[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16871-16873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SUPPORTING THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL

  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 196) supporting the Sixth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, the right to counsel, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 196

       Whereas on March 18, 1963, the Supreme Court recognized in 
     Gideon v. Wainwright that counsel must be provided to 
     indigent defendants in all felony cases;
       Whereas the Supreme Court held that providing counsel to 
     indigent defendants in all felony cases meets the essential 
     requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution; and
       Whereas the Supreme Court held in Argersinger v. Hamlin 
     that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may 
     be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, 
     misdemeanor, or felony, unless they were represented by 
     counsel at their trial: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) supports the Sixth Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, the right to counsel;
       (2) supports strategies to improve the criminal justice 
     system to ensure that indigent defendants in all felony cases 
     are adequately represented by counsel; and
       (3) urges States to work to ensure that indigent defendants 
     in all felony cases are adequately represented by counsel.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Holding) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutch) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HOLDING. 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 materials on H. Res. 196, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that 
``in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . 
to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.'' H. Res. 196 
supports the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel, and strategies to 
ensure that indigent defendants in all felony cases are adequately 
represented by counsel.
  Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court, in Gideon v. 
Wainwright, held that providing counsel to indigent defendants is one 
of the essential requirements of the Sixth Amendment. Writing for the 
majority, Justice Black stated:

       From the very beginning, our State and national 
     constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural 
     and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials 
     before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands 
     equal before the law.

  Since the Gideon decision, the Supreme Court has held that absent a 
knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any 
offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless 
that person was represented by counsel at his or her trial.
  This resolution reaffirms Congress' continued commitment to pursuing 
fairness in our criminal justice system and calls on States to help 
ensure that defendants are adequately represented by counsel.
  I urge Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At the beginning of this Congress, Members read aloud the 
Constitution of the United States from the floor of this very Chamber. 
That reading, of course, included the Bill of Rights, those first 10 
amendments so vital to protecting the individual freedoms of all 
Americans.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H. Res. 196, a 
bipartisan resolution affirming our support for the Sixth Amendment to 
our Constitution.
  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to a fair 
trial. It also reads, ``In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall 
. . . have the assistance of counsel for his defence.''
  We all agree that the right to counsel for anyone accused of a crime 
is the foundation of individual liberty. It is essential to the rule of 
law and the basic principle that, in America, the government cannot 
take away any citizen's freedom without a fair trial. H. Res. 196 is a 
bipartisan resolution reaffirming the support of this Congress for the 
Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a time when this right is too often 
trampled in our modern-day justice system.
  Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, in the landmark 
case, Gideon v. Wainwright that access to quality legal representation 
is essential to a fair trial, and that even Americans too poor to 
afford an attorney have a right to counsel.

                              {time}  1815

  This landmark opinion held that States and localities have a Sixth 
Amendment constitutional obligation to provide counsel to indigent 
defendants. Yet, a half century later, the reality is that we continue 
to struggle to honor the right to counsel upheld in Gideon.
  Reports by the Department of Justice, the American Bar Association, 
the Constitution Project, as well as innumerable law review articles by 
top experts in criminal law, have revealed how legal representation for 
indigent defendants often has been undermined by crushing caseloads, 
inadequate funding, and other obstacles. It has been estimated that 80 
to 90 percent of all persons charged with a criminal offense qualify as 
being indigent and cannot afford an attorney.
  The American Bar Association, in its comprehensive report, ``Gideon's 
Broken Promise,'' concluded that ``thousands of persons are processed 
through America's courts every year either with no lawyer at all or 
with a lawyer that does not have the time, the resources or, in some 
instances, the inclination to provide effective representation.''
  All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, 
without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring.
  In this time of limited resources, the right to counsel has also been 
undermined by cuts to funding for indigent defense. These cuts have 
eliminated training programs to keep lawyers informed of criminal 
justice best practices and have limited the ability of

