Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 668) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 1957, desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am pleased to join the entire Arkansas congressional delegation, Representatives Vic Snyder, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, John Boozman, all in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the integration of the Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine. I would like also to recognize the distinguished members of the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and former chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner, who have joined me in the introduction of this resolution.

Fifty years ago, on September 25, 1957, the Little Rock Nine, as they were called, successfully challenged the status quo of ``separate but equal.'' Three years earlier, we all recall the momentous Supreme Court decision of 1954 that ruled the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection prohibited segregation in the public schools. This landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision struck down the notorious State- sanctioned Jim Crow in the realm of education once and for all.

Unfortunately, this critical determination would not easily be accepted. It would take nine young strong and determined African American students to begin actually implementing the new laws of the land. These nine students, Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls, implemented the promise of Brown v. The Board. In the footsteps of Rosa Parks, these students, too, started a movement to dismantle years of segregation and inequalities in our public school systems.

On the shoulders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., these brave young nine boys and girls faced a hatred and a violence that is embarrassing to recall, and they faced it with nonviolent resistance. They were peaceful. Dr. King himself said ``to meet physical force with soul force.'' And that is what they did. Dr. King asked the students to think of the big picture as they moved forward, for they were going to be the frame for that picture.

So on September 25, 1957, the students who came to be known as the Little Rock Nine integrated Little Rock Central High School, and history was forever changed. Escorted by 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, the Little Rock Nine claimed the fair and equal education that they were entitled to.

It took close to a month to secure this access and opportunity, but these young men and women persevered in their mission of school integration. Defying Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, segregationists and other protestors, the Little Rock Nine were victorious in ending segregated education.

The Little Rock Nine's first attempt to attend Central High School was on September 4, 1957; but the Arkansas Governor called in the National Guard of his State to keep them out. On September 23, the Little Rock Nine, armed with a Federal court order, again tried to attend Central High School, but protests and violence forced the group of students out of the school. It was not until Federal protection was provided that the students would be able to safely attend school on September 25. This Federal protection would remain until the end of the school year, enabling African American senior Ernest Green to graduate. But, sadly, this year of progress would be tainted by the Arkansas Governor's decision to close all of the high schools the following year.

The Little Rock Nine would remain champions of education and school integration despite the fierce opposition. After the schools reopened in 1959, three more of the Little Rock Nine would go on to graduate from Central High. All of them would become productive, contributive members of our society. From social work to education to government, the Little Rock Nine were and remain represented in all professional sectors. They have also continued their commitment to education with the founding of the Little Rock Nine Foundation, which is dedicated to providing educational opportunities to students of color.

On the 50th anniversary of the integration of Central High by the Little Rock Nine, I am pleased to recognize that great progress has been made in education. But I must also acknowledge recent setbacks to the guarantee of opportunity and inclusion within our educational system. A recent Supreme Court decision now severely limits school districts in their efforts to achieve racial balance and diversity in primary and secondary education.

But in acknowledging recent setbacks, I would be remiss to not comment on the Jena Six. Just as the Little Rock Nine stood up to the inequities of their time, we must lift up the Jena Six in response to the inequities of their time.

The Little Rock Nine did not mean to make national or world history; they were just standing up for what they believed was right.

In considering this resolution, I ask that all of our Members move forward with this same kind of determination and understanding of what our democracy is all about. On this 50th anniversary, let us all pledge to continue the legacy of the Little Rock Nine and Brown v. The Board by protecting and advancing equal educational opportunity for all.

I omit the great work that was done by President Dwight Eisenhower and others that helped move this situation forward some 50 years ago. And I note also that Arkansas was not a hot bed of segregation. It was considered, frankly, a moderate Southern State. But things transpired so that it became that one activity in which these nine boys and girls have gone into American history. They have been celebrated, and they have been talked about. I have been hearing about them all week long as we prepare for this celebration. And I am so proud to bring this resolution on the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School before this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who has been serving in the Congress for a period of years and we have enjoyed a very good working relationship with him. I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis, who, himself, grew up in Arkansas. He was a distinguished alderman in Chicago before becoming a Member of Congress. He has worked with the Judiciary Committee with particular interest on re-entry programs, and he also happens to represent my counsel, Kanya Bennett, who comes to the floor with me today. I yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just a minute to close to observe that Arkansas, I have always connected with the former Governor of that State, the former President of this country, Bill Clinton. And I understand he's going to be there tomorrow to cut the ribbon, and I only wish that all of us who will be supporting and voting for this resolution could be there with him.

I think Arkansas has come a long way. They've made a lot of progress, and we're all working to make this a

color-free society, where the content of one's character is far more important and significant than the color of one's skin.

