Commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which has became known as "Freedom Summer".

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government Act of 2008, and urge my colleagues to adopt it today. There are three major components to the bill. First, the legislation authorizes Federal courts to toll or otherwise delay deadlines outside of their statutorily defined geographic domains during times of emergency. The text is identical to that of H.R. 3729 from the 109th Congress, passed on July 17, 2006, by a voice vote under suspension of the rules.

The need for this legislation became apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact that these disasters had on court operations, in particular in New York City.

In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining district or circuit might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, to litigants, to jurors, and the public, than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas, and Kansas City, where the metropolitan areas include part of more than one judicial district.

This reform is also needed to address natural disasters. The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Federal courts in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi once again demonstrated the importance of congressional action on this proposal.

Where court operations cannot be transferred to other divisions within the affected judicial district due to widespread flooding or other destruction, judges must be empowered to shift court proceedings temporarily into a neighboring judicial district.

The advent of electronic court record systems will facilitate implementation of this authority by providing judges, court staff, and attorneys with remote access to case documents.

Secondly, the bill allows the PTO director to waive various patent and trademark filing requirements during emergencies. This text is identical to that of H.R. 4742 from the 109th Congress, passed on December 5, 2006, by voice vote under suspension of the rules.

The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region affected the ability of applicants, patentees, trademark holders, and other interested parties to do business with the Patent and Trademark Office. Despite its best efforts to date, the PTO needs additional authority to provide individuals and businesses with relief from certain statutory deadlines, especially those pertaining to the maintenance of patents and trademarks.

Pursuant to the bill, the PTO may waive statutory provisions governing the filing, processing, renewal, and maintenance of patents, trademarks, and applications to the extent the director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of applicants and other persons affected by an emergency or major disaster.

Third, the bill grants the PTO director discretionary authority to accept a late-filed application for patent term extension in certain cases if the application is filed not later than 3 business days after statutory deadline and the applicant files a petition within 5 business days of the deadline that shows that the delay was unintentional.

This provision is similar to legislation, H.R. 5120, which passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules as part of S. 1785, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2005. That passed on December 6, 2006.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps Federal litigants, inventors, trademark holders, and other interested parties to maintain their rights under adverse conditions. I urge Members to support the bill, but I am intrigued by the name of the bill, the Responsive Government Act of 2008. One would think that this government could be responsive to the tremendous problem we have with high energy costs in this country, not just gas prices, but home heating oil, the cost of electricity, natural gas.

So with just one week left before the July 4 break, we would hope that the Democrat majority would be willing to bring a bill to the floor, something that is meaningful to provide some solutions to increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices. Perhaps next time we won't leave town if the price of gasoline is $5 a gallon. The way it's going, that may be the case. We shouldn't wait for that. We should act now.

So we should have another Responsive Government Act of 2008, one that responds to the needs and concerns of the American people. Americans are paying, all Americans are paying, on average, about $1.74 more for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline than they were on the day that the Democrats took over this House, promising a new, commonsense approach to energy that would not only stop increases, but bring it down. Unfortunately, just the reverse has been the case.

Perhaps we could work together somehow, agreeing that America has never been afraid of the future. America has always embraced the future and America has used technology here in the United States to surmount obstacles. It seems strange that we would have American technology now being used in waters off of Brazil to explore where they have just found the largest single oil find in the last 25 years. There are some that suggest that Brazil will now be energy-independent. They won't even have to use the ethanol they produce from their sugar because of this find. If the Congress of the United States had controlled Brazil, they wouldn't have been able to find it, because it's offshore.

Last week, I remind my colleagues, the Democrat leadership had time to schedule legislation to prohibit the interstate sale and transfer of monkeys, but they apparently didn't have enough time to listen to the large majority of Americans who support more U.S. energy production.

The new Fox News poll shows that 76 percent of Americans support immediate efforts to drill more in the United States in order to boost American energy production and help lower record prices. There's only one thing standing in the way of this Congress. If we are to be truly responsive, in addition to this fine bill that we are voting on today, ought we not also respond to the most immediate concern of Americans in every State, in every congressional district, and do something about the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices.

