Floor Statements

I want to let the gentlelady from Minnesota know that I would like to work with her on getting these numbers straightened out because there were some erroneous conceptions involved here.

I would like to begin by recognizing the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime in the Judiciary Committee for 1\1/2\ minutes, my dear friend, Bobby Scott.

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

I am a little dismayed that we come back after this recess and after a struggle that has gone on for generations, and we come here, and of all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am stunned that only one person rises in support of a claim that is so gross,

so discriminatory, and I was glad that the gentlelady raised the question of why nobody was ever fired or punished or discharged. That is how deep and pervasive this problem has been over the centuries in this country. That is why nobody was punished. That is why it makes it all the more important that we, if we can, get as bipartisan a vote from everybody in this House on this matter.

Chairman Bobby Scott mentioned John Boyd of the National Black Farmers Association. He is sitting up in the gallery right now. I want you to know that he came to me in the spring of 1983. That was 27 years ago, and we have been working on this matter ever since. All across the South--we even had problems, we found out, in the North. It wasn't just the South, but the South was obviously the most pervasive.

So we are talking about something that was written up by Wil Haygood a number of years ago in The Washington Post, on October 3, 2004, in an article entitled, ``The Promised Land. Bigotry and bankruptcy haven't driven Ricky Haynie from the fields his ancestors worked as slaves.''

Now, as much as I appreciate the Secretary of Agriculture for his work in this, and as much as I appreciate those who are going to support this measure, I am sorry to say that this matter of fairness to farmers of color, Hispanics, and women is not yet resolved. And they are black farmers who, because they were late filers--and how can you be somewhere out in God knows where, and you are supposed to know when the filing date for things are. There are over 12,000 African American farmers that have been excluded from the Pigford settlement merely because they didn't do it on time. Do you think they have got a lawyer out there? Of course they don't.

The claims of Latino farmers, late filers, and women farmers are still not resolved even when we finally pass this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5712, ``The Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010.'' One of the most important priorities of Congress, regardless of our current economic downturn, is the financial well-being of our Nation's hospitals, and the ability of patients to have access to medically necessary care when they need it.

Passage of H.R. 5712 accomplishes both goals by blocking the 23 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, for one month, while Congress and the Obama Administration work together to put together a permanent fix to ensure the optimal Medicare reimbursement rate to doctors and hospitals.

In order to have world class hospitals in the United States, we must have the needed funding to ensure that our Nation's hospitals can provide the highest quality care possible. Passage of H.R. 5712 will help strengthen our Nation's hospitals, especially those located in our inner cities and rural areas. Many of these hospitals are experiencing serious funding shortages, and are at risk of losing much needed doctors and medical staff.

H.R. 5712 is a bipartisan bill that costs one billion dollars, and is fully paid for. This legislation helps to protect access to doctors for Medicare beneficiaries and military families, given that payment rates for doctors in TRICARE, the health care program for active-duty service members, National Guard and Reserve members, military retirees, and their families are tied to Medicare rates.

H.R. 5712 is a good example of how Members of Congress working together in a spirit of bipartisan unity can improve the health and well being of all Americans. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on November 29, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 5877 and H. Res. 771.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both bills.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Continuation Act which would extend emergency unemployment compensation and other benefits through February 2011. Our government has always provided federal unemployment benefits during economic downturns until the job market has rebounded. If Congress does not act, over two million unemployed workers will lose their benefits this holiday season.

Today, unemployment levels are unacceptably high. In my home State of Michigan it is over 12 percent. In the past election, voters overwhelmingly cited the economy and job market as their highest concerns. It is highly ironic then that Republicans made electoral gains even though they have blocked multiple attempts to extend the unemployment benefits and many other job creating bills. Furthermore, Republicans oppose today's measure while providing unwavering support for permanent extension of Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Republicans are willing to give a helping hand to the rich while ignoring the taxpaying American worker. It should be clear to everyone where the Republican Party stands and who they will be willing to fight for.

Madam Speaker, with power comes responsibility. The Republicans won the election and now they have a responsibility to govern, instead of simply saying ``no'' over and over again. We simply cannot adjourn for Thanksgiving, a holiday that symbolizes gratitude and appreciation, while turning our back to our neighbors in need. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in a show of compassion for our fellow citizens during this season of giving and support today's legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will urge the House to vote ``no'' so as to sustain the President's veto, and I would like to explain why it is important that we are taking this vote.

