Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today in communities all around this country, prisoners are being released back into their communities without job skills, substance abuse or mental health services, or assistance in obtaining housing and employment. In fact, the Department of Justice reports that historically, two thirds of released prisoners are rearrested for new crimes within three years. During this year alone, a record number of over 585,000 inmates will be released from jail or prison and return to local communities. A safety threat is posed by this volume of returns and has been worsened by a declining ability by states and communities to supervise the returning offenders. This is partly due to policy shifts toward more determinate sentencing, which allow for the offenders to serve longer sentences than in the past, yet without supervisory conditions upon release. Thirteen states have abolished parole systems, thereby providing very little, if any, supervision of released inmates. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced ``The Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000.'' This legislation will help ensure that released offenders enter into a lawful, productive life when they return to their communities. Under this legislation, programs will be created to assist certain offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk to the community. This is because they lack the skills necessary to successfully reintegrate into society, such as finding housing and employment, in addition to managing substance abuse, medical and mental health problems. These programs will use technology and traditional methods of structured supervision and services, along with a system of immediate sanctions for violations of an offender's plan. It is my belief that these programs will give the necessary tools to the returning offenders so that they can help themselves lead lawful and productive lives. I want to thank the Attorney General and the Department of Justice for the assistance and hard work in this area. I know this is a priority of the Attorney General, and I look forward to working with her to help process this legislation next Congress. I am also submitting for the Record a section-by-section analysis that the Department of Justice has prepared on this legislation. Section-by-Section Analysis Introduction This legislative proposal is divided into two titles: title I would create demonstration reentry programs for federal offenders, and title II would establish reentry programs for sate and local prisoners. The programs are designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Both titles include provisions requiring that the funded programs be rigorously evaluated and the results widely disseminated, so that reentry programs can be modified as needed, to ensure that recidivism is reduced and public safety enhanced. The Reentry Problem. American crime policies over the past two decades have resulted in record numbers of offenders being incarcerated. Some 1.25 million offenders are now living in prisons, and another 600,000 offenders are incarcerated in local jails. Although many offenders are serving longer sentences than they would have a decade ago, once they complete their terms, they return to the community. A record number of approximately 585,400 inmates will return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of returning prisoners have been rearrested for new crimes within three years. The safety threat posed by this volume of returns has been exacerbated by reductions in the abilities of states and communities to supervise returning offenders. Parole systems have been abolished in thirteen states. Moreover, policy shifts toward more determinate sentencing have reduced the authority to impose supervisory conditions upon existing offenders. Consequently, an estimated 100,000 inmates will receive no supervision in the community. State systems have also reduced the numbers of transitional support programs aimed at facilitating the return to productive community life styles. Recent studies indicate that many returning prisoners receive no help in finding employment upon release. Most offenders have low literacy and other basic educational skills that can impede successful reentry. At least 55 percent of offenders are fathers of minor children, and therefore face a number of issues related to child support and other family responsibilities during incarceration and after release. Substance abuse and mental health problems add to concerns over community safety. Approximately 70 percent of state prisoners and 57 percent of federal prisoners have a history of drug abuse. Research by NIJ indicates that between 60 and 75 percent of inmates with heroin or cocaine problems return to drugs within three months when untreated. An estimated 187,000 state and federal prison inmates have self-reported mental health problems. Mentally ill inmates are more likely than other offenders to have committed a violent offense and be violent recidivists. Few states connect mental health treatment in prisons with treatment in the return community. Finally, offenders with contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are Current policies to reduce public safety risks are cost prohibitive and often ineffective. Efforts to enforce offender accountability for release conditions have led to record returns to prison for revocations. These practices have added significantly to state correctional costs. Revocations comprised 17 percent of prison admissions in 1980; they have risen to 36 percent in 1998. Juvenile offenders represent a serious part of the reentry issue throughout the country. Juveniles were involved in 17 percent of all violent crimes and 35 percent of all property crime arrests in 1997. In 1997, 369 juveniles were in custody for every 100,000 in the population. Between 1987 and 1996, the volume of adjudicated cases resulting in court-ordered residential placements rose 51 percent. The steady increase of youth exiting residential placement has resulted in an increased strain on the juvenile justice aftercare system due to increased case loads for parole officers and the inability to provide the appropriate level of required supervision. Without structured aftercare supervision and services, youth are likely to relapse and recidivate and return to confinement in either juvenile or adult correctional facilities. Title I. Federal Reentry Demonstrations Projects Innovative strategies and emerging technologies present new opportunities to improve the federal and District of Columbia reentry systems. This legislation creates five demonstration projects--four in the federal system and one in the District of Columbia--that utilize these strategies and technologies. The projects share many core components, including a more seamless reentry system, reentry officials who are more directly involved with the offender and who can swiftly impose intermediate sanctions if the offender does not follow