Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this short extension today. And doing so will give the Members an opportunity to work together to work on the conference report from the last Congress to include some commonsense improvements to ensure that there are appropriate protections for our citizens' civil rights and civil liberties.

Now, many of the provisions of the original PATRIOT Act for which concerns had been expressed have proven to be noncontroversial and have not operated to threaten civil liberties. Other provisions, however, have become more problematic. This extension will give us the time to look at things like the searches for libraries and other intrusive records; second, a standard for issuing national security letters which are essentially subpoenas without probable cause and without the normal checks and balances and a mechanism for making sure that personal information obtained under these letters is destroyed or properly protected.

A review of wire taps, I think, is appropriate, the roving wiretaps and also review of wiretaps under the President's new NSA policy which many legal scholars believe are just illegal. Those are spying on domestic law-abiding citizens. If there is probable cause that someone is breaking the law, obviously a criminal warrant could be given. We need to look and see exactly what is being done and review the law to determine whether or not they are, in fact, illegal. The elimination of totally unnecessary provisions in the conference report involving habeas corpus and expanding the death penalty had nothing to do with the original PATRIOT Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman has indicated, there are improvements in the PATRIOT Act that are in the conference report, but we need to make sure that we have a version that can pass. We can pass a PATRIOT Act. The Senate has passed the PATRIOT Act several times on virtually a unanimous vote or even unanimous consent. The House Judiciary Committee passed unanimously the original PATRIOT Act until a late-night switch to another version that no one had read. But we can pass a PATRIOT Act; and if we use our time effectively, we can develop an act which serves the needs of law enforcement without allowing the unnecessary spying on law-abiding citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

I would hope that we would give this brief extension to the PATRIOT Act and that we would use this time effectively to review the NSA wiretaps and also to use this time effectively to develop a bill that can pass both Chambers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and Congresswoman Thelma Drake to call attention to a group of young students from Hampton, Virginia, who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Hampton High School Crabbers football team had a remarkable season, and we believe the Crabbers deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On December 10, 2005, the Hampton High School Crabbers won their 17th state football championship, defeating Stone Bridge High School of Ashburn 15-8, at Todd Stadium in Newport News, Virginia.

The Crabbers finished the season with a 12-1 record. Hampton High holds a Virginia record of 17 state football championships. This is also the 12th state championship for Hampton High Head Football Coach Mike Smith.

This latest championship is just another accolade for the City of Hampton's oldest school. Hampton High School is also the direct descendent of the Syms-Eaton School, the first free school established in the American colonies. Syms Free School was founded in 1647. The school has existed in many incarnations and buildings since then, with Hampton's current school building being constructed in 1956.

The legacy of Hampton High is not limited to just the field of athletics. Under the Direction of Principal Anthony Woods, the Hampton faculty seeks to inspire students to strive for excellence and achievement in the classroom, in their extracurricular activities and in their communities. Hampton High has the second highest percentage of accredited teachers in the state of Virginia. Hampton High received the Award of Academic Excellence from the Department of Education in 1985. Hampton students meet rigorous academic requirements, and they take responsibility for their own academic progress, behavior and attendance. It is clear that this drive for excellence in academics goes hand in hand with excellence in athletics.

The Crabber's excellence in football is characteristic of the quality of athletics in the Peninsula District of Virginia. Hampton High School's championship this year marked the lOth time in the last fifteen years that a Peninsula District team has won a state title in football. To quote from our hometown newspaper, the Daily Press, ``High school football on the Peninsula is championship football. ``

We would like to extend our enthusiastic congratulations to Coach Mike Smith, his coaching staff and all of the players on the Hampton High School Crabbers, the 2005 Group AAA Division Virginia High School League state football champions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the Katrina education proposal because it unwisely contains vouchers for displaced students attending private schools. While the Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of school voucher proposals, I continue to oppose them because I believe they take away much needed resources and attention from our public schools. Even under the extraordinary circumstances of hurricane Katrina, I continue to believe that vouchers for displaced students to attend private schools is a misguided policy.

I offer into the Record a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State that further discusses problems inherent in this legislation.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

Washington, DC., December 16, 2005.

Dear Senator: Americans United for Separation of Church and

State, representing more than 75,000 individual members and

9,500 clergy nationwide, as well as cooperating houses of

worship and other religious bodies committed to the

preservation of religious liberty, urges you to oppose a

Hurricane Katrina education proposal that includes private

school vouchers and aid to restart private school operations.

We understand that this proposal will be attached to the

Department of Defense Appropriations bill and we urge your

opposition to including it in that measure.

Originally attached to the Senate-passed Budget

Reconciliation legislation, the education package, sponsored

by Senators Alexander (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY), Kennedy (D-MA) and

Dodd (D-CT), constitutes the first national educational

voucher program--authorizing funding at $1.2 billion--and

sets a dangerous precedent that undermines America's

commitment to fully funding the Nation's public schools.

The current proposal allows up to $6,000 per displaced

student (or up to $7,500 per displaced student with a

disability) to be sent to any public, private, or religious

school nationwide of the displaced family's choice in order

to defray tuition costs. Under the bill, funds from the

Federal Government would go through State structures to the

Local Education Agencies (LEAs), which would hold the money

for distribution. The Federal funds would then be distributed

from the LEA to any school educating an eligible child on a

per-capita basis. As a result, per-capita funding would go

from a governmental entity (the LEA) to public, private, and

religious schools, depending on where displaced families have

decided to educate their children. This is the very essence

of a school voucher program, which allows families to decide

where students will be educated and then drives government

money to those schools on a per capita basis. As a result,

this is a school voucher program, regardless of the

terminology used under the bill. There is no analytical

difference between the funding structure under this bill and

traditional, ``pure'' school voucher programs. It would mark

the first national Federally-funded voucher program in

everything but name.

Although Americans United opposed the Senate-passed Enzi-

Kennedy legislation as attached to the Senate Budget

Reconciliation bill, the newly crafted compromise eliminates

all religious liberty protections afforded to displaced

students in that legislation. The Enzi-Kennedy legislation

contained some provisions that attempted to ensure that

government funds will not be used for ``religious

instruction, proselytization, or worship.'' However, these

provisions have been completely removed from the current

draft. In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation contained a

provision to protect students from being required to

participate in religious worship or religious classes. This

``Opt-In'' provision has been replaced with an ``Opt-Out''

requirement, placing the entire burden on the displaced

parents to object to any religious proselytization and

indoctrination of their children.

