John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, congratulations to Taiwan as they celebrate their 99th anniversary on October 10, 2010. We are happy to see such a vibrant democracy blossoming in East Asia. Due to the ubiquitous tension between Taiwan and China (neighbors across the Taiwan Straits) Taiwan's President Ma is in a very difficult position. Every day he must walk the tightrope between improving the relationship with mainland China and making sure that Taiwan does not lose its unique identity that makes their county so special. To this end, President Ma is handling the challenge masterfully. Many areas of the relationship between the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (mainland China) have improved dramatically since President Ma took office. Without question, the most significant evidence of the improved relations between China and Taiwan is The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). This is a formal agreement between the two sides that aims to reduce commercial barriers and increase trade between the two countries. Three years ago this would not have been even thought of as possible, yet today this agreement is in effect as of September of this year. Additionally, the following are further evidences the improving relationship between Taiwan and China: Daily flights between the two countries are not only now occurring, but due to high demand, the number of flights and destinations have had to be increased. China, who blocked Taiwan's access to participate in any part of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the last 38 years, has granted Taiwan the honor of observer status at the World Health Assembly (WHA) arm of the WHO. Both China and Taiwan have agreed to share crime data and law enforcement services with one another to help reduce illegal activity in the area. All of this has been done while still allowing Taiwan to operate as an independent nation with its own government, military and currency. I ask my friends in Congress to congratulate Taiwan on their 99th anniversary as we hope to continue our friendship with them for their next 99 years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1347, the ``Concussion Treatment and Care Tools Act of 2009'' or the ``ConTACT Act of 2009.'' This legislation directs the Department of Health and Human Services, acting through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to establish concussion management guidelines for preventing, identifying, treating, and managing concussions in children between the ages of 5 and 18. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I convened four hearings and forums beginning on October 28, 2009 to examine and highlight the growing evidence linking concussions sustained while playing football to long-term brain damage. Brain injuries are the leading cause of death and disability for children in our Nation. According to research by The New York Times, at least 50 high school or younger football players in more than 20 States since 1997 have been killed or have sustained serious concussions on the football field. With 1.2 million high school athletes and approximately 3 million American youngsters between the ages of 6 and 14 playing tackle football, many kids continue to be at risk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that more than 300,000 athletes lose consciousness from concussions every year in the United States, and that the total number of concussions could be as high as 3.8 million. Since most brains aren't fully developed until age 25, a concussion is even more dangerous for a youth than for an adult. Furthermore, a repeat concussion--one that occurs before the brain recovers from a previous concussion--can be even more devastating. Research indicates that younger, less-developed brains are at even greater risk of second-impact syndrome. This syndrome may include brain swelling, permanent brain damage, and death. Given that young athletes are more susceptible to second-impact syndrome, it is troubling that there is a shortage of trainers available to attend to young players on the football field. According to the National Athletic Trainers' Association, 58 percent of high schools nationwide do not have a certified athletic trainer available for players. And as former National Football League player Merril Hoge testified at our first hearing on football head injuries last year, trainers are virtually non-existent at the youth level, where he coaches his children. Even if high school or youth teams do have a sideline trainer available, these individuals often have little experience in the subtleties of concussion management. This fact may explain the alarming results of a recent study by the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. The study found that as many as 41 percent of high school athletes who suffer concussions on the field may be returning to play too soon. In part because of the Judiciary Committee's scrutiny, the National Football League has made significant changes with respect to concussion prevention, identification, treatment, and education. However, it is not clear whether these changes are filtering down to younger levels of football or to other contact sports. That is why I applaud Representative Bill Pascrell's effort to bring some nationwide uniformity for the management of concussions in school- aged children. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1347.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, below is a description of legislation I have introduced today. Sec. I. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the ``Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010.'' Sec. 2. Technical Corrections Relating to Amendments Made by Public Law 109-8. Section 2 makes a series of technical corrections to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (2005 Act). Subsection (a)(1)(A) amends section 101(13A) of title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code), which defines ``debtor's principal residence.'' The amendment clarifies that the definition pertains to a structure used by the debtor as a principal residence. Subsection (a)(1)(B) amends Bankruptcy Code section 101(35), which defines ``insured depository institution.'' The amendment corrects erroneous statutory references in this provision. Subsection (a)(1)(C) amends Bankruptcy Code section 101(40B), which defines ``patient records.'' The amendment clarifies that the term means a record relating to a patient, including a written document or an electronic record. Subsection (a)(1)(D) amends Bankruptcy Code section 101(42), which defines ``petition.'' The amendment deletes the reference to section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was eliminated as a result of the 2005 Act, and adds a reference to section 1504, which was added by the 2005 Act. Subsection (a)(1)(E) amends Bankruptcy Code section 101(51D), which defines ``small business debtor.'' The amendment clarifies that the debt limit specified therein is determined as of the date of the filing of the petition. Subsection (a)(1)(F) redesignates paragraphs (56A) and (53D) of Bankruptcy Code section 101 as (53D) and (53E), respectively. Subsection (a)(2) amends Bankruptcy Code section 103(a), which pertains to the applicability of chapters of the Code. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in this provision. Subsection (a)(3) amends Bankruptcy Code section 105(d)(2), which pertains to status conferences. The amendment makes a grammatical correction. Subsection (a)(4) amends Bankruptcy Code section 106(a)(1), which pertains to the waiver of sovereign immunity. The amendment deletes a reference to Bankruptcy Code section 728, which was eliminated by the 2005 Act. Subsection (a)(5) amends Bankruptcy Code section 107(a), which pertains to public access to bankruptcy cases. The amendment corrects a drafting instruction error. Subsection (a)(6) makes several amendments to Bankruptcy Code section 109, which sets forth the eligibility criteria for a debtor. Subsection (a)(6)(A) amends Bankruptcy Code section 109(b)(3)(B) to add a missing parenthesis. Subsection (a)(6)(B) makes a conforming amendment to Bankruptcy Code section 109(h)(1) to clarify that Bankruptcy Code section 109(h)(4) is an exception. In addition, subsection (a)(6)(B) clarifies that the 180-day period ends on the date of the filing of the petition. Subsection (a)(7) amends Bankruptcy Code section 110, which pertains to bankruptcy petition preparers. It makes conforming amendments to Bankruptcy Code section 110(b)(2)(A) and (h)(1) so that they conform to other provisions in section 110 with respect to fees received by a petition preparer on behalf of a debtors. In addition, subsection (a)(7) restructures section 110(h)(3) to clarify the court's authority to disallow fees under this provision. Subsection (a)(8) amends Bankruptcy Code section 111, which concerns nonprofit budget and credit counseling agencies and financial management instructional courses. The amendment corrects two typographical errors in Bankruptcy Code section 111(d)(1)(E). The first error concerns incorrect punctuation and the second error pertains to incorrect indentation of the subparagraph. Subsection (a)(9) amends Bankruptcy Code section 303, which pertains to involuntary bankruptcy cases. The amendment corrects the misdesignation of subsection (l) by redesignating it as subsection (k). Subsection (a)(10) amends Bankruptcy Code section 308, which concerns reporting requirements for small business debtors. The amendment restructures subsection 308(b)(4) to clarify its intent. Subsection (a)(11) makes two amendments to Bankruptcy Code section 348, which pertains to the effect of conversion of a case. First, it amends Bankruptcy Code section 348(b) to strike references to Bankruptcy Code sections 728(a), 728(b), 1146(a) and 1146(b) as these provisions were eliminated by the 2005 Act. Second, it amends Bankruptcy Code section 348(f)(1)(C)(i) to clarify that the provision applies with respect to the date of the filing of the petition. Subsection (a)(12) amends Bankruptcy Code section 362, which pertains to the automatic stay, in several respects. First, the amendment makes a stylistic correction to subsection 362(a)(8) with respect to its reference to a debtor that is a corporation. Second, it adds a missing article in subsection 362(c)(3). Third, the amendment conforms the reference in subsection 362(c)(4)(A)(i) to ``reified'' with subsection 362(c)(3) so that it applies to a case filed under a chapter other than chapter 7 after dismissal of a prior case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 707(b). Fourth, it corrects an erroneous conjunctive in subsection 362(d)(4). Fifth, it corrects a spelling error in subsection 362(1). Subsection (a)(13) amends Bankruptcy Code section 363, which concerns the use, sale, or lease of property. The amendment restructures subsection 363(d) to clarify its intent. Subsection (a)(14) amends Bankruptcy Code section 505, which pertains to the determination of tax liability. The amendment corrects the provision's use of terminology. Subsection (a)(15) amends Bankruptcy Code section 507, which pertains to priorities. The amendment corrects a punctuation error. Subsection (a)(16) amends Bankruptcy Code section 521, which pertains to the duties of the debtor. The amendment makes several revisions. First, it deletes redundant text in subsection 521(a)(2)(A) and (B). Second, it restructures section 521(a)(2) to clarify its meaning. Third, the amendment corrects grammatical errors in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection 521(a). Subsection (a)(17) amends Bankruptcy Code section 522, which concerns exemptions. The amendment corrects two grammatical errors in subsection 522(b)(3)(A). In addition, it makes a conforming revision to subsection 522(c)(1). Subsection (a)(18) amends Bankruptcy Code section 523, which pertains to the dischargeability of debts. The amendment corrects a punctuation error in subsection 523(a)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and corrects an erroneous statutory cross reference in subsection 523(a)(3). Subsection (a)(19) amends Bankruptcy Code section 524, which concerns reaffirmation agreements, among other matters. The amendment makes several revisions. First, it corrects erroneous terminology in subsection 524(k)(3)(J)(i) and inserts a missing verb. Second, it corrects a punctuation error in subsection 524(k)(5)(B). Subsection (a)(20) amends Bankruptcy Code section 526, which deals with restrictions on debt relief agencies. The amendment makes a conforming revision to subsection 526(a)(2). It also adds a missing article to subsection 526(a)(4). Subsection (a)(21) amends Bankruptcy Code section 527, which concerns disclosures by debt relief agencies. The amendment makes a grammatical correction. Subsection (a)(22) amends Bankruptcy Code section 541, which deals with property of the estate. The amendment corrects statutory reference to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in section 541(b)(6)(B). Subsection (a)(23) amends Bankruptcy Code section 554, which concerns abandonment. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection 554(c). Subsection (a)(24) amends Bankruptcy Code section 704, which pertains to duties of the trustee. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection 704(a)(3). Subsection (a)(25) amends Bankruptcy Code section 707, which concerns dismissal of a chapter 7 case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 or 13. The amendment makes several revisions. First, it corrects an erroneous statutory cross reference in subsection 707(a)(3). Second, the amendment clarifies that the provision's reference to date means the date of the filing of the petition in subsection 707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I). Third, the amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection 707(b)(3). Subsection (a)(26) amends Bankruptcy Code section 723(c), which pertains to the rights of a partnership trustee against general partners. The amendment strikes a reference to Bankruptcy Code section 728, which was eliminated by the 2005 Act. Subsection (a)(27) amends Bankruptcy Code section 724, which concerns the treatment of liens. The amendment clarifies certain statutory references in section 724(b)(2) and makes other clarifying revisions. Subsection (a)(28) amends Bankruptcy Code section 726(b), which concerns distribution priorities in a chapter 7 case, to add a statutory reference to section 507(a)(9) and (10). Subsection (a)(29) amends Bankruptcy Code section 901, which concerns the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code to municipality cases. The amendment adds references to Bankruptcy Code sections 333, dealing with the appointment of a patient care ombudsman, and 351, concerning the disposal of patient records, both of which were added by the 2005 Act. Subsection (a)(30) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1104, which pertains to the appointment of a trustee and examiner. The amendment restructures subsection 1104(a) to clarify the provision's intent and how it relates to Bankruptcy Code section 1112(6), as amended by the 2005 Act. In addition, it corrects an erroneous statutory reference in subsection 1104(b)(2)(B)(ii). Subsection (a)(31) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1106, which pertains to the duties of a trustee and examiner. The amendment corrects two erroneous statutory references in section 1106(a). Subsection (a)(32) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1111, which concerns claims and interests. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in section 1111(a). Subsection (a)(33) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1112(b), which sets forth the grounds for converting or dismissing a chapter 11 case. The amendment restructures this provision to eliminate an internal redundancy. In addition, it corrects an erroneous statutory reference in section 1112(e). Subsection (a)(34) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1127, which pertains to modification of a chapter 11 plan. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in section 1127(f)(1). Subsection (a)(35) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1129(a), which sets forth the criteria for confirmation of a chapter 11 plan. The amendment makes a grammatical correction to section (a)(16). Subsection (a)(36) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1141(d)(5), which concerns the effect of confirmation. The amendment clarifies the intent of this provision. Subsection (a)(37) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1145(b), which pertains to the applicability of securities laws. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in this section. Subsection (a)(38) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1202, which details the responsibilities of a trustee in a chapter 12 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous statutory references in section 1202(b). Subsection (a)(39) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1302, which details the responsibilities of a trustee in a chapter 13 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous statutory references in section 1302(b)(1). Subsection (a)(40) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1304, which concerns a chapter 13 debtor engaged in business. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in section 1304(c). Subsection (a)(41) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1307, which sets forth the grounds for converting or dismissing a chapter 13 case. The amendment corrects several erroneous statutory references in this section. Subsection (a)(42) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1308, which concerns the filing of prepetition tax returns. The amendment clarifies several statutory references in section 1308(b)(2). Subsection (a)(43) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(a), which pertains to the contents of a chapter 13 plan. The amendment corrects an internal inconsistency. Subsection (a)(44) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1325, which pertains to confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. The amendment adds a missing word to subsection 1325(a) and adds a missing parenthesis to subsection 1325(b)(2)(A)(ii). Subsection (a)(45) amends the heading of Bankruptcy Code section 1511, to include a reference to section 302. Subsection (a)(46) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1519, which pertains to the relief that may be granted upon the filing of a petition for recognition in a chapter 15 case. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference in section 1519(f). Subsection (a)(47) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1521(f), which concerns relief that may be granted upon recognition in a chapter 15 case. The amendment corrects an erroneous statutory reference. Subsection (a)(48) amends Bankruptcy Code section 1529, which concerns the coordination of a case under title 11 and a foreign proceeding. The amendment adds a missing word to section 1529(1). Subsection (a)(49) amends the table of sections for chapter 3 of the Bankruptcy Code to correct an erroneous description of section 333. Subsection (a)(50) amends the table of sections for chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code to correct an erroneous description of section 562. Subsection (b) amends section 157 of title 18 of the United States Code, which concerns bankruptcy fraud. The amendment removes superfluous references in this section. Subsection (c)(1) amends section 158 of title 28 of the United States Code, which pertains to bankruptcy appeals. The amendment corrects a grammatical error in section 158(d)(2)(D). Subsection (c)(2) amends section 159 of title 28 of the United States Code, which pertains to the collection of bankruptcy statistics. The amendment adds a missing word to section 159(c)(3)(H). Subsection (c)(3) amends section 586 of title 28 of the United States Code, which concerns the United States Trustee Program. The amendment corrects a punctuation error in section 586(a)(3)(A)(ii), corrects erroneous terminology in section 586(a)(7)(C), and eliminates redundant language in section 586(a)(8). Sec. 3. Technical Correction to Public Law 109-8. Section 3 amends section 1406(b)(1) of the 2005 Act to correct a spelling error.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 54, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to the National Park System. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C. 285b to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. The bill gathers provisions relating to the establishment and administration of the National Park System, outdoor recreation programs that the Secretary of the Interior administers, and the responsibility of the Secretary to preserve historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities--all of which are currently found in various places throughout title 16 of the United States Code--and restates these provisions as a new positive law title of the Code. The new positive law title, along with conforming provisions, replaces the former provisions, which are repealed by the bill. This bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect. The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel website at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod/t54/. Interested parties are invited to submit comments to Tim Trushel, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-303 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515-6711, (202) 226-9058, as well as to the Committee.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1493, as chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, I submit the following highlights of ``changes in law'' enacted in the 111th Congress within the jurisdiction of the Committee that ``help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs.'' These enacted changes in law include: (1) Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (Public Law 111-21). This law clarifies and strengthens the criminal penalties for various forms of fraud, including fraud in connection with the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other federal assistance programs, including economic stimulus funds. It also strengthens incentives and protections under the False Claims Act for private citizens to help root out fraud against the federal government and help bring the perpetrators to justice. See 111 Cong. Rec. H5260-67 (May 6, 2009). (2) Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Extension Act (Public Law 111-30). This law extends and strengthens a temporary program that promotes more effective and efficient detection and prosecution of illegal price-fixing cartels, by giving secondary participants in the cartel legal protection for blowing the whistle on the cartel and cooperating in the investigation and prosecution. This program has been demonstrated to substantially enhance the reach of the Justice Department's cartel enforcement resources. See 111 Cong. Rec. H3716-7 (May 24, 2010). (3) Human Rights Enforcement Act (Public Law 111-122). This law consolidates Justice Department jurisdiction over serious human rights crimes into one section within the Department's Criminal Division. This will enable the Department to employ its enforcement resources with greater efficiency and effectiveness to vigorously prosecute perpetrators of serious human rights crimes. See 111 Cong. Rec. H14892- 4 (December 15, 2009). (4) Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act (Public Law 111-79). This law promotes greater efficiency and cooperation in international law enforcement by streamlining the process by which the federal government responds to requests for evidence by foreign governments in their investigations. Instead of having to file and process a request separately in every federal judicial district where the evidence or witnesses might be found, which could require involvement by a dozen or more different U.S. Attorneys on a single request, the request can now be handled centrally by one or two U.S. Attorneys. See 111 Cong. Rec. H10092-4 (Sept. 30, 2009). In addition, other proposed legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has been approved by the House and would reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promote efficiency and reform of government, and control spending within Government programs. This legislation includes: (5) H.R. 2247, the Congressional Review Act Improvement