The response is not, as my friend on the other side said, all we need to do is sue a little bit more. If we can have a few more people and a few more courts, and sue, that will somehow solve the problem. No. The answer is increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices right now. That is what the American people are asking for.

So as I rise in support of the Responsive Government Act of 2008, I would hope we would have another Responsive Government Act, one that will be responsive to the concerns expressed by the American people.

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield, as I yielded to him?

I thank the chairman.

In response to the question, I am sure the gentleman may be aware of the fact that 52 percent of the exploratory wells that were drilled by American companies in America over the last 5 years were dry wells. So, in some cases, they have taken leases on land offshore, and that has proven not to be a successful well.

The problem is that those that have the greatest prospect for yielding real petroleum and natural gas have been prohibited by this Congress. As the gentleman may know, they pay for those leases. They continue to pay for those leases. I have not heard anybody on this floor accuse the oil companies of paying for something for nothing. They pay for those leases. There is a limit on the time that they can have those leases when they do not produce them.

So, in all cases, they have made judgments as to whether or not the leases they have are yielding leases, and in many cases, 52 percent, they have tried to find oil, and they haven't found it.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his courtesy.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6344) to provide emergency authority to delay or toll judicial proceedings in United States district and circuit courts, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government Act of 2008, bipartisan legislation with strong support on both s des of the aisle.

The bill consists of three major components, each of which has, in substance, previously passed the House on the suspension calendar.

Section 2 of the bill takes into account the practical realities of a natural disaster or other emergency situation where compliance with filing deadlines or other court rules would be impracticable, dangerous, or simply impossible.

In emergency situations, such as those which occurred during, and in the aftermath of, Hurricane Katrina, this section of the bill would provide the Chief Judge of the affected District Court or Court of Appeals with the authority to excuse a failure of litigants or the U.S. Government to comply with filing deadlines.

Section 3 grants similar authority to the Patent and Trademark Office to excuse failures to comply with filing deadlines caused by a natural disaster or other emergency.

Section 4 of the bill also involves a grant of authority to the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to excuse specific late filings--this time, in connection with unintentional human error.

Section 4 would provide the USPTO with the authority to accept an application for patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act if that application is filed within 3 business days of the existing 60-day deadline.

This small but important change simply gives the USPTO discretion to accept a late application, within a limited time period, under specific conditions. This change is both good patent policy and good for public health.

Under current law, the 60-day deadline is absolutely rigid, and the consequences of that rigidity can be draconian and harshly disproportionate.

Up to 5 years of patent protection can be destroyed on account of a minor, inadvertent filing error of as little as 1 day.

This penalty is not merely disproportionate and excessive, it is also out of sync with most other patent laws and regulations, which typically give the USPTO Director the authority to excuse minor errors.

For instance, currently, if an applicant files an incomplete Hatch- Waxman application, the USPTO can grant up to 2 extra months to correct the application.

H.R. 6344 would eliminate this dichotomy, bringing the deadline provision of Hatch-Waxman into greater harmony with other relevant patent laws and regulations.

Moreover, H.R. 6344 would save lives. The reality is that the unnecessary forfeit of years of patent rights for drugs can have an extremely damaging effect on patients.

When the existing rigid deadline operates to strip away up to 5 years of patent protection, it significantly reduces the likelihood of the research and innovation that a full patent term would encourage.

This is not just a theoretical problem. A small U.S. maker of Angiomax, a blood thinner, stands to lose 4\1/2\ years of patent protection as a result of inadvertently filing its Hatch-Waxman application for patent term restoration 1 day late.

Angiomax is considered the best alternative to heparin in coronary angioplasties, and shows great promise with respect to open heart surgery and the treatment of stroke and peripheral artery disease.

Public health and safety pushes us to promote effective substitutes for heparin, such as Angiomax.

Earlier this year, contamination problems in Chinese manufacturing plants, where heparin is made from pig intestines led to 81 patient deaths.

Even apart from problems of contamination, thousands of people die every year from adverse reactions to heparin.

