Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us. The cost of maintaining our Federal, State and local prisons is ballooning out of control. We must continue to enforce our criminal laws, but we cannot ignore the fact that most of the people who are released from incarceration are likely to return. The Second Chance Act will support programs that help prisoners reenter society which is essential to reducing recidivism.

We can expect, Mr. Speaker, over half of the adult prisoners who are to be released around the country this year will be rearrested again and likely will return to prison. This cycle is overwhelming our criminal system, it is overwhelming our prisons, and it is costing more than $90 billion every year, $50 billion as far as Federal institutions are concerned.

I am in agreement that stiff sentences serve a good purpose. Criminals must know if they violate the law, they will be punished. But when we seeing growing numbers of ex-offenders returning to our prisons, something in the system is not working. Something, Mr. Speaker, is flawed.

The Second Chance Act is endorsed by the Council of State Governments, the National Sheriffs Association, the American Bar Association, and countless religious organizations from around the Nation. For some time many of you have heard me express alarm and concern about the dangers of prison overcrowding. It is a ticking bomb waiting to explode.

In my district, in fact, there is a county jail that is bursting at the seams. We can begin to defuse this bomb today by passing the Second Chance Act and supporting programs that reduce recidivism.

Now, much has been said about the cost. And I will stipulate, I will say to my friend from Texas, it is costly. But if the Second Chance Act proves to be effective, I believe it is realistic for us to conclude it will result in saving taxpayer money because to house prisoners is a costly operation.

Rarely do I disagree with my colleague from Texas, but on this occasion we are going to disagree agreeably. I think this is a good proposal. I heartily endorse it.

Chairman Scott, you remember I chaired, along with you, two hearings in the last Congress, and I believe this is the third time it has passed the House Judiciary Committee, if the gentleman from Michigan will corroborate that.

I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding, and I urge passage of the Second Chance Act.

I thank the gentleman.

H.R. 2102 was approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary by voice vote.

I feel strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the administration's opposition to this legislation is misguided.

Former Solicitor General of the United States, Theodore Olson, wrote that ``the legislation is well balanced and long overdue, and it should be enacted.''

The bill is good policy, and I urge all Members to vote in support of final passage and in support of the manager's amendment.

In closing, I want to thank the sponsors of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Representatives Boucher and Pence, respectively. Both have been champions for H.R. 2102 and have diligently worked to address all concerns throughout the legislative process, as have Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith.

Mr. Chairman, aviation is a growing industry in the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina, and therefore my interest in the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration stems from both a consumer and industry perspective. I'd like to take a few moments to highlight some provisions in H.R. 2881 which are beneficial to my area and others which cause concern.

There is a vibrant general aviation community within North Carolina, and many of the airports in my district are dependent upon the Airport Improvement Program to fund necessary infrastructure improvements. I am pleased that this legislation builds upon this successful program. It is my hope that as the bill moves forward, we will continue to seek ways to augment, and even create incentives, within the AlP program because it is a vital tool for economic development.

In addition, I remain supportive of the Small Community Air Services Development Program which is reauthorized in H.R. 2881. I have seen first-hand the success this program has had in my district, and believe that it is another tool which encourages community development, particularly in rural areas.

I'm also pleased that the bill before us takes the initial steps to modernize and update our air traffic control system. While I don't pretend to understand the technology, I do believe that upgrading our current air traffic control system will create more efficient and effective management of our airways. I'm hopeful that this investment, coupled with improving infrastructure, will help to alleviate much of the delays and cancellations that each of us currently face all too often when we go to the airport. We still have much work to do, but I believe this bill is a step in the right direction.

There are also areas in the base bill which concern me. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the air traffic controllers of this Nation, and especially those that live and work within my district. I have had frank and constructive conversations on a variety of issues with them in the past several months.

Despite that, I still have reservations about the intent and ramifications of the language in the base bill which would reopen the recently implemented contract. First and foremost, the issue of back pay concerns me from a fiscal and fairness perspective. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the current contract, to simply invalidate the contract, in my opinion, undermines the bargaining process. Further, I remain concerned at the effect this amendment will have on our Nation's taxpayers.