I urge support for Resolution 668 and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, there are some things that I had hoped we would have put behind us as a society. As we move to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ``Little Rock Nine,'' there are things that I had hoped today's children would not need to suffer. But as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I know that we are still in search of equal justice across this Nation. There are still places where the progress of the civil rights era have not fully taken hold.

The tragedy of the Jena-6, which is unfolding right now before the eyes of the Nation, shows us that we still have some distance to travel before putting the demons of the past behind us. The controversy dates back to August 2006 when black students at Jena High School attempted to sit under a tree where white students socialized exclusively. The following day, three white students, who would later be punished only with suspensions, hung nooses from the tree. A series of racially charged episodes involving off-campus violence soon followed the noose incident. In one instance, black student Robert Bailey would be attacked in a white part of town at gun-point. The white student who attacked Bailey would face only simple battery and probation. The white man who pulled the gun on Bailey, however, would face no consequence. Ultimately, Bailey would be charged with theft of a firearm for wrestling the gun away.

Later, racial taunting directed at black students in the high school cafeteria would lead to a fight in which a white student would be injured and sent to the hospital. These injuries, however, would not prevent the student from attending a high school event that same evening. The five of the Black teens involved in the fight--Mychal Bell, Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis, and Theo Shaw were charged as adults with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, sentences that carry up to 80 years in prison. The sixth teen will be tried as a juvenile and faces undisclosed charges.

One would have hoped that the elders of Jena would have intervened in a way that led to healing in the community. Sadly, this was not the case. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been directed at LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters, who told Black students at a school assembly in response to the noose incident that ``I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. With a stroke of my pen, I can make your lives disappear.'' This statement was proven true when Mychal Bell was convicted in June of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy by an all-white jury. The court-appointed attorney who represented Bell called no witnesses and presented no evidence in his defense.

The families of Jena have not, however, faced this struggle alone. Just as happened in the 1960's, students, activists, and other concerned citizens from across the Nation have organized, rallied, and raised money on behalf of the Jena-6. Most recently, on September 9, 2007, Reverend Jesse Jackson met with families of the Jena-6 and called upon Jena officials to reconsider the charges. Major rallies were held in Jena and around the country on September 20, the day Bell's sentencing was scheduled to occur. Tens of thousands traveled to Jena from across the country to show their support.

This show of activism has had some effect. This month, charges against Jones, Shaw and Bailey were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy, although Purvis still faces charges of attempted murder and conspiracy. A judge also granted a motion to overturn Bell's conspiracy conviction, stating that the case should have been tried in juvenile court. In addition, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bell's remaining aggravated second-degree battery conviction, also on the grounds that it should have been tried in juvenile court.

At the Federal, we cannot remain silent. Indeed, the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice has been in Jena for months to assist with conciliation efforts. Investigation units of the Department have also apparently reviewed the situation. It is important for members of Congress to maintain careful oversight of Federal actions to ensure that all the resources of the Justice Department are employed to protect the rights of the local community.

To that end, I will convene a panel at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference to address, the plight of the Jena-6. The forum will be held on Friday, September 28, at 3 p.m. in Room 209c of the Washington Convention Center. The panel will feature: Prof Charles Ogletree, Harvard University Law School; Tory Pegram, Louisiana Affiliate, ACLU; Family Members of Robert Bailey--Jena 6; Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD-7th); Michael Baisden, Radio Personality; Louis Granderson Scott, Attorney of Michael Bell (Jena-6); and Rev. Al Sharpton, Civil Rights Activist.

Ultimately, I believe that a Judiciary Committee oversight hearing may be warranted, as the Department of Justice has intervened with little success. The Department investigated the noose incident, but concluded that a hate crime had not been committed. However, we should explore whether the apparently hostile racial climate at the local high school opens federal jurisdiction under other civil rights statutes. Similarly, the activities of CRS should be reviewed to determine their effectiveness at dispute resolution.

We have reached a point in history where this kind of situation is no longer tolerable. I commend everyone across the country for participating in rallies, sending your support and letting these students and the rest of the country know that we, as a Nation, will not stand for this kind of injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bipartisan, bicameral plan to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which the House will consider later this week. This crucial legislation will ensure that millions of our children receive the vital health services they need.

Even though I support this legislation, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is nothing short of a disgrace that here, in the wealthiest country

on earth, eight million children lack health insurance coverage. We ought to be ashamed that we are having this debate at all.

I am absolutely stunned that some Congressional Republicans and the President continue to oppose this legislation, particularly in light of the fact that the President used SCHIP as part of his campaign platform in 2004. Talk about shock and awe! I am shocked beyond belief that they can stand before the American people with straight faces and refuse health care for our children. I am in awe of the gall required to base the denial of these vital, life-saving services on an ideological talking point. Madam Speaker, the ideology of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle has not provided health care for these children yet. It is impossible for any serious person to believe that if this legislation is defeated the Republican ideology will suddenly start working its magic and provide health care for these children whose parents can't afford to buy it in the open market.

