Floor Statements

Thanks to the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5143, the National Criminal Justice Commission Act. I'm proud to have been an original cosponsor joining Mr. Delahunt and others on such an important bill, and I would take liberty to especially thank Mr. Delahunt for seeking me out, being a freshman, and letting me take a leadership role in this bill, which I think is going to do a lot of good for fighting crime in this country.

As a former prosecutor, it's important to take a close look at what works and what does not work in our criminal justice system. This bipartisan bill will create a commission to study all aspects of our criminal justice system and report back on what we can do better to prevent crime, reduce violence, and control costs.

This bill will create a blue ribbon, bipartisan commission charged with undertaking an 18-month comprehensive review of the Nation's criminal justice system. The commission will study all areas of the criminal justice system, including Federal, State, local and tribal governments, criminal justice costs, practices, and policies. After conducting the review, the commission will make the recommendations for changes in or continuation of oversight policies, practices, and laws designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, improve cost effectiveness, and ensure the interests of justice.

This bill couldn't come at a better time. Every year Congress continues to add more and more laws to our U.S. code. Yet we haven't taken a sober look at the existing laws to find what is archaic, what is out of date, and what is duplicative.

This will be the first time in over 40 years that we will undertake such a study. I'm proud and honored to be a cosponsor of this bill along with Ms. Fudge, Mr. Issa, Ranking Member Smith, and especially Mr. Delahunt. And I encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 amends the statute that allows Federal officers, under limited conditions, to remove cases filed against them in State court to the U.S. District Court for disposition. The purpose of current law is to restrict State courts' power to hold Federal officers liable for acts allegedly performed in the execution of their Federal duties. This doesn't mean Federal officers can break the law; it just means that these cases are transferred to Federal courts for determination. Federal officers and agents, even Members of Congress, should be forced to answer to Federal courts for their conduct during Federal duties.

Federal courts, however, have inconsistently interpreted the current statute, and that inconsistency can harm Federal interests. For example, this March the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court ruling in the State of Texas that the Federal removal statute does not apply to a Texas law involving pre-suit discovery against a Federal officer. Because 46 other States have similar laws, the House general counsel's office became concerned that more Federal courts will adopt the Fifth Circuit's logic and then urge us to clarify the Federal law.

The problem occurs when a plaintiff considering a suit against a Federal officer petitions for discovery without actually filing suit in State court. Many Federal courts have held that this conduct only anticipates a suit; it isn't a cause of action as contemplated and covered by the current Federal removal statute. The problem is compounded because a separate Federal statute requires Federal courts to send any case back to State court if ``at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.''

Judicial review of remand orders is limited and does not apply to suits involving Federal officers. This means remanded cases brought against Federal officers under these conditions cannot find their way back to Federal court.

This result is at odds with the purpose of the Federal removal and remand statutes. The bill before us will clarify existing Federal law and overturn the recent Fifth Circuit ruling. It restores the core purpose of the removal statute by ensuring any claim against Federal officers at any stage of a proceeding or even potential proceeding will be entertained in a Federal court.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5281.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States Secret Service began providing protective

services following the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. The Service's protection responsibilities have since expanded to include the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, heads of state, and others. This Service also provides protection at special events of national significance.

To address this vital responsibility, the Secret Service must anticipate, recognize, and assess threat situations and initiate strategies to eliminate and reduce threats or security vulnerabilities.

Key components to the Service's protection mission is securing the buildings and grounds where protectees work or visit. From the White House to a hotel ballroom, the Secret Service must provide a secure environment for the President and other protectees.

H.R. 2780 ensures that the Secret Service has the ability to secure all necessary areas surrounding the restricted buildings and grounds that house our leaders, their families, and foreign heads of state.

The bill clarifies section 1752 of title 18, which sets penalties for knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without the lawful authority to do so. Currently written, the code does not distinguish between those who are there lawfully, such as Secret Service agents and other authorized staff, and those who are there without permission.

This bill does not create any new authorities for the Secret Service and does not restrict the liberties of American citizens. H.R. 2780 simply clarifies and improves existing criminal statutes that are necessary for the Secret Service to resolve security issues and implement prevention strategies before tragedy strikes.

