Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I and my colleagues, Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Linda Sanchez, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Grace Napolitano, Rep. Hilda Solis, Rep. Ed Royce, and Rep. Jane Harman pay tribute today to Ehud Danoch, Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles. We have had the pleasure of working with the Consul General on many Middle East issues since his arrival in Los Angeles in October of 2004 and view his return to Israel with regret.

Consul General Danoch is a distinguished and greatly admired individual who has enjoyed an outstanding diplomatic career. Prior to arriving in Los Angeles, he served as Chief of Staff to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Silvan Shalom. He held this position during some of Israel's most challenging moments in foreign policy--the road map, the disengagement plan, and the security fence. He served as Senior Advisor to Israel's Minister of Finance, where he helped shape Israel's economic policy and the national budget. His contributions as liaison to the Ministry of Finance, the Prime Minister's Bureau, the Israeli Parliament, and other government offices, were invaluable.

Consul General Danoch received both a law degree and an MBA from Manchester University. He is a member of the Israeli Bar Association and has specialized in corporate and finance law and business litigation. Born in Ashkelon, Israel, he lived abroad for many years.

His multi-cultural experiences and knowledge of Hebrew, English, and Spanish have been extremely useful during his years in Los Angeles. He met with leaders in the Latino political, business, and media communities; and forged new partnerships which provide great mutual benefits. The Consul General was also a strong force in uniting the Jewish communities in the area through Israel-centered events.

Consul General Danoch's passion for film endeared him to many influential individuals in Hollywood. The relationships he forged enabled him to marshal entertainment industry support for Israel during the Hezbollah war of 2006.

During his three year tenure as Consul General of Israel, Ehud Danoch dedicated his time and energy in promoting Israel's many resources and providing opportunities for mutual advancements in the fields of high tech, trade, and finance. A man of tradition and devout observance, he furthered religious tolerance by arranging for Israeli spiritual leaders to meet with those in the United States.

Madam Speaker, distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join us in saluting Ehud Danoch on his many achievements as Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles and extending our best wishes for his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed the vote on rollcall 876. I had intended to vote ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the United States Capitol Historical Society, which is celebrating 45 years of History and Service to the United States Capitol.

Congressman Fred Schwengel, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and a group of fifteen other Members of Congress, historians and civic and business leaders organized the United States Capitol Historical Society on July 17, 1962. Forty-five years later, the USCHS continues to fulfill its mission by teaching the public about the founding, growth and significance of the Capitol of the United States as a tangible symbol of its representative form of government.

Convinced that an understanding of history was inextricably linked with responsible citizenship, the founders of the United States Capitol Historical Society adopted a mission statement committing the nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization o the role of ``history teacher to the nation.''

More than forty-five years after its founding, the Society continues to develop new and creative ways to bring the fascinating story of the Capitol to the public's attention. Among its tools are educational tours, scholarly symposia, observances of historic events, enhancement and preservation of the Capitol's collection of art and artifacts, sponsorship of research, the sale of publications and mementos of an historical nature, and assistance to Congressional and other Capitol offices.

The recent partnership of the USCHS with the National Archives and Old Town Trolley is particularly innovative. The Society has committed to working toward seeing every eighth grade student in the Washington, DC public schools tour ``monumental'' Washington to learn about the U.S. Constitution. This educational tour's sole purpose is to help students understand their place in American history and their role in the process of government.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a great organization dedicated to preserving the history of the most recognizable symbol of representative government in the world, the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vermont for yielding me the time and for his really very complete discussion and understanding of the legislation which is now at stake, and I rise in strong support of this bill and particularly the rule.

I might point out in context of the rule that, as the gentleman from Florida suggested, 14 amendments were offered. A number of those amendments, five of them, were made in order, and a number of the other amendments were worked out and are part of the manager's amendment. So many of the issues raised in the context of openness are continuing up to this point.

This has been both a bipartisan process, and I might suggest with respect to the people who are supporting the product of this bipartisan process, the rule is being supported on a bipartisan basis.

When functioning properly, the patent system encourages and enables inventors to push the boundaries of knowledge and possibility. I support strong, robust protection for quality patents. However, when the system functions improperly, such as allowing an overly broad or obvious patent, the patent systems can stifle innovation and harm America's competitiveness in the global economy.

