good morning the committee will come to order and pursuant to notice call of h r thirty one ninety five the restoration act clerk will report the bill r thirty one ninety five a bill to restore the intent and protections of the americans with disabilities act of one nine hundred ninety without objection the bill is considered as read open for amendment at any i asked the chairman of the constitution committed to begin our discussion thank you mr chairman i want to commend you for your efforts to bring this legislation forward today this have not ensured full access to american life i believe we have waited long enough and we really cannot afford to let these problems go unaddressed although it often gets lost in the debate the idea is a civil rights bill is often treated as if it is something else perhaps that's because unlike many civil rights laws this one requires people to spend money and make an effort albeit modest to do what is right i have very little sympathy for complaints about these required efforts no business would make its customers climb a rope to make a purchase businesses provide elevators and a variety of other means to bring customers in it when it comes to people who need other ways to enter the building all of a sudden it's a huge problem that's just wrong the same is true in employment this is side is poor when it fails to take full advantage of the talents of all of its members if not in the name of simple decency and justice then in the name of rational self interest we must ensure that the promise of the  is fulfilled unfortunately the supreme court is going out of its way to undermine the clear intent of congress the court is erecting a monstrous catch twenty two in which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual past or perceived disability and yet be deemed not sufficiently this abled to deserve a legal remedy this that defies logic reason and the plain text of the idea where in the act is it say as the court has said that quote mitigating measures unquote must be taken into account when determining whether an individual is disabled in fact congress said just the opposite the report on the original a da said quote whether a person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of mitigating measures for example a person was hard of hearing is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing even though the loss may be corrected through the use of a hearing aid likewise persons with this with impairments such as epilepsy or diabetes who substantially limit a major life activity are covered under the first prong of the definition of disability even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication close quote that's from the a d n semina congress somehow that language wasn't clear enough for the court as a result the courts deemed people with a variety disabilities not to be this able the idea amendments act which is before us today which is it was introduced by a distinguished majority leader mr hoyer and by the gentleman from wisconsin mr sensenbrenner is necessary to make clear to the court that we really meant what we said this bill the specifically with the definition of who is disabled this is a basic threshold question it was never intended to be a high bar that could be used to deny protection it was never the intent of congress to force people to litigate over whether or not they are disabled the question should be whether you are qualified for the job and whether there was discrimination this bill before us today does not deal with whether the individual meets the requirements of the job with whether an accommodation is reasonably available with whether it is possible to make a b a building accessible or with any other such questions those parts of the law will remain unchanged this bill would simply make it clear that this law covers everyone with an actual past or proceed this ability those people who are discriminated against because of an this criminal disability will now have the opportunity to make their case it makes no sense to exclude from the a d a s coverage people who suffer discrimination on the basis of a disability the purpose of this bill is to remedy that irrational quirk in the law created by the court and return the americans with disabilities act the congress original intent this bill is broad bipartisan support in the substitute we will consider today is there is a of months of careful negotiation between disability rights advocates and the business community it represents a compromise that takes into account the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders while these changes are long overdue they are also especially timely thousands of our men and women in uniform are returning home with serious injuries including the loss of limbs head trauma that makes their vision and their hearing in a variety of other life altering injuries we cannot stand by and allow them to come home to face discrimination without any illegal remedy anyone has ever made a speech about supporting our troops you have a special interest in the passage of this bill we owe these young americans no less mr chairman i thank you for bringing this bill forward i urge my colleagues to give it their full support and they'll back the balance of my time thank you mr knight and the chair wants to observe th after discussions with darryl ice and including important report langridge about the door and circumstances that he has been ranting about for about thirteen the judiciary committee mr smith thank you mr chairman the americans with disabilities act in acted almost eighteen years ago remove many physical barriers disabled people face in their daily lives it also helped remove the mental barriers that often prevented non disabled americans from looking beyond wheelchairs and walking canes and seeing disabled americans as their friends and coworkers they are when the a b a was originally an active one nine hundred ninety it was a result of bipartisan efforts in congress so i am pleased that various interested parties have been able to reach agreement on language which is embodied in a manager's amendment that will be offered shortly and that i support i also support the compromise and believe it was reached in good faith however i do have some concerns regarding how the courts could interpret the legislative language we will consider today so let me express what i believe to be the nature and import of this new manager's amendment t line with the legislative history of the original a da that legislative history from both the house education and labor and senate committee reports provided that quote persons with minor trivial impairments such as a simple infected finger are not impaired in a majority life activity end quote and consequently those who had such minor and trivial impairments would not be covered by the i d f i believe that understanding is entirely appropriate and i would expect the courts to agree with and apply