Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 629, the ``Patent Judges Pilot Program in Certain District Courts.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This bill will provide more expertise in skill in a difficult area of law: patent law. Americans hold the patents and patent law as important, integral to our very lives. Patents reward ingenuity and creativity.

As the Blackberry litigation demonstrated, deficiencies in the current system have the ability to paralyze America. Indeed, the New York Times noted that ``[something] has gone very wrong with the United States patent system.'' The Financial Times opined that ``[i]t is time to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law.'' Indeed, there has been a cry for change in the patent system and increased expertise for many years now.

The Constitution mandates that we ``promote the progress of science and the useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their . . . discoveries.'' In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we, as Members of Congress, must examine the system periodically to determine whether there may be flaws in the system that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of qualified persons to study patent law.

H.R. 628 attempts to correct some of these problems.

H.R. 628 creates a pilot program to increase the expertise of U.S. District Court judges who wish to hear cases that involve issues related to patents or plant variety protection. The bill provides for the designation of not less than 6 United States district courts in at least 3 different circuits to take part in the pilot program. In the designated courts, judges who elect to hear patent or plant variety protection cases will be designated to do so by the chief judge. Cases will be assigned randomly, but undesignated judges may decline to accept patent and plant variety protection cases. The bill authorizes the expenditure of not less than $5 million per year for up to 10 years to pay for the educational and professional development of designated judges, and for compensation for law clerks with technical expertise related to patent and plant variety protection cases to be appointed by the designated courts.

The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized. It is not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party upwards of $10 million. Appeals from United States district courts to the Federal Circuit are frequent, in part because of the perception within the patent community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared to adjudicate complex, technical patent cases. In 2008, 45 percent of the patent cases that were appealed to the Federal Circuit were reversed in whole or in part or vacated and remanded. This bill seeks to promote consistency among United States district courts by increasing the expertise of district court judges, thus providing for more certainty in intellectual property protection.

Taken together, these improvements would bring the American patent system up to speed for the twenty-first century. Instead of remaining a hindrance to innovation and economic growth, the patent system should work for inventors, ensuring America's patent system remains the best in the world and prevents risks to innovation.

I am encouraged by this bill, and I am hopeful that minorities and women take advantage of this pilot program. The patent judges pilot program and pilot program for law clerks provides for the educational and professional development of the designated district judges in matters relating to patent and plant variety protection, and for compensating law clerks with expertise in technical matters arising in patent and plant variety protection cases. This is yet another step that America is taking to ensure that its patent system is the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I would like to thank the gentlelady from Ohio, first of all, for her leadership in helping to share with our colleagues hour after hour enormously important issues facing not only the United States but facing the world. And I join her this evening.

And I was very appreciative of joining with my chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, who I just saw at another meeting who was able to be here, Congressman Barbara Lee. I want to thank her for her leadership. The chairperson of my Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, Chairman Donald Payne, who speaks volumes about Africa, and as well, chairs the Foreign Affairs Task Force, of which I am a member of the Congressional Black Caucus; and one of our great leaders as well, Congresswoman Gwen Moore. I know there were probably others that were here, and I did not get a chance to see them on the floor. But I do want to acknowledge that this is an important hour for us. And I am pleased to be able to join my colleague.

Let me just suggest that there are many ways that we can look at Liberia, Haiti, and Sudan. And it is my intent because I think we have talents here in the United States, Representatives of African nations, that, frankly, we don't get a chance to interact with as much as we would like. And I am going to accept the challenge given to me to host a meeting of African ambassadors that our colleagues will have a chance to sit down with and hear their story, their insight certainly on the issues that we're now raising, particularly Liberia and Sudan-- obviously Haiti is in the Caribbean, and I will speak to that issue.

But let me tell you why I want to offer that suggestion. And the reason is because I sat down with one of our distinguished ambassadors last week who mentioned that with all of the meetings on the economy, the worldwide crisis in the economy, interestingly enough, the Continent of Africa is not on the agenda.

We heard an eloquent speech by Prime Minister Brown, and all of us were moved by his passion and his values, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. And I am told that he is as eloquent and as energized before his own Parliament and in international meetings as he was with us in the joint session.

And we are very blessed, if you will, by having an administration that has the cultural nexus and the heart and the intellect to be concerned about these issues. President Obama has been received overwhelmingly, his election, on the continent. I think we are poised to be of a gigantic opportunity to do what Prime Minister Brown has charged us to do: Don't forget the impoverished. Don't forget the journey we were on trying to address the question of poverty. And that was a big issue as it relates to Africa.

Now, of course, the economy has come and there may be donor nations who have made pledges who have not completed their pledges, but Africa still has the same concerns and therefore, it will be very important to hear from these ambassadors on the issues that we're talking about, which I expect to talk about here tonight.

For example, our esteemed president of Liberia who came out of the World Bank and who has a great respect of not only women of this country, but certainly of our administration and our past administration. She came to Liberia after Charles Taylor in a country that was void of infrastructure, void of water, void of--when I say ``water resources,'' infrastructure that would have clean running water; void of infrastructure that would have utilities or any mode of, if you will, phone, utility service; void of operating school systems. So we know that she has made great strides, and I have details here.

But at the same time, we are well aware that she needs more resources. We have to have this on the agenda. We have to be able to partnership with the African Union, for example, strengthen it as the African Union attempts to develop its own mission and mandate on how it addresses the issue of conflict.

So I think if I said anything about Liberia, there are certainly two major points: one, the Liberian Americans, but Liberia and the new president, Mrs. Johnson, is someone who has the, if you will, the monetary knowledge because of her experience here in the United States and her training in some of the financial structures of our country, but, also, the will to do it.

We must not forget Liberia in its journey toward economic independence, but it is a microcosm of the needs of the continent.

I also want to thank the administration, President Obama, for heeding the cry of many Members who wrote a letter about Liberian Americans. I'm told by our chairperson, Chairperson Payne, Liberian Americans will be here in the Congress or on the West steps to highlight their plight of continued TPS status, deferred, if you

will, deportation that has been going on and on and on.

We have got to solve that. That is something we can look to as we reform immigration. Many times when we discuss immigration, people start thinking it's not their problem, it's a global problem, it's a problem that faces many different ethnic groups. And we all need to come together as a family and fix it so people can be here legally; they can pay taxes; they can, in essence, be separated from those who want to do them harm.

So I want to put Liberia in the eye of the storm as it relates to the economy, and the challenge that the ambassador gave me was why don't you consult with us who are here and let us tell you the economic impact on the continent, what we need to be involved.

The second is, of course, Sudan and I might have been one of the last CODELs, congressional delegations, of three that were able to actually get into Darfur, into the camps. And I had spent time in Chad as well some years back before I was able to get into Darfur. I've been denied--it's a very long story of how long it took, and I frankly didn't know whether I'd get in the time that I went since we were among those who got arrested in front of the Sudanese embassy.

But we went into those camps, and the key thing that I want to say to the distinguished gentlelady is how valuable the NGOs were. They were literally the lifeline of the camps. They were a lifeline of the children. They were the lifeline of the women. And the women were the anchor of the camps because any man that would venture out to try to be a supportive family member, to provide income, would be killed by the janjaweed, or whatever the conflicts, they were targets. And so, mostly, it would be the women. Tragically, the women would be raped, and so things are not well.

And the complete disregard that the leadership of Sudan, the President of Sudan, has for the indictment, for the world family, there is no respect there. And we have a challenge, and we have got to be able to match the will of this country and our foreign policy, our belief in democracy, our belief in the security of children and family and the ability to live on your land without threat and danger and murder and pillage, we've got to the match that with the will of the countries on the continent, the African countries, the heads of States.

This is a new day now. This is in essence an America that has a commonality, that people are not only interested and are sacrificing on behalf of Sudan and the crisis there, but likewise, we have an administration that accounts Susan Rice, who is the U.N. envoy who I worked with on the crisis between Ethiopa and Eritrea. She is a committed and knowledgeable person about the world but particularly about Africa, and I count on her wisdom. I count on the wisdom of the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I count on that foreign policy team, along with the envoy that our President has just selected, Major Scott Gration, that adds to the team that can now focus on Sudan but also focus on the continent of Africa.

I join in denouncing the treatment of our, if you will, NGOs. Just about a year or so ago, we lost a valiant State Department employee that was killed in Sudan, and I frankly have never gotten over it, and I offer my deepest respect and sympathy to his family. It was a horrific act.

And so it is important that we put our foot down on the atrocities that has occurred in Sudan, and people should understand, people are in Darfur because they have been moved off of their land. You can't help to rebuild this area, irrigate it, give people--these are farming people. Don't tell them, well, just go to the city and get another life, get a life. These people have lived on their land, and they have bothered no one. They've raised their families, and now they're being literally torn apart.

