Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Scott of Virginia

Amendment No. 4: Page 31, line 17, strike ``not less than

10''.

Page 43, line 10, strike paragraph (1) and redesignate

succeeding paragraphs accordingly.

Page 44, beginning on line 5, strike ``not less than 10

years and''.

Page 45, line 8, strike subparagraph (A) and redesignate

succeeding subparagraphs accordingly.

Page 45, line 11, strike the semicolon and insert ``;

and''.

Page 45, line 18, strike the semicolon and insert a period.

Page 45, strike line 19 through line 6 on page 46.

Page 46, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 8

on page 47.

Page 47, line 4, strike the semicolon and insert ``; and''.

Page 47, line 5, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.

Page 47, starting on line 6, strike clause (iii) and all

that follows through line 13 on page 49.

Page 55, strike section 504 and all that follows through

line 22 on page 57, and redesignate succeeding sections

accordingly.

Page 68, line 21, strike the semicolon and insert ``;

and''.

Page 68, strike lines 22 through 23.

Page 69, strike lines 8 through 11.

Offered By: Mr. Scott of Virginia

Amendment No. 6: Strike section 303. Redesignate any

succeeding sections accordingly.

Offered By: Mr. Scott of Virginia

Amendment No. 7: Strike section 302. Redesignate any

succeeding sections accordingly.

Page 44, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 2

on page 11.

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

One of the problems we are going to have during this debate is the fact we are here under a closed rule. We will not have the ability to highlight or fix the shortcomings of the bill, so we will go back and forth on sound bites. We have already heard that this has been described as a proconsumer bill, notwithstanding the fact that I am not aware of any recognized consumer group that is supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we say we have lost doctors because of the malpractice crisis, but we did not say anything about the reimbursement rates for some specialties, who are not getting paid as much, nor is there a suggestion that tort reform has actually produced more doctors. Because we have the same list of ineffectual initiatives that we have had in other tort reform bills, reducing victims' rights without doing anything with malpractice rates, we will try to discuss the provisions of the bill.

First, the rule rejected the alternative offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that would have actually reduced malpractice costs and helped underserved areas without going overboard in helping and relieving from liability the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, which means that the doctors will have to pay more of the responsibility for malpractice. We cannot consider that.

But let us come to the specifics. This legislation preempts State law. The National Conference of State Legislators has already considered this bill, and they have rejected it. Their opinion, the National Conference of State

Legislators, have suggested this bill will make matters worse.

We have caps on damages, not on damages for wages and things like that, but for elderly, for children, for those who are without lost wages, they will be hurt. Incredibly, the cap on damages has not been shown to do anything about malpractice premiums. Those States with caps are paying the same malpractice premiums as those without caps.

We have heard about this fair share provision that says everybody just pays their fair share or more. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a group with insurance, and which insurance company will pay. Some States have dealt with this and said if a doctor is at least 60 percent responsible, he can be held fully responsible, but for others, maybe you can have a fair share. This says everybody involved. In other words, you have to go after each and every physician, with a separate case against each and every one for every 1 or 2 percent responsibility they have. We have had the problem of having to sue so many doctors. Well, this requires you to sue each and every doctor.

We have heard about the collateral source rule; that if you have insurance, and listen up small businesses, if you are providing health care for your employees, and you have an employee who gets into a malpractice-induced coma, and somebody has to pay it, and your employee has gotten a recovery from the malpractice insurance, if the small business is paying the responsibility, the physician, the guilty party, will get credit for all of your health insurance, and you are going to have to continue to pay under that health insurance.

We limit attorneys' fees in this legislation, which will do nothing to reduce malpractice premiums. We have different statutes of limitations, which will confuse people, and lawyers will miss the filing deadlines because of all this confusion.

We need insurance reform which will reduce premiums, not just attack victims. We need worthwhile legislation that will reduce the premiums. This will not do it. We need to defeat the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a democracy where we respect checks and balances. The PATRIOT Act is part of a pattern of lacking checks and balances. Military tribunals, not part of the PATRIOT Act but part of a pattern of reduced checks and balances. Military tribunals were presented with no public trials, no presumption of innocence, no guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Secret evidence could be used, no judicial review.

Part of that pattern is the enemy combatant where the administration designates someone as an enemy combatant, can arrest them and hold them indefinitely without charges, never having an opportunity to contest the allegations.

We have seen material witnesses, people arrested under the material witness laws, held indefinitely, no charges.

That is the context that we are considering the PATRIOT Act. Those are not in the PATRIOT Act, but we are considering the PATRIOT Act in that context.

We considered a bill on the same day of the second bombing in Great Britain with no money for port security, no money to secure our rails or bus transportation, no money for first responders.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, frankly not so much for what is in the bill but for what is not in the bill, what we are not going to do today. We can have plenty of privacy without threatening security, and we missed an opportunity to require standards for wiretaps and ``sneak and peak'' searches. We missed an opportunity to require probable cause of a crime before invading people's privacy. We missed the opportunity to limit these provisions and extraordinary powers to terrorism.

