 billion, we might want to pay for the Katrina aftermath, 0.2. An $8.9 trillion deterioration; you cannot blame it on 0.5 and 0.2. And since that happened, it looks like you would have changed course somehow to accommodate it. No, you kept going straight. But you cannot blame 0.5 and 0.2 on a $9 trillion deterioration.

Now, the Truth Squad indicated a blank slate of the Democrats who voted for the spending cuts in 1991. That is true. But they did not tell you what the spending cuts were. Food stamps and health care for the working poor, and I say ``working poor'' because when you cut, you cut from the top. The ones that are struggling, the ones that are just barely making it, you

whack them. The very poor are untouched; it is just the working, struggling poor that get whacked with food stamps and health care.

They also cut child care, child support enforcement, foster care. We had a group come into my office the other day talking about the effects on foster care. Many at-risk children who are in foster care now will not have resources to help them. These are the ones at most risk of getting into trouble, getting into other problems that we are going to have to deal with. Those are the ones that got whacked by that budget, as well as, as the gentleman indicated, student loans. That is what we did not vote for.

But he also did not say what that was a total package of. They had spending cuts and they had tax cuts. The spending cuts were less than $40 billion. The tax cuts were $70 billion. Had we passed the plan, we were going to be $30 billion worse off, further in the ditch than we started off. These are some of the problems with the budget.

And let me get these other charts which point out that when you run up that kind of deficit, that is kind of esoteric, but at some point not only do you have to pay it back, but in the meanwhile, interest on the national debt. By 2010, compared to where we were on the line on interest in the national debt, we are going to be spending over $200 billion more in interest on the national debt, $227 billion more in interest on the national debt than we had projected.

At $22,000 a year for a job, how many people can you hire with $227 billion? Answer: 10 million. There are only 8 or 9 million people looking for work, drawing unemployment today. You could hire each and every one of them with a $22,000 job and have money left over with the additional interest in the national debt that we are going to have to pay.

Now, as you have indicated, we are running up debt. This chart shows the Social Security cash flow. What we are spending now, the little blue line, shows that we are bringing in more than we are paying out. In 2017, we are going to start paying out more than we are bringing in. Right at the time we are deepest in the debt, paying the most in interest on the debt, we are going to need to come up with cash to pay for Social Security.

Now, there is an old adage that goes, ``If you don't change directions, you might end up where you're headed.'' Let us look at what where we are headed with this budget. This black line shows the taxes if we continue making these tax cuts permanent, as the Republicans have continued to pass. Where are we headed? By 2040, this line goes across and shows that we could be able to pay for the blue, interest on the national debt; the yellow, Social Security, and we would have to borrow a lot of money to pay for that because you are not even covering Social Security; but we would also have to borrow for the red, which is Medicare and Medicaid; and green, which is government spending like defense, education, FBI, and everything else we do, all with borrowed money.

Obviously, this is not a sustainable direction. We have to change directions, and we need to start now. It is not getting any better.

I thank you for leading this Special Order. We have a lot of work to do. Again, if people want to know what the Democratic plan is, the democratic plan is the blue. We dug ourselves deeply out of debt and ran up a surplus sufficient to have an over-$5 trillion surplus.

Mentioning Social Security, to pay for Social Security for the next 75 years, we would need today $4 trillion more in the trust fund, $4 trillion more. We had over a $5 trillion surplus squandered away, turned into a deficit. We had the Social Security problem licked because we had gone into surplus. We could have paid Social Security for the next 75 years. But, no, we went in a different direction.

We need to get back to the Democratic plan and certainly reject more of what we have been doing for the last 5 years.

If the gentleman would yield further, not only that, and the way the question is framed, it is significant, because the overwhelming portion of the tax cuts are going to people that make more than $200,000.

There is one tax cut that goes into effect this year, colloquially known as PEP and Pease, dealing with standard deductions and other kinds of deductions that can be made. To make a long story short, it only affects the wealthy. If you are making more than $1 million, you get out of this tax cut, when it is fully phased in, about $19,000. If you are down between $75,000 and $100,000, on average you will get $1. If you are under $75,000, you get zero. This shows how we are going to spend $20 billion a year when this thing is fully phased in.

