Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, along with our good friend, Congressman Mel Watt, I am delighted to rise today to say farewell to a very able and important American, Nicarsia ``Nikki'' Mayes, who has served this House of Representatives for 36 years. She began her career in the House of Representatives and for the people of the United States on September 7, 1977, when she was hired on the recommendation of Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California as an elevator operator and entrusted to operate the last ``Members Only'' manual elevator. In 1980, Nicarsia Mayes, or Nikki as we affectionately know her to be, was hired as a staff member of then the Office of the Doorkeeper. She was the first African American woman ever hired by that office. Because of her dutifulness and her leadership, other doors were opened. In 1994, Nikki joined the staff of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, serving as a member of the Chamber Security Division until her retirement this month, December 2013. It is important to note that her excellent performance, distinguished service, and good cheer paved the way for more African Americans to secure appointments in the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and other important House institutions earning her the respect and friendship of her colleagues and, of course, Members of Congress. She has a wonderful family, including her son John Mayes, III, who works for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and David, who works for the Department of Homeland Security; and her daughter, Tira, who is a forensic specialist. You know she has done well at home and well here in the House of Representatives. Her children have learned from her. Her grandchildren will benefit from her. I am delighted to indicate that we have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 444, into the House Record to honor Nikki Mayes. I am delighted to say that we honor you and appreciate you for 36 years of service and being a pioneering woman of service and an African American woman who led for others. Thank you so very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay to tribute to the remarkable accomplishments of Nicarsia Mayes, a Capitol Hill trailblazer and the first African-American woman to serve as a Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives. Nicarsia Mayes began her career of service to the House of Representatives and the people of the United States on September 7, 1977, when she was hired on the recommendation of Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California as an elevator operator and entrusted to operate the last ``Members Only'' manual elevator. In 1980, Nicarsia Mayes, or ``Nikki,'' as she was affectionately known, was hired as a staff member of the then Office of the Doorkeeper, the first African-American woman ever hired by that office. In 1994, Nikki joined the staff of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, serving as a member of the Chamber Security Division until her retirement in 2013. Mr. Speaker, Nikki's excellent performance, distinguished service, professionalism, and good cheer paved the way for more African- Americans to secure appointments in the Office of the Sergeant at Arms and other important House institutions, earned her the respect and friendship of her colleagues, and endeared her to Members of Congress. This month, December 2013, Nikki Mayes retires after 36 years of faithful, honorable, and distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives and the people of the United States. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to Nikki for her service to our nation and our very best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. I know how much she is looking forward to spending more time with her family, including her sons John Mayes III, who works for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and David, who works for the Department of Homeland Security; and her daughter, Tira, who is a forensic specialist with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Inspired by her example, each of Nikki's children learned the value of helping others and chose a public service career. That is perhaps the greatest testament to the character of this great public servant. Mr. Speaker, Nicarsia ``Nikki'' Mayes is a wonderful human being, a great friend, and one of the finest public servants I have the honor to know. She will be greatly missed but not ever forgotten.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee for their leadership and also for the bipartisan leadership that is noted on the Foreign Affairs Committee on which I had privilege to serve some years ago when we worked on a number of issues. Let me add my appreciation to the Congresswoman from California, Barbara Lee, who led us during her tenure as the chairman of the Black Caucus during an enormous crisis in Haiti and, more importantly, as a supporter of this legislation and efforts to see Haiti move into a new era of democracy and reconstruction. This legislation, H.R. 3509, is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support it. I traveled to Haiti on any number of occasions, visiting those who are incarcerated in jails, and even after the earthquake, to find individuals who were suffering and had been incarcerated and seeing people who had lost their place to live, children who were out of school, and resources that were looking to be directed but possibly, Mr. Speaker, not being directed as they should. This legislation, of course, will do several things. It will require a thorough assessment of the progress in meeting the original goals expressed in January 2011, Post-Earthquake U.S. Haiti Strategy; provide a description of efforts to combat corruption and ensure public accountability; and assess whether or not vulnerable populations have been taken into account in the design and implementation of the new program. It is very important to note that even though much has been done, between the efforts of the international community and including USAID, up to 3,000 people still live in tent camps, many of whom are facing forced evictions as time moves on. Cholera has killed over 8,400 Haitians and sickened over 689,400 since the time of this earthquake. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians have little or no access to potable water or basic health services, and Haiti is facing an impending food crisis, according to local and international organizations.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. H.R. 3509, I believe, will be an important step to gather all those who are of good intention, particularly the aid offered by the USAID, to be able to assess where we are and to be able to not only help, but feel the pain of those who have not been helped. I believe that it will be enormously important to look, again, at infrastructure, as it has impacted Port-au-Prince and the outer areas, which I think this legislation will be very helpful to. Again, it is bipartisan. We ask that this legislation be passed quickly in the Senate and, more importantly, that the President sign it to save lives. Finally, we wish for a democratic transition and democratic elections. As Haiti goes forward in its election, let's hope whatever government is put in place will be able to give that lifeline that this legislation is talking about to move Haiti forward in the 21st century. I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3509, the ``Assessing Progress in Haiti Act of 2013,'' which requires the Secretary of State to submit to Congress regular, detailed reports on the status of post-earthquake recovery and development efforts. I thank my Congressional Black Caucus colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, for her leadership on this legislation. I also thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce (R-CA), Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY), and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen of Florida for their support and leadership in shepherding this important legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, nearly four years after Haiti's devastating earthquake, there is still far too little transparency and accountability around U.S. relief and reconstruction aid efforts. There are close to 300,000 people still living in tent camps, many of whom are facing forced evictions. Cholera has killed over 8,400 Haitians and sickened over 689,400 since it was first introduced to Haiti in October of 2010. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians have little or no access to potable water or basic health services, and Haiti is facing an impending food crisis according to local and international organizations, and the government of Haiti. H.R. 3509 will greatly assist Congress in overseeing U.S. assistance in Haiti by providing lawmakers, the U.S. public, and Haitians with key details on the manner in which U.S. taxpayer money is being spent. According to the GAO, ``Congress lacks information on the amounts of funds obligated and disbursed and program-by-program progress of U.S. reconstruction activities [in Haiti].'' Among other highlights, this legislation would: require a thorough assessment of the progress in meeting the original goals expressed in the January 2011 Post-Earthquake U.S. Government Haiti Strategy; provide a description of efforts to combat corruption and ensure public accountability; and assess whether vulnerable populations have been taken into account in the design and implementation of new programs. Mr. Speaker, the people of Haiti continue to face tremendous challenges and still our help. That is why it is essential that we ensure that U.S. assistance to Haiti is delivered efficiently is more essential than ever. H.R. 3509 will help achieve this goal. I urge all Members to join me in voting for this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his kindness in yielding. As I indicated earlier today, even Time magazine recognized that the better of all of us is when we extend ourselves to the most vulnerable, acknowledging Pope Francis. So I want to ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, but he has heard so many of us indicate that there is value to this budget deal, Chairman Ryan, I would like to pose a question, if I could, to you, if you would. You have heard us say that we too appreciate the bipartisanship, disagree with so much of it in terms of the sequester and what has been done as it relates to nutrition for the unemployed. But would you not hold us back, would you not join us in putting on the floor an amendment that would provide for the extension of unemployment that will not run out December 28 for the hardworking Americans, 68,000 in Texas, 1.3 million? Would you not do that?