Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I am introducing a Jazz Appreciation Month piece of legislation entitled the ``National Jazz Preservation, Education and Promulgation Act of 2014.''

In 1986, I introduced a bill in which simply sought to make a compelling statement about the importance of Jazz within American culture. Its final clause read:

Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of

Representatives (the Senate concurring), that it is the sense

of the Congress that jazz is hereby designated as a rare and

valuable national American treasure to which we should devote

our attention, support and resources to make certain it is

preserved, understood and promulgated.

The jazz community came together in strong support of that legislation, and through many phone calls and letters generated enough cosponsorships to get House Concurrent Resolution 57 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 23, 1987. The fact that the 23rd was John Coltrane's birthday made the accomplishment even more special for me and was able to secure approval of the bill by the U.S. Senate a little more than two months later, on December 4, 1987.

During my work on that bill, which has come to be known as the ``Jazz Resolution,'' I saw it inspire successful jazz-related political activity at the local governmental level in New York City, in Philadelphia and in Washington, DC. While each of these legislative victories were a milestone for the music, with each making profound statements about the importance of jazz in those communities, none of them directed financial resources toward its support.

So, a couple of years later, I began working through the Congressional appropriations process to do just that.

In the Fall of 1990, I secured funding for the creation of the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra. I was able to obtain additional funds for the Smithsonian's Jazz program on three subsequent occasions. The result has been the solidification of a comprehensive Jazz program that involves preservation, education and performance. I chose to focus my efforts on the Smithsonian Institution because it serves as the nation's treasure chest. It is where all things American that are historic and valued are kept. I wanted Jazz to have an appropriate and permanent place at the Smithsonian. It has that now.

I want to express my special thanks to Dr. John Hasse, the Smithsonian's Curator of American Music, for his leadership and strong support for Jazz. I also want to congratulate him on establishing Jazz Appreciation Month (JAM). Today, is the kick-off of the 13th JAM, which has grown to become a global celebration of Jazz as America's classical music. I am pleased that John Coltrane, one of our nation's greatest musibians and composers, was selected to be the focus of the 2014 JAM poster and today's JAM activities. The ``Acknowledgement'' of his recording ``A Love Supreme'' 50 years ago in December 1964 is a great way to honor John Coltrane. The fact that his original score of that iconic composition is a part of the Smithsonian's collections and is on display there today is much appreciated.

Jazz is now well over 100 years old. Scores of many remarkable compositions, artifacts, documents, and photographs are in private hands, at risk of getting damaged, lost, or being sold abroad. In addition, jazz education at the elementary and secondary school level is virtually impossible to find. As such, in order to ensure the continued prominence of Jazz as a part America's cultural heritage, I have just introduced H.R. 4280, the National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2014. This legislation would enable the further implementation the mandate established in H. Con. Res. 57. It will help our nation preserve its jazz heritage, educate our youth about this national treasure, and encourage the promulgation of jazz by fostering opportunities for jazz artists to create and share their music with the public here and abroad.

H.R. 4280 would authorize funding to establish a National Jazz Preservation Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. The Program would create oral and video histories of leading jazz artists, acquire, preserve and interpret artifacts, and conduct exhibitions and other educational activities that would enable generations of Americans to learn about and enjoy jazz. The Program would also work with local museums, educational institutions and community organizations to establish jazz collections and share artifacts between them.

In addition, the legislation promotes jazz education in several ways. It encourages the introduction of jazz to our youth by authorizing funding to establish a Jazz Artists in the Schools Program. This program should be modeled on the successful one previously operated by the National Endowment for the Arts. It also authorizes funding for the development of jazz education curriculum and materials and their dissemination to educators at all levels. The bill authorizes funding for a Jazz Ambassadors Program. This program should be modeled on the historic one that the U.S. State Department launched back in 1956. That program sent noted American jazz musicians abroad to perform. My bill would enable young jazz musicians and jazz ensembles from secondary schools to be sent abroad on missions of goodwill, education, and cultural exchange.

Finally, HR 4280 promotes the promulgation of jazz by authorizing funding to support a nationwide series of performances by jazz artists. This would be done through the establishment of a Jazz Appreciation Program at the Smithsonian Institution. This program would work through the network of Smithsonian Affiliates to host jazz concerts. The Affiliates network includes more than 180 museums, educational and cultural organizations in more than 40 states, Puerto Rico and Panama.

I encourage all of you to take a look at and consider supporting H.R. 4280. I also encourage you to share a copy of it with others that have an interest in America's jazz music.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Jamie Grodsky Prize for Environmental Scholarship. It is awarded annually to a George Washington law student who contributes an original paper to the environmental law field. The award is given in memory of Jamie Grodsky, a law professor at George Washington University, who passed away on May 22, 2010.

There is no doubt in my mind that legal scholarship in the field of environmental law plays a critical role in developing innovative ideas and thoughts to help preserve our citizens' quality of life, health, and safety. As a result, the annual award of the Jamie Grodsky Prize serves as not only a fitting tribute to Professor Grodsky, but helps preserve and protect our environment and our planet.

