Floor Statements

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

I am pleased to join with the chairman of the committee in support of the

Senate bill that would allow for the extension of the term of FBI Director Robert Mueller whose 10-year term expires on August 2.

On May 12 of this year, President Obama announced his desire to extend that term by 2 years. At the time, the President said, ``In his 10 years at the FBI, Bob Mueller has set the gold standard for leading the bureau. Given the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is critical at this time.''

I agree with the President's remarks, and I am confident that Director Mueller will continue to work with integrity and respect for Americans' rights as he ensures the safety of the American people. The Nation needs, now as much as at any time in our history, an FBI that is capable of a multifaceted mission to best protect us from a variety of criminal threats, which has been proven under Mueller's leadership. I congratulate him on his noteworthy 10-year term and look forward to continuing to work with him and with the Committee on the Judiciary.

The job of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is critical, and that agency must have experienced and capable leadership. There are many threats which the FBI must concentrate its limited resources on, ranging from interstate violent crime, organized crime, human trafficking, exploitation of children, corporate fraud, mortgage fraud, cybercrime, and domestic terrorism.

As time advances, so do the demands we place on the FBI and its agents across the country. We appreciate the difficulty the Director must face when determining how to allocate resources. As these demands grow and the nature of the threats evolve, I hope the FBI will maintain an appropriate degree of focus on the types of crime that impact average Americans every day, whether it be fraud against seniors, corporate officers defrauding investors, civil rights violations by those who abuse power, theft of individual identities, or electronic intrusions into people's privacy.

Director Mueller is the right person to continue to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation in confronting these challenges at this time. He has proven himself to be honest, frank, and committed to the rule of law.

While this extension is unusual, it is important that we grant it so that we have continuity in the leadership of the FBI at this critical time. I urge support of this important measure.

I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished Member from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to the H.R. 2354, the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill. In particular, I oppose the provisions of this legislation that would rescind all remaining unobligated high-speed rail American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The rescission would eliminate rail funding for the high-speed Chicago to Detroit line, eliminate thousands of jobs, and provide fewer travel options for my constituents.

Well over $492 million is cut from three projects, which are critical components of this high speed rail line. Even worse, these cuts would eliminate more than 13,000 jobs in a community where good paying jobs are few and far between.

High speed rail would give my constituents a viable and green commuting option in the Midwest. Having the ability to travel from Detroit to Chicago with the speed of a plane flight would open the doors to new business investments in the Metro Detroit area and connect major markets in the Midwest. It would be a win-win for consumers and business.

Mr. Chair, it is appalling that this body seems to lack the courage to strive for greatness for America.

Franklin Coolidge had that courage. He worked with Congress to create the Hoover Dam.

Dwight Eisenhower had that courage. He worked with Congress to create the National Highway System.

John Kennedy had that courage. He and Congress sent our country to the moon.

Where is this body's courage? Where is the belief that America can still do and build great things? Do we still have the desire to be the best, or will we let China lead the way on when it comes to manufacturing and high speed rail in the 21st Century?

I for one believe America can, and must, be a leader when it comes to investing in our country's economic future. I urge my colleagues to reject this defeatist bill and embrace a 21st century transit system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise with the assistance of my good friends, Tom McClintock of California, Lynn Woolsey of California, and Barbara Lee of California.

It is my Libyan amendment, again, which would prevent funds appropriated in this act from being used to deploy any type of ground troop presence for the purpose of pursuing military operations on Libyan territory.

This amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by President Obama and the international community and thereby ensure that our involvement in Libya remains limited in scope.

An identical amendment passed this House on May 26 by a vote of 416-5 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

It's also the intent of this amendment, as it was in my earlier amendment, that funds would be allowed to be used to rescue members of the Armed Forces participating in the NATO no-fly zone operation.

The American people, obviously many of them, have grown weary of the open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm's way and add billions to our national debt. We simply cannot afford another Afghanistan or Iraq.

And so the time has come for Congress to once again exercise its constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of our military forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in Libya will not escalate into an expensive occupation that would strain our resources and harm our national security interests.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, be added to this amendment as a cosponsor.