It would seem to me this is how we get into deficit, with those kinds of cuts. $20 billion a year, let's put that into perspective. All the BRAC base closings that you suffered in Northern Virginia and I suffered in Hampton Roads, Virginia, all of the BRAC closings, we will be lucky to save $20 billion over 20 years. $20 billion a year, when people under $75,000 don't get a dime; people over $100,000 might get $1; $100,000 to $200,000 might get $25, over $1 million, $19,000. That is how we are spending $20 billion a year in that tax cut.

It seems to me before we pass tax cuts like that, we ought to get the budget straight. Let's not be down here in the dumps talking about more tax cuts, particularly when they are weighted overwhelmingly toward the wealthy.

I would say that if we had actually improved the economy with all those tax cuts, it might have been worth it. But this chart shows that the economic improvement, the number of jobs created since Herbert Hoover, it shows that after we have run the budget into the ditch, we still have ended up with the worst job performance since Herbert Hoover.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on its 97th anniversary. The NAACP holds a very special meaning to me. One honor I especially treasure is being named Virginia's first individual Golden Heritage Life Member. That honor was a great addition to the honor of having served as president of the Newport News chapter. The NAACP also holds a special place in the collective memory of all of our people.

The NAACP is an organization that has made a difference from the very beginning. In 1909, 60 prominent Americans, including Ida B. Wells- Barnett and W.E.B. DuBois, met on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the

birth of Abraham Lincoln to discuss racial violence and social justice. Out of that meeting, the NAACP was born--with the goal of securing rights, liberties and protections for all Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The NAACP has always fought against injustices by using nonviolent protests, the press, the ballot, and the courts. The NAACP took on the President of the United States in 1918 and President Wilson finally publicly condemned lynching. During World War I, the NAACP successfully campaigned for African Americans to be commissioned as officers in the army. And in World War II, the NAACP pressured Roosevelt into ordering a non-discriminatory policy in war-related industries and Federal employment.

In 1946, the NAACP won the Morgan v. Virginia case where the Supreme Court banned states from having segregated facilities on buses and trains that crossed state borders. And in 1948, the NAACP pressured President Truman into signing the Executive Order that banned discrimination in the armed forces. In 1954, the NAACP won its landmark legal case--Brown v. the Board of Education--declaring ``separate and equal'' unconstitutional.

Through the 50s and 60s protests made a lot of difference. In 1955, NAACP member Rosa Parks was arrested and fined for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. This led to the Montgomery bus boycott, which led to the emergence of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. All of these events led to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, President Johnson's 1965 Executive Order banning employment discrimination in Federal contracts, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and other landmark civil rights reforms.

The NAACP is what the late Bishop Stephen Gill Spotswood, a former National Board Chairman, has called ``the oldest, largest, most effective, most consulted, most militant, most feared and most loved of all civil rights organizations in the world.'' Bishop Spotswood's statement remains true today.

In the 21st Century, the NAACP is needed as much as ever to make a difference--at all levels--National, State and local. Despite victories won long ago we are still facing challenges. In its 97th year, the NAACP needs to continue its great legacy of contribution and commitment to ensure that these hard-won civil rights will always be protected. Congratulations on your 97th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259. By authorizing the Tuskegee Airmen to receive the Congressional Gold Medal, we are not only recognizing an exemplary military record, but also strength of character in the face of prejudice and racism. The Tuskegee Airmen, a unit of 1,000 African American pilots, were America's first black military airmen. Trained at Tuskegee Army Air Field in Tuskegee, Alabama, these men had to overcome biased notions of their fighting ability.

After graduation from pilot training at Tuskegee, 450 members of the unit were sent overseas for combat assignments. These men saw extensive action, completing 15,000 missions between 1941-1946 without losing one American bomber during any escort mission. Collectively they earned more than 744 medals and their heroic service led to the greater achievement of integrating the U.S. Armed Forces--a watershed event in American history. Their brave actions broke forever the myths that allowed segregation, inequity and injustice toward African-Americans to exist in our military.