Southern Sudan, that tried to get on its feet, that has a lot of oil, it's still in conflict between the Khartoum government and Sudan. Southern Sudan, who has all the oil and cannot seem to get an agreement, to my current knowledge--and I may have need of some additional update to my current knowledge--has not been able to solve the distribution of the oil moneys, and so they're suffering. This is an immediate crisis that needs to be fixed.

As it relates to Haiti, let me again mention the work of the Congressional Black Caucus. We have been working on Haiti for, I don't know, as long as I've been here, but we have had wonderful conversations with President Preval who is a committed and dedicated leader, who is looking for funding for infrastructure, funding, if you will, to rebuild after the terrible onslaught of hurricanes that they had in the last year, 2008. He is looking to work with us and the Congressional Black Caucus in the appropriations process, and we're looking to work with him.

Haiti is a wonderful ally of the United States. We can never pay them for the blood that they shed standing alongside us in the Revolutionary War, and their victory was our victory. Our victory was their victory, and they're hardworking people. You can see that here in the United States, and you can see that obviously in Haiti.

And so what I think, as I close, that you selected hot spots that symbolize the need for us to be engaged, and as I said, finally with respect to immigration, Haiti, too, so many distraught cases of Haitians treated unfairly in the United States because they don't have the parity that happens when Cubans are fleeing persecution as is defined. Haitians have been fleeing persecution, economic persecution, political persecution, who are here and cannot return back. I want them to get parity, and any immigration bill that I have any hands on, it will be part of that bill.

And so I think it is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at these issues and be assured that we work on behalf of all of these people. It is our commitment to make their lives better by our statements here today on the floor, but also our collaboration to continue to work on the issues that impact people's lives and as well the quality of life. We need to save lives and we certainly need to save them.

I just want to put on the record that I am working with a Haitian teacher who has suffered so much. She teaches math. She's well- respected. She had a court order that said she was not going to be deported. It's a long story, but I simply want to let the Haitians in Houston know we have not forgotten her, and we want her to stay united with her family.

Thank you very much for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Sudan, Liberia and Haiti. These are three of the most troubled nations in the world, desperately in need of support from other nations, including the United States.

sudan and darfur

I am pleased that President Obama has appointed a Special Envoy to Sudan. Major General Scott Gration is both a humanitarian and a professional soldier. He has proudly served our country but more importantly brings to this position the experience and gravitas necessary to lead our mission.

The United States has for most of our history been a leader among nations in attempting to help foment democracy and bring peace to warring parties in regions throughout the world.

Sudan's western region of Darfur has been embroiled in violent conflict since 2003, which has brought a weighty death toll and displaced over 2 million people. Just recently, Darfur rebels killed 200 people near the capitol city of Khartoum. With violence continuing to worsen in the region, I call on the international community to renew it's commitment to finding a solution to the conflict in Darfur.

In 2007, I had the chance to lead a Congressional Delegation to the region of Darfur to see the first hand devastation that has swept through the region.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am very concerned about the displaced children who suffer due to the lack of nutrition and access to clean water. Additionally, child mortality remains a significant problem throughout the region. I am also concerned that the global food crisis could exacerbate the conflict, placing more children at risk.

We, as a Global community, must unite to address this issue. Let us not let race, religious ties, or bureaucratic systems hinder us from fight for the people of Darfur. As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I will continue to work towards a solution for the ongoing conflict in Darfur. We must remain steadfast to gaining peace in the region.

Darfur has been embroiled in a deadly conflict for over four years. During that time, at least 400,000 people have been killed; more than 2 million innocent civilians have been

forced to flee their homes and now live in displaced-persons camps in Sudan or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad.

And more than 3.5 million men, women, and children are completely reliant on international aid for survival. Not since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, and mass slaughter.

Since early 2003, Sudanese armed forces and Sudanese government- backed militia known as ``Janjaweed'' have been fighting two rebel groups in Darfur, the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

The stated political aim of the rebels has been to compel the government of Sudan to address underdevelopment and the political marginalization of the region. In response, the Sudanese government's regular armed forces and the Janjaweed--largely composed of fighters of Arab nomadic background--have targeted civilian populations and ethnic groups from which the rebels primarily draw their support--the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

The Bush Administration recognized these atrocities--carried out against civilians primarily by the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militias--as genocide. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has described the situation in Sudan and Chad as ``the largest and most complex humanitarian problem on the globe.''

The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias are responsible for the burning and destruction of hundreds of rural villages, the killing of tens of thousands of people and rape and assault of thousands of women and girls.

With much international pressure, the Darfur Peace Agreement was brokered in May 2006 between the government of Sudan and one faction of Darfur rebels. However, deadlines have been ignored and the violence has escalated, with in-fighting among the various rebel groups and factions dramatically increasing and adding a new layer of complexity to the conflict.

This violence has made it dangerous, if not impossible, for most of the millions of displaced persons to return to their homes. Humanitarian aid agencies face growing obstacles to bringing widespread relief. In August 2006, the UN's top humanitarian official Jan Egeland stated that the situation in Darfur is ``going from real bad to catastrophic.'' Indeed, the violence in Darfur rages on with government-backed militias still attacking civilian populations with impunity.

On July 30, 2004, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1556 demanding that the government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed. This same demand is also an important part of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed in May of 2006.

On August 31, 2006, the Security Council took the further step of authorizing a strong UN peacekeeping force for Darfur by passing resolution 1706. Despite these actions, the Janjaweed are still active and free to commit the same genocidal crimes against civilians in Darfur with the aid of the Sudanese government.

International experts agree that the United Nations Security Council must deploy a peacekeeping force with a mandate to protect civilians immediately. Until it arrives, the under-funded and overwhelmed African Union monitoring mission must be bolstered. And governments and international institutions must provide and ensure access to sufficient humanitarian aid for those in need.

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2006, H.R. 180, sponsored by my colleague Barbara Lee would require: The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Corporate Finance and the U.S. Treasury to require all companies listing securities on United States capital markets, either directly or through a parent or subsidiary company, including partly-owned subsidiaries, having business operations in a country with a genocide declared by the Department of State or Congress, to disclose the nature of their business operations.

The United States Government (federal) to prohibit contracts with multi-national business enterprises if: They maintain business relationships and investments with national, regional and local governments involved in genocide; and they participate in business activities with any warring parties or rebel groups perpetrating genocide. States and Cities that have divested or are in the process of divesting State and City funds from companies that conduct business in Sudan; and United States colleges and universities that have divested their funds from, or placed restrictions on investments of their funds in, companies that conduct business in Sudan.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the existence and extent of all Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board investments with national, regional and local governments involved in genocide; or business activities with any warring parties perpetrating genocide; or related to debt-obligations issued by the government of Sudan.

Also, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission is charged with maintaining and publishing a list of the names of the business enterprises identified by the Securities and Exchange Commission as having ties with perpetrators of genocide.

It also reasserts Section 11 of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (stripped from the Senate version) that nothing in that act or any other provision of law shall be construed to preempt any State law that prohibits investment of State funds, including State pension funds, in or relating to the Republic of the Sudan.

liberia

Mr. Speaker, A part of the world that has been neglected for many years is West Africa. And one of the gems of this region is Liberia. I am pleased that Liberia's temporary protective order was extended.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is the statutory embodiment of safe haven for those aliens who may not meet the legal definition of refugee but are nonetheless fleeing--or reluctant to return to--potentially dangerous situations.

There are numerous regions throughout the world where discrete and insular minorities might need this type of relief. TPS is blanket relief that may be granted under the following conditions: there is ongoing armed conflict posing serious threat to personal safety; a foreign state requests TPS because it temporarily cannot handle the return of nationals due to environmental disaster or there are extraordinary and temporary conditions in a foreign state that prevent aliens from returning, provided that granting TPS is consistent with U.S. national interests.

The Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of State, can issue TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if conditions do not change in the designated country. To obtain TPS, eligible aliens report to U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), pay a processing fee, and receive registration documents and a work authorization. The major requirements for aliens seeking TPS are proof of eligibility. The regulation specifies grounds of inadmissibility that cannot be waived, including those relating to criminal convictions and the persecution of others.

The United States currently provides TPS or deferred enforced departure (DED) to over 300,000 foreign nationals from a total of seven countries: Burundi, El Salvador, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Somalia, and Sudan. Liberians have had relief from removal for the longest period, first receiving TPS in March 1991 following the outbreak of civil war. Liberians currently have DED until March 31, 2009, and has now been extended by the Obama Administration.

Liberia is Africa's oldest republic, but it became better known in the 1990s for its long-running, ruinous civil war and its role in a rebellion in neighboring Sierra Leone. By the late 1980s, arbitrary rule and economic collapse culminated in civil war when Charles Taylor's National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebels overran much of the countryside, entering the capital in 1990 and killing then President Samuel Doe. In 1995, a peace agreement was signed, leading to the election of Mr. Taylor as president. Another war began in 1999, escalated in 2000, and ended in 2003.

