Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Many Americans are frustrated and angry because they believe that this administration is not being held to account for its actions. Now, after 7 years, much of the public turns this frustration at Congress because it is the branch with the responsibility for oversight.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee undertook a very serious investigation into allegations that a number of key law enforcement officers in our country--United States attorneys--were being fired for their unwillingness to respond to political pressure in various cases. This led to information about other actions that were clearly politicizing the work of the Department of Justice. You will hear people on the other side talk about the investigation wasting time. This was no fishing expedition. The fact is that the revelations from this investigation led to the resignation of the Attorney General of the United States.

We are here today because this administration responded to a legitimate investigation--the exercise of our oversight duty--by stonewalling in the extreme. The disrespect shown to this body has been stunning, culminating in the fact that when the committee subpoenaed the testimony of Harriet Miers, neither she nor her attorney bothered to even show up to assert the privilege she claimed.

To justify the administration's behavior, the President has asserted an astonishingly broad theory of executive privilege which claims that any document or information from any individual who has ever worked for the President is covered and therefore immune from being compelled to testify before Congress. This view of executive privilege may be unprecedented in our history, and if accepted, it would chill any meaningful oversight of the executive branch and grant near limitless power to the President to hide information from Congress, the courts, and the American people.

The utter contempt shown by this administration toward Congress and its constitutional duties is unacceptable, and to permit these actions to stand unchallenged would be an abrogation of our constitutional responsibility.

Approving these contempt resolutions would send a strong message to the administration that Congress will not be ignored. At the end of the day, whether civil or criminal action is successful, our most important goal should be getting to the truth.

If we do not respond to the administration's disregard of the legislative branch, we risk rendering permanent damage to our own institution and to this country's cherished system of checks and balances. Failure to act will also set a dangerous precedent that future administrations will almost assuredly seek to exploit. To my colleagues on the other side who are trying to dismiss these resolutions as partisan--I urge you not to be shortsighted. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter that strikes at the heart of our democracy and the checks and balances on which it depends.

Congress has been eminently patient in awaiting the President to provide information on the U.S. attorneys scandal. Yet, rather than work with us to get to the bottom of wrongdoing in his administration, the President has continued his pattern of actively hiding possible evidence of illegal behavior by high-ranking officials in his Government and stonewalling any inquiries to get to the truth. Because it is each Member's very responsibility to support and defend the Constitution, we have absolutely no other choice than to pursue this action against the President's Chief of Staff and his former chief legal counsel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue between the Gulf States and the United States, the President has proposed the commercial sale of a number of significant U.S-produced weapon systems that the President believes will contribute to U.S. national security in the Gulf Region.

There has been a good deal of controversy surrounding these proposed arms sales included in the Gulf Security Dialogue, and, in particular, the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to Saudi Arabia.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has taken the reported concerns seriously. The Committee has held four highly classified briefings on the Gulf Security Dialogue. As part of this ongoing dialogue, Chairman Lantos asked the Secretary of State to provide to the Committee, in writing, additional assurances that can be released publicly that this sale will not threaten our interests or those of our friends in the region. Chairman Lantos received a letter with these assurances from the Secretary of State.

Madam Speaker, as the Acting Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I ask that this letter be printed in full in the Record so that all of our colleagues in the Congress can be aware of the assurances which the Committee has received.

The Secretary of State,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2008.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding the

proposed sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to

Saudi Arabia under the rubric of the Gulf Security Dialogue.

Over the last year, we have consulted closely with Congress

and our partners in the region on the proposed sale. This

sale is important to U.S. national interests in the Gulf

region. It will strengthen our relationship with Saudi Arabia

and will enhance regional security and stability.

The United States has offered for sale a number of military

goods to friendly governments in the region to support U.S.

interests. In preparing these sales, we have worked closely

with our friends in the region to ensure the proposed

transfers strengthen stability and security regarding

potential challenges from Iran or other threats in the

region. We have consulted closely about this sale with Israel

and remain committed to the preservation of Israel's

qualitative military edge. I can assure you that the sale of

JDAMs to Saudi Arabia will not affect Israel's qualitative

military edge. The Government of Israel understands the

reasons for this sale and does not object to it.

We are mindful of the sensitivity of some of the technology

being transferred, and will continue to keep Congress

informed on the details of this sale, particularly of any

changes in the arrangements we have briefed the committee. We

have had, and will continue to have, thorough discussions

with the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding its obligations

resulting from this sale. As a result of these discussions,

we are confident that the Government of Saudi Arabia will

undertake all necessary measures to secure these weapons and

to assure their use only in ways which we support. In

particular, the Government of Saudi Arabia will provide

adequate security for the JDAMs such that these weapons will

not fall into the hands of other nations or groups. Moreover,

the Government of Saudi Arabia will ensure that these weapons

will not be used against U.S. forces or the forces of U.S.

allies.

I hope this resolves any concerns that might exist about

this sale. We would be happy to discuss further with you, if

you desire. We look forward to working with you to secure the

advancement of U.S. interests in the Gulf region.

Sincerely,

Condoleezza Rice.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honored to yield to our majority leader 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I recognize for 2\1/2\ minutes Tom's colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chief deputy whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Tom's colleague from California, and the subcommittee chair on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Brad Sherman.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes, Madam Speaker, to the gentlelady from California, Tom's colleague from California, Lois Capps.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another colleague of Tom's from California, the gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee.

I thank the gentlewoman very much for doing that and appreciate her and all the comments of our colleagues from that side of the aisle. I think they were a fitting tribute to Tom and his bipartisan approach to foreign affairs and to issues that go far beyond party divisions.