Additionally, I remain concerned by language in the bill which would require non-pilot employees to be covered under the National Labor Relations Act. This language, which is directed at one express shipping company, in my opinion could undermine the national transportation network and create many unintended consequences.

As this bill moves forward, I hope that we can continue to work towards modernizing our air traffic control system and also resolve issues where there is disagreement. Because of the concerns outlined above, I intend to oppose the base bill, but do so recognizing that there are provisions which I support.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I recall several years ago, when we were discussing proposed patent legislation before a crowded hearing room, and I remember one Member saying to the crowd, he said, I have friends for this bill, I have friends opposed to this bill, and I want to make it clear, he said to that group, I'm for my friends. Well, we don't do it quite that easily; easier said than done. But as has been mentioned before, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and I, along with the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Michigan, we've plowed this field before. And I've heard many argue that H.R. 1908 undermines everything that we accomplished in 1999 when the American Inventors Protection Act was implemented.

Madam Chairman, this is simply inaccurate. Mr. Berman and I shepherded that legislation which, among other things, created patent reexamination, banned deceptive practices, clarified the term for patents, required that patents be published before they're granted, and made the Patent Office independent within the Department of Commerce, among other things.

As our domestic economy becomes increasingly dependent on the global economy, Madam Chairman, so, too, does our patent system.

Other challenges stem from the marketplace. As our domestic economy becomes increasingly dependent on the global economy, so does the patent system. In many international markets, patent protection is one certainty on which American manufacturers can rely when they are trying to compete internationally.

H.R. 1908 addresses these challenges in several respects. First, the bill implements a first-to-file patent system, which is in line with other countries and will streamline the patent review and issuance process.

Other provisions in the bill dealing with willful infringement, post- grant opposition, publication, inequitable conduct and best mode will also help improve patent issuance and patent quality.

By improving patent quality, patent disputes and litigation should be reduced, and patent examiners' ability to perform the daunting task of searching scores of records and files should improve greatly.

Unfortunately, H.R. 1908 has not enjoyed universal support. Several key stakeholders have voiced concerns and objections which cannot be overlooked. And I understand that many, if not all, of the changes in the manager's amendment will address many concerns, but I am still troubled that another key coalition may not endorse H.R. 1908 at the end of today's debate. Many of these companies in this coalition, unfortunately for me, are either located in or near my district, and I'm concerned that anything in H.R. 1908 would adversely affect them.

So while I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1908, I do not mean to cast

any aspersions upon those who may very well have meritorious concern, particularly dealing with applicant responsibility and how any change to the rule for calculating infringement damages could impact the value of their patents.

That being said, Madam Chairman, I know that Chairman Berman, the distinguished gentleman from California, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member Smith, have accepted all criticisms in good faith and have worked diligently to forge some sort of compromise where it has been possible. I hope that after today we will continue to pursue compromise so that with some good fortune we may convince all stakeholders to support what I believe is needed patent reform.

And I say to the gentleman from Texas, I thank you for having yielded.

Mr. Speaker, following Appalachian's upset football win over Michigan, Boone, North Carolina, is no longer a sleepy Blue Ridge mountain town. The representatives from each university responded to last Saturday's contest with class: Appalachian not insufferable in victory; Michigan a gracious loser in defeat.

But the beneficiaries of this game, Mr. Speaker, are the underdogs, the little guys who are given little or no chance of tasting the spoils of victory. Appalachian's Mountaineers and Michigan's Wolverines will post impressive records during the 2007 season. But Saturday's game, Mr. Speaker, will reinforce the optimism of the proverbial underdog, with the assurance that their chances of achieving victory, albeit remote, are within the realm of possibility, and much is to be said in support of that conclusion.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I am in opposition to the proposed tax increase as a source of funding for the SCHIP program.

Tobacco is lawfully grown, marketed and consumed, and tobacco manufacturers to growers, Madam Speaker, employ thousands of citizens in my State, hundreds in my district. These manufacturers and growers, small and large, provide well-paying jobs and make valuable contributions to their communities.