The Grodsky Prize is funded through the generosity of her family and friends, and is awarded annually to a George Washington law student who contributes an original paper to the environmental law field, as judged by a panel of experts. Tomorrow will mark the fourth time this award has been given. This year's recipient is Molly Masterton, who wrote on ``Promoting Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy and Managing Environmental Risk: Toward an Adaptive Management Strategy.''

Past Grodsky Award recipients include:

In 2011, Renee Martin-Nagle for her paper titled ``Fossil Aquifers: A Common Heritage of Mankind.''

In 2012, Lieutenant Commander Jonathan Dowling's paper titled ``Improving Energy Security with the Great Green Fleet: The Case for Transitioning from Ethanol to Drop-In Renewable Fuels.''

In 2013, Joel Meister, for his paper titled ``Sunny Dispositions: Modernizing Investment Tax Credit Recapture Rules for Solar Energy Project Finance After the Stimulus.''

We look forward to the award of many more Grodsky prizes to deserving George Washington University students.

The fourth anniversary of the award is also an opportunity to recognize the life of Professor Grodsky, a preeminent member of the Nation's environmental bar, whose legal imprint continues to this day. Although time and space limitations do not permit me to itemize all of Jamie's contributions and unique talents and gifts, I would like to note a few highlights (many of Jamie's contributions were referenced in the Congressional Record by Rep. Miller on September 15, 2010):

Prof. Grodsky left an indelible mark on all three branches of government, countless law students at the University of Minnesota and George Washington University, and the environmental and legal community as a whole.

Jamie served the Congress initially as an analyst with the then Official of Technology Assessment, and later as counsel to the Natural Resources Committee in the House, and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.

She served as Senior Advisor to the General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration.

She served as clerk to the Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit, the Hon. Proctor Hug, who referred to Jamie as ``the most multi-talented person I have ever met.''

Jamie was dedicated to environmental causes, acting as Educational Director of the San Francisco Oceanic Society and she conducted marine research at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts.

After leaving government service, Jamie dedicated herself to passing along her passion for the environment through her work in academia, eventually becoming a tenured Professor of Environmental Law at George Washington University.

Although Jamie's passing was a tremendous loss to us all, I am pleased that that her legacy is continuing to inspire the next generation of attorneys through the annual award of the Jamie Grodsky Prize.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the ENFORCE Act, like so many other bills that we have considered this Congress, is truly a solution in search of a problem.

It was made clear during the two full committee oversight hearings that we held on the Constitution's Take Care Clause, the President, in fact, fully met his obligation to faithfully execute the laws.

So let us acknowledge what this legislation is really about. It is simply yet another attempt by the majority to prevent the President of the United States from implementing duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose.

Allowing the flexibility and the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. It is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is part and parcel of the President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws.

This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase-in the act is not a novel tactic. And even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation of the Take Care Clause, the majority insists that there is a constitutional crisis.

Additionally, the exercise of enforcement discussion is a traditional power of the Executive. For example, the decision to defer deportation of young adults who were brought to the United States as children, the DREAMers, is a classic exercise of such discretion.

H.R. 4138 could also have the perverse effect of preventing the President from taking steps to protect people's rights.

If H.R. 4138 had been law in 1861, the Congress could have sued President Lincoln for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation because Congress could have concluded that President Lincoln had failed to enforce then-existing laws protecting the institution of slavery, like the Fugitive Slave Law.

Likewise, if H.R. 4138 had been law in 1948, Congress could have sued President Truman for issuing Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the armed services in contravention of then-existing military policy.

And, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the President's power under the Take Care Clause.

As the Court held in Heckler v. Chaney:

An agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether

through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally

committed to an agency's absolute discretion.

Even assuming there is a problem to address, H.R. 4138 is itself flawed because it violates fundamental separation of powers principles and may be unconstitutional as applied.

The ENFORCE Act would essentially allow Federal courts to second- guess decisions by the executive branch in a potentially vast range of areas that are committed under the Constitution to the discretion of the political branches like the conduct of foreign affairs.

Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the

Constitution, which are meant to reinforce the Constitution's separation of powers principles.

To meet those standing requirements, a plaintiff must show that it suffered a concrete and particularized injury. The kind of injury that would be the subject of a civil action under H.R. 4138, however, would amount only to an alleged violation of a right to have the administration enforce the law in a particular way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I want to ask my colleagues when is enough enough? At what point can we say its time to put away the partisan rhetoric, the demagoguery, and the synthetic scandals and start really working on the issues the American people want solutions to.

The American people are waiting for us to take action on a host of issues that this House refuses to address--from securing fair pay for a fair day's work, extending unemployment insurance, and fixing our broken immigration laws.

So lets stop the games and finally get to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of House Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a ranking member of a subcommittee on the House Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that subpoenas are a regular exercise of power in the House of Representatives.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the other side is ready.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, let's acknowledge that this legislation is really another attempt by some of the Members here in the majority to prevent the President of the United States from implementing duly- enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose. It is rather unusual.