I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another of Tom's colleagues from California and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ambassador Diane Watson.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman representing the State that Tom had such close connections to, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I am pleased to recognize my friend and colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen, for 2 minutes.

I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Russ Carnahan, for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to Tom's good friend, chairman of the Asia Subcommittee of House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa, 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I thank the Speaker.

A great deal has been said about Tom Lantos this evening, wonderful, eloquent words that captured just the profound effect that he had on this institution. Many serve in this institution. Some leave a mark on their districts of their presence here; some leave a lasting mark on the institution. It's hard for me to think of anyone who left such a mark around the world as Chairman Lantos did in so many different areas.

You read that statement that David Dreier read earlier, and I'm going to read it again because it captures his love of this country. He and Annette, they were the greatest Americans because they knew what the alternative had been, and they paid back with their work and with their gratitude what America offered them.

This is Tom Lantos' words after he is diagnosed with a very advanced stage of esophageal cancer, ``It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress. I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.''

He not only loved America; he hated tyranny and oppression. And I served with Tom on the committee for 26 of his 28 years in the Congress, and that anger and hostility and willingness to fight against dictatorship and tyranny covered the dictatorships of the communist regimes, and it covered the dictatorships and the oppression of the rightwing authoritarian regimes. He wasn't one side or the other; he was against tyranny for human rights. Stood firm.

It's very easy for us to attack forces that have no direct impacts on our district; it doesn't take that much courage to do that. Tom Lantos, notwithstanding what some company in his

district might be making in terms of sales to a particularly oppressive country, stood firm and constantly dealt with the pressures coming back from his own constituents about our livelihood, our jobs, because he couldn't tolerate the notion that, in effect, American companies, American individual interests, American corporate interests were giving governments around the world the tools of that repression.

In closing, I just want to tell one story. It was a profound experience for me, I'll never forget. I had the opportunity to see Tom a few weeks ago at his home here in Washington with Annette, with Katrina, with their granddaughter and with a baby grandson, which, by the way, was one part of what gave him his strength was this unbelievable family structure. And he looked much better than he had looked in his last few weeks here, and he talked about being at peace. Yes, he would have loved to have been able to be here a few years longer, but for him, he felt what a wonderful life he had had, what a wonderful family, what a country, the colleagues. He was at peace with what awaited him. And there was a serenity and a strength there that just was stunning to me. I'll never forget it.

To the family, to Annette, our prayers are with you. And you know that the work he did, the lives he affected around the world, his presence will be maintained long after his passing.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague, Congressman Henry Waxman and I rise to pay tribute to our good friends, Cathy and Len Unger, who are being honored by the American Jewish Committee, AJC, at the Ira E. Yellin Community Leadership Award Dinner on January 24, 2008.

The AJC has chosen to recognize Cathy and Len, two remarkable leaders for their deep commitment to ensuring equal opportunities for all people and protecting their essential rights and liberties. For over 100 years, the AJC has been a vital organization in the Jewish community. It has continued its efforts to combat anti-Semitism, promote pluralism and democratic values, support Israel's quest for peace and security, advocate for energy independence and strengthen Jewish life.

As with all of us, Cathy and Len are the products of their family experiences. Len was born in a displaced persons camp after his parents survived the Holocaust. Although Cathy's father is a native Angeleno, Cathy's mother fled Germany with her family in 1933.

Cathy and Len were introduced to the AJC by Cathy's father, but their active participation started after a trip to Israel, organized by Ira Yellin, where they witnessed firsthand the impact of this outstanding organization. Upon their return, they joined the board of the Los Angeles chapter and have worked diligently to help the AJC attain its important mission.

Len graduated from UCLA and received his JD degree from Boalt Hall at UC Berkeley. Cathy also graduated from Berkeley. Len began his legal career in New York, where his pro bono work in a death penalty case earned him a Thurgood Marshall Award from the New York City Bar Association. When he relocated to Los Angeles, he joined the law firm of Levine and Krom, now Levine and Unger, where he currently practices.

Cathy became involved in politics, first working as a staff member for former Congressman Mel Levine during his tenure as a State Assemblyman, and then as a political and non-profit fundraiser. Both Cathy and Len have been politically active at local, State and national levels.

Their community interests involve many organizations. Cathy was appointed to the board of governors of the California Community Colleges. She is active on the local and national boards of Planned Parenthood and currently serves as chair of its Advocacy Project. She co-chaired the Women's Political Committee. Len is a member of the board and former chair of the southern California chapter of the Arthritis Foundation and is a recipient of the organization's Jane Wyman Humanitarian Award. He served as vice-chair of the national board of trustees of the Arthritis Foundation, and he currently sits on the board of Reprise! Broadway's Best, as well as on the boards of several charitable foundations. He also serves as a trustee of the investment board of the Los Angeles County Retirement Association.

Cathy and Len are the proud grandparents of Jack, Emma and Nate, children of Laura and Randy Dudley; and of Dylan, daughter of Susan and Daniel Unger.

We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Cathy and Len Unger for their long-time commitment to public service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say a few words on the recent retirement of Geraldine Gennet, the outgoing General Counsel of the House of Representatives.

Because of the sensitive areas that it works on, the Office of the General Counsel is not well known to many people outside of Congress. Nevertheless, the office provides invaluable legal advice and representation to Members, committees, employees, and officers of Congress, regardless of their political party or affiliation. Geraldine joined the Office of the General Counsel in 1995, and became General Counsel in 1997. Prior to her service in the House of Representatives, she worked as a sole practitioner in the District of Columbia, and then served as General Counsel for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and as Litigation Counsel for the Office of Thrift Supervision.