Such patents cover arguably obvious inventions. An example is crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for which a patent was obtained. However, the much more insidious and troubling kinds of poor quality patents are the ones that are granted which impede commerce or further invention because they create a patent thicket so wide and so dense that an entire industry or segment of our economy becomes subservient to a single patent from a single innovator.

Many groups, agencies and citizens have written volumes on the need for reform, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Academy of Science, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Division and the American Intellectual Property Association. All of the studies concluded that the current system is in need of changes if it is to remain viable in the new technology global economy. The moment is ripe to move the patent system forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Serious flaws have to be fixed for our system to remain robust now and long into the future.

As the gentleman from Florida acknowledged in his comments which preceded mine, this legislation is the result of a substantial amount of work, not just over this Congress but over the past three Congresses. We did not undertake this endeavor lightly. This isn't a rush to judgment. It isn't a rush to legislate.

We don't claim that this bill at this point is perfect, but this remains only one step in the process. Like all compromises, not everyone received everything they wanted, which is honestly just as it should be. This legislation favors no industry, no person, organization or interest group. It seeks to solve problems that we have identified and have been identified for us by outside experts and agencies. The legislation does what is best for America and our spirit of inventiveness and innovation, and it protects our position within the increasingly competitive global marketplace.

Rick Boucher and I started down this path a long time ago, since that time working very closely with the then-chairman of the subcommittee and now the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith; with our subcommittee ranking member and former chairman of the subcommittee, Howard Coble. We have held 20 hearings over 6 years. We've invited or heard from independent inventors, universities, large corporate entities, pharmaceutical companies, high-tech companies, manufacturers, the financial services industries, biotech companies, the U.S. PTO, the ABA, the Intellectual Property Organization, judges of district court and at appellate levels, economists and consumer groups. All views were heard and considered to arrive at a bill that we have before us today, and this is a good bill.

There will be four more suggestions made for changes to the bill, amendments by Mr. Issa, Ms. Jackson-Lee and Mr. Pence. These amendments add valuable changes to the bill. I won't go into detail now in discussing those amendments, but they address issues raised by small inventors and by people who want to make sure that the PTO rulemaking authority has adequate oversight by the Congress.

I urge my colleagues to grant us the rule, to take this important piece of legislation and move it forward. And my commitment to everyone in this Chamber is to recognize that there are still issues that need to be worked on and that we will be working to try and achieve the best possible balance without undercutting the need for fundamental reform that exists.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

A number of the nine that were not made in order were incorporated, at the request of the authors of the amendments, into the manager's amendment.

Madam Chairman, first I have to say that we wouldn't be here, not only for his substantive contributions to this legislation, but because of his suggestions about the approach we should take, whether it was in full committee or as we move towards the floor in terms of working out problems that existed, and that's Chairman Conyers. He played a critical role in getting us to this point.

Lamar Smith, Howard Coble, Rick Boucher, who I started this with, Darrell Issa, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, Bob Goodlatte, a number of people played key roles in all this. I don't have too much time. The staff, on an issue like this, was indispensable; they made incredible contributions. This is really complicated stuff. Perry Apelbaum who demonstrated great leadership and guidance on many issues, George Elliott, a detailee from the Patent Office who is a great resource, Karl Manheim, who decided to spend his sabbatical helping on patent reform, Eric Gorduna who spent his summer working on the committee report, countless other staff, and of course my Chief Counsel Shanna Winters.

But the question is why, why are we doing this? And here are the things we are told by groups like the National Academy of Sciences and so many other organizations that are tremendously respected for their understanding of science and of our economy:

One, there are serious problems in the patent system;

Two, many poor-quality patents have been issued, which cheapen the value of patents generally;

Three, there have been a variety of abuses in patent litigation rules that have taken valuable resources away from research and innovation;

Four, U.S.-based businesses are disadvantaged because our patent laws aren't harmonized with the rest of the world.

Many organizations, many groups have argued for these reforms.

A quick statement about support. Every major consumer group in this country has endorsed this legislation. There is tremendous support in the financial services sector, in the high technology sector. The universities have now, University of California, which is one of the critical magnets of research and development, have supported passage of this legislation through the House. The American Association of Universities has supported moving the bill forward.