that interpretation if that interpretation were not to hold but were to be broadened improperly by the judiciary an employer would be under a federal obligation to accommodate people with stomach aches a common cold mild seasonal allergies or even a hangnail so i want to make clear that i believe that the drafters and supporters of this legislation including myself intend to exclude minor and trivial impairments from coverage under the idea as they have always been excluded second to supreme court and toyota motor matter fracturing versus where humans held that under the original quote the impairments impact must also be permanent or long term end quote while the findings in the language before us today state that the purpose of the legislation is to provide a new definition of substantially limits to indicate that congress intends to depart from the strict and demanding standard applied by the supreme court in toyota motor manufacturing i understand that this finding is not meant to express disagreement with  overturn the court's determination that the idea apply only to individuals with impairments that are permanent or long term if these understanding of the language before us today do not prevail the court may be flooded with frivolous cases brought by those who were not intended to be protected under the original a da if that happens those who would have been clearly covered under the original a da such as paralyzed veterans or the blind will be forced to wait in line behind thousands of others filing cases regarding minor or trivial impairment i don't believe anyone supporting this new language wants that to happen and i want to make that clear for the record with the understanding that i've expressed i strongly support the americans with disabilities act restoration act are you of the balance of my time ranking member mr chairman i just want to express my own support for the americans with disabilities act for too long the members the disabled community were forced to cope not only with their own disability but with the invidious discrimination practiced by others in congress rightfully corrected this injustice in one nine hundred ninety when it passed the americans with disabilities act and the original eighty eight defined disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such an individual a record of such impairment or being regarded as having such impairment in one thousand nine hundred ninety a supreme court handed down three cases on the same day that address the meaning of this definition and those three cases in another more recent case were all decided either unanimously or by a vote of seventy two  but they were understood in many quarters to have to see to have to strangely interpret the text of the idea such that many people who should have been protected in the eighty as disabled were not and because i'm sympathetic to that position i'm the co sponsor of h r three one one five but as i said at the constitution committee hearing on the legislation last year i did have concerns with thirty one ninety five introduced as it may have gone beyond what even the coast the sponsors of the bill were intending and please therefore that u s chamber of commerce and various organizations representing the disability community have come together and crafted language that i can support and as such language will be offered in the form of a manager's amendment i want to associate myself again with the comments made in regarding this legislation by ranking member lamar smith and that said i support the underlying text amendment and yield back thank you thank you both you're pretty sure that all the other opening statements will be included in the record i have a manager's amendment at the desk and asked the clerk to report an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h r thirty one ninety five offered by mr conyers and mr sensenbrenner strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following section one short title with out of jackson the amendment will be considered as read and i merely want to thank all the members of this committee that have worked on this measure for so long  overcome last october the constitution subcommittee had several witnesses who came forward and supported the bill but others representing employers and businesses expressed concern that the bill was introduced was not as narrowly tailored as it could be and might impose unnecessary or unforeseen compliance burdens and so over that period of time members on both sides of the aisle on this committee have worked with disability and business communities alike to find a fair balance and i think that's what is achieved in this manager's amendment what we do as chief some balance in clarifying the definition of disability  restore congress's intended protection for the broad range of individuals with disabilities you know overturns the supreme court holding that a person can qualify as disabled if he or she is managing the disability with mitigating measures such as medicine hearing aids prosthetic devices or other measures that would help lessen the impact of the impairment the law should encourage individuals to manage their impairments if they can not penalize them for doing so and so that's the first thing that we correct in the manager's amendment by mutual agreement then the substitute before you clarifies that it is sufficient for coverage that a disability materially restricts quote a major life activity in other words the disability need not complete they prevent or severely restrict the individual's performance of the activity and lastly this substitute clarifies the laws coverage of discrimination against an individual based on his or her being regarded as having an impairment the point of this third item is that it ensures that as congress originally intended that individuals who suffer discrimination because of unfounded concerns stereotypes or prejudice about disability are protected to respond to concerns that this clarification could give rise to claims brought by individuals with minor ailments things like a coal or such the substitute provides a limited exception and lamar smith this reference making it clear that such an individual is not covered if the impairment is minor and so with those thinks i would not turn to  substitute gentlemens recognize mr chairman one of our finest moments occurred eighteen years ago when president george h w bush signed the eighty and a lot it was with that stroke of a pen that this country took a significant step forward  eliminating the barriers that far too long kept disabled americans from fully participating in the american dream prior to the american us with disabilities act of one thousand nine hundred disabled americans face not only physical barriers in almost all aspects of society but also attitudinal barriers which relegated them to a form of second class citizenship moreover because federal and state laws were ill equipped to protect