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, we get no answer. And all I can say is that this budget is a deal that I want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for the work that has been done, along with the other conferees, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Clyburn; but I believe we should not leave here today, leave here this week without having a freestanding--and I wish the gentleman would own up to honesty and answer the question--but to be able to put on the floor of the House the opportunity for those who have worked to be able to get unemployment insurance, not a handout, but unemployment insurance. I know, Mr. Ryan, that we can carry our bipartisanship at least to that point and be able to work on behalf of the American people carrying forward the need to ensure that we have housing, education, child care, all of that. A little bit is happening under this particular budget. That is why many of us are interested in moving forward, getting rid of the sequester, keeping the doors open. But I would think that there is enough bipartisanship on both sides of the aisle to be able to extend the unemployment insurance. And we should not leave here. I ask the President to convene us, to call us, to call the Senate, to call the House and make sure that we vote on that. I thank the gentleman for the hard work that you have engaged in and also how far you have brought us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on House consideration of the The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. I thank Chairman McKeon. Ranking Member Smith and the Rules Committee, and the Armed Services Committee's for their work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the threats our nation must deal with not just today, but into the future. This makes our work vital to our national interest and it should reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their faithful service. This is the 52nd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, which speaks to the long term commitment of the Congress and successive Administrations to provide for National Defense. This bill encompasses a number of initiatives designed to confront sexual assault in the military, making more efficient the work of protecting America, addresses the mental health needs of men and women in the armed services, and extends economic opportunity to small minority and women owned businesses. We do live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily identifiable, and our enemies are not bound by borders. The resent Boston Terrorist Attack reminds us of how fragile our nation's security could be without a well trained and equipped military. The definition of war has changed and with it our understanding about what is needed to combat a unique type of enemy that fights under no flag or for any nation. U.S. Special Operations Command, a vital part of our military, provides much of the special skills needed to defend our nation today. This legislation continues to build on previous efforts to support their important work. I am still deeply concerned about the President's authority, as stipulated by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), to indefinitely detain individuals apprehended in the United States--including citizens of the United States--without due process and with little independent review or oversight. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I am committed to making sure that the Constitution and its protections are enforced. The purpose to defend this nation is not just on the grounds of this capitol, but also the foundation that supports the principles of liberty, freedom and democratic values. The bill includes several provisions that recognize the strain of more than a decade of war has placed on our troops and the equipment, technology, and tools that they use. It supports a 1.8 percent pay raise. I had wanted a 2 percent raise for our troops. This Congress must communicate its wholehearted support for the security of the nation by addressing mindless cuts created by sequestration, the $174.6 billion in operation and maintenance funding the bill provides will help mend some of the damage that has been done to overused equipment and neglected facilities. It also strengthens our ability to confront cyber threats, and provides important authorities to protect vital information. The bill also continues to lay the foundation for enabling competition in military space launch. I am also pleased that so much has occurred to improve the bill during its consideration on the House Floor, including the adoption of seven amendments that I offered. Combined, these amendments will help our military families have access to mental health counseling when needed and that contracting opportunities with the Department of Defense are extended to women and minority owned businesses. In addition, the bill has been improved to include provisions that are critically important to women, including provisions to prevent and respond to sexual assault and research to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer. The bill amended on the House floor now also contains provisions that will help secure our borders and make the defense logistics management system more efficient. Let me discuss briefly the amendments I offered that were either included in the final bill or strongly supported in the Conference Report. The Conference Report strongly encourages the DOD and NIH to collaborate in an effort to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer in identifying specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for TNBC. Triple Negative Breast Cancer is a term used to describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their cell membrane of tumor cells. This makes commonly used test and methods to detect breast cancer not as effective. This is a serious illness that affects between 10-17 percent of female breast cancer patients and this condition is more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed. This Report Language will help to save lives. TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American women, Hispanic/Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1'' genetic mutation, which is prevalent in Jewish women. TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age and makes up more than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women There is also Report Language that will strongly encourage the Department of Defense to post information on sexual assault prevention and response resources online for ease of access by men and women in the armed services. There is no greater crime that an individual can commit than the crime of sexual molestation and sexual assault. The perpetrators of these crimes rob victims of their dignity and sense of well-being. Victimization is not easily relieved by treating the immediate physical injuries that may result, but can last for years. Moreover, victims of sexual assault are profoundly affected for the rest of their lives often with PTSD or other medical conditions. As elected officials, we have an obligation to condemn this violence, work for stronger enforcement of laws and provide adequate funding for programs to assist individuals who may have experienced such abuse. In 2012, we know that victims of sexual violence or abuse among civilians are routinely under reported. The Defense Department report states that of the 26,000 estimated victims only 3,374 crimes were reported and just 302 of the 2,558 incidents pursued by victims were prosecuted. This Report Language will make sure that information is available and easily accessible to military personnel for the purpose of raising awareness, promoting education and the long term goal of influencing organizational culture around the issue of sexual violence. Many in the military are just learning that there is a huge difference between sex and sexual violence. This Report Language will help to educate both victims, potential victims, witnesses or victimizers that these are acts of violence and should be treated as such. It may also help influence thinking among military leaders on the nature of these crimes and promote changes in policy to aggressively provide support to victims and judicial remedies to prosecute and punish criminal behavior. In addition to the amendments I offered that were included in the final bill, in which, I joined my Colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security in supporting an amendment to promote collaboration and cooperation between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security regarding the identification of equipment, either declared excess, or made available to DHS on a long-term loan basis that will help increase security along the border. The bill also includes an amendment I co-sponsored with Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Border Security and Maritime Subcommittee Chair Miller which provides for the transfer of technology from DOD to state and local law enforcement. Before the creation of DHS a program was created to facilitate this type of equipment transfer and this amendment adds the Secretary of Homeland Security in a consultative role in the equipment transfer process. This amendment also gives applicants seek DOD equipment for use in border security preference in this statute. This will facilitate expedited transfer of equipment that Federal, state and local first responders can use to strengthen our border security efforts. I do have grave concerns about some features of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. For example this bill assumes adoption of the House Budget Resolution framework, which would hurt our economy and require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. This is a serious concern for me because of how it would impact my constituents in the 18th Congressional District. The Administration has communicated that it would veto this bill in its current form and I hope that the conference process will resolve the issues that are the most troubling like the treatment of the Guantanamo detainees. This issue is a mark against everything the United States stands for and it is damaging our reputation