At one time, Madam Speaker, tobacco was king. Now it is a beleaguered industry; yet it remains a convenient whipping boy regarding the raising of revenue for this body.

When SCHIP was authorized and debated a decade ago, I did not support it because of its potential to become one more entitlement program that would, in time, cost more than what's projected. It has, Madam Speaker, surpassed my apprehensions in cost and scope.

Today, CBO projects that this expansion would cost nearly $87 billion over the next 5 years. This has led to the proposal that billions of dollars be cut from Medicare providers such as hospitals and health care services, coupled with the increase in the tobacco tax, to finance this expansion.

I cannot condone such an abuse of taxpayers for a program that would take from one group of vulnerable citizens to expand services to citizens, in many instances, who are less vulnerable.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, when it comes to earmarks, it's easy for me to embrace my earmark as good government and reject your earmark as wasteful pork. By the same token, it's easy for you all to embrace your respective earmarks as good government and reject mine as useless, wasteless pork. That probably amounts to hypocrisy, but it is nonetheless a political fact of life.

Now, when you talk about the textile industry, I become very subjectively involved. My late momma was a machine operator in a hosiery mill. She later worked for the Blue Bell Corporation, which was the predecessor to the Wrangler and the VF Corporation. Her job was to sew pockets on overalls, a tedious, demanding job, before the days of air conditioning, I might add. So when people gang up on the textile industry, they are ganging up on my momma. It bothers me.

We could talk all day here. Many of my friends from North Carolina, we represent what was recognized as the buckle of the textile belt. It's a beleaguered industry, and we don't need to be piling on at this juncture.

My friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price) has already suggested the significance, but let me repeat it.

The National Textile Center, NTC, and the Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation, [TC]2, play a critical role in helping the U.S. textile and apparel industry, which currently employs over 600,000 workers nationwide and contributes nearly $60 billion to the Nation's gross national product on an annual basis to compete with textile manufacturers in other countries.

It should also be noted that the industry is a primary supplier of employment to women and minority workers, with many of these jobs located in depressed and rural areas as well as major inner cities.

The NTC is proven and provides a highly effective structure for maximizing fundamental research and development efforts of value to the textile and apparel industrial sector. The value of new textile products and processes that have been created by NTC research is over $300 million, nearly three times the Federal investment in NTC to date.

[TC]2 is engaged in helping to transform the U.S. textile and apparel industry into a highly flexible supply chain, capable of responding to rapidly changing market demands. During calendar year 2006, 60 percent of [TC]2's

annual budget was supplied by the private sector. [TC]2 expects at least 55 percent of its 2007 funding to be provided by the private sector. To date, the public investment alone in [TC]2 has produced technology advancement valued in excess of $375 million, a return of more than 400 percent.

These programs do not specifically benefit any particular congressional district. They are an important element of our national textile industry which once led the world but, as has been noted, is now struggling to keep pace.

The textile industry needs these programs and our support, which have proven to be a wise investment in the past. This is why this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lieutenant Sara Platt Moser for her service to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Coast Guard.

As some of you may know, Lieutenant Moser was detailed to the House Coast Guard Liaison office July of 2004, and I am proud to have had the opportunity to work closely with her over the past three years. My colleagues, staff, and I have valued her knowledge and understanding of the Coast Guard operational missions, day to day challenges, and roles and responsibilities.

During her career in the Coast Guard, Lieutenant Moser has served aboard the CG Cutter RELIANCE and as the Assistant Operations Officer at Coast Guard Group Saint Petersburg.

Next week, Lieutenant Moser will leave her post as the Coast Guard's Assistant House Liaison in pursuit of a new assignment within the Coast Guard Reserve.

It has been my pleasure to work with Lieutenant Moser. On behalf of the Representatives and staff who have also been fortunate enough to work with Sara, I wish her, her husband Marty and their daughter Anna, clear skies and smooth sailing.