In my years fighting for universal health care, we have often said, ``Covering children is easy. How could anyone refuse to support coverage for children?'' It was coverage for adults that was always perceived as the real challenge.

But today, the Republicans have stooped lower than even I thought was possible. Not only are they saying ``We can't afford to give our children health care.'' This is the same party, by the way, that finds money for tax cuts for the rich, that finds money to fund a disaster of a war. Many times more money than what is needed to cover these children, in fact.

Not only are the Republicans admitting that they prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy and feeding the military industrial complex over insuring our children. They are now standing before the American people and saying ``It is not our job to guarantee health insurance coverage for America's children.'' They are refusing to make that promise.

Instead, they propose that our children's health should be subject to the ups and downs of the stock market, that it should depend on their parents' employment status, or how much they have in a bank account. It is utterly beyond conception how the Republicans can possibly think these concepts will be accepted by the American people. But I will leave my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face the repercussions of this folly next November.

Let me move on to a more positive subject: the compromise SCHIP bill, which we will pass over these shameful objections. While I would have preferred the original House-passed bill to the more modest bicameral compromise, the House-Senate agreement is a major improvement over the President's proposal, which would result in 840,000 children currently enrolled in SCHIP losing their coverage.

The House-Senate agreement invests $35 billion in new funding for SCHIP over five years to strengthen the program's financing, increase health insurance coverage for low-income children, and improve the quality of health care children receive. It will provide health coverage to millions of low-income children who are currently uninsured and ensures that the 6.6 million children who currently participate in CHIP continue to receive health coverage. Pending final Congressional Budget Office estimates, the reduction in the number of uninsured children will approach 4 million children.

Under the agreement, quality dental coverage will be provided to all children enrolled in CHIP. The agreement also ensures states will offer mental health services on par with medical and surgical benefits covered under CHIP. The agreement provides states with incentives to lower the rate of uninsured low income children. It replaces the flawed CMS August 17th letter to states with a more thoughtful and appropriate approach. In place of the CMS letter, the agreement gives states time and assistance in developing and implementing their own best practices to address crowd-out.

The compromise proposal improves outreach tools to simplify and streamline enrollment of eligible children, providing $100 million in grants for new outreach activities to states, local governments, schools, community-based organizations, safety-net providers and others. It also establishes a new quality child health initiative to develop and implement quality measures and improve state reporting of quality data. These measures are critical to ensuring that all our nation's children get the health care they need.

Mr. Speaker, let's tell the White House and the Congressional Republicans still standing with it that it's time to stop playing political games. Let's tell them it's time to work together to ensure more children across the country have the high-quality medical care they deserve. The President might not be able to understand that it's the right thing to do, but the American people certainly will.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the incredible life and work of legendary jazz drummer and composer Max Roach.

Few of the musicians remain who were there with Charlie Parker, Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Bud Powell and Thelonious Monk as they created a new more adventurous, unbridled form of jazz: bebop. The passing of Max Roach on August 16, at age 83, marks another step towards the end of the modern jazz world's greatest generation.

Roach's style, marked by its awe inspiring clarity and control, would come to redefine and expand the role of jazz drummers. In the mid- 1940's he transformed the sound of jazz percussion from an easy-going, head-swaying swing sound, with just a dash of horn-led syncopation, to a sound that had a propulsive drive. After Max Roach, being a jazz drummer meant more than being a mere tempo-keeper.

With Roach the cymbals led the way, not just followed the chart; and, every now and then, Roach would accent a beat or drop an explosion on the tom-tom, to carve up the rhythm and extend the horns' liberties. Even the most casual listener could not help hearing the difference. Throughout the next 47 years his virtuosity would change the way drummers and musicians looked at playing jazz.

Max Roach was a prolific performer and recording artist; indeed, he was the percussionist on many of the seminal jazz recordings of the last half century.

Renowned throughout his performing life, Roach has won an extraordinary array of honors. He was one of the first winners of the MacArthur Foundation ``genius'' grant, cited as a Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters in France, twice awarded the French Grand Prix du Disque, elected to the International Percussive Society's Hall of Fame and the Downbeat Magazine Hall of Fame, awarded Harvard Jazz Master, celebrated by Aaron Davis Hall, given eight honorary doctorate degrees, including degrees awarded by the University of Bologna, Italy and Columbia University.

He is survived by five children: sons Daryl and Raoul, and daughters Maxine, Ayo and Dara. My heart goes out to them and I wish them all well in this time of difficulty. It is unlikely that we will ever see another Max Roach, but we were blessed to have had him while we did.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine.

Fifty years ago today, on September 25, 1957, 9 African American students who would come to be known as the Little Rock Nine--Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls--successfully integrated Little Rock Central High. With strength, determination, and dignity, the Little Rock Nine stood up to the inequities and injustices of their time.

