John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation which would require Federal and State courts to recognize the validity of a document notarized in other States. It has been clearly and accurately described. It would operate to smooth out evidentiary rules which would treat notarized documents differently from public documents. Under section 1738 of title 28, Federal and State courts must recognize the official acts of State legislatures and courts. With respect to notarized documents, however, courts must determine whether they are authentic. This can delay court proceedings and negate the entire purpose of notarization, which is to authenticate the identity of the person signing the document. The measure before us would make it easier for notarized documents to be admitted into evidence and thus speed up court proceedings. We on this side are in total agreement of that. I urge support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement to extend the J-1 visa waiver program for another 2-year period. This visa waiver program is critically important to bringing essential medical services to residents of underserved rural and urban areas, including my own district in Detroit, Michigan. The J-1 program allows some foreign doctors who have completed their medical training in the United States to remain here to practice medicine for 2 years if they will serve patients in a region of the country that the Federal Government defines as medically underserved. These tend to be less affluent urban areas with high population densities and insufficient access to general practitioners and specialists as well as rural areas that are far from medical centers and may have trouble attracting enough doctors to meet the communities' needs. These communities are particularly desperate for physician services because of the growing national shortage of doctors our country is facing. This past summer a Los Angeles Times article detailed the looming crisis in medical care in the United States as the demand for medical service explodes. The article noted industry fears that shortages may even become more severe over the next decade due to the flat medical school enrollments, aging baby boomers, and the high number of doctors heading for retirement. While some communities enjoy a glut of physicians, one in five Americans, in fact, live in rural and urban areas with so few doctors that the Federal Government has classified these regions as ``medically underserved.'' It is these Americans that foreign doctors assist when they get a J-1 visa waiver to practice medicine in communities that don't have enough American doctors. I believe we need to make improvements in this program so that it better meets the needs of the underserved. Right now some States who receive J-1 doctors through the ``Conrad-30 program'' do not lose their allotment of 30 waivers each year while other States find that 30 waivers are insufficient to meet the medical needs of their communities. In addition, some States may not need 30 waivers, but other States have trouble recruiting all the doctors they need. The result is that some citizens are still unable to get essential medical care. We need a plan that ensures that States having trouble recruiting enough doctors will be able to fill their allotment for J-1 doctors and ensure that States which fill their annual allotment of J-1 doctors can get more such doctors to meet their needs without impinging upon those allotted to any other State. In this way the needs of all States and, most importantly, all of the citizens in underserviced areas can be met until U.S. medical schools are able to increase the number of graduates to meet our domestic needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate in the 110th Congress to improve, extend, and sustain this vital visa program in the very near future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson- Lee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is the original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And I am pleased to rise in support of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donations Act of 2006. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a continuation of an effort we began in 1997 when Congress responded to cases holding that pre-petition tithes and other charitable contributions could be deemed to be fraudulent transfers, and that the trustee could recoup these tithes from the religious institutions receiving the donations. We all agreed that this was a clearly perverse result, and to clarify the law we passed the measure, Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998. Then a funny thing happened. This Congress forgot about the value of religious charity embodied in that legislation. Instead, forsaking the biblical injunction to forgive debts and deal generously with the poor, this Congress became a registered agent for the credit card industry. How? Well, it is because of the aggressive overreaching of the lending industry and a Congress willing to write into law any scrap of paper handed to it by large financial institutions that we have come to this point today. The decision in the Diagostino case relied solely on the text of the law Congress passed. It restricts a debtor in chapter 13, with current monthly income above the State median, to the narrow strictures of the means test which relies on what the IRS says a person needs to live on. We debated the reliance on IRS guidelines to determine