But I want to ask my colleagues, friends, when is enough enough?

At what point can we say, it is time to put away rhetoric of a partisan nature, of demagoguery, and of synthetic scandals and start really working on the issues that many people in this country really want solutions to?

We have constituents, and so do you, that are waiting for us to take action on a host of problems that this House refuses to address, from securing fair pay for a fair day's work, to extending unemployment insurance, and also in the Judiciary Committee, fixing our broken immigration laws. So let's put aside some of the business that has gone on here today and finally get to work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my amendment would exclude actions to combat discrimination and protect civil rights enforcement from the scope of this bill before us.

The last thing we should want to do as a Congress is to pass legislation that makes it more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights, by executive action or otherwise; yet if H.R. 4138 had been law, several of the most critical civil rights milestones of our Nation would have been subject to unnecessary congressional challenge in the courts.

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued perhaps the most important executive order in our Nation's history, the Emancipation Proclamation; and by this order, Lincoln freed the slaves in those southern States that were engaged in military conflict with the Union.

By doing so, Lincoln not only encouraged slaves to take up arms in fighting the Civil War for the Union, he also struck a blow for freedom that resonated around the world.

By issuing the order, however, President Lincoln made a decision to not enforce then-existing laws, protecting the institution of slavery, including the Federal Fugitive Slave Act.

Clearly, history has shown Lincoln's decision to be not only a legal and a military turning point, but morally correct; and clearly, had the so-called ENFORCE Act been law, the Emancipation Proclamation could have been subject to an unnecessary and unhelpful legal challenge in the courts from the Congress.

Another example is President Truman's Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948 that desegregated the United States military. With more than 125,000 African Americans serving overseas in World War II, this was a worthwhile and appropriate action by the President.

Nevertheless, by issuing this order, Truman contravened the then- military policy of segregating certain African American military units from white units.

Again, had this bill before us been law, it would have permitted an unnecessary congressional legal challenge in the courts, and such a challenge would not have been politically unpopular in many quarters.

Remember that 1948 was the year that Strom Thurmond bolted from the Democratic Party to form the Dixiecrats and went on to carry four States and strongly compete in many others in the Presidential election.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please consider the unintended consequences of the legislation before us. It would not only represent a permanent stain on the principle of separation of powers written by our Founding Fathers into the Constitution, but it would make it far more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights and other constitutional protections.

Accordingly, I urge a ``yes'' vote to protect civil rights, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman very much because this is an important amendment. It doesn't gut the bill, and it isn't a loophole. This is a narrow amendment that only ensures that the President can comply with court decisions. The separation of powers principle is very important, and this amendment clarifies and adds to it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson, for the leadership that he has exercised here in bringing this discussion forward on a bill that is very disappointing to me.

This bill imposes hard-and-fast deadlines that will be unrealistic in certain circumstances and would undercut responsible decisionmaking and public involvement in the Federal review and permitting processes.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641 for various reasons.

Let's begin with the very misleading short title of this bill, namely, the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act.''

Rather than effectuating real reforms to the process by which federal agencies undertake environmental impact reviews as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, this legislation will actually result in making this process less responsible, less professional, and less accountable.

Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis.

To begin with, the bill--under the guise of streamlining the approval process--forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state, and local agencies as well as from members of the public to comment on environmentally-sensitive construction projects that are federally- funded or that require federal approval.

The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances.

Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved, regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed risks.

As a result, this measure could allow projects to proceed that put public health and safety at risk.

For example, as the Minority's witness astutely noted at the Committee's hearing on this bill, H.R. 2641 could effectively prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from exercising its licensing authority pertaining to nuclear power reactors, waste management sites, and nuclear waste disposal facilities.

And, the bill could allow such projects to be approved before the safety review is completed.

This failing of the bill, along with many others, explains why the Administration and the President's Council on Environmental Quality, along with more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this legislation.

These organizations include the Audubon Society, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society.

In issuing its veto threat, the Administration warns that the bill ``would undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement in the Federal review and permitting processes.''

In addition, the Administration observes that the bill will ``increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines.''

Another concern that I have with this bill--like other measures that we have considered--is that it is a flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem.

And, that is not just my opinion. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report last year stating that the primary source of approval delays for construction projects ``are more often tied to local/state and project-specific factors, primarily local/state agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.''

CRS further notes that project delays based on environmental requirements stem not from NEPA, but from ``laws other than NEPA.''

So I have to ask, why do we need a measure like the so-called RAPID Act that will undoubtedly make the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety?

My final major concern with this bill is that--rather than streamlining the environmental review process--it will sow utter confusion.

H.R. 2641 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay, and litigation.

As I noted at the outset, the changes to the NEPA review process contemplated by this measure apply only to certain construction projects.

NEPA, however, applies to a broad panoply of federal actions, including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans, Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties.

As a result of the bill, there could potentially be 2 different environmental review processes for the same project. For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and storage of its spent fuel.

Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation.

But, more importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections.

As with all the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do.

Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2804, the ``Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act of 2014,'' also known as the so-called ALERRT Act.

I oppose this bill for numerous reasons, the most of important of which is that it would jeopardize critical public health and safety regulatory protections.

For example, the bill requires agencies to consider potential costs and benefits associated with proposed and final rules ``[N]withstanding any other provision of law.''

This ``supermandate'' would effectively trump all other statutes-- such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act--that prohibit or limit the use of cost information in setting health and safety standards.

In addition, title II of the bill would require agencies and federal courts to consider whether a rule has ``significant adverse effects on . . . the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.'' The practical effect of this definition is that it will require agencies and the courts to consider the business and regulatory environments of other nations.

Consider, for example, a proposed rule that imposes heightened clean air requirements on American steel manufacturers.

H.R. 2804 would necessarily require consideration of whether this regulation--which could potentially result in higher compliance costs-- could make American steel products less competitive in a country, such as China, that has a much less stringent regulatory regime.

While the economic analysis under this requirement may be deceptively simple, its dangerous ramifications for public health cannot be underestimated. Chinese officials have only recently begun to acknowledge the health hazard risks presented by extensive air pollution that affects its cities, including its capital.

The end result is that the public health of Americans and the safety of the environment will be compromised so that American manufacturers can better compete with their foreign counterparts.

This is a shortsighted regulatory ``race to the bottom'' that prioritizes profits over saving lives.

Another fundamental flaw with H.R. 2804 is that it will greatly lengthen--not shorten--the already time-consuming process by which federal rules are promulgated.

Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of their lives.

On average, it already takes between 4 to 8 years for an agency to promulgate a new rule.

But, instead of streamlining the rulemaking process, the bill extensively adds numerous procedural hurdles to this process.

Title II of the bill, for example, adds more than 60 additional procedural steps to the rulemaking process.

Not only that, title II re-institutes a long-discredited rulemaking process that requires ``trial-type'' procedures. Known as formal rulemaking, this time-consuming process was widely-rejected decades ago as being highly ineffective.

Recently proposed regulations that could be impacted by this and other provisions in the bill include rules: implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act's standards to reduce food contaminants like salmonella and that would help prevent 1.75 million illnesses; ``strengthening chemical facility accident prevention standards in response to the 2013 fertilizer explosion in West, Texas that resulted in the deaths of 12 volunteer firefighters and 2 other individuals; preventing the manufacture and distribution of tainted and counterfeit prescription drugs; implementing the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape; adjusting the reimbursement rates to Medicare providers for end-stage renal diseases; setting payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children Program; establishing meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; implementing Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States; establishing the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and setting the Patent and Trademark Office's fees for patents.

And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections that this bill would jeopardize. I could go on and on.

This also explains why more than 150 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose this bill. These organizations include: The AFL-CIO, The Alliance for Justice; The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; The American Lung Association; The Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; The International Brotherhood of Teamsters; The UAW; The League of Conservation Voters; The National Women's Law Center; The Natural Resources Defense Council; People for the American Way; Public Citizen; the Sierra Club; Service Employees International Union; the Union of Concerned Scientists; and the United Steelworkers; just to name a few.

Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. It warns that the bill ``would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory duties.''

Finally, H.R. 2804 will give well-funded, anti- regulatory interests even more opportunities to derail rulemaking.

Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise.

Under the bill, however, well-funded regulated industries could exert even more influence over federal rulemaking than they already do.

For instance, the bill's less deferential standard of judicial review gives additional opportunities for anti-regulatory interests to engage in dilatory tactics that can substantially slow down an already slow rulemaking process.

As Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization representing consumer interests, warns: ``This new and inappropriate role for the courts is a recipe for more activist judges, increased litigation, endless delays, and more rather than less uncertainty for regulated parties and the public.''

Similarly, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has expressed concerns about the provision's potential to make the rulemaking process more lengthy and costly.

The American people deserve better.

Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed bill.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of Federal funds. Through the Hyde amendment, Congress already prevents funding of abortion and has done so for more than 30 years. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this fact.

H.R. 7 is not needed to prevent the Federal funding of abortion, nor does it merely codify existing law as has been falsely asserted by those proponents. As a matter of fact, the bill on the floor today contains numerous new provisions adopted after the Judiciary Committee marked up and reported the bill.

This version of the bill has never been examined, debated, or amended by any committee of the House, yet my colleagues in the majority refuse to allow their colleagues any opportunity to amend this harmful bill today. This bill is far too significant and its impact on women is far too harmful to foreclose meaningful debate on an amendment as my colleagues in the majority have done.

This measure represents yet another assault on women's health care and constitutionally protected rights and should be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''

This bill is just another ill-conceived attempt to push a divisive social agenda instead of focusing on what Americans care most about: creating jobs and improving our Nation's economy.

Plain and simple, H.R. 7 is not about the regulation of federal funds, but yet again another attack on women's health and their constitutionally-protected rights.

Sponsors of H.R. 7 want you to believe that the bill merely codifies existing law, but this is false.