It pitted the forces of Charles Taylor, elected president in 1997 after Liberia's first civil war (1989-1997), against two armed anti- Taylor rebel groups. It also destabilized neighboring states, which accepted Liberian refugees and, in some cases, hosted anti-Taylor forces and became targets of the Taylor regime.

In 2003, Mr. Taylor--under international pressure to quit and hemmed in by rebels--stepped down and went into exile in Nigeria.

A transitional government headed by Chairman Gyude Bryant steered the country towards elections in 2005. Around 250,000 people were killed in Liberia's civil war, and many thousands more fled the fighting. The conflict left the country in economic ruin and overrun with illegal weapons. 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers were deployed to help in stabilizing the country.

Liberia held elections in October 2005, with a presidential runoff in November, a key step in a peace-building process following its second civil war in a decade. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, an economist, won the presidential runoff vote, with 59.4 percent of votes cast and took office in mid-January 2006, becoming the first female president of an African country.

Most observers viewed the vote as orderly, free and fair. It fulfilled a key goal of an August 2003 peace accord that had ended the second civil war and led to an ongoing, U.S.-aided post-war transition process, which is bolstered by the multifaceted peacekeeping and development-focused U.N. Mission in Liberia (UNMIL).

Liberia's security situation is stable but subject to periodic volatility. Liberia's economy and state structures remain devastated by war. Humanitarian conditions are improving.

Liberia receives extensive U.S. post-war reconstruction and security sector reform assistance. In March 2006, former President Taylor was arrested in Nigeria and transferred to the U.S.-supported Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) to face war crimes charges. He was later transferred to The Hague, the Netherlands, where he is on trial by the

I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado for her leadership, and it's a pleasure to be on the floor with her today. Let me as well thank the Speaker for the opportunity to educate the American public and to dialogue with my colleagues.

I think it's important to note that about 1.1 or 3 trillion of the debt that we are facing is the result of the past administration. We are now climbing a very difficult mountain because of the enormous amount of irresponsibility that occurred. Today we are trying to fix problems that were contractually based, already existing. And certainly we recognize that we have a combination of a deficit, we have an increasing unemployment rate, and we have an important challenge of fixing the collapsed financial markets.

Everybody has heard of AIG. They finance and insure almost every aspect of our lives. And it was this leadership that focused on the recovery of providing stimulus dollars to our community. It was this leadership that infused into the stimulus package unemployment benefits to extend to hardworking Americans. And certainly it is this leadership that intends to fix this debacle. We will do it together. We will ensure that the moneys that were given to those, either unjustly or unfairly, are returned to the American public.

I don't like the format that we are dealt or the cards that we are dealt. I don't like the idea that we were told that these were existing contracts, that these were retention bonuses.

But now as the transparency opens up, good news. The American people, all of us, can see the structures of capitalism that we'd like to change. But we do believe in Americans being able to recover their investments. We want small businesses to survive. We believe in a capitalistic system. But it has to be fixed. Today is the day we fix it and provide the return of taxpayer dollars.

I am supporting the underlying rule because it is a sense of urgency now. And what we are doing is giving the opportunity to give money back.

I'm a lawyer. I realize that this may be subjected to constitutional challenge and/or the courts, but you know? I'm prepared to battle in the courts. Why? Because they look at issues of equity. What does equity mean? It means who's in here with unclean hands, and if there is a situation where they are taking Federal money, such as AIG, and all of a sudden they give retention bonuses, our courts will look at this legislation and say it is fair to give the money back to the American people because the circumstances have changed. So I'd rather take the chance of going forward on your behalf. And I am grateful to the leadership for allowing us to debate legislation that will help return the money.

We also protect those recipients. If you are making under $250,000, we do not take that money back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pitchfork in hand to take back from the executives at AIG, monies that rightfully belong to the taxpayers of this country. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1586.

The understanding that most Members of Congress had when we passed the TARP legislation was that these measures were necessary to keep our financial system from collapse. I believe the term is systemic risk.

We then voted last month for another economic recovery package of over $700 billion dollars which contained language that limited executive compensation for companies that received certain TARP funds.

It appears that the AIG executives may not have broken the law but certainly the spirit of the law. In other words, if AIG has received over $190 billion in funds from the federal fiscal coffers in the last year, the company is acting in broad contravention of the essence of the law to use $165 million of that for bonuses. The country is now $12 trillion dollars in debt after passage of last month's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We literally cannot afford irresponsible uses of taxpayers' dollars.

Last September, the House and Senate voted on one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation in the history of our country. During the same time, the federal government loaned the American Insurance Group (AIG) $85 billion, as the company could no longer access credit to fund its day-to-day operations. In addition, an economic ``bailout'' package enacted in October (PL 110-343) provided a total of $700 billion in federal aid to financial institutions to remove ``toxic'' debts and infuse capital into the credit market.

AIG has now received more than $180 billion in taxpayer money and is now nearly 80 percent owned by the government. As part of a restructuring plan announced by the Treasury Department earlier this month, AIG is set to receive an additional $30 billion in federal rescue aid.

The news that AIG paid $165 million in retention bonuses, including bonuses of at least $1 million each to 73 employees who worked in the financial products division that contributed to the company's troubles, has incited fervor among lawmakers and the public over the past week. Eleven of those top bonus recipients--including one who received $4.6 million--have since left AIG. If these payments were intended to motivate them to stay with the company it truly scares me to think what they might have needed to stay--$1 million not being enough.

Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of AIG--selected in consultation with the Treasury Department after the first large infusion of government assistance--testified before a House Financial Services subcommittee that he has called on employees who received in excess of $100,000 to give back at least half of their bonuses, but which he also said are a legal obligation of the company. The reason that Mr. Liddy was selected is because he was expected to have the common sense as well as the financial sense which his job now entails.

Over two million Americans have lost their jobs in the last four months. Many of them still owe taxes from last year and will not get a stimulus check, TARP payment or waiver to pay those taxes. Neither will they have access in many cases to teams of topflight lawyers from swanky law firms to defend this excess that reminds me of the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Previously, Merrill Lynch paid $3.6 billion in bonuses days before its merger with Bank of America to avoid collapse. Bank of America, which acquired Merrill Lynch on January 1, 2009 received $45 billion in bailout money, some of which it used to acquire.

I was pleased to learn that Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Towns sent a letter to Bank of America's chief executive last week asking for details on the bonuses. It appears they are ready to comply with Chairman Towns's request.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner sent a letter about the AIG matter to lawmakers this week saying the Treasury Department will ``deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments.''

This bill taxes bonuses given to individuals at a rate of 90 percent--if their employer received more than $5 billion in federal assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). It applies to individuals whose total family adjusted gross income exceeds $250,000 per year, and affects bonuses received after December 31, 2008.

Employees or former employees of covered TARP recipients would face a tax on their income minus the TARP bonus as determined by existing tax code, plus a 90 percent tax on the bonus. The term ``TARP bonus'' is defined by the bill to include any retention payment, incentive payment, or other bonus that is in addition to the amount paid to the individual at a regular rate, but it does not include commissions, welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.

Employees who waive their entitlement to the bonus payments, or return them to their employers before the close of the taxable year, would not face a TARP bonus tax.

This exemption would not apply, however, if the employee receives any benefit from the employer in connection with a waiver or return. Any reimbursement of the tax by a TARP recipient would be treated as a TARP bonus to the taxpayer.

The TARP recipients that are covered under the bill include any entity that received, after December 31, 2007, capital infusions exceeding $5 billion under the financial industry ``bailout,'' as well as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). It would also apply to members of affiliated groups or partnerships with more than 50 percent of the capital or profits owned by TARP recipients. Any tax increase as a result of the measure would not be treated as income tax for purposes of determining the amount of any credit against the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to seek redress from AIG with this strong piece of legislation so that we may get on with the business of moving our economic recovery forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my colleagues not try to be problem solvers. The work of this body is to in fact solve problems, fix the capital markets, ensure that we restore the confidence in the capitalistic system. And yes, to overcome mishaps and issues that raise concern with all of us.

Today we create the opportunity and the vehicle to solve these problems. The taxation on retention bonuses speaks loudly on behalf of the American people. The expression of opposition to actions that occurred speaks loudly on behalf of the American people.

This body has many committees that will engage in oversight. My colleagues

don't think that the work will be done--and it will continue--on how these issues came about, but maybe they should look at the past and understand the reason we are here is the $1.1 trillion debt that was created by the past administration. We are fixing the problem. Let's join those of us who want to work it out on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution that I believe only begins to express the outrage that the American people and many Members of Congress are feeling right now. Our constituents feel like they have been handed a raw deal from the executives at AIG. They have given out large bonuses that would make most people blush with shame.

The understanding that most Members of Congress had when we passed the TARP legislation was that these measures were necessary to keep our financial system from collapse. However, the reality of a few months has proven quite different.