Today, the remaining survivors, now in their 80's, are role models to generations of young men and women both in and outside of the military. The Tuskegee Airmen persevered and by sharing their stories have taught generations of Americans about the high price of freedom.

They were dedicated and determined young men who came from every section of the country. I am particularly proud to recognize the 38 airmen who were from the State of Virginia, 10 of whom are still living. The living Virginia Tuskegee Airmen are Howard Baugh of Petersburg, Wiley Selden of Norfolk, Grant Williams of Hampton, Ezra Hill of Hampton, Francis Home of Hampton, Theodore Wilson of Roanoke, William Green of Staunton, Carl Johnson of Charlottesville, Augustus Palmer of Newport News and Floyd Carter of Norfolk.

These men served as trailblazers in the efforts to create equal rights and equal treatment for all people. It is my honor to thank them for their service, legacy and rich heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for organizing this Special Order so that we can give appropriate recognition to black fraternal, social, and civic organizations.

African Americans have been in the forefront of significant change in American society, and many of those leading the fight were members of very distinguished organizations with the support of those organizations.

I share membership in Alpha Phi Alpha with my distinguished colleague from Georgia and six other Members of Congress. As my colleague mentioned, Alpha Phi Alpha was the first collegiate black fraternity. I am proud to be a long-time and life member of Alpha Phi Alpha. And since its founding in 1906, Alpha Phi Alpha and all black fraternities and sororities have supplied a voice and vision to the struggle of African Americans and people of color around the world.

For example, one of the long-standing programs sponsored by Alpha Phi Alpha is ``Go to high school, go to college.'' Another is ``A voteless people is a hopeless people.'' They encouraged education and voter registration. More recent projects for Alpha Phi Alpha is Project Alpha, promoting responsibility among African American males in all aspects of health care.

Before the formation of college fraternities, the very first African American fraternity, Sigma Pi Phi, was formed in 1904 in Philadelphia by a group of physicians and dentists. This organization was created for college and professionally educated African Americans including college presidents, Congressmen, cabinet members, and nationally prominent figures such as W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. I am also a member of Sigma Pi Phi.

There are countless other organizations that have existed for the purpose of improving economic status, spiritual well-being, and civil rights of all Americans. The Free African Society was founded in 1787; the National Negro Business League was founded in 1900; the National Afro-American Council in 1903; the Niagara Movement, the forerunner of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, was well under way by 1905.

The members of these and many other organizations have addressed the most serious moral challenges facing Americans today. The contribution of African American social and civic organizations has included everything from scholarships to social reconstruction. The members of these organizations have confronted the handicaps, the restrictions, the persecutions, the prejudices, the inequities in the opportunities faced by people of color.

Thanks to the relentless efforts of African American member organizations, there are more people of color today in corporate, Federal, State and municipal offices than ever before. The work of members of Alpha Phi Alpha, Sigma Pi Phi and other organizations has had a huge impact over the last 100 years, but our work is far from over.

In the 21st century, we will continue to work for political, economic and social change. It is imperative that all fraternal, social and civic organizations in the African American community continue to provide service to African Americans as a whole and the United States in general.

Carter G. Woodson, known as the father of Black History, was born in Buckingham County, Virginia, to former slaves. He reminded us of the importance of commemorating African American contributions when he stated, ``If a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated.''

As we celebrate African American History Month, let us recognize the achievement and traditions of African Americans and let us never forget the members of black fraternal, social, and civic organizations that pursued unchartered paths and paid for the freedom that we hold so dear.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from North Carolina for organizing this Special Order so that we can recognize these organizations appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, the wealth and generosity of the American people is possibly the greatest story to come from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Upon seeing their fellow citizens in need, Americans pledged millions of dollars to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations. Families hosted displaced evacuees, while others welcomed strangers into their homes, schools, and houses of worship. I would like to commend one group of volunteers who have put their specialized skills to use in bringing critical services back to New Orleans.