For more than 30 years, the current law has prohibited federal funding for abortion. There is absolutely no risk that the public fisc will be raided to pay for abortion services, even under the Affordable Care Act.

The goal of H.R. 7 is to nullify the decisions of women and small business employers who choose insurance coverage that includes abortion coverage paid for with purely private, non-federal funds.

Through its novel tax penalty provisions, H.R. 7 departs radically from existing law, taking away women's existing health care and placing their health and lives at risk.

H.R. 7 eradicates the authority of the District of Columbia to make decisions about how locally raised funds are used for the healthcare of women.

When Delegate Holmes-Norton sought to address the Judiciary Committee about the bill's overreach, her request was denied by the Majority in utter disrespect for her and the District.

Women deserve a meaningful examination of their constitutionally- protected private health care decisions, not the frivolous and reckless process the Majority has undertaken on this bill before us today.

This bill was rushed through the Judiciary Committee, and was discharged from two other committees of jurisdiction--leaving no opportunity for their Members to seriously consider this legislation.

What the Majority has brought to the floor today contains numerous new provisions, has never been examined, debated, or amended by any Committee of the House.

The fact that the Minority is foreclosed from offering any amendments today is yet further proof that this legislation is simply intended to be yet another polemic attack on women, against our deliberative legislative process, and an attack against the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Why are these latest changes being demanded? Who is pushing this drastic course?

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished Judiciary Committee member.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

I rise today to honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the man who so many year ago inspired me and challenged me to pursue a life in public service. His message of love, hope, and compassion ignited a Civil Rights Movement that changed the hearts of millions of Americans. His stirring rhetoric, his devotion to non- violence even in the face of grave danger, and his example of moral courage, breathed new life into the promises of freedom, equality, and justice that have always defined American democracy.

Today I remind my colleagues that the nation and world of which he dreamed of remains unrealized. We have eliminated the most invidious forms of Jim Crow, but racism still permeates far too much of our daily lives. We have made great strides in ensuring equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, or religion, but vast inequalities still exist. We have been stalled in our efforts to ensure that every American has the opportunity to grow through education, gain dignity through honest work, and receive equal treatment before the law. These are the struggles where we have failed to live up to the example set by Dr. King; these are the battles Dr. King would be fighting if he was still around to celebrate his 85th birthday.

Remember Dr. King, be thankful for the legacy he left behind, and consider what we can do to honor his memory.

Happy Birthday Dr. King. Happy Birthday to you.

Mr. Speaker, a half-century ago today, President Johnson stood before Congress and declared ``unconditional war on poverty.'' Since that declaration we have seen many victories, but also many defeats. Battles may have been won, but the war is far from over.

President Johnson's first State of the Union committed his administration to the pursuit of his fallen predecessor's agenda. Not out of sorrow for President Kennedy, but out of conviction for the principles he represented.

President Johnson defined the mission of the War on Poverty as helping Americans achieve the American dream. He spoke in terms of the average citizen and his ``hopes for a fair chance to make good; his hopes for fair play from the law; his hopes for a full-time job on full-time pay; his hopes for a decent home for his family in a decent community; his hopes for a good school for his children with good teachers; and his hopes for security when faced with sickness or unemployment or old age.

He identified poverty as not the cause but the symptom of America's problems. He believed the cause lay in a lack of education and training, a lack of proper clothing and housing, a lack of safe communities and the sense of security needed to pursue a better life.

He challenged the nation to pursue bold solutions. He called for expanded investment to rescue distressed communities; to engage aimless youth in productive purposes; and to ensure basic levels of food, income, and medical security.

We have done much in the intervening years to achieve his vision. Today, we have the Affordable Care Act helping Americans to receive vital medical services that were previously out of reach. We have numerous programs helping communities offer their children more opportunities to succeed. We have rooted out the most abject forms of poverty that once prevailed throughout much of our rural communities. The poverty faced by our nation's seniors prior to Johnson's declaration has seen tremendous improvement because of his call to action. And we have expanded workforce training programs and educational opportunities for everyone, sending millions of Americans to college who are the first in their families to attend.

Unfortunately these admirable gains reflect less urgency and dedication than the War on Poverty should merit. The gains in the first decade after President Johnson announced this endeavor were remarkable, with the official poverty level hitting its all-time low in 1973. But since then new economic challenges have arisen that work against those at the bottom, limiting the ability of the impoverished to raise their position.

Today, we have an inflation-adjusted minimum wage that is less than 70% of what it was at the end of President Johnson's administration. We have vast inequities in our schools that make the quality of children's education first and foremost a function of address and not their own effort or merit. These inequalities are magnified in an era of skyrocketing executive pay, corporate profitability, and worker productivity, where workers must subsist on stagnant wages that cannot even keep up with historically modest inflation. Just a couple of weeks ago, we made the problem worse by cutting off unemployment assistance to 1.3 million long-term job seeking Americans in a job market that simply cannot offer them meaningful employment.