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen, this bipartisan amendment adds an important provision to H.R. 1249. It would permit the conversion of the United States to a first-to-file system only upon a Presidential finding that other nations have adopted a similar one-year grace period. This one- year grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or write about his or her ideas for a patent up to a year before he or she actually files for patent protection. And without this grace period, an inventor could lose his or her own patent.

This grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he's required to file a patent. During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back. Yet the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period provision contained in 1249 is to ensure that the foreign countries adopt a similar grace period as well.

The amendment would encourage other countries to adopt a similar period in their patent system consistent with a recommendation by the National Academy's National Research Council. Current law in the United States allows a grace period of 1 year, during which an applicant can disclose or commercialize an invention before filing for a patent. Japan offers a limited grace period, and Europe provides none.

If the first-to-file provision in the bill is implemented, we must ensure that American inventors are not disadvantaged. Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations where there is no grace period.

The grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he is required to file a patent.

During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back.

Yet, the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period provision contained in H.R. 1249 is to ensure that foreign countries adopt a grace period, as well.

Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations where there is no grace period. As a result, they often lose the right to patent because these other countries do not care about protecting small business and university research.

The United States needs to do more to protect the small inventor and universities not just here but abroad.

Unfortunately, other countries will not do it on their own even though they want the United States to convert to a ``first-to-file'' system.

If H.R. 1249 passes without my Amendment, we will be giving away a critical bargaining chip that we can use to encourage other countries to follow our lead.

My Amendment ensures that the only way to benefit from the grace period in H.R. 1249 is to have foreign countries adopt a grace period.

Without this Amendment, we will be unilaterally transitioning the United States to a ``first-to-file'' system with a weak grace period without any incentive for foreign countries to adopt a grace period.

I should also note that identical language was included in H.R. 1908, the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007,'' which the House passed on September 7, 2007.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

This bipartisan amendment makes a technical revision to H.R. 1249. It addresses the confusion regarding the calculation of the filing period for patent term extension applications under the Hatch- Waxman Act. By eliminating confusion regarding the deadline for patent term extension applications, this amendment provides the certainty necessary to encourage costly investments in life-saving medical research. It also is consistent with the only court case to address this issue entitled, The Medicines Co. v. Kappos. As a result of this amendment, all applications and cases will be treated henceforth in the same manner.

I also want to point out that this exact language has passed the House overwhelmingly on a voice vote in the past, and the prior version of the provision was unanimously passed by the House on two previous occasions and was also in another instance voted out by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. It was also accepted in a voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee at a markup earlier this year.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield, unfortunately only 75 seconds, to my good friend, also from Massachusetts, Mr. Richard Neal.

Madam Chair, I am proud now to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas, Mike Pompeo.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Scott Garrett.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank Jared Polis, who is a brilliant former member of the Judiciary Committee, and we miss him very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason these two bills are put together is very easy to fathom, that is that we have started off by, for the first time in the 112th Congress, violating the CutGo rule, formerly known as the pay-as-you-go rule, and we're trying to mask it by talking about how wonderful the second bill, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 2021, is. But it's not going to work, friends, because we know why we're trying to play down the patent bill that the rule is originally committed to.

It is because there are growing numbers of Members that are not only going to vote ``no'' on the rule, but they are going to vote ``no'' on the bill since for the first time since January that this CutGo rule was instituted, which prohibits consideration of a bill that has the net effect of increasing spending within a 5-year window, it is waived. In other words, you can't pass a bill that will increase spending without providing an offset.

There is no offset. That is understood. But here is what the Congressional Budget Office said, that this bill will increase direct spending by $1.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period. It will increase it by $140 million by establishing a new procedure post-grant review. It will increase it by $750 million, because they establish a procedure that would allow patent holders to request the PTO to review an existing patent. It will increase it by $251 million by allowing inter partes reexamination, that is, to make it tougher and longer for a small inventor to be able to get his patent secured.

So please vote ``no'' on this rule for the reason that it violates the pay-as-you-go, now known as the cut-and-go rule.

I thank the gentleman.

