Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6412) to amend title 28, United States Code, to require the Attorney General to share criminal records with State sentencing commissions, 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 on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6412 is a short, but very important, piece of legislation. The bill will allow State sentencing commissions to obtain direct national criminal history record information maintained by the Department of Justice. These commissions, the State commissions, perform critical functions. They shape State policies that promote fairer, more consistent sentencing practices. They help protect public safety and address the impacts of crime on victims and the community. They develop tools to assess the seriousness and risk of offenders so that high-risk, dangerous offenders can be handled appropriately, and low-risk low-level offenders can be placed in appropriate evidence- based programs.

They project the impacts of State legislation, regulations, and policies on correctional populations, personnel needs, and fiscal requirements. They evaluate the effectiveness of sentencing and corrections programs, particularly in terms of outcomes, offender recidivism, and cost-benefit analysis.

Currently, State sentencing commissions are only able to receive out- of-State and Federal criminal history information through third parties, if at all. The effectiveness of the work of these commissions is consequently undermined by missing or incomplete information, particularly with respect to research relating to recidivism in jurisdictions with large populations near their State borders. Allowing State sentencing commissions to access complete and accurate criminal history information will improve the administration of justice by enhancing the effectiveness of sentencing decisions and program placements. Access to this information will also improve research concerning sentencing outcomes and recidivism.

This bill will simply put State commissions in the same position as the Federal Sentencing Commission in terms of access to this information. The United States Sentencing Commission is already afforded access to this information, subject to a transfer agreement with the Department of Justice, which protects the confidentiality of these records. I would expect the Department of Justice to treat State commissions the same way once the legislation is enacted.

I appreciate the assistance of Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith for their bipartisan support of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from California for supporting bills introduced by this side of the aisle. In light of the change in leadership next year, I hope he continues in that great tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter, and dissented from the subcommittee report. I rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution.

I believe that, under precedents of the House, imposing censure on one of our Members for violating procedural rules of the House under these circumstances would be singularly harsh, unfair, and without precedent. Now, Mr. Rangel has acknowledged his mistakes, and he has asked to be punished fairly, which means punished just like everybody else similarly situated. Accordingly, I believe the punishment is appropriate, but I believe that censure is inappropriate.

Congressman Charles B. Rangel is a dedicated public servant and a decorated soldier who has made outstanding contributions to the people of his congressional district, to the United States, and to this institution.

Yet he has made mistakes which have resulted in violations of the rules of official conduct for Members of the House and he will be punished for those violations. The question is what is the appropriate punishment?

We need not answer this question in a vacuum. Congressman Rangel is not the first Member to violate rules of official conduct, so we have ample precedents from which to glean the appropriate punishment. It is clear from the precedents of the House that censure is not a fair and just punishment for these violations. When censure or even reprimand has been imposed for violations in past cases, they have involved direct financial gain or criminal or corrupt conduct. The committee counsel during the hearings acknowledged that those elements are not found in this case. Furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendation of censure in this case is in violation of prior case precedents. The point is made in the report on page 7, and I quote:

``Although prior committee precedent for recommendation of censure involved many cases of direct financial gain, this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violations and not direct personal gain.'' But using ``cumulative nature of the violations'' to support the committee's recommendation of censure is without precedent. In the case of former Congressman George Hansen, the committee stated that, and I quote, ``It has been the character of the offenses which established the level of punishment imposed, not the cumulative nature of the offenses.'' And so a review of prior precedents establish that neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant censure.

Eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that Congressman Rangel has violated are for raising money for a center at a public university in his congressional district. The program is to train young people to go into public service, using his life experience as an inspiration. Assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you're going to raise money for a local college. He openly assisted the institution, clearly with no intent to do anything improper, but he did unfortunately violate the rules by not following proper procedures. Once the determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts:

One, he used the letterhead; two, he used the staff; three, he used office equipment; he used franked mail; all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. That was a mistake for which he should be punished. The question is what should the punishment be for messing up and raising money improperly?

Well, we have the case of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who was found to have violated House rules by misusing tax-exempt entities to fund a partisan college course aimed at recruiting new members to the Republican Party after he had been warned not to. Moreover, he was found to have filed four false reports to the committee about the matter in 13 instances, causing substantial delays and expense to the committee. Yet he was reprimanded, not censured, and did not lose his job as Speaker. Congressman Rangel did not lie about his activities, he gained no partisan advantage, he believed that he was doing right although he made mistakes, and he received no prior warning, as did Speaker Gingrich. Yet Congressman Rangel lost his

chairmanship on Ways and Means and now faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand, as Speaker Gingrich received.

Another example of raising money in violation of House rules involved former House majority leader Tom DeLay. He was admonished by the committee for participating in and facilitating an energy company fund- raiser which the committee found created an appearance of ``impermissible special treatment or access.'' Mr. DeLay was also cited for his ``intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the FAA.'' An ethics investigation involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, use of corporate political contributions in violation of State law, and improper use of official resources for political purposes. I think everybody here is aware of recent news reports that Mr. DeLay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a State law against corporate contributions to political campaigns. For being found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences of between 5 and 99 years in prison. Yet the House did not censure Mr. DeLay, nor did they even impose a reprimand. They only issued a committee letter. Mr. Rangel has made mistakes and he should be punished, just like everyone else in the past, consistent with precedents.