Act, which would provide for federal agencies to more efficiently promulgate final rules, while ensuring effective Congressional review; (6) H.R. 3632, the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009, which would improve the efficiency of the federal court system, including by improving the control and protection of confidential information and the reporting of criminal wiretapping orders; and (7) H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009, which would improve the efficiency of federal and state courts by requiring them to recognize documents lawfully notarized in any state where interstate commerce is involved. In addition to the legislative activity described above, the Committee has conducted extensive oversight aimed at reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and improving federal government efficiency. A primary focus of the Committee's oversight efforts is the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its component divisions and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Both the Committee and the DOJ Inspector General have devoted considerable attention to the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies, with several Committee hearings held relating to the Bureau and other agencies this year, including: (8) Committee Oversight Focusing on FBI-ATF Problems. The Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on February 24, 2010, focusing on three recent Inspector General reports raising concerns about long-standing problems in FBI and other DOJ operations. These include wasteful and potentially dangerous overlap and rivalry between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on explosives investigations, backlog and related problems concerning the FBI's foreign language translation work, and coordination and related problems concerning DOJ and FBI anti-gang activities. The hearing and related oversight of the FBI and DOJ have revealed significant progress in addressing these difficulties, and DOJ indicated at the hearing that it was moving forward vigorously to complete its efforts to resolve the decade-long FBI-ATF problems. In fact, in early August, 2010, the acting Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum and protocol specifying the division of responsibility between FBI and ATF on explosives-related matters, including the conduct of investigations and the maintenance of a single national explosives database. (9) Other Committee Oversight Concerning the FBI. On March 24, 2010, the Committee held a hearing including representatives of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center and the Departments of Homeland Security and State, which focused on efforts to improve the sharing and analyzing of information to prevent terrorism. On May 20, 2010, the Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing at which an FBI representative provided an update concerning national efforts to eliminate the DNA backlog in forensic casework and the Combined DNA Index System that supports the national DNA database. A staff briefing on FBI efforts to remedy the backlog is scheduled for September 20, 2010. (10) Committee Oversight on the Department of Justice and its Divisions. Other Committee oversight hearings have focused on DOJ and its divisions. On May 13, 2010, the Committee held a DOJ oversight hearing at which Attorney General Eric Holder testified and answered a full range of questions from Committee members about many aspects of DOJ operations. The Committee has submitted followup written questions, including questions focusing on efforts to improve DOJ efficiency with respect to financial and grant funds management. On March 4, 2010, the Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on efforts to enforce criminal laws against medicaid fraud, which included testimony from the Department's Criminal Division. Overall, the Committee has held 12 oversight hearings during this year alone focusing on DOJ, including testimony from officials from the Antitrust, Civil, Criminal, and Civil Rights Divisions, the FBI, and the Executive Office of Immigration Review. (11) Committee Oversight on Other Federal Agencies. The Committee has also held a number of oversight hearings focusing on agencies within its jurisdiction that are outside DOJ. For example, focusing on hearings during this session, on March 23, 2010, the Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which included testimony from the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on efforts to improve information technology, fees, and other aspects of USCIS management. On May 5, 2010, the Committee held an oversight hearing on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which led to the PTO-related legislation discussed above. On May 20, 2010, the Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on the recently revived Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), which featured testimony by the Chairman of ACUS and Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. On June 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held an oversight hearing featuring testimony from the Secret Service. And on July 27, 2010, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held a hearing on Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process, which included testimony from Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and career of a friend and fellow Detroiter, Marcus Belgrave. He will be honored at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference Jazz Issue Forum and Concert on September 16, 2010. Belgrave is a living jazz impresario; he plays, writes, composes, and teaches. In doing so, he has inspired other artists such as Geri Allen and Kenny Garrett. In 2009, Marcus Belgrave was honored by the Kresge Foundation as their Eminent Artist. Belgrave's career has spanned many generations. During this time, he has worked with many of the great musicians of our time: Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, Charles Mingus, McCoy Tyner, Dizzy Gillespie, Eric Dolphy, Aretha Franklin, Wynton Marsalis and Joe Henderson. Every musician he has played with can attest to his skill as a musician and composer. Belgrave's career started at the age of 18 with several collaborations with Ray Charles. He was given a solo on the song Alexander's Ragtime Band on the album The Genius of Ray Charles. We have heard Belgrave's talents as a musician demonstrated on some of Motown's greatest hit records such as My Girl and Dancing in the Street. Belgrave is also an original member of Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra. In 1997, as a jazz ambassador, Belgrave carried the sounds of American jazz to Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. In 1997, he traveled with five other Michigan jazz masters to Egypt, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey as part of a six-nation cultural exchange sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Belgrave gravitated toward working with young musicians in Detroit during the 1970s. He established the Jazz Development Workshop and co- founded the Jazz Studies Program at the Detroit Metro Arts Complex. He is also a professor of Jazz studies at Oberlin College in Ohio. Many of his young proteges have established successful careers in the music industry. Madam Speaker, Marcus Belgrave's career has been nothing short of legendary. He has had a lasting impact on the music community of Detroit and is recognized and appreciated around the world. His contributions as a performer, composer and educator deserve the recognition of this body. I urge all Members to acquaint themselves with this great artist and his music.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, in 1990, the Congress recognized the importance of jazz in American culture when it authorized the establishment of the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra (SJMO). As the Nation's jazz orchestra, the SJMO regularly performs the great works of jazz. Throughout its 20 years, the orchestra has distinguished itself as one of the crown jewels of the Smithsonian--which is itself, a pre-eminent national treasure. The band has performed for audiences at the Smithsonian Institution, Kennedy Center, White House, U.S. Capitol, Harlem's famed Apollo Theater, the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, and prestigious music festivals like Ravinia and the Monterey Jazz Festival. The ensemble has traveled prolifically and performed at many American schools and colleges, as well as in Canada, Europe, and the Middle East. On a 2008 State Department-sponsored tour of Egypt, the Orchestra won many new friends for the United States. After an outdoor performance at the Pyramids and Sphinx, the Cairo Daily News raved, ``The backdrop was incredible, the band was superb.'' Other critical reaction has been enthusiastic. Wrote The New York Times: ``Culturally important. . . . spectacular musically. After being embalmed on recordings, the music suddenly came alive.'' Syndicated columnist David S. Broder wrote, ``The impact of these live performances is everything the showmen, scholars, and politicians who brought this small miracle to pass imagined it might be. It is electrifying. . . .'' While the SJMO is not the only jazz orchestra in America, it is unique. As the only federally-chartered jazz orchestra, it enjoys a position of prestige and influence. As the only such ensemble with resident status at a museum, it's in a unique position to bring the jazz legacy to life. The Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra educates the public about the history and development of jazz as an art form and means of entertainment. It promotes a greater appreciation for jazz as a valuable American treasure by performing jazz masterworks, and presenting educational activities that engage the public with this great music. Further contributing to its status, the orchestra is led by the internationally famous Maestro David Baker--the world's leading jazz educator, author of over 70 books and 400 articles, and recent recipient of the prestigious American Jazz Masters Award given by the National Endowment for the Arts. Madam Speaker, the orchestra has special expertise in engaging and educating its audiences--young and old--about this vital part of American culture. I am pleased to recognize its service and accomplishments over the past 20 years.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, legendary jazz artist Gerald Wilson will be honored at the 2010 Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference Jazz Issue Forum and Concert. This event will take place on Thursday, September 16, 2010, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, in Washington, D.C. The concert will feature selections from Mr. Wilson's masterwork ``Detroit,'' performed by the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra. While not a native of Detroit, Mr. Wilson was raised in my home town. He has had an outstanding career that deserves the recognition of this body. Let me share some of the highlights from his biography. Gerald Wilson is a premier composer, trumpeter, arranger, bandleader and educator. His work, during his rich and varied seven-decade career, has supported some of the greatest names in jazz including Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles, Bobby Darin, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Benny Carter, Nancy Wilson, and Sarah Vaughn, as well as a scorer for motion pictures and television shows such as Otto Preminger's ``Anatomy Of A Murder'' and ABC's variety program ``The Red Foxx Show.'' Wilson also scored a top 40 pop hit with El Chicano's version of his song ``Viva Torado'' in 1971. Recently, Wilson was in the studio recording new material for his sixth release for the Mack Avenue Records label, a follow up to 2009's ``Detroit.'' The perennially inexhaustible bandleader will be included in two upcoming documentaries; the first about Cab Calloway produced by ARTE France and expected to air in America on PBS, and the other about Los Angeles' storied Million Dollar Theater. Wilson has earned seven Grammy Nominations, a recent NAACP Image Award nomination, a NARAS President's Merit Award, top Big Band and Composer/Arranger honors in the Downbeat International Critics