[[Page 16872]]

lawyers for indigent defendants to access investigators or experts 
essential to adequately representing their clients.
  We pay a hefty price when we fail to uphold the Sixth Amendment of 
our Constitution. It is not uncommon for indigent people without an 
attorney to sit in jail for weeks or months, causing the loss of a job, 
a home and, in some instances, the loss of a family.
  Failing to provide adequate counsel to indigent defendants can also 
lead to costly extended pretrial detentions, costs associated with 
appellate litigation, costs for appellate defense counsel, prosecutors 
and appellate courts, incarceration costs of indigent people during the 
appeals process, and other unnecessary costs.
  From our unsustainably high rates of incarceration to the lives of 
families torn apart by unnecessary jail time and wrongful convictions, 
Congress can't afford to ignore the economic and moral costs of this 
crisis in our criminal justice system.
  Our Nation's failure to uphold the Sixth Amendment has resulted in 
bloated prison and jail populations at the State and county levels, 
which hold more than 2.2 million people at a cost of $75 billion per 
year. An additional 5 million people are on probation, parole, or 
supervised release.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite all the comprehensive reports, all the law 
review articles, and all the stories reported by the media, the 
fundamental right of an indigent defendant to adequate counsel remains 
at risk.
  The situation is dire. Look no further than a recent determination 
made by the Florida Supreme Court allowing the Miami-Dade Public 
Defender's Office to withdraw from 21 criminal cases because of 
excessive workload and underfunding. In fact, it was found that 
approximately 400 felony cases were being assigned to the average 
public defender, and public defenders in third-degree felonies had as 
many as 50 cases set for trial in a week.
  These facts provide us with just a glimpse into a growing crisis 
within our criminal justice system. There is no question that States 
and localities are struggling to provide adequate and well-resourced 
lawyers to indigent defendants.
  Ensuring that all Americans, regardless of their financial resources, 
have access to a lawyer is essential to our system of justice. Our 
failure to uphold the Sixth Amendment undermines the premise that, in 
America, every person has the right to a fair trial and is presumed 
innocent until proven guilty.
  H. Res. 196 is a product of bipartisanship. I would like to thank the 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte for his support of 
this legislation and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  I would also like to thank Congressman Steve Chabot for all of his 
hard work on this resolution and for working to ensure that indigent 
people in the criminal justice system are adequately represented by 
counsel.
  I also want to recognize Ranking Member John Conyers and Crime 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott for their support of this 
resolution.
  For my colleagues who are as concerned as I am about the state of 
indigent defense in America, I invite you not just to support today's 
resolution but to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 3407, the National 
Center for the Right to Counsel Act. This legislation aims to improve 
financial and training resources for State and local public defense 
systems and encourage the adoption of best practices for the delivery 
of legal services to indigent defendants.
  The bill would equip States and localities with more tools to 
implement their own indigent defense systems and meet their 
constitutional obligations as defined by the Supreme Court in Gideon v. 
Wainwright. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the first step toward solving any problem is confronting 
it, and that is why I am so pleased to have H. Res. 196 on the floor 
today. The Supreme Court recognized in Gideon that ``the right of one 
charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and 
essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.''
  It is long past time that the House of Representatives engage, 
debate, and develop strategies to assist the States with improving the 
delivery of indigent defense services.
  I urge my colleagues to support the right to counsel enshrined in the 
Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and to join me in supporting H. 
Res. 196.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure and vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a full-throated support 
of H. Res. 196, which upholds the Sixth amendment Right to Counsel, as 
laid out in the Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright.
  The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright 
affirmed that everyone, whether rich or poor, has the right to an 
attorney in a criminal proceeding. Fifty years later though, 
sequestration's devastating cuts to federal defender services are 
jeopardizing the constitutional rights of Americans around the nation 
and ultimately resulting in higher costs--which is why this 
resolution--H. Res. 196--is utterly important. The case law and 
enunciation of this right began in Powell v. Alabama, in which the 
Court set aside the convictions of eight black youths sentenced to 
death in a hastily carried-out trial without benefit of counsel.
  Justice Sutherland stated that due process always requires the 
observance of certain fundamental personal rights associated with a 
hearing, and ``the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental 
character.'' This observation was about the right to retain counsel of 
one's choice and at one's expense, and included an eloquent statement 
of the necessity of counsel. ``The right to be heard would be, in many 
cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard 
by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and 
sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crimes, he is 
incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment 
is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left 
without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper 
charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant 
to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and 
knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a 
perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in 
the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he 
faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to 
establish his innocence.
  Clarence Earl Gideon, could not afford a lawyer to defend him in 
court, and he was convicted. Gideon challenged his conviction--all the 
way to the Supreme Court. The result was the landmark case Gideon v. 
Wainwright, which guarantees poor defendants in Houston, the state of 
Texas, and all around this great nation, the right to counsel in 
criminal cases. Indeed Mr. Speaker, just this weekend a horrific 
shooting took place in Houston that was reported all over--and just as 
with many crimes--our fine law enforcement officials set-out to find 
the perpetrators and it appears as if they have. It is in cases like 
these where the public's opinion is enflamed that Gideon is most 
importance--particularly in ensuring that the right persons have been 
apprehended.
  Public defenders serve as the backbone of our legal system because 
they ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is 
maintained. It is critical that this body act to ensure that next 
year's sequestration cuts do not force federal defender organizations 
around the country to further reduce their operations, hindering their 
ability to provide competent and timely legal representation. This body 
must pass legislation to avert further cuts to defender services 
otherwise--it will result in an abdication of our constitutional 
duties, increased costs to the American taxpayer, and a severe 
degradation of our criminal justice system in Texas and beyond.
  In this body we often disagree on the scope and breadth of recent 
budget cuts, but we must all work to ensure that a highly functioning 
criminal justice system is maintained and adequately funded. We have a 
responsibility to the Constitution to continue to fund this critically 
important program at workable levels. As we continue to debate a budget 
for fiscal year 2014, and the overall fiscal path for our nation, I 
urge my colleagues to address this critically important issue.
  I urge my colleagues to Support this important resolution.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 196. Since 
the founding of the Republic, the right to an attorney in a federal 
criminal prosecution has been enshrined in the