The Little Rock Nine realized that the promise of the 1954 Brown v. Board (347 U.S. 483) was unfulfilled 3 years later in 1957. The Brown decision recognized that the segregation of public schools deprived students of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Continued segregation on the basis of race was to be no more. Armed with the Brown v. Board decision, the Little Rock Nine would successfully dismantle years of school segregation.

Implementing the law of the land, the actions of the Little Rock Nine were symbolic of the promise of educational access and equality not just in Little Rock, but in cities throughout the nation. The Little Rock Nine conveyed that ``separate, but equal'' would have no place in this country. Despite death threats, verbal and physical assaults, school closings, and other adversities, the Little Rock Nine persevered in their mission of school integration.

And despite the violence that was inflicted upon them, the Little Rock Nine did as Dr. King instructed: ``[M]eet physical force with soul force.'' On September 26, 1957, Dr. King urged the people of Little Rock to ``adhere rigorously to a way of non-violence,'' and they did. The Little Rock Nine not only furthered the Civil Rights Movement's strategy of non-violence, but proved that ordinary citizens, and young citizens like themselves, could bring about change. Just as Rosa Park's refusal to give up her seat led to integration of public accommodations, the Little Rock Nine's refusal to be denied an education led to integration of public schools.

Members of the Little Rock Nine went on to become social workers, educators, government officials, and other distinguished professionals. In 1999, the Little Rock Nine established the Little Rock Nine Foundation. The Foundation is dedicated to advancing educational access and opportunities for young people of color--a commitment that reflects the significant and historic role of the Little Rock Nine in the Civil Rights Movement and within the realm of education.

Today, because of the Little Rock Nine, our country's children, regardless of race, are entitled to fair and equal education. In furthering this entitlement, the Congress must continue to work to promote racial diversity, integration, and inclusion within our Nation's schools. It is our responsibility to continue the legacy of Brown v. Board and the Little Rock Nine. A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine integrating Little Rock Central High is symbolic of this commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence on September 17, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

``Yea''--H.R. 3246--Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar, James L.)

``Yea''--H.R. 1657--To establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for careers in the National Weather Service and in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs. (Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana)

``Yea''--H.R. 3257--To extend for two months the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. (Rep. Sherman, Brad)

Mr. Speaker, tonight members of the Congressional Black Caucus stand with the American people to tell the President once more: it is time to end the war in Iraq. As co-chairs of the Out of Iraq Caucus, two of my fellow CBC members, Representatives Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, are among the preeminent leaders in Congress in the fight to end this misbegotten war. I want to thank them for their leadership and for their tireless efforts to bring our troops home.

Last week's much-anticipated testimony, report and ``new plan'' were just more of the same. Once again refusing to heed the facts on the ground and the wishes of the American people, President Bush simply reiterated his

stubborn commitment to continue his failed policy in Iraq.

The ``progress'' reported by the Administration is arguable. But what is not subject to debate is this: there is no such thing as ``winning'' an occupation. We cannot have a military ``victory'' in Iraq. The only way out of this quagmire is a political solution. And after more than four years, there has been no political progress in Iraq. The President seems to believe that another 10 years of occupation, to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands more American lives, is worth wagering on this disastrous conflict. The American people and the Congressional Black Caucus disagree.

The White House and its emissaries continue to urge the Congress and the American people to view the disastrous conflict in Iraq through rose-colored glasses. But we know better. No independent assessment of the situation in Iraq aligns with the picture presented by the White House. The Government Accountability Office reports that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks for success in Iraq as articulated by the President himself. The Jones Commission concludes that the Iraqi National Police force that we have spent millions of dollars training and equipping is `dysfunctional,' riddled with sectarianism, corruption and inefficiency, and should be disbanded altogether. The consensus of the nation's intelligence community, in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, is that the `level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians remains high' and `Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.'

Furthermore, the Administration's use of statistics to reinforce its claims of success is problematic. According to a report in the Washington Post, U.S. military leaders and the White House are `cherry- picking' data to bolster their claims that the President's failed war strategy is working. In order to support this claim, military and Administration calculations are based on a system of categorizing and excluding statistics that `selectively ignored negative trends' and `puzzled' senior intelligence officials and the nation's chief auditor and head of the Government Accountability Office. For example, people who were killed by a shot to the back of the head are included as `sectarian' casualties, but those killed by a shot to the front of the head are not counted because they are assumed to be dead from `criminal' activity, according to an intelligence analyst quoted in the article.

In fact, the death toll in Iraq is rising. The Associated Press reports that while the President's escalation has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago. The AP counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year. Though the administration continually cites a reduction in violence in Anbar province as evidence of the surge's success, in fact, the Marines had already established ties to local Sunni leaders long before the `surge' strategy was even announced. June, July and August 2007 marked the bloodiest summer so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed.