There have been enough climbing incidents at the White House fence for at least one Web site to dedicate itself to chronicling the escapades of ``White House fence jumpers.'' While some of these individuals are attempting a collegiate prank, other such breaches could be catastrophic.

This bill will enable the United States Secret Service to continue to deliver the highest level of protective services, consistent with their proud tradition. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the varsity boys lacrosse team of the Benjamin School in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The Benjamin Buccaneers won the Florida State lacrosse championship this spring against Tampa Jesuit in sudden death overtime.

Team members Matt Ferris, Scott Fricker, Kyle Gilmore, Taylor Smith, Nick Gardner, Josh Weinstein, Dylan Nugent, Roby Mendoza, Justin Boufford, Scott Slawson, Ryan O'Hare, Philip Benz, Nick Krar, Robby Dattolo, Josh Stauffer, Charlie Collins, Colby Kempe, Robert Jacobs, Evan Wesselman, Jay Ford and Charlie Nicklaus played with great determination and heart throughout the grueling tournament weekend to come from behind in the semifinals to beat defending State champions and local rival Dwyer High 18-16 to earn their spot against Tampa Jesuit in the finals.

The championship game was a hard fought see-saw scoring battle with the score tied eleven all at the end of the fourth quarter. Benjamin's Josh Stauffer scored the game-winning goal just 42 seconds into overtime.

I am proud to congratulate the Bucs and Coach Cheatham on their first of many State championships. Go Bucs.

Mr. Speaker, across this country and certainly throughout Florida, people have been asking and speaking out, but leaders in Washington have not been listening. From the new health care law to a national energy tax, Americans have repeatedly said ``no'' to what this Congress has had to offer.

I have been listening, and I've heard loud and clear that my constituents, like most Americans, are tired of new taxes, new spending, and record-breaking deficits. That's why the House Republicans have launched AmericaSpeakingOut.com, a new forum where people across the country can share and discuss their ideas on a wide range of critical issues.

We plan to offer a new set of policy solutions grounded in the principles of smaller, more accountable government, and we want to engage the American people directly in building those solutions together from the start. Changing course in Washington will require Americans to speak out and Congress to start listening.

Please visit AmericaSpeakingOut .com and start speaking out.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 405, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of attempting to pay down the national debt, this Congress continues to spend taxpayer dollars into oblivion. Outside the Beltway, whether you are paying credit card bills or just paying your taxes, you are held accountable for your spending habits and for paying back the money you owe.

What I discovered during my first year in Congress is that those in power have no regard for the billions that they spend each day and are not interested in developing ways to pay back this borrowed money. Day after way day, the American people call for us to stop the out-of- control spending. This Congress ignored those pleas and charges full speed ahead, mounting a $13 trillion national debt.

Americans rightly expect their government to pass a budget plan to get this spending under control. But, instead, Congress has neglected to pass a budget resolution, and the future looks grim. I am incredibly frustrated with this Congress, and I know my constituents feel the same way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Ladies and gentlemen, we were sent here in a Republic to represent you as trustees with issues like this. I am new to Congress, but this is a wasteful spending earmark.

We have 27 planes that use one engine that had a competitive bid, and now we are talking about adding a second engine to our F-35 for $2.9 billion. Why? Because we slipped in an earmark in 1996, and nobody in Congress, the Congress with the great approval rating, has ever decided to take it out.

The time to change Washington is now, and this is a perfect example of why. Vote yes on the amendment.

I rise today in strong support of the Pingree/Rooney/Larsen amendment. With a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit the ``extra'' engine is a luxury we cannot afford.

I would like to point out a few things very briefly:

(1) this is a $2.9 billion dollar program the DOD does not want or need.

(2) We can build 53 jets for the cost of the ``extra'' engine

(3) There are 27 aircraft that operate with a sole source engine.

(4) Sole sourced engines are the norm.

(5) The F-16 is the only other aircraft in the history of U.S. military aviation with two simultaneous engine manufacturers.

(5a) There was fair competition for the bid; the incumbent engine won but here we are also funding the second place engine too. The ``everybody gets a trophy philosophy has to end. Everyone doesn't get an ``A.'' We can't afford it.