[[Page 16873]]

Bill of Rights, and fifty years ago the Supreme Court reiterated that 
commitment and applied it to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright. But 
though the Constitution, the Court, and the Criminal Justice Act 
establish this right, Congress still must provide adequate resources 
before it can be a reality.
  Public defenders serve as the backbone of this constitutional 
promise. Federal public defenders ensure access to counsel and other 
necessary criminal defense services for those who are indigent. Public 
defenders not only help to maintain confidence in the nation's 
commitment to equal justice under the law, but also ensure the 
successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system of 
justice through which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed 
rights are enforced. In addition, adequately funded federal public 
defenders save money for the federal treasury by reducing pre- and 
post-trial incarceration costs.
  At the federal level, 81 public defender organizations nationwide 
represent 60 percent of all criminal defendants in the federal court 
system. In the judicial branch, where costs are heavily concentrated in 
personnel, the sequester cuts have led to furloughs, staff reduction 
through attrition, and as a last resort, layoffs. As a result, trials 
have been delayed and attorneys have been forced to take on even larger 
caseloads. This has an effect on the entire federal criminal justice 
system, delaying justice for everyone, whether innocent or guilty.
  Although many federal agencies can choose to do less when fewer 
resources are available, the federal judiciary does not have the option 
to reduce its own workload when budget cuts threaten. In criminal 
matters, when the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute an indigent 
defendant, the Constitution requires the government to provide 
assistance of counsel. As pointed out by Justice Anthony Kennedy before 
the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on March 
14, 2013, because the Constitution requires the court to appoint 
counsel for an indigent criminal defendant, if there are fewer public 
defenders available the court must employ private attorneys, often at a 
higher cost.
  This resolution will pass the House overwhelmingly, as well it 
should. But today I challenge my colleagues to put real force behind 
their words and expressions of support for the Sixth Amendment right to 
counsel. I implore them to support full funding for the Federal 
Defender Services. I urge support for this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 196, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________