disabled americans at the time these fal stereotypes and discriminatory treatment employed by others created a vicious cycle last summer i joined my friend majority leader standing to introduce the eighty restoration act or a dollar of the bipartisan legislation we quickly garnered nearly two hundred fifty co sponsors we introduced adar to enable disabled americans utilizing the eighty to focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than first having to prove that they fall within the scope of the a d a s protection with this bill lee a d a s clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability would be properly restored and the decisions has been to exclude millions of disabled workers from the a d s protections and requirements for employers let me say that again millions of americans who want to work and who are otherwise intended by congress to be able to work free from discrimination have had the door slammed in their faces because of these decisions the courts have created a situation in which disabled americans can now be discriminated against by their employers because of their impairment that these citizens are not considered disabled enough by our federal courts to invoke the protections of the eighty eight this is unacceptable no other civil rights law and floating title seven of the civil rights act of one thousand nine hundred sixty four requires a victim of describe first prove that he or she is worthy of the laws protections before proving a discrimination case and nor should the a da require such proof the eighty eight is a civil rights law and should be interpreted as such the substitute amendment that i am joining chairman conyers and offering reflects a hard fought compromise between members of the disability community and members of the business community by its very nature no one is completely satisfied with the compromise both sides made concessions to the other during the arduous negotiations as the original eighty eight that passed congress in one nine hundred ninety to substitute keeps the requirement that an impairment must substantially limited major life activity in order to be considered a disability as written daro would have broaden the definition of disability the compromise defined substantially limits as quote materially restricts and canteens explicit language rejecting the supreme court's more restrictive interpretation of the substitute also contains a not exhaustive list of examples of major life activities further notes that major life activities also include major bodily functions and contains a not exhaustive list of examples of major bodily functions the substitute amendment contains language making it clear that the regarded as prong of the definition covers situations in which an employee is discriminated against because of his or actually or perceived impairment whether or not the parent is perceived as substantially limited major life activity regarded regarded as would not apply to regarded as the sable the eighty eight has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by congress this continued effect in this is paramount to ensuring that the transformation that our nation has undergone continues in the future and that the guarantees and promises on which this country was established continue to be recognized on behalf of all of our citizens the substitute before us today is the result of hard work and countless good hours and hours of good faith negotiation between staff disability advocates and business groups i look forward to its passage by the committee today and expect bipartisan support broadly when the bill reaches the house floor finally if i may have an so i would like to pay tribute to my wife sheryl who is sitting in the front row she is there without objection so ordered thank you she is the national chairman of the board of the american association of disabled persons has been not only on my case to get this bill in shape to pass but on the backs of many people on both sides of the aisle who have gotten to know her and respect her over the years i'd like to thank cheryl for sensitizing me and perhaps other members of the committee who went life is like is a disabled person and i would encourage quick passage of this bill over in the senate so she can start bugging them and i thank the g thank you very much gentleman yield for my second build i would just perhaps cheryl would be kind enough to maybe give us a ten minute briefing on how she was able to do that tension filled dilemma between the business community and of course the disabled community both in terms of physical and mental mental challenges but let me just say this i will vote for the negotiated compromise but this is the restoration of rights and i have seen more often than not the impact the negative impact of the restraining order restricting the rights of those who are challenged and i guess that is the metaphor of the phrase no one knows until they walk a mile or sit a mile or understand a mile of those who are challenged and the restoration act was meant to do just that to restore the rights to indicate that disability physical or mental impairment  record of a middle of physical impairment being regarded as having a mental or physical impairment without restrictions without the heavy hand of business and employer  financial assessments being made as to whether or not you deserve it don't deserve to be treated as such it also was to use that language substantially  substantial use of language substantially limits and the original language was no need to consider whether the impairment substantially limits the individual in any fashion because i don't know if there's anyone that wants to voluntarily  be in a disabled condition and of course some will argue that there are those who want to misrepresent but the ones that have come into my office my congressional office my district office who need assistance for whatever reason  coming with the kind of sincerely and challenges that we should look ahead on and trying to address i think the other aspect is the major life activity where the original bill said no need to consider whether the impairment substantially limits a major life activity of the an individual maybe it is because we thought it was obvious but i know that we have to walk a line where we get where we can get the idea a restoration act passed and i do want to congratulate t proponents of the negotiated compromise in the manager's amendment because they probably had a difficult challenge to to achieve but to the disabled community those who suffer from mental disabilities and more more of them will be coming back though they may be veterans but they will be in the mix of how communities because many of them will have been returning iraq and afghanistan veterans having their own separate line of benefits but still impacting their families to those in the a b a community let me thank you for your advocacy because you're fighting