Last month, we voted for another economic recovery package of over $700 billion which contained language that limited executive compensation for companies that received certain TARP funds.

It appears that the AIG executives may not have broken the law but certainly the spirit of the law. This is unconscionable. It is an outrage that these businessman have bucked the system and chosen to dole out federally appropriated dollars to their own bank accounts. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity? $165 million is no small change.

In other words, if AIG has received over $190 billion in funds from the federal fiscal coffers in the last year, the company is acting in broad contravention of the essence of the law to use $165 million of that for bonuses. The country is now $12 trillion dollars in debt after passage of last month's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We literally cannot afford irresponsible uses of taxpayer dollars.

The unemployment rate is on the rise across the country. In fact, in my state of Texas, the unemployment rate has hit 6.4 percent. And that rate is even higher for minorities. Many of the people of Texas, like many Americans, are suffering through this economic downturn.

By voting for this resolution we are not just voting to take the money back, we are voting to get our country back on the right track. The U.S. dollar has traditionally been one of the strongest in the world. But just last week, an official from China appeared to question the holding of U.S. paper.

The losses that led to AIG's essential failure came largely from two sources: The state-regulated AIG insurance subsidiaries' securities lending program, and the AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) subsidiary, a largely unregulated subsidiary that specialized in financial derivatives. And is it not ironic, Mr. Speaker, that most of the bonuses in question went to AIG executives in those two divisions. Bad actors should not benefit from poor performance. The American people should not be required to pay for the missteps of the AIG top brass, particularly during a time when the unemployment rate is creeping up.

Financial derivatives are products that came into the public consciousness during the Orange County default of 1994. Typically derivatives are used to diversify investment portfolios for institutional and retail investors. If we thought that the derivatives beast had been tamed--apparently we were wrong--it has roared back to bite us.

The securities lending losses were largely due to investments in mortgage-backed securities, and are relatively well-defined at this point. At the end of 2008, the outstanding obligations from the AIG securities lending program were approximately $3 billion, down from over $82 billion at the start of 2008.

The credit derivative losses from AIGFP, however, are potentially ongoing despite actions taken to limit them. AIG reported approximately $300 billion in continued notional net exposure to credit derivatives at the end of 2008, down from approximately $370 billion at the start of 2008.

The government assistance to AIG began with an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve in September 2008. This loan was on relatively onerous terms with a high interest rate and required a handover of 79.9 percent of the equity in AIG to the government.

As AIG's financial position weakened after September, several rounds of additional funding were provided to AIG and the terms were loosened to some degree. The lessening of restrictions was necessary because of the overall deterioration of the economy and certain financial services companies.

The second major restructuring of the assistance to AIG was announced in March 2009 and has yet to be completed. Once it is completed, the assistance to AIG will comprise: (1) Up to $70 billion in capital injections through preferred share purchases by the Treasury; (2) up to $40.3 billion in outstanding loans from the Fed; (3) up to $34.5 billion in Federal Reserve loans retired by securities and equity interests provided to the government by AIG; and (4) up to $52.5 billion in loans for troubled asset purchases--assets which are now owned by the government.

In addition to possible continuing losses on AIG's derivative portfolio, the ongoing weakness in the economy may weigh heavily on AIG's future results. It is not clear whether the ongoing government involvement in AIG might strengthen or weaken AIG's core insurance business, as consumers could conclude that their policy with AIG is safe due to the government involvement or they could conclude that their policy with AIG is more risky since the government could change the terms of its involvement at any time.

That is why we must, as a Congress, send a strong message to the American people. They need to know that when we write a bill that is circumvented--Congress will act quickly to address it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful for a President that believes in the American people. I thank him for his budget, thank him for his outrage regarding outrageous AIG employees receiving bonuses, thank him for recognizing the 47 million plus that are growing who need health care reform, and thank this leadership that is beginning to open the discussion on American health care reform that is so very important.

I happen to believe a single-payer system is a health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers will be in a fee-for-service practice and will not be employees of the government. Therefore, it is not socialized medicine. Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine any more than the public funding of education is socialized education or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

What we simply want is the ability for that single payer to negotiate prescription drug prices, hospital prices, nursing home prices. We simple want the ability to give the American people the insurance on health care that they and their children need.

Interestingly enough, polls show that 60 to 75 percent of Americans believe in this type of system. But the most important aspect is, we have a leader--and the leadership in this Congress--that says Americans count. Let us change the health care system today, not pay AIG employees bonuses.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this morning of visiting with a number of youngsters from the Youth Build Program. They participated with Mrs. Obama yesterday in building a home.

It is interesting, when you speak of the words GIVE, that you can equate it to an organization such as AIG that simply takes. So I rise today to support the rule and the underlying bill. And let me explain to you what this means to America.

How many of us can raise our hand and say that we understand what USAID means, or we understand what the Peace Corps means or AmeriCorps? And how many countless hours of youthful enthusiasm did we see after Hurricane Katrina? I know, because I am from Houston, Texas, and the thousands and thousands of survivors and evacuees that came, we were inundated, rightfully so and enthusiastically so, by these volunteers and by these workers from these many different aspects.

Unregulated? No. Much of this will be volunteer service. Much of this will be educating people about service. Much of this will be doing what young people across America have asked us to do: Give them something to do. And that is what this bill intends.

I am delighted to have joined as a cosponsor in the recent days. I am delighted to have been able to work on a specific amendment that is incorporated in the bill that reaches out to the underserved like Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Colleges, because America is a potpourri, it is a mosaic of so many different people with so many different histories, people who are already bilingual, who can speak to people who are in need, refugees, people who are fleeing oppression. There are so many different aspects of letting young people help other young people or young people help children.

As the cofounder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, this bill specifically provides for enhanced community services with AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, VISTA, the National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps.

Mr. Speaker, this is the right direction for America in the 21st century. Be reminded that we ask not what this country can do for us. We don't equate AIG's insensitivity to the American taxpayer to this bill that gives everybody the opportunity to say, what can I do for my country, America the beautiful? That is what this bill is all about.

I am so proud to stand alongside of this kind of legislation, because as our military forces are on the front lines, I want Americans to be able to stand on the front lines of this Nation, helping those who cannot help themselves. That is what this GIVE bill is all about. And I think we need to go around with a GIVE Bill button like I have got the Youth Bill button saying, Yes, We Can.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1388, the ``Generations of Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the `GIVE Act'.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will expand the already highly successful volunteer programs that empower community activists and improve the education and economic conditions of cities throughout the United States. It supports and increases funding for key community services programs, including AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, VISTA, National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps.

The GIVE Act creates opportunities for green jobs that will contribute to energy conservation and environmental protection. It will create critical educational opportunities for disadvantaged youth and will create incentives for students to improve their communities.

Every year, more than 70,000 Americans participate in the AmeriCorps program alone, which provides relief to cities during natural disasters and reinvigorates communities. Over 50 million American volunteers build homes, organize food-drives, and improve schools through national service programs. The GIVE Act will broaden the opportunities for students and activists to participate in national service via education rewards that keep up with soaring costs of universities and Summer Service programs. After Ike and Katrina, thousands of local students worked to help rebuild communities and provide necessary services to distressed families. The GIVE Act is the critical lynchpin in sustaining this civic activism.

Specifically, the GIVE Act would expand the job opportunities for Volunteers in Service to America, or VISTA, to re-integrate youth into society, increase literacy in communities through teaching opportunities in before and after-school programs, and to provide health and social services to low-income communities. VISTA is a critical step toward poverty alleviation, and the GIVE Act will equip it with the resources to fulfill its obligations.

I am pleased to see that my colleague, representative Cuellar, revised the legislation to increase the number of volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000 members and added provisions for unemployed individuals to be included in the national service workforce, a step that will be a critical step to combating the employment crisis afflicting millions. I am also pleased that Congressman Miller further specified that the increase in volunteers is not just designed for AmeriCorps, but for all national service programs such as the Peace Corps and Opportunity Corps, and also included language to promote community based efforts to reduce crime and recruit public safety officers.

In addition, the GIVE Act will create 4 new service opportunities including a Clean Energy Corps, an Education Corps, a Healthy Futures

Corps, and a Veteran Service Corps. These volunteer opportunities will further improve environmental protection, health-care access, and services for veterans. These new service corps will address critical concerns in low-income communities. I am very happy that Congressman Teague revised the legislation to aid veterans in their pursuit of education and professional opportunities, and help veterans with the claims process, and assist rural, disabled, and unemployed veterans with transportation needs. Moreover, the GIVE Act will recognize colleges and universities that are strongly engaged in service through grants and rewards that will in turn improve educational access in the United States.

I am pleased to see the retention of my language from the 110th Congress that gives special consideration to historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal universities, and colleges serving predominantly minority populations. So strong are these universities' support of service, that ``veritas et beneficium,'' or ``truth and service'' in Latin, is inscribed on their insignias.