During her time at the helm of the Office of the General Counsel, Congress was involved in a host of public and private battles and constitutional issues with wide-ranging implications, and through each one, Geraldine provided tremendous leadership to Congress and its Members. Indeed, even as Congress became a more partisan place over the last decade, Geraldine was ceaselessly nonpartisan in her work. During my time on the House Ethics and Judiciary Committees, I was fortunate to work with her on several occasions, and I was always impressed with Geraldine's strong focus on ensuring that congressional prerogatives and Congress as an institution were tenaciously protected from political considerations and other negative influences.

It is an honor to commend Geraldine for her leadership and hard work, and to wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today, I join my colleagues in both the House and the Senate in introducing ``The Performance Rights Act'' of 2007. This legislation is a first step at ensuring that all radio platforms are treated in a similar manner and that those who perform music are paid for their work.

This narrowly tailored bill amends a glaring inequity in America's copyright law--the provision in section 114 that exempts over-the-air broadcasters from paying those who perform the music that we listen to on AM and FM radio. For as long as I have been working on the intellectual property subcommittee, I have been troubled by this policy that sets America apart from every other developed country in the world. The purpose of the bill is to take a necessary step towards platform parity so that any service that plays music pays those who create and own the recordings--just as satellite, cable, and internet radio stations currently do.

I understand that this legislation raises some difficult political issues. Several people have expressed some very legitimate concerns-- like the need to accommodate small broadcasters, the possibility of jeopardizing the revenues earned by songwriters and music publishers, or expanding the scope of the law governing music played in restaurants and other public venues. So let me begin by clarifying how we have narrowly tailored this legislation--

(1) The bill repeals the current broadcaster exemption--but it does not apply to bars, restaurants and other venues, or expand copyright protection in any other way.

(2) The bill provides an accommodation of protection for small and non-commercial broadcasters by setting a low flat annual fee with no negotiation, litigation or arbitration expenses. Nearly 77 percent of existing broadcasting stations in this country--including college stations and public broadcasters--will pay only a nominal flat fee, rather than having to pay a percentage of their revenues as royalties.

(3) The bill extends copyright protection to artists, musicians, and the sound recording labels--it does not harm or adversely affect the revenues rightfully paid to songwriters and other existing copyright owners.

For over 20 years I have been convinced that fairness mandates that all those in the creative chain from the artist, musicians and others who bring the recording to life--get compensated for the way they enrich our lives. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not require privately owned over-the-air radio stations to compensate those performers who create the music that broadcasters use to attract the audience that generate their ad revenues. Because of music, radio is able to profit. Not compensating those who create the music is unfair and ultimately harmful to music creation that benefits everyone--including the broadcasters. Furthermore, the law requires all other platforms in the U.S., including satellite and Internet radio, to compensate the copyright owner.

Songwriters and music publishers rightly do get paid when their song is played on the radio, but the artist whose voice or musical talent brings in the ad revenue for the station never receives a penny from the station. That means that under existing law, when you hear ``White Christmas'' on the radio this holiday season, the estate of Irving Berlin will get paid for the words and music that he wrote. But the estate of Bing Crosby will not--even though it is the tone and texture of his voice that symbolizes Christmas for so many. This disparity makes no sense. Therefore, in an effort to begin the journey towards parity among platforms and fairness to artists, the bill as introduced will affect three areas where there is currently disparate treatment:

Platform parity--Never in the past have there been more engaging technological platforms which offer music to consumers at almost any time, in any format. Especially with the roll-out of HD, ``hybrid digital,'' radio which will provide greater choice, it becomes harder to justify an exemption for any one platform. Both the radio station, regardless of the platform, and the performer benefit from the playing of music over the air. But only one party, the station, gets to keep the revenue it generates. While stations use music to get their ad revenue, they gladly leave others to pay the artist for another use of the music. It is certainly true that on all platforms there are differing degrees of promotion that may benefit the artist. That is why the Copyright Royalty Board takes into consideration any promotional element and adjusts the compensation to the artist appropriately.

While calling the performance right a ``tax'' might make for good rhetoric, it is also good rhetoric to call it ``corporate welfare'' when the U.S. Code compels copyright owners, artists, and musicians to give broadcasters their music for free. It is simply time to eliminate this anachronistic and unjustified subsidy.

International parity--During a recent meeting in Nashville President Bush was asked about this issue. When he was told that broadcasters in every country in the world except for China, Iran, North Korea, and Rwanda pay a performance right, he rightfully observed, ``it sounds like we're keeping interesting company.''

Because America does not have an adequate performance right, our own artists and musicians cannot receive royalties when their music is played on radio stations outside the U.S. In many countries between 20- 50 percent of the music played abroad is ``American-made'' and because of the lack of reciprocity, we are denying our performers millions of dollars in revenue.

Rights parity--Songwriters have long been compensated for the songs that are played on the radio--as they should be. However, just as there would be nothing for musicians to play without notes, and nothing for the artist to sing without the words, there is also nothing for a DJ to play without a recorded song.

Our kids know the song ``Breakaway'' because Kelly Clarkson recorded it--but few know that it was written by Avril Lavigne. Does it make sense for Lavigne to get paid but for Clarkson not to get paid? The fact that Patsy Clines' estate is not compensated for over-the-air performances of her singing ``Crazy'' seems crazy. Shouldn't performers be paid as well?

One of America's greatest treasures is its intellectual property. In cities and towns across the Nation and in countries around the world, American music is heard throughout the streets. People are consuming more music than ever. Yet the music industry is in crisis. The total value for the music industry at retail declined from $14.5 billion in 1999 to $11.5 billion in 2006. So, any claim that radio should get a free ride because so-called ``free airplay'' contributes to record sales just isn't true. Record sales have fallen 18 percent since 2000.