for those who cannot speak for themselves and we should define this as having no shame for the disability that you have that you continue to fight for it mr chairman i support the manager's amendment with my own qualification of wishing it was restored is the original language but respecting the need for the compromise and hoping that it will work for the many millions of very much i commend the majority leader and our former chairman wisconsin browner for this long overdue and badly needed legislation but i do want to state that i think that we are missing an opportunity in this legislation to address a glaring problem with the americans with disabilities act and that in some states like mine small businesses in particular are being overrun with frivolous lawsuits filed against them in which they have no opportunity to take corrective action for the in the  consequential violation of the idea and as a result you have a piece of the trial bar that has sprung up as a cottage industry that is soley in business to pursue complaints against small businesses in the in the hopes and likelihood of recovering damages and attorneys fees between three and five thousand dollars per violation with really no choice for the small business but to settle because there is no opportunity for corrective action before that that case reaches its conclusion and so for example in miami we have one attorney who filed seven hundred cases o in a three year period typically say out settling each case for three to five thousand dollars in attorney's fees and a promise to remedy the violation when you know the vast majority of these small businesses earnestly want to make sure that they are compliant rely upon their contractors to to assure them that they are compliant only to have an attorney come in later on and find an incidental violation that that was unintentional and instead of litigating it all the way out to the end they end up finding themselves in a situation where they have to settle for a pretty good chunk of change and all they really wanted to be able to do was make sure that their business was compliant and i think there's an opportunity in this legislation as we move forward to reach a compromise there are various proposals out there that we can deal with this issue i think it's one that we need to strike a balance as someone who has a reputation of being a very strong supporter of the trial bar this is one area where i think we need to strike a balance and i would urge the sponsors of the legislation as we move forward and the disability community with whom i have had a longstanding alliance to work together to address this oversight and this long needed badly needed legislation thank you you know back down to my time mr chairman i want to scholtz which i concur in completely i've actually offered that legislation if what she mentioned it's h r thirty four seventy nine the eighty a notification act and i concur in her sentiments that this is a challenge that needs to be addressed i did not offer that as an amendment today and i'll just be frank and tell you why my my good friend and colleague former chairman sensenbrenner has spent so much time and effort over the years in negotiating this  this fragile compromise with mr hoyer that i did not want to do anything that would would upset all the hard work that has put into it but hopefully by bringing this issue to light we can we can resolve it in a way that's acceptable to everybody here's the problem someone goes into a family strawn in central florida small mom and pop restaurant they walk up to the stall they're working for a law firm and they measure the safety bar and the disability stall and they see that it's a quarter inch too high they then go back to the attorney that they work for it might be the attorney that's already filed seven hundred of these lawsuits and he files a letter with the employer saying i'm going to sue you for injunctive relief and you're going to have to pay all my attorney's fees or which which are going to be in excess of hundred thousand dollars unless you pay me off five to ten grand and then i'll go away what what happens is that small business owner says well i can i can go to court and spend one hundred grand maybe i'll win or maybe i won't or all pay this guy the extortion fee of five to ten thousand dollars what really needs to happen is we need to think of the disabled folks first and what my bill says is if that scenario happens let's give that restaurant or small business ninety days to fix it so we fix it for the disabled community after all that's the whole purpose and if it doesn't get fixed then let's let the lawsuit go forward at that time so it's a commonsense remedy to avoid litigation because what we need to do is care more about each other and  less lawsuits here and so i i agree with miss washroom insult sentiments this is a bill and a concept that will prevent frivolous litigation and and help the disability community and i hope moving forward that we can work i disagree with the gentleman from with the gentleman who just from florida i think but our purpose today i think that there are provisions about minor frivolous litigation but our purpose today is to deal with the fundamental purpose of this bill which is to overturn the supreme court decisions that have misinterpreted the definition of disability and have therefore excluded individuals from coverage of the bill individuals that we always intended to cover i don't think that  the issue that was raised is a is a severe issue that needs to change by amending the the bill but that discussion i'm glad the gentleman did not offer to me today that is a discussion for another day and today we simply are to focus on fixing what this bill and the substitute before us does which is overturning century for supreme court decisions that it went against what was the expressed will of the congress and created the necessity to litigate whether you're disabled that was never our intent our intent today is to get rid of that and make it an issue simply of we discriminated against and what's your remedy and not having to prove that you're disabled so i'm glad we don't have to get into the other side issue today we can just discuss that on a different occasion learned gentleman and i'll yield to the gentleman from virginia thank you and i'd like to sociate myself for the remarks and also offer a note of caution for these notice requirements because we are relying to a very large extent on businesses to correct their deficiences on their own if you have a notice requirement and you eliminate any incentive that a business would have been doing anything since fourth until such time as i got a legal listicle a correct notice then they could take action then so i appreciate the comments of the gentleman and we can continue the discussion to make sure th so frivolous cases it's possible but there is another side to this and we should have those discussions outside of