(6) The Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps service chiefs do not want this extra engine.

(7) There has been support from both Bush and Obama administrations to end this wasteful program.

(8) Independent agencies including the GAO and OMB have found that there is no evidence to support the extra engine will produce any significant cost savings, despite earlier projections.

This extra engine is a luxury we simply cannot afford and I urge my colleagues to vote Yes on the Amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1514, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. I am encouraged the Judiciary Committee has devoted its time and resources to such an important piece of legislation.

This bipartisan legislation is sponsored by Crime Subcommittee chairman Mr. Bobby Scott. Other notable cosponsors include Judiciary Committee chairman and ranking member John Conyers and Lamar Smith, and Crime Subcommittee ranking member Louie Gohmert.

Crimes committed by children strike at the very core of our communities. Our children are the promise of a better and brighter tomorrow and hope for future generations. Reducing juvenile crimes and improving the juvenile justice system is a vital step in preserving and protecting the future of our children.

H.R. 1514 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend through fiscal year 2014 the authorization of appropriations for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program.

The goal of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program is to equip communities with the financial resources to reduce juvenile delinquency and increase the accountability of juvenile offenders in the justice system. The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program awards Federal block grants to the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the five U.S. Territories, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Grants from this program have helped provide communities with restorative justice programs, police and probation partnerships, drug and teen courts, and other programs which facilitate the successful re- entry of juvenile offenders from custody back into the community.

In 2009, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program provided local communities in my home State of Florida with over $2 million to assist them in their efforts to make our families and neighborhoods safer. These Federal grants were used to combat gang violence, curb juvenile drug use, and provide mediation services to juvenile offenders and their victims.

Meeting the challenge of reducing juvenile crime extends beyond the traditional punitive criminal justice system. It requires a comprehensive approach to ensuring that juveniles not only receive punishment proportional to their crime, but also receive the support that they need to get back on the right track.

The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program is an essential tool for the States and communities across the Nation. I support the reauthorization of this program and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1325, which I sponsored to recognize National Missing Children's Day. This simple but important resolution recognizes May 25, 2010, as the 28th National Missing Children's Day. The Federal Government first recognized this day in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan proclaimed May 25 as National Missing Children's Day.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children tells us that the proclamation followed a series of high-profile missing children cases that drew newspaper headlines across the country. The first involved the disappearance of Etan Patz from a New York City street on his way to school on May 25, 1979. Etan's father, a professional photographer, disseminated black-and-white photographs of Etan in an effort to find him. The massive search and media attention that followed focused the Nation's attention on the problem of child abduction and the lack of coordinated plans to address it.

The second incident was the missing and murdered child tragedy in Atlanta, Georgia. During this episode, the bodies of 29 young boys and girls were discovered over a 3-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A suspect was identified and convicted in 1981, and now he is serving a life sentence in prison.

Also in 1981, in my home State of Florida, 6-year-old Adam Walsh disappeared from a local shopping mall. His parents, John and Reve Walsh, turned to law enforcement agencies to help find their son. To their disappointment, there was little coordinated effort among law enforcement officials to search for Adam on a State or national level.

These tragedies led to the recognition of the dearth of coordination among Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and the lack of a national response system to help our families search for missing children. Since that time, our country has made great strides in this area.

National Missing Children's Day serves as an annual reminder to the Nation to renew efforts to reunite missing children and their families and make child protection a national priority. As the resolution notes, National Missing Children's Day is a reminder to all parents and guardians to take and keep high-quality photographs of their children for use in case of emergency. We should also use this day to remind all Americans of the importance of paying close attention to the posters and photographs of missing children.

The resolution also recognizes the vital role of law enforcement officials in preventing kidnappings and abductions of children, while also leading efforts to locate the missing. This resolution should remind people across the country not to forget the children that are still missing and not to waver in the efforts to reunite these children with their families.

I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from my State of Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

I support this important resolution to recognize National Missing Children's Day. I want to thank Mr. Scott, our chairman Mr. Conyers who's here today, Mr. Mica, Mr. Poe. And I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1362 commemorating the life of Lena Horne who died earlier this month on Sunday, May 9, 2010.