This grim picture is further reflected in Iraqi public opinion. A BBC/ABC News poll conducted in August concludes that Iraqi opinion is at its gloomiest since the polls began in February 2004. According to this latest poll, between 67 and 70 percent of Iraqis say the escalation has made things worse in the key areas of security, the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development. A majority (57 percent) of Iraqis believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable, including 93 percent of Sunnis and 50 percent of Shia.

The token drawdown of troops proposed by General Petraeus and endorsed by the President, in which nearly a year would pass before troop strength returns to pre-escalation levels, is neither a political compromise nor a ``new plan.'' In fact, this drawdown has been scheduled to take place since the beginning of the ``surge,'' because to do otherwise would stretch our military beyond the breaking point. So, in effect, the President is offering nothing at all in response to the demand of the American people and the Congress to bring our troops home--except another 10 years of war and occupation.

The President continues to ask our troops to referee a civil war whose outcome depends entirely on the actions of politicians in Baghdad. As General Petraeus himself has pointed out, the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily; only a political settlement by Iraq's leaders can bring this conflict to an end. Yet, despite the fact that Iraqi politicians have made virtually no progress toward this goal in four years, the President insists on a continuing American military involvement, with no end in sight. The American people understand that this policy has failed, and this Congress will continue to fight to bring an end to this disaster and to bring our troops home.

Madam Speaker, on September 10, 2007, I was granted a leave of absence to attend to personal business. In error, the Congressional Record reported that I was granted a leave of absence from September 10, 2007 through September 21, 2007. The Congressional Record should have reported September 10, 2007 as my only day of leave.

Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence on September 10, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today.

``Yea''--H. Res. 257--Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month (Representative Platts--Oversight and Government Reform).

``Yea''--H. Res. 643--Recognizing September 11 as a day of remembrance, extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families, honoring the heroic actions of our Nation's first responders and Armed Forces, and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges (Representatives Hoyer and Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, and I rise to congratulate all the Members for all the hard work that has been done in the course of the many months, some would say years, in bringing this to the floor.

I'd just like to make a comment about the manager's amendment that I've heard raised in the discussion because, actually, I thank the floor manager of the Rules Committee on the Republican side because we had, I thought, a very good meeting yesterday.

It should be known to everyone here that the reason we had the late filing of the manager's amendment is that we were keeping it open for everybody to make their last changes. And most of the requests came from the minority side, which we were happy to accommodate. So it's in that spirit that I refer and make available to everybody here everything that are in manager's amendments, and hope that the fact that this is maybe 80 percent accomplished for almost all the many sides to this debate will carry us through the rule and through the spirit that has moved the committee and the subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee this far.

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

Members of the House, I am proud and privileged to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this historic consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2007.

I can't help but begin by commending those members of Judiciary who were in this battle before I became chairman, namely, Lamar Smith of Texas; namely, Howard Berman of California; namely, Mr. Coble of North Carolina, all who have worked in a remarkable way. Even when the leadership changed in the committees and Smith became ranking and Berman became Chair, the cooperation and bipartisanship continued. I think it is important to lay that groundwork because of the intense cooperation in which we have sought to consult with every conceivable organization, individual, all stakeholders in this matter; and I think it has had a very telling effect on a bill that brings us all together here this afternoon.

After all, patent reform is enshrined in the Constitution, isn't it? Article I, section 8. After all, we have had a patent office pursuant to constitutional direction since 1790. So for a couple hundred years, this has been the driving force for American competition, creativity, inventiveness, and a prosperous economy. Thomas Jefferson was the first patent examiner in our American history. So I am humbly standing in the well to tell you that the continued robustness of the patent concept is very important. It has been estimated that the value of intellectual property in the United States amounts to $5 trillion, and much of that is in the value of the patents that come from the legislation produced by this bill.

Well, if it is so great, why are we here? Well, because certain things have happened over the course of years that need some re- examination. One of them is the trolling situation in which patents of less than high quality, they have created a whole legal industry, as some will continue to describe here today, in which, with very little pretext or excuse, patents are challenged and create a huge nuisance value. They flood the courts with unnecessary litigation. There are abusive practices that have grown up around the concept of patents, and there are certain inefficiencies where, for example, we use the first- to-invent system of granting patents, while most of the active and creative inventors in other countries use the first-inventor-to-file system, and we harmonize that in this legislation.

So there are problems, and they have been addressed with great care, because sometimes they go against the grain or to the detriment of the rest of the people, the stakeholders in this great legal activity of granting patents.

So I am here to tell you that we finally closed the circle, and I am proud of this, being from the highly organized State of Michigan, that with our friends in Labor we have been able to work out differences that they had originally had with this measure. All the consumer groups, there are several of them that have now joined with us. The United States Public Interest Research Group has come in. The pharmaceuticals have mostly come in. The Association of Small Inventors has come in.