this bill and i appreciate the gentleman's not offering the members reclaiming my time i appreciate the comments of the gentleman from virginia i agree with them i would point out that this bill depends where this law depends as most laws do in voluntary compliance that the d l the underlying deal that was struck in the idea and that is reaffirmed this bill was struck by the disability community and the business community and that we wouldn't want to do anything to to remove the incentive for voluntary compliance and to substantially change the structure of the agreement the continuing agreement between the disability community the business community at large so i'm glad we're not going to get into this other issue today and that we can concentrate on and on the proper definition the broader definition of disabled and get back to what it was ground with this bill this is a delicate compromise and i think we should go through as we we are but i just want to point out to you know that trial lawyers mr chair do a tremendous amount of good for our society they help our water to be cleaner food to be safer our pajamas to be safe for all kinds of products to be better are there excesses sometimes i'm sure that there are but the fact is if you look at the legal system itself you have rule leavened you have other types of things that will allow frivolous lawsuits to be routed out so again you know i've sort of decided to sort of stick up for the trial bar whenever it gets bashed in and so i just want to say that trial lawyers do a lot of good we don't need frivolous lawsuits well i mean that i think that's not really the point i mean they're there the courts are there to force them i think the litigants are there to say look i think this is a frivolous lawsuit but there's also twelve the six motion there's assaults of summary judgment motions there's all kinds of procedures to root out frivolous lawsuits i don't think that we have a frivolous lawsuit problem in america i mean in my opinion the seven the seven the seven hundred cases that the gentleman referred to could just be indicative of the fact that we have a in a widespread problem with compliance with the a b a and that it's difficult for people who have disabilities to our society has not accommodated with the with the gentleman the old for a moment certainly what was it i agree with the gentleman but i wanted to point out that there are rules in most state courts and state procedures that are designed to get rid of frivolous litigation was a gentleman aware for example that in california vexatious litigant was ordered by the courts to  jordan mr jordan votes on the other members in the members that wish to change your vote  mr chairman twenty seven members voted aye and we didn't have any members voting no thank you and so the bill is reported as a single nature of a substitute incorporating the amendment adopted and stance authorized to make technical conforming changes members will have to two days for additional views ordered considered as read and open for amendment and any point and i invite chairman scott of the crime committee to make the opening description of the bill thank you m chairman the subcommittee on crime terrorism and homeland security having had understood aeration the bell h r thirty five forty six reports it favorably to the committee and moves its favorable recommendation to the full house the berne grant program named after  rd byrne a new york city police officer killed by a violent drug gang twenty years ago as the only source of federal funding from all to jurisdictional efforts to prevent and fight crime the burn memorial justice assistance grant or burn program allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent control and improve the criminal justice system which states and local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety state's use burn burn jag grants for law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education corrections and community programs drug treatment planning evaluation technology improvement programs and crime victim and witness programs that grant an able states to employ all aspects of has to reduce violent crime as much as twenty percent target areas through a multifaceted approach to crime nine different law enforcement regional information networks with average electing eighty five agents virginia firearms transaction program increased its instant background checks of firearm purchases by fifty percent and over two thousand high school students receive some training and state traffic safety crime prevention and substance abuse and its earlier years the program enjoyed proper ations that enable it to work effectively unfortunately funding is diminished over the past several years threatening its ability to function although congress all the congress authorized earlier in dollars in appropriations only five hundred twenty billion dollars appropriated in fiscal two thousand and seven two thousand and eight the appropriation was further reduced to only one hundred seventy million dollars and the president has proposed still further cuts in fiscal two thousand and nine on the reduced funding in fiscal two thousand and eight as already threaten the functionality and programs grants programs that grant support further the reductions would put the existence of the program of the programs and out the trend to reduce programs may result in part from instances where burn jag grant program standards for drug enforcement it has come to represent in the national spotlight but reducing funding is not the answer instead we must ensure that the funds are used appropriately because a success of the program for outweighs its veil yes nationwide the gra program has resulted in major innovations in crime control including including drug courts gang prevention strategies and prisoner reentry programs all of which provide proven highly effective crime prevention these innovations have demonstrated that their best crime policy incorporates programs that help at risk youth avoid criminal behavior and prepares for business or reentry into society so they have meaningful and productive alternatives to crime when they return home the programs are an and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and reduce crime and to improve the criminal justice system the department of justice administers this program and allocates funds using a formula based on state population in the annual unified crime reports to to sticks the program has a minimum allocation to ensure that each state and territory receives an appropriate share of the federal funds byrne jag funds can be used to pay for personnel over time and equipment  are also used for state wide initiatives technical assistance and training and support for local in rural jurisdictions last week the f b i released a two thousand and two unified crime report detailing the statistics and tracking trend for violent crime nationwide the national