the designated reentry plan, and the combination of enhanced service delivery and enhanced monitoring. The different projects are targeted at different prisoner populations and each has some unique features. The promise of the legislation is to establish the demonstration projects and then to rigorously evaluate them to determine which measures and strategies most successfully reintegrate prisoners into the community as well as which measures and strategies can be promoted nationally to address the growing national problem of released prisoners. Section 101. Federal Reentry Center Demonstration--Section 101 establishes the Federal Reentry Center Demonstration Project, which is targeted at high-need and medium-to-high- risk federal offenders, and revolves around Reentry Centers. These Centers will be enhanced community corrections facilities, or ``halfway houses,'' where for most federal prisoners, reintegration into the community begins. Reentry Centers will be dynamic facilities where ongoing reentry planning and evaluation will be conducted by a team of corrections and supervision authorities, where services are intensively provided, and where immediate and certain sanctions are imposed when a prisoner deviates from his or her reentry plan. Some of the core components of the demonstration project include (1) Reentry Review Teams--consisting of representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Probation System and staff of the relevant halfway house-- that will rigorously manage a more seamless reentry of offenders into the community; (2) a system of graduated levels of supervision within the Reentry Center to promote community safety by providing sanctions for minor violations of an offenders' reentry plan and incentives for completing stages of the program; (3) the use of local, community-based citizen volunteers to advise and mentor offenders; and (4) as indicated and appropriate, regular drug testing, substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and educational programs, life skills instruction, conflict resolution skills training, assistance obtaining suitable housing, and other programming to promote effective reintegration into the community. The Reentry Center project will last three years and will take place in an appropriate number of federal judicial districts selected by the Attorney General in consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Attorney General will also have the authority to include in the demonstration project offenders who participate in the Enhanced In-Prison Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration project established by section 105 of this Act. Section 102. Federal High-Risk Offender Reentry Demonstration--Section 102 establishes the Federal High-Risk Offender Demonstration project. The project is targeted at high-need/high-risk federal offenders--those who have already violated the terms of their initial release--and utilizes a variety of elements, including emerging technologies, to both monitor these offenders and insure delivery of appropriate services and programs that promote effective reentry into the community. These technologies are rapidly developing and will, as they develop further, provide increasingly effective ways to manage offeners' reentry. The core elements of the project include (1) the use of halfway house and home confinement that together with the technology will form a system of graduated levels of supervision; (2) as indicated and appropriate, monitoring technologies; regular drug testing, substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and education programs, life skill instruction, conflict resolution skill training, assistance obtaining suitable housing, and other programming to promote effective reintegration into the community. The project will last three years and will take place in an appropriate number of federal judicial districts selected by the Judicial Conference of the United States in consultation with the Attorney General. Section 103. District of Columbia Intensive Supervision, Tracking, and Reentry Training Demonstration--Section 103 establishes the District of Columbia Intensive Supervision, Tracking and Reentry Training (DC iSTART) Demonstration project. The DC iSTART project is targeted at high-risk District of Columbia offenders--those who might not The core elements of the DC iSTART project include: (1) Reentry Review teams; (2) the use of halfway houses and home confinement for high need/high-risk parolees to form a system of graduated levels of supervision for those who otherwise would be released directly into the community; and (3) as indicated and appropriate, regular drug testing, substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and educational programs, life skills instruction, conflict resolution skills training, assistance obtaining suitable housing, and other programming to promote effective reintegration into the community. The project will last three years. Section 104. Federal Intensive Supervision, Tracking, and Reentry Training Demonstration--Section 104 establishes the Federal Intensive Supervision, Tracking and Reentry Training (FED iSTART) Demonstration project. The FED iSTART project is targeted at high-risk federal offenders--those who might not otherwise be released through a halfway house--and utilizes intensive supervision by federal probation officers with significantly reduced caseloads. The core elements of the FED iSTART project are (1) supervision by probation officers with significantly reduced caseloads, (2) fully funded monitoring and reentry services, to be provided as indicated and appropriate, including regular drug testing, substance abuse treatment and aftercare, mental and medical health treatment and aftercare, vocational and educational programs, life skill instruction, conflict resolution skill training, assistance obtaining suitable housing, and other programming to promote effective reintegration into the community. The project will last three years. Section 105. Federal Enhanced In-Prison Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration--Section 105 establishes the Federal Enhanced In-Prison Vocational Assessment and Training Demonstration project. The project will provide in-prison assessment of prisoners' vocational needs and aptitudes, enhanced work skills development, enhanced release readiness programming, and other components as appropriate to prepare federal prisoners for release and reentry into the community. The project will last three years. Section 106. Research and Reports To Congress--As indicated above, the promise of this legislation is not simply to develop the demonstration projects, but also to insure that the projects are rigorously evaluated to determine which measures and strategies most successfully reintegrate federal prisoners into the community and which should be promoted nationally to address the growing national problem of released prisoners. Section 106 directs the Attorney General, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Executive Director of the institute for criminal research authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act to evaluate the various demonstration projects Section 107. Authorization of Appropriations--Section 107 authorizes appropriations, to remain available until expended, to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Judiciary, and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Title II. State Reentry Grant Programs Section 201. This section amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by adding four new sections (2601, 2602, 2603, and 2604) that make grants available to state and local governments to create special programs to help state prisoners successfully reenter their communities. Section 2601. Adult Offender State and Local Reentry Partnerships. Section 2601 establishes the Adult Offender State and Local Reentry Partnership Grant Program for the purpose of encouraging states, territories, and Indian tribes to partner with units of local government and other non- profit organizations to establish adult offender reentry demonstration projects. The grants shall be for amounts up to $1,000,000, and may be expended for the following purposes: implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, monitoring released prisoners, and providing, as appropriate, drug and alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. Section 2601 requires applicants to submit an application that describes a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan, identifies the agencies that will be coordinated by the project, certifies that there has been appropriate consultation with all affected agencies, and describes the outcome measures that will be used to evaluate the program. The grant recipient must contribute a percentage of matching funds to the project and submit an annual report to the Attorney General describing the activities carried out under the grant. Section 2601 authorizes $40,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2001, and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Section 2602. State and Local Reentry Courts. Section 2602 creates the State and Local Reentry Court Grant Program for the purpose of encouraging state agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and tribes to make agreements with courts to establish ``reentry courts.'' The grants shall be for amounts up to $500,000, and may be expended to monitor returning offenders, establish graduated sanctions and incentives, test and treat returning offenders for drug and alcohol abuse, and provide reentering offenders with mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. Section 2602 requires applicants to submit an application that describes a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan, identifies the agencies that will be coordinated by the project, certifies that there has been appropriate consultation with all affected agencies, and describes the outcome measures that will be used to evaluate the program. The grant recipient must contribute a percentage of matching funds to the project and submit an annual report to the Attorney General describing the activities carried out under the grant. Section 2602 authorizes $10,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2001, and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Section 2603. Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Programs. Section 2603 establishes the Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Grant Program for the purpose of encouraging states to partner with units of local government and other non-profit organizations to establish juvenile offender reentry projects. The grants shall be for amounts up to $250,000, and may be expended for the following purposes: implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, monitoring released prisoners, and providing them with drug and alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. Section 2603 requires applicants to submit an application that describes a long-term strategy and detailed implementation plan, identifies the agencies that will be coordinated by the project, certifies that there has been appropriate consultation with all affected agencies, and describes the outcome measures that will be used to evaluate the program. The grant recipient must contribute a percentage of matching funds to the project and submit an annual report to the Attorney General describing the activities carried out under the grant. Section 2603 authorizes $5,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2001, and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Section 2604. State Reentry Program Research, Development, and Evaluation. Section 2604 establishes the State Reentry Research, Development, and Evaluation Grant Program to conduct research on issues pertinent to reentry programs, develop and test new reentry approaches, evaluate the projects authorized in sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of this title, and disseminate this information to the field. Section 2604 authorizes $5,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2001, and such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Congressman Rick Lazio for bringing this bill to our national attention. I was shocked when I first heard of these abuses against one of the most loyal segments of our society. This secret story, this secret history of wartime restrictions on Italian Americans living in the United States has been hidden from the American history books. I first learned of this situation when Anthony La Piana, a constituent from my district, came to visit me last year and told me of the events after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and how the FBI took hundreds of Italian American resident aliens and sent them to camps for the duration of the war. I wondered how many people have never heard of these terrible abuses. This bill does not put the question of reparations or looking for money or anything like that before us. It is simply a matter of the truth has been obscured and it ought not be obscured. The truth has to be told. During the war, Italian American resident aliens were forced to carry special photo-identification booklets at all times, and required to turn over to the government any shortwave radios, cameras or flashlights. During this time in California, approximately 52,000 Italian American resident aliens were subject to curfews and travel restrictions that made it difficult, if not impossible to travel to their jobs. In February 1942, thousands were ordered evacuated by the government from coastal and military zones. One of the witnesses before the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Lawrence DiStasi, Executive Director, Order Sons of Italy in America, initiated the process of educating the country about this unspoken chapter of American history. He was instrumental in the early 1990's by working with the American Italian Historical Association's Western