and credibility around the world. The detentions should end and people properly processed to other facilities or tried in courts of law to address charges or crimes against the United States. My hope is that this provision will be dropped from the bill as the legislative process goes forward. We must continue to direct our efforts as a body to ensure that our troops remain the best equipped and prepared military force in the world. They are not just soldiers, they are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters--they are some of the people we represent as members of Congress. Support of them is a sacred obligation of Congress both to those who are at risk on battle fields and serving as the guard against threats around the world, but they are also those who have returned home from war. I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their work on this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You know, it is very good that we have a deal. The American people are frustrated and tired. Our offices are being bombarded by calls from people from all political perspectives that they are glad for the deal; and to be honest with you, I am glad that we have made some progress. Many of us want to be part of the deal. But I know that it is equally important to raise the concern of faces like this, faces across America who equal the 1.3 million number of Americans who will lose their unemployment benefits; 3.5 million in 2014; 200,000 military veterans and 2 million children. And so we can't only be about ourselves in this holiday season, particularly as we recognize that the Pope, being named Man of the Year, has spoken to the world eloquently about this whole issue of the vulnerable. And so I ask this, Mr. Woodall and the Rules Committee: let's put the Van Hollen-Lee-Levin amendment to the floor tonight. Call us back, Mr. Boehner. Let us vote to provide for unemployment insurance for working men and women. Faces across America will not have the tears of desperation. The deal is good, but the people are suffering. We cannot allow this to happen in this season of joy and giving. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule and the underlying bill, H.J. Res. 59, the ``Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and Pathway for Sustainable Growth in Medicare Reform Act of 2013.'' The budget proposal before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class. Thank goodness for small favors. As with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I strongly oppose. On the positive side: Republicans--and the bipartisan deal does not cut Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid benefits by a penny even though our friends across the aisle went into the talks insisting on cuts to programs that sustain families and seniors. Over the Republicans insistence, the agreement replaces almost two- thirds of the sequester's disastrous impending cuts to important domestic investments like education, medical research and law enforcement. The agreement scales back the proposed cuts to federal employees sought by Republicans and exempts current federal employees. On the negative side: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous--it is scandalous--that the budget agreement does not include an extension of unemployment insurance for the 1.3 million jobless workers--68,900 in Texas--will have their benefits cut off on December 28, and nearly another 1.9 million-- 106,900 Texans--will lose their unemployment benefits over the first half of next year. If Congress does not act immediately to extend these benefits, a devastating blow will be dealt not only to the millions of Americans who are already struggling, but to our economy. That is why yesterday I joined with 165 of Democratic colleagues in calling upon Speaker Boehner not to adjourn this House for the year without extending the vital unemployment insurance desperately needed by millions of our fellow citizens. To let their benefits expire in the middle of the holiday season is cruel and heartless and unworthy of a great and generous nation. Cutting off unemployment benefits at the end of the year will only further hurt an economy already injured by sequestration and the Republican government shutdown. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 750,000 fewer jobs will be created or retained in calendar year 2013 because of the budget cuts under sequestration. The government shutdown cost our economy an additional 120,000 jobs in the first two weeks of October alone, according to the Council of Economic Advisors. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that cutting off extended unemployment benefits would cost our economy 310,000 jobs next year because of reduced consumer demand. Other experts, like Michael Feroli, the chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, indicate that allowing the federal unemployment insurance (UI) program to expire could shave as much 0.4 percentage point off our economy's growth in the first quarter of 2014. Letting unemployment benefits expire will deprive our economy of the positive impact unemployment insurance provides since financially stressed unemployed workers spend any benefits they receive quickly. CBO also concluded in a 2012 report that assistance for the unemployed has one of the ``largest effects on employment per dollar of budgetary cost.'' I agree. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in voting against this rule.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Speaker for yielding, and I thank the leader, Leader Pelosi, for the time and, as well, the Speaker. It is always appropriate when we rise in this wonderful holiday season to wish Americans of all faiths a wonderful and blessed time with their families, to wish my colleagues a wonderful time with their families, and to reflect a moment on the greatness of this country that has experienced its challenges, of which I believe the Members of this body and the other body are committed to solving. But I thought it was important today, as we leave for the recess in our districts where we will be engaging with our constituents--and this coming Saturday I will hold the 19th annual Toys for Kids that I have hosted for the past 19 years at the George R. Brown Convention Center, a way of giving back, but a way of hearing the joys and sounds of children enjoying themselves. So I would like to make this time that I have, these few minutes, a time of joy and happiness. But I also think we must be honest, and it should be a time of confronting reality and the truth. And so I wanted to go back for a moment on work that was just accomplished just a few hours ago, when this body voted on a proposal that was given by the negotiators to the House and will be given again to the Senate on the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. As many Americans know, we experienced a horrific shutdown just a few weeks ago, unwarranted, bearing no results, and hurting millions of people around the Nation. I remember coming to the floor some 56 times to ask my Republican friends to cease and desist and to open the government, open the government. So I understand the frustration and exhaustion of the American people and our hardworking Federal employees who could take it no more and asked for some minimal way to avoid the atrocious and catastrophic closing of the government on the basis of whim and opposition to an established law, the Affordable Care Act. So what came of it was an additional $1.012 trillion that would be spent over fiscal year 2014 and 2015, and what would allow the restoration of Head Start seats that were lost, child care, housing assistance, educational dollars for higher education, research dollars, the same needs that I expressed during the shutdown that were being denied, the addition of these dollars, minimal that they were, but enough to give us a boost over last year's expenditures, and to save some of the needs that Americans had that were lost. I support that and congratulate that step made. And it got us past sequester, which was trickery that was offered as a hammer over a commission and committee that was supposed to design a grand bargain of moving America forward. But what we also obtained in this Budget Act, although painful, was the maintenance of our Social Security and Medicare for our seniors and the assurance that those funds would not be tampered with, and that any reform would include the widespread opportunity for Members to engage their seniors and others who were receiving these benefits so that there would be a compliance with the commitment that many of us, such as myself, have made--continued protection of Medicare and Social Security. In the course of that, this Congress has never abandoned the unemployed, and so it was proposed by the Democratic conferees to include unemployment insurance, and, yes, the SGR that would provide seniors with their doctors by fixing the sustainable growth rate. That was supposed to be the proposal, Madam Speaker. And tragically, in the constructed, contradictory, conflicted, misrepresented bill that came to the floor through the Rules Committee, they, with the darkness of the night, included the SGR, but they left out the helping of the most vulnerable people. Twice on the floor today I asked that we not go home so that we could go vote on the Levin-Van Hollen-Lee amendment that would have restored and would have been paid for, the unemployment insurance. I continue to ask tonight that we not go home or that we be called back to ensure that that insurance continues. I intend to introduce legislation very quickly to require the Congress to come back and for there to be an independent up-or-down vote on actually restoring the unemployment insurance so that it would not expire on December 28 and, as well, for that legislation to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. I would also respectfully ask, humbly in this holiday season, as the President has done often, to please continue to push the House and the Senate to return in order to make a difference. Let me pause for a moment and share with you why this is so important. The uninsured are not criminals. And let me clarify, those who are not getting unemployment insurance are not criminals, as I heard a Member on the other side of the aisle, the Republican chair of the Budget Committee, indicating that they had stopped criminals from getting unemployment insurance. I thought that was the most dastardly statement that could ever be said