I say to the gentleman, Mr. Nugent, the Congressional Budget Office sent us and you a letter saying it would increase direct spending by a total of $1.1

billion. That is not even a small increase. And, by the way, the fact that somebody else waived the pay-as-you-go rule doesn't give you the right to waive cut-as-you-go. This is outrageous that this would be allowed in the first 6 months of the year, and it has never been waived before in the 112th Congress. And he says it is not going to cost us very much, or nothing.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Will the gentleman yield?

This would spend $1.1 billion. That's not technical, my friend. It would spend $1.1 billion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wanted my dear friend--and I recognize he has only been here 5 months--to realize that this is not a technical CutGo violation. This is a $1.1 billion violation. That's real money that we're going to have to get from somewhere else, and we're waiving CutGo for the first time in the 112th Congress.

I am appealing to Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, to join with us against this outrageous and costly and blatant violation of the House rules that they wrote.

Yes. The letter to the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee came from the Congressional Budget Office, and I would be pleased to quote it to you. The $1.1 billion is an accumulation of several other costs that they reported.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you, my friend.

We are not criticizing the Rules Committee. The CutGo violation, which you have not even seen the CBO letter that described the $1.1 billion----

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The reason that both these bills were combined is that they're trying to mask all the defects in the patent bill, and that's why they put this great new jobs, supposedly, creating bill together.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of Oversight and Government Reform.

The Congressional Budget Office sent the letter, Mr. Issa, about the manager's amendment, which had nothing to do with the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2011. This legislation will serve to clarify and expand voting rights, as well as assist former felons with their reintegration into our democracy.

The Sentencing Project reports that, since 1997, 19 states have amended felony disenfranchisement policies in an effort to reduce their restrictiveness and expand voter eligibility. These reforms have resulted in more than 760,00 citizens regaining their voting rights. Yet, despite these reforms, an estimated 5 million people continue to be ineligible to vote in Federal elections, including nearly 4 million who reside in the 35 states that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or people who have completed their sentence from voting.

I believe that there are three grave discrepancies in State laws regarding felony convictions that lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, there is no uniform standard for voting in Federal elections, which leads to an egregious disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where a person lives. Second, laws governing the restoration of voting rights after a felony conviction are unequal throughout the country and persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Third, State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact ethnic minorities, thus adversely infringing upon citizens of these communities constitutional right to vote.

These concerns about ex-offender disenfranchisement are not rhetorical. In the past two election cycles, flawed voter purges have deprived thousands of legitimate voters of their rights. For example, an erroneous interpretation of state law by the Ohio Secretary of State deprived thousands of ex-felons in that state of even the right to register. Only Federal law can conclusively resolve the ambiguities in this area plaguing our voting system.

Like the States, Congress has recognized the need to address the barriers to full citizenship faced by ex-offenders. This voting legislation is the next step in restoring the ex-felon community to full citizenship. Denying voting rights to ex-offenders robs them of the opportunity to fully participate and contribute to their society. Disenfranchisement laws isolate and alienate ex-offenders, and have been shown to serve as one more obstacle in their attempt to successfully reintegrate into society. Moreover, these obstacles adversely impact the voting participation of their families, further undermining the effectiveness of our voting system.

This legislation is a narrowly crafted effort to expand voting rights for ex-felons, while protecting State prerogatives to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation would only apply to persons who have been released from prison, and it would only apply to federal elections. Consequently, the bill is fully consistent with constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions upholding Federal voting rights laws.

In past Congresses, voting restoration legislation has been supported by a broad coalition of groups interested in voting and civil rights, including the NAACP, ACLU, the National Council of Churches (National and Washington Office), the National Urban League, the Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, among many others.

The practice of many states denying voting rights to former felons represents a vestige

from a time when suffrage was denied to whole classes of our population based on race, gender, religion, national origin, and property. Ex- felons who have been lawfully released from prisons have paid their debts to society. To continue denying them the ability to reclaim rights as citizens resurrects historic unenlightened practices of our society. Ultimately, I believe that we fail not only ex-offenders by denying them the right to vote, but the rest of a society that has struggled throughout its history to be legitimate and inclusive. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests, it is long past time that these restrictions be relegated to unenlightened history.