In addition, neither the Enzi-Kennedy legislation nor the

new draft contain a requirement to provide both parents and

students notice of their rights regarding participation in

religious activities. Although both proposals contain a

prohibition against religious discrimination as to students,

both fail to provide enforcement mechanisms or to ensure that

displaced students are informed of their right to not be

discriminated against for any refusal to participate in

religious activity. The argument has been made that some

religious schools are the only option for displaced students.

It is all the more reason to ensure that any measure contain

strong and effective religious liberty protections to ensure

that rights of displaced students are protected.

This voucher program could also authorize government-funded

religious discrimination in staffing. The bill contains no

provision barring religious schools from hiring co-

religionists only or requiring that employees' personal

conduct conform to the tenets and teachings of the schools'

associated faiths. Vouchers may well result in publicly

supported employment discrimination, not only on religious

grounds, but also on the basis of gender, sexual orientation,

or other protected classes.

In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation provided $450

million in ``immediate aid to restart school operations''

solely for public schools. The current proposal provides the

same level of funding but allows--for the first time--private

and religious schools to receive aid. These funds are

designated for recovery of student data, purchasing

instructional materials and textbooks, and rental of mobile

educational units with the requirement that purchased

equipment and materials ``shall be secular, neutral, and

nonideological.'' Although we acknowledge the provision

attempts to maintain current law against using Federal funds

to buy religious materials, we are deeply troubled by the

underlying proposal of allowing scarce Federal dollars to be

funneled to private and religious schools for start-up costs.

Americans United is committed to the protection of public

education. However, we strongly believe that the Nation's

civil liberties must be upheld even in difficult

circumstances, including natural disasters. It is

inappropriate to capitalize on the Katrina disaster by

attempting to push through Congress a divisive and unsound

vouchers policy that would severely undermine American's

longstanding commitment to public education. It is the public

schools that have long served as the safety net for all

displaced school children. Billions of dollars set aside for

these voucher and restart programs should be invested instead

into our public schools for the benefit of all students.

If you have any questions about this legislative proposal

or would like further information on any other issue of

importance to Americans United, please contact Aaron D.

Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-3234, extension

240.

Sincerely,

Rev. Barry W. Lynn,

Executive Director.

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

I rise in support of this bill. The trafficking of persons as work slaves, sex slaves, or other exploitive and illicit purposes is a modern slave trade that occurs all too often around the world, including in the United States. Through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, we have begun a concerted effort around the world to address this terrible business of trafficking in persons, internationally as well as domestically. We must continue that effort by reauthorizing that law by passing H.R. 972.

At the Judiciary markup of this bill, we added a section to implement the essential provisions of H.R. 2012, the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, which is designed to more effectively get at the issue of domestic trafficking and commercial sex acts in this country as part of the overall effort to address domestic trafficking in persons.

For over a year, I have been working with a bipartisan and politically diverse group of Members of the House and Senate, along with nongovernmental organizations, committed individuals, and others to get at an aspect of trafficking in persons in this country that is just as pernicious as the trafficking in persons anywhere in the world, and that is the brutal pimp system of prostitution of women and young girls. The horrific nature and the appalling magnitude of this scourge is evident by the following information:

It is estimated that the number of women and children trapped in prostitution in the United States ranges between hundreds of thousands to well over a million; the average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is estimated to be about 16 years old; nearly 85 percent of the women and girls in prostitution in the United States have a pimp to whom all of the proceeds of their activities go. Among these women and girls are some as young as 11. Most are physically abused or sexually assaulted; most are controlled by drugs and are isolated, confined, and restrained. Many have weapons used against them and have death threats against them and their families.

Pimping is a lucrative criminal practice. Oakland, California, had a study just a few years ago where they identified 218 minors ages 11 to 15 being prostituted by 155 pimps. They found that the average revenue was about $200,000 a year for each pimp.

When we try to get cooperation of other countries to go after sex trafficking in their country, some point to our toleration of this brutal system of prostitution in this country to suggest that we have no moral authority to criticize them. H.R. 972 with the provisions of the End Demand Act strikes a crushing blow against this brutal system of domestic trafficking in this country; and it is done in a way that is most effective, by funding local law enforcement rather than creating new Federal crimes that will require us to divert Federal assets to this problem. We can fund local law enforcement where it is most effective.

I would like to thank Ms. Pryce of Ohio and Mrs. Maloney of New York, the chief sponsors of the End Demand Act; Chairman Sensenbrenner and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coble; the ranking member, Mr. Conyers; Chairman Hyde and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Smith; Mr. Lantos, the ranking member; and the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Payne, and their staffs. My staff person, Bobby Vassar, has been working on this extremely hard over the course of at least a year. I thank them for their hard work in putting together an End Demand bill and getting its provisions in a bill in a form on which we can all agree. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, this resolution purports to protect the symbols of Christmas, but what really needs to be protected are not the symbols of Christmas, but rather the spirit of Christmas. The spirit of Christmas demands generosity and goodwill towards others.

Instead of legislation that respects the spirit of Christmas, Congress in just these past few weeks has passed a budget that includes mean-spirited attacks on the least of us. For those who are hungry, we are cutting food stamps. For those who are sick, we are cutting Medicaid. For those who are in prison, we are imposing senseless mandatory minimums. For others we are ignoring increases in heating costs and cutting student loans. At the same time we are cutting those programs to help the least of us, we are cutting taxes for the wealthiest in society.

Madam Speaker, we ought to express our passion for Christmas through deeds, not words; and we should not be distracted from our responsibility to uphold the spirit of Christmas as we consider the effects our actions on the Federal budget will have on the least of us during this holiday season.

For these reasons I oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4311. This bill protects judges against certain security threats. The September 11 tragedy and events thereafter have only heightened the security concerns that make this legislation necessary.

H.R. 4311 permanently extends the ability of judges to request redaction of their financial disclosure reports. The current redaction authority sunsets at the end of this year. Thus it is imperative that we act quickly to get this bill to the Senate where we hope it will pass before the end of the year so that the legislation can be enacted.