And one last comment. There is one very controversial issue, aside from the ones addressed by the amendments that we have seen that are not fully dealt with, and that particularly relates to the issue of damages and the apportionment of damages. It is our commitment, my commitment, the chairman's commitment, Mr. Smith's commitment, Mr. Coble's commitment, to work with people who are concerned about that language to reach an appropriate middle ground that reforms the way damages are calculated between now and the conference committee and when this comes back to deal with that controversy.

I urge strong support for this bill so we can make this historic effort, first in 60 years, move forward to ultimate enactment.

I include short list of the range of groups that support this bill.

The Business Software Association, The Financial Services

Roundtable, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council,

TechNet, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Union,

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knowledge Ecology

International, Public Knowledge, United States Public

Interest Research Group, American Corn Growers Association,

American Agricultural Movement, Federation of Southern

Cooperatives, National Family Farm Coalition, National

Farmers Organization, Rural Coalition, Securities Industry

and Financial Markets Association, Computer and

Communications Industry Association, Computing Technology

Industry Association, Illinois IT Association, Information

Technology Association of America, Information Technology

Industry Council, Software & Information Industry

Association, St. Jude Medical, Massachusetts Technology

Leadership Council, Inc., Hampton Roads Technology Council,

Northern Virginia Technology Council.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, just because the gentleman says it is so, doesn't mean it is so. I have letters from the AFL-CIO, the university community, and the major centers of innovation and research in this country that directly contradict his assertion that they are opposed to the passage of this bill. The Members of this body should understand that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Under the entire market value rule, which is in this bill, the Wright brothers, every value of what was created was those surface controls.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon for purposes of a colloquy.

That is a provision that I have supported, it is legislation I have introduced, it embodies and enacts a philosophy I completely agree with. All PTO fees should be kept within the PTO office to reduce backlogs, to hire qualified people, and to come to better operations of that critical office.

The chairman of the committee obviously will be a key

member of the conference committee and indicates that he feels the same way.

Reclaiming my time, I just want to make a couple of points.

First, I have never said, quote, Labor supports this bill. What I said was Labor thinks a number of improvements have been made, particularly in this manager's amendment. There are other issues that concern them, that they believe we are moving in the right direction, and that they have no opposition to the passage of this bill, understanding they have other concerns that want to be addressed.

The same applies for a number of pharmaceutical companies. The major institution, and they are not small guys, Mr. Rohrabacher. Opposition to this, concerns about this bill, come from large and important--

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman, I also agree with the amendment. I would like to use the time, if you would allow me to finish the sentence, which is with respect to these important companies, that, in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field, I just want to repeat, a number of things they want, first-inventor-to-file, not first-to-file, first-inventor-to-file, repeal of the best-mode defense, reform of the inequitable-conduct defense, are in this bill, and we intend to work with them on the damages issue between now and a final conference report to try to come to a better understanding on that very important, but very complicated, field.

I thank the gentlelady, and I support her amendment.

Just to review the bidding, my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) over and over again talks about the flaws in this bill. Other than four Gohmert amendments on the issue of venue and one amendment from the gentleman from Iowa that was an earmark amendment, no other amendments were kept from consideration here. For all the arguments about flaws, where were the amendments to correct the flaws that they talk about? For all the notions of, we're not against reform, but this one isn't perfect, and this one isn't right, and this has some flaws, and it hasn't resolved every issue to everyone's satisfaction, nothing will, where is their alternative bill?

I'm telling you, this is an issue of whether we're going to address a system that the National Academy of Sciences and so many other objective agencies have said is getting near broken or doing nothing, and I suggest doing nothing is not a good answer for a Congress that wants to keep the American economy strong.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the one year anniversary of the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers Eldad Regev and Udi Goldwasser by Hezbollah, in a brazen and unprovoked cross-border attack that also resulted in the deaths of three other members of the Israel Defense Forces.

Only weeks earlier, Hamas abducted another Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, and killed two others in an attack carried out on Israeli territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip.

These three brave soldiers--kidnapped by terrorists while conducting routine duties inside Israel--have endured over a year of captivity.

They have endured a year without proper medical care.

They have endured a year without their loved ones.

I rise today to let the Shalit, Goldwasser and Regev families know that we stand with them in this very difficult time, and that we are all praying for the safe and timely release of their courageous sons.