On the issue of Mr. Rangel's rent-stabilized apartment for use as a campaign office, let the record reflect that Mr. Rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. And the committee records reflect that an attorney for the New York housing authority testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. If somebody rented the apartment that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected; however, the lease is permitted. That's what the attorney for the housing authority said. And I don't know whether that's right or wrong, but that's what Charlie Rangel believed, that's what his landlord believed, and that's what the housing authority lawyer believed.

Now let's talk about this apartment. It had been vacant for months. Charlie paid sticker price for the rent. He passed nobody on the waiting list. This is not a corrupt scheme. To the extent that there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. Earl Hilliard, for example, was found by the committee to have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters; the rent paid to family members who owned the building. He was not censured. He wasn't even reprimanded. He received a committee letter.

Other cases involving campaign violations and use of official resources have not resulted in censure. One example is the case of Bud Shuster for violations of House rules related to campaign and other violations. He was found to have knowingly allowed a former employee- turned-lobbyist to communicate with him within 12 months following her resignation, to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office. He was also found to have violated the House gift rule, to have misused official congressional resources, misused official congressional staff for campaign purposes, and to have made certain expenditures from his campaign accounts for expenses that were not for bona fide campaign or political purposes. Yet he received a letter, not a censure, not even a reprimand. Although both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violations of the rules, the sanction for both was a letter of reproval. Mr. Rangel neither personally benefited nor intended to violate the rules.

There is an issue now of his failure to report income on rental property, on property he owned in the Dominican Republic, and report those appropriately on his disclosure statement. I say ``properly,'' because ownership and some rental payments were in fact reported on his disclosure, so there's nothing to cover up. And while he did not file all his reports properly, these are not matters that warrant censure. Mistakes made on disclosure are usually corrected with nothing more said. The only cases where there is a violation, a sanction, for failing to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt cover-up. For example, failing to file campaign contributions from Tonsong Park during Korea-Gate or failing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. The committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or cover-up.

The tax issues. Comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years. Let's say a word about those taxes. Tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rents and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. Well, it wasn't as profitable as they hoped. He got a couple of small checks over all those years and that was it. However, one of the bills paid was his mortgage. And diminution of principal is technically income on which you have to pay taxes. Whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedents. The only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. That's it. All we ask is that he be sanctioned like everyone else.

Since there is no indication that Charlie Rangel's reporting violations were intended for financial gain, concealment or other corruption, censure is clearly not the just sanction. Moreover, he hired a forensic accountant to assure that all of the matters have been cleared up. He knows he messed up. He knows he'll be punished. We just ask that he be punished like everybody else. Unfortunately, Charlie Rangel will be punished for his transgressions but neither the nature of the offenses nor their cumulative impact has been a sufficient basis for censure of any other Member in the past. Nor has the level of one's position been a basis for sanction as we said in the case of Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay. Both had multiple serious violations that were intentional with aggravations such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, none of which are in this case.

All the instances of censure, reprimand, reproval, admonishment and other cases of sanctioning make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction in this case. Now, Charlie is not asking to be excused for his conduct. He accepts responsibility. All we ask is that we cite what has been done in the past for conduct similar to his and apply a sanction similar to those sanctions. And based on the precedent, there is no precedence for a censure in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

I yield the gentleman 10 more seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Could the Speaker advise me how much time is remaining.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4783, with particular reference to the Pigford late filer claims provision, regarding claims of widespread, rampant racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture against black farmers.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the 18,000 farms, the 18,000, many more than 18,000 farmers, former farmers, many of them lost their farms and others tried, and they were too subjected to racial discrimination. But in 1999 the court ruled that black farmers who farmed between 1981 and 1996 and who had filed a complaint against the department by July 1, 1997, were eligible to seek monetary compensation from the government if they could prove their case. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of black farmers complained that they were not made aware of the July 1997 cutoff date.

To provide relief to those farmers left out of the original action, Congress authorized a cause of action for those late filers who were denied a determination on the merits of their discrimination claims, and those claims have now been settled, conditioned upon congressional appropriation of $1.15 billion.

This bill provides the funding for the resolution of the longstanding claims for those who can prove it. This settlement is long overdue, and I hope my colleagues will approve this matter, as we have twice before, to bring this longstanding matter to a close.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to thank my fellow Virginian, John Boyd, the president of the National Black Farmers Association for his hard work over many years on behalf of black farmers.

Madam Speaker, a version of this section-by- section analysis was included in the Record during the debate on this bill. The version below incorporates a few modest but important clarifications. I would ask that in the permanent Record, the version below replace the version now found in the September 28, 2010 daily edition of the Record, beginning on page H7159.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of one of the Commonwealth of Virginia's finest public servants, a great man of faith and a trusted friend, former State Senator Dr. W. Henry Maxwell. This past Saturday, Dr. Maxwell passed away, and I would like to take a brief moment to celebrate his life and legacy.

A lifelong resident of Newport News, Dr. Maxwell was born on April 3, 1935, and graduated from Carver High School in 1951. Having been raised in the church, Dr. Maxwell nurtured a deep and abiding faith that eventually led him into the ministry. In 1967, he was ordained into gospel ministry and he formalized his calling, receiving both a bachelor of theology degree and a doctorate of divinity from Virginia Seminary and College.

It is hard to separate the life and legacy of Dr. Maxwell from the history of Ivy Baptist Church, the institution that Dr. Maxwell faithfully led for 37 years. Under his leadership, the church grew in size, purchased a new house of worship, and established a child care and learning center. As a fitting tribute to his years of dedicated service, Ivy Baptist erected the W. Henry Maxwell Family Life Center in 1999.