Ms. Horne's many performances as a singer, dancer, and actress enriched countless lives and influenced the history of jazz, pop, Broadway musicals, films, and television. She also contributed in significant ways to the civil rights movement, as Mr. Conyers just stated.

Ms. Horne was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1917. Her father left the family when she was 3 and her mother was a traveling actress. At the age of 5, she was sent to live in Georgia with her grandparents. After returning to New York, she joined the chorus at the famed Cotton Club in Harlem in 1933. In the late 1930s and the early 1940s, she was primarily a nightclub performer, but she also appeared in a few low- budget movies and was the featured vocalist on NBC's popular jazz series ``The Chamber Music Society of Lower Basin Street.''

During a nightclub performance in Hollywood in 1943, she gained the attention of some local talent scouts for the movies. She became the first black performer to sign a long-term contract with a major Hollywood studio. She performed in a number of movie musicals throughout the 1940s, including the MGM musical ``Cabin in the Sky.''

From the late 1950s through the 1960s, Ms. Horne appeared on many television variety shows, including ``The Ed Sullivan Show'' and ``The Dean Martin Show.'' In the 1970s and 1980s, she continued to perform in television shows, including appearances on ``The Muppet Show,'' ``Sesame Street,'' and ``The Cosby Show.''

In 1981, she received a special Tony award for a one-woman Broadway show, ``Lena Horne: The Lady and Her Music,'' which ran for more than 300 performances on Broadway. She also received two Grammy awards for the cast recording of her show.

Ms. Horne again won Grammy awards in 1989 honoring her lifetime achievement, and in 1995, when she was almost 80, for best jazz vocal performance.

Throughout her illustrious career, Ms. Horne found time and energy to devote to the civil rights movement. In 1963, she spoke and performed on behalf of the NAACP and the National Council of Negro Women at the famous March on Washington.

I support this resolution's commemoration of Lena Horne's many contributions to music, television, theater, and civil rights. She brought grace and graciousness to every aspect of her work, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 1782 is to implement noncontroversial administrative provisions that the Judicial Conference and the House Judiciary Committee believe are necessary to improve the operations of the Federal judiciary and provide justice for the American people. The bill retains most of the content of H.R. 3632, which we passed in October of 2009.

The Judicial Conference is the policymaking body of the Federal judiciary and through its committee system evaluates court operations. The conference endorses all the provisions in this bill.

S. 1782 affects a wide range of judicial branch programs and operations, including those pertaining to financial administration, process improvements, and personnel administration. The bill incorporates five separate items.

First, it clarifies that senior judges must satisfy minimum work thresholds to participate in court government matters, including the selection of magistrates.

Second, the bill eliminates the references to divisions and counties in the statutory description of the Judicial District of North Dakota, which enables the court to better distribute the workload between two active district judges and reduce travel for litigants in the northern central area of the district.

Third, it authorizes the Statement of Reasons that judges must issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with the court. Current law requires that the statement be bundled with other information in the case distributed to the Sentencing Commission, where it can be difficult to maintain a seal related to confidential information.

Fourth, it specifies that the Federal Pretrial Service officers can provide the same services to juveniles as they do for adult offenders, such as drug treatment.

And, finally, it applies an inflationary index to the threshold amount requiring approval by the chief judge of reimbursements for the cost of hiring expert witnesses and conducting investigation for indigent defendants.

The dollar thresholds are statutorily fixed and erode over time. This means chief justices must devote greater time approving what are otherwise not genuine high-dollar requests.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1782 is necessary to improve the functioning of the U.S. courts, which will ultimately benefit the American people. This is a noncontroversial bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 1364. This resolution honors the historic and community significance of the Chatham County Courthouse and expresses condolences to Chatham County and the town of Pittsboro for the fire damage sustained by the courthouse on March 25, 2010.

The cornerstone of the Chatham County Courthouse was laid in 1881. The courthouse was completed in 1882. For nearly 130 years, justice and the rule of law preserved this three-story brick courthouse. It stood as the central landmark and community gathering-place for Pittsboro and Chatham County. It helped form the identity and independence of the people of Chatham County.

On March 25, 2010, the Chatham County Courthouse was partially destroyed by a tragic fire. Firefighters and emergency responders fought courageously to save the structure and the historic archives within it. They also protected the public and surrounding buildings from damage.