in the history of the Congress. I am shocked. I don't know and I have not run into criminals who are getting unemployment insurance, but I will tell you that 1.3 million jobless workers will lose their unemployment benefits on December 28, 2013. Please remember that these are individuals who have worked. This is not a handout. They have worked and they paid for insurance, or they have benefits through their work that would warrant insurance that would cover them when they were unemployed and looking for work. A number or a figure was given by my friend and colleague, Congressman Levin, who said when the Walmart opened in this area for 600 jobs, Madam Speaker, 23,000 people applied. Does that suggest they are criminals or people who don't want to work? In 2014, 3.6 million workers will lose access to benefits because of the lack of action of this Congress. In Texas, 68,900 jobless workers will lose their unemployment benefits on the 28th, and an additional 106,900 in 2014. The unemployment rates have improved, but nationally, they are 7 percent. And the minimum weekly benefits available in Texas are such that I can assure you it would not break the bank. So I am committed. The pain is deep in many of us that we would close these doors and not, for a moment, have a solution to the unemployment benefits. So many Members have worked on it. The hearing was held last week by the Democratic Leader and Democratic Members, listening to the pain of many. But I can move the numbers up to 50. If we went on the streets and found 50 unemployed, our stories would be so moving it would bring tears to our eyes. It is not as if we had overdone it: for this Congress, led by the Republicans, who passed only 57 bills compared to 2010's 258, 2011's 90, and 2009's 125. So there is plenty of time to do some work. And the reason why I think this is so potent is because this is in the backdrop of my having the honor and privilege of joining my fellow colleagues, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressman from Illinois, the Senator from Texas, to go to the memorial of Madiba, Nelson Mandela. We spoke about him just a few hours ago on the floor of the House, but I just want to make mention of him again, holding a candlelight service that was held in Houston, Texas, and to, again, thank of many of those involved in the apartheid movement. There are two names that I want to put in the Record, Representative Al Edwards and former council member Jew Don Boney. There were many others, but I wanted to express my appreciation to them, along with Deloyd Parker and the SHAPE community family who have been entrenched in issues of justice and freedom and were clearly wrapped around the issue of eliminating apartheid. And to pay tribute to my colleague from Texas, the Honorable Mickey Leland, who as well worked with Bill Gray and then the Congressional Black Caucus to be the voice and conscience that lifted up the antiapartheid movement in Congress with the passage of the sanctions bill that was joined in by the United States Senate, the other body, as was mentioned earlier. But I mention that because the service was so moving. The President's words were potent and eloquent and were cited by the South African press as the most significant tribute of that day. Thank you, President Obama. But it also reminded us, in his words, that it called upon all of us to walk in his footsteps and to be reminded of the needs of the vulnerable and always, as John Lewis, my friend from Georgia, says, get in the way of what is not good to make it good. It was not good for this Congress to leave and not do what was right, and that is the passage of the unemployment insurance. So I want to call upon my colleagues to push toward this floor and the Republican Speaker to find a way to undo the trickery of the Rules Committee to put in the sustainable growth rate, the SGR, and not put into the rule the opportunity to give unemployment insurance to the needy and the desperate and people who have worked who are not looking for a handout. And that would be the intent of my legislation, to make the point that we should be here, to make the point that we can pass it. And I want to thank the Democratic leadership for putting in the previous question, the vote for us to go on record that we are appalled and outraged that December 28 will come without extending the unemployment insurance. It does not make any sense. And for the spirited, emotional time that I have, it is well worth it to say, I was there and to be there and to watch head of state after head of state and to see the joy in that massive stadium and to listen to the songs of the people of South Africa in the dialect and language that is so beautiful and to match it with the voices of the choir behind Kirk Franklin, a Texan, to say that we are in your hands. To be able to put all of that together and then come back and not in the spirit of Nelson Mandela, who believed in the importance of being courageous, we find ourselves with no unemployment insurance. So I believe that there are things that we left undone, and I look to have us come and to fix them, but I also want to join as the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus to be able to acknowledge the loved ones who now have come at almost a year. They will do so on December 14. And on December 14, in Houston, the mothers that demand action will, at 3:30 in the afternoon, be lighting candles and mourning the tragedy of Sandy Hook. How unacceptable to note that we have not been able to pass comprehensive gun safety laws, that we have not been able to deal with the universal background check. In actuality, we have done nothing. So maybe this will raise a concern of my colleagues to know that gun violence has killed children and continues to kill them every day in America. A .45 caliber pistol killed Lucas Higgins, 3, on Memorial Day last year in his Ohio home. It had been temporarily hidden under the couch by his father when he found it and shot himself through the right eye. His mother called 911 and said, It is bad. A few days later, in Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11, was riding in the back of a pickup truck with her 12-year-old brother and two other children. Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to scare coyotes. He thought he had removed all the bullets; and, tragically, it fired and blood poured from Cassie's mouth. In Houston, a group of youth found a Glock pistol and shot a 15-year- old; or at a party, 19 were shot, and two teenagers were dead; or the tragedy of the killing of Braveon Terry, who was shot a few weeks ago, a Jack Yates High School student. So I mourn with the Sandy Hook families for those that they have lost because tragically 31,537 people die from gun violence annually. Those injured, 71,000. It looks as if we can find a way to be able to stop this violence. So I want to, in tribute to those families who mourn--maybe someone looking will look at this heart that is on the Web site, the Sandy Hook families where it names every one of those who lost their lives through a crazed gunman with guns, guns, who shot his mother and emphasize the need for mental health and the need for the securing of guns, the need for universal background checks, not gun control but gun regulation to be able to save lives. To those families, I pray with you and mourn with you. That is not all that was left undone. For I have, over the years, introduced legislation every year on reauthorizing the juvenile block grant, as well in preventing bullying and intervening. The bill, H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013, to allow under the juvenile block grants pointedly directing communities across America to address the question of the prevention of bullying and, as well, intervention. One in seven students in grades K through 12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90 percent of fourth to eighth grade students report being victims of bullying of some type, and 90 percent of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying. And 70 percent of students report incidents of bullying. I believe that we are called upon. There is a cry to help the families in Sandy Hook and to be able to intervene in a child's life to ensure that they do not suffer from the siege of gun violence or the siege of bullying that occurs in the Nation's schools and community. I must take note that on December 10, the same day as the memorial for our dear Madiba, was Human Rights Day. As a member of the Human Rights Commission here in the United States Congress, I want to acknowledge that human rights have become essential to the global conversation regarding peace, security, and development. And tying it in to all that I have said, human rights in America calls for us to be as concerned for the vulnerable who are unemployed without unemployment insurance. It calls for us to do more in terms of a budget that looks to lift America, to create jobs, to provide for child care and Head Start and education. Human rights calls for us to stamp out the cancer, if you will, the devastation of gun violence and violence by children, against children, using guns. It calls for us to act with a greater humanity toward our seniors. It calls for us as well to respond to the call by the families, the families who are fasting and immediately move to passing comprehensive immigration reform. That is what human rights is all about. And over the years--almost two decades--I have introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill. But I am ready to be able to ask that H.R. 15, which is a bipartisan initiative proposed by the members of the Democratic Caucus and, as well, the bipartisan legislation that has been signed onto by Republicans and Democrats that has been introduced with over 180 to 190 sponsors, a simple bill that has the Senate language and H.R. 1417 combined to make a parallel bill, H.R. 1417, a bipartisan initiative passed out of homeland security that I helped author and drew Republican and Democratic votes. The question is, are we going to leave behind mothers who are torn away from children who are being deported because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform? Every day in my office, there are those who desperately call and show up for very meritorious cases, cases that, because of the backlog, because of the inability to get into the courthouse, they would have been rendered to be nondeportable. They would have been able to stay with their families. But, one, we don't have