what a family needs to survive. We were all told not to worry, the IRS knows best and will provide all. Well, almost all. It turns out that when you owe the IRS money, they don't want you making donations to your house of worship or to charity. And the IRS rule became a part of the Bankruptcy Code because Members of this House voted to give IRS bureaucrats that power. We had managed to get a statutory allowance for tithing in the means test and in chapter 13, but the final language pushed through by the sponsors and the credit card industry did an end run around these provisions. And that is how we got here. And I am glad that there is a will to fix it. This bill will allow chapter 13 debtors to tithe in their plans on the same basis as provided in the section 1325(b)(2)(A)(ii). Keep in mind that while we are fixing the law for tithes and other charitable donations, basic problems in the law remain unchanged. By wiping out the allowable expenses in chapter 13 for debtors with an income above the State median and replacing them with rigid IRS- based means tests, the new law still leaves families and small businesses at the tender mercies of the IRS. What else will we find was left out? When the new law was being considered, Members were assured that the IRS guidelines would provide the right answer in all cases. And as we have discovered, that hasn't worked out as well as the credit card industry said it would. This bill is supported by the United Way, the Red Cross, the National Council of Churches, Interfaith Alliance, the United Church of Christ, the National Baptist Churches USA, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church and others. I am pleased to urge all Members to support it. But Members are fooling themselves if they think this is a discrete problem in a law that one proponent has described as perfect and that the sponsors told us was so well drafted that no amendments could even be considered. The hubris has hurt real Americans and it will again. Let's fix this mistake. It is the right thing to do, but we had better get used to doing it. The new Code is a disaster, the natural consequence of subcontracting work out of the Congress to lobbyists, which I am sure will be coming to an end very shortly. I urge the passage of this legislation. I congratulate the chairman of the committee for bringing this matter to our attention.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation consisting of these intellectual property bills that have been very fully and accurately described by our Chairman Sensenbrenner. I rise in support of this legislation, which consists of three intellectual property bllls. vessel hull protection First, the bill amends the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act by requiring courts to examine the copyright protected components of a vessel--the hull as well as the deck--separately when determining whether a third party has infringed a design. This change responds to a 5th Circuit case that would render the statute meaningless, thereby encouraging knock-off artists to sell boats with inferior designed hulls to consumers. Bayh-Dole Resolution Section 201 of the package consists of H. Con. Res. 319, a resolution that commemorates the Bayh-Dole Act on its 25th anniversary. The Bayh- Dole Act, named after Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), is the law that enables inventors to retain their property interests in patented products that are subsidized by federal funding. It is fitting that we again have senators named Bayh and Dole in the Senate. The Committee reported this bill favorably in April. Patent Term Extension Applications Section 202 consists of the text of H.R. 5120. It permits the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to accept late-filed requests for patent term extension. The applicant must prove that the delay in filing was unintentional. In addition, the Director retains the discretion to grant an extension and is not required to issue one. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), from the Science Committee, for as much time as he may consume.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner, for his very personal remarks about Ruth Brown and I thank him and our colleagues, Charles Rangel, Jerry Nadler, Barbara Lee and Bobby Scott, who all recognize the accomplishments of rhythm and blues singer Ruth Brown, who passed away on November 17, 2006. She was not only a great artist of contemporary music, but a fighter who reformed copyright royalty payments for recording artists. She had a great talent, as has been described, and became one of Atlantic Records' first recording stars. For that, she was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and received a 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from The Blues Foundation. She had an autobiography, ``Miss Rhythm,'' and received the Ralph Gleason Award for Music. Aside from her outstanding singing career, though, Ruth Brown came to the attention of the Congress because she was a tireless advocate for the rights of other musicians and artists in the rhythm and blues category. She worked with us to advance the cause of copyright royalty reform so that rhythm and blues artists could at last receive the royalties that they deserved from their music. She also helped found the Rhythm and Blues Foundation in 1988 to recognize, promote and preserve rhythm and blues music. The important work of this foundation continues to this day. She came to the Hill and worked with not only the Judiciary Committee, but with the Congressional Black Caucus as well. The resolution we introduce today acknowledges the important contributions to American culture and recognizes Ruth Brown for her efforts to reform the royalty system and expresses the House's deepest condolences to the Ruth Brown family and friends. We remember her as a wonderful, beautiful musician, but also as a dedicated fighter for justice in the copyright field that is within our jurisdiction. So it is with great regret that we acknowledge the contributions of the late Ruth Brown. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Sensenbrenner in supporting this measure, the Stolen Valor Act, introduced in both this body and the other body, which enjoys the widespread support of a long list of bipartisan cosponsors. In fact, here in the House the measure has a total of 110 Democratic and Republican cosponsors. The legislation starts out by honoring the brave men and women who courageously serve our country. It also protects the precious medals that are awarded during the course of their service by establishing a new set of criminal penalties against anyone who fraudulently claims to be a medal recipient or displays a fake medal in his home or office. Recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Award, the Silver Star and Purple Heart have made considerable sacrifices for our country and, as such, deserve a tremendous amount of our gratitude and respect. It can be said that this legislation represents just one of the many ways of saying thanks for a job well done. The bill is supported by several of our military groups, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the FBI Agents Association. I, too, strongly urge my colleagues to lend their unanimous support to this commonsense proposal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), the original author of this measure, who has worked on it with leaders in both the House and the other body for a considerable period of time. (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since this is likely the last piece of legislation the House Judiciary Committee will control time on the floor, I would like to take this moment and opportunity to reflect back on the good and outstanding work of James Sensenbrenner during his tenure as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It has been my privilege to serve with Chairman Sensenbrenner in my role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee over these last three Congresses. During that time, the Judiciary Committee has become one of the most active committees in the House, processing the second largest number of bills of any committee. It is rare a week goes by that this committee is not on the floor of the House considering frequently complex and significant legislation that impacts the lives of millions of Americans. There is no question that Mr. Sensenbrenner has led the committee firmly and fairly at all times during his chairmanship, but there are three things that I would like the record to reflect. The first is his tireless advocacy for the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Our rule X jurisdiction ranges far and wide, and Chairman Sensenbrenner has been a constant advocate in protecting our legislative prerogatives, and I can assure him that all the members of the Judiciary Committee are very grateful for the zeal in which he has conducted that part of his responsibility. Secondly, the chairman has been a strong advocate for antitrust laws and for the concept of competition. Time and time again, we worked together to see that the interests of the American public were put ahead of any special interests. Finally, I feel very personally affectionate toward the chairman for the critical role that he has played in the passage of voting rights legislation. It was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, why I initially joined the Judiciary Committee, that I participated in this vastly and hugely important piece of legislation. Mr. Sensenbrenner was not there then, but it was when we got around to some reauthorizations that his commitment to this constitutional concept was as strong as mine. In 1982, it was his role and commitment that helped get the extension of the bill through this body and the other body as well, but it was only last year that we were able to begin the work that got us through the current extension of legislation. The reason that this was important was that, first of all, we were able to have the work product of the Committee on the Judiciary not only pass the House without amendment but the exact bill was passed in the other body as well, eliminating, of course, the necessity for a committee to work out any differences. It was then that we realized that on this question of protecting the right of our citizens to vote, the cornerstone of our democracy, that Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers could not be more closely working together, not that there were not huge problems that had to be worked out and resolved, not just between ourselves but between other Members of the committee and some of our colleagues not even on the committee. We were able to do that with dispatch. I quickly add the names of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the Constitutional Subcommittee ranking member, Jerry Nadler, as well and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who worked with us