The GIVE Act will create a Campuses of Service Program that will encourage and assist students in pursuing public service careers. It will also focus on recruiting scientists and engineers to keep America competitive for years to come. The Act will expand the Senior Corps as a way to keep Older Americans including seniors engaged in public service, and will create a Youth Engagement Zone to increase the number of young students in volunteer services.

Moreover, it expands the focus of The National Civilian Community Corps to include disaster relief efforts and infrastructure improvement to allow quicker and more effective responses to disasters like Katrina and Ike that devastated numerous communities in the United States. Finally, the Give Act will launch a nation-wide Call to Service Campaign that encourages all Americans to engage in national service and to recognize September 11th as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

I am honored to cosponsor this legislation that will add service before self to America's future leaders. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, and I thank him for yielding. I have listened to the gentleman. We have participated in a number of caucuses where we have collectively expressed the importance of reinstituting regulation, but, more importantly, letting the people speak.

Our challenges to the actions of AIG are not new. I am reminded of the works that were done in the last administration in 2008. There was a whole litany of prohibition and restrictions, particularly to regulate how that money would be given. No bonuses was one of those that was highlighted.

In addition, to restrain the random use of money, reporting transparency, the idea of set-asides for those involved in mortgage foreclosures or modification, these are the issues we fought for. And in a lesson that has been bitter, we have seen AIG literally implode the, if you will, sympathy of the American taxpayer.

I believe that the tax bill that's going to be on the floor tomorrow, I happen to support the efforts that are being made by the Judiciary Committee to provide for enforcement against those who would issue such, in essence, retention bonuses and to likewise require penalties and reimbursement.

But let me just indicate why we need to be strong in our regulation on these issues. We take note of the fact that the CEO of AIG came just a few months ago. We thanked him for committing to serving after AIG had reached the brink of collapse.

But I think the concern that I wish to speak to is the need for congressional oversight that was occurring in the Financial Services Committee today. It was occurring in the Judiciary Committee today. We should not be ashamed or shocked of holding the reins on entities that seem to be confused about the importance of congressional oversight.

The points that were most provoking and striking to me today in the Financial Services Committee hearing are two: one, that these retention bonuses were issued on a Saturday night. Sounds to me like something of old, the Saturday Night Massacre. I frankly thought that much of our business is done from 9 to 5 from Monday to Friday, but that was not the case.

But the other part of it that raised concern is the lack of transparency. Some government officials were made aware of this, in particular, the Federal Reserve. But committees that have oversight jurisdiction, either enforcement or regulation, just seem to be lost along the way.

How many times do we have to repeat the fact that these Members do not represent themselves? This House, in fact, is the people's House. The upper body, of course, represents the combination of Congress.

So I think it is important, as we look to the legislative focus, we also need to change minds and mindsets. But now that we are a major stakeholder, we do believe in capitalization, or capitalizing, restoring the markets, but we also think it is important that there be this link of understanding.

My question would be, and I am wearing a lawyer's hat, that if there was a legal premise on which one thought they had to give these bonuses, frankly, I believe, our legal system is strong enough, and the financial system, to have indicated that we are not giving these bonuses at this time and to, in essence, say, let us take it to court. In that instance, we would have had an independent arbiter to address the question of whether these bonuses were, in fact, adequate.

I look forward to the legislation making its way through this House dealing with taxation. I would hope that this would be recognized as not a punitive measure for people's hard work. Don't get the wrong idea. We understand hard work. We understand business hard work, small business hard work. We understand people who work in the financial markets, the hard work they do, the late hours. But we are partners now, and we have to do hard work on behalf of the American public.

We have got to cherish their tax dollars as we look forward to reform the health care system, as we make the markets work again. We have got to restore their confidence, that people will believe it's okay to invest in these large entities to make the market work.

So I would simply ask my colleagues as we begin to debate this, let us not mischaracterize any of our work. We have been fighting against this kind of debacle, if you will. Members have been working on both sides of the aisle. But I think it's honest to say that all of this started way back in the last administration.

The language of the TARP bill of that era, the $350 billion, was not with any restraint, and many of us argued against it, and there were arguments across party lines.

So let us now take the pledge, if you will, take the leap, if you will, in the cold waters to be able to accept the responsibilities--as a Judiciary Committee member, myself on the aspect of enforcement, and certainly I think the regulatory aspect, Mr. Sherman, is one that we need to ramp up.

I will simply close by saying we're here tonight--it's about quarter to eight eastern standard time, but it is after a full day of work. I just hope that we can find a better day than late Saturday night, early Sunday morning, or midnight Saturday night and Sunday morning, to make important decisions that are made by the private sector and give the opportunity to the American people to see transparency and let us fix these markets.

I'm prepared to fight the battle so that taxpayers can have a restoration of their confidence in what we are doing here but, more importantly, in what America stands for, and that is equality and justice and opportunity and fairness for all.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me at this time, and I'd be happy to yield back

Mr. Speaker, I stand here before you not only as a Member of the United States Congress, but as a woman. I fully support H. Res. 211, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month'', this is an issue that I hold dear to my heart. This bill will increase awareness and knowledge of women's involvement in history.

Women's history is a vital part of American history, however it is not public knowledge; mostly in part to the lack of women's history education in the schools. I thank my colleague Representative Woolsey for introducing this valuable piece of legislation.

As Susan B. Anthony said ``It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union'' and ``There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers.''

This national celebration and recognition of women's historic achievements began in 1980 when National Women's History Week was proclaimed by Presidential Proclamation. In 1987, this national celebration was expanded by Congressional Resolution to an entire month by declaring March as National Women's History Month.

National Women's History Month provides an opportunity to educate the general public about the significant role of women in American history and contemporary society. Establishing this focal celebration has encouraged schools to introduce new curriculum, and communities to recognize women who have been pivotal in their own communities.

The knowledge of women's history provides a more expansive vision of what a woman can do. This perspective can encourage girls and women to think larger and bolder and can give boys and men a fuller understanding of the female experience.

Today, women account for 51% of the world's population and throughout ``woman's-kind'' we have had countless sisters whose brilliance, bravery and power changed the course of history. H. Res. 211 recognizes and honors the women and organizations in the United States that have fought for and continue to promote the teaching of women's history.

While we have come a long way from the early nineteenth century, when women were considered second class citizens whose existence was limited to the interior life of the home and care of the children, we have yet to achieve equality. It is a shame that a decade into the new millennium we are still fighting for women's equality and the right to be respected for our contributions both in and out of the workplace.

This bill will bring awareness to all of those women who have broken barriers and glass ceilings for the rest of us. Women such as the Honorable Speaker Pelosi, the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Susan B. Anthony, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, Sojourner Truth, Sacagawea, Rosa Parks, Amelia Earhart, Joan of Arc, and the list could go on for miles.

However, this month is not only about the well known women of history. It is also about those less renowned, such as Belva Ann Lockwood, who fought for admittance into law school. She fought to practice before the Supreme Court and even ran two full campaigns to run for President of the United States, although she could not vote. Texas is home to a multitude of women. The women of Texas are strong, and National Women's History Month is the perfect time to celebrate the diverse population of women that reside in the great state of Texas. I am a proud Texan, and today, I want to bring attention to several women from Texas who deserve recognition and praise for their influence in the continuing fight for women's equality.

One of my personal heroes is Barbara Jordan. Barbara Jordan was born in the Fifth Ward of Houston to a Baptist minister and a domestic worker. She grew up a native Houstonian, attended Houston public school, and attended Texas Southern University in Houston. In 1966, Barbara Jordan was elected as State Senator becoming the first woman to serve since 1883. Her political career continued to grow when she was elected to Federal Representative in 1972. As a Congresswoman, Barbara Jordan sponsored the cause of the poor, black, and disadvantaged people. She is truly a strong woman from Texas that is more than deserving of our recognition during National Women's History Month.

A native Texan, Ann Richards was politically motivated from a young age. Through the 1950s and 60s, she volunteered on several Democratic Governor campaigns, and by 1976, she won her first political position as a Commissioner in Travis County. Beginning in 1982, she became the first woman elected to statewide office in 50 years as state Treasurer, and in 1990, a Democrat turned the typically red state of Texas blue. Ann Richards worked hard to champion for all of her constituents while she was in office and continued this fight even after she was out of office. In 2006, Ms. Richards passed away, but she will always be remembered for her kind heart and determined demeanor. She was an advocate for women everywhere. I want to make sure that her Texas memory is not forgotten.

Alongside Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards there are many Texas women that have

championed to represent strong, Texas women. Throughout Texas, there are women that have paved their individual paths independently and with dignity. Texas Railroad Commissioner Lena Guerrero was also a Hispanic legend in Texas. She was the youngest ever President of the Young Democrats of Texas at 21 years of age and was elected as a state representative in 1984. She was the first Hispanic and first woman on the Texas Railroad commission. Tragically, Lena met her demise at the age of 50. However, in her short time, Lena was someone to be admired and who made many contributions as a Texas citizen.