The redaction authority for judges is appropriately limited and thus should not raise concerns about undue restrictions on public access to financial disclosure reports. A judge's report may only be redacted if the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Marshals Service both find that revealing the personal and sensitive information could endanger that particular judge. Furthermore, the report can only be redacted to the extent necessary to protect the judge and only for so long as a danger exists.

The redaction authority has not been abused to date. Of over 2,000 judges filing reports in 2000, only 6 percent had their reports redacted in any way. Typically, the information redacted is limited to such things as a spouse's place of work, location of a judge's second home and things of that nature. It is obvious how a person of ill will could misuse that information to harm a judge or the judge's family.

This law is tightly drawn, and it requires the Judicial Conference, in concert with the Department of Justice, to file an annual report detailing the number and circumstances of all of the redactions. This statutory reporting requirement enables Congress to monitor for any abuse of the redaction authority, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. It deals with the protection of judges, and I would hope that the Members of the House would pass the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1400, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The rash of incidents involving hand-held lasers have fueled a growing concern within the aviation industry. In fact, since November of November of 2004, airline pilots have reported over 100 incidents of lasers being aimed into their cockpits.

The potential harmful effects of such lasers is quite serious. The FAA research has shown that even some low-level lasers can temporarily disable and disorient a pilot during critical stages of flight. Needless to say, the results could be devastating.

Although I have some concern that when the bill is applied, it will likely involve some stupid or misguided young person fooling around with a laser beam, we all realize that the conduct the bill prohibits can be very dangerous, whether done by a fool or by a terrorist. So it must be strongly discouraged.

Since the bill does not have mandatory minimum sentencing, the Sentencing Commission and the courts can apply the appropriate punishment for violators based on specific facts and circumstances of the case.

After this bill is passed, as a further precautionary step, perhaps the appropriate committee of jurisdiction could also consider requiring manufactures of laser products to issue strong notices and warnings on lasers and packaging alerting them to the provisions of this law so that all will be on notice.

But for now I think this bill is an appropriate step for Congress to address this potentially disastrous problem. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing this bill forward. It makes it clear that endangering pilots and passengers with laser beams is illegal.

Whatever the law may be, this will make it absolutely clear. I would hope that the House will pass the bill so that the pilots and passengers can be protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for working together tonight on this Special Order. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his hard work in dealing with prisoners and their problems.

Obviously, we are in a democracy where in most States prisoners cannot vote, so there is nothing in it for you. However, there is something in it for the prisoners. But also there is something in it when you help those prisoners get out and do well. There is also something in it for everybody else, because if they get out and do well rather than get out, and with the present trend, two-thirds are going right back to prison.

The public, the law-abiding public benefits from your work, because they are less likely to be victimized by another crime. They also as taxpayers are less likely to have to pay for the

$20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 a year incarceration for the two-thirds of the prisoners that go back.

So the gentleman's work not only helps the prisoners, but also help the law-abiding citizens in terms of their public safety and helps the taxpayers in terms of not having to pay for the incarceration.

Your legislation is bipartisan legislation. It is not a panacea for everything that needs to be done, but it certainly makes a significant step in the right direction in ensuring those who leave our Federal and State prisons have the assistance they need to avoid returning.

As you mentioned, there are close to 700,000 people who will leave the prisons, the jails and prisons of the United States next year. Most will be ill prepared to succeed in earning a living and leading a law- abiding life, and the resources to help them are very limited. Your bill will help them.

Now, we know that the chances of success for the prisoners are extremely small. Two-thirds come back to prison within 3 years. We know, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has pointed out, that it is hard to get a job if you have got a felony record. Obviously, the fact that you have that gap in your resume does not help.

The fact that you have to say that you are a convicted felon does not help you get a job. Most prisoners have limited education, they have limited resources, they have limited job skills, they are disqualified from many Federal programs by virtue of a drug offense.

And there are benefits that they are not entitled to. We also have a situation where they have limited or no family support, no community support. So it is not surprising that two-thirds of all prisoners released are rearrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release.

Although the national crime rate has fallen significantly over the last few years, we are seeing more and more people sent to prison for longer and longer times, and the problem is going to continue to grow before it gets better. We are still passing new bills with longer prison sentences and establishing mandatory minimum sentences and other kinds of sentences that make sure that the time served is even longer and longer and more and more people are sent to prison.

We have seen some of these schemes, like the mandatory minimums studied. And the studies have concluded that minimum mandatory sentences are distorted in the effort to establish an orderly, fair, and appropriate sentencing scheme. These programs discriminate against minorities, violate common sense, and in the end waste the taxpayers' money.

Now, all of this focus on the draconian sentences has led us to the point, as you pointed out, over 2.2 million people are locked up in our Federal prisons and State jails, a five-fold increase in just the last 20 years. The prison population on the Federal level has increased over seven-fold in the last 20 years.

For example, in 1984 the daily lock-up count in prisons and jails was just over 400,000. 400,000. 25,000 in the Federal prisons. Today 2 million prisoners are in State and local prisons. Almost 200,000 in Federal prisons. 400,000 20 years ago, over 2 million today.

According to many studies, most of that is through the new sentencing schemes like mandatory minimums. As a result of the focus on incarceration, the United States leads the world in incarceration, by far. We are in first place: 726 inmates per 100,000 population. 726.

Second place Russia, 532. We are at 726. 532. Most are in the hundreds. England, 142 per 100,000. Australia, 117. Canada, 116. Germany, 91. France, 95 per 100,000. The United States, 700-and-some per 100,000. When you go into the inner cities, it is not 700-and-some; it is 3,000 per 100,000. Five thousand in the inner cities. 116 in Canada, 5,000 in our inner cities.

No matter how tough we get in sentencing, the fact is that 95 percent of inmates will be released at some point. The question is whether they are going to reenter society in a context that better prepares them to lead law-abiding lives or whether two-thirds will return to prison within 3 years, as the present trend is.

If we are going to continue to send more people to prison with longer and longer sentences and spend that kind of money, we ought to spend the little bit of money in this bill to reduce the chances when they are released that they will be likely to come back to prison.

That is why the Second Chance Act is so important. And I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and former Representative Portman. This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 90 cosponsors, including me and virtually all of the criminal justice advocates and organizations in the country, including law enforcement who work with or are familiar with the situation encountered by those leaving our prisons.