Ninety percent of the ``sneak and peak'' searches have nothing to do with terrorism. Remember that when the government invades one's privacy, it is not robots and computers; it is government employees who may be neighbors looking at one's medical records, listening to their private conversations, sneaking and peaking into their homes without their knowledge or consent. The PATRIOT Act gives broad expansive powers to government agents to invade privacy.

The major check on any abuse in the act has been the sunset provisions. Provisions will expire if they are abused. During our deliberations, we got a lot of cooperation on those provisions that are sunsetting. When asked information on those, we got the information. Some of it came in right before the hearing, but because of the sunset we got a lot of cooperation. Because of the sunset we found no abuses in the libraries. That is because of the sunset. Although government agencies have gone to at least 200 libraries for information, that has not been abused because they know if they abused it they would lose the benefit of that provision.

Medical records have not been abused. There has not been any unnecessary sharing of sensitive information of a personal nature. We have not run criminal investigations without probable cause using the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. They could have, because of the broad discretion in the bill, but they did not, because of the sunset.

Without the sunset provision, the abuse could take place. Fourteen of the 16 sunset provisions are removed, and the two that are left, 10- year sunsets, which will get us through this administration, clean through the next Presidential term and most of the way through the next.

Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this bill, go back to the Committee on the Judiciary and establish a much better piece of legislation that will protect our privacy and ensure our safety.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of problems with section 215. This amendment does not take care of many of them; but by requiring the FBI Director to personally approve the warrant, that will significantly reduce the chance that there will be abuses.

So far as the ability to contest these, it is very unlikely that someone receiving one of these warrants will go through the cost of actually contesting it for someone else's rights. There are no attorneys' fees allowed in these proceedings, and it is just more likely that they will just give up somebody's information.

This requirement will reduce the chances that there will be abuses; and although it does not solve all the problems, it will reduce the abuses, and, therefore, I will be voting for it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this involves a roving wiretap, and I think you have to put these in perspective. You can get one of these roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without any probable cause that a crime has been committed. You are just getting foreign intelligence. It does not have to be a crime. It does not have to be terrorism. It could be negotiations on a trade deal, anything that will help foreign intelligence, you can get one of these roving wiretaps. So you are starting off without probable cause of a crime.

And also, you can start off without it being the primary purpose of the wiretap, which suggests if it is not the primary purpose, what is the primary purpose? So there is a lot of flexibility and potential for abuse in these things.

There are also some gaps. You can get one of these roving wiretaps against a person, or in some cases, if you know which phone people are using, you can get a John Doe warrant. And there are actually gaps in it where you are not sure which phone, you are not sure which person, you kind of get authority to just kind of wiretap in the area. And so this kind of reporting I think is extremely important.

We have, for example, asked several people, if you get a roving wiretap and foreign intelligence was not the primary purpose, what was the primary purpose? We have had high officials suggest, well, running a criminal investigation would be the primary purpose, which means you are running a criminal investigation without probable cause of a crime being committed. And you get these roving wiretaps. You put a roving wiretap.

I have had amendments that have been defeated in committee which would require what is called ascertainment. When you put the bug there you have got to ascertain that the target is actually there doing the talking, not somebody else using the same phone. Those amendments have been defeated.

And so we need some oversight. And these reports will go a long way in making sure that you are not abusing, you are not listening in on the wrong people, you are not putting these bugs where they do not need to be. You started off with no probable cause. You are not abusing the roving aspect, putting wiretaps everywhere where they do not need to be. I think this kind of review can go a long way in reducing the potential of abuse, using the FISA wiretaps for criminal investigations without probable cause, listening in to the wrong people and a lot of other problems that can occur with the roving wiretaps.

And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). Although it does not solve all of the problems, it solves a lot of them and I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, just to acknowledge that as the chairman has indicated, some of these roving wiretaps do put us into the 21st century with the use of cell phones and disposable cell phones. So the roving wiretap is necessary. But it needs oversight. And I think this amendment will go a long way to making sure that that process is not abused.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, as it has been indicated, this amendment involves a lot of new definitions. It would be helpful if we had considered this in committee where we could have gotten the definitions straight.

This is a complex rewrite of two different sections, 18 U.S.C. 1992 and 1993, which involve wrecking trains and attacks on mass transportation systems.

First, it involves mandatory minimums, and we know from our committee deliberations that the Judicial Conference writes us a letter every time we consider a new mandatory minimum to remind us that mandatory minimums violate common sense. If it is a commonsense sentence, it should

be applied. If it is not a commonsense sentence, it has to be applied anyway.