Mr. Speaker, even as a young child, Jack Valenti showed signs of great leadership and oratory skills. He was a debate champion at his high school. Making good use of his natural ability to persuade and his interest in entertainment, Jack worked as a movie theater usher before enrolling in the University of Houston. After receiving his B.A., he enlisted in the Army Air Force where he participated in 51 flying missions and was honored with the Distinguished Flying Cross. Following his time in the armed forces, Jack graduated from Harvard University in 1948 with a Master's degree in business administration.

Jack Valenti entered the political arena when he was invited to a reception at a Houston Hotel to meet his future mentor and friend, Lyndon B. Johnson. He was immediately inspired by Johnson, who at the time was the U.S. Senate Majority Leader. When Johnson was selected as Kennedy's running mate in 1960, Jack worked on their media campaign. He remained close to Johnson after he became the Vice President.

Following the tragic Kennedy assassination in Dallas, TX, Jack was asked by then-President Johnson to accompany him to Washington where he became a special assistant and close confidant to the new President. After defending Johnson through criticism of the Vietnam War and conspiracy connecting Johnson to the Kennedy assassination, Valenti was offered a lucrative job by MCA Inc. head Lew Wasserman and United Artists' Arthur Krim as head of the Motion Picture Association of America.

In this position, Valenti created the MPAA rating system which initially labeled movies into four distinct ratings: G, M, R and X. This was Valenti's crowning achievement in the entertainment industry; the MPAA system is still used today to provide guidance for movie- viewing families. During his 38 year tenure as president of the MPAA, he was extremely well known in Washington as an advocate for the entertainment industry's major issues. He lobbied for the protection of movie copyrights and the prevention of digital piracy. His voluminous and eloquent style of speaking, coupled with his unique silver hair and cowboy boots, made him one of the most recognizable figures on the Hill.

His sage observations and folksy wisdom made Jack Valenti one of the most effective players in Washington. He was an advisor to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle; and all of us fortunate enough to receive his council benefited greatly from our association and friendship with him. We all miss him greatly.

I thank my chairman for helping to bring this bill and this issue to the floor twice now, and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the House passed H.R. 580 to restore the checks and balances to the U.S. attorney appointment process. The bill we are considering today takes a slightly different path to nearly the same end.

Last year, during the conference process on reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, a provision was added to the report authorizing the Attorney General to unilaterally appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods of time, making it possible for the administration to circumvent the Senate confirmation process.

The only disagreement I would have with my friend from Florida's comments was the notion that the Congress considered that change. This was put in in a conference committee, unbeknownst to, I think, just about every Senator on that conference committee, certainly all House Members, other than perhaps the chairman of the committee; and the Congress didn't consider that change.

When the Judiciary Committee began its investigation into the U.S. attorney firings early this year, DOJ representatives were quick to assure members of the committee that getting around the confirmation process was never their intent in pushing for this proposal.

As the Department began producing e-mails and other materials in response to the Judiciary Committee's inquiry, it became clear that whether or not it was the original intent of the administration, DOJ and White House employees quickly figured out that the provision created the possibility of circumventing the Senate and decided to exploit that authority.

As I said when we passed H.R. 580 last month, the ongoing investigation may uncover many issues within the Department that we want to examine. In the meantime, we should quickly address the problem we know about.

The bill we are considering today would reinstate a system that encourages politics to be left at the door during the appointment process and creates a check on the system if the executive branch cannot bring itself to do that.

The reason we are considering a second bill on this topic is that Republicans in the other body have blocked the House-passed bill from progressing. The only difference between these two bills is that the House bill specifically precluded the administration from using the Vacancy Reform Act to extend interim appointments for another 210 days. This is a provision that the Bush administration used nearly 30 times in its first 5 years to replace U.S. attorneys. If this avenue remains open, we are permitting the practice of circumventing Senate confirmation to continue. A temporary appointee could serve for nearly a year without a Presidential nomination or going through the confirmation process.

It's ironic, isn't it? We hear the arguments all the time about the Senate not acting fast enough to confirm judicial appointments. There is rarely an emergency to get a district judge confirmed. U.S. attorneys are different. In any given district, there is only one U.S. attorney. If the administration can simply use extended temporary appointments, the problem will continue.