Regional Chapter to create a touring exhibit titled, ``Una Storia Segreta,'' (the words in Italian mean both ``a secret story'' and ``a secret history''). This touring educational exhibit, which also has an Internet web site, displays collected photographs, artifacts, letters written by victims, family belongings, posters, memorabilia, and papers. These items provide tangible documentation of the treatment of Italian Americans who endured the confusion, indignity, and losses of World War II, for the most part, in silence. I urge you to support H.R. 2442, as amended by the Senate, and urge Members to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 605, which was introduced by the Gentlelady from New Mexico, Mrs. Wilson. H. Res. 605 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that communities should implement the ``Amber Plan'' to expedite the recovery of abducted children. As we all know, the problem of missing and abducted children is a continuing national concern. Few things are as disturbing to us as crimes committed against kids, and Congress should do all it can to reduce the threat to our children. H. Res. 605 is a simple resolution that highlights the ``Amber Plan,'' a very effective partnership between law enforcement and the media in Dallas-Fort Worth that has helped save the lives of kids who have been kidnaped. The resolution urges the replication of the Amber Plan in communities across America. The Amber Plan was created in 1996 in memory of 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, who was tragically kidnaped and murdered in Arlington, Texas. Since then, many communities across the United States have put similar plans into effect. It is credited with the safe return of at least nine abducted children nationwide. Here's how it works. When a child is reported abducted, the abduction--including a description of the alleged perpetrator--is immediately flashed across local radio and television stations using the Emergency Alert System, what used to be known as the Emergency Broadcast System. This quick action alerts the community to the abduction, and it has apparently spooked child abductors into releasing their victims when they hear descriptions of themselves broadcast on the radio or TV. Quick action is often necessary to thwart the commission of crime, and the Amber Plan is a great idea that ought to be put in place in every city and town across America. I want to thank the Gentlelady for her leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2780--``Kristen's Act''--which was introduced by the Gentlelady from North Carolina, Sue Myrick. Today, there are approximately 100,000 people who have been reported as missing to the FBI's National Crime Information Center. About 42,000 of them are adults. The families of missing children can-- and often do--turn to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the very successful national clearinghouse for missing child cases. The Center has helped locate thousands of missing children and provides much needed support to the bereaved families who are searching for them. Kristen's Act would establish the first national clearinghouse for missing adults. It would authorize grants to states to (1) assist law enforcement and families in locating missing adults; (2) create a national database for the purpose of tracking missing adults who are determined by law enforcement to be endangered due to age, mental capacity, or the circumstances of their disappearance; (3) maintain statistics on missing adults; (4) provide informational resources and referrals to families of missing adults; and (5) assist in public notification and victim advocacy of this issue. The need for this legislation was brought home to me by the case of Brian Welzien, a 21-year-old student at Northern Illinois University, who disappeared without a trace after celebrating at a restaurant in Chicago last New year's Eve. His disappearance was inexplicable. He was a good student and good son. He was immediately reported missing by his family, but they had nowhere to turn for help and support beyond reporting that he was missing. Tragically, his body washed ashore three-and-half months later on a Lake Michigan beach near Gary, Ind. Had there been a national center for missing adults, perhaps more could have been done to find him before he died. Congress can and should do more to help families locate their missing husbands, wives, brothers and sisters. Kristen's Act will go a long way in providing the infrastructure to help locate them before tragedy happens. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Myrick for her leadership on this issue, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep feeling of gratitude mixed with a profound sense of loss that we bid farewell to our most valued colleague, John Edward Porter. His retirement from this Congress is well earned, but because he is a unique person he is literally irreplaceable. He has brought his rare gifts of intelligence and compassion together with a prodigious work ethic to bear on some of the most consequential problems faced by a free people. His leadership, over the many years, of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services has been unmatched in the history of the Appropriations Committee. Justice and humanity have animated all his work, and John is one Congressman who has added credibility and idealism and generosity of spirit to this Congress. A gentleman in the fullest sense of the term, a deeply thoughtful person possessed of the largest heart and soul of anyone I have ever met, I wish him a tranquil sea and that he might know in what high esteem he is held by all fortunate enough to call him friend.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, despite the Vice President's claim to have invented the Internet, a strong case can be made that former Congressman Roman Pucinski (D-Chicago) had a lot to do with this development. A Chicago Sun-Times article from the Casual Friday Column of Friday, October 29, 1999, referred to this interesting fact, and I am pleased to share it with my colleagues. ``Pooch'' May be the Father of Net On October 20, 1969, history was made when the first e-mail was sent on ARPANET, the predecessor of today's Internet. So if you think presidential hopeful Al Gore ``invented'' the Internet, you're sadly mistaken. Another pol can lay claim to inventing the Net. None other than Chicago's own Roman C. Pucinski, 80, the retired Democratic congressman, one-time Chicago alderman and longtime Chicago Sun-Times reporter. Roman's daughter, Aurelia, Cook County Circuit Court clerk, let us know the other day that the elder Pucinski was the real father of the Internet. She shared old press releases and speeches on the subject with Casual Friday. We even saw ``Pooch's'' original notes. On Jan. 17, 1963, Pucinski proposed a national scientific computer network. He chaired the House Education and Labor Committee, which voted a sum ``not to exceed $7,000'' to begin studies on the computer