In addition to that, there are problems with the death penalties in the bill. It would allow death penalties for conspiracy. That offers up constitutional questions. It also would create new death penalties even in States that do not include a death penalty.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to deal with attacks on mass transit, it would be helpful if we would put the money into port security and rail security and bus security and fund those resources. That would go a long way in making us more secure. Having four amendments like this when we have insufficient time to deliberate is not substantially as helpful as the money would have been in making us more secure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say that it would have been extremely helpful if we could have considered that. We could have got the definition straight, and we could have considered it in a more deliberative process rather than trying to deal with it here on the floor where we have some constitutional questions such as the death penalty for conspiracy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I say that we need money for port security and rail security funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this expands the wiretap authority, but it limits the expansion to cases of terrorism. I would say to the gentleman from California and to the chairman, if the rest of the bill had been limited to terrorism, we would not have to be sitting up here arguing half the night.

I agree with the gentleman, we want to be tough on terrorism, but we don't want to open up the entire criminal code to these very expansive powers. So in this case, I think it is an appropriate expansion of the wiretap because it is limited to terrorism, and I thank the gentleman for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to join my colleague from Virginia in his interest in the security of the Port of Hampton Roads.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well drafted to target the problem of port security. It closes an apparent oversight in the fact that it is not a Federal crime for a vessel operator to fail to stop when ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, and makes it clear that that is a crime. The penalties are increased penalties, but not mandatory minimums, so the increases will make sense.

I will not, however, be supporting the amendment because it has several new death penalties in it. It has death penalties, some of which push the envelope on constitutionality, because some can be imposed even if there is no intent to kill; they are broad enough to even include deaths which result from violating the stowaway statute.

Mr. Chairman, death penalties cannot be a deterrent to suicide bombers, so that part of the bill I think would not be helpful in terms of port security. What we do need in port security is significant increases in funding for port security, funding for bus and rail security, funding for first responders. That is the kind of thing that will make us safer. As to the other parts of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the other cosponsors for their hard work in focusing us on port security, which is desperately needed.

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

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

I would point out that the comments of the gentleman from North Carolina and the chairman of the committee have outlined the fact that this has been worked out with all of the parties involved, and we have no objection.

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

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It provides for the enactment of extremely controversial provisions which we have had inadequate time to consider. We have not had the opportunity to hear critical testimony on controversial aspects of this bill such as the provision to apply the death penalty to offenses where no death results, the change in alternative jury rules and peremptory challenge rules, another change of the number of jurors needed to impose the death penalty and other changes which could constitute constitutional problems.

Another problem with the bill, it provides for expansion of the Federal death penalty, both for crimes that the supporters of the death penalty might think warrant the death penalty, as well as crimes that most people would not expect to be associated with the most severe of penalties.

This bill does not limit crimes through the death penalty eligibility to the heinous crimes or those who have traditionally been considered severe enough to require either a death penalty or even life without parole.

The bill is so broad that it includes offenses such as those related to protection of computers, property offenses and financial or other material support provisions. Because the bill makes attempts and conspiracies to commit such crimes death penalty eligible, it covers those who may have only had a minor role in the offense. If a death results, even if it was not the specific intended result, anyone who is involved in committing or attempting to commit or conspiring to commit the covert offense would be eligible for the death penalty.

The provisions of this bill create a death penalty liability tantamount to a Federal felony murder rule, and it presents constitutional issues as well as questions of the appropriateness of the death penalty in certain cases.

The provisions of this bill will be duplicative of state jurisdiction laws in many instances and actually conflicting with others. One such conflict would be where a State has chosen not to authorize capital punishment and the Federal Government pursues the death penalty against that State's wishes.

Another concern we always have to consider is expansion of the death penalty when we know that there is a frequent error rate in applying the death penalty. One study showed that 68 percent of the death penalty decisions by the trial court were eventually overturned.

Mr. Chairman, there is another conflict or difficulty that will arise in the efforts to further international cooperation in pursuing suspected terrorists. We are already experiencing difficulties in securing the cooperation of

the rest of the civilized world in bringing terrorists to justice due to our existing proliferation of death penalty offenses when other countries will not extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the death penalty. When we add these difficulties to the other controversial issues as to whether someone who supports an organization's social or humanitarian programs knows that it has been designated as a terrorist organization it can only exacerbate the difficulty and further undermine United States efforts.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of the amendment mentioned that hearing we had. I would remind him that the hearing was a hearing on habeas corpus, also the same hearing we heard the issue of the question of whether the death penalty deters murder or other crimes, and this bill. We were given one witness to cover all of that. Our witness covered habeas corpus. We did not have the opportunity to invite a witness to discuss this bill and the policy implications of death penalty where no death occurs and alternate jury rules, peremptory challenges, the number of jurors needed to impose a death penalty, all of these death penalties involved.