This bill shouldn't be our last word on the matter. In the progress of the investigation in the Judiciary Committee, we have learned that a second provision removing residency requirements for U.S. attorneys was likely put into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to make way for certain particular interim appointees. We should repeal that provision, and I intend to introduce legislation to do so.

Communities in this country should feel assured that their U.S. attorney wasn't put in for purely political purposes. These positions shouldn't be used to ``develop the bench'' or to send in someone who had no connection to the community whatsoever just because he needed a job.

We should fix the system completely, and we will, but because of threatened holds in the other body, we are only doing a partial fix today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1104) to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Translators and interpreters have been crucial to our efforts in Iraq, serving as a critical link between our troops and the Iraqi population. Because of their work for U.S. forces, many of these people have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now they are under serious threat. These translators and interpreters who

serve bravely alongside our troops need our immediate assistance. Singled out as collaborators, many are now targets by death squads, militias and al Qaeda.

In Mosul, insurgents recorded and circulated the brutal execution of two interpreters, a stark warning to others who have assisted U.S. forces in the country. U.S. soldiers and embassy employees who have attempted to help their interpreters flee from violence have had to stand by hopelessly as their Iraqi colleagues went into hiding. Often leaving their families behind simply in order to survive.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry came to me with the idea, and I agreed, and we introduced broad, far-reaching legislation on this issue. We are taking up the bill before us today because the Senate already passed this by unanimous consent, and the urgency of the situation requires us to act now.

This legislation will help quickly address this crisis by authorizing up to 500 special visas for Iraqis and Afghanis who put their lives at risk by working with the U.S. military and the U.S. embassy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We all realize this is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased to have worked with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on helping to get this bill before us today. The original special visa legislation included in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act has proved wholly inadequate, authorizing only 50 visas a year, creating a backlog estimated to take 9 years to clear at the current rate.

As of last week, nearly 500 Iraqis and Afghanis have gone through the requisite background checks and have been approved for the visa. Because of the backlog, they are stuck in limbo waiting for a visa that may never come. These people need us to act. The Senate passed this legislation over a month ago, and the administration is supportive of taking this action.

Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs recently said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the U.S. military and embassy.'' Clearly, we owe these people a debt of gratitude. They have risked everything to help us out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the least we can do is help deliver them out of harm's way.

But I tell my colleagues, the magnitude of the broader refugee crisis in Iraq far exceeds anything this bill attempts to resolve. We need to address the wider refugee issue, which has forced over 4 million Iraqis from their homes.

The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has legislation on this subject, and I think will be speaking to that broader issue. No one should take our efforts to do this now as a notion that that satisfies our obligation on something that we played a part in, creating the situation that led to this.

Let me just add, I see this as an emergency effort. It can't be the last word on this matter. We must do something to deal with the larger refugee issue in Iraq, as I said, and it's very possible that the visas we are discussing in this bill will prove inadequate for this need. Still, I think we need to act now so that the visas are available.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

My friend from Iowa makes interesting arguments, but to some extent undermines those arguments. He says rule of law is important, and, therefore, the committee should have accepted an amendment in the committee to make illegal what folks in our embassies and in our missions did, thereby undermining the argument that in any way there was any law violated.

There was no law against expending funds to process these visas. There were no promises made to Iraqi interpreters and translators they would be guaranteed a visa. But when our folks in the field see a situation developing where the people who have allowed them to do their job, at great risk for their life and limb, are in desperate need for them and their families to essentially be appreciated and rewarded for that life-threatening effort, and they tell their folks that they work for in the Defense Department and in the State Department and the folks in Congress who are dealing with these issues that we need to do something about them, and we respond, that doesn't constitute a promise that no one had authority to make, a violation of the rule or law.

And, by definition, I understand, and we have had many discussions on our immigration issues; in fact, the gentleman and I are both here now rather than at a hearing on the immigration issue. I understand the gentleman has a definition of amnesty which is wider than mine, but I never realized how much wider it was, that a bill that adds to the number of visas that can be given, after background checks and going through the regular process to ensure the security interests that we have before we issue a visa, that a bill that would increase the number of visas for these people who have put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the United States is an amnesty law. This takes that very expansive definition the gentleman has and I think expands it even further.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time. I certainly don't know that that is true, and I would be stunned if it were. I would be stunned if our dedicated employees in a very difficult foreign mission or in the military were out promising things they couldn't deliver. I don't think our folks operate like that. I think they were processing applications in case and in the event that we increased the number of visas because the demand was so urgent. The gentleman from Oregon talked about 4 million refugees. We are talking about an infinitesimal subset that worked for us in our campaign efforts in Iraq.