network. Proud daughter Aurelia suggests that Roman proposed National Information System ultimately evolved into today's Internet. Maybe it did. In a speech in 1965, Pucinski said he foresaw scientists having pocket-size TVs that tied in with the world. Shades of Palm Pilots. ``In a matter of seconds, a scientist will be able to communicate and interrogate the world's storehouse of information and reproduce instantly any article or portion he may need,'' Pucinski said. Sounds like Yahoo! And other Web directories and search engines! Back in the days when computer punch cards were symbols of high tech, Pucinski predicted that the computer industry someday would ``stand beside steel, transportation, auto production and building construction as one of this nation's basic industries--holding out great hope for employment not only among the young but also among the old.'' What a master of understatement. Footnote: Chicago booster Pucinski wanted the university-based data center to be based here. If it has unfolded that way, maybe Silicon Prairie would have put the Silicon Valley in its shadow, maybe it still will. Let's win one for the Pooch.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5016, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 514 Express Center Drive in Chicago, Illinois, as the J.T. Weeker Service Center. It is with great pride that we in the Illinois Congressional Delegation honor a man for whom our entire Nation is eternally grateful. John Thomas (J.T.) Weeker was born in New York, New York in 1947. He graduated from Cornell University in 1969 and completed Executive Management Programs at Harvard, Pennsylvania State, and Duke Universities. Mr. Weeker began his career with the Postal Service in 1972 in Akron, Ohio, as District Director, Employee Relations and served in a variety of management positions for the Postal Service throughout the United States. In 1988 he was appointed General Manager/Postmaster of the Albany, NY Field Division, and served in that capacity until 1993, when he was appointed District Manager for the Albany District. When Mr. Weeker was appointed to direct operations of the U.S. Postal Service's Great Lakes Area in 1995, mail service in the area had been lambasted by public and postal officials the year before. Joining a rehabilitation effort already in progress, Mr. Weeker, known for fostering optimism in his coworkers, stressed employee development and built a professional relationship with the region's largest postal customers. He brought tremendous energy to this effort, despite his own fragile health. In 1977, he received a kidney and pancreas transplant to replace organs damaged by a lifelong struggle with diabetes. As Vice President of Operations of the Great Lakes Area, Mr. Weeker was responsible for mail processing and distribution, customer service and sales operations in a territory covering most of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, serving 25 million customers and staffed by more than 80,000 employees in 32 plants and 2,140 post offices. Noted for his innovative leadership and team building activities, Mr. Weeker implemented the first extensive Quality Process in the Postal Service and was a founding member of the first national Management by Participation committee. During the four years he directed operations, Mr. Weeker changed operational structures in the office, as well as the way the region examined its performance. As a result, mail delivery times in the Great Lakes Area, and especially in Chicago, improved considerably. In FY 1998, the overnight committed first-class mail arrived on time in the Great Lakes Area 93.4 percent, and 93.5 percent in Chicago and further improvements were seen in FY 1999 and FY 2000. Mr. Weeker died on January 6, 2000 at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. He is survived by his wife, Julia (from Wheaton, Illinois), his parents Samuel and Maxine, his sister Wendy Vaccaro, and his brothers, Brett and Scott. Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of H.R. 5016. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) for recognizing this great man from Illinois.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, we all understand the importance of this legislation. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to ignore the well publicized incidents involving motor vehicles and their tires which have been highlighted in excellent oversight hearings by the Committee on Commerce. The result of these hearings has been to call into question the sufficiency of the regulatory scheme governing the motor vehicle industry, and to ask whether further incentives are needed to ensure that safety information will be made available to the public in a timely fashion. It was the considered opinion of the Commerce Committee that changes were needed, as evidenced by this bipartisan legislation that we have before us. The TREAD Act, as it is known, strengthens current reporting requirements about defects in motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. It would also require reporting of defects in motor vehicles and products which occur in foreign countries, something that many believe would have saved lives had it been in place when safety incidents began occurring in places such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. As part of this intensified reporting scheme, H.R. 5164 would subject persons who intentionally violate these, as well as existing, reporting requirements to heightened criminal fines and penalties. In my view, this new criminal penalty section strikes an eminently reasonable balance. It penalizes truly intentional acts of withholding or falsifying safety information while continuing to encourage the motor vehicle industry to provide full information to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration about possible safety problems involving their products. I see no striking departure in this legislation from existing principles of criminal law. In fact, if anything, it builds on current law. Section 1001 of Title 18 makes it a crime to make a false statement to the government. The Attorney General currently may, and will continue to have the authority to, prosecute anyone who either makes false reports to the NHTSA, or who fails to disclose information that is required by statute. What this bill does in rightly recognize that withholding information that, if known, could be the difference between life or death should carry a higher penalty. What it means, in essence, is that a person who intends to mislead the government about safety related defects will be subject to a harsher penalty than one who, just through reckless indifference, submits a form that contains false information. Both of these acts currently carry a maximum jail sentence of five years. Under H.R. 5164, an intentional misstatement (or omission) of information about safety related defects would lead to a trebled maximum penalty of 15 years. Under normal circumstances, the Committee on