John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished majority leader, who was an original sponsor of the bill some 18 years ago, for 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This measure raises some very interesting questions from the point of view of the Judiciary Committee. I begin by noting that the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, had always had a very abiding interest in this matter. But we have a curious problem. Somebody is going to ask, how could a United States Supreme Court--a bill passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in 1990--and then in 1999 simultaneously give not one or two, but three decisions slamming some very fundamental interests that we had when the bill was passed? There wasn't anything complicated or ambiguous about the bill that was passed in this Congress in 1990. And we are now here fixing the three problems that these decisions brought forward. ``We prohibit the consideration of measures that might lessen the impact of an impairment--medication, insulin, a hearing aid.'' What kind of persons are on the Supreme Court of the United States that have some difficulty understanding that if you have to use a hearing aid, that does not lessen the nature of the disability? That's earlier than first year law school. I mean, what was going on in the majority of the members' minds? Second, ``substantially limits'' they've transferred to mean ``materially restricts'' and instructs the court that these words must be interpreted broadly and not restrictively. Now the history of civil rights and voter rights law in this Congress in the 20th and 21st century deals with the understood directive that the law in these cases is to be interpreted generally and liberally, and here they did just the opposite. This disability law is essentially a civil rights matter, and they chose to ignore that. And so we had to correct it. We had to say, Supreme Court, your attention, please. This is civil rights law, and so it's not to be interpreted as narrowly as you can, but as liberally as you can. And then the third thing we chose to correct was the entire notion that the disability law covers anyone who either experiences discrimination because someone believes them to be disabled, whether they are not or whether they actually are. It doesn't make any difference. In other words, it is to be liberally interpreted. And so we go into a very challenging period of American history with an election coming up, and we've got a Supreme Court that we have to constantly remind how to interpret civil rights laws. This is not a comforting circumstance for your chairman of Judiciary--I don't think for the ranking member of Judiciary either, if I might add. There are those writing about the Supreme Court these days, and one such commentator, Professor Rosen of Georgetown--``Today, however, there are no economic populists on the Court, even on the liberal wing. Ever since John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of the cases the Court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years.''