This bill has passed the House under suspension in each of the last three Congresses. It has been brought forward by our colleague from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) each time. It requires courts to recognize duly performed out-of-State notarizations. As it was passing the Senate, reports began to surface regarding improper and possibly fraudulent documentation in foreclosure actions across the country.

Improperly performed notarizations were reportedly a major factor in circumventing the legal protections afforded to citizens in foreclosure--notarizations in the absence of the person signing the document or without that person's signature or sometimes even forged notary signatures.

So we are taking a fresh look at the notarization bill. There were concerns that it could have the unintended effect of facilitating improprieties in mortgage foreclosures and in other financial transactions as well in that a State could remove important protections from its notarization rules, and then the bill would effectively force other States to go along.

The President took the responsible course in refusing to sign this bill into law so that we could give it a careful and fresh examination in light of these concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my dear friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, by saying that what we are trying to do here is to prevent the possibility of sloppy, inaccurate, or fraudulent notarizations from creeping into the foreclosure process.

As we all know, many of the foreclosures have now been found to be legally defective because of many things, including, possibly, improper notarizations. With millions of people losing their homes, it really would be almost negligent for us to assume that notarizations coming from another State, which might be electronic, would not be fraudulent. I think caution is the better choice for the matter that is under discussion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my surprise at the author of this bill, who apparently hasn't heard about the fraud and misrepresentations, the swindling of people whose mortgages have led to foreclosure, and then we find out that the instruments that were brought into court didn't even know who the owner was, much less know who notarized it. So I would caution my colleague to let's be a little bit more careful here. A million people are losing their homes, and you're telling me that we're going to accept a notarization from anywhere, coming from any State, because you've introduced this before this problem began?

I say, ``no.'' We can't even find out who the owners were after these instruments get chopped up and resold and moved in the financial scheme of things. We don't want anybody running the risk of accepting an out- of-State notarization because you've introduced the bill before this problem began. And now that it has begun, let's be careful. Let's be certain that we're protecting everybody that's being foreclosed on, and that's my major concern.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

I wanted to welcome Judge Poe back after the hurricanes that he predicted. And there's nothing more gracious than starting off the session with an ``I told you so'' lecture. And so I am going to be remembering everything that the gentleman said and try to take it to heart as much as I can.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1712) providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5566 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 1712.

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

Mr. Speaker and Members, I am happy to start off this part of our session with this resolution that provides that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5566, with an amendment.

With this resolution, we are adopting nearly all of the Senate's amendments to our House-passed bill addressing the very important subject of animal crush videos.

I emphasize that the reason this resolution doesn't adopt the Senate- passed bill in its entirety is due to concerns that criminalizing attempts and conspiracies in this area creates a serious constitutional concern about prior restraint of speech. And as chair of the Judiciary Committee, I hold myself open to the discussion or inquiries of any Member of the House about the constitutional aspect of the remark I just made.

We need to remember that the history of this bill is thus: the prior law that we passed was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and that's why we are here doing it again. We think we've got it right this time.

As a strong supporter of this bill, and of the law, I have tried to make sure that we pass a constitutional bill. To stop crush videos, we need a law that stays on the books, and that's what this resolution will do.

The underlying subject is one that we have discussed previously. In summary, there is a market for videotapes and still photographs depicting, typically, small animals being slowly crushed to death. Don't ask me about the psychiatric make-up of people in our society that go in for this sort of thing. But it's, unfortunately, a reality.

We adopted a bill in 1999 which became a law intended to ban the creation, sale, and possession of the depiction of such acts. They became known as crush videos. But in April, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Stevens, invalidated the statute. The Court held that the law was overbroad and violated the Constitution's First Amendment.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Chairman Bobby Scott of Virginia, held a hearing in May and heard from some good witnesses who all agreed that a narrower legislative approach would be constitutional and survive court challenges.

The bill that we passed was narrower than the original law. The most important difference is that the bill would only prohibit the sale of crush videos that are obscene. This would likely address the key flaw in the original statute because obscenity is outside the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In September, the Senate took up H.R. 5566 and amended it. The Senate version also used the same approach that we did to such obscene depictions. The only difference is that the Senate bill prohibits the creation of crush videos, which I believe is acceptable because it includes an interstate commerce requirement.