Poll, the National Endowment for the Arts' American Jazz Masters Fellowship, two American Jazz Awards for Best Arranger and Best Big Band, and currently his masterpieces are ensconced at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. His love for jazz and his 30 year educational career in teaching music also earned him the Teacher of the Year award at UCLA in 2008. Most recently, The Gerald Wilson Orchestra's ``Detroit'' (Mack Avenue, 2009) won ``Record of the Year'' at the 2010 Jazz Week Awards. Despite earning such various accolades throughout his career, his road to success hasn't always been easy. At 91 years old, Gerald Wilson has struggled through more than 9 decades of opposition to contribute to the fight for civil rights and to share his passion for music with the world. Born in 1918 into a hotbed of racial tension in Shelby, Mississippi, Wilson was sent by his mother to live with family in the more tepid Detroit, where his musical talents afforded him the rare opportunity to attend the performing arts school, Cass Tech High School (a school that was second only to Juilliard for musical education at the time). As Wilson will tell you, this is where his musical career truly began. By the age of 26 Wilson had toured the United States with Jimmie Lunceford's band, served time in the Navy during World War II, and wrote and played trumpet for Benny Carter and Les Hite before starting his own successful band, The Gerald Wilson Orchestra. After reaching commercial success in the late '40s and marrying his Mexican-American soul mate, Josefina Villasenor Wilson, Wilson's passion for cultural immersion came to life both emotionally and creatively. Wilson began composing for more than half a dozen professional bullfighters. These masterpieces bonded Wilson in a lifelong kinship with the bullfighting community and afforded him the opportunity to be a member of the exclusive international bullfighting club, Los Aficionados des Los Angeles, and then honored with an award for contributing something positive to the world of ``tauromaquia'' (the world of the bull fight). Hopping from one creative outlet to the next, in 1969 after intense study of his own on the art of classical music, Wilson was honored to receive an invitation from Zubin Mehta to compose a number for the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. Wilson's passion to incorporate his art into his selfless crusade for civil rights has remained paramount in his life and has touched the lives in countless cultures and countries around the world. When asking this humble legend about his great successes, Wilson, who will be 92 years old this September, responds with sincere humility, ``I just try to be a person worthy of being a part of this great art form.'' Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the accomplishments of Gerald Wilson. I urge all Members to acquaint themselves with this great artist and his music.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of the most dedicated and productive members of the Judiciary Committee staff for her service to the House, Andrea Culebras. For 3\1/ 2\ years, Andrea has worked with exceptional ability and attitude for the Judiciary Committee, and I rise to commend her for her achievements. After graduating from Fayetteville-Manlius High School in Manlius, New York, Andrea attended George Washington University, and graduated in 2005. Following graduation, Andrea began her Congressional career. She first interned for former Congressman James T. Walsh. She soon found a staff position on the Hill, and worked for my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, the Gentleman from New York, Anthony Weiner. After her time in Mr. Weiner's office, she worked for the Gentleman from Texas, Henry Cuellar. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, when I became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Andrea was one of the very first new employees I hired. As a member of the committee's staff, Andrea has played a central role in the operations of the committee, coordinating the work of the subcommittees and full committee and assisting the Staff Director and General Counsel with the day to day organization of the committee. Recently, she has been instrumental to the committee's work on modernizing federal stalking laws. Andrea is leaving the committee to attend Columbus School of Law at Catholic University this fall. On behalf of the Judiciary Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, I would like to thank her for her exemplary work, grace under pressure, sense of humor, and relentlessly positive attitude. She will be sorely missed as a colleague and friend, but we wish her the best of luck and extend to her our deepest gratitude for her service. We know she will do well.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed over the past year, as our country has faced some of the greatest economic difficulties imaginable, is that there have been very few easy or inconsequential votes taken on this floor. Our nation's problems are vast and deep and they have tested this Congress, as we have again and again been forced to rise and meet unforeseen challenges while, at the same time, working to restore the promise inherent in the American dream to our fellow countrymen and women. Today is no different. The bill we bring to the floor today is a necessary measure. The fiscal fate of our states and over 300,000 jobs weigh in the balance. If we do not act, many of our nation's children will be left without teachers when they return to school in a few weeks. Worse, inaction could exacerbate an already unfolding crisis in our state and local governments, where budget shortfalls have cost 100,000 public servants their jobs in the past three months. So, we must act. It is unfortunate that in doing so, we must also cut $11 billion in benefits from the food stamp program to offset the cost of this necessary state aid. Indeed, this is a bitter pill to swallow. In real terms, this means that monthly benefits for a family of three will drop by $47 dollars in April 2014. Now, $47 dollars may not seem like a lot of money to many in this chamber, but during this recession this additional funding has served as a lifeline for many of those who have been hit the hardest by this recession. Our food stamp program is already chronically underfunded. At current levels, these benefits are often insufficient to allow a family to purchase enough food to last an entire month. Madam Speaker, this is why many of our fellow citizens are frustrated with Washington. It is why they think we are out of touch. We offer aid with one hand and take from the neediest with the other. It makes no sense whatsoever. As my friend, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, noted the other day: those who need help the most had finally caught a break, only to now have it taken away. That said, I want to reiterate that this bill, taken as a whole, is a good bill and I will support it. This is the burden of governing; we have a duty to make tough decisions and live with them. While I disagree with the decision to phase out these important benefits in 2014 and pledge to work to ensure that they are reinstated, I respect the work my colleagues on this side of the aisle have put into crafting this necessary jobs package. It is certainly much more admirable and serious than what the other side offers: a resolution calling for Congress to shut down and take a paid two-month vacation. I may not agree with the choices some of my Democratic colleagues make, but never for a moment do I doubt their commitment to facing down and solving the challenges facing the American people. This debate, frankly, illustrates the choice offered to our fellow citizens this fall: serious, difficult, deliberation and governance or silly and trivial gimmicks aimed at scoring political points. The American, people will have to decide. I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary, job-saving bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support, H.R. 5874. The purpose of H.R. 5874 is simple: it would allow the USPTO to access more of the fees that it will collect in FY2010. This year, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, also known as the USPTO, is expected to collect more in user fees than they are permitted to retain. As everyone in the patent community is aware, I, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have worked to ensure that the USPTO has the resources it needs. Part of that equation is for the USPTO to retain the user fees that they collect from patent and trademark applicants. While not perfect, H.R. 5874 significantly moves the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the right direction by enabling the USPTO to continue the progress they have made already in reducing the backlog and shortening pendency. I would have liked to see the President requested buffer of $150 million also included in this legislation because that is the only way to ensure that ALL user fees collected in FY2010 will be retained; however, H.R. 5874 is a big step forward and is undeniably better than the current situation. I thank the Appropriators for working with us on this Presidential request and for honoring the spirit of the gentlemen's agreement. I urge my colleagues to join IPO, AIPLA, ABA IP Section, ACT, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others, and support this important legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. This legislation will provide care for the thousands of 9/11 responders and others who are sick because of Ground Zero toxins. Within hours of the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, fire fighters, police officers and EMTs, construction workers, and volunteers from every state in the Union labored together without regard for their own health or safety. As they set about searching for survivors and then continued the task of clean up, they were told the air was safe to breathe. Unfortunately, we know better today. The cloud they worked in was a poisonous cocktail of thousands of tons of coarse and fine particulate matter, pulverized cement and glass, asbestos, lead, and other toxic pollutants. Now, almost nine years later, we are seeing the potentially deadly effects of those toxins. Thousands of responders and people from the community surrounding Ground Zero are currently sick and receiving treatment. Tens of thousands are undergoing medical monitoring, and many more are enrolled in the World Trade Center Health Registry. H.R. 847 helps the World Trade Center responders and members of the community who were exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero by providing medical monitoring and treatment. I strongly support these provisions. This legislation also provides compensation for those who suffered economic loss. It reopens the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund and provides liability protection to the World Trade Center contractors. Without the Victims Compensation Fund, those who need and deserve compensation have no alternative to the current litigation system. So, it's no surprise that some 11,000 workers are suing the World Trade Center contractors and the City of New York because of their illnesses. The contractors, now subject to suit and potential financial loss, came in to help our nation in our time of need. They were told by the government that their liability would be taken care of and we need to make good on that promise. To that end, H.R. 847 provides liability protection to the World Trade Center contractors. As with the original Victims Compensation Fund, people can either participate in the Victims Compensation Fund or litigate, but they cannot do both. The solution offered in H.R. 847 is neither easy nor inexpensive. We must, however, take care of the people who took care of us following 9/ 11. If we don't, not only will we have failed in our moral obligation to our nation's responders and volunteers, we risk the possibility that others will not answer the call when we need them in the future. I wish to thank Speaker Pelosi, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Nadler, Chairman Rangel, and Mr. Peter King for their steadfast commitment to help. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in 1990, I cosponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act, legislation intended to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities and ensure that they are able to claim their rightful place as equal members of our society. Our legislative mandate was purposefully ambitious. We sought--for once and for all--to prohibit unfair discrimination based on disability. Last week, at a hearing in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, we heard from people whose lives have been changed by the Americans with Disabilities Act: Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who both supervised the enforcement of the ADA in its infancy and has raised a son with a disability; Lt. Col. Gregory Gadson, a man with 20 years of active duty service who lost both legs in Iraq in 2007, and has recently been named the Director of the Army's Wounded Warrior Program; Adrian Villalobos, a young man from El Paso, Texas, whose spinal injury occurred shortly after the ADA was enacted; Casandra Cox, a woman with a mental disability who has advocated for housing for individuals with mental disabilities that fosters their independence and dignity; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, past board chair of the American Association of People with Disabilities; and Jonathan Young, the chairman of the National Council on Disability. Majority Leader Hoyer, Congressman Langevin, and Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, also testified about the history and future of the ADA. Each witness had something unique to say about how the Americans with Disabilities Act has changed their lives, and what remains to be done to live up to the Act's mandate of inclusion, dignity and nondiscrimination. What have we learned in the 20 years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed? First, civil rights legislation has the power to create substantial and necessary change. Before the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with disabilities were routinely discounted, and their gifts were routinely ignored. Fundamental human rights--the right to work, the right to live where you want to live, and the right to enter the stores, schools, and government buildings where everyone else shops, learns, and participates--were arbitrarily denied to individuals with disabilities. Those obstacles were created by ignorance, indifference, and actual prejudice. The effect was the creation of a second-class citizenry, excluded from society in all meaningful ways. We know that isolation breeds stigma. We also know that inclusion promotes productivity, mutual understanding, and equality. Civil rights legislation is built on creating a more just society, by empowering and requiring equal access to all that American society has to offer--to every individual. Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act reminds us that our concern with civil rights legislation does not end once a bill becomes law. The Act did not magically erase the barriers to equality for individuals with disabilities. All doors and all minds were not instantly opened wide enough to encompass this diverse group. Progress under the Act was slowed, and even blocked, by Supreme Court decisions that contravened our legislative intent, by narrowing the Act's scope and applicability, time and time again. But we came together, on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers, to make it clear that we meant what we said: Americans with disabilities must have complete legal equality. I proudly cosponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act in response to those Supreme Court decisions, and ultimately, a law correcting the Court's misconstruction of the ADA was passed in 2008. This anniversary is a time to recognize one of our most significant civil rights achievements. But as the circumstances surrounding the ADA Amendments Act remind us, Congress must remain a vigilant steward of the civil rights laws we have passed. Third, we cannot celebrate our accomplishments without recognizing future challenges. One issue impeding the fulfillment of the Act's promise is the failure of some States to comply with their obligations to offer integrated housing, where appropriate, to persons with mental illness. The Olmstead case on this issue has correctly been called the Brown v. Board of Education for individuals with disabilities, because it condemned the practice of indiscriminately directing all individuals with mental disabilities into separate, segregated housing as inconsistent with the core purposes of the ADA. Segregation from mainstream society, default warehousing in institutions, and enforced dependence are unacceptable conditions to impose on individuals with mental disabilities who have the ability to live more independent and integrated lives. The Americans with Disabilities Act demonstrates that civil rights laws not only protect personal dignity, they enrich society as a whole. In these hard economic times, what can be more important than easing obstacles that prevent individuals with disabilities from becoming productive members of the workforce? We must continue to attend to the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that future anniversaries can make us equally proud.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, due to urgent business in the 14th congressional district, I was unable to vote today. If I were present, I would have voted ``aye'' to the following bills: H.R. 1320--Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments; H. Res 1504--Recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; H.R. 3101--Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4213, the ``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.'' After weeks of needless delay, this legislation will ensure that the estimated $2.5 million Americans who lost their coverage will again have access to the lifeline provided by unemployment insurance and again be able to pay their bills and put food on their table. During this unfortunate period, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly told out of work Americans that the human dignity they seek is a luxury we cannot afford. Let me be clear: There is nothing luxurious about barely getting by--having to decide between your mortgage, your health, or your family's well being. The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out of work. Beyond voting for this bill, my Republican friends ought to take responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster. It was they who pushed policies that promoted unfettered free trade, tax cuts for the rich, and the casino culture on Wall Street. The least they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain they caused. For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on July 19, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1491, H.R. 5604, and H. Res. 1516. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all bills.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5604, ``The Surface Transportation Savings Act of 2010.'' By rescinding amounts authorized for certain surface transportation programs, our nation will save about $107 million and thus reduce our budget deficit. This legislation would rescind millions of dollars in excess contract authority from programs including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt performance grants program, which according to the NHTSA, only three states are expected to qualify to receive an incentive grant this year. The amount rescinded is reduced as necessary to ensure that 28.5 million is still available to carry out safety belt grants programs in Fiscal Year 2010. In addition, H.R. 5604 rescinds funds that The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) Act already provides funding for, including NHTSA's administrative expenses, transit formula and bus grant programs. It is clear that the public is concerned about the current fiscal state of the federal government. An NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey conducted in May showed that the share of individuals rating ``the deficit and government spending'' as a top priority for the federal government to address has jumped since January from 13 to 20 percent-- second only to job creation and economic growth. According to Gallup, ``federal government debt'' now ties with terrorism for the top spot in perceived threats to our future well-being. The public's attitudes reflect our need to tackle our nation's serious budget challenge and exercise fiscal belt-tightening where it makes sense. H.R. 5604 is one step towards that goal. It contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. This legislation is a small but necessary effort to help us gradually get our fiscal house in order. With the Nation's budget deficit forecasted to swell 14 percent this year, largely due to the longest war in our history and unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, we must explore common ground to achieve fiscal responsibility. If we don't, then by the time our grandchildren or great grandchildren are in college, our debt will exceed our GDP. I will continue to support smart measures designed to return our Nation to fiscal health and strength as steadily and as sustainably as possible. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5604 to help reduce our budget deficit.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1516, which recognizes the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II. The Allies' victory in Europe in 1945 ended an era of unspeakable atrocities and widespread human suffering. World War II was the largest war in history as nations around the globe mobilized 100 million souls to fight in the name of either the Allied or Axis powers. The battle between the two resulted in the most deadly war in human history: 60 to 70 million deaths, 45 million of whom were civilians. The United States lost 345,000 brave soldiers in both the European and Pacific theaters, which was second only to the Civil War in the amount of American blood spilled in war. America rallied over 16 million citizens into uniform and its factories and farms provided the largest mobilized support network in the world. The war helped bring the country out of the Great Depression, and vitalized my own Detroit as the manufacturing industry expanded greatly during this period. It is also worth noting that during this time, the United States, in its fight against racist and genocidal opponents, was forced to confront its own racism. In one of our most shameful acts, Japanese- Americans were interned at camps throughout the war while segregation continued to separate whites and blacks back home. Despite these sad examples of discrimination, Japanese-American, African-American, and Hispanic-Americans all proudly took up arms to defend their nation and demonstrate their loyalty. I have no doubt that their courage laid the groundwork for the victories for equality and civil rights for all that would follow decades later. Madam Speaker, as we honor our World War II veterans, we must also recognize the incredible sacrifices made by those currently serving overseas. We must also not forget the values for which World War II was fought. Our level of international cooperation at the end of that war was a clear example of our commitment to diplomacy and peaceful resolutions. We have and always will be a Nation that supports liberty and justice for all.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on July 19, 2010, I regret that I was not present to vote on H. Res. 1472, H. Con. Res. 126, and H. Res. 1219. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all bills.