In 1995 Congress took a step forward and established a limited performance right for digital sound recordings. Yet, the performance right Congress created with one hand was taken away with other, by exempting all terrestrial broadcasts.

Cable, satellite, and Internet radio services are granted a statutory license to broadcast music as long as they pay the defined fee determined by the Copyright Royalty Board. This bill extends the statutory licensing requirement to terrestrial broadcasters to avoid an unfair advantage. I do note however, that as we discuss reform of the section 114 license--other issues will likely arise such as, the standard to be used in determining royalty rates, the sound recording complement, and treatment of ephemeral copies.

We are fortunate that with the evolution of new technologies there are many legal music distribution services currently available. Cable, Internet, and satellite platform providers all compete to provide consumers their choice of music, anytime, in any place, in any format. While I am encouraged by the many options, I am concerned that the government seems to be giving preference to one platform over the others by exempting over-the-air broadcasters from compensating owners of the music which they use to grow their business. This bill seeks the appropriate balance between promoting the creativity of music and fostering innovation. Following is a section-by-section summary of the legislation:

Section 1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the ``Performance Rights Act.''

Section 2. Equitable treatment for terrestrial broadcasts

This section repeals the exemption for terrestrial

broadcasters and makes conforming changes by deleting

references to the word ``digital'' from the types of audio

transmissions that are subject to a performance right. With

these changes, all terrestrial (over-the-air) broadcast

transmissions, including analog audio transmissions, would be

subject to sound recording performance rights thereby

providing parity for the technologies currently covered under

the section 114 license.

Section 3. Special treatment for small and noncommercial

Public Broadcasting stations; and religious stations and

certain uses

This section would create an accommodation for certain

qualifying broadcasters from the negotiation and arbitrated

rate-setting. Instead, such broadcasters would pay a

prescribed flat fee or would retain their current exemption.

For small broadcasters who make revenue less than $1.25

million and therefore are concerned about the uncertainty of

the rate and the impact on the growth and viability of their

business--this section sets a flat annual royalty fee of

$5,000 per year for any individual station (even those part

of a larger radio network) with no litigation, negotiation,

arbitration, royalty board proceeding or licensing costs.

Furthermore, for non-commercial/public broadcast stations

(irrespective of size) the rate is capped at $1,000 per year

per station.

Finally, for those stations that broadcast religious

services or make ``incidental use of musical sound

recordings'' such as brief musical transitions in and out of

commercials or program segments, or brief performances during

news, talk and sports programming there is an outright

exemption.

Section 4. Availability of per program license

This section allows terrestrial radio stations to obtain

program licenses for sound recordings (at separately set

rates), in lieu of blanket licenses. In some cases, a radio

station may not make many featured uses of music, for example

a mixed-format station. In such cases, rather than requiring

a station to pay a general blanket license fee in the same

amount paid by a station that primarily makes featured uses

of music, this section requires the Copyright Royalty Board

to establish a ``per program license'' so that such stations

can choose only to pay for the music they use, which may be

less costly than the general blanket license. This parallels

the licenses offered by the performance rights organizations

for performing the underlying musical copyright.

Section 5. No harmful effects on songwriters

Finally, this section protects the songwriters from the

impact of providing this new performance right. In the first

instance, the bill adopts the songwriters' suggestion to

remove the prefatory language which merely expressed ``the

intent of Congress'' not to diminish the royalties of the

songwriters. Furthermore, it includes the express

indication that nothing in the Act shall adversely affect

the royalties to songwriters.

I do not want to suggest that this bill is a ``perfect'' solution. But it is an appropriate starting place. I know there are other parts of section 114 that need to be reformed as well, and therefore will begin to examine additional provisions in the coming months. Furthermore, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences.

This bill attempts to strike a balance between providing adequate protection to our musicians and artists and continuing to support new innovative technologies. My goal is to preserve the legitimate marketplace by providing a technology neutral structure or at least one with parity for all services that appropriately pay for the music. I hope the parties can work together to reach further consensus on how to achieve parity between technologies and provide rightful compensation to our artists and musicians.

We hope that with introduction of this companion bill in the House to the Performance Rights Act in the Senate, Congress will act quickly to level the playing field between technologies and ensure rightful compensation to performers.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the False Claims Act Corrections Act of 2007, a bill designed to return the False Claims Act to its original intent. This legislation is sorely needed today, with the Department of Defense budget raided by unscrupulous contractors willing to enrich themselves at the expense of our Nation, and the Medicare program at risk of insolvency while organized crime and others pilfer funds meant for the care of our elderly and disabled. The proposed amendments would correct the effect of unduly restrictive judicial opinions by clarifying that Congress intends the law to reach all types of fraud on the Federal fisc, regardless of the form of the transaction. The amendments would also restore the intended incentives for whistleblowers, to act when they discover fraud against the United States Government.

The False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in order to combat rampant fraud in Civil War defense contracts. The Supreme Court has called the law the ``Government's primary litigative tool for combating fraud,'' a law ``intended to reach all types of fraud, without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government.'' The statute, which embodies principles developed in centuries-old English common law, contains incentives for private individuals to report false claims and fraudulent activity. It also allows private parties to sue on behalf of the United States and bring their private resources to support the Government's investigation and litigation. If the United States investigates and finds merit to the private party's allegations, it may intervene in and take control of the lawsuit.

During the first century after its enactment, however, the law fell into disuse as amendments and adverse case law chipped away at the incentives needed to bring whistleblowers forward. Moreover, the courts had restricted the law by construing ambiguities in the act against the Government. It had also become apparent that, in order for the law to have its intended impact, the Department of Justice needed the power to compel testimony and production of documents to investigate allegations made by informants.