At this moment, when the serious shortcomings of heparin have come into bold relief, we have rightfully turned our attention to adjusting a flawed patent provision in a manner that can improve and even save the lives of large numbers of sick patients for years to come in this and other instances.

Taken together, the three components of this bill--the discretion provided in cases of emergency and the discretion provided in the case of unintentional human error--are all sound public policy, and have justifiably attracted bipartisan backing.

This bill is not inconsistent with, nor does it detract from, other legal authorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this measure, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has worked tirelessly to make sure that this measure arrives on the floor for consideration today.

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

We are in a spirit of bipartisanship and we are reaching out. Let's not nationalize the oil companies. We agreed on that. Let's go from shale to coal and let's go into all the alternatives. We are all for that. No suing. Drill, drill, drill. No sue, no sue, no sue.

Now we are getting down to the 41 million acres of leased oil, and he knew I was going to bring that up, that have been unused, and I don't know how to make those oil companies drill and find out if there's anything there or not. Maybe they don't want to know. Maybe they do want to know but they don't have the machinery or equipment.

Maybe there's a technological problem that is beyond the understanding of we mere mortals on Judiciary.

Yes. The gentlemen yielded to me, so I will yield to him.

You know, we had a hearing on this subject. The oil execs of the five companies came before us. In the other body, three of them told us how much they made. As you know, they make the top profits of any executives in business, short of the pharmaceuticals, of course. I don't want to short them. We found out that two of them couldn't even remember how much they made.

Look; salaries, options, stock, bonus. Who knows what else. I hope my dear friend from California will join me on the letter that I am sending to the two, referring them to look up their accountant, because I know they paid their taxes on April 15, and just give us a ballpark figure of how much they made. If the gentleman will join me in this consideration, I'd be very grateful.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a leader in universal health care activities.

Madam Speaker, I yield back any time we have remaining.

This entire House has you, Mr. Chairman, to thank for a lifetime of work in civil rights and human rights for all people, I thank you here on the floor.

I thank my good colleague who serves on the Judiciary Committee. And I especially thank my colleague, John Lewis, who was chair of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee when I first joined. And I think I can say for John and me that either of us expected to be on the floor of this House at that time.

I thank you, John. I'm not surprised that you would come forward with this resolution. For me, it would be too poignant an occasion but for the progress that I think we can say assures that these brutal murders, the murders that we came to call the ``Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman murders,'' certainly have not been in vain.

In 1963, Bob Moses, a legendary figure of the Mississippi movement, recruited me while I was in law school to go to Mississippi. SNCC had opened up virtually everyplace else, but not Mississippi because, frankly, it was terrorist country. And to show you the extent to which Mississippi was a different place, it took the NAACP and Medgar Evers to lead the sit-ins there, and they got beat unmercifully. And that was in Jackson.

I came to the Mississippi Delta that year for an express purpose, to prepare for the 1964 Freedom Summer, by conducting the prototype ``freedom school'' to be used in 1964, when we knew we would be able to gather thousands of students to come down. It was the high point of student activism. John and others went throughout the United States and students came in huge numbers. We had the highest hopes.

I was particularly working on the 1964 Democratic Convention with my mentor, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Larry Guyout, who now lives here, the cochairs of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and, working indeed, on the brief that would be used to say that this delegation, rather than the official delegation which excluded African Americans, should be recognized by the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

And why was there a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party? Because, indeed, in the summer of 1964, so many had come down to risk their lives for whom that had to have been their choice. Those high hopes were not extinguished when our delegation did not get seated. Those high hopes were not even extinguished when these brutal murders occurred. It took authorities weeks to find the three young men. Those high hopes remained high and, if anything, thrust the civil rights movement forward in a way it had not been before.

How much time do we have, please, Madam Speaker? I don't want to go over.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't take much longer, but this is a very special moment.

In 1963 when I went to Mississippi, I first worked for the March on Washington under Bayard Rustin, then went to the Mississippi Delta. That was, I must say, the most eventful summer of my life, more eventful even than 1964.