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chairman of Education and Labor. The closing example: ``While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year on average, the Roberts Court has heard seven antitrust cases in the first two terms, and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.'' Now, look. They must know that some people over here read and review their decisions. It means that we have to be even more alert on the questions that have brought this measure before the House today for its disposal. I'm very proud of the bipartisan aspect. I don't want to give too much praise to the chairman emeritus of the committee, but he did a very good job in this regard.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This important legislation amends titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend, for 18 months, expiring provisions under the Medicare Program. This critical bill prevents the implementation of a scheduled 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for physicians and other health care professionals, and extends the 0.5 percent payment update for 2008 and provides a 1.1 percent payment increase for physicians in 2009. Cutting funds to Medicare, in any way, threatens to up heave the very system that millions of Americans rely upon to provide life saving medical care and services. It boggles the mind to think that, with an aging population and a worsening physician shortage, we would even consider cutting reimbursement rates to our hard-working physicians who care for millions of Medicare patients across the country. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect, many physicians would opt out of accepting Medicare, and would therefore be unable to provide necessary medical services to our seniors. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a bona fide health care crisis. One-in-three Americans either have either no health insurance whatsoever, or have insurance that is so inadequate that it can potentially lead to financial ruin. For those lucky enough to have survived these misadventures in our fragmented non-system of care, Medicare and Medicaid is their singular saving grace. Allowing Medicare to unravel before our eyes is unacceptable. It, along with Medicaid, represents a lone island in a sea of broken services representative of our fragmented, non-system of health care. We must not only keep Medicare afloat, but improve and expand its ideals and principals if we are to ever truly provide quality health care to all. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 6331 is simply a necessity. However, we as a Congress must confront head-on the looming health care crisis and make the difficult decisions our constituents expect us to make. Revising the Sustained Growth Rate Formula, which is used to set Medicare's physician payment rate, represents only a portion of reforms which are needed to ensure that our seniors are cared for in the sunset of their lives. Patch-work fixes and temporary solutions are no substitution for real answers to difficult problems. After all, what we put off today must be dealt with tomorrow.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4044) to amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy cases, for a limited period, qualifying reserve-component members who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 60 days, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act is a part of the idea of improving the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act signed into law by President Bush 3 years ago. It effectuated a comprehensive overhaul of bankruptcy, especially with regards to consumers. These consumer bankruptcy amendments included the establishment of a means testing mechanism to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts. Under this test, a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is presumed to be an abuse if it appears that a debtor has income in excess of certain thresholds. The measure before us today would exempt certain qualifying National Guard members and Reserve members from the means test presumption of abuse. Come to think of it, I would like to exempt some other people as well. But this legislation addresses the issue of fundamental fairness. Those who find themselves in financial difficulty as a result of service in the National Guard or being activated into it or the aftermath of their service, particularly overseas, should not face the additional burden of the means test. Since September 11, 2001, almost one-half million members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them have even served multiple tours of duty. And so it is easy to understand that these unanticipated deployments disrupt their lives and their family members and leads to financial hardship. So we are happy for the gentlelady from Chicago, Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, who has included an effort that has attracted our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am very happy to report this from the Judiciary Committee. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I think that this bill might appropriately be renamed the Schakowsky-Rohrabacher provision because of the hard work that our colleague has done on the matter. I appreciate the fully bipartisan spirit that this committee, the Judiciary Committee, had in much evidence when we took this measure up. And I close by asking my friends, the Blue Dogs on this side of the aisle and most of the Republicans, my Republican colleagues on the other side, that we might want to take a look at this means test which presumes you did something wrong if you are broke and in trouble. I mean, it occurs to me that under the economic circumstances we find ourselves in as a nation, anybody could flunk the means test and then be presumed to be irresponsible or not upstanding citizens. Credit ratings would be damaged profusely. And so maybe we can look at this. We don't want to offend the banking lobby, don't get me wrong, but let's just take a peek at what we have wrought here in the name of improving the bankruptcy law which I was not in support of when it came forward. Madam Speaker, with that I conclude my remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank my colleague for yielding. I thought for a minute I was on a Special Order about ``drill drill drill.'' Has the leadership on your side instructed everybody to insert this subject into all of the debate this week because I would love to get into this. You didn't mention shale to coal. There's a whole range of opportunities for discussion here. But I yield back, and I thank my colleague for his support.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government Act of 2008, bipartisan legislation with strong support on both s des of the aisle. The bill consists of three major components, each of which has, in substance, previously passed the House on the suspension calendar. Section 2 of the bill takes into account the practical realities of a natural disaster or other emergency situation where compliance with filing deadlines or other court rules would be impracticable, dangerous, or simply impossible. In emergency situations, such as those which occurred during, and in the aftermath of, Hurricane Katrina, this section of the bill would provide the Chief Judge of the affected District Court or Court of Appeals with the authority to excuse a failure of litigants or the U.S. Government to comply with filing deadlines. Section 3 grants similar authority to the Patent and Trademark Office to excuse failures to comply with filing deadlines caused by a natural disaster or other emergency. Section 4 of the bill also involves a grant of authority to the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to excuse specific late filings--this time, in connection with unintentional human error. Section 4 would provide the USPTO with the authority to accept an application for patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act if that application is filed within 3 business days of the existing 60-day deadline. This small but important change simply gives the USPTO discretion to accept a late application, within a limited time period, under specific conditions. This change is both good patent policy and good for public health. Under current law, the 60-day deadline is absolutely rigid, and the consequences of that rigidity can be draconian and harshly disproportionate. Up to 5 years of patent protection can be destroyed on account of a minor, inadvertent filing error of as little as 1 day. This penalty is not merely disproportionate and excessive, it is also out of sync with most other patent laws and regulations, which typically give the USPTO Director the authority to excuse minor errors. For instance, currently, if an applicant files an incomplete Hatch- Waxman application, the USPTO can grant up to 2 extra months to correct the application. H.R. 6344 would eliminate this dichotomy, bringing the deadline provision of Hatch-Waxman into greater harmony with other relevant patent laws and regulations. Moreover, H.R. 6344 would save lives. The reality is that the unnecessary forfeit of years of patent rights for drugs can have an extremely damaging effect on patients. When the existing rigid deadline operates to strip away up to 5 years of patent protection, it significantly reduces the likelihood of the research and innovation that a full patent term would encourage. This is not just a theoretical problem. A small U.S. maker of Angiomax, a blood thinner, stands to lose 4\1/2\ years of patent protection as a result of inadvertently filing its Hatch-Waxman application for patent term restoration 1 day late. Angiomax is considered the best alternative to heparin in coronary angioplasties, and shows great promise with respect to open heart surgery and the treatment of stroke and peripheral artery disease. Public health and safety pushes us to promote effective substitutes for heparin, such as Angiomax. Earlier this year, contamination problems in Chinese manufacturing plants, where heparin is made from pig intestines led to 81 patient deaths. Even apart from problems of contamination, thousands of people die every year from adverse reactions to heparin. At this moment, when the serious shortcomings of heparin have come into bold relief, we have rightfully turned our attention to adjusting a flawed patent provision in a manner that can improve and even save the lives of large numbers of sick patients for years to come in this and other instances. Taken together, the three components of this bill--the discretion provided in cases of emergency and the discretion provided in the case of unintentional human error--are all sound public policy, and have justifiably attracted bipartisan backing. This bill is not inconsistent with, nor does it detract from, other legal authorities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this measure, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has worked tirelessly to make sure that this measure arrives on the floor for consideration today.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. CONYERS