all together on this matter. So I am pleased to make these remarks as his term expires. I look forward to him working on the Committee on the Judiciary in future sessions of Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce there are no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this resolution today honoring the life of Ruth Brown. I join my colleagues Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Charles Rangel in recognizing the accomplishments of rhythm and blues singer Ruth Brown and her efforts to reform copyright royalty payments for recording artists. On a sad day for the music community and myself, Ruth Brown passed away on November 17, 2006. She was a rhythm and blues singer known as Miss Rhythm and her talent rocketed her to become one of Atlantic Records' first recording stars. Her voice made her a hit from the 1940s and onward with such songs as ``So Long,'' ``Teardrops from My Eyes,'' and ``He Treats your Daughter Mean.'' Richard Harrington of the Washington Post said ``there was a world of hurt in those songs and an insistence on some justice, a boldness of voice that Miss Rhythm reached for as Miss Righteous.'' Ruth Brown's peers recognized her talent, as well. She won a 1989 Tony Award for Best Actress in a Musical in Black and Blue; a 1989 Grammy Award for her album ``Blues on Broadway;'' and 1993 induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and a 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from The Blues Foundation. Her autobiography, Miss Rhythm, received the Ralph Gleason Award for Music. Aside from her own singing career, Ruth Brown became a tireless advocate for the rights of other rhythm and blues singers. She worked with Congress to advance the cause of copyright royalty reform so that rhythm and blues artists could receive the royalties they deserved from their music. She also helped found the Rhythm and Blues Foundation in 1988 to recognize, promote, and preserve rhythm and blues music. The important work of the Foundation continues to this day. The resolution we introduce today acknowledges these important contributions to American culture, recognizes Ruth Brown for her efforts to reform the royalty system, and expresses the House's deepest condolences to Ruth Brown's family and friends.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Detroit Tigers, winners of Major League Baseball's American League Championship. This October, for the first time in 22 years, my city of Detroit, Michigan was represented in the World Series. After years of setbacks, 2006 marked a turning point in the fortunes of my beloved home team. Just three years after the club suffered through a 119 loss season, the Tigers surged to the top of the major league standings in May, a position they did not relinquish until late September. Thanks to the play of veterans like left-hander Kenny Rogers and closer Todd Jones, the emergence of previously unestablished players Curtis Granderson, Brandon Inge, Craig Monroe and Marcus Thames, and the significant production from erstwhile All-Stars Ivan Rodriguez, Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Guillen, the Tigers completed an extraordinary season by facing the St. Louis Cardinals in the Fall Classic. While our Detroit boys fell short in the series, finally losing to St. Louis in 5 games, they made all of Michigan proud with their sportsmanship and hard work. Every great team needs a great leader and the Tigers are no exception. Last October, after a disappointing late season fade the Tigers hired Jim Layland to right the club's ship and under his brilliant leadership the Tigers roared to life. Layland, who spent the first 18 years of his professional baseball career in Detroit, guided the Tigers to a 95-67 record, the Tigers' best season since 1987. In doing so, he also became the seventh manager in history to win pennants in both the National and American Leagues. Due to his achievement this year he was recognized with the 2006 Manager of the Year award for the third time in his career. Leyland also became the third person to win the award in both leagues. Even though the Tigers did not ultimately win the World Series, in winning the American League Championship Series they demonstrated a spirit and determination that rekindled memories of the great Tiger teams of the past. I join both the citizens of Detroit and the great state of Michigan in congratulating the Detroit Tigers for their remarkable 2006 season.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 4742 has been reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary with no controversy. What we are talking about today responds in part to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. We all know that among the hurricane's wide-ranging impact was the destruction of infrastructure and a legal maelstrom caused by judicially and statutorily imposed deadlines for filing documents and making payments. This also is the case with the patent law, which forces individuals and businesses to comply with statutory deadlines for patent and trademark filings in the midst of a natural disaster. The measure before us is designed to alleviate that pressure by permitting the Patent and Trademark Office director to extend statutory deadlines during emergencies. This section provides an opportunity to aid innovators who, because of devastation, might lose rights to their inventions and creation. I am pleased to join with those that urge the swift passage of H.R. 4742.