a matrix of laws. And these people are vulnerable because they don't have the access to the courts, the representation that is necessary to plead their case. Today in the Judiciary, we held a hearing on whether we were abusing asylum. Asylum is for people who are fleeing persecution. There is no evidence that any of those people in large numbers of any kind are abusing the asylum request; but if we could get a comprehensive approach that we would include H-1B visas, we would help out DREAMers, the very same young people that come into my office who are brilliant, valedictorians and leaders of their community, and yet they are being denied. We are losing the brain power of America because we do not have comprehensive immigration reform. So it is a crisis long overdue that should be addressed. And the families that were fasting that have dismantled their tents today, who came to this Congress on the steps, the east steps pleading with this Congress, pleading. It disturbs me that it seems that we can't listen to the pleading hearts. We have turned our shoulders, turned our backs. I would simply hope that in the litany of things that I have offered that we could come to some solution. Let me quickly mention the issues of education and needs in my own district. I want the children of our school districts to come and feel welcomed and loved. And one instruction that I have to my friends who work so hard in education in my own community--listening to a principal that was arrested from Shady Dale Elementary School for theft, tragically. But that principal replaced a good principal that was not retained by the school district. Or two individuals involved with Wheatley High School--the same high school that Barbara Jordan went to--and, tragically, they were arrested for drug possession, cocaine and marijuana. I make no judgment on that, except it removed them from the very same school that the principal that the children loved was fired from, or removed from. And look what we came to. Individuals who were arrested for drug possession who had to be removed from the school--one who was the principal, one who was over principals. And another individual who had to be removed from an elementary school whose beloved principal was taken away. Madam Speaker, the list of challenges that I have given is not without the recognition that we live in the greatest country in the world, and we are able to do most of what we put our minds to. I want my colleagues to have a wonderful holiday season; but at the same time, I did not want to leave here without expressing the commitment of so many and myself that we must have a love of humanity. We must live the Human Rights International Day that was celebrated on December 10. We must be the defender of human rights. We must ensure that the economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights around the world and in the United States are protected. We must reach out to those souls who languish here in the United States--11 million--who need to have us address the issue of their dignity and their status. We must stop the unending deportation that is unfairly ripping children from mothers and fathers. We must pay attention to the mourning families at Sandy Hook and respond to their pain in their name and the many others who have died by gun violence. Pass the universal background check. And we must ensure, again, that we protect those who cannot speak for themselves. My closing words are, again, let us come back to extend the unemployment insurance. Let us move quickly to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Let us protect our seniors and our soldiers, and let us go home to register and enroll as many uninsured Americans who need health care as possible. Congratulations on the now 1 million-plus that are enrolled. Let us be sure to remember that there are others who suffer during this season. We can be tasked with making their lives better by coming together as a Congress and answering their call from the array of issues that I have brought to this Congress and this body tonight. I ask for us to act. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and remember each of the 26 victims of the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut one year ago on Saturday, December 14, 2013. As the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have listened to the tragic testimony of individuals who have survived or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence. The community and the families directly impacted continue to reel from the inconceivable tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012. The story of Sandy Hook was particularly frightening and heartbreaking for those of us who are parents or grandparents. Our hearts still ache with sadness and disbelief for the families and loved ones of the children and women who lost their lives in this senseless act of violence. This remembrance of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting one year ago should recognize and applaud the heroic efforts made by the teachers, administrators, and law enforcement officials who acted quickly to secure and protect the lives of the children who survived this deadly encounter. This tragedy unlike any other in recent memory touched so many hearts and minds both in the United States and around the world that this remembrance is particularly poignant. The parents and grandparents who dropped off their children and grandchildren in the early morning hours of December 14, 2012, could never have imagined that by 10 a.m. on that morning they would face this tragedy. The deaths at Sandy Hook as well as those at Aurora and Columbine will be etched in our collective memories. The Nation was united in grief one year ago over the Sandy Hook tragedy and many of us who have strongly advocated for sensible gun safety laws throughout our service in Congress thought that the time had arrived when policymakers, parents, teachers, and law enforcement could work to reduce gun related deaths. We could all agree that the tragedy should not have occurred; unfortunately we could not find agreement on a new national gun policy to reduce gun related violence in the United States. We must join together in recognizing that gun violence on the scale of Sandy Hook can happen in any community and delaying tactics by the gun lobby will only allow another tragedy to occur. We must immediately begin to address the underlying problems of gun violence that would lead a young man to take up arms against defenseless women and children. Finding solution to gun tragedies. We must look at the tragedy of gun violence and the need for mental health services. The lack of accessible and affordable mental health care is something that is being addressed by the Affordable Care Act, but more needs to be done to reduce and prevent gun violence. However, this is not to equate mental illness with violence. The Affordable Care Act takes a positive step forward to address the issue of mental illness and access to care by making it a requirement that all healthcare plans contain care for mental illness and substance abuse. Because of the health care law, for the first time insurance companies in the individual and small group market are required to cover mental health and substance use disorder services as one of ten categories of essential health benefits. Additionally, they must cover these services at parity with medical and surgical benefits (which means things like out-of-pocket costs for behavioral health services must generally be comparable to coverage for medical and surgical care). The Affordable Care Act expands mental health and substance use disorder benefits and parity protections for approximately 60 million Americans. That's one of the largest expansions of mental health and substance use disorder coverage in a generation. Further, the White House announced a $100 million commitment to improve access to mental health services. The Affordable Care Act will provide $50 million to assist community centers to provide more mental health services. The Department of Agriculture will provide $50 million to finance rural mental health facilities. The health care law requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services like depression screenings for adults and behavioral assessments for children at no cost to consumers. Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing charges to people due to pre-existing health conditions, including mental illnesses. In the State of Texas it is expected that 5,189,000 people will now have access to mental health and substance abuse assistance programs. The link between certain mental illnesses and violence is rare, but the work to provide people in need of care should not be solely motivated by concerns regarding violence. Often those who suffer from mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence or cause harm to themselves. The real threat of gun violence comes from those who have guns in their lives and in their homes. The tragedy of Sandy Hook took us all by surprise, but there are hundreds of other tragedies around the nation that involve children who become victims of gun violence. Annually in the United States there are over 30,000 gun related deaths, but too often we do not focus on how many of these deaths are children. No other nation has this level of gun violence per-capita as the United States unless they were actively engaged in a civil war or conflict with another nation. The total number of deaths associated with 13 years of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq is 6778 service men and women. Each of their deaths we mourn as a nation as we work to bring to an end military action. These men and women died to keep us safe. We should work to make them safe when they return home. I read with heartache the September 28, New York Times article, ``Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll,'' published in September of this year. Some of the stories were tragic as they were familiar to those of us who work to reduce gun violence. Lucas Heagren, 3 years old, killed by a gun he found where his father temporarily hid it under a couch. Days later, Cassie Culpepper, age 11, who was shot and killed by her brother who thought a gun his father gave him to scare coyotes was unloaded. A few weeks later Alex Whitfield, age 11 was killed by a Glock pistol found in a closet by a 15-year-old. These children are the hidden victims of a nation obsessed with guns at almost any cost. The children of