Let me reclaim my time just to respond to that. We have a law that gives 50 visas a year, but the next year it gives 50 more and then 50 more. Is the gentleman suggesting that we should not process any more than the first 50?

There are people who would be allowed the next year and the year after. Why wouldn't you give these visas to the people who were first in line? I know the gentleman loves the sanctity of the line. Give these to the people who are first in line. Why wouldn't we process applications of people who weren't going to get visas that year but the next year? Why 5 years later would you take somebody who hasn't been waiting in line for 5 years and approve their visas?

Reclaiming my time. And at this point I think maybe we should end the debate. But no part of Mr. Fortenberry's or my motivations for introducing the bill, and I wouldn't speculate on the Senate's motivations, but no part of our motivation was to take the administration out of an embarrassing place where they have been making promises that couldn't be kept.

We thought that justice, fairness, American tradition, and the risks that these people have taken to help our Armed Forces and our diplomats in one of the most difficult, hazardous situations in the world gave them a claim that we should respond to, not a promise made by somebody that we are forced to keep. We wanted them to have these visas. We weren't responding to pressure to take the administration and their people in Baghdad out of an embarrassing situation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1615.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2399) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives Federal prosecutors and agents stronger enforcement weapons against the most pernicious forms of human smuggling, terrorism-related smuggling and smuggling that results in kidnapping, rape or an attempt to kill.

This bill is based on a provision that has been added into H.R. 1684, the Homeland Security Department Reauthorization Act, in its committee markup. The supporters of that provision agreed to withdraw it from that bill so the Judiciary Committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction, could take a closer look.

The resulting bill amends both 8 U.S.C. 1324, the alien smuggling prohibition, and 18 U.S.C. 2237, the prohibition against failure to heave to, to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, increase maximum penalties for serious offenses and clarify the necessity defense that applies to legitimate maritime rescues.

This bill applies not just to human smuggling in the maritime context, but to all cross-border human smuggling. It provides appropriately tough penalties for the kind of serious smuggling offenses I've just described, while distinguishing those from other types of transport such as noncommercial efforts to reunify families. While these practices also violate our immigration laws, they do not fall into the same category of offense, and should not be treated as harshly.

Although the bill streamlines and strengthens the current offense language, it does not abandon existing case law that applies to alien smuggling offenses. For instance, it will remain a violation of Federal law both to bring illegal aliens to the United States and to bring other aliens across the border through places other than those designated as official entry ports. This is especially critical as Congress mandates that the Department of Homeland Security institute biometric entry and exit systems. For an orderly and fair immigration system to work, people must come in through these sites.

The bill also prevents the current list of illegal activities, smuggling, recruiting, transporting and harboring, without adding new activities, such as assisting aliens in their efforts to enter our country. Again, this preserves the distinction between true smuggling and the work of groups such as faith-based organizations, who seek to serve the alien community on humanitarian grounds.

Because this important distinction is preserved, the Judiciary Committee believes the religious activities exception in current law is sufficient, and the bill doesn't expand it. The bill also preserves current law in treating the offense of helping to bring in one's close family members as a misdemeanor.

The bill also establishes for the first time in Federal law that it is illegal to transport persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine compartment, a storage compartment or other confined space; or overloaded or intentionally run ashore and grounded at high speed and left to scatter. Those kinds of inhumane practices have resulted in death or serious injury to numerous alien passengers.

Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to consider providing further sentencing enhancements for particularly egregious offenses. Such enhancements should reach the smuggling of aliens in a life-threatening manner, the abandonment of aliens in the desert or discharging them onto spits of land that will be submerged in a high tide, or those cases that involve the facilitation of terrorism.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to make two points. The gentleman from Florida gave a discussion about the legislation and put it into the context of the Southern District of San Diego, and I just did want to note for the record that the Department of Justice that decided to recommend the U.S. attorney's termination had commended her specifically for her handling of immigration cases.