Mr. Speaker, today, we honor Clara Mae Shepard Luper and her lifelong work towards achieving equality for all in the state of Oklahoma. She has been the face of the Oklahoma Civil Rights movement since 1958 and to many she is a treasure to the United States and an icon for the struggle for equality.

In the face of segregation and wide-spread discrimination, Clara Luper decided that enough was enough. Mrs. Luper's courage, determination, and integrity cultivated her strong leadership to organize a sit-in protest at the Katz Drug Store in downtown Oklahoma City, a business that refused to serve black customers. Mrs. Luper was fearless when she organized civil disobedience demonstrations and she unapologetically used these demonstrations to challenge the state of Oklahoma's allowance for discrimination against blacks.

I recall Mrs. Luper spoke about her mother witnessing a Black man who had been hung by a White mob in Texas. Regardless of her experience, however, her mother instilled in her a belief of ``loving people, no matter what their color.''

Mrs. Luper's mother believed that freedom and equality were guarantees of the Constitution and Mrs. Luper was bound to make sure the state of Oklahoma made good on that promise. Thus, she continued to influence others with the beliefs her parents taught her by including young people in the struggle for civil rights and immersing herself in demonstrations for equality across the country.

Mrs. Luper participated in the march in Selma against segregation in 1965. She was arrested then and many other times for protesting against social injustice. She was even beaten by demonstrators protesting against the movement in Selma. However, she courageously continued.

For over 40 years Mrs. Luper traveled with groups of young people from Oklahoma to conventions across the United States that rallied to end segregation in America. During these conventions, some students witnessed desegregated public bathrooms and restaurants for the first time in their lives. However, I most admire her journey with these young people to the March on Washington in 1963 and her leadership to hundreds of youth in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, Youth Council in Oklahoma.

As an educator for over 40 years, Mrs. Luper taught American history to Oklahoma youth. Although she retired in 1991, many of her students still credit her for instilling in them a sense of worth and confidence that they could go out and change society for the better. Some of them considered her more than an educator, with many to this day still referring to her as ``Mom.''

She also had an interest in public service. In 1972, Mrs. Luper threw her hat into the political ring and ran for the U.S. Senate. She stated ``as a teacher, I was interested in getting some practical experience in the political realm. And I sure did that.'' Although she did not win the nomination from the Democratic Party, many current politicians in Oklahoma and abroad have benefited from her courage and significant involvement in Oklahoma politics.

In the years following, Mrs. Luper founded the Miss Black Oklahoma Scholarship Pageant. Attending and affording college and a deep knowledge of American and civil rights history are the foundations of the scholarship pageant program. Young black Oklahoma women have benefited Mrs. Luper's vision to provide educational opportunities and scholarships to rising young leaders in the state and I am grateful for her efforts and investment in America's youth.

53 years ago, civil rights leader and icon Clara Luper displayed the inspiring courage to better this country for all of its citizens. I know that this Congress and the people of this Nation can work to further the ideals of Mrs. Luper and the Civil Rights Movement.

[From the New York Times, Jun. 11, 2011]

Clara Luper, a Leader of Civil Rights Sit-Ins, Dies at 88

(By Dennis Hevesi)

Her name does not resonate like that of Rosa Parks, and she

did not garner the kind of national attention that a group of

black students did when they took seats at a Woolworth's

lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C., in February 1960. But

Clara Luper was a seminal figure in the sit-ins of the civil

rights movement.

Ms. Luper, who led one of the first sit-ins--at a drugstore

in Oklahoma City 18 months before the Greensboro action--died

Wednesday at her home in Oklahoma City, her daughter Marilyn

Hildreth said. She was 88.

Ms. Luper was a history teacher at Dunjee High School in

1957 when she agreed to become adviser to the Oklahoma City

N.A.A.C.P.'s youth council. The youngsters asked what they

could do to help the movement.

On Aug. 19, 1958, Ms. Luper led three other adult chaperons

and 14 members of the youth council into the Katz Drug Store

in Oklahoma City, where they took seats at the counter and

asked for Coca-Colas. Denied service, they refused to leave

until closing time. They returned on Saturday mornings for

several weeks.