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

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

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1293) commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which has become known as ``Freedom Summer''.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I am so pleased to bring this resolution from the Judiciary Committee to remember the deaths of those three great civil rights workers. And I, of course, begin my comments by thanking and commending our greatest civil rights champion in the House of Representatives, John Lewis of Georgia, who was a leader in the civil rights movement, worked with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and with Dr. Martin Luther King, and with other civil rights organizations. He was also at the great march on Washington in 1963, and we all met. It was a stirring moment in American history, and these three young men paid with their lives for their dedication to ensure that we could end segregation and secure the right to vote for all people in America. A number of Judiciary Committee members have joined with me as cosponsors of this measure: the gentleman from New York, Jerrold Nadler; Steve Cohen, Tennessee; Bobby Scott of Virginia; Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas; Adam Schiff, California; Linda Sanchez, California; Betty Sutton, Ohio; and a number of others. You remember the summer of 1964? Goodman, a student at New York's Queens College; James Chaney of Mississippi; Michael Schwerner, 24 years old of New York, were all working with the CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. And they left the Meridian, Mississippi, office for the town of Philadelphia 25 miles away. They were stopped by the Klan, and the rest is history. We still work against the backdrop of this activity. It was out of their sacrifices that the movement and understanding of not only the citizens of the country but the leaders of the country and Washington understood what we had to accomplish. And we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Dr. Martin Luther King's inspiring rhetoric kept us together for so, so long, and I'm happy that we're doing what we've done. I'm sure the Senate, the other body, will follow very rapidly. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3546) to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012, as amended.

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

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to begin by yielding as much time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) who has worked more diligently than I believe any Member in the House on this measure. He shepherded it through hearings and markup in Judiciary, and now we're on the floor.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I couldn't concur more with the speakers, our friend from Georgia, Hank Johnson, and the distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee who has been the Attorney General in the largest State in the country. And so I am enthusiastically supporting the continuation of these grants and would hope we would reauthorize this. We have got a reauthorization of over $1 billion this time through 2012, and I hope that we will enjoy the support of the Members of the House. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Well, not Canada, though. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I was concerned only for a moment that he wasn't going to bring up this subject. It was with very little ingenuity required on his part to tie it into this measure. As a distinguished member of Judiciary, has the gentleman considered one of the proposals about bringing the price down by nationalizing the oil companies in this country?