gun violence may be any child or grandchild-- including your own. They may be from any home found in any neighborhood or rural community in this nation. The tragedies of gun deaths of children are not just what your child knows about gun safety, but more often what another child with access to a firearm does not know. More important is the lack of gun safety knowledge among adults which is a factor in far too many gun related child deaths. Many deaths of children who are victims of guns are not part of official federal records. The New York Times report found over 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under the age of 15 spanning several years. These numbers are about twice as many as were reported in federal statistics for the same time period. For example, gun related federal death statistics would not include Caroline Starks age 2 who was killed by her 5-year-old brother who was playing with his ``Cricket'' .22 rifle a gun designed specifically for children. [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 2013] Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll (By Michael Luo and Mike McIntire) The .45-caliber pistol that killed Lucas Heagren, 3, on Memorial Day last year at his Ohio home had been temporarily hidden under the couch by his father. But Lucas found it and shot himself through the right eye. ``It's bad,'' his mother told the 911 dispatcher. ``It's really bad.'' A few days later in Georgia, Cassie Culpepper, 11, was riding in the back of a pickup with her 12-year-old brother and two other children. Her brother started playing with a pistol his father had lent him to scare coyotes. Believing he had removed all the bullets, he pointed the pistol at his sister and squeezed the trigger. It fired, and blood poured from Cassie's mouth. Just a few weeks earlier, in Houston, a group of youths found a Glock pistol in an apartment closet while searching for snack money. A 15-year-old boy was handling the gun when it went off. Alex Whitfield, who had just turned 11, was struck. A relative found the bullet in his ashes from the funeral home. Cases like these are among the most gut-wrenching of gun deaths. Children shot accidentally--usually by other children--are collateral casualties of the accessibility of guns in America, their deaths all the more devastating for being eminently preventable. They die in the households of police officers and drug dealers, in broken homes and close-knit families, on rural farms and in city apartments. Some adults whose guns were used had tried to store them safely; others were grossly negligent. Still others pulled the trigger themselves, accidentally fracturing their own families while cleaning a pistol or hunting. And there are far more of these innocent victims than official records show. A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available. As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns. The National Rifle Association cited the lower official numbers this year in a fact sheet opposing ``safe storage'' laws, saying children were more likely to be killed by falls, poisoning or environmental factors--an incorrect assertion if the actual number of accidental firearm deaths is significantly higher. In all, fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them. Legislative and other efforts to promote the development of childproof weapons using ``smart gun'' technology have similarly stalled. Technical issues have been an obstacle, but so have N.R.A. arguments that the problem is relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded. Because of maneuvering in Congress by the gun lobby and its allies, firearms have also been exempted from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its inception. Even with a proper count, intentional shooting deaths of children--including gang shootings and murder-suicides by family members--far exceed accidental gun deaths. But accidents, more than the other firearm-related deaths, come with endless hypotheticals about what could have been done differently. The rifle association's lobbying arm recently posted on its Web site a claim that adult criminals who mishandle firearms--as opposed to law-abiding gun owners--are responsible for most fatal accidents involving children. But The Times's review found that a vast majority of cases revolved around children's access to firearms, with the shooting either self-inflicted or done by another child. A common theme in the cases examined by The Times, in fact, was the almost magnetic attraction of firearms among boys. In all but a handful of instances, the shooter was male. Boys also accounted for more than 80 percent of the victims. Time and again, boys could not resist handling a gun, disregarding repeated warnings by adults and, sometimes, their own sense that they were doing something wrong. When Joshua Skorczewski, II, took an unloaded 20-gauge shotgun out of the family gun cabinet in western Minnesota on July 28, 2008, it was because he was excited about going to a gun safety class that night and wanted to practice. But for reasons that he later struggled to explain to the police, Joshua loaded a single shell into the gun and pulled the hammer back. He decided he should put the gun back, but his finger slipped. It fired, killing his 12-year-old sister, Natasha, who was standing in the kitchen with him. When his mother called from work to check on them, a shaken Joshua told her he had just called 911: ``Mom, I shot Tasha.'' Christina Wenzel, the mother of Alex Whitfield, had tried to make sure he did not visit anyone's house if guns were present. What she did not know, when Alex went to his father's apartment last April, was that a family member had stored three loaded guns there. ``I always thought I had Alex protected from being killed by another child by a gun that was not secured,'' Ms. Wenzel said. ``Unfortunately, I was mistaken.'' Undercounting Deaths Compiling a complete census of accidental gun deaths of children is difficult, because most states do not consider death certificate data a matter of public record. In a handful of states, however, the information is publicly available. Using these death records as a guide, along with hundreds of medical examiner and coroner reports and police investigative files, The Times sought to identify every accidental firearm death of a child age 14 and under in Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio dating to 1999, and in California to 2007. Records were also obtained from several county medical examiners' offices in Florida, Illinois and Texas. The goal, in the end, was an in-depth portrait of accidental firearm deaths of children, one that would shed light on how such killings occur and might be prevented. In all, The Times cataloged 259 gun accidents that killed children ages 14 and younger. The youngest was just 9 months old, shot in his crib. In four of the five states--California, Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio--The Times identified roughly twice as many accidental killings as were tallied in the corresponding federal data. In the fifth, Minnesota, there were 50 percent more accidental gun deaths. (The Times excluded some fatal shootings, like pellet gun accidents, that are normally included in the federal statistics.) The undercount stems from the peculiarities by which medical examiners and coroners make their ``manner of death'' rulings. These pronouncements, along with other information entered on death certificates, are the basis for the nation's mortality statistics, which are assembled by the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Choosing among five options-- homicide, accidental, suicide, natural or undetermined--most medical examiners and coroners simply call any death in which one person shoots another a homicide. Gun Statistics Number of persons killed by guns in the 12 months after Newtown 31,537 people die from gun violence annually: 11,583 people are murdered. 18,783 people kill themselves. 584 people are killed accidentally. 334 are killed by police intervention. 252 die but intent is not known. Number of Persons Injured by Gun Violence 71,386 people survive gun injuries: 51,249 people are injured in an attack. 3,627 people survive a suicide attempt. 15,815 people are shot accidentally. 694 people are shot by police intervention. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. Homicide is the leading cause of death for many minorities in this country. 82.8 percent of young people who are killed are killed with a firearm; Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or a teenager loses their life to a firearm.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Congressional Black Caucus and Mr. Fattah and our chairwoman, Congresswoman Fudge, for bringing us all together on this very important evening. It gives me great privilege to be able to speak about this patriot, this human rights leader, this father and husband, this man who experienced incarceration, yet came out with the limitations that would normally shackle anyone, completely released. It is important to connect Nelson Mandela to Houston; and this signifies many of us who gathered in front of the Federal building just a week ago to be able to honor him and to acknowledge him. So many of us wanted to share and extend our love. We also participated in honoring him in restaurants in southwest Houston. And throughout the week, as I go home this week, we will honor him at the George L. Brown Convention Center and the SHAPE Community Center. Last Sunday I was able to call in to a very important honoring at the Rothco Chapel celebrating Dominique de Menil, who invited Nelson Mandela to Houston, Texas in 1991, 1 year after he was released from Robbens Island. And the surprise and the excitement was that he accepted her invitation--the de Menils being great humanitarians themselves--and brought together the connection between Houston, the Nation, South Africa, and the patriot that Nelson Mandela, Madiba, was and, of course, we will always be reminded of. We listen to the stories of the time that he had to pull away from the ANC to form a fighting unit, if you will, a rebel unit. And I also explain to people that it was no less than the patriots who stood on the shores of this country to fight against oppression and to stand against the British and to dump tea into the Boston Harbor, to rebel against oppression. So I would never call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. I would call him a patriot, one who loved his beloved South