Dr. Polly Turner, an Associate Professor of Health Administration at Texas Southern University is another outstanding woman I would like to direct attention to. In 2007, she was awarded the Outstanding Texan Honoree in Education by State Representative Garnet Coleman.

Vanessa Diane Gilmore is a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She was appointed to this position by President Clinton in 1994. At that time, she was the youngest sitting federal judge in the United States. She was also the first graduate of the University of Houston to be appointed to the federal bench.

Hazel Hainsworth Young is another Texan deserving of our respect. In 1926, Hazel Young was named the first Latin teacher at the brand-new Jack Yates High School. In 2008, HISD honored Ms. Young and her contributions as a teacher at her 103rd birthday.

I would also like to direct attention to Faye B. Bryant, the 21st International President of Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) Sorority, Inc. Faye B. Bryant was born in Houston in 1957. Since then, Ms. Bryant has worked as a teacher and administrator of Houston Independent School District (HISD). Along with her education focus, she stayed a strong supporter of her sorority, and as President of AKA, she has reached out to other nations and developed programs such as the African Village Development Program.

Mattelia B. Grays, the 18th International President of AKA, was also a native born Houstonian. After her education in Michigan and California, Ms. Grays returned to Houston to teach for public schools. Under her leadership the Rodgers Educational Enrichment Center was named one of ``One of Six Super Schools'' by Texas Monthly magazine. Like Ms. Bryant, Ms. Grays held positions of influence in HISD and championed for children's rights.

Aside the plethora of minority women that have made a name and established a foothold in the state of Texas, there are Caucasian women such as Patricia Lykos who is currently the District Attorney of Harris County. A graduate of the University of Houston and South Texas College of Law, Patricia has dedicated her career to the administration of justice. In 1980, she was the first Republican elected to the Harrison County criminal court bench.

Melissa Noriega is also a woman to be admired. She is a 27 year veteran of the HISD, a community activist, and a former member of the Texas House of representatives. Melissa's actions demonstrate her belief in public service and her ability to set aside her personal agendas for the greater good.

Furthermore, Rosanna Osterman was a Texas pioneer, American Civil War nurse and philanthropist. She lived in Galveston, and during the 1853 yellow fever epidemic, she erected a temporary hospital on her family premises in order to nurse the sick and the dying. Osterman also chose to stay in Galveston during the civil war and opened her home as a hospital, first to Union soldiers, then to Confederate soldiers.

I am proud to stand here today as a female member of Congress and champion for the unending fights for the rights and equality of women, and I am proud that I am able to bring recognition to these truly amazing women from Texas.

Women have a distinct place in American history as well as world history. Women had to fight uphill battles in order to free themselves from their cages. For example, women had to prove that intense physical or intellectual activity would not in fact be injurious to the ``delicate'' female biology, and to be seen as individuals and not property and objects of beauty.

As Susan B. Anthony said ``It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union'' and ``There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers''. Women face discrimination and prejudice everyday, yet women all over the world continue to work hard to make a difference--to alter their lives and the lives of others. I believe that women have always had the power to change the world and we will. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 628, the ``Patent Judges Pilot Program in Certain District Courts.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This bill will provide more expertise in skill in a difficult area of law: patent law. Americans hold the patents and patent law as important integral to our very lives. Patents reward ingenuity and creativity.

As the Blackberry litigation demonstrated, deficiencies in the current system have the ability to paralyze America. Indeed, the New York Times noted that ``[something] has gone very wrong with the United States patent system.'' The Financial Times opined that ``[i]t is time to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law.'' Indeed, there has been a cry for change in the patent system and increased expertise for many years now.

The Constitution mandates that we ``promote the progress of science and the useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their . . . discoveries.'' In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we, as Members of Congress, must examine the system periodically to determine whether there may be flaws in the system that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of qualified persons to study patent law. H.R. 628 attempts to correct some of these problems.

H.R. 628 creates a pilot program to increase the expertise of U.S. District Court judges who wish to hear cases that involve issues related to patents or plant variety protection. The bill provides for the designation of not less than 6 United States district courts in at least 3 different circuits to take part in the pilot program. In the designated courts, judges who elect to hear patent or plant variety protection cases will be designated to do so by the chief judge. Cases will be assigned randomly, but undesignated judges may decline to accept patent

and plant variety protection cases. The bill authorizes the expenditure of not less than $5 million per year for up to 10 years to pay for the educational and professional development of designated judges, and for compensation for law clerks with technical expertise related to patent and plant variety protection cases to be appointed by the designated courts.

The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized. It is not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party upwards of $10 million. Appeals from United States district courts to the Federal Circuit are frequent, in part because of the perception within the patent community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared to adjudicate complex, technical patent cases. In 2008, 45 percent of the patent cases that were appealed to the Federal Circuit were reversed in whole or in part or vacated and remanded. This bill seeks to promote consistency among United States district courts by increasing the expertise of district court judges, thus providing for more certainty in intellectual property protection.

Taken together, these improvements would bring the American patent system up to speed for the twenty-first century. Instead of remaining a hindrance to innovation and economic growth, the patent system should work for inventors, ensuring America's patent system remains the best in the world and prevents risks to innovation.

I am encouraged by this bill, and I am hopeful that minorities and women take advantage of this pilot program. The patent judges pilot program and pilot program for law clerks provides for the educational and professional development of the designated district judges in matters relating to patent and plant variety protection, and for compensating law clerks with expertise in technical matters arising in patent and plant variety protection cases. This is yet another step that America is taking to ensure that its patent system is the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1429, ``Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2009.'' I want to thank my colleague Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California for introducing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1429, which designed to address the growing impact that HIV/AIDS is having on minority communities. According to the Black AIDS Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics reveal that African Americans account for half of all new HIV/AIDS cases. Racial and ethnic minorities comprise 69 percent of new cases, according to the 2005 data released by the CDC. African-American women account for the majority of new AIDS cases among women (67 percent in 2004); whereas white women account for 17 percent and Latinas 15 percent. The CDC estimates that 73 percent of all children born to HIV infected mothers in 2004 were African American. HIV/AIDS is now the leading cause of death among African Americans ages 25 to 44--deadlier than heart disease, accidents, cancer, and homicide.

The CDC reported that Hispanics accounted for 18 percent of new diagnoses reported in the 35 areas with long-term, confidential name- based HIV reporting in the United States, and that most Hispanic men were exposed to HIV through sexual contact with other men, followed by injection drug use and heterosexual contact; and that most Hispanic women were exposed to HIV through heterosexual contact, followed by injection drug use.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, African Americans made up 41 percent of all inmates in the prison system at the end of 2004. Since African Americans are disproportionately represented in jails and prisons, the Stop AIDS in Prison Bill is one way to begin addressing this problem.

The ``Stop AIDS in Prison Act of 2009'' directs the Bureau of Prisons to develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, treatment, and prevention for inmates in federal prisons and upon reentry into the community. The bill would require initial testing and counseling of inmates upon entry into the prison system and then ongoing testing available up to once a year upon the request of the inmate, or sooner if an inmate is exposed to the HIV/AIDS virus or becomes pregnant. Furthermore, the Bureau of Prisons will be required to make HIV/AIDS counseling and treatment available to prisoners, and give testing and treatment referrals to prisoners prior to reentering the community. The bill protects the confidentiality of prisoners, and allows prisoners to refuse routine HIV testing.

Finally, the bill contains a requirement that the Bureau of Prisons report to Congress, no later than one year after enactment, the number of inmates who tested positive for HIV upon intake; the number of inmates who tested positive prior to reentry; the number of inmates who were not tested prior to reentry because they were released without sufficient notice; the number of inmates who opted-out of taking the test; the number of inmates who

were tested following exposure incidents; and the number of inmates who were under treatment for HIV/AIDS.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1429 because we must reverse these costly trends. Currently, the only cure we have for HIV/AIDS is prevention.

Had the bill gone through regular and been marked up, I was planning on offering an amendment that would permit those infected with HIV to elect, on their own volition, to be housed separate from the general population as long as the prison had the facilities. This way, those infected with HIV could be housed in safety.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is indeed a state of emergency in the African- American and Hispanic community. We must use all resources necessary to defeat this deadly enemy that continues to devastate the minority community. As Americans, we have a strong history, through science and innovation, of detecting, conquering and defeating many illnesses. We must and we will continue to fight HIV/AIDS until the battle is won.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1429, ``Stop AIDS in Prisons Act of 2009,'' and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of

Mr. Speaker, obviously I rise to commemorate some special days, St. Patrick's Day to all of my wonderful Irish friends all over the Nation, and certainly to perpetuate the wonderful relationship that we have with the great nation of Ireland.