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

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am glad someone mentioned poor kids will need to be protected more in athletic events, and that is precisely the reason I am opposing this measure, because we are eliminating State civil claims, and I think there has been some confusion on the other side about criminal and civil liabilities. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Zoe Lofgren.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I reluctantly oppose this legislation and spoil the hugely bipartisan nature of the Judiciary Committee's appearance before the floor in the House today. The reason is that not only does H.R. 1176 provide broad immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations from lawsuits in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competition or practices, but it would indirectly immunize these organizations which were cited as the ones supporting the measure from claims of negligence regarding child molestation. This is a serious matter. And, by the way, this matter has been before the House on suspension and failed earlier this year. The reason is that the most problematic issue is the failure of the other side to completely address the issue of sexual misconduct in their rush to finish out the legislative year. Specifically, while matters of gross negligence are exempted from immunity under the bill, the legislation does provide immunity from lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence. This simply means that these nonprofit athletic organizations are exempt from having to exercise reasonable care. And, additionally, unless 1176 is amended to include an exemption for all State common-law tort claims, this legislation would bar claims against nonprofit athletic organizations based on negligent behavior. Thus, if a nonprofit athletic organization negligently hired, failed to assess the background of, or conducted negligent oversight of individuals who may well do great physical or emotional or sexual harm to child athletes, this legislation that we are considering would prevent those child athletes from having their day in court. That is the heart of the problem. Additionally, the measure extends way beyond barring potential frivolous lawsuits in the Federal judicial system. Although lawsuits filed by parents because their child was not put on a team might rightly be dismissed, cases with legal merit, such as a rule which endangers the life of a child, would be dismissed. These lawsuits are necessary, as they call attention to public safety hazards and are needed to protect our Nation's children. Madam Speaker, I would like to put in the Record the letters of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, which urges us to carefully examine this measure before us, and which continue to oppose the legislation, as we have earlier; and as well, Madam Speaker, a letter from the three organizations, Public Citizen, Center for Justice and Democracy, and the Alliance for Justice, which urge opposition to H.R. 1176. December 5, 2006. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Conyers: On behalf of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), we are writing to express our opposition to H.R. 1176, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006. We understand that the bill is being brought up today for a vote on the House floor under suspension of the rules. While changes have been made to the original language of this piece of legislation. NAESV remains concerned that this bill still precludes victims of sexual assault from being able to bring a civil action against nonprofit athletic organizations which have acted negligently. We are specifically concerned that a nonprofit athletic association could fail to do a criminal background check on an employee and then if that employee sexually assaulted a player then that victim would be precluded from being able to bring a civil suit against the organization for negligence. Since victims would then have no civil remedy available to them, we must strongly oppose this bill and ask that you not support it as well. As a leading national sexual assault victim advocacy organization, the NAESV believes that passage of this bill would create a serious problem for victims and would not allow them to hold perpetrators and organizations responsible. We thank you for your consideration of this serious matter, and we would be pleased to discuss this matter with you and/ or your staff if that would be helpful. Please feel free to contact our Government Relations Specialist, Ellen Fern, with any further questions. Sincerely, Monika Johnson Hostler, President, The National Alliance To End Sexual Violence.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This is an unusual situation that has arisen here. Here we come back in the closing days of the 109th session, and I would think that everything that has occurred before now, that this Congress would be very sensitive and careful not to protect sex predators. This is not business as usual. We have had a lot of problems in the 109th session of Congress. And yesterday, at 9:30 a.m., we received this change. And we are now told that we don't understand it, and that it has all been taken care of and everything is okay. Well, everything is not okay. H.R. 1176 provides a carve-out for claims arising from State or Federal assault and harassment laws, a carve-out. The problem is that none of the suits by children against an athletic organization, based on the actions of a coach, sex predator, would arise under these laws. The intentions may have been to correct it, but it is not corrected. And that is the reason that we continue to oppose H.R. 1176. This is not new information. And those who have been working on this with us in the public sector are all in agreement that the so-called fix that has been referred to is not really a fix at all. It may have been meant to be a fix, but it is not a fix. And it is as simple as that. That is why we are still opposed to this proposal as we were when it came up under suspension earlier in the 108th session. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as the gentlewoman from California may need, and then we will be ready to close.

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

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