In 1986, Senator Charles Grassley and I worked together in an effort to restore the requisite incentives for whistleblowers and to clarify that the law was intended to reach all frauds on the Government, regardless of the form of the transaction. The False Claims Amendments Act was passed by Congress and signed into law on October 27, 1986. In addition to addressing incentives, the new law also provided for a subpoena-type authority for the Department of Justice so that the Department could fully investigate allegations raised by whistleblowers. Congress intended that the Department of Justice would use this new ``civil investigative demand'' authority to obtain documents and testimony, and then question witnesses and experts about this information to fully comprehend its significance.

I am very happy to report that, in the years since 1986, the amended Act has returned over $20 billion to the United States Government that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. For the most part, the law has been a resounding success. The Government has received full compensation for many of its losses, and has also imposed financial penalties on many who have knowingly over-billed the Government. It has utilized information from False Claims Act informants to impose criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, on the worst offenders. The Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services, in turn, have debarred from Government contracting, and excluded from participation in the Medicare program, some of those subject to judgments and convictions. Other agencies have taken similar action. As a result of this aggressive enforcement action by our executive branch, many companies have been motivated to initiate compliance efforts, and have been deterred from engaging in the types of fraudulent schemes subject to enforcement activity.

Nonetheless, the law has not been a success in one critical respect: it could be doing far more. If construed according to Congress' original intent, it could be bringing in many billions of additional dollars in recoveries from those who have cheated at the expense of the taxpayer. Instead, some courts have misconstrued our intent, even in clear language in the law, in a manner that leaves entire categories of fraud outside the reach of the law. For example, courts have thrown out cases in which the Government has administered Government programs, and expended its funds through contractors and other agents, as opposed to direct expenditure. Many courts unreasonably have barred whistleblowers with potentially meritorious claims from pursuing cases. For example, the courts have dismissed cases brought by insiders who know key details of fraudulent schemes because they can't plead specific details of the billing documentation, such as the dates and identification numbers of invoices--information ordinarily sought and obtained in discovery. Finally, due to procedural requirements and an oversight in our original drafting, the Department of Justice has not employed the civil investigative demand authority as hoped.

The amendments proposed in this legislation will remove these debilitating qualifications and to clarify that the Act is intended to ``reach all types of fraud, without qualification'' leading to Government losses. We intend for these amendments to apply to all future cases as well as all cases that are pending in the courts on the date the amendments become law.

The Amendments' most critical goals are the following: Clarifying that the Act covers

fraud on Government programs even when the Government uses agents and other third parties to administer Government programs and contracts; Clarifying that the Government's new or amended complaint in a qui tam action relates back to the original qui tam complaint to the same extent it would relate back if the Government had filed the original complaint; Clarifying that plaintiffs do not need to have access to individual claims data or documents to bring a False Claims Act case; Amending the Act so that a qui tam case may be dismissed in light of prior public disclosures only upon motion of the Government, and only if the case is truly parasitic; Amending and clarifying the Act to specify how the Act's chief investigative tool--the civil investigative demand--may be used to investigate violations of the Act; and clarifying how the Act applies to Federal employees who discover fraud during the course of their employment, by providing the Government authority to move to dismiss the action of any Federal employee who brings a qui tam action under the Act without first having provided the Government fair notice and opportunity to pursue such wrongdoing through its own False Claims Act action or other appropriate remedy.

Fighting fraud against U.S. taxpayers is not a partisan issue. When we passed the False Claims Act amendments in 1986, we did so with a strong bipartisan coalition in both houses. I'm pleased to continue that tradition by introducing this bill today with Representative Jim Sensenbrenner as my partner. I look forward to working with him to make these amendments to the False Claims Act law this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Colonel Brinton G. Marsden. Colonel Brinton was born in Desoto, Missouri to Cornelius ``Roy'' Marsden and Hazel K. Marsden in July 1928. His father was a WWI veteran, Sergeant First Class, USMC, who fought in France. In 1939, Colonel Marsden's family moved to Los Angeles, CA and settled in Westwood.

He attended the University of Southern California (USC). During his studies there, he enrolled in the Air Force ROTC program, and

upon graduating, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant.

He was stationed abroad in Morocco at the Nour Asour Air Force Base outside of Casablanca where he traveled extensively throughout North Africa and Europe, with tours of duty that included Rhine Maine Air Force Base in Germany.

Upon returning home, Colonel Marsden applied his knowledge of the Air Force to the burgeoning aerospace industry in southern California. He focused mainly on aerospace marketing and sales. He also took part in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space missions. The last major project he worked on was the C-17 cargo plane for Boeing. He remained on active reserve and in command of the 9012 Air Force Reserve Squadron until his retirement in 1983. He died on December 2, 2007.

Colonel Marsden was married to Paula Walsh in November of 1956 in Sherman Oaks, California. This past year they celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Colonel Marsden is survived by Paula, his loving wife; his three children, Brinton Jr., Kerri and Craig; his six grandchildren, Jason, Brinton, James, Connor, Timothy, and Jennifer. In addition he leaves behind his sister, Beverly Birner.

His funeral took place at the St. Cyrils of Jerusalem Church in Encino, California on December 6, 2007. He will be buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on January 22, 2008.

I extend my deepest sympathies to Colonel Marsden's family. The Nation is grateful for his years of distinguished service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mr. Ronald F. Deaton. Mr. Deaton retired December 1, 2007 from the city of Los Angeles after 42 years of dedicated service to the people of Los Angeles. While Mr. Deaton is officially retiring as General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), the Nation's largest municipally owned utility, he spent 11 years as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), reporting directly to the Los Angeles City Council. In this position he was the chief advisor to the City Council and, with a staff of 50 professionals who researched and analyzed public policy issues, played a leading role in the critical decisions, actions and initiatives facing the city of Los Angeles during that period. He was one of the most clear-sighted, intelligent, and effective public servants I have had the opportunity to engage with in my 35 years in elected office. I consider him a good friend as well.