The only criticism I have heard of this legislation is that it perhaps might not go far enough to fully address all of the problems of those facing problems reentering society from prisons.

Now, I agree with that criticism, because it does not do everything that needs to be done, but it is an important first step. And so I am a cosponsor of not only this bill but one that is being developed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that was introduced last Congress and will be refiled this Congress, the Reentry Enhancement Act.

That bill addresses many of the programs and issues touched by this bill and goes even further by actually implementing many of the programs on a national level.

Now, I have seen the value of these programs. The Virginia CARES Program, Community Action Reentry System, Virginia CARES Program, has been studied, and they have just little meager resources.

But those who get the benefits of that program, we have seen a 25 percent reduction in recidivism compared to like prisoners who do not get a benefit from the program. Twenty-five percent reduction. When you calculate that out in terms of those that do not come back into prison and what we would have to pay for their incarceration, we save more money than we spend.

And we not only help the prisoners lead a productive life, save more money than we spend and also spare that 25 percent of victims who would have been victimized, victims of crime, they do not have to be victims of crime because we made that cost-effective expenditure of money helping the prisoners, but also helping the taxpayer and helping public safety.

As a society, we often breathe a sigh of relief when a long sentence is issued for a crime as if that is the end of our responsibilities. But with the numbers of prisoners and the amount of money we spend with those long sentences and the fact that when they finish that long sentence, they are going to turn around and go right back, we need to do more.

We need to make sure that we do the financially and morally responsible thing. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of sounding tough on crime, tough on crime policies with no attention to what happens next.

To continue in the direction we are going is unfair to the taxpayer, unfair to those prisoners, and unfair to the unsuspecting people that will be victims of crime because we did not spend the money that we needed to spend.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in developing and promoting this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with them and other members of the bipartisan coalition to enact this measure so that we cannot only help the prisoners but help the taxpayers and help public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I ask them to decide right up front what choice they

are going to make on crime policy. Are you trying to reduce crime or are you trying to play politics? We know what helps us get elected. We know how to play politics. We also know how to reduce crime. Once you have made that choice, the rest of crime policy is easy. If you are playing politics, you don't have to worry about the effects of the policy, you just have to make sure that you have got a good vote- getting slogan. You can be wasting the taxpayers' money. You can be even increasing crime. Some of these slogans like codifying ``If you do the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' That slogan has been studied up and down and the conclusion of every study is that the crime rate will go up if you codify that slogan. The crime rate will go up. You help yourself get elected, the crime rate goes up. Like I said, make your choice. If you are interested in reducing crime, some of these policies are stupid. If you are interested in getting elected, some of those slogans are very helpful. When you get into helping prisoners, let's decide not whether you are interested in the prisoner or not, just whether you are interested in reducing crime. If your goal is to reduce crime, this is one of the most cost-effective expenditures you can make, a lot better than lengthening the sentence. Ninety-five percent will get out of prison at one point or another. You have got 600,000 people, almost 700,000 people coming back into the community, two-thirds of whom will end up going back to prison if we don't do anything. If you want to take that 650,000, almost 700,000 people, spend a little bit of money and you can reduce the crime rate amongst that group, if you can reduce the crime rate, you will not only reduce crime, you will also save the taxpayer a lot of money and spare the potential victims of crime that victimization.

If you ignore what you have done for humanity in helping the prisoners, just ignore that, just look at what you are doing for the taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen, this is the right thing to do. You also help prisoners lead a more productive life. But that is frankly, from a public policy position, a secondary aspect. We are trying to reduce crime. We are trying to save money. This saves money and reduces crime so that the law-abiding citizen doesn't have to worry as much about being a victim of crime. You do that by helping the prisoner lead a productive life. That is what your bill does. It is cost effective and reduces crime.

The gentleman talked about spending the money. We are spending the money. Six hundred thousand people get out every year. Two-thirds of them come back. That is 400,000 going back. At just $20,000 a year, that is $8 billion we are spending because we don't reduce recidivism. It is actually probably more like $10 billion to $16 billion by the time you invest 20, 30, $40,000 a piece, but at a minimum $8 billion, if we spent a portion of that, if we could significantly reduce recidivism by turning lives around like the life you mentioned instead of having to pay for incarceration, we are now on the receiving end of the tax money that she is paying. Every program we have seen, and this is no different, of those reentry programs when you provide education, you reduce recidivism, save more money than you spend, drug treatment, transitional services, significantly reducing recidivism because of the expense of incarceration, 20, 30, $40,000 a year, you don't have to reduce recidivism very much to save the taxpayer some money. We are spending the money now and we ought to be spending it better. We ought to be smart on crime rather than rhetorical on crime.

If we were smarter on crime, we would spend some of this $8 billion that we are going to spend next year because we did not make the investments last year. We need to make the investments in these people to reduce recidivism and save money, and if we do that, it would save more money than we spend if we pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this plan has $70 billion in tax cuts, $50 billion in spending cuts, and therefore adds $24 billion to the national debt. Let us look at one of those cuts, cuts in student aid. We know that your future opportunities depend on your education, and college will enhance your education.

Unfortunately, 400,000 children cannot go to college because they cannot afford to. It will get worse before it gets better. In the last 4 years, the cost of a public college education went up $3,000. The maximum Pell grant in this package as adopted will not go up at all. This bill cuts over $14 billion over 5 years from student aid, adding up to $5,800 per student of what they have got to pay on those loans. That is not the right vision for the future.

It is particularly egregious when you look at the tax cuts that go into effect next year. One tax cut goes into effect involving personal exemptions and standard deductions. Mr. Speaker, this is a chart of who gets it. Under $200,000, you cannot even see what you get. Millionaires get $19,000; $500,000 to $1 million, over $4,000. Ninety-seven percent of this tax cut goes to those making over $200,000. Fully phased in, it is $100 billion over 5 years.

While this tax cut is going into effect, we are cutting student aid by $14 billion, denying many students an opportunity to go to college, and, saddling many others with up to $5,800 in new debt. We can do better than that. We ought defeat this resolution and not saddle those children with additional debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, the USS Carl Vinson was scheduled to commence Refueling and Complex Overhaul at Northrop Grumman Newport News last week on November 10.