However, that provision and the prohibitions on distributing crush videos, domestically or outside the United States, include prohibitions on attempts and conspiracies which would, in effect, impose punishment equal to that resulting from a completed offense. This is particularly problematic with respect to the creation of expressive materials, no matter how little redeeming value they may have.

We should not enact a prohibition on activity or discussions about creating materials which, as yet not completed, may or may not turn out to be obscene. Justice Potter Stewart explained the problem with describing when something is obscene in Jacobellis v. Ohio by saying, ``I know it when I see it.''

Until an image is completed, there is no way to know that it will be obscene. Once completed, then it can be prosecuted as such. Therefore, the version of the bill before the House today adopts every change that the Senate proposed, except the problematic part concerning attempts and conspiracies.

The bill we passed was a strong and constitutional measure addressing the problem of crush videos, and the bill now before us is no less effective with these changes, and so I urge support of the bill.

I particularly commend a member of the Judiciary Committee, Elton Gallegly, and my colleague from Michigan, Gary Peters, who both have worked in an effort to enact legislation addressing the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to our distinguished colleague from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, for such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to congratulate Judge Poe on his comments about the bill. I agree with him. But let's keep hope alive that the other body will not fail us at this moment with so few days left.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 716) recognizing Gail Abarbanel and the Rape Treatment Center, and for other purposes.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Gail Abarbanel is the director of the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center's nationally known Rape Treatment Center. In 1974, the center became one of the first hospitals in the United States for establishing a protocol for treating victims of sexual assault. Today, under the leadership of Ms. Abarbanel, the Rape Treatment Center serves as a national model for its exemplary treatment, education, and prevention programs.

She is also responsible for innovative programs such as the Stuart House for sexually abused children and the Verna Harrah Clinic to provide state-of-the-

art medical care and forensic exams to rape victims. She was a driving force behind efforts to change the way rape and other sexual crimes are viewed in society and how victims are treated by law enforcement officials and medical personnel, and, most importantly, the judicial system itself.

I commend Representative Patrick Kennedy for introducing this resolution to recognize Ms. Abarbanel's groundbreaking work on behalf of sexual assault victims.

I urge Members to support the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to congratulate the author of this resolution, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, and also his original cosponsors, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Berman, Mr. Wexler and Ms. Rosa DeLauro. I think this is an excellent resolution. I thank the ranking member for his remarks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1376) to restore immunization and sibling age exemptions for children adopted by United States citizens under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption to allow their admission to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this measure, the International Adoption Simplification Act, corrects two problems and inconsistencies with respect to adoptions of foreign children by United States citizen parents.

The bill would harmonize age requirements for children subject to inter-country adoptions, irrespective of whether the child's home country is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions.

Currently, the law contains two age requirements related to the adoption of foreign children. The general rule is that an adoption must be finalized before the child turns 16 in order for the child to qualify for legal status in the United States. The law also provides an exception to this age requirement for the siblings of such an adopted child. This exception, meant to keep siblings together where possible, provides that the sibling of an adopted child may also get legal status in the United States as long as the sibling's adoption takes place before his or her 18th birthday.

Now, strangely enough, this exception is available only if the sibling comes from a country that has not signed the Hague Convention. The exception is not available to siblings from signatory countries. Please do not ask me why this exists in the law. But Senate 1376 remedies this problem by expanding the sibling age exception to signatory countries. This will harmonize the law and allow adopted siblings to remain together, irrespective of whether the sending country is a signatory to the Hague Convention.

S. 1376 also harmonizes immunization requirements with respect to international adoptions. Currently the law requires adopted children to have certain vaccinations prior to arrival, but there is an exemption for children under 10 years of age if the adoptive parents certify that necessary vaccinations will be obtained within 30 days of entry. This exemption was enacted in 1997 by Congress to prevent parents from having to subject their children to numerous and sometimes unsafe immunizations in foreign nations, allowing them to safely immunize their children in the United States instead.

As with the age cut-off requirement, this exemption applies only to children adopted from countries that are not signatories to The Hague Convention. It doesn't apply to children from signatory countries. And so, once again, the Senate bill fixes what could be called a nonsensical discrepancy by expanding the exemption to apply to all children, regardless of whether their own country is a signatory to The Hague Convention or not.

