mr. bachus: thank you. i want to commend the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, for what i consider a straightforward, commonsense amendment. this is an amendment to the fair and accurate credit transaction act, what we commonly call the fact act. now the fact act is known for the free -- for the free credit report and the requirement on the three main credit reporting gencies to amend their records if you notify one of an error. they have to make an examination and then correct it. but financial literacy was also important part of the fact act. because you have your credit report, but if you don't have good financial literacy, it's not going to be a good credit report. so in 2003, the subcommittee, which i chaired at that time, passed this in the full committee and we had bipartisan support. judy biggert, who is no longer with us, from illinois, i think was one of the leaders on our side. but there were many on both sides. what this does, there's an excellent -- a commission was formed without almost any cost to the people. and it did a lot of good resea

mr. bachus: thank you. and i yield the balance of my time to congresswoman sewell. ms. sewell: i thank the gentleman from alabama for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of my colleague's amendment to prohibit funding in the underlying bill being used to re-install the red mountain sculpture on the courthouse in birmingham, alabama. despite the security concerns shared by the united states marshal and the chief justice, the g.s.a. has planned to re-install the sculpture. both the chief justice and the u.s. marshal believe the sculpture is nonessential and will pose a security risk if we install. the chief justice noted in correspondence to g.s.a. that the location of the statue will be 10 to 12 feet from the public entrance door which is completely made of glass and the monday you meant would cre -- monument would create a funnel and cause a security risk. federal law clearly states that the united states marshal have the final authority regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch of the federal government. the administrative office of courts has agr

mr. bachus, there. thank you. thank you very much for inviting the department of justice today and thank you, congressman for that very nice introduction. we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear at today's hearing. last august in remarks at the annual meeting of the american bar association's house of delegates, my boss, the attorney general of the united states spoke of his desire to forge a more just society and to reform and strengthen america's criminal justice system. he said it is our duty to identify those areas we can improve in order to better advance the cause of justice for all americans. on behalf of the attorney general, i want to thank the members of this task force for your pursuit of the goal of reform. your work has contributed and will continue to contribute significantly to the discussion of improvements to make our system more fair and efficient. the department has an interest in all of the interests that this task force has explored. in our written testimony we address issues regardi

mr. bachus. >> i thank the chair. i was looking at mr. benjamin's testimony, both of your testimony, but i think we are to the point of where we are ready to act hopefully. we know the problem. has been reinforced several times. we have gotten the message and the key is what do we do? on page 9 of your testimony, mr. benjamin, you suggest four things, and i know congressman scott mentioned one or two of these. one is changing congressional recess to require every bill that would add or modify criminal offenses or penalties be subject to automatic referral to the relevant judicial committee. i think that is very important. as you say this is the committee with expertise. 2, an act of statutory law establishing the 5 criminal intent requirement to be read into any criminal offense that currently lacks one. 3, it says this requirement should be protected enough to prevent unfair prosecution and should apply retroactively to all or nearly all existing laws. that is a radical idea but i believe in that and i think there ought to be something w

mr. bachus. >> i think we are to the point where we are ready to act, hopefully. we know the problem. it has been reinforced several times. we have gotten the message. i think the key is what do we do. and on page 9 of your testimony, mr. benjamin, you suggest at least four things i hear, and i think congressman scott has mentioned one or two of these. one is by changing congressional rules to require every bill that would add or modify criminal offenses or penalties be subject to automatic referral to the relevant judiciary committee. i think that is very important because as you say this is the committee with the expertise. two, an act of statutory law requires a limit to be read into any criminal defense that lacks one. three, and it says this requirement should be protective to all existing laws. i know that is a radical idea but i believe in that. i think there ought to be something where you can go before a judge and present evidence or before a board particularly some of the environmental crimes. i had mentioned several cases of where people discovered hazardous waste on their

mr. bachus, there. thank you. thank you very much for inviting the department of justice today, and thank you, congressman, for that very nice introduction. we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear at today's hearing. last august in remarks at the annual meeting of the american bar association's house of delegates, my boss, the attorney general of the united states, spoke of his desire to forge a more just society and to reform and strengthen america's criminal justice system. he said it is our duty to identify those areas we can improve in order to better advance the cause of justice for all americans. on behalf of the attorney general, i want to thank the members of this task force for your pursuit of the goal of reform. your work has contributed and will continue to contribute significantly to the discussion of improvements to make our system more fair and efficient. the department has an interest in all of the interests that this task force has explored. in our written testimony we address issues rega