The authorization and funding for this project was included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request and was included in each Chamber's version of the fiscal year 2006 defense authorization and appropriations bills. There is no controversy about these provisions, but the defense bills, as we have heard, have not passed, they are still being negotiated, and there may be some time before final action is taken. Since neither the defense authorization or appropriations conference reports have passed, the lack of authorization language and funding has prevented the Navy from moving forward with this contract, and no work can begin until some legislation actually passes. Some of the workers may be temporarily placed on other jobs, but most will either be idle or laid off, possibly replaced by less experienced workers. Vendor schedules will also be adversely affected.

Mr. Speaker, this delay will obviously increase the costs of the overhaul program. It will complicate other ship construction and repair schedules at Northrop Grumman Newport News facilities. H.R. 4326 will allow the work to proceed without further delay. It will save money and enhance national security by speeding up the return of the Vinson to the carrier fleet.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), for her hard work on this bill; my other colleagues, Mrs. Drake and the gentleman from North Carolina. We all have shipyard workers in our districts. I want to also thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee and the leadership of the House for expediting the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.

The current House bill provisions for 10 year sunsets on the 215 and 206 roving wiretap powers is not much better than no sunset at all. What we are talking about under the 215 provision is power to get access to your personal records from a business, including a public library, without you ever knowing about it, or what is done with the information. And the librarian or other business operator cannot tell you or anyone else other than the business's attorney or appropriate superiors, about the FBI's taking your records.

Under the roving wiretaps provision, after obtaining a roving wiretap from the secret FISA court, the FBI can follow the target around and tap any phone the target has access to, including yours if he or she happens to be a neighbor and comes to your house, without having to first determine that the phone is actually being used by the target before they start listening in.

The 4-year sunsets worked to make the Justice Department responsive to Congress in providing the information needed to properly perform its oversight responsibility for the extraordinary powers extended under the PATRIOT Act, but only in the last year of the sunset. For most of the 4-year period leading up to the sunsets, the Justice Department refused any meaningful oversight of their PATRIOT Act powers and other war on terror authorities. Even with Chairman Sensenbrenner threatening a subpoena because he was not getting answers to his PATRIOT Act questions, it wasn't until the powers were set to expire that we got real answers--hard numbers and at least anecdotal evidence of their use.

Take, for example, the effort to try to get information about library record requests under the secretive Section 215 powers where the recipient of the order is gagged from disclosing any information about it: first we were told that information about even the number of these orders was secret, so it couldn't be disclosed. It was only in the last year of the sunset that we were finally told that there had been no 215 orders issued to libraries, then we learned that this was misleading because most libraries cooperated with FBI requests for information without requiring a 215 order, and with all the secrecy and gag orders in effect, we still don't know what the full story is. Perhaps some of the pending lawsuits will finally reveal what has been going on in this area.

The problem with a 10-year sunset is that it will have no impact on the current Administration, or the next one and only have an impact in the last year of the 3rd Administration from now. Moreover, with a 20- year retirement period for most career officials, in 10 years most of today's officials will have retired. So, that's really of little oversight value if we have to wait that long to get the kind of responsive information for oversight we were finally able to get in the last year of the current sunsets.

Accordingly, we should accede to the Senate sunset provisions which call for 4-year sunsets on the three most controversial and worrisome PATRIOT powers--secret acquisition of library and other business records, roving wiretaps, and the ``lone wolf'' provision for terrorism investigations, which allows a single individual to fall under the extraordinary, secretly administered foreign surveillance powers otherwise reserved for use against agents of foreign governments or organizations.

Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1751. With several sensational incidents in recent years involving the murders of judges, family members of judges, court personnel, witnesses and other victims, we have seen the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and personnel associated with the courts.

All are agreed that enhancement of security for our courts and all persons associated with them is imperative. However, the main focus of this bill is not the things that the courts have asked for to enhance their security, but on extraneous death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences which will do nothing to improve the security of our courts or personnel associated with them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for making significant improvements in this bill since our initial consideration of the bill in subcommittee, by removing a number of the superfluous mandatory minimum sentences and death penalties from the bill. However, all such provisions were not removed.

The notion that Congress has to direct judges on how to sentence those who harm or threaten judges and their families and others associated with court activities, or that Congress has to replace the States in prosecution of murders of State judges and other State officials is absurd. The kinds of people we are talking about clearly have not been deterred by death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences already on the books and applicable to them for those kinds of crimes, so they certainly will not be deterred by adding more such mandatory minimums. And judges facing such defendants clearly do not need congressional guidance on what the appropriate sentences may be.

Accordingly, I have prepared an amendment which would remove the provisions allowing the Federal Government, simply on the basis of someone's salary being paid in part by Federal funds, to take over traditional State prosecutions of State murder cases. I have also prepared an amendment which would remove the mandatory minimum sentencing in Federal cases involving judges, their family members or other court personnel, and replaced them with higher maximums that would allow even greater sentences than the bill allows in cases which warrant it, but would not require sentences which violate common sense.

The courts have not requested mandatory minimums or death penalties because they do nothing to protect the court. Nevertheless, here we go again with more mandatory minimums and more death penalties. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Federal courts have consistently and loudly expressed their strong opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.

Through rigorous study and analysis, as well as through their everyday experiences in sentencing major players and bit players in crime, the courts have determined mandatory minimums to be less effective than regular sentencing. They have found them to be racially discriminatory in their application. They have found mandatory minimums to waste money compared to traditional sentences, and they have found mandatory minimums to be a violation of common sense.

The Judicial Conference has written us often to express their opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing and has just written us again with this bill to state their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences as a violation of the systemic sentencing scheme designed to ``reduce unwarranted disparity and to provide proportionality and fairness in punishment.'' That idea is violated with mandatory minimums.

The Judicial Conference and everyone concerned supports the grant programs in the bill aimed at strengthening court security and personnel and providing security for persons associated with the courts. Absent mandatory minimums and the extension of the death penalties, this bill would be one that we could all support.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, because of the mandatory minimums and death penalty it is not one we can all support.

Judicial Conference of the

United States,

Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Judicial

Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of

the federal judiciary. I am writing to convey its views

regarding several of the provisions contained in H.R. 1751,

the ``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of

2005.''