I urge my colleagues to cease their assault on the objectives President Johnson declared so long ago. Quit fighting the healthcare law and help us improve, refine, and implement it for the good of all Americans. Quit denigrating people who worked for decades, but through no fault of their own are now facing extended unemployment. They aren't resting on a hammock; they are clinging to anything that floats in an economic storm that we helped Wall Street create. Quit bargaining away the social safety net that prevents a family confronted with an unexpected layoff or family illness from losing their home and their future.

But those actions are merely the very least of what we should be doing. If we want to make sure that every person actually has a chance to pursue happiness--which as President Johnson pointed out is the reason that we so jealously guard our security and liberty--then we need to finally win this war. It is time for us to recognize that in the wealthiest nation in the world and in the history of the world, we simply cannot tolerate the sort of persistent poverty that prevents generations of citizens from providing for themselves and their families.

Winning this prosperity will require us to take action just as our predecessors did when President Johnson first called upon them. We can begin by taking up my bill, H.R. 1000, which would aggressively pursue a program of job training, and infrastructure and community investment until we reach full-employment. We should also pass a bill to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation for this generation of workers-- the most productive of any generation in history--so they can realize the same fair break their parents and grandparents had. And we must reauthorize extended unemployment insurance to help salvage the dignity and security of men and women who lost their jobs because of the Wall Street bankers we bailed out in 2008.

These are the first steps to ensuring that every American is able to enjoy the fruits of our forebears and our own toil. They are not enough to solve the breadth of problems that we face, but their enactment would lead to a meaningful improvement in the lives of those who are beginning to lose faith in us and themselves.

I urge my colleagues to take action this session of Congress that reflects the standards President Johnson laid out a half-century ago and to pursue an agenda that elevates the poor rather than entrenches the rich. We did it before, we can do it again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Wayne S. Brown, the Director of Music and Opera at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), who is stepping down from his position this week. Mr. Brown is a well-loved and integral part of the NEA, and both he and his record of accomplishments will be greatly missed.

The NEA recognizes and supports a wide range of music, from classical to contemporary, including America's native art form: jazz. It works with performing ensembles and music presenting institutions to enrich the cultural lives of Americans. As Director of the NEA's efforts in this area, he has provided critical guidance for countless chamber music ensembles; choruses; early music programs; jazz ensembles; music festivals; symphony orchestras and opera companies.

Mr. Brown has been with the NEA since 1997, having previously served as musical producer for the Cultural Olympiad in Atlanta, Georgia for the 1996 Olympic Games, and as executive director of the Louisville Orchestra where he has managed thousands of music and opera grants. He has also overseen national music initiatives, including the NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, the nation's highest award in jazz; the NEA Opera Honors, celebrating individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to opera in America; and Great American Voices, which brings vocal ensembles from opera companies to our men and women in uniform.

During his time he has not only been an administrator; he has been a leader in strengthening the NEA's largest discipline program and its ties with the broader music and opera community. His colleagues offer effusive praise for his accomplishments, his knowledge, and his steady judgment.

While the NEA is sad to see Mr. Brown go, as a Detroiter and lover of music and the arts I am very proud to say he will be bringing his record of achievement to our city, where he will be the President of the Michigan Opera Theater at the Detroit Opera House. As Detroiters face great challenges ahead, I'm reassured to know that Mr. Brown will be bringing decades of experience to a city with a long and rich tradition of cherishing the arts. We are happy to welcome him home to where he first began his career in music and opera as an assistant manager with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act.'' H.R. 2019 purports to end the public's contribution to political party conventions and redirect the savings into research on childhood diseases at the National Institutes of Health. In fact, the bill does no such thing.

While I strongly support efforts to increase funding for pediatric research and other research at NIH, I do not believe H.R. 2019 does anything to advance this goal. This bill claims to make available to NIH, the $12.6 million per year raised as public support for the expenses of party conventions. In actuality, that bill would not do anything to restore the funding cuts that Republicans have strongly supported over the last few years, because it does not actually provide any additional funds to NIH. It only directs the money to be made available in appropriations.

These funds will still have to go through the regular appropriations process, fully subject to the Budget Control Act caps--as reduced by sequestration--and will have to comply with the spending allocations of the Appropriations Committee. It is this exact process, caps, and especially sequestration that cut $1.55 billion from NIH last year alone, dramatically reduced NIH funding for cancer and other research capabilities.

This bill only authorizes $12.6 million per year, which is four- tenths of one percent of the roughly $3.6 billion that NIH spent on pediatric research last year. Adding one more unfunded authorization will not interrupt the destructive downward trend this country is experiencing in research funding. It is not even an honest attempt to do this. NIH is already authorized to spend well beyond the $12.6 million a year this legislation allows.

Republicans aim to show that pediatric research is a priority, but you only have to look at H.R. 1, the House Republican spending proposal from the 112th Congress, to see what their true priorities are. That proposal, which the vast majority of Republicans supported, slashed total funding for the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee by 22 percent, which would have cost NIH $6.7 billion. The reality is that few Republicans are genuinely interested in providing adequate funding for the NIH.

Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues truly want to support pediatric research, they should restore the $4.2 billion that has been cut from NIH's funding since they took the majority, and they could support my bill, H.R. 900, which fully repeals sequestration.

Mr. Speaker, on December 10 and 11, 2013, I was a part of an official congressional delegation to South Africa. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 3521, H.R. 1402, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2319, S. 1471, H.R. 3212, H.R. 1992, and the Journal Vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3521, H.R. 1402, H.R. 2319, S. 1471, H.R. 1992, and the Journal Vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 2019, and H.R. 3212.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Ellison of Minnesota and Mr. Grijalva of Arizona, the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as Ms. Lee of California, Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts and Mr. Grayson of Florida, I rise to acknowledge the many contributions of Mr. Tim Carpenter, and to send him wishes for healing as he fights against cancer. As the co-founder and director of the Progressive Democrats of America, Tim has helped to create a grassroots movement to bring the voice of the people to Washington.

For the past thirty years, Tim has been indefatigable in pressing forward progressive ideals to help strengthen our American democracy. He has been in the forefront of progressive causes, from promoting nuclear disarmament to fighting to abolish the death penalty to establishing health care as a human right, as well as securing voting rights and jobs for all.

Tim was a key organizer for the presidential campaigns of Rev. Jesse Jackson (1988), and Gov. Jerry Brown (1992), and he served as Deputy National Campaign Manager in the Kucinich for President campaign (2004). Tim was a national DNC delegate, and addressed the 1992 Democratic National Convention. Tim worked closely with Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. during the 2004 Presidential election, in order to bring national attention to very serious problems with voting procedures in Ohio and other states. He helped strengthen and improve our democracy, by challenging elected officials in Congress and throughout the nation to protect the cherished right of our citizens to vote. Tim has received several awards including ``Democrat of the Year'' in Northampton, MA, Progressive Activist of the Year by the Nation magazine, as well as the Marilyn Clement award for his work on behalf of H.R. 676, the ``Expanded Improved Medicare for All.''

Tim's zeal to improve our system of government stems from his days as a student when he earned History and Political Science degrees from California State University Fullerton, as well as a Master's Degree in History. Early in his career, Tim took efforts to shape and guide our young men and women as a high school and community college U.S. History and Government teacher. For many years, Tim worked with California state senator Tom Hayden as a senior staff member. He was also an influential field organizer in the Orange County California Democratic Party.

Despite his ailments, Tim is still engaging, still pushing forward and still trying to raise awareness of the great challenges this country is facing.

In this trying time we lend our support to our friend, Tim, his wife Barbara Considine, and their daughters, Sheila and Julia. We ask that you all will join us in wishing Tim a full and quick recovery so that he can continue to do important work on behalf of our country.

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

Of course, we are here to correct the problem of patent trolls. We are, unfortunately, faced with a measure, H.R. 3309, which goes well beyond the issue of trolls and would, unfortunately, weaken every single patent in America.

I say this for several reasons.

First, H.R. 3309 fails to respond to the single most important problem facing our patent system today--the continuing diversion of patent fees.

Nearly $150 million in badly needed user fees have been diverted in fiscal 2013. It is estimated that $1 billion in fees have been diverted in the last two decades. This cannot go on.

Next, the bill's heightened pleading requirements will deny legitimate inventors access to the court in several critical respects:

They will have an unfair impact against patent holders across the board;

They are drafted in a one-sided manner;

They will prolong litigation;

They are unnecessary because the courts are already addressing pleading standards.

The next thing I would bring to your attention is the bill's fee- shifting requirements will favor wealthy parties and chill meritorious claims.

I am not surprised that the other side would be advancing something like this, but it is shocking because the provision is drafted in an overly broad manner and will apply well beyond patent infringement actions.

The next thing that I would point out is that the bill's discovery limitations are counterproductive. Limiting discovery prior to holding hearings to construe patent claims and determine their scope will delay litigation and lead to even greater expenses for the parties.

Finally, H.R. 3309 mandates that the Federal judiciary adopt a series of new rules and judicial changes that will make it more difficult for inventors to protect their patent rights.

These changes are strongly opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the principal policymaking body that Congress established to administer our Federal court system.

I have spent my entire career on Judiciary to help foster an independent judiciary that can resolve disputes between parties on a fair and dispassionate basis based on an evenhanded set of rules. There is little doubt that the Federal judiciary, as evidenced by its exceedingly deliberative rulemaking process, is in a far better position than the entire Congress to set the proper rules for their own courtrooms on these matters.

By unbalancing the patent system, we send a signal to inventors--the very people doing the research and developing the cures that benefit us all every day--that their inventions are not worthy of full legal protection. This means that the next cure for cancer or technological breakthrough may be stymied and perhaps never come, or they will be developed abroad rather than in the United States.

We can and should respond to the problem of patent trolls in a direct, but fair and targeted, manner; but we must not do so in a way that punishes our innovators and inhibits innovation.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional half minute.

Madam Chair, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional half minute.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Chair, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee), an effective member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, we are ready to close on this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, how much time remains?