rate for violent crimes including robbery sexual assault and murder increased nationally paradoxically the report also showed the rate of crime rate increased in some cities the most recent data demonstrates that although state and local law enforcement officials are working to reduce the rate of violent crime nationwide they still need our hope specifically in the cities earlier this week i had an opportunity to meet with  austin in san antonio when i was back home in texas during my meetings with the chiefs we discussed what resources local law enforcement officials need to ensure safe neighborhoods and communities they both stated that burn jag grants will help them accomplish their law enforcement goals mr chairman congress can play an important role in supporting state and local law enforcement officials by continuing to reauthorize and fund this program at appropriate levels i to support this bill and the balance of my time to thousand and eight at that hearing the subcommittee heard from a diverse panel of witnesses representing the law enforcement community including police officers and prosecutors each witness recounted the value of the federal funding to local law enforcement that comes from the and jag grant program and are just to support its reauthorization byron jag has traditionally were see bipartisan support in both chambers of congress there is a consensus that congress should help our states and cities  thousand and twelve this bill is a model of legislative restraint and arjen my colleagues to follow my frame mr johnson's example and not low down this bill if however members do propose amendments are just them to remember that the chief benefit of the burn jag program is its flexibility let's not hamstring the ability of states and localities to use funds in the effective manner tailored to their particular needs as support the chairman also thank you ranking member of the full committee as well as ranking member of the subcommittee crime subcommittee burnt jag funding is a critical component of law enforcement and prevention in the united states it's the only federal program that funds crime prevention and crime fighting through law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education corrections and community programs drug treatment planning evaluation technology improvement programs crime victim and witness programs and also drug courts gang prevention strategies prisoner reentry programs all of which provide proven and effective crime prevention it enhances not only crime fighting but also drug use prevention and in my home state of georgia mr chairman byrne jag grants provide for a we'll train tiley specialized corps of drug enforcement agencies that work closely together sharing intelligence and resources with each other and the federal government the results speak for themselves burn jag has add to the seizure of fifty four thousand weapons the destruction of five point five million grams of methamphetamine and the elimination of nearly nine thousand meth labs per year it is it has the support of multiple law enforcement coalitions including the flick fraternal order of police the national association the international association of chiefs of police and the national narcotics officers association coalition now i'm well aware of the abuses that have tainted drug law enforcement for decades and in recent years but typically the outrage is injustice perpetrated in tooley texas but to blame such sins on the byrne jag program risks diverting accountability from the individual officers and departments who should be held to to account for their crimes through state and or federal prosecution for any politicians of law committed by those law enforcement agent into teasing connection with activities by their drug task force did drug task force is withholding or threatening to withhold this funding only risks delaying or preventing altogether the deployment of this essential money to the local jurisdictions where it is desperately needed to keep our streets kids and fellow citizens safe from criminal activity and drugs already burned jag has been consistently underfunded by the bush administration our state's face severe budgetary constraints and needs significant federal help to maintain law and order now is not the time to dangle these critical funds over the heads of local law enforcement and local officials who need the funds today i'm eager to work with with my colleagues promptly and aggressively to prevent unfair l unjust practice of racial profiling through stand alone legislation and not by amendment to this bill which has already passed the senate by unanimous consent we must consider the importance of delivering this money in foolish soon as possible we must can and will address the critical issues of injustice and discrimination but not but let's not risk tying up this critical funding by subject in my district and other reasons but the burn jag funding is essential to help state and local police officers identify and dismantle the local state and regional drug crime trafficking syndicates federal law enforcement agents rely on information from berne jag task forces to identify and disrupt international drug trafficking rings tom constantine the former head of the federal drug enforcement administration told congress that he could not remember a single case that did not originate from a burn jag taskforce and i'm glad to see that h r thirty five forty six is being taken up by this committee today and i support its passage although i challenge this congress to do more i believe burn jag funding should be increased unfortunately congress has consistently appropriated far less than the amount authorized for instance h r thirty five forty six will set the authorized amount at two thousand and in six levels which were a little over a billion dollars a billion and ninety five million and however for fiscal year two thousand and six only six hundred eight million was actually appropriated to the program f y o seven seven hundred and nine million was appropriated in f y o eight that number was reduced down to three hundred seventy four million dollars chairman and and so that's forty seven percent less than was appropriate in the previous year words are cheap but congress needs to follow them up with action more funds need to be actually appropriated to burn jag otherwise a successful in agency law enforcement infrastructure that led to the lowest u s violent crime rates in thirty years will begin to disappear burn jag has been a key weapon in the fight against illegal drugs such as methamphetamine since two thousand and one law enforcement officers have dismantled over fifty thousand clandestine meth labs nationwide that's mostly in midwestern and western states but however according to the department of justice the number of meth cases filed nationwide crowd grew quadrupled over the past decade without burn jag state and local law enforcement will not be