the Judiciary would have formally asserted and exercised its jurisdiction over the criminal penalties section of this legislation. However, at this late stage in the session it would have been difficult for us to do so without running the risk that it become delayed or bogged down by procedural roadblocks. Given the importance of this bill, we instead chose to work closely with the Commerce Committee and its staff to develop and perfect the criminal provisions. Included in our consultations with the Commerce Committee was a discussion of many of the issues that were identified to us by the Department of Justice. Where possible, we incorporated their constructive suggestions. I have been assured, however, that by electing not to formally exercise the committee's jurisdiction over these important criminal sections, we have in no way waived or limited our right to be fully represented on any conference committee that might be appointed to resolve differences with the Senate. It is my strong hope that this legislation will be enacted before the end of this legislative session, and that the new criminal provisions it contains will have the desired deterrent effect on the withholding of safety information, and a concurrent salutory effect on the safety of the motor vehicles available to American consumers. I congratulate its sponsors for their hard work in crafting a balanced measure which they were able to bring to the floor so expeditiously, and in such a bipartisan manner.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding constituent from Illinois, John F. Garde. Mr. Garde will soon be retiring as the Executive Director of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) after 17 years of service. I am very pleased to honor the distinguished career of John F. Garde for his contributions to the practice of anesthesia from my state of Illinois. The AANA is the professional association that represents over 27,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). Founded in 1931, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists is the professional association representing CRNAs nationwide. As you may know, CRNAs administer more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia provider in two-thirds of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. John received his anesthesia training in 1957 from St. Francis Hospital School of Anesthesia in LaCrosse, WI and began practicing at the U.S. Public Health Hospital in Detroit, Michigan the following year. Having been a provider of anesthesia for numerous years he became an Associate Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anesthesia at Wayne State University, College of Pharmacy and Allied Health in 1975. Using this experience, he then became the Education Director of the AANA in Park Ridge, IL in 1980 before taking his current role as Executive Director in 1983. His accolades range from propelling nurse anesthesia programs into a graduate framework resulting in 50 percent of them moving into the College of Nursing, as well as establishing the International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists during his tenure with the AANA. John has served the AANA as a member, board member, past president, and now will be retiring as a very celebrated executive director among his peers. Mr. Garde has many honors to follow his list of career accomplishments. John was inducted as a fellow of the American Academy of Nursing in 1994. In 1999 the Association of Chicagoland recognized him for his outstanding contributions to the Association community, presenting him with the John C. Thiel Distinguished Service Award. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. John F. Garde, CRNA, MS, FAAN, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this conference report. As this body is aware, it includes a number of important bipartisan pieces of legislation that together advance the cause of justice for crime victims and truly offer the prospect of improving public safety. Among the many items of legislation that are in this conference report, the Violence Against Women Act, which is the product of so many hours of work by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), is included; and I am very proud that it is, along with several other bills, the Rothman bill. I rise in strong support of this conference report on H.R. 3244. As this body is aware, it includes a number of important, bi-partisan pieces of legislation that, together, advance the cause of justice for crime victims and truly offer the prospect of improving public safety. The underlying bill, the ``Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,'' addresses one of the enduring and pernicious forms of slavery that still blights our time. While Lincoln may have freed the slaves in America, there are those today who engage in other forms of slavery on persons of many colors. Throughout the world there are criminals who smuggle persons into this country, principally women and children, in order to force them into sexual slavery, or to work in sweatshops for years in order to pay off the exorbitant fees charged by their traffickers for their illegal entry. This conference report will prevent and punish sex trafficking and other forms of trafficking in human beings. As such, it is another step forward in the full and complete enforcement of the anti-slavery amendments to our Constitution. Twelve years ago, the Supreme Court held that our existing anti-slavery statutes only prohibited the use of force or the abuse of the legal process to force a person into involuntary servitude. But the sad fact is that those who traffic in human beings today also use deceptive schemes and other lies, together with threats of force to family members in a home country, to coerce the victim into labor. This bill will now punish that criminal conduct. And it will fill another gap in the law by punishing, for the first time, those who traffic in human beings in order to provide the supply of labor to those who will enslave them once they arrive on our shores. The legislation will also substantially increase the penalties for the existing involuntary servitude laws already on the books. Mr. Speaker, it is time to do all of these things to put an end to all forms of slavery that continue to exist in our country and our world. Importantly, the conference report also includes the ``Violence Against Women Act of 2000,'' which this body passed last Tuesday by a vote of 315 to 3. The ``Violence Against Women Act of 2000,'' strengthens the ability of local communities to respond effectively to the national problem of violence against women, in all of its tragic forms, including domestic battery, stalking, rape and murder. This legislation continues and builds on our national commitment to support comprehensive, community-based efforts to keep these crime victims safe and hold offenders accountable. The VAWA legislation reauthorizes funding for state and local law enforcement agencies as well as for