And the second point I guess I wanted to make on this issue was would it be that the people in charge had ensured that the offices most impacted by illegal immigration and by illegal alien smuggling and those districts on the border of this country had been given the resources to the Justice Department disbursed to the U.S. Attorney's Office so they weren't held under hiring freezes and constrained to try to deal with an enormous issue with a very limited number of prosecutors.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Rabbi Jonathan Jaffe Bernhard in recognition of his installation as Senior Rabbi of Adat Ari El. As a long-time member of the synagogue, I know firsthand of his excellent work and outstanding accomplishments, and have been the beneficiary of his ability to offer solace and comfort at difficult times.

Jonathan Bernhard was born in Great Neck, Long Island, NY. From age seven to fourteen, he lived with his parents in London and then they returned to make their home in Manhattan. His interest in Judaism was sparked by reading Elie Wiesel's book, ``Night.'' While attending Haverford College, he majored in religious studies and he also worked on a Kibbutz. After receiving his BA in 1988, he traveled to Los Angeles to attend Brandeis-Bardein Summer Institute and then continued extensive studies at Yeshiva (Yeshivat Hamivtar) in Efrat on the West Bank.

Jonathan's experiences in Israel inspired him to become an observant Jew. He wanted to become a professor of religion when he moved back to the United States. While living in Boston, he rekindled his friendship with Laurie Jaffe who encouraged him to pursue the rabbinate. They met at Brandeis-Bardein Institute in California in 1988.

Upon completing his studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbi Bernhard was ordained in 1996 and took a position at Adat Ari El. Adat Ari El is in the heart of my congressional district and was the first conservative synagogue in the San Fernando Valley. Rabbi Bernhard is at the spiritual center of the Congregation and deserves commendation for his dedication to Jewish principles, education and culture. He continues to create and maintain a wonderful sense of Jewish community by helping provide an Early Childhood Center, Day School, Religious Schools, Adult Education and Sisterhood programs as well as Holiday services, daily Minyan services and the life cycle services (weddings, funerals, baby namings, bar/bat mitzvahs, unveilings.)

Jonathan and Laurie married in 1992 and they are proud parents of three sons, Nathaniel, Micah and Elijah.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring Rabbi Bernhard for his invaluable role at Adat Ari El and within the Jewish community, and wishing him our fervent hope for continued success.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to get one sense of anger off my chest.

I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois, but to talk about the Holocaust, to talk about Ahmadinejad, to talk about the historic deep commitment of this Congress and this country to the survival and the security of the State of Israel in the context of an unshown, unshared motion to recommit on a very sensitive issue partisanizes and cheapens a very important question, and I resent it.

Madam Speaker, this week, the Nation lost one of its most colorful and wise counselors: Jack Valenti, who was the personification of the motion picture industry in Washington. I can't think of another industry that has had a representative so well known and so highly regarded, or one so accessible in spite of his considerable fame. Much more than ``just'' a lobbyist, Jack had an intense interest in public policy and a wisdom about him that made him an extremely valuable counselor to Presidents, to Congressmen and Senators and to his peers and colleagues. He was a great man with a charm and wit that won him genuine affection as well as near universal admiration.

The following op-ed article from the Washington Post of Saturday, April 28 was written by Matt Gerson, who worked with and was mentored by Jack. It describes perfectly the loss felt by those of us who were also fortunate enough to learn from this extraordinary man.

What Jack Valenti Taught Us All

Jack Valenti lived a unique life between two of society's

fascinations--politics and Hollywood. For Republicans and

Democrats, for senators and young aides, for celebrities and

the legions behind the cameras, interactions with him were

graduate seminars in history, politics, human nature and

common sense. This extraordinary communicator punctuated

every conversation with a witticism linked to his beloved

Texas, a quote from an obscure historical figure or a rule

passed on to him by his mentor, Lyndon Johnson. In the weeks

leading up to his death Thursday, all over town a simple

``How's Jack?'' almost always led to, ``You know, I try to

live by something I once heard him say.''

I first noticed his reach when a lunch companion said, ``I

try to return every phone call the same day I receive it, and

I try to treat an appointment secretary like a Cabinet

secretary.'' That was followed by a senator who revealed:

``Jack was the first one to contact me after my son died. I

will never forget his concern and support. How can I reach

his family?''