So to suggest that that was a fair hearing, I think, does not do justice to actually what happened on that day and the consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

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

As the gentleman said, we had a little piece of a hearing, but it was not much; and we did not have the opportunity to discuss this bill. It was not marked up in subcommittee or the committee. The committee elected not to make it part of the bill, and I would hope that we would make the same decision and defer this until it can be appropriately considered. I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment emphasizes a point that we are trying to do this on the floor without a mark-up, and it may have many unintended consequences. Despite the name of the title, the title of the amendment is ``Combating Terrorism Financing Act of 2005,'' but if you read the provisions, it is not limited to terrorism financing but for all violations of economic sanctions imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. I mean, a senior citizen who has traveled to Cuba on a bicycle excursion or a clergy attempting to send humanitarian services or supplies to Cuba could get caught up in this.

It talks about misuse of Social Security numbers so if somebody misuses a Social Security number to get a job, having nothing to do with terrorism, just is cheating to get a job, they could get caught up in this. It raises questions about sending money to your relatives back home. All of this is implicated in this amendment. It obviously covers terrorism, but we do not know what else it covers. People who get caught up in this are looking at 20-year sentences.

Money-laundering statutes are already very broadly written, and this just broadens it even further. I would hope we would defeat the amendment so we could have some time to make sure it could be limited to terrorism financing and just not every violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other kinds of money- laundering statutes.

We also have had not an opportunity to hear from people that may be involved in this, organizations helping immigrant populations, banks or other agencies that may have an interest in this who we just have not had time to hear from to know what their reaction would be. So I would hope that we would defeat the amendment so we could have more time to consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that these are the kinds of questions which cause me to hope we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Could the chairman explain which amendment is being considered at this point?

Could the Reading Clerk read the amendment?

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

Mr. Chairman, this provides mandatory minimums, which we have frequently said if it had come up in committee we would have a letter ready from the Judicial Conference reminding us that mandatory minimums violate common sense, because if the penalty makes sense, it can be imposed; if it does not make sense, it has to be imposed anyway.

This amendment is unnecessarily confusing and duplicative of current law. It is already a crime punishable by 20 years in prison, or life in prison in some circumstances, to provide material support of any kind to a terrorist organization or to support a person in carrying out terrorist acts regardless of how the money came about, whether it was from drug proceeds or otherwise.

If anyone is engaged in drug trafficking of any significance in order to support terrorism, they can already be charged with both a drug offense and the material support of terrorism.

This might, unfortunately, bring in some small-time dealer that did not know what he was doing and all of a sudden he is subjected to 20- year mandatory minimums when he was not much of a dealer at all.

This new crime would substantially broaden the Federal death penalty in ways that might actually violate the Constitution. For example, indirect offenses like conspiracy are generally not death eligible, but financing is more analogous to conspiracy than the direct crimes like hijacking, bombing or murder by drug king, which are already death eligible. Drug trafficking and terrorism crimes already carry numerous penalties for the most egregious offenses, so we do not need them anew in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat this amendment. We did not put it into the bill in committee when we would have had an opportunity to ensure it did not conflict with various other provisions of the law or was unnecessarily duplicative.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the suggestion about mandatory minimums. This may be a crime where high sentences may be appropriate; and if they are appropriate in the individual case, they can be applied.

What the mandatory minimum imposes, whether it makes any sense or not, whether it violates common sense, it still has to be applied. That is why we get a letter from the Judicial Conference every time we have a bill before us with mandatory minimums in it, they remind us that the mandatory minimums violate common sense.

We also have the opportunity to review the studies that we have seen that show that mandatory minimums waste taxpayer money, as opposed to other ways that you can sentence.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, a Democratic amendment was scheduled next, but I believe that amendment is not going to be offered.

Mr. Chairman, we have very many disparities in the criminal justice system, particularly the juvenile justice system. But many of these programs have been terminated to fund tax cuts, primarily for those with incomes over $200,000.

One of those programs is the Reintegration of Youthful Offenders program sponsored by the Department of Labor. It helps young people get jobs, and we know that those with jobs are much less likely to commit crimes in the future.

We could fund this program by eliminating the earmark of $10 million for random nonsuspicion-based drug testing. Studies show that that drug testing does not reduce drug use, and that is why that kind of drug testing is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the National Education Association.

I would hope that as we go forward, adjustments in the budget to re- fund the Reintegration of Youthful Offender program and un-fund the earmark for $10 million for the random nonsuspicion-based drug testing could be made.

This amendment would be supported by the American Correctional Association, the Association for Addictive Professionals, and the National Association of Social Workers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important to put this debate in context because it occurs to me that every time we consider this resolution, we end up cutting veterans health care. So let us just see what we are doing this year on the health care budget for veterans. The Republican budget cuts veterans health care programs by more than $13.5 billion over the next 5 years compared to what would be needed just to keep up with inflation. The President even proposed a $15 billion cut and copays for a significant number of our veterans.