The sit-ins received local press coverage. Eventually the

Katz chain agreed to integrate lunch counters at its 38

stores in Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa. Over the next

six years, the local N.A.A.C.P. chapter held sit-ins that led

to the desegregation of almost every eating establishment in

Oklahoma City.

``The actions that Ms. Luper and those youngsters took at

the Katz Drug Store inspired the rank and file of the

N.A.A.C.P. and activists on college campuses across the

country,'' Roslyn M. Brock, the group's national chairwoman,

said Friday.

Ms. Luper's activism extended beyond the sit-ins. A week

after that first protest, 17 white churches in Oklahoma City

let members of her youth group attend services. At another

church, a pastor asked two youngsters to leave, The

Associated Press reported at the time. ``God did not intend

Negroes and whites to worship together,'' he told them.

Ms. Luper was arrested 26 times at civil rights protests.

Now a street is named after her in Oklahoma City, and flags

flew Friday at half-staff in her honor.

Born Clara Mae Shepard on May 3, 1923, to Ezell and Isabel

Shepard, Ms. Luper grew up near Hoffman, Okla. Her father was

a brick worker, and her mother was a maid. ``When she was a

child, her brother got sick and they wouldn't treat him at

the hospital,'' Ms. Hildreth said. ``That really triggered

her.''

Ms. Luper is also survived by another daughter, Chelle

Wilson; a son, Calvin; a sister, Oneita Brown; five

grandchildren; eight great-grandchildren; and one great-

great-grandchild. Her husband, Bert Luper, died before her.

Ms. Luper graduated from Langston University in 1944. In

1951 she earned a master's degree in history from the

University of Oklahoma, where she was the first black student

admitted to a graduate history program. She taught at

Oklahoma City high schools until she retired in 1991.

On the blog Stories in America, she said her father ``had

never been able to sit down and eat a meal in a decent

restaurant.''

``He used to tell us that someday he would take us to

dinner and to parks and zoos,'' she said. ``And when I asked

him when was someday, he would always say, `Someday will be

real soon,' as tears ran down his cheeks.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much, sir. We're good friends.

What you're telling me, I presume, is that you approve a $650 million cut from the Women, Infant, and Children's fund. Is that correct?

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

I would like to follow on to our great whip's very moving statement and ask our good friend Roscoe Bartlett, a distinguished Member from Maryland, whether or not he would pass a bill that would cut funding in the amount of $650 million for women, infant, and children out of the Department of Agriculture's program.

So in the four decades that I have served and have been honored to serve in this Congress, I believe that we will have reached an all-time low today if we pass a bill that will cut funding for the Department of Agriculture's Women, Infants, and Children program.

Ladies and gentlemen, my brothers and sisters, how can anybody in Congress with a conscience seriously consider passing a bill, or even proposing one, that would result in more hunger for hundreds of thousands of the poorest and neediest low-income children across this Nation who are already suffering from hunger and malnutrition?

I fail to understand the logic of any elected official who serves in Congress who would actually support a $650 million cut from the Women, Infants, and Children program during one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression without feeling some kind of moral or ethical guilt for doing so.

The Women, Infants, and Children program serves nearly 10 million people each year and costs less than $100 per person. What could be more important than supporting a Federal program that provides nutritious food to new mothers, babies, and children under 5 who have been identified as nutritionally at risk?

Cutting the Women, Infants, and Children program for poor children and mothers is clearly an abandonment of our family values. Promoting policies that we know will result in scores of children feeling the painful sting of hunger, not being able to focus in school or not being able to do their homework, is far from what I would consider having good family values. It is simply un-American, immoral, heartless, and unconscionable to take food away from the mouths of hungry children in the name of deficit reduction. Ladies and gentlemen, have we no shame?

The majority of Americans do not support slashing vital food and nutrition programs for our Nation's poorest children. Let's get rid of the tax breaks for billionaires so all children in this country can live the American dream and not go to bed hungry at night.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues know of my passion for jazz music. This original American art form has played an influential role in my life and is as integral to my District as Motown and automobiles. As such, it has been my pleasure to support and promote the music over my many years in Washington.