The great chief of the Mississippi NAACP Medgar Evers put me on a bus. Medgar Evers tried to convince me to stay in Jackson, but I said, no, that I had promised I was coming to the Delta. So he put me on a bus to go to the Delta. He then turned around, went back home, and he was shot and killed in his driveway that same evening. That was a year I shall never forget.

But the fact is that the 1964 summer, in fact, happened. The students did not go home after the murders. We continued to organize. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, with Fannie Lou Hamer leading the way at the convention, was the high point of that convention. And the country has never forgotten it. It democratized the Democratic Party. It democratized even the Republican Party. And I must say that both parties then recognized that they had to have representative delegations.

Steve Schwerner Michael's brother was one of my classmates in college. When I have met with the families, what has been extraordinary about them is to see that they understand the contributions they personally made to the freedom struggle. They have no regrets. They understand that the loss of Cheney and the two youngsters from the north was the last thing we expected and that that loss helped to waken the country.

Do not forget what happened in 1964. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that act contained Title VII. Something else I could never have imagined--I would one day come to enforce a major civil right's law, the 1964 Civil Right's Act as a Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This was the first civil rights legislation since the radical Republicans gave us our first civil rights legislation after the Civil War, and look what happened afterwards: the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

Oh, no, these three young men died for a great and noble purpose. And in case the national panorama doesn't drive that point home, surely the fact that Mississippi today has the largest number of black public officials will

help you to see that they did not die in vain, and surely the fact that their relatives now see the first African American to secure the nomination of a major party for President of the United States will drive home the reality that these three young men, at the dawn of their lives, not only did not die in vain but for generations to come and, yes, for this generation, have left a legacy of their own.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6344.

This is an extremely important bipartisan measure that combines sound judicial policy with rational patent law and good public health policy. The bill is aptly named Responsive Government Act because through its provisions, Congress provides the judicial and executive branches with commonsense flexibility to ease certain administrative requirements which would otherwise result in undue hardship for diligent and well- intentioned individuals and entities.

The House has previously passed this proposal in either identical or similar language, and I should note under a suspension of the rules; however, the other body has failed to act in a timely manner, but I understand now the other body is prepared to proceed expeditiously.

Let me describe the measure.

Sections 2 and 3 provide the Federal courts and the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, respectively, with needed emergency authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing conditions or, to the extent deemed necessary, to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster.

We recently all too often have observed how the ravages of natural disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations.

Finally, section 4 provides the PTO Director with the discretion to accept an application for a patent term extension filed not later than 3 days after the expiration of the 60-day period in title XXXV of the U.S. Code, provided the Director determines that the delay in filing the application was unintentional.

This provision corrects an anomaly in the patent law and provides the PTO with the discretion to excuse minor filing errors, discretion it already has in most circumstances. As the PTO has testified to Congress in the past, it would bring this provision of law in line with over 30 other patent laws and regulations. It would prevent the inappropriate sacrifice of valuable earned patent rights. More importantly, this adjustment would promote important clinical research that can benefit the lives of seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of leading medical researchers and practitioners across the Nation.

It addresses a particular section of the Hatch-Waxman Act that provides a patent holder with up to 5 years of restored patent protection for time lost while awaiting FDA approval. This extra time is critical because for many highly innovative medicines, as research continues even after the drugs have been approved and released to market for a particular use. Many of these medicines have additional, potentially lifesaving uses that would not be discovered without further research, which is made possible by the years of patent protection beyond the drug's initial release.

I note the presence here of our friend the delegate from the Virgin Islands, who I am sure will speak to this measure, but I would commend to all of our colleagues a review of her commentary that appeared some time ago describing one drug in particular and what it means for medical research and for practicing physicians such as herself.

By removing the unnecessary barriers to medical research, section 4 of this act will promote research into modern, safer, and more effective medicines, saving lives and reducing burdening costs to our health care system.

In closing, I want to commend Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, and our distinguished Chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, for their outstanding work in preparing the Responsive Government Act of 2008, and urge that my colleagues approve this helpful and necessary measure.

Would the chairman yield?