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 1472, ``Expressing support for designation of the week of September 13, 2010, as National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week.'' The future of this country depends upon the level of education we provide our citizens, and the foundation of a good education is the ability to read and write well. In order to remain competitive in this global economy, we must emphasize the importance of raising our nation's literacy and English language skills. Madam Speaker, National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week brings public attention to the importance of adult education and family literacy. Adult education and family literacy are both significant factors in determining the country's future. For example, reading to children from a young age and the mother's level of education both impact a child's academic success. Statistics show those who are often unemployed, underemployed, receive public assistance, or incarcerated are those with low educational skills. By improving such skills we take a momentous step to correcting a large number of problems that our country now faces. With this resolution, the Congress states it is never too late to improve one's literacy or educational skills. With this designation, we improve our nation's future prospects and the lives of its citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 126, recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title VI international education programs within the Department of Education. Since the terror attacks of 9/11 it is indispensable that we continue to strive to develop leaders, educators, foreign policy experts and individuals in matters of world affairs through research and specialty training in international affairs. Moreover, it is imperative that we continue to expand educational programs that will create opportunities for greater diversity in our knowledge of other nations. Such advancements will further equip citizens and experts within the United States with the necessary tools to contribute to national security and world development. Every day our world changes and Title VI has played an important role in helping the United States respond to these changing events in a culturally sensitive manner. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and support the goals and ideals of Title VI international education programs and recognize the need to continue development and promotion of these programs.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1855, the ``Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success, SECTORS Act''. It is an important piece of legislation, and I would like to thank Representative David Loebsack for bringing it to the floor. This bill, when passed, will help to encourage job advancement along with job growth. By requiring the Secretary of Labor to award competitive grants that may reach totals of over $2 million that will spur job growth and in- house training, the SECTORS bill will help workers who have been hard hit by this recession. This federal-industrial partnership and the coordination with state and local institutions to improve economic and educational investment will ensure a better way forward for the American worker. In the current job climate, it is not only the unemployed who feel the wrath of recession. There are many workers, in my district included, who continue to be outpaced by changing work environments. Many industries that employ thousands of workers do not have the money or the structure necessary to promote in-house training. These industries are homes to jobs that often have no hope of advancement, jobs that steer workers away from their families and into dead-end career paths. This bill will help workers become acclimated to the changing environment. By promoting job training and job retention through federal grants, the SECTORS Act brings hope to the thousands of workers who may not know at the moment what their future will look like. It fosters the hope that has been so barren these last months and brings opportunity to the men and women who need it most. Again, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2010, along with additional cosponsors. As a product of years of extensive consultation with both the law enforcement and civil rights communities, this legislation represents the most comprehensive federal commitment to healing the rift caused by racial profiling and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system at-large. The introduction of this legislation is a critical step in what should be a nationwide, bipartisan effort to end this divisive practice. The debate over racial profiling has become a central element in a much larger history of adversarial relationships between the police and communities of color. Over the past two decades, the tensions between police and minority communities have grown as allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement agents, sometimes supported by data collection efforts, have increased in number and frequency. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ongoing immigration enforcement debate have only complicated the profiling issues that were traditionally centered on state and local law enforcement. The arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and the passage of Arizona S.B. 1070 have crystalized the terms of the profiling debate and demonstrate that the combination of race and law enforcement represents a volatile mix across all strata of the minority community. Despite the fact that the majority of law enforcement officers perform their duties professionally and without bias--and we value their service highly--the specter of racial profiling has contaminated the relationship between the police and minority communities to such a degree that Federal action is justified to begin addressing the issue. When I first introduced the Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1997, the racial profiling issue was relatively straightforward in political terms. Profiling was represented by the classic pretext traffic stop, where an African-American driver was pulled over for a minor traffic violation and then asked for consent to search their vehicle. Today, traffic and pedestrian stops have given way to airport passenger profiles and immigrant sweeps. For that reason, racial profiling legislation has evolved from a simple data collection bill to comprehensive multi-tiered legislation--including a private right of action and best practice grants--that is designed to address a more complex law enforcement landscape. As we move forward, I believe it is important to remind Members of just how far we in Congress have come in developing a bipartisan consensus on the racial profiling issue. By September 11, 2001, there was significant empirical evidence and wide agreement among Americans, including President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial profiling was a tragic fact of life in the minority community and that the Federal government should take action to end the practice. Data collected from Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Maryland, Maine, Rhode Island, California, West Virginia, and Oklahoma demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that African-Americans and Hispanics were being stopped for routine traffic violations far in excess of their share of the population or even the rate at which such populations are accused of criminal conduct. Similarly, Justice Department reports found that although African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched by law enforcement, they were much less likely to be found in possession of contraband. Law enforcement officials have similarly evolved in their views. While some still take issue, many in the law enforcement community acknowledge that singling out people for heightened scrutiny based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin has eroded the trust in law enforcement necessary to appropriately serve and protect our communities. Rather than seeking to deny the concerns of minority community advocates, law enforcement officials have joined the effort to create solutions and build trust with their communities. As a result, more than 20 states have passed bipartisan legislation prohibiting racial profiling and/or mandating data collection on stops and searches, in addition to hundreds of individual jurisdictions which have voluntarily commenced to collect data programs. Congress itself was actually poised to pass racial profiling legislation in the fall of 2001, with the express support of President Bush, before the terrorist attacks changed the legislative paradigm. In the wake of the attacks, however, the Department of Justice promulgated a series of guidelines in 2003 which were designed to end the practice of racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies. These measures do not reach the vast majority of racial profiling complaints arising from the routine activities of state and local law enforcement agencies. Further, the guidelines provide no enforcement mechanism or methods for identifying law enforcement agencies not in compliance. Consequently, they fail to resolve the racial profiling problem nationwide. In this instance, there is no substitute for comprehensive federal anti-profiling legislation. The End Racial Profiling Act is designed to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by eliminating racial profiling through changes to the policies and procedures underlying the practice. First, the bill provides a prohibition on racial profiling, enforceable by declaratory or injunctive relief. Second, the bill mandates training on racial profiling issues and the collection of data on both routine and spontaneous investigatory activities, as a condition of receiving Federal law enforcement funding. Third, the Justice Department is authorized to provide grants for the development and implementation of best policing practices, such as early warning systems, technology integration, and other management protocols that discourage profiling. Finally, the Attorney General is required to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. Decades ago, this country made clear through the passage of sweeping civil rights legislation that race should not affect the treatment of individual Americans under the law. When law-abiding citizens are treated differently by those who enforce the law simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, they are denied the basic respect and equal treatment that is the right of every American. With the cooperation of the administration, we have the opportunity to develop a comprehensive approach to eliminating the practice of racial profiling. I hope that we do not miss this historic opportunity to heal the rift caused by racial profiling and restore much of the community's confidence in law enforcement.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and a House conferee on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I would like to highlight a few provisions of this legislation of particular jurisdictional importance to our Committee, and that our Committee was instrumentally involved in shaping. During the course of Congress's consideration of this legislation, our Committee carefully examined a range of legal issues posed, including issues of antitrust law, bankruptcy law, criminal law, administrative procedure, and judicial proceedings, and held two days of hearings last fall focusing on antitrust and bankruptcy law in particular. Below is a summary of some of the more significant of these issues and how they have been addressed. Antitrust Law One major impetus of this bill is to address the problem posed two years ago by financial institutions that were deemed ``too big to fail.'' The emergency efforts to deal with those institutions led to infusions of billions of federal dollars, and federal guarantees of billions more, putting the Treasury, and our nation, at significant risk. But ``too big'' also places our nation at significant risk in another respect--and that is the risk of harm to competition, when a marketplace becomes concentrated in the hands of so few competitors that consumers no longer have meaningful choice, and the healthy influence of competition on price, quality, and innovation is lost. It is therefore essential that the antitrust laws, the laws protecting our economic freedoms against monopolization, anticompetitive restraints of trade, and undue market concentration, remain in place. They are needed to ensure that the heightened regulatory supervision the new law contemplates, as well as our response to any future financial system emergency, do not inadvertently lead to an even more concentrated marketplace--with companies that are even bigger, with more market power, and with less incentive to be responsive to the consumers they are supposed to serve, and leaving less opportunity