I want to thank Lamar Smith, our ranking member on Judiciary, and our subcommittee chair, Zoe Lofgren of California, for their bipartisan support of this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6396) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6397) to amend section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for a marriage for which the parties are not physically in the presence of each other due to service abroad in the Armed Forces of the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and Members, the Marine Sergeant Michael Ferschke, Jr. Memorial Act, introduced by Representative John Duncan, is a simple but, I think, important measure that will help active duty members of our Armed Forces serving overseas--as well as their spouses. Under current immigration law, when a marriage takes place between two persons who cannot both be physically present during the ceremony, the marriage is deemed not valid until it is consummated. There are no exceptions to this provision, even in cases where it sometimes results in clear injustice. And so we learned about this legal requirement through the case of Sergeant Ferschke, a United States Marine stationed at Camp Schwab in Okinawa, Japan, who, in March of 2007, while on the base, met a Japanese woman named Hotaru Nakama at a birthday party for a mutual friend.

They dated for over a year before Sergeant Ferschke was deployed to Iraq. Shortly before his departure, they learned that they were going to have a baby, and they spoke about getting married, moving back to the United States and raising a family together. Two months after Sergeant Ferschke arrived in Iraq, the couple was married through a ceremony conducted over the telephone; but 1 month later, Sergeant Ferschke tragically, in combat, gave the ultimate sacrifice.

The United States military recognizes this marriage, and Mrs. Ferschke has been assisted in raising their son by the payment of a death gratuity, but the marriage, itself, cannot be recognized under our immigration laws because it was never consummated after the marriage ceremony.

Now, this legislation doesn't entirely eliminate the consummation requirement. It simply eliminates the requirement for active duty members of our Armed Forces who are serving abroad by creating a narrow exception in cases where the failure to consummate the marriage is caused by a physical separation due to active duty military service abroad by one of the parties to the marriage. This is a reasonable provision that will provide some measure of support and comfort to members of our Armed Forces serving abroad.

So I commend our colleague John Duncan for introducing this measure. It was championed by our Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren, and our ranking member, Lamar Smith, and Jim McGovern. I thank them for their strong bipartisan support of the measure.

I urge support of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize, for as much time as he may consume, our colleague from Massachusetts, Jim McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend not only John Duncan and Jim McGovern, but I think that this legislation and the energies that went into its passage exemplify the fact that Members of this body work on small matters, as well as global and international concerns, but sometimes it goes unnoticed that in many of our offices, we're working on

matters that are not of historic moment in terms of the history of this country but they're of enormous importance to the constituents for whom we serve. This example of cooperation of the whole House in bringing this matter to our attention and remedy is, I think, salutary and commendable, and I thank all of those that worked with John Duncan on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 328) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the successful and substantial contributions of the amendments to the patent and trademark laws that were initially enacted in 1960 by Public Law 96-517 (commonly referred to as the ``Bayh-Dole Act'') on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its enactment.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act, a landmark piece of legislation that reshaped the landscape of technological innovation in the United States by clarifying intellectual property rights in government-funded inventions.

What that means is that, prior to this act, our country was stuck in a form of economic malaise, and innovation was, frankly, stifled. The stiff international competition we faced at the time wasn't just a matter of Europe and Japan getting back on their feet. It was also a matter of them, frankly, outpacing us in technological development.

We knew we had to better harness all our innovation capacity, particularly the work being done at our research universities. At the time, policies mandated Federal Government ownership of patent rights for any research done with Federal funding. Since most university research had some sort of Federal funding, the universities had no say, and no stake, in the patent rights of their own research.

Then there were the rules in licensing what patents existed which were considered cumbersome and discouraged use by the private sector. The situation literally led to technologies being left on the shelf to gather dust, and we were falling behind in this area.

This bill of 30 years ago also revolutionized the way patent rights in university inventions were to be dealt with. The Bayh-Dole Act allowed universities to own patents, license them out to the private sector, and split royalties earned with professors and students who worked on the invention.

With the barriers to obtaining patent licenses removed, private investors could easily partner with federally funded research institutions and begin

to develop groundbreaking innovations for commercial use.

This bill, this law, aligned the interests of universities and faculty and the private sector and thereby ushered in an unprecedented level of collaboration between these groups. It further channeled the imagination of our best and brightest to help make a better future for all of us.

So, in the last 30 years since Bayh-Dole, it has led to the creation of over 150 new pharmaceuticals and medical treatments, including a hepatitis B vaccine, cancer treatments, in vitro devices, the Palmaz balloon expandable stent, and many others.