For those Jack mentored during the 38 years he dedicated to

America's film industry, it became clear that character was

defined by loyalty. In both Washington and Hollywood, people

often desert ``friends'' at the first whiff of public

disfavor. Not Jack--time and again he insisted that you never

abandon a friend who was going through a rough time, and he

always stood with a beleaguered colleague or public official

who was receiving unwanted publicity.

He would tell his team to respect every elected official

(``because you never even ran for dog catcher, and they were

sent here by the people''). He admonished us that your

adversary today might be your ally tomorrow. ``In a political

struggle, never get personal--else the dagger digs too

deep.''

Jack rejected the partisanship that gripped Washington and

would warn that ``nothing lasts--today's minority backbencher

will be tomorrow's subcommittee chairman.'' On the day the

Motion Picture Association of America headquarters was named

the Jack Valenti Building, Senator Ted Stevens observed,

``Jack works across the aisle because he doesn't see an

aisle. It is the root of his success and what others ought to

emulate.''.

Each of the six studio chiefs who spoke at the dedication

ceremony emphasized that Jack's word was his bond--if he made

a promise, he never wavered. His rock-solid commitment gave

him unusual credibility with leaders on both coasts and

around the world.

Jack was a gifted public speaker who put incredible effort

into making it all look effortless. He would rework his text

behind closed doors, reciting it until the cadence was just

right. Jack was ebullient when a president complimented him

once on the ``extemporaneous'' remarks he had made at the

Gridiron Club. ``The president couldn't believe I didn't have

a prepared text. I neglected to mention that I didn't need

notes because I spent several days getting ready,'' he said.

It was especially fun to watch Washington's most

accomplished professionals try to decipher one of his

homilies. They eventually got the point and often adopted the

line as their own. When a project was in trouble, it was time

to ``hunker down like a mule in a hailstorm.'' [Modified from

the original Texas vernacular for a family newspaper.] When

prospects got even worse, ``The ox was in the ditch.'' But

every problem could be addressed if you remembered ``the

three most important words in the English language: Wait a

minute.''

When someone from the MPAA left to take a new job, Jack

would say, ``I like to think I teach my people everything

they know. But I know I didn't teach them everything I

know.'' That line always got a laugh. I worked with Jack for

6 years and was friends with him for nearly two decades. In

the past few years, frankly, I thought I had gleaned every

lesson he had to offer. But then I picked up the galleys of

his soon-to-be-published memoir, a book that tracks his

``Greatest Generation'' fable. This grandson of Sicilian

immigrants, decorated combat pilot, Harvard MBA (``thanks to

the greatest piece of social legislation ever devised by

man--the G.I. Bill''), presidential adviser and confidant of

America's business leaders has left a treatise with even more

rules to live by.

One paragraph is a must-read for the BlackBerry-addicted.

Jack quoted Emerson's observation that ``for every gain,

there is a loss. For every loss, there is a gain.'' While

lamenting the number of nights he spent away from his family,

he reminded us that attending one more reception meant

missing a meal around the dinner table, and one extra night

on a business trip would mean one less chance to help with

homework or watch a soccer game.

I have recounted that quote many times over the past few

weeks. And while this loss is devastating for many in

Washington and Los Angeles, the life lessons that are his

legacy are our gain.

Mr. Speaker, today, April 24th, marks the 92nd anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to commemorate this terrible chapter in human history, and to help ensure that it will never be forgotten.

On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes. Then the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination.

From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey.

We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all humanity. It is our duty to remember, to speak out and to teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people.

We hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate as well the memory of genocide's victims.

Sadly, we cannot say humanity has progressed to the point where genocide has become unthinkable. We have only to recall the ``killing fields'' of Cambodia, mass killings in Rwanda, ``ethnic cleansing'' in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the unspeakable horrors in Darfur, Sudan to see that the threat of genocide persists. We must renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on innocent human beings.

We also remember this day because it is a time for us to celebrate the contribution of the

Armenian community in America--including hundreds of thousands in California--to the richness of our character and culture. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their success is moving testimony to the truth that tyranny and evil cannot extinguish the vitality of the human spirit.

The United States has an ongoing opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system.

Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''