Africa and wanted to make sure that those who understood that apartheid could not stand would recognize that he had no other choice. But yet, in time, he was able to make other choices. And I am reminded of his words: ``courage was not the absence of fear but the triumph over it.'' And he triumphed over fear. But he also triumphed over bitterness. And he opened his arms, coming out of that incarceration in 1990 and walking in freedom, standing with his then- wife Winnie--and now the beloved wife who has been with him for the past 15 years. He expressed to the nation his humanity, his humility. An elder statesman, a father figure, Nelson Mandela showed us that in the course of the debate here on the floor of the House that we should never forget the vulnerable. I want to read these words that he gave in defense in the 1964 trial: I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. I have met Nelson Mandela many times, engaged in the efforts to ensure that the apartheid oppression would end, joined with Congresswoman Barbara Lee in 2008 to rid his name off the terrorist list. All of us in our small way are diminished by the commitment, dedication, and sacrifice of this man. And so finally I close by saying to all in a letter that he wrote from Robben Island in April of 1971, for many of us who had the experience of walking into that cell and looking through those prison bars, to be reminded of the peace that he brought to the Nation and to the world: There are times when my heart almost stops beating, slowed down by heavy loads of longing. I would love to bathe once more in the waters of Umbashe, as I did at the beginning of 1935. He comforted himself by the wishes of hope. He comforted himself by wishing to hear the voices of children. He comforted himself by wanting to be what the people of South Africa needed, an unembittered leader coming forward to lift the country up. Madiba, may you rest in peace. Nelson Mandela, thank you for your years of service. Thank you for leading South Africa. And thank you for leading the world. I acknowledge and thank the many persons who have spoken today about Nelson Mandela. On this sad day, the thoughts, prayers, and wishes of all Americans, and peace loving people the world over, are with Nelson Mandela and his family. Nelson Mandela once said that ``courage was not the absence of fear but the triumph over it.'' What is the message and meaning of Nelson Mandela to the world? Courage in the cause of moral righteousness will triumph in the end; Love, forgiveness, and reconciliation is far more powerful that hatred, resentment, and war; That we should ``never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.'' Nelson Mandela's commitment to humanity as a human rights lawyer, a prisoner of conscience, an international peacemaker, and as the first elected president of a free, democratic, and multiracial Republic of South Africa inspired the world. Nelson Mandela dedicated his life to serving humanity and making the world better for our children. Nelson Mandela once said that the one of things that bothered him most during his imprisonment was not being able to hear the laughter and experience the joy of children. His life teaches us the importance of instilling in our children a zest for living and a love for serving others. Today we honor the life and work of a man went from a militant freedom fighter, to political prisoner, to a unifying figure, to elder statesman of the world. He was a father figure, elder statesman and global ambassador. He was the guarantee, almost like an insurance policy, that South Africa's young democracy and its leaders will pursue the nation's best interests. He led the campaign to defeat apartheid through non- violence, peace, and dialogue. Nelson Mandela never allowed resentment to drive him away from the path of reconciliation. He emerged from prison to set free an entire nation; he shed the bonds of slave labor to reshape the fate of his people. Nelson Mandela's life is the a story of courage and a triumph over fear, and unyielding faith in the power, promise, and possibility of the human spirit. He inspired the world with his strength and perseverance, with his message of hope and his embrace of freedom. He shared that legacy of love and partnership with us 22 years ago this day when he came to Houston's Rothko Chapel on December 8, 1991 shortly after his release from prison. May the life of Nelson Mandela long stand as the ultimate tribute to the triumph of hope in the quest for freedom. As Nelson Mandela said: ``To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.'' May it be a comfort to his family and to the people of South Africa that so many mourn the loss of this extraordinary man and world historic figure. I will be remembering and thinking of these things as I travel to Johannesburg, South Africa to attend the memorial service of one of the greatest persons in the record history of mankind.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 2013, I travelled to Johannesburg, South Africa, as part of the Congressional Delegation appointed to attend the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, the first president of the new Republic of South Africa and one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. Because of my participation in this important event I was unable to return in time for Roll Call Votes 630 and 631. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: 1. On rollcall No. 630 I would have voted ``aye'' (December 10) (H.R. 3521, The Department of Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act of 2013, as amended (Rep. Miller (FL)--Veterans' Affairs) 2. On rollcall No. 631, I would have voted ``aye'' (December 10) (H.R. 1402, VA Expiring Authorities Extension Act of 2013, as amended (Rep. Coffman--Veterans' Affairs)

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, the Club for Growth is opposed to this legislation. What this legislation does my amendment corrects. That is why I want to ensure that we slow this down and make sure that the people who are impacted positively are small inventors and small businesses. This gives a gift to big guys, conglomerates, that can already hammer you down if you challenge their use of your invention. What this says is the small guys get protected. That means innovation and inventiveness is protected. My amendment is a right way to go. It is a good solid balance. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. I have modified this amendment from that offered in the Judiciary Committee markup in order to accommodate more businesses who feel they might benefit from the narrowed language while still maintaining the intended consequence of allowing for stays in proceedings. The expanded language might allow some businesses who are past the ``mom and pop'' growth phase but if this will provide medium-sized businesses from going bankrupt, or losing valuable revenues because of expensive patent litigation, it is a useful expansion. It is well documented that our innovation ecosystem--founded on patents--drives economic growth and job creation in the United States. From the hustle and bustle of downtown Houston, Silicon Valley, Chicago, New York, and even here in Washington, DC, Americans want to keep our cherished system as strong as possible. For the future of our economy, we cannot risk jeopardizing it. Section 5 is no doubt the most overbroad proposal in this legislation. In the only Judiciary hearing none other than former Undersecretary of Commerce and USPTO Director David Cappos testified that the litigation stay provisions of H.R. 3309 would immunize from liability ALL parties--and not just end users and retailers, provided they are located somewhere in a product channel downstream of the first component part maker. This grant of infringement immunity would include large commercial actors such as manufacturers combining procured components into value-added completed devices, as well as those who assemble. It is well documented that our innovation ecosystem--founded on patents--drives economic growth and job creation in the United States. From the hustle and bustle of downtown Houston, Silicon Valley, Chicago, New York, and even here in Washington, DC, Americans want to keep our cherished system as strong as possible. For the future of our economy, we cannot risk jeopardizing it. A number of the provisions in this bill may be well-intentioned, but they have undesirable consequences for the patent system as a whole. They have the potential to undermine the enforceability of all patent rights, no matter how valuable the patent, and thus potentially incentivize infringement. My amendment seeks to narrowly tailor the language in the bill so that it harms fewer inventors and legitimate patent licensing activity. I would note the opposition of my colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Thomas Massie, himself an inventor, and unlike most of us in this body--a holder of patents--whose amendment seeks to strike the entire Section 5 of the bill. My amendment seeks to find a happy medium while not allowing large business concerns who have unlimited resources and use the might of big law firms to take out smaller businesses. Also my colleague Mr. Rohrabacher, a long-time champion of small inventors and innovators has helped to spearhead a push urging leadership to delay this vote. We must act thoughtfully and with great caution as we pursue reforms to a system which took sixty years to change--and then in the batting of a Congressional eyelash--look to significantly modify once again. I was here during the long road that led to the path that became Smith- Leahy, or the American Invents Act. That it took so long is somewhat perplexing but even more interesting is that the bill had a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Yet we came together in a collaborative fashion and made lemonade out of sixty years of lemons while in the midst of some of the most jarring partisanship we have seen in this great body. Yet here we are this morning looking to pass a bill which has been essentially done in under two months.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their kind support of this amendment. May I ask the Chair the amount of time remaining, please.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, what is the remaining time?