Estimates tell us that Bayh-Dole has added at least $450 billion to the United States' gross industrial output and that between 1999 and 2007 it created probably more than 280,000 new high-tech jobs.

The Bayh-Dole Act has been recognized around the world as a best practice and has served as a model for laws adopted by other Nations hoping to replicate the success that we had in our own country in building partnerships between federally funded researchers and private investors.

The Economist magazine called the Bayh-Dole Act ``perhaps the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the past half-century.''

For those reasons, I urge that we celebrate the 30th anniversary passage of this very important piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3689) to clarify, improve, and correct the laws relating to copyrights, as amended.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this measure, entitled the Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections Act, is a commonsense, proactive response to unintended errors and confusion in copyright law. This bill updates and improves the way the Copyright Office conducts its business by making some changes, mainly streamlining the copyright registry process by authorizing the Copyright Office to accept electronic signatures when users file documents. It also eliminates the requirement that the Copyright Office keep a hard copy of a directory they already make available to the public online. This hard copy has taken over several shelves in their office but is seldom consulted by the public.

The measure before us also clarifies some ambiguities in the copyright code. For example, in 1997, Congress amended the copyright code to clarify that copyright owners do not forfeit their rights in a work if they distributed it prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. However, while Congress made this fix for musical works distributed by phonograph, it neglected to specifically identify dramatic and literary works that were also distributed by phonograph. We make that correction in this bill before us. Finally, it corrects in this measure a number of technical errors, just dotting the I's and crossing the T's. I support the legislation. I commend the committee that worked on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1713) recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating a previously all-White public elementary school.

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

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

This resolution is to recognize and honor the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges, who helped desegregate a previously all-white public elementary school. This is the 50th anniversary, yesterday, actually, of the integration of the William Frantz public school located in New Orleans, Louisiana.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ruby Bridges once, and she's a very impressive lady. On November 14, 1960, she became the first African American student to attend the school, and one of the first African American students to integrate an elementary school in the South.

My commendation goes to our colleague, the great civil rights leader, John Lewis of Georgia, for offering this resolution that commemorates this significant occasion.

In recognizing this civil rights and education milestone, I want to point out that the success of the civil rights movement itself was due in large part to the resolve of young people, men and women of all races and backgrounds, who were courageous enough to take a stand against racial injustice in America.

The famous artist, Norman Rockwell, caught this in a famous painting of this little 6-year-old girl escorted into the school by United States marshals, a girl only seeking a decent and equitable education. Little did she probably know that she would be making history. But she wanted to go to school. She wanted to learn. And she had no idea that there were people and forces that would stand in her way and do everything in their power to make sure that her simple personal objective would not be accomplished.

And so the incredible thing that is the reaction against this attempt of a first grader was so complete that she was the only member in her class that semester. And by the time she got to the sixth grade, this elementary school was finally integrated.

Now, this realized the promise of the 1954 case that we're all familiar with, Brown v. The Board of Education, and the separate but equal realm of education. And it's worth observing, and to have our history brought back to us by this great colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King, John Lewis, whose heroic courage as a young man himself is yet another chapter in this remarkable history of America turning around a long history of segregated practices in America.

The success of the Montgomery bus boycott, led by my dear friend, Rosa Parks, and the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the foundation upon which Ruby Bridges could begin school at William Frantz Elementary. And her actions on November 14, 1960, served as the foundation for even further achievements yet to come.

And so following her first day of the first grade, the 1960 sit-in movement and the civil rights activity that followed called attention to segregated lunch counters and public facilities, not only in the South, but throughout the country. And so later that year, during the freedom rides, segregated restaurants and waiting areas in interstate bus terminals were successfully challenged.

And so this all culminated into what?

Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

And so Ruby Bridges continues her struggle today. She's working to ensure that the school she integrated is an institution that affords children of all races a quality education.

And the struggle of John Lewis continues today as now, at the Federal level. He helps create and implement the laws that started not so many years ago when this 6-year-old began her quest for a fair and just and equal society, not only in the realm of education, but in all America to make it a real democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Judge Poe that if he had been around during the Hayes-Tilden episode, 50 years wouldn't seem so long to him, either.

I now turn to John Lewis and yield him such time as he may consume.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that we were able to reveal this important part of American history, not just through our colleagues but through our countrymen. I share the spirit of the remarks of my friend on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Poe.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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