State, county, and city officials have since worked to ensure that the administration of justice continues in Chatham County. They also plan to restore the courthouse.

This resolution expresses condolences to the people of Chatham County and the town of Pittsboro for their historic loss. The resolution commends the heroic work of the firefighters and first responders, and it recognizes the significance of the courthouse to the community and to the administration of justice for more than a century. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4614, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. The Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act authorizes incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA samples from felony arrestees. DNA arrestee programs provide an important law enforcement tool to identify the perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crime by linking suspects to crimes and locking them up before they have a chance to strike again.

Katie Sepich's case clearly demonstrates the value of collecting DNA from felony arrestees. Just 3 months after brutally raping and murdering Katie in 2003, Gabriel Avilla committed an aggravated burglary for which he was convicted in 2004, absconded from his sentencing, and was apprehended again in 2005. His DNA was finally taken and matched to Katie's case--a match that could have been obtained just 3 months after Katie's murder, saving valuable law enforcement resources and providing some closure to Katie's families and friends.

New Mexico's DNA arrestee law was passed in 2006. Twenty-one other States now have similar laws, including my home State of Florida. Florida's DNA arrestee program solved a 25-year-old murder when the suspect was arrested last May--and his DNA collected--on felony drug charges. In New York, DNA collected following a drunk-driving arrest linked a suspect to three rape/homicides dating back over 20 years.

By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into a national DNA data base, or CODIS, States can empower police and prosecutors not only to solve cold cases but hopefully apprehend violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized and precious lives are lost. H.R. 4614 provides incentive grants to States that implement and use DNA arrestee programs.

The amended version of this bill before us today makes several important improvements to the bill. First, it removes the provision that would have penalized States that do not have arrestee programs by deducting 5 percent

of their Federal grant money. Second, it creates a two-tiered system for incentive grant awards based upon whether the State has a ``minimum'' or ``enhanced'' arrestee program, which I hope will provide greater flexibility to States receiving those grants. Third, the amended bill places a cap on the authorization level, limiting it to 10 percent of the amount appropriated for the Byrne/JAG grant program.

I support these improvements to the bill. However, I also recognize there are other areas where the bill could also be improved. A significant hurdle to States implementing DNA arrestee programs is the cost. In Georgia, for instance, where legislation was introduced earlier this year to require DNA collection from arrestees, it would cost as much as $7 million a year to operate the program. Unfortunately, Georgia will not be eligible for an incentive grant under H.R. 4614 until it fully implements a DNA arrestee process. A possible solution would be to allow States, such as Georgia, to use grant funding to implement their DNA arrestee law, where the costs are arguably their highest.

In addition, H.R. 4614 awards incentive grants to States with DNA arrestee programs not just once, but year after year after year. Perhaps the emphasis should be on those States that have not yet enacted or implemented a DNA arrestee program. Because this grant increase is compulsory under this bill, the Justice Department will be required to administer the additional bonus to States even if Congress does not appropriate additional funds for the program. There is concern that this may ultimately result in depleting Byrne/JAG funds from certain States, thus creating a penalty to States without the DNA arrestee law. I hope to work with all concerned parties and resolve the lingering issues as this legislation moves forward.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), a former sheriff and cosponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I want to personally thank Mr. Teague from New Mexico and Mr. Reichert from Washington for their leadership on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, Florida has a record 12.3 percent unemployment rate, with counties in my district hovering closer to 15 percent. This is unacceptable. My neighbors have waited as the failed stimulus bill sent us further into debt and didn't produce the promised jobs. They waited while the House passed job-killing bills like cap- and-trade and the new health care mandated by the government. And they have waited long enough.

Congress must act now to stimulate job growth in the private sector. I recently cosponsored the Economic Freedom Act, a bill that would help businesses grow and create jobs. It would permanently eliminate the capital gains tax and eliminate the death tax. It would cut the payroll tax in half for 2010 for employers and employees and reduce the corporate income tax rate to 12.5 percent. It would repeal spending in the stimulus bill and terminate the TARP program.

The time to act is now. We can do better for the people of Florida and for all Americans. They have waited long enough.