If Dr. Maxwell's only contribution to his community was as a pastor, he would have had a lasting legacy. But Dr. Maxwell was a civic activist and a public servant who was fond of saying: ``If one was to be concerned about

man, he should be concerned about the laws that govern man.'' Dr. Maxwell was an effective and hard-working legislator and a strong voice for the downtrodden. When I first became involved in community activities and politics in my hometown of Newport News, I was following in Dr. Maxwell's footsteps. Dr. Maxwell was serving as President of the Newport News branch of the NAACP when I came back to Newport News after finishing law school, and I was honored to step into his shoes in 1975 as President of the branch. Dr. Maxwell ran for Newport News City Council in 1976. Although his campaign was unsuccessful, the work of his campaign served as a foundation for my successful run for the Virginia House of Delegates in 1977. During my tenure in the Virginia House of Delegates, Dr. Maxwell was a trusted advisor and friend. When I was elected to the State Senate in 1983, Dr. Maxwell was elected to my House of Delegates seat. We served as colleagues in the Virginia General Assembly, until I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992. Following my election, Dr. Maxwell was successfully elected to the State Senate.

Dr. Maxwell's tenure in the Virginia General Assembly as both a member of the House of Delegates and the State Senate, was characterized by a deep tie to the needs of his community. He was critical in obtaining state funds to restore the historic Newsome House and support its use as a community cultural center. He was an advocate for the continued operation of the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind. He was also instrumental in ensuring that judges in Virginia properly reflected the community they served. In addition to his formal duties as a member of the House of Delegates and a State Senator, Dr. Maxwell was engaged in many civic organizations. He was a Life Member of the NAACP, member of the board of trustees of the Peninsula Economic Development Council, the United Way of the Peninsula, and the Newport News Alliance for Youth.

Madam Speaker, the city of Newport News has lost a great public servant and I have lost a dear friend. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to Dr. Maxwell's wife of 53 years, Gladys, their children Walter, Ronald, and Angela, great-grandchildren, sisters Pauline, Sallie, Shirley and Gwendolyn, brothers Wesley and Thomas, nieces, nephews, other family and friends and the Ivy Baptist Church community.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia lost a dedicated public servant. I had the honor and privilege of serving with Owen both in the Virginia House of Delegates as well as Congress, and I join my colleague Mr. Moran, in stating that Owen Pickett was a true statesman and effective legislator who enjoyed great respect on both sides of the aisle.

As has already been pointed out, although he retired almost a decade ago, he remained an important, active voice on issues affecting Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I thank my colleague from Virginia and all of my colleagues from Virginia for the great respect and admiration that they have shown to Owen Pickett.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when a

veto message on H.R. 3808 is laid before the House on this legislative day, then after the message is read and the objections of the President are spread at large upon the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and the bill shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, November 17, 2010; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a storied institution of faith in the Third Congressional District. This year, the Fifth Street Baptist Church is celebrating its 130th anniversary, and I would like to highlight some moments from the history of the church and its contribution to our community.

Fifth Street was organized in 1880 and first worshiped in the old Odd Fellows Hall on East Franklin Street. The church acquired land for a sanctuary on Fifth Street in 1882, and became known as Fifth Street Baptist. The first pastor, Rev. Henry Haywood Mitchell, served for 2 years. Under the pastorate of Rev. A.P. Dunbar, the new house of worship was completed and dedicated in 1886.

Fifth Street grew rapidly under the leadership of its third pastor, Rev. Wesley Paul Graham. At the end of one revival, Rev. Graham singlehandedly baptized 285 people in one afternoon. It was under his direction that the first Baptist Young Peoples Union in Virginia was established at Fifth Baptist. This Union was influential in the plans to consolidate Richmond Theological Seminary and Wayland Seminary of Washington, DC into one institution--Virginia Union University. Rev. Graham served Fifth Baptist for 17 years, with the highlight of his pastorate being the 1900 Session of the National Baptist Convention hosted at Fifth Street Baptist.

Fifth Street flourished in Richmond during the turn of the century. Under the leadership of its fourth pastor, Rev. Thomas J. King, the first Deaconess board in the city was organized, and hundreds of new members were added to the church. It was also during Rev. King's ministry, on July 4, 1926, that a new sanctuary was dedicated at 705 North Fifth Street.

The Great Depression brought with it a share of challenges for Fifth Baptist. In response, the church called a pastor who had already built a church in Philadelphia and was proven as a skilled leader. On the first Sunday in February, 1930, Rev. Christopher Columbus Scott became the fifth pastor of Fifth Street Baptist Church, and he served the church for 36 years. During his years of service, the church celebrated the burning of its mortgage in 1946, installed a new 22 rank pipe organ in 1955, and led the city-wide celebration of Emancipation Day for many years, bringing nationally known speakers and rallies for civil rights to the church.

Changes in the city of Richmond brought changes to Fifth Baptist under the leadership of its sixth pastor, Rev. Henry Clayton Gregory III, who assumed leadership of the church in August 1967. New expressway construction and other municipal developments had geographically split the Jackson Ward/Navy Hill community. In response, the church rededicated its efforts to the community, serving as a command post for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Poor People's March and establishing a Federal Credit Union for members. Fifth Baptist also looked to serve the world at large, building a medical clinic in Karnal, India.

In January 1974, Rev. Roscoe Dennis Cooper, Jr. was installed as the seventh pastor of Fifth Baptist. It was under his leadership that the church undertook the biggest change in its history. Citing growing problems with the location in Downtown Richmond, the church took the bold step to move 37 blocks away to a new property on Third Avenue. On Sunday, October 5, 1975, the church members marched these blocks to the church's new home in the Highland Park Community.