Mr. Deaton began his career in public service for the city of Los Angeles in 1965, when he first joined the LADWP and worked in budget preparation and market research. From there he moved to the City Administrative Office (CAO) in 1969, where again he was responsible for budget analysis and management audits. In 1976, he accepted a position

in the office of the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA). He continued his work on budget issues affecting all the city departments. In addition, he oversaw the city's State and Federal legislative program.

In 1993, he was picked by the Council to be the CLA. In that position he was given the lead role in guiding the seismic rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Los Angeles City Hall and the Van Nuys City Hall. Additionally, he provided analysis and guidance in crafting the city's response to such challenging and complex issues as City Charter reform, secession, energy deregulation and redistricting.

Other programs which benefited from his involvement and dedication included the Proposition ``O'' bond measure for Stormwater and Water Quality projects; Proposition K which benefited parks and recreation programs for young people; police and fire bonds for public facilities; creation of the Grifith Park Festival of Lights; relocation of the Children's museum; emergency rehabilitation and improvement of the Los Angeles Zoo; coordination of the National League of Cities convention in Los Angeles; bringing the City Council's information technology into the 21st Century; Parker Center replacement; the Police Consent Decree; the downtown arena agreement; Los Angels River improvement and beautification plan; ethics legislation, and eleven balanced City budgets.

Mr. Deaton's dedication to public service was complimented by a sense of humor and his extraordinary ability to deal effectively, ethically and creatively with the challenges before him. He brought these qualities with him to the Department of Water and Power in 2004 when he was appointed to be the General Manager by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. In that capacity he initiated diversification of power generation resources; implemented significant infrastructure improvements and operational efficiencies; enhanced customer service and public outreach; and increased education programs for school children studying environmental issues.

A graduate of California State University at Long Beach, with a B.A. degree in Economics, Deaton holds an MBA degree from the University of Southern California. He and his wife, Ellery, whom he met at LADWP in 1965, reside in Seal Beach, California. Their family includes four grown children and ten grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of language in this conference report that includes several critical provisions to aid the resettlement of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons.

First, I offer my sincere thanks to Chairman Skelton and Senator Kennedy for working to include this language in the conference report before us today.

Since our invasion, well over 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes as a result of political instability, economic catastrophe, and ethnic and sectarian strife.

Unable to legally find employment in their host countries, living in substandard housing with inadequate medical and educational facilities, many refugees simply have no place to turn.

While neighboring countries have struggled to cope with the strain of hosting millions of these refugees, our track record on refugee resettlement has been nothing short of an embarrassment.

As the refugee crisis unfolded in Iraq and its neighboring countries in the aftermath of our invasion, the Departments of State and Homeland Security stood by while a backlog of refugees referred by the United Nations for resettlement languished in the slums of Amman and other cities in the region.

This legislation will help make up for the administration's inexcusably lethargic pace by setting out clear refugee processing priorities, mandating the centralization of Iraq refugee efforts in the State Department, requiring greater cooperation with those allies in the region who are hosting many of these refugees, and increasing congressional oversight of refugee assistance and resettlement programs.

In addition, the language which we have worked together in great bipartisan fashion to include in this conference report also strengthens the Special Immigrant Visa program, for Iraqis who have worked for our Government and military in Iraq.

Many of these Iraqis who served bravely besides our troops and diplomats need our immediate assistance. Singled out as collaborators, they have been targeted by death squads, militias, and al-Qaeda.

Clearly, we owe them more than just a debt of gratitude. We owe them a safe haven and a fresh start.

While this legislation represents an important step forward in our commitment to these refugees, it cannot be the last word on the matter.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to help us live up to our commitments to these refugees.

Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee has reported an identical House companion to S. 888. That bill is H.R. 2489, and the Judiciary Committee's report for the House bill, Report No. 110-468, should be considered as part of the legislative history on S. 888, as reflecting the intent of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the first legal application of the term genocide came during the Nuremberg trials in 1945. Before then, there wasn't a word in our language to adequately express the brutality and evil that this crime embodies. The purpose of the Genocide Accountability Act is to ensure that no perpetrator of genocide is able to use the United States as a safe haven for prosecution. After the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention was the embodiment of the world's pledge, the promise of ``never again.'' And yet this promise has proven to be one of the world's most unfulfilled.

Not very long ago, genocide was the scourge of Bosnia, and before that, Rwanda. Two years ago, this body passed a resolution acknowledging that the devastation and murderous violence occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan was a genocide. Unfortunately, the genocide in Darfur remains an ongoing crime today. The struggle to prevent and punish genocide has been, and unfortunately will be, winding and long.

The bill we are considering today acknowledges that in some cases the perpetrators of this evil have ended up not just on the doorstep of the United States, but living inside our house. Current law allows us to deport them, but procedural limitations in our laws can keep us from delivering justice for their crimes.

Because current U.S. law lacks an extraterritorial jurisdiction clause for genocide, procedurally the Department of Justice is limited in its ability to charge an individual who is not a U.S. national for involvement in a genocide committed outside the United States, even if the victims include American citizens.

In 1948, the United States was the first nation to sign the Genocide Convention. Twenty years ago, with the Proxmire Act, we added to our criminal code provisions to fulfill the dual obligations of that Convention, to prevent and to punish genocide. S. 888 will strengthen the reach of U.S. laws to prosecute any individuals found in our country who have taken part in acts of genocide, in Darfur or anywhere else.