I am proud to be an original supporter of the 7-year old DC Jazz Festival, now the largest music festival in the Nation's Capital. It has truly been a pleasure to be a part of this event and all it offers the District and the Nation--from great year-round jazz programming to real educational partnerships with the DC public schools. Truly, the DC Jazz Festival demonstrates that equality, inclusion and democratic values stand at the heart of jazz music.

Since its inception in 2005, the DC Jazz Festival honors living legends each year with a Lifetime Achievement Award. Past recipients include Dave Brubeck, Dr. Billy Taylor, Clark Terry, Hank Jones, Buck Hill, George Wein, Ellis Marsalis and James Moody. Today I rise to add my words of congratulations to the most recent jazz legend to receive this honor--Mr. Jimmy Heath.

The second oldest brother of the legendary Heath Brothers, Jimmy Heath has long been recognized as a virtuoso instrumentalist, and magnificent composer and arranger. He has performed on more than 100 recordings with his own groups, as well as with jazz icons such as Dizzy Gillespie, James Moody, and Miles Davis, to name just a few. Nicknamed ``Little Bird'' due to his similarities in saxophone style to Charlie ``Bird Parker,'' Mr. Heath has written more than 125 compositions, many of which have become jazz standards. Mr. Heath has also long understood the importance of educating the next generation jazz musician. A preeminent educator, he directed the jazz program at Queens College in New York for over twenty years. Jimmy Heath was also a panelist at my 1987 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Jazz Forum entitled: ``Jazz a Family Tradition.'' He talked about his experience growing up in a household with two brothers who also became world renowned jazz musicians: Percy Heath, and Albert ``Tootie'' Heath.

Jimmy Heath has served on the Board of the Louis Armstrong Archives housed at Queens College, and taught at renowned institutions, including New York's famed Jazzmobile, Housatonic College, the City College of New York, and The New School for Social Research. Recipient of the 2003 NEA Jazz Masters Award, we celebrate Jimmy Heath's enduring achievements and contributions to our nation's singular original art form.

Today, I am proud to honor this American living legend and pass on my congratulations for a job well done and an award well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the federal government should take steps to counter anti-Muslim sentiment, along with additional cosponsors. Over the last decade, the American Muslim community has confronted a festering level of suspicion which has manifested itself in hostile government policies and bias from the general public. A CBS/ New York Times poll released in mid-September showed that as many as 20 percent of Americans said they have negative feelings toward Muslims because of the September 11th terrorist attacks. While Congress has confronted some of the more violent manifestations of this bias, the general climate faced by the community has continued to create barriers to full participation in public life that should be addressed by official government policy.

As a member who represents a district with one of the greatest concentrations of American Muslims in the nation, I believe that this sense of Congress is a logical step toward sending the message that this group of proud citizens should be able to enjoy the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to the same extent as all other Americans. Throughout diverse cities and small towns across the country, American Muslims have a long history of playing crucial roles in law enforcement and the armed forces, and as business leaders, doctors, lawyers, and teachers. However, there exists in our nation today a disturbing and dangerous trend of anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry, evidenced by attacks against individuals, religious institutions and entire communities.

The United States is a country founded on the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, as embodied in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The protection of these principles is vital to the ongoing sense of community shared by the diverse peoples and religious groups of this nation. Targeting American Muslims for scrutiny based on their religion goes against the core principles of religious freedom and equal protection under the law. Moreover, the practice erodes trust in government and law enforcement at all levels, which, in turn, undermines public safety.

The American Muslim community should be able to rely on the federal government to lead the effort in fostering an open climate of understanding and cooperation. These communities must be shielded from the threat of violence and suspicion that was at the heart of last January's thwarted attack against the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan. They should also be able to rely on law enforcement's fundamental integrity and respect for First Amendment protected rights. Only through a balanced examination of the challenges facing the nation will we establish a strong policy framework for protecting security, while respecting the Constitution and the interests of affected communities.