The church's eleventh and current pastor is Rev. F. Todd Gray. At the church's new location and under his leadership, Fifth Street has continued to minister to the needs of the community. Coming together with community neighbors, the church helped found the North District Community Development Corporation. Under this organization, the church, in conjunction with the Southern Tip Civic Association, The United Way, St. Elizabeth's Catholic Church, and other community groups, has provided numerous programs to the community including: computer training, test prep, job training, summer jobs for youth, and medical services. In 2005, the church dedicated a new Community Empowerment Center known as the G.R.A.C.E., God's Redemptive And Community Empowerment, Center.

As Fifth Street gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future continuing to ``bring the Kingdom to the Community!'' I would like to congratulate current pastor Rev. Gray and all of the members of the Fifth Street Baptist Church on the occasion of their 130th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a historic institution of faith in the Third Congressional District. This November, Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Temple will celebrate its 110th anniversary, and I would like to highlight some moments from the history of the church and its contributions to our community.

The seeds of Sixth Mount Zion were originally planted in 1900, when transplanted citizens from Charles City County and Richmond, working in the Newport News Shipyard, sought to establish a Missionary Baptist Church in the area. The first services, officiated by Rev. N.E. Nelson, were held in a private home on 22nd Street in Newport News. Rev. Chase Patterson assumed control of the church for a brief period, and started to organize Sixth Mount Zion as a Missionary Baptist Church.

Third Pastor Rev. W.M. Greene continued to organize the church, founding a Recognition Council to establish the congregation as an independent body, and in November 1901, that recognition was granted. After this initial establishment, Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church went through 19 pastors until the church installed Rev. W.J. Brown as pastor in 1912. During this era the church worshipped in a borrowed building on 24th Street.

Rev. Brown served Sixth Mount Zion faithfully for 45 years until his death in 1957. He was succeeded by Rev. James Melvin Owens, who was installed as pastor in 1959. That same year, a fire destroyed the church building, but through the faithfulness of the congregation, a new building was built in the footprint of the old one at 643 24th Street.

Rev. Owens passed away in 1964 after 6 years of service to Sixth Mount Zion. The search for the next pastor took over a year, but on June 19, 1966, Rev. M. Ivory Jefferson was installed as the official pastor. One of his first actions, the establishment of a building fund, proved to be essential, when the redevelopment plans of the city of Newport News forced the church to relocate. Sixth Mount Zion met in several different locations from 1973 to 1976. In June of that year, the church purchased a site at 2003 Kecoughtan Road in Hampton, and the church was renamed Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Temple. The building was finally completed in 1978.

The move to Hampton was not the only change under Rev. Jefferson. During his tenure, the church also began a radio ministry, arranged annual interstate worship trips, and trained and ordained two Associate Ministers. Rev. Jefferson retired in 1996, and Sixth Mount Zion elected Assistant Pastor Rev. Jerome A. Barber to serve as head pastor in 1997.

The church has grown significantly from 300 to over 4,000 members since Rev. Barber's installation. The church has also been involved in outreach ministries in both Virginia and abroad. Sixth Mount Zion has mobilized action in Kenya, Uganda, and most recently Brazil, providing medical clinics, teacher workshops, and conferences for women and youth.

With its rapid, recent growth, the church outgrew its Kecoughtan Road location. In January 2001 the church moved to its present location at 3100 Butternut Drive in Hampton. In 2002, Rev. Barber established the Six House at the Temple's old Kecoughtan Road location, where the church holds education programs for children, young adults, and lifelong learners.

As Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Temple gathers to celebrate its 110th anniversary, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future with great expectations. I would like to congratulate Rev. Barber and all of the members of Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Temple on the occasion of their 110th anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Samuel Green, Jr., Pastor of St. Johns Church in Newport News, Virginia. This is the 50th anniversary of Bishop Green's service to St. Johns and the people of Newport News, and I would like to take this moment to recognize some of his numerous accomplishments during that time.

A native of Norfolk, Virginia, Bishop Green is a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School. He studied at both Norfolk State University and Old Dominion University, and received his Master's in Divinity and Doctorate of Ministry from Norfolk Seminary and College. Bishop Green married his childhood sweetheart, Vivian Frazier Green in 1946. They were married for 61 years and had nine children. A true partner in his ministry, Mrs. Green passed away in 2007.

Bishop Green became pastor of St. Johns in 1960. In this position, Bishop Green has been an extraordinary shepherd over a vibrant and growing flock. He has served on countless church and community boards and commissions, and his exceptional service has earned him honors and citations from the Clergy Economic Education Foundation, the Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project, and the cities of Norfolk and Roanoke. Bishop Green has received an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity from Trinity Hall College and Seminary and an Honorary Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies.

In 1973, Bishop Green was appointed Prelate of the Second Jurisdiction, State of Virginia, by the Presidium Board of the Churches of God in Christ, Inc. He was named successor to his mentor, the late Bishop D. Lawrence Williams. Under Bishop Green's leadership, the 52 church jurisdiction has grown to 72 churches. In 1984, Bishop Green was elected to the General Board of the Churches of God in Christ, Inc. He is currently serving his sixth term in office.

In 1978, Bishop Green announced to his congregation that he had been called to establish the Faith for Living Television Outreach Ministry. Starting with a group of 120 supporters, the ministry has grown to the point where Rev. Green now owns WJCB TV-49. The ministry, honored by the National Religious Broadcasters Association, sponsors a television program that airs nationally on the Inspirational Cable Network (INSP) on Sunday mornings.