When the sponsor challenges us to ask wounded veterans in VA hospitals what they want us to do, I suspect that they would not be asking us to cut veterans health care at the same time we debate this resolution.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, just before we went on Memorial Day break and gave speeches just a few weeks ago, colleagues voted down a measure that would have offered TRICARE health coverage to National Guard members and Reservists. Reserve components make up 50 percent of our forces in Iraq and studies show that 20 percent have no health insurance. For younger Reservists it is as high as 40 percent have no health insurance coverage. How can we ask these young men and women to serve on the front line and not even provide for them the basic necessity of health care?

And so, Mr. Speaker, 25 million American veterans deserve respect and dignity and they deserve more than the debate on this constitutional amendment. We should be providing health care for our veterans, not this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here respects the flag. The question before us is not whether we respect the flag, but whether or not we ought to use the criminal code to prevent those who disagree with us to express their views. The Supreme Court has frequently considered restrictions on speech that are permissible by our government. For example, under the first amendment with respect to speech, speech may be regulated by time, place and manner, but not regulated by content.

There are, of course, exceptions. Speech may be restricted if it creates an imminent threat of violence or threatens safety or expresses a patently offensive message that has no redeeming social value, but we cannot restrict by content otherwise. The distinction: you can restrict by time, place and manner but not content.

So you can restrict the particulars of a march or a demonstration by what time it is held or where it is held or how loud the demonstration can be, but you cannot restrict what people are marching or demonstrating about. You cannot ban a particular march or demonstration just because you disagree with the message unless you decide to ban all marches. You cannot allow one political party to have a demonstration, but not the other. You cannot have a pro-war demonstration and then try to restrict an anti-war demonstration.

Speech protected by the Constitution we have to recognize will always be unpopular. Popular speech does not need protection. It is only that speech that provokes the local sheriff into wanting to arrest you for what you said that needs protection. Of course, speech protected by the first amendment will always be unpopular.

Some have referred to the underlying resolution as the anti-flag burning amendment, and they speak about the necessity of keeping people from burning flags. In reality, the only place you ever see a flag burned is in compliance with the Federal code at flag ceremonies disposing of a worn-out flag. Ask any Boy Scout or American Legion member how to dispose of a worn-out flag and they will tell you that the procedure is to burn the flag at a respectful ceremony.

In fact, the only time I have seen a flag burned is at one of these ceremonies. So the proposed constitutional amendment is all about expression and all about prohibiting expression in violation of the first amendment principles. In fact, the amendment does not even use the term ``burning.'' It uses the term ``flag desecration.'' And by using the word ``desecration,'' we are giving government officials the power to decide that one can burn the flag if they are saying something nice and respectful, but they are a criminal if they burn this flag while they are saying something offensive or insulting. This is an absurd distinction and is a direct contravention of the whole purpose of the first amendment, especially when the real impact of the legislation will be to have political protesters arrested because they disagree and express that disagreement of government policy.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, this amendment has practical problems. For example, what is a flag? Can one desecrate a picture of a flag? Can one desecrate a flag with the wrong number of stripes?

Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam War, laws were passed prohibiting draft cards from being burned, and protesters with great flourish would say that they were burning their draft cards and offend everybody, but then nobody would know whether it was a draft card or just a piece of paper. And what happens if one desecrates their own flag in private? Are they subject to criminal prosecution if somebody finds out?

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to comment on suggestions that stealing and destroying somebody's personal property is protected if that property happens to be a flag. That is wrong. It is still theft and personal property. The other examples, there are other criminal codes that people can be prosecuted on. What this legislation is aimed at is criminalizing political speech, and we should not criminalize political speech just because we disagree with it, just because we have the votes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we would defeat this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by saying our flag does not need protection from an occasional protester, we call them miscreants I think, who cannot see how ridiculous it is to try to protest by destroying the symbol of his right to protest. If he cannot see how ridiculous that is, obviously we do not need much protection from him.

Contrary to what has been suggested on the floor, the underlying amendment does not regulate conduct. Without the Watt amendment, it clearly regulates message.

Now, as the gentleman from North Carolina, sponsor of the amendment, points out, the underlying amendment does not repeal the first amendment. Even if we adopt this constitutional amendment, the first amendment will still be there, and so the amendment is, in fact, redundant, but it makes it clear and reminds people that it is still there.

What he seeks to clarify is whether or not it is indeed the message that is being criminalized rather than the conduct, whether or not those who support government policy, for example, and burn a flag without offending anybody, apparently they will be okay. But if you are a war protester who burns a flag, you can be arrested, and if you are a veteran, so disgusted with veterans health care, and burn the flag in protest, are we making him a criminal? Or if you are a member of a fringe political organization who burns his own flag on his own property, in private, can they be arrested if somebody finds out?