This sense of Congress is an attempt to set the record straight and counter the perception of growing anti-Muslim rhetoric. Congress has a solemn duty to ensure that its actions do not fuel misconceptions about, and prejudices toward, any faith community, including the American Muslim community and Islam. Scores of religious, civil rights, law enforcement, and national security leaders and organizations representing diverse Americans and areas of expertise are concerned about messages which appear to target the American Muslim community, sending counterproductive messages both domestically and internationally. It is essential that the federal government send the message that we all must work together to guarantee the security of our country and that no community should be singled out for suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, on May 25, 2011, I inadvertently cast a ``nay'' vote on the Murphy amendment #25 to H.R. 1540. I am very supportive of this amendment and Mr. Murphy's efforts to promote manufacturing and a national jobs agenda through our federal contracting procedures. I am pleased the amendment was adopted by the House.

On May 26, 2011, I was absent and unable to vote on the PATRIOT Act. Had I been present; I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, on May 25, 2011, I was not present to vote on H.R. 1216. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no.''

Additionally, I inadvertently cast a ``nay'' vote on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1216. I intended to vote, ``yea.''

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would prevent funds authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act from being used to fund any type of ground combat operations in Libyan territory. My amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by our President and the international community, and thereby ensure that our involvement in Libya remains limited in scope. I am proud to report that this amendment enjoys the support of 16 bipartisan cosponsors.

My proposal would prevent funds from being used to deploy, establish, or maintain a presence of members of the armed services or private security contractors on the ground in Libya. It also contains an exception that would allow for the rescue of members of the Armed Forces participating in the NATO no-fly zone operation.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, how much time have I remaining?

I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California, the head of the Progressive Caucus for so many years, Ms. Lynn Woolsey.

I thank the gentlelady. The time has come for Congress to once again exercise its constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of our military forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in Libya will not escalate into an expensive occupation that could strain our resources and harm our national security interests.

I beg the Members of this House to give favorable consideration to our amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2011, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for H.R. 1230. I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Oil Consumer Protection Act of 2011,'' legislation that would subject the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries,

OPEC, nations to the U.S. antitrust laws, prohibit oil and gas companies from unilaterally withholding supply with the intent of raising prices or creating a shortage and would protect consumers from price gouging of gasoline.

You do not have to look very hard to see that the American consumer is hurting. And if you ask people on the street what worries them most, the majority will tell you that it is the price of gasoline. American families and businesses are yet again paying record prices for gasoline. The retail price of gasoline has jumped and is now in the range of $4 per gallon. Driving should not have to be a luxury. Americans today are spending far too much of their paychecks at the pump.

In my home State of Michigan, gas prices earlier this month reached their highest levels ever at $4.22 per gallon. Figures released by the AAA Michigan show that the $4.22 per gallon state average surpassed the previous record of $4.21 per gallon set in July 2008.

My bill, once and for all, will crack down on foreign oil cartels. Currently, based on the sovereign immunity doctrine, foreign nations and businesses they control may avoid accountability under U.S. antitrust law. This bill would eliminate the doctrine and allow antitrust law to apply to anticompetitive cartels.

This legislation, the ``Oil Consumer Protection Act of 2011'' would:

Exempt OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to the extent those governments are engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive activities with regard to pricing, production and distribution of petroleum products. (OPEC currently claims sovereign immunity by saying its actions are ``governmental activity,'' which is protected, rather than ``commercial activity,'' which is not.)

Make clear that the so-called ``Act of State'' doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws.

Authorize lawsuits in U.S. federal court against oil cartel members by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

Amend the Clayton Act to prohibit oil and gas companies from unilaterally withholding supply with the intent of raising prices or creating a shortage.

Direct several studies, including a Justice Department/Federal Trade Commission study of mergers in the oil and gas industry, and a GAO study of whether government consent decrees in oil mergers have been effective.

Direct the Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission Chairman to establish a joint federal/state task force with state attorneys general to investigate information sharing among oil companies.

Would empower the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to institute civil and criminal penalties for fuel price gouging during periods proclaimed by the President as an international crisis affecting oil markets.

It is time someone did something about our outrageous gas prices. I hope Congress has the sense to act on this legislation immediately.