On the occasion of his 50th anniversary, it gives me great pleasure to recognize and commend Bishop Samuel L. Green, Jr. for his service and dedication to the parishioners of St. Johns Church of God in Christ, the people of Newport News, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Claude G. Perkins as Virginia Union University's 12th president. I am proud to represent Virginia Union University (VUU), which is located in Richmond, Virginia, and is one of the nation's oldest Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Established in 1865 on the site of Lumpkin's Jail in order to educate the newly freed slaves, VUU was formed by the merger of Richmond Theological Institute and Wayland Seminary. Hartshorn Memorial College and Storer College were later merged into the University forming a true ``union.'' Today, VUU continues to be nourished by its African American heritage and energized by its commitment to excellence and diversity.

VUU's student body currently numbers 1,500 students--including 1,200 undergraduate and 300 graduate students--consisting primarily of first generation college students. VUU is proud to offer 24 majors at the baccalaureate level, as well as Master of Divinity, Master of Arts in Christian Education, and Doctor of Ministry degrees at the Samuel Dewitt Proctor School of Theology. VUU's Criminal Justice and Mathematics programs are renowned, and many teachers in the City

of Richmond are graduates of VUU's Education program. In addition to excelling in academics, VUU boasts strong extracurricular activities and programs. In particular, VUU has won four NCAA Division II National Basketball Championships--three for the men's team in 1980, 1992, and 2005 and one for the women's team in 1983.

This month, VUU formally installed Dr. Perkins as its 12th president. Dr. Perkins is a veteran educator with ties to Richmond, and I am pleased that he has returned to Richmond to lead this excellent academic institution.

Dr. Perkins has spent over 35 years in education leadership roles at various levels of K-12 and higher education. In Richmond, Virginia, he held the positions of Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent in the Richmond Public School System for several years in the 1980s and early 1990s. Dr. Perkins also served as Superintendent of Schools in Kansas City, Missouri, and Clark County, Nevada. In 2005, the Clark County, Nevada, School Board approved the naming of the new Claude Grandford Perkins Elementary School in recognition of Dr. Perkins' service to the Clark County, Nevada, education community.

In 2009, Dr. Perkins retired from Albany State University, where he spent 10 years in several posts, including Professor of Educational Leadership, Graduate Dean and Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. School officials credited him with expanding the graduate program and increasing the University's international partnerships. He also taught graduate education courses.

Dr. Perkins is the recipient of many awards, including: The Ohio University Medal of Merit Award (1982); City of Richmond (Virginia) Resolution in Recognition of Educational Leadership (1997); The James Herbert White Preeminence Award for Education and Academics (2002); and the Nevada Senate Resolution of Educational Achievement (2005).

VUU has already seen significant change in the few short months of Dr. Perkins' leadership. Dr. Perkins led VUU through a successful reaccreditation process, increased enrollment, and began a significant campaign to upgrade classrooms and campus housing.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that Dr. Perkins is the newest president of VUU. I congratulate him on this outstanding achievement and wish him much success as he continues the efforts to take VUU into the next century as a leader in higher education.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Virginia State Conference NAACP (the Conference). During its state conference on October 29-31, the Conference will celebrate its 75th Anniversary, and I would like to highlight some moments from the history of the organization and its contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Conference is celebrating its 75th Anniversary in the hometown of one of its founders, the late Attorney Oliver W. Hill, near the site of the first planning meeting of the Virginia State Conference. The Virginia State Conference NAACP was formed in 1935 at a time when racial inequality was permitted under the law. This injustice is what caused eight individuals to get together to form the Virginia State Conference of Branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Those eight people were: Sadie Wyche, Suffolk; Atty. Oliver W. Hill, Richmond; Jesse M. Tinsley, Richmond; Jewel S. Carrington, Halifax; Zenobia Gilpin, Richmond; J. Byron Hopkins, Richmond; Dr. Leon Ransome, NAACP National Office, and Mrs. Spencer, Roanoke. The group held their first planned meeting in Roanoke in 1935.

Many presidents have faithfully served the Conference since the organization's inception: J. M. Tinsley, 1935-1954; E. B. Henderson, 1955-1956; Philip Y. Wyatt, 1957-1960; Robert D. Robertson, 1961-1962; L. Francis Griffin, 1963-1967; Charles Brown, 1968-1970; Melford Walker, 1971-1974; Isaac Ridley, 1975-1978; Roger Ford, 1979-1980; James Hicks, 1981-1982; James E. Ghee, 1983-1985; Charles Mangum, 1986- 1988; Jack W. Gravely, 1988-1991; Erenest Miller from 1991-1995; Paul C. Gillis, 1995-1997; Emmitt Carlton, 1997-1999; Rovenia Vaughan, 1999- 2003; Linda Thomas, 2003-2007. Currently, the organization is fortunate to have as its president Rev. Dr. Rayfield Vines, Jr., who has served since 2007.

In the Conference's early years, J. Byron Hopkins, Jr., Wendell Walker and J. Thomas Hewing, Jr. provided legal services for the organization. In later years, an organized legal staff included Oliver W. Hill, Martin A. Martin, Samuel W. Tucker, Edwin C. Brown, Sr., Spotswood W. Robinson III, Robert H Cooley, Jr., Roland Ealey, Philip S. Walker, Rueben E. Lawson, W. Hale Thompson, Victor Ashe, J. Hugo Madison, James A. Overton, Jerry L. Williams, Otto L. Tucker, Ruth Harvey, Henry L. Marsh, III, John W. Scott, Jr., James E. Ghee, Dennis Montgomery, James Hume, Stephanie Valentine, S. Delacy Stith, Gwendolyn Jones Jackson and presently, Richard Patrick.