We have done a great job, and we have created a manager's amendment to which we have allotted 20 minutes to discuss separately from the bill itself. I am proud, as you can tell, of the bipartisan nature of this work, because that is what it takes to make some 22 changes in the manager's amendment, more than two dozen changes in the underlying bill; and dealing with the question of damages and post grant opposition are stories that can only be told by the gentleman from California with his appropriate brevity. So it is in this spirit that we begin this final discussion of this measure.

I thank all the Members of the Congress not on the Judiciary Committee who have helped us in so many different ways.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, part of the Smith-Berman-Coble trio is the chairman now of the Courts, Intellectual Property and Internet Subcommittee. His indefatigable commitment to patent reform is now well known by all of the House, and I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). He is the last Member on this side that's getting 3 minutes.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my colleague from California (Mr. Berman).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to add to that trio in the Judiciary that has worked for so long on patent reform. Her name is Zoe Lofgren, and she is a subcommittee Chair; but she stayed with patent reform. I yield her 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), who has worked continuously on this bill to improve it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I just want to tell the previous speaker that we have had to accommodate about 20 different parts of our American industry and society, and, of course, everybody is not equally happy. Apparently you are one of those.

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

(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to call on my neighbor and friend, Marcy Kaptur from Toledo, Ohio; and I recognize her for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Chairman, I take 5 seconds to assure my distinguished friend from Maine that I have more industry in my State than he does, and I am protecting them pretty much.

Mr. Chairman, I now introduce for our closing speaker the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bob Wexler, to have the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, of course.

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

I rise in support of the manager's amendment which is, of course, very bipartisan and which makes further changes to the underlying bill.

Now, this is a work in progress. The reason it came up so late in the afternoon yesterday in the Rules Committee is we were making changes to accommodate the minority side, and so even now the manager's amendment is a piece of work that will not be concluded until we come out of conference, and I'm sure Mr. Berman will have some comments to make about that.

I want anyone who has not seen the manager's amendment or wants to review it, even as it's discussed on the floor today, to please come to my seat, and I will be happy to provide them with a copy of it.

Well, what does it do? We deal with damages, the most controversial provision of the bill, with labor, with the universities, with inequitable conduct, and additional changes that will be made.

For workers and inventors, how do we help them? Well, there was concern that in our attempt to simplify the assignment procedures, we cut the inventor out of the process. We've ensured that changes to applications will require inventor involvement.

And also, there was a fear about working environment at the PTO. We inquired of the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of examining work conditions.

And finally, the examiners themselves were concerned about the quality submission requirements, that their job would be outsourced. We ensured that that will not happen.

Now, damages. We made further changes to explain clearly that a portion that is not mandatory in the calculations of damages can be considered under a similar formula that courts use today.

Universities, we spent enormous time, and I have as many universities in Michigan as anybody has in any other State in the Union, and to address their concern, we spent unbelievable amounts of time negotiating with them individually and collectively about the expansion of prior user rights which might reduce the value of their patents and harm their ability to license invention.

We've eliminated the expansion. Instead, we're calling for a study of the operation of prior user rights in countries where they already exist to determine their effects.

It allows universities to sue in districts where they are located but does not extend that right to universities' associated nonprofit organizations.

We deal with inequitable conduct by tightening the standards for pleading and finding inequitable conduct as a defense to infringement.

We continue to operate in good faith with additional changes. We've adopted suggestions made by outside groups to improve our post-grant opposition provision, changed the discovery standard to interest of justice and ensured that a patent owner can bring a patent suit, even if a post-grant suit is instituted.

So we've addressed every concern that has been brought to our attention. No concern was too small or too technical, and we continue even now to listen to the parties in other ways to continue to enhance the bill.

So now is the time for patent reform.

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

I can't help but take 6 seconds in rebuttal.

The universities support this measure. Small inventors support this measure. This bill is to create jobs in America. How could anybody think that I would be supporting a bill that didn't do this in patent law reform?

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith.

Would the ranking member yield to me?

Thank you. I want to assure the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit for the Record a letter dated September 7, 2007, between myself and the chairman of Ways and Means, Charles Rangel.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 7, 2007.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear John: I am writing regarding H.R. 1908, the Patent

Reform Act of 2007. During consideration of the bill by the

Rules Committee, a manager's amendment was made in order that

includes provisions affecting section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930.

As you know, section 337 falls within the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Ways and Means. The Ways and Means Committee

has jurisdiction over all issues concerning import trade

matters.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill,

and will not oppose the inclusion of this provision relating

to

section 337 of the Tariff Act within H.R. 1908. This is being

done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the

future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1908, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Record.