Madam Chairwoman, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a senior member of the committee who has worked on this assiduously for a number of years.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Just simply put, I must oppose the manager's amendment because it does not significantly alter the underlying bill, which will be making sweeping and unnecessary changes to patent litigation and encroach upon the independence of the Federal Judiciary.

Section 6(d) does not address the substantive deficiencies in the bill. 6(d), by mandating U.S. law, applies in determining the rights of intellectual property licensees, directly contravenes the important principles that pertain to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which deals with transnational bankruptcies.

Congress intended that Chapter 15 not mandate any one country's substantive law should control, but Section 6(d) does exactly this and may encourage other countries to opt out of the cooperative insolvency system that is integral to Chapter 15.

So this, in short, is failing to address another flawed revision to the Bankruptcy Code, and Section 6(d) imposes an impossible affirmative duty on a bankrupt licensor to monitor and control the quality of the license, product, or service, even if there is no money to pay for this.

Please vote against this manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, before I yield to Mr. Watt, merely to let you know that the National Bankruptcy Conference is opposed to this amendment and has set forth in a very detailed draft their reasons for that.

National Bankruptcy Conference,

Washington, DC, November 15, 2013.

Re H.R. 3309 (Innovation Act).

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the House

Judiciary Committee: I am writing to you in my capacity as

Chair of the Committee on Legislation of the National

Bankruptcy Conference (NBC or Conference). The NBC is a

voluntary, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization composed

of about 60 of the nation's leading bankruptcy judges,

professors and practitioners; it has provided advice to

Congress on bankruptcy-related legislation for over 75 years.

The Conference takes substantive policy positions on issues.

It also provides technical advice on bankruptcy legislation

without regard to its policy positions so that, to the extent

possible, such legislation will achieve the objectives

intended by its supporters.

The Innovation Act, which is primarily focused on patent

litigation reform, contains an amendment to section 1520 of

chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code that the Conference opposes

in its present form. The proposed amendment appears in SEC.

6. PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES TO IMPLEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE and provides as follows:

(d) PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY LICENSES IN

I thank you.

I want to applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie). This is exactly what will improve this measure considerably.

Mr. Chair, the language currently in section 5 will not likely curb abusive patent litigation. It needs substantial revisions to be effective and to remove loopholes which allow manufacturers and others to avoid litigation. Striking section 5 of the bill will give patent stakeholders, retailers, and customers more time to improve the customer stay provision.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

I thank the gentlelady from Texas for her amendment. It is an important one because it limits the use of customer stay provisions to smaller businesses. This is very, very important.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would improve the customer stay provision by limiting the use of the provision to smaller businesses, those who most likely did not know they were infringing when they bought and used a modern scanner or a fax machine. They are most likely local mom-and- pop shops. So, in preventing larger businesses from using the customer stay provision to avoid litigation, this amendment will also help protect the ability of individual inventors and entrepreneurs to enforce their patent rights.

Please support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and join in the support for the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6. It is a very important one.

I want to commend Mr. Rohrabacher for what he is doing here. This is another little guy provision that deserves support because the Supreme Court has even recently affirmed the expansive breadth of evidence that a patent applicant may introduce in a section 145 proceeding. And so I am for keeping this provision in, and I am proud to add my support to the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment is entitled the Conyers-Watt amendment, and I am very pleased to bring it to the attention of our colleagues at this time.

I am offering this substitute amendment because it will give the Members an opportunity to vote for language that will actually address the identifiable abuses in the patent system. These abuses include the inability to identify the real party in interest and filing abusive lawsuits against end users instead of manufacturers of product. These issues are addressed in a measured and balanced way in this substitute.

Unlike the reported bill, which makes one-sided changes in fee- shifting, discovery, and pleading requirements in all patent cases, not just cases involving trolls, my, our amendment, directly responds to the real problems without undermining the patent or legal system as a whole. That is what the thrust of our arguments have been throughout this debate.

Our amendment builds in large part on a patent reform bill introduced on the Senate side by Chairman Leahy and which even the present administration and other stakeholders strongly support. The amendment does the following:

It promotes transparency of patent ownership by using a well- established standard utilized by many Federal courts to require plaintiffs to disclose entities with an interest in the patent;

It protects customers who are targeted in infringement suits by providing an option to stay the case against them while the manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement;

It directs the USPTO to develop educational resources for small businesses that are targeted in patent suits;

It helps innovators by ensuring that applicants do not abuse the patent system by simply filing variations on their patents to extend the length of the patent term.

Our amendment addresses the major concerns expressed by key stakeholders about abusive patent litigation. And Members on both sides of the aisle, and a broad range of patent stakeholders, are strongly opposed to H.R. 3309 because of its many deficiencies and unintended consequences.

So rather than promoting innovation and job growth, we fear that the underlying bill will have just the opposite effect. Our amendment corrects many of the bill's deficiencies in a responsive and measured approach without unbalancing the entire patent system.

I implore my colleagues very strongly to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the cosponsor of this substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.