I thank the Chair. It's seldom that my dear friend from California errs, but I would point out that the 41 million acres that the Chair of the committee alluded to is actually 41 million acres under water. According to the latest statistics, that represents some 80 percent of the proven reserves that are available in terms of offshore waters.

So I don't know where the gentleman gets his statistics, but I would think after we pass this Responsive Government Act, that we could sit down and work out some legislation that would rescind those leases that are currently being banked by leaseholders and the consequences of which are reducing the supply of oil and gas so that as the demand increases, naturally the price explodes.

We cannot afford to have given away our natural resources to major oil companies and have them sit on it and do absolutely nothing, because the gentleman is right, and he well knows it, that the American people are hurting.

There is legislation I know that the dean of the Massachusetts delegation, Congressman Markey, has either filed or is preparing to file, and I am sure that he would welcome my good friend the former Attorney General of California to be an original cosponsor.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1293, honoring Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner: Mr. Goodman, a 20-year-old student volunteer; Mr. Chaney, a 21-year-old plasterer and activist in the civil rights movement; Mr. Schwerner, a 24-year-old founder of one of the first community centers for African Americans in Mississippi. Mr. Chaney and Mr. Schwerner were also members of the civil rights task force organized by the Congress of Racial Equality.

All three were tragically killed in 1964, that summer, for their participation in the civil rights campaign in Mississippi, where they had just taken part, along with 175 other volunteers, in a civil rights orientation project, which led the way for some 800 other volunteers.

I had just graduated from high school in California, and I remember the shock of hearing about this tragedy. It was one in a series of tragedies we were seeing portrayed around the United States, where people just simply attempting to be recognized as full human beings in this society, with the opportunity to vote and the opportunity to participate in the political process, were being denied that, and they and many others attempted to try and change that.

That summer, these three men were picked up by a sheriff for allegedly speeding, and after their release from jail, they disappeared.

A KKK informant and an FBI investigation pieced the story together. Evidently, after their release, the three men had been chased off the road, forced into a Klansmen's car, brutally beaten, and killed.

At the time, the State of Mississippi didn't file charges against anyone. The Federal Government charged someone in 1967 with conspiring to violate the civil rights of another, but that defendant was acquitted. Of seven other men convicted on conspiracy charges, no one served more than 6 years for the

death of three innocent individuals in this United States of America.

It was not until January 6, 2005, that Mississippi indicted Edgar Ray Killen on three counts of murder. He was found guilty of three counts of manslaughter on June 1, 2005, the 41st anniversary of the crime.

There is no doubt that justice so delayed warrants our honoring these three civil rights heroes again today, some 44 years after their death.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which came out of our committee with bipartisan support, and it directs the Attorney General to designate a deputy chief within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and a supervisory special agent within the Civil Rights Unit of the FBI to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights- era murders.

We've got to do it now because the perpetrators of these crimes have been able to live in freedom for so long.

And some say why go after old men in their last years? Because, in fact, they should not have the opportunity to live out their lives without being held responsible for these horrendous acts. The bill also provides much-needed resources to the Department of Justice, the FBI, State and local law enforcement officials to prosecute these cases.

Madam Speaker, the FBI has identified nearly 100 outstanding cases that still need to be assessed. Many of these murders are 30 or 40 years old. Obviously they're difficult to investigate and to prosecute because evidence has been lost or destroyed, witnesses and defendants have died, and memories have dimmed. We must act quickly to bring the long-overdue justice to these victims and their families.

I urge all my colleagues to join the chairman of the full committee and other members of the Judiciary Committee in supporting this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Once again, I rise in support of H. Res. 1293.

David McCullough, the distinguished writer and historian, said, ``We run the risk of being a Nation of historic illiterates.'' And he was referring to our lack of knowledge of the beginnings of this country, the lack of knowledge of the Founding Fathers and that generation. But he need not look back that far. All he needs to do is to look back 40 some years, as the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned to us and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and the gentleman from Michigan.

We cannot allow these real-life tragedies, events, sacrifices to be lost in the midst of memory. We have to make sure that not only do we understand them but that we understand their import and that we teach our children that this is part of America's history and America is what it is today because of the sacrifices of many great men and women, these three included among them: Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner.

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