Sincerely,

Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

How much time remains?

I yield myself 6 seconds before I yield the rest of the time to Mr. Berman.

This is curious, here I am a son of Labor, out of Labor, represents Labor all my life, being told publicly that I don't represent the little guy from people whose connection with working people in collective bargaining movements is unknown.

With that, I yield to my dear friend, Mr. Berman, for the remainder of our time.

We have reviewed the amendment. It's an important contribution. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Could the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) yield briefly?

I'm glad we've all proved our working class credentials in support of working people, and I'm very impressed, if not surprised. And so I want to describe this debate that's currently going on on this second provision.

Here is the one man in Congress with more patents as a small-time inventor than anybody in the House and the Senate being explained to why this is contrary to the interests of small-time inventors. Very interesting.

Ladies and gentlemen, I keep noticing that the opponents to the bill, opponents to the rule, opponents to the manager's amendment, opponents to the amendments to include it in this are all opposed to everything, anything. And I am glad these great sons of Labor, like the gentleman from California who knows his voting record on Labor and so, unfortunately, do I, recognize how he is supporting the working people and the person who has invented more inventions than all of us put together is opposing the small inventors. What a debate this is.

I just rise to let you know, sir, that on this side of the aisle, we are proud to support this amendment.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Acting CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair.

I rise only to say to the distinguished previous speaker that this mistaken impression that this is being amended on the run is incorrect. And I'm glad you listened to the full debate, and I respect your position.

The point that you think it's being amended on the run is that we had nearly 50 organizations in which we were negotiating with up until the last moment, and even now, sir. That's why we have a manager's amendment.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

Not only to thank the gentleman for producing this amendment, but also to appreciate all the work that he did on helping us make this bill as good as it was. We thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1908.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1908, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, cross-references, punctuation, and indentation, and to make other technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing a bill to update and improve the codification of title 46 of the United States Code. Last year, Congress enacted H.R. 1442, which became Public Law 109-304. This legislation formally codified the various statutes in title 46 as positive law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non-substantive revisions were made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent logical structure.

As with all codification legislation, that law restated and replaced existing law as in effect on a particular date. While Congress was considering H.R. 1442, it was also considering four other pieces of legislation affecting title 46. These other bills were drafted in conformance with then-existing title 46, rather than title 46 as it would be revised. These four bills were enacted after the date specified in H.R. 1442, and thus were not reflected in P.L. 109-304.

The Office of the Law Revision Counsel prepared this bill as part of its functions under 2 U.S.C. 285(b). It incorporates the four new laws into the codified title 46. It also makes other minor, non-substantive revisions and technical corrections to the codified title 46 to reflect subsequent public comments that were submitted too late to be reflected in P.L. 109-304.

It is important to emphasize that this bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. It is intended simply to update the codified title 46.

The Committee on the Judiciary plans to act on this bill in the very near future, after providing an additional brief opportunity for public review and comment.

Mr. Speaker, Section 213 provides that Congress will receive annual reports regarding the extent to which lobbyists, lobbying firms and other registrants are complying with the amended Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Under Section 213(a), the Comptroller General will annually review random samples of publicly-available registrations and reports filed by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants and evaluate compliance by those individuals and entities with the Act. The use of the term ``publicly available'' in Section 213(a) is designed to ensure that the registrations and reports that the Comptroller General samples are the same registration and reports that are available to the public. Furthermore, the term ``publicly available'' also requires the Comptroller General to obtain copies of the registration and reports from the same public websites and in the same manner as the public obtains that information. This will better ensure that the information evaluated by the Comptroller General will be identical to the information the public obtains. Accordingly, Section 213 does not authorize the Comptroller General to request information from the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate, except pursuant to the same methods and procedures by which the public requests or obtains such information. Section 213 therefore does not authorize the Comptroller General to audit, investigate or review the Clerk's and/or Secretary's compliance with the Act, or their receipt, compilation, or dissemination, and/or review of information filed under the Act.

The Comptroller General is expected to use appropriate judgment in assessing the size of the random sample and the manner of identifying the sample. The Comptroller General should ensure that the size and manner of its random sampling are designed to ensure that the sample adequately represents a fair and complete cross-section of all registrations and reports filed pursuant to the Act.

Section 213(b) provides that the Comptroller General will submit annual reports by each April 1 to the Congress identifying the results of its analyses of the random samples, and also providing recommendations to the Congress to improve compliance with the Act by lobbyists, lobbying firms, and registrants. The reports shall also assess whether and to what extent the Department of Justice has sufficient resources and statutory authority to enforce the Act and, if not, recommendations regarding what specific resources or authorities Congress should provide to the Department of Justice. In complying with this Section, it is expected that the Comptroller General will consult with the Department of Justice.