Much of the impetus for portions of this bill arose from

the tragic circumstances surrounding the attempted murder of

Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois. Although Judge Lefkow survived

the attack, her mother and husband were shot and killed by

the assailant, a disgruntled litigant.

The current bill contains several provisions that are of

particular interest to the federal courts. Section 13 of the

bill requires the U.S. Marshals Service to consult with the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts regarding the

security requirements of the Judicial Branch. While the

provision does not extend to a requirement that the Marshals

Service ``coordinate'' with the judiciary, we believe the

proposed change is positive and will enhance judicial

security. Section 14 of the bill is positive in that it will

help protect judges from the malicious recording of

fictitious liens and is supported by the Judicial Conference.

Section 16 of the bill is of particular interest to federal

judges and their security because it will allow them to

continue to redact sensitive information from their financial

disclosure forms. Not a day goes by without some unauthorized

incursion into an information database containing personal

information and this provision is an important tool in

protecting such personal information.

Unfortunately, the bill also contains various provisions

that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences.

The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing

provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline

regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act

of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of

guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide

proportionality and fairness in punishment.

The bill also contains a provision that would allow the

presiding judge, at all levels of the judicial process, to

permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting,

or televising to the public of the court proceedings over

which that judge presides. The Judicial Conference believes

that the circuit councils of each circuit should retain the

authority to establish rules for the photographing,

recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments in their

courts. The Judicial Conference does not support legislation

that would allow trial court judges the discretion to

broadcast their courts' proceedings.

I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of

the Judicial Conference in relation to H.R., 1751, the

``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of

2005.'' If you have any questions regarding this legislation

please contact Arthur White at (202) 502-1700.

Sincerely,

Leonidas Ralph Mecham,

Secretary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is clarifying in nature, and I have no objection. I am not aware of any objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the mandatory minimum sentences in the bill and replaces them with increases in maximum sentences

for which a defendant can be sentenced. This is not a soft-on-crime amendment but a sensible-on-crime amendment. In each instance in which it eliminates a mandatory minimum sentence, it raises the maximum term to which an offender can be sentenced, except in situations where they can already get life.

With the higher maximums, offenders who deserve it can be sentenced to even greater sentences than the bill allows. But those who are bit players in an offense or those who do not deserve as much time as ringleaders, do not have to be sentenced to that time anyway. What sense does it make to sentence an offender to more time than anyone believes they deserve? That is an inevitable result of mandatory minimum sentencing.

The notion that we have to have mandatory minimum sentences to force judges to sentence those who kill, injure or threaten judges or their families or others associated with the courts is obviously absurd. Judges have not asked for mandatory minimum sentences as a protection for themselves and their families. Indeed, they have asked for just the opposite.

Having the experience of sentencing people on an ongoing basis, judges see the differences in activities, roles, backgrounds of the offenders of crime. They know it makes no sense to sentence just on the basis of the name of the crime rather than on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the crime and the level of involvement and background of the offenders. Having heard all the facts and circumstances in the case, they are in a much better position to sentence offenders than Congress is in sentencing offenders with no knowledge of the individual case.

To ensure a systemic approach in sentencing like offenders in a similar manner, we have created the Sentencing Commission and the sentencing guideline system. By increasing the maximums, we signal to the Sentencing Commission to consider increasing the guideline minimums, which they characteristically do when we make such suggestions. The sentencing statistics do not establish that the courts have not followed the guidelines, especially when you take into account that most of the deviations result from government motions, or acquiescences in sentences, and guideline-sanctioned departures. Sentencing is not an exact science and should not be held to rigid statistical measurements.

Some have suggested that mandatory minimum sentencing is necessary because of recent Supreme Court decisions that prevent sentencing increases based on factors not established at the trial. Yet, their positions on mandatory minimum sentences appear to be no different before those cases were decided.

Mandatory minimums have been studied and have been found to disrupt an orderly sentencing scheme, to be discriminatory against minorities, to waste the taxpayers' money when compared to traditional sentencing where individual roles and culpability can be taken into account. If we do not trust judges to sentence offenders sufficient in other cases, the one instance where we should be able to trust judges is in the case where the charge is murder, injury, or threats to judges.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums are not indicated in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the mandatory minimums from the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the expansion of the Federal death penalty jurisdiction on the basis of any portion of the salary of a State or local official being covered with Federal funds. That means they could be eligible for a Federal death penalty. The notion that the Federal Government has to replace the States and localities in murder prosecutions against those who would murder a State judge or others associated with a judge or courts is absurd.

States have shown themselves quite capable of prosecuting murder cases and in obtaining death penalties where applicable. They have done far more of it, frankly, than the Federal Government, so there is no indication that this raw extension of Federal power is necessary or even desired. If a State has chosen to represent the will of its citizens by not authorizing a death penalty, why should Congress step in and impose it in spite of the State's public policy choice?

The States certainly have not asked that we add a Federal death penalty to apply to the murder of federally funded State or local officials. And there is no evidence that the kind of people who would kill or plot to kill a State court judge or other officials may be deterred by a Federal death penalty.

The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, that it is racially discriminatory, and found more often than not to be erroneously applied.

A 23-year comprehensive study of the death penalty found that the death penalty had been erroneously applied 68 percent of the time. So it is not surprising that over 120 people sentenced to death over the last 10 years have been released from death row, having been completely exonerated of the crimes for which they are convicted or otherwise found to be not guilty.

Nor is it surprising that with such a sorry record of death penalty administration, that several States have abolished the death penalty or placed moratoriums on the applications of their death penalty while studies are being conducted, and why some, while they have it on the books, have not applied it in many years.

In recognition of the problems States and localities were having with administering the death penalty, Congress adopted the Innocence Protection Act just a few years ago. It provides funding to State and local entities to help ensure that there is competent counsel at all parts of the trial.

Mr. Chairman, during committee deliberations of the death penalty, we heard references to econometric research of economist Joanna M. Shepherd. I want to point out, more recently, she has done further analysis in elaboration of her research and found, in terms of deterring murders, executions deter murders in six States, have no effect on murders in eight States, and increased murders in 13 States.

Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the death penalty is arbitrarily applied, it is discriminatory and we make mistakes, I would hope that we would delete the death penalty from this bill by adopting the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Iowa would respond to a couple of questions. I would ask the gentleman whether or not this applies to Federal officials only; we are not imposing this on State officials.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, also, did the Federal officials ask for this new power?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that this was in fact their request, in fact, their number one request. Does the gentleman have any evidence or know anything contrary to that?

Reclaiming my time, I would finally ask, is this the right to carry, subject to training and regulation prescribed by the Attorney General? I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Congressman Rangel of NY, Congressman Conyers of MI, Congressman Thompson of MS, Congressman Jefferson of LA, Congressman Frank of MA, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee of TX, Congressman Paul of TX, Congresswoman Johnson of TX, Congresswoman Lee of CA, Congressman Hastings of FL and Congressman Al Green of TX in introducing the ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act.'' We are pleased to be joined by a coalition of almost 100 national, state and local organizations who have expressed their support for the legislation, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American College of Mental Health Administration, Drug Policy Alliance Network, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, NAADAC-The Association for Addiction Professionals, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, and the National Urban League, and the list is growing as word of the legislation gets out.

Millions of Americans were displaced from their homes due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita and hundreds of thousands have not been able to return and may never be able to do so. Having lost their homes, their communities, their jobs and other support systems, most have required emergency food, clothing, shelter, medical, or monetary assistance. According to FEMA reports, an estimated 2.1 million Americans have already applied for federal aid. Unfortunately, many of these individuals and their families are in desperate need, but, due to a prior drug conviction, will not be able to receive certain federal assistance available to other victims in need. While it is impossible to know for sure how many families will be denied public assistance because of drug convictions, it is likely in the tens of thousands.

More than 1.5 million Americans are arrested for drug offenses every year. Several federal laws disqualify those with felony convictions to receive certain federal benefits. A recent GAO report commissioned by myself and Congressman Rush of IL reveals that these disqualifications are having a huge impact on receipt of federal benefits for which those with prior drug convictions would otherwise receive. For example, an estimated 41,000 students were denied college assistance during the 2003/2004 academic year because of drug convictions.

While the GAO was only able to collect data from 15 public housing agencies, out of more than 3,000, those 15 agencies denied housing to almost 1,500 families because of past drug violations in 2003 alone. That indicates that there are thousands of families and tens of thousands of individuals unable to receive housing benefits because a family member has a drug conviction.

The drug conviction ban on eligibility for federal benefits also applies to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the TANF program. TANF eligibility applies to families with minor children. One study reflected that almost 25 percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 were eligible for TANF benefits, but were permanently barred from receiving it due to their state's application of the federal ban for a drug conviction. While some states do not apply the federal ban completely, other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia, where many of the displaced families are staying, have fully applied the ban.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have inflicted suffering on millions of people. The suffering will fall even harder on victims denied aid because of past drug offenses. Parents who have lost everything and are struggling to feed themselves and their family will be denied TANF and food stamps; students who have lost their school, tuition, fees, room and board, but could continue their education in another school willing to accept them, or who were in school elsewhere when their parents lost the ability to continue paying for their education, will be denied student loans; and entire families that have lost everything in the disasters will be denied housing--all due to the federal bans for a past drug conviction.

The ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act'' applies only to past drug offenses, some of which were many years ago, and suspends the disqualification for only a 3-year period. This temporary adjustment period in federal disqualifications would allow families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita a chance to put their lives back together through the same means as other victims who suddenly lost their homes and livelihood through no fault of their own. Therefore, we are introducing this bill today and urge our colleagues to quickly enact it into law to assist families who are otherwise hopelessly destitute because of the disasters and the impact of a drug conviction.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the legislation, which is the congressional response to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London. By enacting this legislation, we are undermining the States' rights and assuming the role of a city council. We should not change Federal law every time Members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. We were elected to the United States Congress, not to local city councils.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for Congress to draw a bright line principle separating those cases in which economic development is appropriate for a particular area and when it is not. The Constitution does require that the taking be for public use. It is the role of a city council to weigh the needs of a particular community and consider when the government should use eminent domain.

Sometimes that might mean taking property for the purpose of economic development. Sometimes it may not. Sometimes we will agree with the judgment of the locality. Sometimes we will disagree.

I cannot think of a more fitting example of the quagmire this bill presents than the situation we have right here in Washington, D.C., where they are trying to build a baseball stadium. I find it ironic that, at the same time we are marking up the bill, Washington, D.C. is using eminent domain to build a baseball stadium.

The debate on this bill has already exposed the shortcomings of the legislation. For example, we found that if a stadium were built and owned by the city at taxpayer expense, it would clearly be allowed under the bill. On the other hand, if the owner offered to build a stadium at his own expense, that might not be allowed.

The bill requires public access to the stadium as ``a matter of right.'' Does that mean that the skyboxes must be put to public auction, or can the owner pick and choose which businesses can acquire rights to skyboxes?

Anybody who surveys baseball or football stadiums around the country will find all kinds of public and private and joint public-private ownership combinations. Could some use eminent domain, while others be prohibited from using eminent domain based on the fact that they want to limit access to skyboxes or how the title of the stadium is held?

Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center and Lincoln Center in New York, the Baltimore Inner Harbor, even President Bush's baseball stadium in Houston, Texas, were all made possible by eminent domain takings for the purpose of economic development. And although we might agree or disagree with the wisdom of these projects, most would agree that they should not have been illegal. These are political decisions that ought to be left to the localities within the confines of their State legislature's parameters.

If Congress cannot leave eminent domain to the States, then we should focus on the real issues involved in eminent domain. We should require, for example, that just compensation should include replacement cost, not just technical appraisal value. We should require that relocation expenses be paid to owners and tenants.

As written, the bill does nothing to ensure that displaced individuals receive reasonable compensation for the replacement value and relocation expenses. The bill does nothing to ensure compensation for loss of goodwill of a business, nothing to ensure that due consideration is given for the length of time a family or business has been at a particular location. Nothing in the bill deals with the fact that the poor and minorities are usually the victims of eminent domain abuses. Let us put some protections in the bill so that those who are relatively weak politically can be protected from unfair use of eminent domain.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the Record at this point letters from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the decision-making power of eminent domain should remain at the State and local level and that congressional attempts to define when eminent domain is reasonable and when it is not will cause more problems than they solve. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

National League of Cities,

Washington, DC, October 27, 2005.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner,

Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: The

National League of Cities (NLC) strongly opposes H.R. 4128,

the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. NLC is

the country's largest and oldest organization serving

municipal government, with nearly 1,600 direct member cities

and 49 state municipal leagues, which collectively represent

more than 18,000 United States communities.