The question is whether or not we are criminalizing the message or the conduct. So the Watt amendment makes it clear that we are still protecting freedom of speech. The message, that will be clear, that we if we do not support the Watt amendment we just ought to acknowledge it is indeed the message, not conduct, which is the target of the underlying amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of House Resolution 207, which recognizes the 100th anniversary of FarmHouse Fraternity, Incorporated. The organization was first founded by seven students from the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Currently, FarmHouse Fraternity has 24,000 members; and it continues to increase its membership on college campuses throughout the United States and Canada, notwithstanding the fact that today there are fewer farm families and fewer young men with the traditional agricultural background.

Farming issues today are much more complex than a century ago. In addition to concerns about the impact of drought and disease on crop production, farmers today must concern themselves with agricultural trade policies, competition from major foreign producers and exporters and agroterrorism.

While farming issues may have changed, the fraternity's objectives have remained constant. Today, just as in 1905, the fraternity still aims to promote good fellowship, encourage studiousness, and build character and integrity amongst its members.

I congratulate each of the members of FarmHouse Fraternity on their 100th anniversary and wish them continued success in the future.

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

Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I just want to point out some of the things that he did not mention in his presentation, and using this same chart. Could he explain what PAYGO means?

And if the gentleman will continue to yield, as a result of that fiscal responsibility and the tough votes that we cast, we were able to eliminate the deficit and go into surplus, a $236 billion surplus.

What we are looking at now is it does not get any better. After we have gotten back into the ditch, it does not get any better.

Could the gentleman explain what this blue line up here is?

And, Mr. Speaker, just a few years later, look at where we are. The President, down in the ditch where we are now, has promised to reduce the deficit 50 percent. First of all, how modest a goal is that from someone who inherited a $5 trillion surplus to say that he is going to clean up half the mess that he has caused? Is that a realistic goal? Is that a fair goal to be judged by?

Mr. Speaker, in other words, what the gentleman is saying is that he started with a surplus; he is now in a deficit, only promises to eliminate half the deficit; and he probably will not even be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if we run up deficits, we have to pay interest on the national debt. And we had a $5 trillion surplus projected. Now we have over $3 trillion in deficits. The interest that we are going to pay goes up. By 2010, according to this chart, where the interest we were going to pay was going down and the interest we have got to pay is going up, by 2010 the increase in interest is over $230 billion, and that is $230 billion that we are going to have to pay for interest on the national debt going down the drain that we are not going to be able to spend on public broadcasting; NASA Langley Research, in my area, aeronautics research.

We are closing bases. We are only going to save a few billion dollars in base closings, certainly not $230 billion that we are going to have to spend in interest payments. We are closing bases, and the highest estimate I have seen over the course of time is about $40 billion that we may save. $230 billion and growing interest on the national debt. We are cutting back on ship building. We do not have the ship building budget that we ought to have. Cops on the beat being cut. Education programs, Pell grants. Ask somebody who is going to college how much tuition went up: 5, 10, 15 percent. Pell grants are going up 1 percent under this budget.

And it is getting worse before it gets better because, as we look at the interest on the national debt that we are going to be paying going on and the cost of these tax cuts exploding, the gentleman indicated that we only had a 5-year budget, and when we look at the cost of the tax cuts after 5 years, we can see why they did not want to reveal a 10-year budget. But this shows the exploding cost of the tax cuts going out to 2015.

What it does not show is the Social Security trust fund changing from a surplus, going into a deficit in 2018. That is when we have to be best prepared financially to be able to withstand the difference in the $100 billion surplus we are getting out of Social Security going into a growing deficit. And we are going into that change in our worst possible fiscal situation.

Finally, when we put all these tax cut proposals into perspective, we see that the cost of making the tax cuts permanent, about $12 billion is a lot more than the Social Security shortfall. In fact, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent is almost enough to cover the entire Social Security shortfall. So we cannot separate the tax cut policy from the spending priorities that we are going to have to address.

When we talk about public broadcasting, education, ship building, base closings, aeronautics research in my area, cops on the beat, education, this budget includes requirements to cut school lunches and student loans because we are funding tax cuts for the wealthy. There is even one tax cut that is going into effect in the next couple of years, the PEP and Pease, Personal Exemption Phase-out, and the Pease tax, which the President wants to repeal, that is about $10 billion a year when the President finally gets his way to repeal those provisions.

$10 billion a year and 97 percent of that money goes to those making $200,000 or more. Almost half of it goes to about the top one-fifth of 1 percent. Those making $1 million or more, about half of the benefit of that goes to that group, and we are cutting taxes approximately $10 billion a year when it is fully phased in and at the same time cutting school lunches and student loans. How moral a decision is that to make?