As the atrocities in Darfur continue, it is imperative that we enact measures in this bill to stand against genocide wherever it occurs and hold fully accountable the perpetrators of genocide who are able to escape justice.

Mr. Speaker, the term ``genocide'' was first proposed by Ralph Lemkin, a man of Polish-Jewish descent. In 1941 he came to the United States, and on the day of his arrival he gave a speech explaining to an American audience the international responsibility to respond to genocide. I'll paraphrase what he said: If you learned that a mass of women, children and old people was being murdered 100 miles from here, wouldn't you feel compelled to run to their aid? Why then, if the distance were 3,000 miles instead of 100, would you restrain this decision of your heart?

By passing this bill today, we are taking Lemkin's words to heart. We will work to punish and prevent the crime of genocide not just in our own country, but wherever it occurs around the world.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for his question and yielding to me and appreciate his comments and partnership on this bill.

In response, I would say that the genocide in Darfur is an ongoing crime. The House recognized it as such over 2 years ago, and there is no question that this crime continues today. We believe that ex post facto clearly would not apply in this situation.

The gentleman raises an important issue, and I do not agree with that hypothesis. I think the witness from the Department of Justice was offering a spontaneous and personal opinion, which he was careful to label as such, and not an official interpretation by the Department.

When we crafted this bill, we were careful to write it as narrowly and precisely as possible. We were and remain interested only in changing the circumstances under which certain parties may be charged under the genocide statute. Our intent is to make a procedural alteration to the current law and leave everything else in the statute untouched.

In determining whether or not a law presents a violation of the ex post facto clauses of the Constitution, courts have generally considered whether the new law: one, places the defendant at a substantial disadvantage compared to the law as it stood when he committed the crime of which he has been convicted; secondly, changes the definition of the crime; or three, increases the maximum penalty for it. The Genocide Accountability Act doesn't alter in any way either the elements or the punishment for the crime of genocide.

The underlying notion here is that the defendant should be on notice that his actions constituted a crime. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to argue that the world is not on notice that we consider and have considered for many years genocide a crime. The United States has recognized genocide as a crime for nearly 60 years as a signatory of the Genocide Convention.

Neither do we make any change that would deprive one charged with the crime of any defense that is now available under the law. It is important to add that the Supreme Court has found a key exception to the ex post facto rule where changes to a law are procedural in nature.

In numerous decisions, the court has held that where a law involves changes in the procedures by which a criminal case is adjudicated as opposed to changes in the substantive laws of crimes, and I quote that phrase directly, that does not deprive a defendant of substantial legal protections, then it is constitutional.

It is our conclusion that this bill falls within that exception and makes only procedural changes to the law. So it was our intent that this law be used to prosecute perpetrators of genocide who are on notice that their acts constitute a crime wherever it was committed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend Michael Nye on the occasion on his retirement from California Federation of Teachers (CFT). For the past 12 years Michael has served as CFT's Secretary-Treasurer--handling all the financial matters, promoting its growth, implementing agency fees, working with independent unions gathering their support and representing CFT at political, labor and community events. Michael is a well-respected and admired man of integrity, honesty and dedication. I have had the pleasure of working with Michael for many years and know firsthand of his outstanding accomplishments and tireless dedication on behalf of teachers and organized labor.

Born in Chicago, Michael first learned about the labor movement from his relatives who were involved in the teachers and the musicians unions. He moved with his family to California, where he studied political science, history and philosophy at San Diego State University. While attending the University, he worked as an instructional aide in the San Diego Unified School District. He continued his studies at Fresno State, earning a secondary Teaching Credential in American Government. There he received a grant from the Model United Nations of the Far West to be the Registrar of the International Court of Justice. Michael taught at Lincoln High School in the San Jose United School District while studying to complete his Masters degree in political science at the Cal State University at Hayward.

Michael also taught Labor Studies at numerous Bay Area Community Colleges including San Jose City College, West Valley College, San Francisco City College and Merritt College in Oakland. And he taught Labor Studies and Political Science at San Francisco State University.

Michael's personal experience in the labor movement began at the early age of 24 when he was elected Vice President of the San Jose Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 957. Shortly thereafter he became its President. Two years later, he served as Vice President of CFT and was elected Business Manager of the Central Council of Santa Clara at the young age of 31 years.

Michael left the Bay Area 11 years ago to become the Executive Director of the Western Region of the Jewish Labor Committee in Los Angeles. In 1994, Michael was asked to accept the position of Secretary Treasurer of CFT, completing the circle in the teacher union movement started 25 years earlier. Currently Michael serves as President of the Western Region of the Jewish Labor Committee, and also serves as a board member of the United Labor Bank, a unionized and union owned bank.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Michael Nye for his lifetime of service to students, teachers and the labor movement.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my good friend Mary Bergan for over 35 years of service to the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), and for her tireless work to protect the rights of teachers and students and promote excellence in education.

From the time I was first elected to the California State Assembly and Mary was chosen Legislative Director of CTA, we have worked together on numerous legislative matters. I have enormous admiration and appreciation for her work. Over and over again in Sacramento and in Washington, I have sought Mary's advice on key educational reform and finance issues.

Mary received her Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of California at Berkeley in 1965, and upon graduation, entered the Peace Corps. She was sent to Tunku Kurshiah College in Serenban Negri Sembilan, Malaysia, to teach English and literature. Upon returning to the United States, she became an English teacher at Hillview Junior High School in Pittsburg, California. She became involved with the local American Federation of Teachers (AFTA) and was elected President. She was such an outstanding teacher and effective union leader that only 3 years later, she was offered a staff position as field organizer with the CFT.