NLC acknowledges the spirit underlying this bill and does

not condone abuse of eminent domain power that violates state

law. However, NLC believes this bill, or any anti-eminent

domain bill pending in Congress, is unnecessary at this time

because of the ongoing actions of state legislatures and the

absence of direct evidence confirming that alleged abuses of

eminent domain authority

are of a national scope and scale that demand immediate

federal action.

Despite fearful rhetoric in the press, the Supreme Court's

decision in Kelo v. City of New London did not expand the use

or powers of eminent domain. The Kelo decision confirmed that

eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is not a one-

size-fits-all power. The Court declared that this power is

one best left to the states and their political subdivisions.

The Kelo Court, affirming federalism, did not preclude ``any

state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of

the Takings power.'' Approximately 30 states are already

reviewing or planning to review their eminent domain laws

during upcoming legislative sessions, with the majority

focused on just compensation and comprehensive planning

process modifications. Since June 2005, Alabama, Texas, and

Delaware enacted laws that tighten the application of eminent

domain power in each state.

NLC urges Congress to let state governments act on their

own eminent domain laws and not move forward with federal

legislation.

Many aspects of H.R. 4128, led by the proposed definition

at Section 8 of ``economic development,'' trouble NLC.

Economic development is a process, not the concrete act of

taking private property from A and giving it to B for a

``commercial enterprise carried on for profit.'' If enacted,

the bill could have the unintended consequence of preventing

hurricane-damaged communities from rebuilding. In those

communities, eminent domain may be necessary to assemble land

and help with negotiations associated with comprehensive

redevelopment plans. Implementing those comprehensive

redevelopment plans would ``increase tax revenue, tax base,

employment, or general economic health,'' violating the

bill's further definition of economic development.

Moreover, the bill at Section 2(b) grants final authority

to the appointed--not elected--judiciary to determine what

constitutes ``economic development.'' Curiously, this was an

important argument against the Kelo decision raised by

property rights activists.

The practical effects from this bill, including its loose

definition at Section 8 of ``Federal economic development

funds'' and its creation of a private right of action at

Section 4 that invites forum shopping, would not chill, but

rather freeze the process of economic development across the

country.

Eminent domain is a powerful tool for local governments--

its prudent use, when exercised in the sunshine of public

scrutiny, helps achieve a greater public good that benefits

the entire community.

Again, NLC opposes H.R. 4128 for the reasons stated in this

letter. Please weigh carefully the unintended consequences

from a rush to pass federal legislation in response to

unsubstantiated fears over the Supreme Court's decision in

Kelo v. City of New London.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Borut

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Congressman Conyers of MI, Congressman Rangel of NY, Congressman Thompson of MS, Congressman Jefferson of LA, Congressman Frank of MA, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee of TX, Congressman Paul of TX, Congresswoman Johnson of TX, Congresswoman Lee of CA, Congressman Hastings of FL and Congressman Al Green of TX in introducing the ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act''. We are pleased to be joined by a coalition of almost 100 national, state and local organizations who have expressed their support for the legislation, such as the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, American College of Mental Health Administration, Drug Policy Alliance Network, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, NAADAC--The Association for Addiction Professionals, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, and the National Urban League, and the list is growing as word of the legislation gets out.

Millions of Americans were displaced from their homes due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita and hundreds of thousands have not been able to return and may never be able to do so. Having lost their homes, their communities, their jobs and other support systems, most have required emergency food, clothing, shelter, medical, or monetary assistance. According to FEMA reports, an estimated 2.1 million Americans have already applied for federal aid. Unfortunately, many of these individuals and their families are in desperate need, but, due to a prior drug conviction, will not be able to receive certain federal assistance available to other victims in need. While it is impossible to know for sure how many families will be denied public assistance because of drug convictions, it is likely in the tens of thousands.

More than 1.5 million Americans are arrested for drug offenses every year. Several federal laws disqualify those with felony convictions to receive certain federal benefits. A recent GAO report commissioned by myself and Congressman Rush of IL reveals that these disqualifications are having a huge impact on receipt of federal benefits for which those with prior drug convictions would otherwise receive. For example, an estimated 41,000 students were denied college assistance during the 2003/2004 academic year because of drug conviction.

While the GAO was only able to collect data from 15 public housing agencies, out of more than 3,000, those 15 agencies denied housing to almost 1,500 families because of past drug violations in 2003 alone. That indicates that there are thousands of families and tens of thousands of individuals unable to receive housing benefits because a family member has a drug convictions.

The drug conviction ban on eligibility for federal benefits also applies to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the TANF program. TANF eligibility applies to families with minor children. One study reflected that almost 25 percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 were eligible for TANF benefits, but were permanently barred from receiving it due to their state's application of the federal ban for a drug conviction. While some states do not apply the federal ban completely, other states, such as Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia, where many of the displaced families are staying, have fully applied the ban.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have inflicted suffering on millions of people. The suffering will fall even harder on victims denied aid because of past drug offenses. Parents who have lost everything and are struggling to feed themselves and their family will be denied TANF and food stamps; students who have lost their school, tuition, fees, room and board, but could continue their education in another school willing to accept them, or who were in school elsewhere when their parents lost the ability to continue paying for their education, will be denied student loans; and entire families that have lost everything in the disasters will be denied housing--all due to the federal bans for a past drug conviction.

The ``Elimination of Barriers for Katrina Victims Act'' applies only to past drug offenses, some of which were many years ago, and suspends the disqualification for only a 3-year period. This temporary adjustment period in federal disqualifications would allow families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita a chance to put their lives back together through

the same means as other victims who suddenly lost their homes and livelihood through no fault of their own. Therefore, we are introducing this bill today and urge our colleagues to quickly enact it into law to assist families who are otherwise hopelessly destitute because of the disasters and the impact of a drug conviction.