education, prevention, and outreach programs. This legislation ensures that VAWA programs will continue to aid the prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse cases across the country and increases victim services like domestic violence shelters for women. Additional initiatives have been authorized aimed at preventing domestic violence and sexual assault against older and disabled individuals, meeting the civil legal assistance and transitional housing needs of victims, and establishing a task force to minimize overlapping federal efforts to address domestic violence. In short, the legislation is a balanced and comprehensive effort to enhance the ability of states and localities to prevent and combat violence against women. I again want to salute the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, for her leadership on this issue and her tireless efforts to ensure that this legislation becomes law. This conference report also includes a compromise version of the ``Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act,'' which is supported by the Administration. This legislation ensures that American victims of international terrorism will be able to receive their judgements from any blocked assets held in the United States. At the same time, the legislation provides the President waiver authority to protect national security. As a result of this legislation, the Secretary of the Treasury will finally satisfy claims brought under the Anti-terrorism Act of 1996 of victims who hold final judgements. This bill also includes a provision known as Aimee's law, which will hold states responsible when they release a convicted felon from their prisons who then travels to another state and commits a crime. Under this provision, first introduced by the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, a state that releases a felon from its prisons who then commits a crime in another state will be required to reimburse that state for the costs it incurs in prosecuting and incarcerating that criminal. This provision has twice before passed this House, mostly recently this past July, when it passed by voice vote. The conference report also includes the ``Secure Our Schools Act,'' which authorizes $30 million a year for the next three years for States and local governments to improve school security. Funds can be used for measures that deter crime, such as metal detectors and lighting, or other programs that offer the prospect of significantly improving public safety. Finally, the conference report includes the ``Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act,'' aimed at cracking down on the problem of illegal intestate shipments of alcohol. It does so by permitting States Attorneys General to enter federal district court to enjoin any shipping or transporting of alcohol into their state in violation of state law. In short, this balanced provision empowers states to ensure compliance with their own laws regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol. The text of S. 577, the ``21st Amendment Enforcement Act.'' S. 577 is the counterpart to H.R. 2031, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 20, 1999, and passed by the House on August 3, 1999. This legislation would grant federal court jurisdiction to actions for injunctive relief brought by state attorneys' general seeking to enforce their state liquor importation and transportation laws. Importantly, the bill reflects the respectful comity that exists between the federal government and the states. In this bill, Congress is granting to the states the privilege of using the forum of the federal courts for limited jurisdictional purposes--so, the legislation is procedural in nature. Congress is acting under its powers to establish the lower federal courts and to define their jurisdiction. Congress is not pre-judging or endorsing the validity of the various state liquor statutes. The sole remedy available under the bill is injunctive relief--no damages, no civil fines or criminal penalties can be imposed by the federal courts under S. 577. When the Senate Judiciary Committee considered this measure in May, it adopted a substitute offered by chairman Hatch which included a number of the due process protections which were added to the bill when it was considered in the House Judiciary Committee. So, for example, the bill requires prior notice to the adverse party or parties, applies traditional proof requirements for preliminary injunctions and requires that a hearing be held before the issuance of any preliminary or permanent injunction occurs. A State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of State law has taken place or is taking place. Additionally, Chairman Hatch's substitute includes language in subsection 2(e), entitled ``Rules of construction,'' that states that the legislation ``shall be construed only to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in connection with State law that is a valid exercise power vested in the States'' under the 21st amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, including interpretations ``in conjunction with other provisions of the Constitution.'' Federal jurisdiction is also limited to state law that is a valid exercise of state power under the first section of the Webb-Kenyon Act, as that section is interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, S. 577 is not to be construed as granting the states any additional power. This rules of construction language is an implicit recognition of the Supreme Court decisions made over the last 35 years holding that the 21st Amendment cannot be read in isolation from other provisions contained in the U.S. Constitution. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324 (1964) (commerce clause); Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 712 (1984) (supremacy clause); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 122 (1982) (establishment clause); Department of Revenue v. James Beam Co., 377 U.S. 341 (1964) (export-import clause); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 209 (1976) (equal protection); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 275 (1984) (commerce clause); 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996) (First Amendment). Again, in enacting this jurisdictional statute, Congress is not passing on the advisability or the legal validity of the various state laws regulating alcoholic beverages. Whether a particular state law on this subject is a valid exercise of state power is, and will continue to be, a matter for the courts to decide. In my view, S. 577 takes a balanced and fair approach. The 21st Amendment Enforcement Act will assist the states in the enforcement of liquor laws that are genuinely about encouraging temperance. The courts will also continue to recognize the inherent police powers of the states to prohibit underage drinking. At the same time, this legislation preserves Congressional neutrality as to whether or not a particular state liquor law is constitutionally valid and should be enforced by the federal courts. Opponents of this language believe that it undercuts the basis of the legislation. The legislation itself is titled as an Act, ``divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases.'' Thus, it is the purpose of the Act to, under certain circumstances, ``burden'' interstate commerce. To them declare in the same Act that it does not ''impose an unconstitutional burden'' on that commerce is, according to the opponents arguments, a signal of Congressional intent to nullify the actual purpose of the Act and to invite litigation challenging all State enforcement. Mr. Speaker, this is an important conference report, offering the prospect of real solutions to real problems. I urge its passage.