mr. bachus i'm appearing as a conference witness and i can only speak on issues on which the conference has taken a position and it's not taken a position on the mansaray. >> as you know the commission focuses on penalties and not the elements of the crime so we have not taken a position either. >> i'm sure it won't come as a surprise to mr. chairman that most of our clients are not facing regulatory misdemeanors. [laughter] >> i'm sitting here asking these questions and kind of the elephant in the room is this is maybe a half of 1% of all cases great you are not dealing with 99.5 here. i read on page seven of your testimony, i saw this last night and i'm thinking this is kuster's last stand almost. but you said the office of federal defenders in the art represents indigent federal defendants in the southern and eastern districts in new york. those two federal district cover all of new york city, five counties north of the city of long island. you have 39 lawyers. for those same two districts there are 300 federal prosecutors, 39 to 300 and my first question as i read that and i didn't read

mr. bachus. >> i thank the chair. i was looking at mr. benjamin's testimony, both your testimony, but i think we're to the point where we're ready to act hopefully. we know the problem. it's been reinforced sefrld times. we've gotten the message. and the key is what do we do. and on page nine of your testimony, mr. benjamin, you suggest at least four things i hear. one is by changing congressional rules to require every bill that would add or modify criminal offenses or penalties be subject to automatic referral to the relevance judicial committee. and i think that's very importan important. as you say, this is the committee with expertise. two, enact statutory law establishing the default criminal intent requirement to be read into any criminal offense that currently lacks one. three, and it says this requirement should be protective enough to prevent unfair prosecutions and should apply retroactively to all or nearly all existing laws. and i actually know that's a radical idea, but i believe in that. and i think there ought to be someth

mr. bachus, there. thank you. thank you very much for inviting the department of justice today, and thank you, congressman, for that very nice introduction. we very much appreciate the opportunity to appear at today's hearing. last august in remarks at the annual meeting of the american bar association's house of delegates, my boss, the attorney general of the united states, spoke of his desire to forge a more just society and to reform and strengthen america's criminal justice system. he said it is our duty to identify those areas we can improve in order to better advance the cause of justice for all americans. on behalf of the attorney general, i want to thank the members of this task force for your pursuit of the goal of reform. your work has contributed and will continue to contribute significantly to the discussion of improvements to make our system more fair and efficient. the department has an interest in all of the interests that this task force has explored. in our written testimony we address issues rega

mr. bachus, you asked for unanimous consent? >> unanimous consent, and professor otis sort of reminded me of this. i had it, but this is a crime scene. and this is in alabama. these are two young people that overdosed on a synthetic drug earlier this year. so it is a different crime scene. but it looks pretty violent, i'm sure, to their parents and their friends. i would also like to enter -- >> are you offering that for -- >> yes. >> all right. without objection. >> i would also like to introduce a copy of the attorney general's memorandum to u.s. attorneys, and particularly highlighted where the cooperation is no longer included. but third, mr. evenson said something that i think we ought to at least have one panel of people, and that's the health care approach and things that we can do in drug diversion treatment, addiction, addressing it both as a criminal problem and a health care problem. and i would think the u.s. attorneys would probably welcome that more than any one group, because i've had u.s. attorneys and das that e

mr. chabot and ms. eshoo shoo, subcommittee chairman bachus and subcommittee ranking chair cohen for their work on and support of this legislation. this bipartisan legislation is about giving every american unfettered access to the internet, which is the modern gateway to the american dream. i urge all my colleagues to support it. i restemb the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. conyers: i thank you for yielding, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen, the internet tax freedom act enacted in 1998 established a temporary ratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxation of the internet as well as new taxes on internet access. this moratorium is due to expire on november 1 of this year. since 1998, congress has extended the moratorium on three occasions. fortunately, however, h.r. 3086, the permanent internet tax freedom act, responds to the impending expiration of the moratorium by making it permanent and ending the act's grandfather protections fo

mr. greenspan wouldn't use it. a number of states, including georgia, passed laws to restrict subprime lending abuses and the bush administration preempted it and said no such laws. and i was working with spencer bachus. sheila baird notes we were trying to put legislation through to regulate subprime loans. and the republican leadership said shut it down. on the day this committee wants the democrats were in control began to regulate subprime loans it was over the objection of several of the members here who said subprime loans were good. and "the wall street journal" objected and said, look. these are good loans. 80% of them are paying on time, which didn't seem to me to be a great statistic. and, in fact, what happened was this. people on the conservative side were generally pushing these loans until the crisis hit. then they needed an alternative victim, villain to blame for the crisis. so they retroactively became opposed to these kinds of loans. now they've reverted. there was a period they were blaming us. i think this is great inconsistency between saying the community reinvestment act caused the problem by forcing people to make these loans through poor minority people and now complaining th