Section 213(c) provides the Comptroller General with the tools necessary to evaluate whether the information included by lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants in the reports filed under this Act is accurate and complete, and thus whether these individuals and entities are complying with the Act. This subsection thus authorizes the Comptroller General to request and receive information from lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants (and their employees). The information the Comptroller General may request from lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants is broad and need only relate to the purposes of the Act. In other words, the Comptroller General is expected to request sufficient documentation from lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants to fully evaluate whether the information contained on the registrations and reports filed by the lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants is accurate and complete. This will often necessarily entail more information from the lobbyists, lobbying firms and registrants than is contained within the reports.

Section 301 prohibits House Members from engaging in any agreements or negotiations with regard to future employment or salary until his or her successor has been selected unless he or she, within 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiations or agreements, files a signed statement disclosing the nature of such negotiations or agreements, the name of the private entity or entities involved, and the date such negotiations commenced with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It requires senior staff to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 3 days if they engage in negotiations or agreements for future employment or compensation. The prospective employment or compensation negotiations or agreements in Section 301 are intended to refer only to those conducted with a private entity or private entities. Additionally, the negotiations and agreements referenced are intended to refer to actual bargaining over the terms of possible employment.

Section 305 provides that Members shall be prohibited from attending national political convention parties that are held in their honor if such parties have been paid for by a lobbyist, or an entity that employs lobbyists, unless the Member is the party's presidential or vice presidential nominee. This provision will have the effect of preventing lobbyists or an entity employing such lobbyists from directly paying for a party to honor a specific Member.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3221, The New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. This landmark Energy Independence legislation will help make our nation more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; reduce costs to consumers by promoting greater efficiency and smarter technology; create new American jobs; and make our Nation a leader in reducing global warming.

H.R. 3221 reduces our dependence on foreign oil in a number of important ways. It makes the largest investment in history to improve how we grow, produce, transport, and store biofuels that will fuel our cars and trucks. It provides a plug-in hybrid vehicle tax credit for individuals and encourages the domestic development and production of advanced technology vehicles and the next generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles. The initiative also includes tax incentives for biking to work, encourages people to take mass transit, and promotes cleaner buses, ferries, and trains. In addition, H.R. 3221 repeals subsidies and tax giveaways to Big Oil.

The New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act contains a number of provisions to lower energy costs to consumers, including landmark energy efficiency provisions that would save consumers and businesses at least $300 billion through 2030. It would reduce energy costs to consumers through more energy efficient appliances, such as dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators and freezers and assist consumers with improving efficiency of existing homes, as well as building energy efficient new homes. H.R. 3221 also extends existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas and trash combustion, as well as creating new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy.

The major investments in renewable energy technologies included in this bill have the potential to create 3 million new American jobs over 10 years. The bill creates an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train a quality workforce for ``green'' jobs. To spur innovation, H.R. 3221 creates an Energy Department agency to coordinate high-risk, high-payoff energy technology research and development that private industry is not likely to pursue on its own. The bill increases loan limits to help small business develop energy efficient technologies and purchases; provides information and assistance to small business to reduce energy costs; and increases investment in small firms that are developing renewable energy solutions.

Finally, H.R. 3221 takes major steps to reduce global warming. Its energy efficiency provisions will not only save consumers and businesses money, but will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 10.4 billion tons through 2030, more than the annual emissions of all of the cars on the road in America today. This initiative calls on the U.S. to re-engage and lead the global effort on a binding global warming agreement, with commitments from all the major emitters including China, India, and Brazil. Because the federal government is the largest energy consumer in the United States, the bill promotes federal leadership on reducing global warming by requiring federal government operations to be carbon-neutral by 2050. These provisions will save taxpayers $7.5 billion through 2030. Finally, this initiative takes aggressive steps on carbon capture and sequestration to come up with a cleaner way to use coal. The United States must lead the way in developing this critical technology to reduce global warming throughout the world.

I would also like to address the important amendment to this bill offered by Repesentatives Udall and Platts, which I will support. The Udall/Platts amendment creates a national renewable energy standard (RES) requiring electric utilities to provide a gradually increasing amount of their electricity through the use of renewable energy resources. A national RES would save consumers billions of dollars from lower energy bills and create tens of thousands of new jobs.

The amendment's initial requirement, in year 2010, is 2.75 percent of a utility's electricity. This gradually increases to 15 percent by 2020. The amendment permits utilities to meet up to 27 percent of their targeted requirement through energy efficiency savings (the equivalent of up to 4 percent of the 15 percent requirement). It gives credit for existing renewables. In addition, utilities get credit for all actions taken pursuant to a state portfolio standard associated with renewable electric generation. I believe this gradual, flexible approach is a reasonable way to provide the right incentives and market signals to diversify our electricity supply with clean, renewable energy sources that will help keep our air and water clean and start us down a path that will combat global warming.