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2272, the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000, provides grants to allow States to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of child abuse and neglect courts throughout the Nation. The bill gives the Attorney General the authority to award grants to State and local courts; to provide computerized case tracking and technical assistance; promote innovative strategies to reduce case loads; and provide additional court-appointed special advocates to assist in supporting children and courts. Every child should have the opportunity to be whatever it is they want to be, and it is our responsibility as a community and as parents to provide them a nurturing environment so that every child can fulfill their great promise. The act of child abuse is incomprehensible to all of us. Child abuse steals the innocence from our coming generation. The victims of child abuse are not allowed to be children; they become adults all too soon. We must give the States the tools to assist them in protecting our children. Child welfare is an example where State law is generally paramount. The Federal Government supports State action by providing funds to States for child welfare activities. Grants to States have been used to expand and strengthen child welfare services. This bill is finely tuned to assist States in this regard. We must come together as a Nation to restore what has been stolen from this generation. We must come together as a Nation to prevent and stop the cycle of this terrible abuse. I want to thank Senator DeWine of Ohio for bringing this important bill forward, and I hope everyone will support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2272) to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's abuse and neglect courts and for other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2272.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). (Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1248) to prevent violence against women, as amended.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that both sides may have an additional 5 minutes for debate.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) deserves the fullest accolades of the chief sponsor of this legislation. She has been on the point. She has urged us, tugged us, pulled us, cajoled us, made us move forward on this. Her leadership has been indispensable, and we salute her.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), one of the most productive and useful members of our Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his generous comments as always. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, and I salute the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership on this issue. I know all of us in Congress are concerned with violence perpetrated against women; and tragically, it continues to be a serious national problem that takes various forms, including domestic battery, stalking, rape, and murder. This legislation strengthens the ability of local communities to respond effectively to such crimes. Sadly, most of us committed to the fight against domestic violence know the facts all too well: nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood; 5 million date rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated against women annually. While in general, crime rates are down, domestic violence remains a serious problem in our society, occurring in all communities and crossing ethnic, racial, age, and socioeconomic lines. The national toll that such violence takes on women, families, and children is incalculable. It diminishes us all. Since its inception in 1994, Congress has appropriated more than $1.5 billion in Violence Against Women Act funding for State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as for education, prevention, and outreach programs. Violence Against Women Act programs have aided the prosecution of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse cases across the country, and have increased victims services, like domestic violence shelters for women. I am pleased that the House is acting today in a bipartisan fashion and will be the first body in Congress to pass reauthorization legislation, because the authorization for these vital programs expires at the end of this fiscal year, just 4 days from now. Mr. Speaker, I do want it to be clear, even if we have not ironed out our differences with the Senate's Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill by the end of the fiscal year, funding will continue. It remains a priority of this Congress, which is why we have held hearings on the bill, strengthened it as it moved through the committee, and are here on the floor today to pass it. Mr. Speaker, key programs reauthorized in this legislation include grant funding for State and local law enforcement and prosecutors to combat violence against women, shelters for victims, the national domestic violence hotline, and rape prevention efforts. Additional initiatives have been authorized aimed at preventing domestic violence and sexual assault against older and disabled individuals, meeting the civil legal assistance and transitional housing needs of victims and establishing a task force to minimize overlapping Federal efforts to address domestic violence. In short, this bill is a balanced and comprehensive effort to enhance the ability of States and localities to prevent and combat violence against women. When I am asked about my commitment to Violence Against Women Act and where that fits into the congressional crime agenda, my answer is simple: violence against women is a crime. It is wrong. It should be punished severely, and we have a responsibility to develop and fund community-based efforts to prevent it. We must continue to support comprehensive community-based efforts to keep victims safe and hold offenders accountable, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act programs through passage and enactment of H.R. 1248 will further efforts to do just that. This is a bill all Members, both Republicans and Democrats, can enthusiastically support and be proud in so doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1248, as amended.