This past Sunday, forty dentists and forty support volunteers from the Commonwealth of Virginia, in conjunction with the Virginia Dental

Association, left Virginia on a Mission of Mercy. They joined with 400 medical professionals and 150 support volunteers from thirty-eight different states and transformed the New Orleans Zoo into one large health care clinic. They will spend this week staffing this clinic, providing health care free of charge to anyone who needs it. The dentists from Virginia are not just providing checkups, but are performing extractions, fillings, partial realignments, and all other procedures that one would normally receive in a dentist's office. The 500 dental patients that will be treated daily are just a portion of the 1600 patients that will be triaged through the clinic coordinated by Remote Area Medical of Knoxville, Tennessee.

The doctors and support volunteers participating in the Mission of Mercy are paying for their own transportation and lodging. On top of those costs, many of them are forced to close their own practices in their home states in order to participate in the mission.

This simple gift to the people of New Orleans is a much needed one. The image of homes flooded by Katrina's waters is prevalent in our minds. It is easy to forget that businesses, such as doctor's offices, were also destroyed. For the parts of New Orleans that weren't flooded, many still lack power and potable water. For many of the brave citizens and aid workers that still inhabit the city, health care is a creature comfort that is either unavailable or too expensive. It is a necessity that sadly takes a backseat to more immediate concerns.

The federal government has yet to fully live up to its responsibility to the citizens whose lives were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, and until the federal government fulfills this responsibility, the job is left to private citizens to put a great city back together again. I salute the medical professionals and volunteers from around the country and especially those from the Virginia Dental Association who are giving of their time, money, and expertise to help bring normalcy back to the lives of their fellow citizens. The entire Virginia Congressional delegation salutes the Virginia Dental Association as ambassadors of goodwill and Virginia values.

Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Mrs. Coretta Scott King. I rise today along with my colleagues to celebrate and remember the life of a remarkable woman and support H. Res. 655. I know that I speak for my colleagues here today when I say that America has lost one of its great citizens.

Mrs. King's greatness lay in the special talents she had and her ability to use them in the numerous roles she played in her life. She started her adult life as an accomplished musician, receiving music degrees from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH, and the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA. It was in Massachusetts that she met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They were married on June 18, 1953. In 1954, with her husband's installation at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL, Mrs. King accepted the roles and responsibilities of a pastor's wife.

Mrs. King's singular talents may have been known just to members of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church if it had not been for the winds of change swirling around Montgomery in 1955. With the arrest of Rosa Parks for her refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery public bus, the struggle for civil rights for Blacks in America formally began. Dr. King was at the epicenter of the civil rights movement, and Mrs. King was there by his side.

It is amazing that Coretta Scott King could play such a vital role in the civil rights movement while simultaneously raising a family. She was the mother of four at a time when a woman was expected to be a homemaker and not much else. Not content to stand on the sidelines of history, Mrs. King spoke on the cause of equality to church, civic, college, fraternal and peace groups. She also produced and performed in a series of freedom concerts as fundraisers for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the direct action organization of which Dr. King served as first president.

It is easy to forget the duress under which Mrs. King lived such an exemplary life. The threat of violent death was always present. The King family home was bombed in 1956. Death threats against her family arrived by phone and mail constantly, and Martin was stabbed and nearly killed in a New York department store in 1958. The threat became reality with Dr. King's assassination on April 4, 1968. No one would accuse Mrs. King of cowardice if she had retired from public life after Dr. King's death. But Dr. King's dream of an undivided America became her dream, and Mrs. King continued to work as an advocate for equality through nonviolent resistance.

Mrs. King devoted much of her energy to developing the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. She led goodwill missions around the world speaking at massive peace and justice rallies. She was the first woman to deliver the class day address at Harvard University and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

Mrs. King led the campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. In 1983, the 98th Congress passed H.R. 5890 instituting the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, which Mrs. King chaired for its duration. And in January 1986, Mrs. King oversaw the first legal holiday in honor of her husband--a holiday which has come to be celebrated by millions of people.

My thoughts and prayers are with the King family. I hope that this resolution honoring Mrs. King will be a comfort to them at this difficult time.