I thank the gentlelady from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the surge. And for 2\1/2\ years, I have said that we need to keep the troop withdrawal issue on the table, but I have also said during that time that the date for withdrawal should be reserved for the commanders on the ground.

The bill before us was not introduced until yesterday, and in my opinion, it is vague, at best; generously laced again, in my opinion, with politics.

I excel at an understatement, Mr. Speaker, when I declare that this war has been mismanaged. It was appropriate to remove Saddam, an international terrorist, but there was never, in my opinion, a post- entry strategy; therefore, mismanagement.

The Iraq issue, Mr. Speaker, is neither as favorable as its proponents contend, nor as unfavorable as its opponents profess. The good news is the evil-driven terrorists have not attacked us again. And I am confident that many moderate Muslims do not embrace the useless killing and destruction of property that has occurred in Iraq, but their silent vocal opposition has been disappointing, at best. The Iraqi Government has been disappointing as well, and we need to insist upon more compliance it seems to me.

But given all the facts surrounding this matter, Mr. Speaker, I believe this Chamber is well-advised to wait until September. We're told that the general will be here in September to report what, if any, favorable or unfavorable results have occurred since the surge, and I believe that is our best policy today.

The cost has been enormous, as has been said, and we would be remiss if we tried to deny that. But I think the right vote is against this proposal today, and then let's revisit it subsequently when the general comes before us in September.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and in December of 2005, the day after Appalachian was crowned I-AA champs of intercollegiate football, I spoke on this House floor and said, The frigid and unforgiving winds that normally blow across the Blue Ridge Mountains during the months of winter are blowing less brutally and less severely today for, on this day, I said, these winds sweep across the campus of Appalachian State University, home of the National I-AA champs of intercollegiate football.

That speech, Madam Speaker, is applicable today because as my friend, Ms. Foxx, indicated, the Mountaineers repeated as national champs last December, and those same Blue Ridge winds were as refreshing in 2006 as they were in 2005, and hopefully, as Ms. Foxx said, they will be equally refreshing in December of 2007.

Over a century ago, Madam Speaker, a small teachers' college was founded in rural Appalachia. Then, Boone was a sleepy Blue Ridge hamlet; the Appalachian campus equally sleepy.

Now this campus has awakened.

Appalachian State University is recognized as one of the sterling jewels in North Carolina's higher education crown. It is recognized as well as the home of America's reigning I-AA champions of intercollegiate football, the Appalachian State Mountaineers.

Best wishes to Chancellor Peacock, Coach Moore and the entire Appalachian family.

Again, I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for handling this resolution.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 616, 617, 618 and 619, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all 4 rollcalls.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation is a bipartisan effort, as the chairman just mentioned, to improve the security of those who administer our justice system, as well as those who serve as witnesses, victims, and their families.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen an increase in violence and threats against judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers, courthouse employees; and the list is virtually endless. It is critical that we address this violence in order to preserve the integrity of, and the public confidence in, our justice system.

The murders of family members of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow and the brutal slayings of Judge Rowland Barton and his court personnel in Atlanta are just a few of the many examples that underscore the need to better protect those who serve our judiciary and their respective families.

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, almost 700 threats a year are made against Federal judges. In numerous cases, it has been necessary to assign Federal judges security details for fear of attack by terrorists, violent gangs, drug organizations, and disgruntled litigants.

The problem of witness intimidation and threats has also continued to grow, particularly at the State and local levels, where few resources are available to protect witnesses, victims, and their families.

H.R. 660 improves coordination between the United States Marshals Service and the Federal judiciary and bolsters security measures for Federal prosecutors handling the dangerous trials against terrorists, drug organizations, and other organized crime figures.

This bill also prohibits public disclosure on the Internet and other public sources of personal information about judges, law enforcement officers, victims, and witnesses, and protects Federal judges and prosecutors from organized efforts to harass and intimidate them through false filings of liens or other encumbrances against personal property.

Additionally, H.R. 660 provides grants to State and local courts to improve their security services. I want to thank the majority for working with us to include other important provisions that were not in the original legislation.