Mary's work in the field of education advocacy is legendary. She represented CFT on various task forces and committees through both the California Department of Education and the Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. She served on the Chapter 2 Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Student Assessment, and task forces on educational finance, credential requirements, school restructuring and higher education reforms. She wrote and secured passage of key legislation ensuring the rights of female students and staff in California schools and colleges. Her incredible effectiveness earned her the admiration and respect of her colleagues.

In 1990, Mary was elected a Vice President of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, and in 1991, was elected CFT President. Through the years, she has held numerous leadership positions with AFT, where she was instrumental in instituting important advances in childhood education and health care reform. Also, during the 1980s, she chaired the California Democratic Party's Labor Caucus and she was a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 1976, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

Madam Speaker, Distinguished Colleagues, I ask you to join me today in saluting Mary Bergan, a champion of teachers' rights and public school education. Her dedication and selflessness are an inspiration to us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Gynecologic Cancer Awareness

Month to introduce the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007 with Representative Ralph M. Hall. I commend Mr. Hall, my friend and colleague, for his work on this issue and for his dedication to this devastating disease.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), there will be 22,430 new cases of ovarian cancer and 15,280 deaths from ovarian cancer in the United States in 2007. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths among women and causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system.

Early detection is the key to preventing deaths from this disease. In cases where ovarian cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 93 percent of women survive longer than five years. When diagnosed in the advanced stages, the chance of five-year survival drops to about 30 percent. Currently, early stage diagnosis occurs in only 20 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. Ovarian cancer mortality could be reduced dramatically if a majority of the women affected by ovarian cancer were diagnosed at an early stage. Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted or effective screening test for ovarian cancer currently available and the disease is difficult to identify because symptoms are easily misdiagnosed.

The Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007 would authorize the NCI to make grants to public or nonprofit entities to establish research centers focused on ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biomarkers are biochemical features within the body that can be used to measure the progress of a disease and predict the effects of treatment. This Act also establishes a national clinical trial that will enroll at-risk women in a study to determine the clinical utility of using these validated ovarian cancer biomarkers.

The need for increased research and funding for ovarian cancer is critical to improving survivorship rates from this disease. Between FY2003 and FY2006 funding for the NCI increased by $211 million, but gynecologic cancer research funding decreased. With the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer at one out of every 69 women, we must increase the resources to fight this disease.

Credit is due to the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, and the American College of Surgeons for supporting the Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Research Act of 2007. Support for this bill from groups such as these is extremely important throughout the entire legislative process. Specifically, I thank Dr. Beth Karlan for bringing the idea for this bill to my attention. Dr. Karlan is the Past President of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. She is a physician, teacher, and advocate in the field of gynecologic cancer and has helped numerous women in their battle with these diseases. She has also testified before Congress about the need for increased research and funding for gynecologic cancers. Her efforts are to be commended.

I also want to acknowledge Lindy Graham, a dear friend of mine, afflicted by ovarian cancer. Lindy has waged a spirited and successful battle against this disease and is currently cancer free, a pronouncement that fills me and all of Lindy's myriad of friends with great joy.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this bill and the day when all cases of ovarian cancer are detected early and all women diagnosed with this disease survive.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I thank my friend from California (Mr. Campbell) for coming to me with the idea of a resolution on the subject of the distorted, unfair, hypocritical, self-mocking agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the need for the Congress of the United States to speak to their conduct.

Last year, I thought that when the United Nations decided to create a human rights body to replace the thoroughly discredited Human Rights Commission, there might finally be a chance for an open, respected forum for promoting basic liberties and rights and holding countries accountable that failed to do so, rather than a body on which would be placed some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.

The commission, as many of you know, was composed of many such countries whose own human rights records were far from laudable. While, for example, Zimbabwe, a former member of the commission, was busy leveling thousands of homes and leaving an estimated half a million people homeless, the commission was preoccupied with issuing successive reports condemning Israel.

I sincerely hope that the council will live up to its charter and become an impartial and forceful proponent of human rights around the world. Unfortunately, some have argued that the council, by spending an inordinate amount of time vilifying Israel, is even worse than the commission. It has passed one-sided resolutions condemning Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories, calling several extraordinary sessions on Israeli actions in Lebanon and Gaza, and appointed successive rapporteurs to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes.

As Uzbekistan's jails continue to fill with thousands of prisoners, many of whom, according to the State Department, have been brutally tortured, the council was painfully silent. To be a human rights activist in Uzbekistan is to take one's life in one's own hands, yet the council has continued to shirk its responsibilities by failing to take a stand against these horrific human rights violations.

Rather than taking the regime in Khartoum to task, as the gentlelady, the ranking member of the committee, pointed out, taking Khartoum to task for its brazen and continued support for the janjaweed militias in Darfur, widely acknowledged to be responsible for horrific crimes against Darfurian civilians, the council has issued only a tepid expression of concerns. This shameful record led The Washington Post to describe the council as a ``ludicrous diplomatic lynch mob.'' Even U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has publicly admonished the council's unwillingness to pursue an evenhanded human rights agenda.

I want to make clear the criticisms I level and others have leveled against the council should in no way be viewed as an indictment of all the work of the United Nations, much of which is indispensable and serves our national interest as well as global peace and security. And while it has not been without its share of mistakes, the U.N., through its countless peacekeeping operations, poverty alleviation efforts and disease prevention programs, has proven to be worth its weight in gold.

We stand here today to criticize the Human Rights Council, which has an obsessed view of one country and only one country in terms of a human rights agenda, because we know that the U.N. can do better than they did in the creation and the rules governing that council.

I ask you to support this resolution because I believe that, while the council is still in its infancy, we can work to maximize the chances that it develops into a respected and forceful champion of human rights, not simply another proxy in the vitriolic campaign against Israel.