Over the years, the conference has taken up several initiatives to help better the lives of Black Americans. In conjunction with the Virginia Teachers Association, the Conference's first major policy campaign was the elimination of the difference between the salaries paid to the white and Negro public school teachers, a difference which was later determined to be unlawful in Alston v. School Board of Norfolk, 112 F.2d 992 (4th Cir. 1940).

Starting in 1947, the Conference took up the cause of eliminating segregation in public schools by requiring school boards to face the expense of equalizing schools for Negro children with schools for white children. Later, the Commonwealth of Virginia resolved to maintain racial segregation even after the United States Supreme Court struck down the premise of ``separate but equal.'' The Conference was determined to help desegregate Virginia's public schools. The Conference filed suits against school boards in 37 counties and 15 cities or towns.

It also fought to reopen schools in Prince Edward County after they avoided desegregation by closing their public schools for 5 years, starting in 1959. In May 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not permit closing schools in Prince Edward County while public schools were being maintained in all other school districts in Virginia.

The Conference supported defendants in criminal cases where the case highlighted racially discriminatory practices in the justice system, such as racial discrimination in the jury selection process.

In 1981, after several organizations challenged the redrawing of the Virginia General Assembly districts, the Conference supported the lawsuit filed in the Federal Court in Richmond. The Conference helped negotiate the settlement which created one hundred single member districts.

Madam Speaker, the Virginia State Conference NAACP has been instrumental in the fight to eliminate of racial inequality and discrimination in Virginia. However, its work is not yet done. Racial disparities still exist in our education system, our criminal justice system, and elsewhere in our society. As long as these exist, I know that the Virginia State Conference NAACP will remain vigilant in its fight for civil rights, equality and liberty.

As the Virginia State Conference NAACP gathers to celebrate 75 years, the organization can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on the future with great expectations. I would like to congratulate Rev. Dr. J. Rayfield Vines, Jr., President of the organization, Executive Director King Salim Khalfani, and all of the members of the Virginia State Conference NAACP. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6198) to amend title 11 of the United States Code to make technical corrections; and for related purposes, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was enacted into law. It exceeded 500 pages in length and made significant changes in our Nation's bankruptcy law.

Since its enactment, a number of technical drafting errors have been identified. These include spelling errors, erroneous statutory cross- references, incorrect grammar and terminology references, and mistakes in punctuation. I am pleased that H.R. 6198, the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010, corrects these purely technical errors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6198.

H.R. 6198, the ``Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010''

Section-by-Section Explanation

Sec. 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title

of the bill as the ``Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of

2010.''

Sec. 2. Technical Corrections Relating to Amendments Made

by Public Law 109-8. Section 2 makes a series of technical

corrections to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer

Protection Act of 2005 (2005 Act).

Subsection (a)(1)(A) amends section 101(13A) of title 11 of

the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code), which defines

``debtor's principal residence.'' The amendment clarifies

that the definition pertains to a structure used by the

debtor as a principal residence.

Subsection (a)(1)(B) amends Bankruptcy Code section

101(35), which defines ``insured depository institution.''

The amendment corrects erroneous statutory references in this

provision.

Subsection (a)(1)(C) amends Bankruptcy Code section

101(40B), which defines ``patient records.'' The amendment

clarifies that the term means a record relating to a patient,

including a written document or an electronic record.

Subsection (a)(1)(D) amends Bankruptcy Code section

101(42), which defines ``petition.'' The amendment deletes

the reference to section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, which

was eliminated as a result of the 2005 Act, and adds a

reference to section 1504, which was added by the 2005 Act.

Subsection (a)(1)(E) amends Bankruptcy Code section

101(51D), which defines ``small business debtor.'' The

amendment clarifies that the debt limit specified therein is

determined as of the date of the filing of the petition.

Subsection (a)(1)(F) redesignates paragraphs (56A) and

(53D) of Bankruptcy Code section 101 as (53D) and (53E),

respectively.

Subsection (a)(2) amends Bankruptcy Code section 103(a),

which pertains to the applicability of chapters of the Code.

The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in

this provision.

Subsection (a)(3) amends Bankruptcy Code section 105(d)(2),

which pertains to status conferences. The amendment makes a

grammatical correction.

Subsection (a)(4) amends Bankruptcy Code section 106(a)(1),

which pertains to the waiver of sovereign immunity. The

amendment deletes a reference to Bankruptcy Code section 728,

which was eliminated by the 2005 Act.

Subsection (a)(5) amends Bankruptcy Code section 107(a),

which pertains to public access to bankruptcy cases. The

amendment corrects a drafting instruction error.

Subsection (a)(6) makes several amendments to Bankruptcy

Code section 109, which sets forth the eligibility criteria

for a debtor. Subsection (a)(6)(A) amends Bankruptcy Code

section 109(b)(3)(B) to add a missing parenthesis. Subsection

(a)(6)(B) makes a conforming amendment to Bankruptcy Code

section 109(h)(1) to clarify that Bankruptcy Code section

109(h)(4) is an exception. In addition, subsection (a)(6)(B)

clarifies that the 180-day period ends on the date of the

filing of the petition.