for new entry and innovation. The final bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that the antitrust laws remain fully in effect. Antitrust Savings Clause First and foremost is the antitrust savings clause in section 6 of the bill. It is the standard antitrust savings clause found in other statutes. It applies to the entire Act, and all amendments made by the Act to other laws. The phrase ``unless otherwise specified'' is added in reference to four provisions in the bill. In two places--sections 210(a)(1)(G)(ii)(III) and 210(h)(11) of the bill--the standard pre- merger waiting period under section 7A of the Clayton Act is explicitly shortened. And in two other places--section 163(b)(5) of the bill, and the amendment to section 4(k)(6)11(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act made in section 604(e)(2) of the bill--there are cross-references to the exception to pre-merger review in section 7A(c)(8) of the Clayton Act that explicitly make that exception inapplicable. The phrase ``unless otherwise specified'' refers only to those four specific provisions that explicitly modify the operation of those specified provisions of the antitrust laws in specified ways, and is not a basis for courts to consider whether any other provision in the bill might be intended as an implicit modification of how the antitrust laws operate. The savings clause is intended to make clear that it is not. For example, in a number of places in the bill, there are provisions referring to ``Antitrust Considerations'' that various securities and commodities entities--including derivatives clearing organizations, swap dealers, major swap participants, swap execution facilities, clearing agencies, security-based swap dealers, and major security- based swap participants--are directed to take into account in formulating their operating rules. There are exceptions to these directives for situations in which the entity believes pursuing them itself is inconsistent with its other obligations under the relevant securities or commodities law. The fact that the entity is excused from the new directives, however, does not alter the application of the antitrust laws. Nor does the fact that the entity follows these directives in its own rulemaking supplant the operation of the antitrust laws. In this regard, the rule of construction found in section 541 of the bill simply reaffirms, perhaps unnecessarily, for Title V of the bill what the antitrust savings clause already provides for the entire bill and all amendments made by it. In attempting to elaborate on the effect of an antitrust savings clause, it does not create a different rule, but merely reaffirms the general rule. Moreover, an antitrust savings clause is itself merely a reinforcement of the well-established principle that, because the antitrust laws are ``a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition,'' Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1 (1958), ``the Magna Carta of free enterprise,'' Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972), there is a strong presumption against their normal operation being superseded by some other statutory scheme. E.g., Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U.S. 289, 302-303 (1973); Silver v. New York Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 357 (1963). Whether the antitrust laws reach particular conduct depends on whether the other statutory scheme is ``incompatible with the maintenance of an antitrust action.'' Ricci, 409 U.S. at 302; Silver, 373 U.S. at 358. The antitrust laws are superseded only ``where there is a plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions.'' Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264, 272 (2007); Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 422 U.S. 659, 682 (1975). The antitrust laws are displaced ``only if necessary to make the [other statutory scheme] work, and even then only to the minimum extent necessary.'' Ricci, 409 U.S. at 301; Silver, 373 U.S. at 357. Pre-Merger Antitrust Review Recognizing that a fully methodical pre-merger antitrust review may be in tension with the need for quick action to avoid systemic harm, the bill shortens the ``Hart-Scott-Rodino'' pre-merger waiting periods under section 7A of the Clayton Act, based on the procedure developed for reviewing sales of assets during a bankruptcy proceeding. This procedure expedites the initial review, while permitting the antitrust enforcement agency to extend the period when more information is needed to make its assessment. This expedited procedure is included in two places--in section 210(a)(1)(G)(ii) of the bill, for mergers of a covered financial company in receivership with another company, and in section 210(h)(11) of the bill, for mergers or sales of bridge financial companies. The House bill had included, at the request of our Committee, a provision permitting the FDIC receiver to effectuate a merger immediately, without prior notice to the Attorney General or any pre- merger waiting period, if the Treasury Secretary determined that immediate action was necessary to preserve financial stability. This provision was not included in the Senate bill or the conference report. While express authority to act immediately is therefore missing, the Judiciary Committee hopes the antitrust enforcement agencies will work constructively with the Treasury Department to develop a mechanism for dispensing with the prior notice requirement and the pre-merger waiting period, or shortening them appropriately, when warranted by urgency and the danger posed to stability of the economy, keeping in mind that the antitrust laws authorizing challenge of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions remain fully in force. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the shortening of the H- S-R pre-merger antitrust waiting period, and even the possibility of permitting a merger to be effectuated as close to immediately as can be arranged, in no way alters the applicability of the other antitrust laws. If a merger raises significant competitive concerns, it can still be challenged after the fact under section 7 of the Clayton Act. And post-merger conduct that raises competitive concerns is fully subject to the Sherman Act. These laws are not amended by the bill; and the antitrust further emphasizes that their operation is not affected in any way. Similarly, the House bill had, at the request of our Committee, applied the expedited pre-merger review process not only to mergers, but to sales or transfers of financial company assets. While transfers within the financial company's own internal corporate structure, or to a temporary bridge company set up by the FDIC, would never trigger the H-S-R notification and waiting period, and even sales or transfers to outside third parties would trigger it only if the assets acquired exceeded $63 million in value, an acquisition of this type is as likely, if not more so, than a merger with the entire financial company. Our Committee thought it important that acquisitions of this type, when they occur, have the expedited process available, as well as the emergency process allowing acquisitions to be effectuated immediately. The Senate bill limited the application of the expedited process to mergers, however, and the Senate approach was retained in the final conference report, which limits availability of the expedited review to mergers described in section 210(a)(1)(G)(i)(I), leaving out transfers of assets described in section 210(a)(1)(G)(i)(II). To the extent that subparagraph (G)(i)(II) may be read not only to cover transfers within the corporate structure or to the temporary bridge financial company, but also to include transfers to third parties, these transfers, to the extent they are at thresholds that trigger Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting, will not be able to take advantage of the expedited waiting period under section 210(a)(1)(G)(ii). Our Committee urges the antitrust enforcement agencies to use their existing authority to work constructively with the FDIC to establish an informal arrangement to enable these transactions to proceed in an expedited fashion where consistent with effective antitrust enforcement, keeping in mind, again, that the antitrust laws authorizing challenge of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions remain fully in force. Bankruptcy Law One of the bill's centerpieces is a new emergency procedure for placing a financial institution into FDIC receivership when its insolvency poses imminent and significant ``systemic risk'' to the stability of the broader financial system and economy. Congress made a judgment to craft this procedure outside the Bankruptcy Code, rather than seek to adopt the Code to the additional needs of dealing effectively with systemic risk. While generally supportive of this judgment, our Committee has urged proceeding in keeping with two important objectives. First, that this new emergency procedure be authorized only for cases of genuine emergency, where a departure from the well-established procedures in the Bankruptcy Code is essential to broader financial and economic stability. And second, that even in the new emergency procedure, the well-developed bankruptcy principles of due process and equitable treatment of all affected parties be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. Confining the Extraordinary Receivership Procedure to Extraordinary Circumstances As to the first objective, the House bill reaffirmed, at our Committee's request, the ``strong presumption that resolution under the bankruptcy laws will remain the primary method of resolving financial companies,'' and that the new FDIC receivership authority ``will only be used in the most exigent circumstances.'' The substantive essence of this presumption is reflected in several places in the final bill's new liquidation provisions. In particular, section 203(a)(2)(F) requires that, in any recommendation to the Treasury Secretary that FDIC receivership be invoked, the FDIC and the Fed explain why a case under the Bankruptcy Code is not appropriate. Section 203(b)(4) requires that the Secretary have determined, in consultation with the President, that ``any effect on the claims or interests of creditors . . . and other market participants . . . is appropriate, given the impact . . . on financial stability in the United States.'' And section 203(c)(2) requires the Secretary to make an immediate report to Congress, within 24 hours, on specified considerations supporting the FDIC receivership invocation, including, in subparagraphs (E)-(I), several considerations regarding the effects of FDIC receivership as compared with bankruptcy procedure. In addition, section 165(d)(4)(b) specifies that the resolution plans that large financial holding companies and nonbank financial companies will be required to submit to the Fed, as part of enhanced prudential standards, must be sufficient to result in orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of insolvency. Established bankruptcy procedure is thus reaffirmed as the preferred route even in the planning stages. Our Committee expects these provisions to be cornerstones for ensuring that this extraordinary procedure will be invoked only when essential--when bankruptcy procedure is clearly not sufficient in light of the extreme urgency and overriding systemic risk. Incorporating Key Bankruptcy Principles in the FDIC Receivership Process As to the second objective, the bill incorporates a number of key bankruptcy protections, first and foremost among them preservation and priority for specified kinds of claims against the financial company, and powers for the FDIC receiver to avoid transfers for the benefit of the United States and other creditors. The bill also incorporates a number of terms directly from the Bankruptcy Code. While we were not always successful in explicitly incorporating every useful Bankruptcy Code concept, many of the most important due process and equitable treatment considerations are reflected in some fashion. For example, section 208 of the bill requires dismissal of a covered financial company's pending bankruptcy case upon appointment of the FDIC receiver. Subsection (b) provides that any assets that have vested in another entity automatically