able to fight this growing problem i strongly urge assault to support the state and local law enforcement officers on the frontlines in the war on drugs by increasing burn jag funding in march of this year i wrote a letter to chairman o asking he and ranking member to loiseau the appropriations committee that requesting that they increase burn jag funding i support thirty five forty six and i would add that when i came to congress i sat down and listened to william bennett former secretary of education who made the statement he said i can solve for you seventy five percent of society's pathologies if we just get married stay married get a job keep it job now i've thought about that mr chairman and i think that perhaps a larger share than the remaining twenty five percent is the result of the illegal in mind altering drugs that are abused in this country when i negotiate with the people that are running their vermont of mexico and i say to them you're sending us perhaps ninety percent of the illegal drugs use in america maybe sixty five billion dollars and that's a number according to the drug enforcement agency sixty five billion dollars worth of illegal drugs coming into the united states not always from mexico but from that border they say back to me that's the demand in the united states there's a demand for illegal drugs we can't stop it because you're demanding it the people in the streets of america already manning it we address illegal drugs into fashions one of them is rehabilitation which i believe in the other is interdiction which burn jag does the unaddressed portion is to shut down the demand of illegal drugs that can in my mind only be done if we're willing to actually test for and in the workplace test an education test on welfare if we're able to do that reestablish the stigma we can cut down the demand mr chairman and i appreciate your attention to all of these things and i urge that we increase the funding for burn jag and ideal back the balance of my time you want to test everybody i want to test thank you for bringing up this bill i want to thank mr johnson for following it and i strongly support h r thirty five forty six and i want to briefly to speak as a real life example why i'm a supporter of burn grants represent orlando florida  and from two thousand and four to two thousand and seven our murder rate went up one hundred twenty nine percent robbery in orange county when of eighty nine percent and i wanted to see what was going on and so i went out in my community and went along with five separate right around with our police officers and deputies and a t f agents to go into these violent crime areas and see firsthand what the problem was i learned from this firsthand a spirit that violent crime  certainly is a primarily local issue but the feds have a role in three specific ways one we can put more cops on the street through the cops program and one out of five cops in my area were hired through the cops program to we can send violent crime impact teams down a t f to help go after the worst of the worst gun and drug related crimes and that has made a difference and three we can help provide the locals with crime fighting technology and that's where burn grants have made a big impact in my district and many others my orange county sheriff's office received a one point one million dollars burn grant a year ago and that money is used in crime fighting technologies to go after the worst of the worst drug dealers robbers and other violent criminals and i can tell you that i'm not critical at all that some agencies have used this money to go after drug dealers i don't think we have to be apologetic about it and i'll tell you why my hometown of orlando when you look at the data seventy three percent of the murders were drug related it was either a drug deal gone bad or one gang member killing another one because he came into his drug territory or was someone robbing a house and committing murder because they needed money for drugs and when you go after the big drug dealers you've got to start sometimes with getting the small guys and you arrest them and your goal is not to put someone who just bought a bunch of crack cocaine in jail forever you want to get them to roll over on the next biggest guy and then you want to get that guy a new one and that's how they build their cases against the good folks and so i have seen these burn grants be funneled into crime fighting technologies i've been in the police cars with the cops as they use these technologies and surveillance devices which i won't get into the specifics of to protect the classified nature what they're doing but it's made a big difference and the good news is violent crime has now dipped this year and my hometown and the murder rate has gone down and we see nationwide for the first time in three years the f b i uniform crime statistics have showed a dip and i think programs like burn grants and cops program have played a key role in that and i commend you for bringing this legislation and urging all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it because it has merit and is supported by our local chief to police and sheriffs and i you back the balance  starting with full disclosure i intend to withdraw this amendment after speaking to it in the spirit of mr gohmert comments  that such legislative restraint has been shown in the drafting of the underlying bill but i do want to speak to this issue because i think it's a very important one and we know that standalone legislation addressing this might take some time perhaps i might even be able to work with the committee chair and author of the bill and the ranking member on report language relating to this concern as i notice noted during our hearing last month on this legislation burn jag funding is critical to state and local law enforcement officers ability to fight crime and assist in the prevention of drug use and abuse and i thank my colleague mr johnson from georgia for his leadership on this bill however i remain concerned that we lack sufficient over site for one of the most popular uses of burn jag funds the multiverse directional anti drug task forces and at our hearing  domingo have read as director of the bureau of justice assist assistance at the department of justice stated his belief that state and local law enforcement have made significant progress in developing a comprehensive approach to oversight and response to a number of highly publicized missteps involving anti drug task forces and i wholly wholeheartedly commend the efforts yet testimony from our representative from the national association of attorneys general arkansas teams that work across state and city lines indeed many civil rights groups including the a c l u the brennan center for justice the national council of la raza just to name a few have express similar concerns that the anti drug task force is funded by the byrne jag program urgently need increased federal oversight and