Subsection (a)(7) amends Bankruptcy Code section 110, which

pertains to bankruptcy petition preparers. It makes

conforming amendments to Bankruptcy Code section 110(b)(2)(A)

and (h)(1) so that they conform to other provisions in

section 110 with respect to fees received by a petition

preparer on behalf of a debtor. In addition, subsection

(a)(7) restructures section 110(h)(3) to clarify the court's

authority to disallow fees under this provision.

Subsection (a)(8) amends Bankruptcy Code section 111, which

concerns nonprofit budget and credit counseling agencies and

financial management instructional courses. The amendment

corrects two typographical errors in Bankruptcy Code section

111(d)(1)(E). The first error concerns incorrect punctuation

and the second error pertains to incorrect indentation of the

subparagraph.

Subsection (a)(9) amends Bankruptcy Code section 303, which

pertains to involuntary bankruptcy cases. The amendment

corrects the misdesignation of subsection (l) by

redesignating it as subsection (k).

Subsection (a)(10) amends Bankruptcy Code section 308,

which concerns reporting requirements for small business

debtors. The amendment restructures subsection 308(b)(4) to

clarify its intent.

Subsection (a)(11) makes two amendments to Bankruptcy Code

section 348, which pertains to the effect of conversion of a

case. First, it amends Bankruptcy Code section 348(b) to

strike references to Bankruptcy Code sections 728(a), 728(b),

1146(a) and 1146(b) as these provisions were eliminated by

the 2005 Act. Second, it amends Bankruptcy Code section

348(f)(1)(C)(i) to clarify that the provision applies with

respect to the date of the filing of the petition.

Subsection (a)(12) amends Bankruptcy Code section 362,

which pertains to the automatic stay, in several respects.

First, the amendment makes a stylistic correction to

subsection 362(a)(8) with respect to its reference to a

debtor that is a corporation. Second, it adds a missing

article in subsection 362(c)(3). Third, the amendment

conforms the reference in subsection 362(c)(4)(A)(i) to

``refiled'' with subsection 362(c)(3) so that it applies to a

case filed under a chapter other than chapter 7 after

dismissal of a prior case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section

707(b). Fourth, it corrects an erroneous conjunctive in

subsection 362(d)(4). Fifth, it corrects a spelling error in

subsection 362(l).

Subsection (a)(13) amends Bankruptcy Code section 363,

which concerns the use, sale, or lease of property. The

amendment restructures subsection 363(d) to clarify its

intent.

Subsection (a)(14) amends Bankruptcy Code section 505,

which pertains to the determination of tax liability. The

amendment corrects the provision's use of terminology.

Subsection (a)(15) amends Bankruptcy Code section 507,

which pertains to priorities. The amendment corrects a

punctuation error.

Subsection (a)(16) amends Bankruptcy Code section 521,

which pertains to the duties of the debtor. The amendment

makes several revisions. First, it deletes redundant text in

subsection 521(a)(2)(A) and (B). Second, it restructures

section 521(a)(2) to clarify its meaning. Third, the

amendment corrects grammatical errors in paragraphs (3) and

(4) of subsection 521(a).

Subsection (a)(17) amends Bankruptcy Code section 522,

which concerns exemptions. The amendment corrects two

grammatical errors in subsection 522(b)(3)(A). In addition,

it makes a conforming revision to subsection 522(c)(1).

Subsection (a)(18) amends Bankruptcy Code section 523,

which pertains to the dischargeability of debts. The

amendment corrects a punctuation error in subsection

523(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and corrects an erroneous statutory

cross reference in subsection 523(a)(3).

Subsection (a)(19) amends Bankruptcy Code section 524,

which concerns reaffirmation agreements, among other matters.

The amendment makes several revisions. First, it corrects

erroneous terminology in subsection 524(k)(3)(J)(i) and

inserts a missing verb. Second, it corrects a punctuation

error in subsection 524(k)(5)(B).

Subsection (a)(20) amends Bankruptcy Code section 526,

which deals with restrictions on debt relief agencies. The

amendment makes a conforming revision to subsection

526(a)(2). It also adds a missing article to subsection

526(a)(4).

Subsection (a)(21) amends Bankruptcy Code section 527,

which concerns disclosures by debt relief agencies. The

amendment makes a grammatical correction.

Subsection (a)(22) amends Bankruptcy Code section 541,

which deals with property of the estate. The amendment

corrects a statutory reference to the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 in section 541(b)(6)(B).

Subsection (a)(23) amends Bankruptcy Code section 554,

which concerns abandonment. The amendment corrects an

erroneous a statutory reference in subsection 554(c).

Subsection (a)(24) amends Bankruptcy Code section 704,

which pertains to duties of the trustee. The amendment

corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection

704(a)(3).

Subsection (a)(25) amends Bankruptcy Code section 707,

which concerns dismissal of a chapter 7 case or conversion to

a case under chapter 11 or 13. The amendment makes several

revisions. First, it corrects an erroneous statutory cross

reference in subsection 707(a)(3). Second, the amendment

clarifies that the provision's reference to date means the

date of the filing of the petition in subsection

707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I). Third, the amendment corrects an

erroneous statutory reference in subsection 707(b)(3).

Subsection (a)(26) amends Bankruptcy Code section 723(c),

which pertains to the rights of a partnership trustee against

general partners. The amendment strikes a reference to

Bankruptcy Code section 728, which was eliminated by the 2005

Act.

Subsection (a)(27) amends Bankruptcy Code section 724,

which concerns the treatment of liens. The amendment

clarifies certain statutory references in section 724(b)(2)

and makes other clarifying revisions.