vest back in the covered financial company. We had expressed concern that this would prove not only unworkable in practice, but could undermine the effectiveness of the bankruptcy proceeding in preserving assets of the financial company, by creating uncertainty regarding any purchase of assets even in the ordinary course of business. Subsection (c) of the final bill clarifies that any order entered or other relief granted by a bankruptcy court prior to the date the FDIC receiver is appointed ``shall continue with the same validity as if an orderly liquidation had not been commenced.'' Our Committee expects subsection (c) to be construed so that payments made during the ordinary course of the financial company's business while it is a debtor in a bankruptcy case will not be subject to the automatic re-vesting. This is in keeping with other provisions of the bill, such as section 165, that are intended to encourage financial companies to be resolved through bankruptcy wherever possible. At our Committee's urging, section 210(b) of the bill establishes priority of payment for various types of unsecured claims against a covered financial company for which the FDIC has been appointed as receiver under section 202, modeled on similar protection in the Bankruptcy Code. Subsection (b)(1)(C) accords third priority--after payment of the FDIC's administrative expenses as receiver, and any amounts owed to the United States (unless otherwise agreed to)--to employees with claims for unpaid wages, salaries, or commissions (including earned vacation, severance, and sick leave pay) up to a maximum $11,725 for each employee, earned within 180 days before the date of the FDIC's appointment as receiver. Also at the Committee's urging, subsection (b)(1)(D) accords fourth priority for certain contributions owed to employee benefit plans arising from services rendered within the same 180-day time frame. These provisions will ensure that American workers will be accorded the equivalent protections they have under current bankruptcy law with respect to payment priority for unpaid wages and employee benefit plan contributions. At our Committee's urging, the House bill required the FDIC receiver to appoint a Consumer Privacy Advisor to assist with ensuring that the privacy of sensitive consumer information would be appropriately protected. A similar provision was added to the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, following revelations that Toysmart.com, an Internet retailer of educational toys had, after filing for bankruptcy, sought to sell its customer data base, including personal information about children who used its toys, despite its promise never to sell this information. This provision was not retained in the final bill; but the FDIC has advised our Committee that it is absolutely committed to safeguarding any personally identifiable information it acquires from a covered financial company for which it serves as receiver. Practice of Law The Constitutional freedoms and legal rights we enjoy as Americans are ultimately protected in our courts, through the advocacy of attorneys who are licensed to practice before them. In keeping with these critical responsibilities, the activities of these ``officers of the court'' are regulated by the States, through government bodies overseen by the State's highest court, with specialized expertise in the sometimes complex duties imposed by the code of legal ethics. Among the myriad activities engaged in as part of the practice of law are activities to assist consumer clients in resolving serious debt problems, including but by no means limited to representing them in bankruptcy proceedings. Conceptually, the activities Congress intends to give the Bureau authority to regulate--``the offering or provision of a financial product or service''--are distinguishable from the practice of law. But because of the breadth of the authority being given the Bureau, including the definitions of ``covered person'' and ``financial product or service,'' and the complexities of the practice of law, there was concern about potential overlap. And giving the new Bureau authority to regulate the practice of law could materially interfere with and jeopardize sensitive aspects of the attorney-client relationship, including the attorney-client privilege and work product protection that enable clients to obtain sound legal advice from their attorneys on a protected confidential basis. It could also undermine the authority of the State supreme courts to effectively oversee and discipline lawyers. There are carefully developed ethical codes and disciplinary rules governing all aspects of the practice of law. Any regulation from a new source would unavoidably conflict with the existing rules and lines of accountability. And because one of the foremost, and at times most complex, ethical obligations is for an attorney to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, there would be a significant likelihood of attorneys being impeded in meeting their obligations to their clients and to the legal system they are sworn to protect. Even if the Bureau's authority could be reliably confined to legal representation in financial matters, the result would be material harm to consumer clients of bankruptcy lawyers, consumer lawyers, and real estate lawyers--the very consumers the Bureau is being created to protect. But the harm would inevitably be far broader, extending into unrelated aspects of legal practice. For those reasons, our Committee was determined to avoid any possible overlap between the Bureau's authority and the practice of law. At the same time, our Committee recognized that attorneys can be involved in activities outside the practice of law, and might even hold out their law license as a sort of badge of trustworthiness. Although State supreme courts would have some authority to respond to abuses in even these outside activities, as reflecting on the attorney's unfitness to hold a law license (see Model Rule 8.4 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in virtually all States), their disciplinary authority is not necessarily as extensive in these outside areas. The Committee was equally determined that these outside activities not escape effective regulation simply because the person engaging in them is an attorney or is working for an attorney. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a senior Member of both our Committee and the Committee on Financial Services, and a House conferee, was instrumental in helping ensure that the final bill draws this distinction appropriately and clearly. Accordingly, our Committee worked to make clear that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established in the bill is not being given authority to regulate the practice of law, which is regulated by the State or States in which the attorney in question is licensed to practice. At the same time, the Committee worked to clarify that this protection for the practice of law is not intended to preclude the new Bureau from regulating other conduct engaged in by individuals who happen to be attorneys or to be acting under their direction, if the conduct is not part of the practice of law or incidental to the practice of law. Section 1027(e) of the final bill incorporates this protection. It excludes from Bureau supervisory and enforcement authority all activities engaged in as part of the practice of law under the laws of a State in which the attorney in question is licensed to practice law. To the extent that a paralegal, secretary, investigator, or law student intern is performing activities under the supervision of an attorney, and in a manner recognized under the laws of the relevant State as within the scope of the attorney's practice of law--and only to that extent--those activities also fall within this protection. As the commentary to Model Rule 5.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted in virtually all States, makes clear, these legal assistants ``act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer's professional services . . . [and the] lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment . . . .'' Extending the protection to cover these legal assistance, under these conditions, is consistent with ensuring that the protection fully covers the practice of law as it is conventionally engaged in, while foreclosing any opportunity for an attorney to shield other commercial activities by engaging in them through surrogates. The provision in the final bill includes indicia for determining whether an activity that constitutes the offering or provision of a financial product or service within the terms of the bill is part of or incidental to the practice of law, and therefore excluded from the Bureau's authority. First and foremost, the activity must be among those activities considered part of the practice of law by the State supreme court or other governing body that is regulating the practice of law in the State in question, or be incidental to those practices. As further protection against abuse, the activity must be engaged in exclusively within the scope of the attorney-client relationship; and the product or service must not be offered by or under direction of the attorney in question with respect to any consumer who is not receiving legal advice or services from the attorney in connection with it. We would hope that this carefully considered statutory provision will also serve as a model for other federal agencies considering new regulations that might cover conduct engaged in by attorneys as well as others, so as to better ensure that important consumer protection objectives are achieved consistent with safeguarding the ability of our ``officers of the court'' to fulfill their ethical obligations under our legal system. It is generally contemplated that the new Bureau will make rules regarding various aspects of its authority. Any determinations by rule, or otherwise, regarding what activities constitute the practice of law should be consistent with the views and practices of the State supreme court or State bar in question as to what activities it regards as part of the practice of law and oversees on that basis, giving appropriate deference to comments received from the State supreme courts and State bars, supplemented with further guidance as appropriate from the other indicia set forth in section 1027(e)(2). Section 1027(e)(3) makes clear that existing federal regulatory authority over activities of attorneys, either under enumerated consumer laws as defined in the bill, or transferred to the new Bureau from existing agencies under subtitle F or H of Title X, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau title, is not diminished. Administrative and Judicial Process Throughout the bill are provisions authorizing administrative or judicial enforcement. Our Committee has endeavored, where possible, to have these provisions written in conformance with the standard modern formulations found in the Administrative Procedures Act and title 28 of the United States Code, in lieu of novel formulations, or formulations modeled on laws enacted in a bygone era, that have the potential to create unnecessary uncertainty and litigation over interpretation. We were not always entirely successful in this regard. Among the changes made at our Committee's urging was revision of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new investigative authority to bring it closer into conformity with the Antitrust Civil Process Act, on which it is modeled; and revisions to the new authority for nationwide service of subpoenas by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that the authority will be exercised consistent with due process. Our Committee remains concerned about the use of the terms ``privileged'' or ``privileged as an evidentiary matter'' to mean confidential and protected from discovery. This inartful phraseology, which was removed from some parts of the bill but not others, could unintentionally raise questions regarding evidentiary privilege law, which under the Rules Enabling Act is left to State common law. In particular, the Committee wishes to emphasize that this bill in no way authorizes government officials or courts to demand that anyone furnish information that is protected by legal privilege.