i would comment that some of the scandals that we have heard about obviously relate to misdeeds and crimes by individuals but studies of this program have said that the the the multi fictional nature of it makes it sort of structurally more prone to two problems and that's why we need this additional oversight i was a pleased to hear from both mr ray's and mr mcdaniel at our hearing that their belief that law local law enforcement as well as state attorney's job enroll would be more than willing to come together with the department of justice in developing an oversight model that will work effectively to ensure accountability of malted jurisdictional anti drug task forces the amendment that i have prepared today would provide momentum for such a just that sort of collaboration my amendment directs the u s attorney general in consultation with state attorney general to establish voluntary guidelines for effective oversight functions of anti drug task forces within one year particularly because i have full faith that the states will willingly contribute to the development of and then voluntarily comply with these more uniform oversight functions my amendment does not include any financial consequences to compel them to do so an earlier version of my amendment did cut funding from all tied jurisdictional drug task forces after two years if they accountability measures but the one before you today does not have those financial consequences it is my hope that these guidelines will be incentive enough for local agencies and states to work together with the federal government to ensure the bill i look forward to working with all of you as well as mr johnson to ensure that burn jag and jag program works as effectively as possible towards its vital mission and with that mr chairman i would withdraw my chairman i too have prepared an amendment that would never indeed provide for some oversight and accountability as it relates to the anti drug task forces i have decided not to offer the amendment because it seems that there is a consensus here that everyone is so supportive of burn jag they want nothing to perhaps interfere with it and of course  congressman johnson's representation that it had passed the senate without any amendments and it would place the bill in the process of having to go into conference which may jeopardize the burn jag grant certainly are taken into consideration it is taken into consideration i would just like to say that i'm a little bit disappointed bed we are fred to step forward to do the kind of oversight that needs to be done to ensure that these funds are being used as they are intended i do not think that you can jus allude to the tool you case without been very very concerned about the way that an entire community was violated and the majority of the males in that community were indicted  on false cocaine trafficking charges that's serious and it should not be swept aside again i respect the statements of some of the members of this committee about how useful the jack byrne jag grants are in their communities but of course i've had for some time tremendous concerns about the entire war on drugs including the any drug task forces it seems that because we don't have enough accountability we don't have the reduction in crimes that are caused by those who are involved in drug trafficking and the use of drugs and i would just say that this bill appears to be on the path to getting passage here today without dissent but we have a responsibility to follow  member has pointed out this is a one sentence reauthorization if we don't we authorize it will the program will expire at the end of the year but our work commit to work closely with the gentle lady from wisconsin and the gentle lady from california to make sure that the crime subcommittee looks very closely at some of these abuses oversight and accountability i don't expect them to be satisfied with the commitment but i hope they will be satisfied with the oversight well i think the i don't see why they wouldn't be satisfied with the chairman of the crimes middies commitment reclaiming my time i thank the gentleman for his that candid admission that we all have more work to do again and i think that the the outline of how to do this has been set forth by miss baldwin and i basically agree with that senate is moot but you raise good issues we do need proper oversight the proposal for the state's attorney's job enroll and the attorney general to establish audit has merit but what i would suggest is in hopefully we could work together on this to ensure proper oversight but it's my understanding that the office of justice programs currently does some auditing on the barn jag programs and rather than creating an additional perhaps duplications it might be that we could get the office or have legislation that require the office of justice programs to have a more rigorous audit along the lines ms waters is suggesting there would also hopefully be we check with the attorneys general satisfactory with them to do that kind of audit for us so i would hope that we could work together on that to make sure that there is adequate oversight to address these issues and and obviously it's not enough for us to just have hearings if we don't have somebody that actually goes and digs through the files sees how the money is spent then we really do not have adequate information to do our oversight hearings so i would look forward to working with the majority i know my colleagues on this side of the aisle would were always happy with good oversight and certainly good audit to make sure the money's properly spent so thank you mr chairman implement effective oversight functions for anti drug task forces particularly multiverse diction and that is a great piece of work that i think we need to focus in on with standalone legislation and i'm looking forward to working with the crime committee and miss ball when to to make sure that that happens and with respect to  congresswoman waters amendment which would or with respect to her proposal which would cause more auditing and thus  better opportunity to oversee the small tight jurisdiction of task forces with respect to their use of federal money i think that that is certainly a lot of b goals that outs i'll be looking forward to pursuing as well thank you and now you're back i thank the general a d for her excellent discussion and if there is no further discussion or any amendments reporting corm being present the question is on reporting the bill favorably to the house those in favor say aye those opposed say no the i's unanimously have it and without objection t bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute in corporate sink the bill will be reported and the stance authorized to make technical and conforming changes and members will have that today before we adjourn that being i just like to recognize the you dialogues race and ethnicity in metropolitan detroit young students are visiting