So I would thank the gentleman for his answers. And also we have a chart up here saying what the promises were as we went along, as we went into skyrocketing deficits. We were first told that we could do tax cuts without budget deficits and then the next year our budget will run a little deficit, but it will be short term, then our current deficit is not large; and now he is promising maybe to clean up half of it.

When we run up that kind of debt, and the gentleman has a chart right at his feet, who owns the debt and what is the pattern there? Could the gentleman explain that chart?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. Just one final question. We have complained about how bad a situation we have gotten into, how much work we did to eliminate the deficit, running into surplus. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have a plan to get us back on track?

I thank the gentleman.

Well, I would just ask the gentleman, we have outlined what some would think would be quite a crisis. If you look at this chart, something happened in 2001: we passed all of those tax cuts. I would just ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) if this administration or the majority in Congress has ever expressed any acknowledgment that there is a problem.

So in other words, they have not only failed to acknowledge a problem, they are actually, with their policies, making the problem worse?

Now, if you did not acknowledge that there is a problem, how likely is it that you will

take the very difficult, make the very difficult decisions that we had to make in 1993?

In 1994, there was a change in leadership in Congress. What happened in 1995?

When the Congress passed budgets that included massive tax cuts, what happened to those budgets?

But did President Clinton, when he looked at those irresponsible budgets, not have to veto those budgets, showing Presidential leadership?

But the Presidential leadership would not allow an irresponsible budget to become law?

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which would increase the funding for investigation and prosecution of consumer identity fraud.

Approximately 10 million people a year are being victimized by identity theft. Last year's business and financial institutions lost about $52 billion, and consumers lost about $5 billion due to identity theft.

Too little is being done to effectively address consumer identity theft and credit card fraud. Presently what happens is the credit card companies just simply wipe out the debt, but the fees are not never appropriately pursued. The problem is that the laws we have on the books are not being adequately enforced due to insufficient investigative and prosecutorial resources. While the Department of Justice devotes some resources towards identity theft, it is not a high priority due to inadequate resources, and so the thieves practice their wares with impunity.

Mr. Chairman, last year we passed legislation which authorized money for consumer identity theft enforcement. We have not properly funded that, and this amendment would go a long way into properly funding it. I understand, however, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has expressed some concerns about the offsets and the funding level in the bill already, and I would ask the chairman if he would work with us to make sure that the funding of identity theft is properly done under the bill between now, over in the Senate, and in conference.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his commitment.

And with that, I will not offer the amendment, but will be working to make sure that consumer identity theft investigation and prosecution is properly funded under the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend W. Henry Maxwell, Sr., who is retiring from his role as Pastor of Ivy Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia.

Reverend Maxwell served as pastor at Ivy Baptist for 37 years. In this position, he has been an extraordinary shepherd over a vibrant and growing flock. I have attended Sunday services at Ivy Baptist and seen his hand at work in his church and community. During his tenure, the Church established a Day Care ministry that has been a vital and thriving community resource for over thirty years. Under his leadership, the church outgrew its original building, and Reverend Maxwell oversaw the purchase of and transition to a new location. And seven years ago, not to rest on previous accomplishments, Reverend Maxwell spurred the construction of an additional wing to the current Church location, that the congregation saw fit to name the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center. Even though he officially retired December 31, 2004, Reverend Maxwell has graciously served as interim pastor while the church searched for his successor.

Through his counsel and mentorship, the Ivy Baptist family has produced successful businesspeople, local, state, and federal government workers, and 14 licensed ministers. Reverend Maxwell has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of his parishioners and the lives of all citizens in the church's Southeast Newport News community. His steadfast commitment to principle is well documented through his service on numerous associations, including a term as President of the Newport News Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

His dedication to civic improvement is best illustrated through his work as a public servant. Reverend Maxwell represented citizens from the cities of Newport News and Hampton as both a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia State Senate in a twenty-year political career. Reverend Maxwell spent much of his time and effort in the Virginia General Assembly addressing the various disparities faced by many of his constituents--the culmination of this effort being his work as an early proponent of diversity in the state judiciary. In his role as State Senator, Reverend Maxwell strove to make sure that the judiciary was comprised of judges more representative of the communities they served, and he has ensured that all Virginians who walk into a court feel that they have a fair chance of equal protection under the law.

I had the honor and privilege of serving with Reverend Maxwell in the Virginia General Assembly for nine years, and I have worked with him outside of the Assembly on many issues. Reverend Maxwell, as a humble servant of God, would balk at the accolades I have bestowed upon him, but I would be remiss if I did not say I consider him an ally, mentor, and friend.