Under our bipartisan agreement, the legislation we consider today, Mr. Speaker, also contains increased criminal penalties for assaults against Federal law enforcement officers, makes permanent the redaction authority for judges filing ethics disclosure forms, and reauthorizes the Presidential Threat Task Forces.

Although we were unable to include in this legislation a provision that ensures retired and off-duty police officers permission to carry firearms under a Federal law enacted in 2004, I appreciate Chairman Conyers' and Subcommittee Chairman Scott's promise to move and pass on suspension the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007, which accomplishes that goal.

It is imperative, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to work together on a bipartisan effort to ensure that judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel, and law enforcement officers do not have to face threats and violence when discharging their duties.

At the State and local level there is a dire need to provide basic security services in the courtroom and for witnesses. H.R. 660 represents a significant first step in this area.

Mr. Speaker, when I served as chairman of the Crimes Subcommittee in the previous Congress, the House passed legislation to improve court security, only to see it die in the other body. I commend Chairman Conyers, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan; Ranking Member Smith, distinguished gentleman from Texas; as well as Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia; and another distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Representative Forbes, for their continued leadership on this issue, and hope that we can successfully get this legislation across the finish line.

Finally, I want to acknowledge what Chairman Conyers did, what Ranking

Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott did, and the effects, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, of Congressman Louie Gohmert, the distinguished gentleman from Texas who himself is a former judge. These three gentlemen were tireless advocates for better judicial security, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Aderholt's bill eliminates unnecessary impediments in handling the everyday transactions of individuals and businesses. Many documents executed and notarized in one State, either by design or happenstance, find their way into neighboring or more distant States. A document should not be refused admission to support or defend a claim in court solely on the ground it was not notarized in the State where the Court sits. H.R. 1979 ensures this will not result.

A notarization, in and of itself, Mr. Speaker, neither validates a document nor speaks to the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents. The notarization serves a different function. It verifies that a document's signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly signed or executed the document.

By executing the appropriate certificate, the notary public, as a disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties relying upon or using the document that it is the act of the person who signed it.

H.R. 1979 compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document, even though the notarization was performed in a State other than where the form is located. This reaffirms the importance of the notarial act.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing testimony on this subject before the Judiciary Committee during the 109th Congress, I have concluded that the refusal of one State to accept the validity of another State's notarized document in an intrastate legal proceeding is just plain provincial and insular.

Some of the examples were based on petty reasons. For example, one State requires a notary to affix an ink stamp to a document, an act that is not recognized in a sister State that may well require documents to be notarized with a raised, embossed seal.

Passing this bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the chief sponsor of the bill, the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for such time as he may consume.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this addresses a problem that has come across my path many times. Back home, Mr. Conyers, I don't know about you in Michigan, but in North Carolina, I hear this complaint frequently. A document properly notarized in one State, and then as I said, it must be by happenstance, crosses a State line and goes to another State, and then, of course, denial rears her ugly head, and all sorts of confusion results.

So this addresses a problem that needs to be fixed, and I think this legislation does it.

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

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

This statement that I am about to read is the statement of Congressman Joe Barton, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, who I am told is in transit and is not able to be here:

I rise in support of the bill before us today, which extends the programs of transitional medical assistance and the title V abstinence education program. I am pleased that the Congress is able to work together to extend funding for these programs.

I believe it is important that we support the goals of abstinence education and not get bogged down by the politics that inevitably surround the concept. Our school children deserve the opportunity to receive an education regarding the merits of an abstinent life-style. Title V funds are optional for States, and it does not prohibit the funding and teaching of contraceptive-based programs.

Abstinence education provides teens the opportunities to learn about the ramifications of sexual activity including pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. As I am sure many of my colleagues would attest, I have heard from numerous programs within my State, and I am sure in the State of Texas from where Mr. Barton hails, that rely on this Federal funding. They believe in the program and hope to continue providing abstinence education opportunities to local teens.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my support for this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding. We are in disagreement about the proposed