Subsection (a)(28) amends Bankruptcy Code section 726(b),

which concerns distribution priorities in a chapter 7 case,

to add a statutory reference to section 507(a)(9) and (10).

Subsection (a)(29) amends Bankruptcy Code section 901,

which concerns the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code to

municipality cases. The amendment adds references to

Bankruptcy Code sections 333, dealing with the appointment of

a patient care ombudsman, and 351, concerning the disposal of

patient records, both of which were added by the 2005 Act.

Subsection (a)(30) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1104,

which pertains to the appointment of a trustee and examiner.

The amendment restructures subsection 1104(a) to clarify the

provision's intent and how it relates to Bankruptcy Code

section 1112(b), as amended by the 2005 Act. In addition, it

corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection

1104(b)(2)(B)(ii).

Subsection (a)(31) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1106,

which pertains to the duties of a trustee and examiner. The

amendment corrects two erroneous statutory references in

section 1106(a).

Subsection (a)(32) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1111,

which concerns claims and interests. The amendment corrects

an erroneous statutory reference in section 1111(a).

Subsection (a)(33) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1112(b),

which sets forth the grounds for converting or dismissing a

chapter 11 case. The amendment restructures this provision to

eliminate an internal redundancy. In addition, it corrects an

erroneous statutory reference in section 1112(e).

Subsection (a)(34) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1127,

which pertains to modification of a chapter 11 plan. The

amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in

section 1127(f)(1).

Subsection (a)(35) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1129(a),

which sets forth the criteria for confirmation of a chapter

11 plan. The amendment makes a grammatical correction to

section (a)(16).

Subsection (a)(36) amends Bankruptcy Code section

1141(d)(5), which concerns the effect of confirmation. The

amendment clarifies the intent of this provision.

Subsection (a)(37) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1145(b),

which pertains to the applicability of securities laws. The

amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in this

section.

Subsection (a)(38) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1202,

which details the responsibilities of a trustee in a chapter

12 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous statutory

references in section 1202(b).

Subsection (a)(39) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1302,

which details the responsibilities of a trustee in a chapter

13 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous statutory

references in section 1302(b)(1).

Subsection (a)(40) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1304,

which concerns a chapter

13 debtor engaged in business. The amendment corrects an

erroneous statutory reference in section 1304(c).

Subsection (a)(41) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1307,

which sets forth the grounds for converting or dismissing a

chapter 13 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous

statutory references in this section.

Subsection (a)(42) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1308,

which concerns the filing of prepetition tax returns. The

amendment clarifies several statutory references in section

1308(b)(2).

Subsection (a)(43) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(a),

which pertains to the contents of a chapter 13 plan. The

amendment corrects an internal inconsistency.

Subsection (a)(44) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1325,

which pertains to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. The

amendment adds a missing word to subsection 1325(a) and adds

a missing parenthesis to subsection 1325(b)(2)(A)(ii).

Subsection (a)(45) amends the heading of Bankruptcy Code

section 1511, to include a reference to section 302.

Subsection (a)(46) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1519,

which pertains to the relief that may be granted upon the

filing of a petition for recognition in a chapter 15 case.

The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in

section 1519(f).

Subsection (a)(47) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1521(f),

which concerns relief that may be granted upon recognition in

a chapter 15 case. The amendment corrects an erroneous

statutory reference.

Subsection (a)(48) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1529,

which concerns the coordination of a case under title 11 and

a foreign proceeding. The amendment adds a missing word to

section 1529(l).

Subsection (a)(49) amends the table of sections for chapter

3 of the Bankruptcy Code to correct an erroneous description

of section 333.

Subsection (a)(50) amends the table of sections for chapter

5 of the Bankruptcy Code to correct an erroneous description

of section 562.

Subsection (b) amends section 157 of title 18 of the United

States Code, which concerns bankruptcy fraud. The amendment

removes superfluous references in this section.

Subsection (c)(1) amends section 158 of title 28 of the

United States Code, which pertains to bankruptcy appeals. The

amendment corrects a grammatical error in section

158(d)(2)(D).

Subsection (c)(2) amends section 159 of title 28 of the

United States Code, which pertains to the collection of

bankruptcy statistics. The amendment adds a missing word to

section 159(c)(3)(H).

Subsection (c)(3) amends section 586 of title 28 of the

United States Code, which concerns the United States Trustee

Program. The amendment corrects a punctuation error in

section 586(a)(3)(A)(ii), corrects erroneous terminology in

section 586(a)(7)(C), and eliminates redundant language in

section 586(a)(8).

Sec. 3. Technical Correction to Public Law 109-8. Section 3

amends section 1406(b)(1) of the 2005 Act to correct a

spelling error.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There were strong differences of opinion about the changes made in 2005. Many of us questioned whether some of those changes were justified and whether they were fair or constructive, but those discussions are left to another day.

This bill before us today is simply a technical cleanup of the 2005 legislation. I would like to thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith, for making this a bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4113) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4113, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2010, is intended to clarify a number of uncertainties and technical flaws in laws regarding Federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent years. Let me just cite one example.

Under current law, we have an odd scenario where State law claims can be brought in Federal court using a diversity of citizenship basis for Federal jurisdiction even though both parties are residents of the same State; but because one party is a permanent resident, not a citizen, they can claim diversity of citizenship.

H.R. 4113 makes clear that permanent legal residents are treated the same as citizens for the purpose of diversity of citizenship. There are many other technical clarifications in the bill like that.

I would like to thank our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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