At the same time, we have the opportunity to celebrate supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month, and I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, for offering H. Res. 211, supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month.

There is so much we can say as part of the great history of the women of this country and around the world, but we all should note that women express and exhibit a very special part of American history.

Today, women account for 51 percent of the world's population, and throughout women's time, we have had countless sisters of brilliance. And so I salute them today and say we must stand for the cause of pay equity, and I am excited that one of the first bills that the President signed was pay equity.

I am also excited to note that I offered legislation to support the placement of Sojourner Truth, a suffragette and an abolitionist, in the House of the United States Capitol, and that will be done.

Let me close by simply thanking all of the great women of this Nation, Barbara Jordan and others, for what they have done and what they have contributed to America's history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and congratulate my constituents' Jack Yates High School basketball team that won the State of Texas' championship.

It is important to emphasize when young people are committed to excellence, and I want to congratulate this school for never giving up, never giving out, and never giving in, as I have heard so often from my good friend and colleague.

It is important to note that this school was challenged to be closed some 3 years ago. But yet not only have they excelled academically, they excelled on the basketball court, having lost some of their star players in the last school year.

Congratulations to their great coach. Congratulations to those students who were persevering. And isn't it exciting to win their first championship since the 1940s?

Go Jack Yates, a great basketball team. We're excited, and we are proud of you.

Allow me to thank the gentlelady from Ohio for really taking up the very important mantle of leadership in communicating to our colleagues why we really need to be in a team effort. I was with Senator Rodney Ellis, a State senator in my State, just yesterday. We have to use time when we can, and that was Sunday. We were standing up, along with certainly many members of the State legislature and many Members here in the House, on the great need for receiving stimulus dollars and unemployment dollars in the State of Texas. $555 million is presently being rejected by this Governor of our State.

And the quote that comes to mind from that State senator was that when people are hurting or unemployed or in foreclosure, they don't see Democrats or Republicans. They just see pain. And that is why I think it is important that we convey to our colleagues that their constituents don't see a Democratic or Republican Congressperson. They just see a major dilemma from which they are wondering how they can get out.

So this evening, I would like to emphasize something that seems to have been lost, and that is that this ongoing foreclosure crisis was percolating way before the inauguration of our present President. And in fact, I'm reading from a document that was dated 2006, and it says ``foreclosures up 72 percent from last year.'' That would have been 2005. That was the last administration. The previous administration was a Republican administration. But I imagine that this number, 72 percent, was not coded according to Democrat or Republican homeowners. But it did say that it was up 72 percent. And it goes on to say that ``national foreclosure filings continued to climb in the first 3 months of 2006, evidence that more U.S. homeowners are struggling to stay current on their monthly mortgage payments.''

Why, then, wasn't it addressed by the administration during that time? That is 2006, ``a total of 323,102 properties nationwide entered some stage of foreclosure in the first quarter of 2006.'' Again, it mentions ``a 72 percent year-over-year increase from the first quarter of 2005 and a 38 percent increase from the previous quarter.'' It specifically talks about the fact that Texas, Florida and California report the most foreclosures. Now we are a prosperous State, or at least we are defined as such. It must be because we have government officials suggesting that we don't need unemployment dollars. Texas reported the most first-quarter foreclosures of any State with 40,236, and Florida reported the second most with 29,636, and California was a close third with 29,537 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in the first quarter, again, this is 2006. And let me just say I do know this is 2009.

I think it is important to note that we did not create this crisis. The election of 2008 didn't all of a sudden make it where people are foreclosing. This has been happening. And what we are trying to do is to emphasize that we have to act now. That is why the President is so interested, the administration is so interested in making sure that there is a moratorium, that there is $75 billion that is being set aside, something that we debated when we were working with the previous administration that you can't give then-Secretary of the Treasury a carte blanche utilization of then the $350 billion. So many of us argued vehemently about that.

Let me say to my good friend from Ohio that these numbers are not ignoring the fact of how difficult it has been in the Midwest and in Ohio in particular. Again, this was emphasizing the high numbers of big States. But certainly it has Ohio. And it mentions, of course, that you, too, were in the midst of huge foreclosures. In 2006 it looks like you were in the 8,000, 9,000. You kept going up. In February you had 9,000. So you were going up, and the other States were going up as well, which means that this is not an issue for small States, big States, or middle States.

So I come to the floor really to suggest that we are in a crisis that has to be acted upon. That is why so many of us rallied around the Helping Homes legislation that is not a giveaway. It is not a refuge for deadbeats and people who can't handle their finances. It is really, as I indicate on the floor of the House, the bankruptcy provision is the little guy's helping hand, because we bailed out every large entity that we could possibly bail out. Just give the roll call of the big banks, the big investment houses, the big AIGs. We have bailed them out.

When I got on the floor to debate this bankruptcy provision, which we have been trying for a number of years, it would have been helpful if the previous administration had allowed this to go forward in 2006 with these high numbers. And then we could have had individual, responsible families who simply wanted to get time, that is what the bankruptcy does. Nobody goes to the bankruptcy court and says ``take my house.'' We are trying to keep them from going through that humiliating experience of seeing your house auctioned off. And all of us have seen the video on television where we see families sit there with tears in their eyes. Yes, some people benefit by maybe being able to buy a house. But mostly the people with tears in their eyes, some hoping they could buy it back, others watching their house peter away in an auction process. The Helping Homes that I know my colleague voted on and understood how important it was as a lawyer and former mayor and understands about the tax base that just deteriorates when we lose our home, this just allows the homeowner to go into the courthouse with a trained bankruptcy judge who is not prone to go lightly on people who are frivolously coming in masquerading themselves, never paid a bill in their life, but it allows them, just like you've allowed the big corporations that have gone into bankruptcy to be able to reorder.

And so, it is truly important to ensure, to help the little person, that this bankruptcy bill that has been passed by the House and the Senate, as I understand it, it may be that we move this bill along that will allow the cramdown that everybody talked about, you're going to disadvantage the lender. No, you're not. Because there are now different provisions that puts in that any value that comes through the sale of that house goes back to the lender, there are protections about the cramdown, there are notices that have to be given so that maybe you can modify the loan without going into bankruptcy. And if any lender is smart, they will do that. But at the bottom line, this bankruptcy provision helps hardworking Americans wherever they live to save their house with dignity. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson-Lee, Mr. and Mrs. Lee, Mr. and Mrs. Fudge, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez can go in and fix that problem through the courts and save the house for them and their four children or two children. In USA Today, there was an article that you, as a former mayor, would understand, the dumbing down of the amount of money that is going to school districts because we were reaching a crisis of how many homes were being foreclosed and seeing the tax base just dwindle away, in fact, I would say, go rapidly down a fast moving tube.

So it is a ripple effect of not only destroying neighborhoods, which is why these neighborhood stabilization moneys in the stimulus package are crucial, but also destroying obviously paramount families, lives, and then the ability to pay for the education of your children, and then, of course, the ultimate dump of a whole town, whole city, a whole hamlet, village, being just blocks and blocks of foreclosed homes.

So I think it is important that we begin to stand on the floor of the House to support America's families. And I can't help but as I speak with you this evening and to my colleagues, I just

have to hold this up because it certainly shows the strength of our President, it says, this is a headline, Obama berates AIG and vows to try and block bonuses. Well, we know there are some legal issues that have been represented to us that provides a problem, but I will just simply say that having practiced in the courts, it is a shame that we couldn't just say, ``sue me,'' which would have just had those individuals who thought that they were owed the bonus to be able to go into the courthouse and try to get the money.

I think I would like to commend our Speaker who has indicated that these moneys should then be paid back now by AIG. If you figured that you couldn't have any other out, you couldn't stand the impact of a lawsuit for people who were getting these huge bonuses, $160 billion plus, then why don't you go ahead and put on the requirement that they should pay the taxpayers back. But I use this as an example that we have to be able to help these hardworking taxpayers who themselves have suffered because we have not been able to provide the relief.

I just want to add that new home sales have fallen by about 50 percent. One in six homeowners owes more on a mortgage than the home is worth which raises the possibility of default. Home values have fallen nationwide from an average of 19 percent from their peak in 2006, and this price plunge has wiped out trillions of dollars in home equity. That is the sadness of it. Many people were going to use this for retirement, had the ability to pass on a debt-free house to their children. This was the bottom line or the first line of wealth for many Americans. We were told to buy that wonderful nest egg, buy that home that will be a nest egg. The tide of foreclosure might become self- perpetuating. The Nation could be facing a housing depression something worse than the recession.

Of course, we know about the TARP bill that has helped us to move forward. But then again, we realize that there have been, certainly in the first issuance of the dollars, these major problems. And so that is why we have turned our attention, and I want to congratulate Chairman Conyers, who had been on this issue, in the previous administration we had attempted to get the language put in the TARP.