On the occasion of his retirement, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Reverend W. Henry Maxwell, Sr. for his service and dedication to the parishioners of lvy Baptist Church and to the people of Newport News and Hampton, Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment to the legislation. While I salute the hard work of our volunteer firefighters, it

appears to me that we have a very extreme solution to a problem that does not exist. Although the amendment purports to encourage donation of fire fighting equipment by eliminating civil liability barriers, there are no reported cases of businesses refusing to donate their equipment nor cases of volunteer fire fighting companies suing their donors. Whatever the so-called problem is could be solved or addressed without congressional action.

For example, in the 108th Congress when the similar legislation was before the Committee on the Judiciary, we heard during our committee deliberations that a volunteer fire department could simply sign a contract waiving liability of the donors from negligence resulting from the donated fire equipment. This tactic would ensure that fire companies are informed and have consented to the immunity of the donor. Congress does not have to mandate the immunity. The groups can agree to it if they want or if the donor insists.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a Federal issue. It is a matter that can be dealt with by the States. There is nothing Federal about local volunteer fire departments. This liability is a State issue, and many States have already dealt with it. For example, some States provide immunity but only after requiring certification that the equipment is safe. This amendment provides no such immunity. For the safety of our volunteers, companies should not be given blanket immunity for donating fire equipment. While it may be true that most of the equipment is perfectly usable, companies should be prevented from donating obsolete equipment known to be of dubious safety. Certain equipment, like protective gear and breathing apparatus, can deteriorate over time and may not be suitable for use. So the threat of civil liability causes some to think twice about donating dangerous equipment, equipment which may place our firefighters in danger. If this amendment passes, they will not have to be concerned about donating that dangerous equipment.

I would hope that we would defeat the amendment, allow the volunteer firefighters to waive the liability if they want, but not impose a federally mandated waiver on everybody whether they want to use it or not. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment which may, in fact, endanger our firefighters.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the debate, you might not think it is illegal to use a machete to chop somebody's hand off or to, last night, gang-rape a handicapped child in the park, murder for hire, cold- blooded murders. You might not think those are illegal. In most jurisdictions in the country, certainly in the jurisdictions that I represent, it is already illegal to take a

machete and chop somebody's hand off, and I have not heard complaints from the local police that they need a new Federal law to help deal with those crimes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced just about 2 months ago, incidentally the same day that a juvenile justice coalition released just another study showing how trying more juveniles as adults will actually increase crime. The rule, of course, does not allow us to address that issue, where juveniles, the marginal juveniles, the ones not now tried as adults in State court, would be tried as adults under this legislation. I have not seen any study that contradicts them, but all of the studies I have seen show that that will actually increase the crime rate because when they are tried as adults, they are also locked up with adult criminals and come out worse than they went in.

No amendments in this rule are allowed to address the death penalty, which has been shown to be racially discriminatory, which has been shown to have no effect on crime and shown to be so inappropriate that the Supreme Court with seven Republican appointees sitting on the court ruled that, for juveniles, the death penalty was unconstitutional. We have not had an opportunity under the rule to address that, not even the fact that under the bill you can have a capital prosecution for accidents, accidental actions. It does not require an intent to kill someone. It could have been an accident. There was no amendment allowed for that.

There is no amendment to allow the little money in the bill to go to local law enforcement. Virtually all of the money goes to Federal law enforcement. If you are going to have an effect on gangs, the money ought to go to where the gangs are actually fought, on the local.

Mr. Speaker, we have not had the amendments to actually address the kinds of problems that are in the bill. It came out at the last minute. My colleague from Virginia has mentioned all the people supporting it. I know one letter we received talked about the need for all of the money in the bill going to law enforcement and help get the money for law enforcement in the bill to the localities, and you look in the bill and there is no money. It is all for Federal law enforcement, Federal prosecution. Virtually nothing for local law enforcement. If you look at the title of the bill, you think you are doing something. In fact, you are doing nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is going to round up a few low- level people committing little crimes, some even misdemeanors, and they will be getting 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. If we are going to do something about crime, if you ask anybody that knows what they are talking about what to do about juvenile crime, they will tell you prevention and early intervention. Keep the kids out of trouble and if they get in trouble to begin with, get them right back on track. There is no money in here for prevention.

We have heard a crack about arts and crafts for gang members. Let me tell you something. Arts and crafts for gang members will do more to reduce juvenile crime and gang membership than the provisions in this bill, and everybody knows it.

I have got to admit that the sound bites and slogans are stronger on the other side, but all of the studies show that this bill would do virtually nothing to reduce juvenile crime and is certainly not an effective use of the taxpayers' money if your goal is to actually reduce crime. You need to put the money into prevention and early intervention. We lead the world in incarceration already. If you are going to get any more crime reduction out of the next dollar we are going to spend, it ought to go into prevention and early intervention to keep the kids out of trouble; 850,000 kids are not going to come out of gangs because we pass this legislation. They are in gangs now because they have nothing to do in the afternoon. We need to defeat this bill and do something serious about juvenile crime.