And many times, Congresswoman Fudge, the Congress doesn't get the recognition. And certainly none of us are saying me, me, me or I, I, I. And we also know that we are in a business that we are responsible enough to take criticism. But they need to know that we were fighting the Judiciary Committee to get the bankruptcy language into the TARP legislation a way long time ago, recognizing the importance. But it would not, could not be moved forward because of opposition from the then-White House.

And so it is important to note tonight that I am very glad that you had this particular Special Order so that we could provide the basis of the work that we have done and also ask our colleagues to encourage all of their constituents to seek foreclosure modification in their loan, to not sit by silently, that the banks are now under a burden to not foreclose but to be able to talk to you about loan modification. Everyone should seek loan modification now. Do not suffer in silence, because we realize that it is not only a predatory lending issue which has occurred, but there are people who have regular loans that may be finding themselves in difficulty and have the right for loan modification.

We do want to say that we want to get out of this issue that whenever we see certain economic or certain neighborhoods that that particular lendee is a prime target for subprime mortgages. Now some people have indicated to me that subprime mortgages have been used sometimes favorably to allow someone with some challenges. But certainly subprime should not equate to predatory. And there has been predatory lending going on. And so these subprimes have equated to that. And I want the bankers to be able to be more creative than to see certain neighborhoods, certain, if you will, ethnicities or racial groups, and the only thing you can give them is a subprime when their particular portfolio suggests that they are equal or able to take on any regular loan. And what happened is they put more people in subprime based on ethnicity and race.

So I wanted to add as I draw to a close, and I welcome your participating in this legislation that I intend to drop, and that is to ensure that individuals who are in mortgage foreclosure because of subprime and predatory lending will not have that foreclosure on their credit score. You know what happens with credit scoring. When you go into a bank and they pull that score up, hardworking families suffer because of the credit score. Probably they were thrown into the subprime and predatory markets because of that.

So the language says in particular that a foreclosure on a subprime mortgage of a consumer may not be taken into account by any person in preparing or calculating the credit score as defined in subsection F(2) for or with respect to the consumer.

Subprime defined. The term ``subprime mortgage'' means any consumer credit transaction secured by the principal dwelling of this consumer that bears or otherwise meets the terms and characteristics of such a transaction that the board has defined as subprime mortgage.

So if you have been a victim of predatory lending, we will add that. And you have made every effort through loan modification or you have been caught up in this whirl of confusion, then we don't want to impact your credit score even more, make it worse, if you will, by adding this foreclosure to you; and, therefore, making it even more impossible for you to then move into a home or buy another home or to transition to get your life in order.

I want our colleagues to realize that this is going to be an ongoing concern. And the fact that it is an ongoing concern means we have to work with our local communities. That is why I have supported the TARP funding to be as responsive to community, regional and private banks as they are to the big banks. I think it is important that we invest in the smaller banks by making sure that they get TARP funds. And I think it is enormously important for the President's mission that says that we should in fact for every dollar lent to these banks, they must lend it out, and we must lend it not only to those who are attempting to modify their loans, but to the new generation of homeowners. Let us not kill off the incentive for others to buy homes, co-ops, condominiums, brownstones, the two stories, the split levels, if you will, two families in one home scenario, we should not take away the American dream of a house.

I believe that if we can watch AIG with some sort of cavalier attitude, giving $160 million in bonuses and not wanting to issue a report on where the moneys went, we can certainly be helpful to those who are struggling.

I would like to engage the gentlelady in a conversation, particularly as she comes from Ohio, and just get a sense of the impact that comes about when homes are foreclosed. With your experience as a former mayor and how important those local resources are, what happens to a community when there are massive foreclosures and that income doesn't come in any more?

I think it is important for people to hear stories from all over the country. I think one of the salient points that you have made is how it puts people on the street and how it clogs the courts. Different from the bankruptcy proceedings which allows people to stay in their homes, the foreclosure proceeding is so long and protracted, most people will be abandoning doing their home before it concludes.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for being able to both express some of the outrage and pain. And this was not created under this administration. We are trying to be the problem solvers, and it would have just been great if we had looked at this issue from the administration's perspective in 2006 and before. We might then have been able to put our finger in the dike and help those who were on the verge of going over the cliff.

But now we are holding an enormous burden, and I guess the parting words are let's look at the people who are rolling up their sleeves. The media pundits who can criticize rain, if you will. If it is raining, they can criticize that. But people who are trying to build banks backs and make them responsive to our neighborhoods and school districts, let's look at the Federal legislation trying to help people modify their loans and keep them off the streets and save families and school districts. Why don't we listen to that explanation, which I am sure will give us a better understanding than national pundits who make their money off of worrying about whether it is raining and therefore if it is, that gives them a mouthful to criticize. I would rather stand with those who are trying to stand with the American people, and I believe that is what your Special Order has been about tonight. I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, home foreclosures are at an all-time high and they will increase as the recession continues. In 2006, there were 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 42 percent over the prior year. During 2007 through 2008, mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in a whopping $400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to investors in mortgage securities. This means that one per 62 American households is currently approaching levels not seen since the Depression.

The current economic crisis and the foreclosure blight has affected new home sales and depressed home value generally.

New home sales have fallen by about 50 percent. One in six homeowners owes more on a mortgage than the home is worth which raises the possibility of default. Home values have fallen nationwide from an average of 19 percent from their peak in 2006, and this price plunge has wiped out trillions of dollars in home equity. The tide of foreclosure might become self-perpetuating. The nation could be facing a housing depression--something far worse than a recession.

Obviously, there are substantial societal and economic costs of home foreclosures that adversely impact American families, their neighborhoods, communities and municipalities. A single foreclosure could impose direct costs on local government agencies totaling more than $34,000.

I am glad that recently we have seen legislation on the floor the United States House of Representatives. I have long championed in the first TARP bill that was introduced and signed late last Congress, that language be included to specifically address the issue of mortgage foreclosures. I had asked that $100 billion be set aside to address that issue. Now, my idea has been vindicated as the TARP today has included language and we here today are continuing to engage in the dialogue to provide monies to those in mortgage foreclosure. I have also asked for modification of homeowners' existing loans to avoid mortgage foreclosure. I believe that the rules governing these loans should be relaxed. These are indeed tough economic times that require tough measures.

Because of the pervasive home foreclosures, federal legislation is necessary to curb the fall out from the subprime mortgage crisis. For consumers facing a foreclosure sale who want to retain their homes, Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides some modicum of protection. The Supreme Court has held that the exception to a Chapter 13's ability to modify the rights of creditors applies even if the mortgage is under-secured. Thus, if a Chapter 13 debtor owes $300,000 on a mortgage for a home that is worth less than $200,000, he or she must repay the entire amount in order to keep his or her home, even though the maximum that the mortgage would receive upon foreclosure is the home's value, i.e., $200,000, less the costs of foreclosure.

I have long championed the rights of homeowners, especially those facing mortgage foreclosure. I have worked with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to include language that would relax the bankruptcy provisions to allow those facing mortgage foreclosure to restructure their debt to avoid foreclosure.

Because I have long championed the rights of homeowners facing mortgage foreclose in the recent TARP bill and before the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with Chairman Conyers and his staff to add language in the Helping Americans Save Their Homes bill that would help Americans stay in their homes that would make the bill stronger and that would help more Americans.

Specifically, I worked with Chairman Conyers to ensure that section 109(h) of the Bankruptcy Code would be amended to waive the mandatory requirement, under current law, that a debtor receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy relief. Under the amended language there is now a waiver that will apply where the debtor submits to the court a certification that the debtor has received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure proceeding against such residence.

This is important because it affords the debtor the maximum relief without having to undergo a slow credit counseling process. This will help prevent the debtors credit situation from worsening, potentially spiraling out of control, and result in the eventual loss of his or her home.

The recent bill before Congress, Helping Homeowners Save Their Home Act, relaxes certain Bankruptcy requirements under Chapter 13 so that the debtor can modify the terms of the mortgage secured by his or her primary residence. This is an idea that I have long championed in the TARP legislation--the ability of debtors to modify their existing primary mortgages. The bill allows for a modification of the mortgage for a period of up to 40 years. Such modification cannot occur if the debtor fails to certify that it contacted the creditor before filing for bankruptcy. In this way, the language in the bill allows for the creditor to demonstrate that it undertook its ``last clear'' chance to work out the restructuring of the debt with its creditor before filing bankruptcy.

Importantly, the Act amends the bankruptcy code to provide that a debtor, the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate are not liable for fees and costs incurred while the Chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a claim for debt secured by the debtor's principal residence.

Lastly, I worked to get language in the Helping Home Owners Save Their Homes Act that would allow the debtors and creditors to negotiate before a declaration of bankruptcy is made. I made sure that the bill addressed present situations at the time of enactment where homeowners are in the process of mortgage foreclosure. This was done with a view toward consistency predictability and a hope that things will improve.