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think quite the contrary to my good friend from Pennsylvania, my legislation responds to the very individuals whom we are proclaiming we are interested in--the small inventors and businesses. I would offer to say that the opposition to this whole scheme of this bill comes from the Association of American Universities, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Innovation Alliance. These are groups that understand there is a problem. These are typically smaller groups. I would suggest that in the Federalist Papers No. 18 it says that we shall not tip the scales of justice to the big and the wealthy, but protect the weak. This particular amendment provides for protecting those making $25 million, not having them in the crosshairs of the pleading scheme that is in this bill, in the crosshairs of loser pays that is in this bill. I would ask my colleagues to recognize that David Kappas has not retrenched from his position that this liability posture is too dangerous. As my good friend Mr. Massie indicated, he is striking the whole section. I am finding a balance. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, again, my hope is that we have the opportunity to continue to work to get where all of us would like to be. My amendment is very simple. It requires the PTO director in consultation with other relevant agencies and interested parties to conduct a study to examine the economic impact of the litigation reform contained in the bill, sections 3, 4, and 5 of this act, on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to inventions and discoveries. In essence, I think it brings all of us together to be able to ensure that we promote this body politic of inventors, the people who built America. This is, in essence, to follow in the constitutional mandate to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors an exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. In my earlier discussions I said the wise persons of the constitutional construct recognize the importance of inventiveness. I have with me a chart that recognizes some of our great African American inventors: Madame C.J. Walker from Granville Woods invented a device that allowed for messages to be sent from moving trains and railway stations; Patricia Bath invented a method for removing eye cataracts. Great women inventors: Mary Anderson invented the windshield wipers. And our famous Hispanic inventors and others from other backgrounds: Pedro Flores, the first woman to manufacture the yo-yo. Our veterans are included in that. Many, many others throughout the Nation are included in this body of inventors. With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership, and I likewise thank the chairman for his leadership. The discourse in debate on the floor of the House is not evidencing the unity, the unanimity that members of the House Judiciary Committee and, I venture to say, of this body have with respect to innovation and competition and the idea of protecting our small inventors. And so I would offer myself and many others as a champion for this concept that we are greatest when we are protecting and coddling and growing the inventive mind of America and our small inventors. The Innovation Act has a wonderful name, and I congratulate Chairman Goodlatte for his interest and commitment to this process. We have always worked in a collaborative and bipartisan manner on the Judiciary Committee as it relates to intellectual property and competition. Today, however, our disagreement, if you will, is not on the underlying concept but on a very crucial process that is not in keeping with the mind-set of the Founding Fathers. I imagine that patent law got intimately engaged in the constitutional process because of a young man by the name of Benjamin Franklin, an inventor. He foresaw a great America and the need to be able to encourage those in garages and maybe by candlelight looking to change the landscape of the lives of those who live in that country and now have lived and do live in the greatest Nation in the world. And so the question is, on H.R. 3309, for all of our friends that are making their decisions, whether or not this is a bill before its time and whether or not this question that we have before us, this bill, truly stops the trolls, as this advertisement that was not placed by me but put in the newspaper to suggest that the trolls may not be the ugly beast, but it may be the way this bill, H.R. 3309, is written. Because, in fact, the small guy does pay. In fact, the small inventor is not protected. In fact, the pleadings are difficult. In fact, the early days of Madame C.J. Walker, who invented hair lotion for black women; or Frederick McKinley Jones, who invented the automatic refrigeration system for long-haul trucks; or Lewis Latimer, who invented less expensive and more efficient, long-lasting light bulbs; or maybe even the early days of giant companies that are now known to live in places like Silicon Valley, from Yahoo to Google, that started in the earliest moments of their beginning, small, maybe in a Harvard dorm room, or someone else's dorm room, I think the question becomes: Are these individuals protected? According to the research that we have done, small investors are not protected. I would just say, Madam Chair, that I would ask for more time; and if we want to do some work, let's pass H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, because that is ready to pass.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about innovation in America--the great job creator that I feel is being put in jeopardy by H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act. H.R. 3309 is a bill before its time as the America Invents Act was signed into law barely two years ago. Many of the major provisions of this landmark legislation which many on the Judiciary Committee and in this body voted for have not even been put into practice. It is well documented that our innovation ecosystem--founded on patents--drives economic growth and job creation in the United States. From the hustle and bustle of downtown Houston, Silicon Valley, Chicago, New York, and even here in Washington, D.C., Americans want to keep our cherished system as strong as possible. For the future of our economy, we cannot risk jeopardizing it. And while the AIA was unquestionably pro-innovator legislation, its post-grant challenge provisions also unquestionably shifted the balance of rights toward implementers and away from patent holders. The only remaining question, brought on by the adolescence of the AIA, is--just how much has that balance shifted? ``Loser pays'', also commonly referred to as the British Rule, mandates that the losing side in a civil dispute pay the legal costs of the other side. Loser pays laws ensure that only the wealthiest members of society or large corporations can afford to undertake a civil action and also unnecessarily punishes individuals with serious and meritorious claims for seeking access to justice. Loser pays policies fail to recognize that a person or a business can have a legally legitimate dispute regarding fact and law, and yet still ultimately lose the case. Loser pays policy sets a dangerous precedent and may prevent individuals from pursuing even the most meritorious civil liability claims. For most individuals and small businesses, the financial risk of having to pay the other side's costs and legal fees is one too great to bear, no matter how valid the claim. It creates a situation where experienced corporate defendants with enormous resources and expert legal talent can bully injured plaintiffs into unfair settlements due to the risks associated with losing a potentially successful case. If ``loser pays'' is implemented it could be a roadblock for people pursuing whistleblower, consumer mortgage, employment discrimination and other civil rights cases. The only losers under a ``loser pays'' system is the small business or individual plaintiff, or the innovator who is discouraged from pursuing her rights due to the chilling effect brought on by the onerous language in H.R. 3309. This bill tries to discourage patent litigation abuse by patent assertion entities, better known as ``patent trolls''. Trolls use patents of questionable quality to pressure their targets into settlement for an amount that is lower than the legal fees to defend against a lawsuit. Trolls typically have no interest in moving the patented technology into the marketplace. Generally, the troll's target has had a product on the market for some time and the troll's patent covers the targeted product through exceedingly broad claims, often through a broad interpretation of vague claim terms. In one common tactic, a troll will approach a target with a proposal to license patents with a one-time fee of $50k to $200k, where it might cost the target $15k to $50k for an initial legal opinion on validity and infringement, and it might cost the target $20k to $50k per month in legal fees in litigation proceedings (mainly driven by discovery and motions practice). So the one-time fee may sound appealing as a simple payoff to avoid legal fees that are comparable and inevitable. In theory, one can discourage the patent troll business model by increasing patent quality, promoting stricter requirements on claim construction, and lowering the cost of litigation (by limiting discovery). Each of these purported remedies has a cost that may be worse than the alleged benefit. That is why it is critical that we carefully consider any and all legislation and policy which looks to improve. At the outset of considering further changes to our patent system, we must recognize that the time constant of the patent system--the period between new patent application and court decision on a patent infringement claim--is very long. Therefore, the impact of Congress' very recent major change to our patent system has barely begun to be felt. Moreover, in long time constant systems such as our patent system, over-correction, especially that which leaves scant time for due deliberation, is a major danger. By the time we realize that an over-correction is apparent, it will be years after the system is badly damaged. If there were ever a case where caution is called for, this is it, and I say that because my constituents in Texas, and particularly in Houston, wanted change in the patent system, and surely every one of them was not satisfied with the Leahy-Smith Act but some changes we can live with. I would hope that due caution would yield to a deliberative process that takes the time to reach out and listen to all stakeholders, including those who will not be the fastest ones off the mark, and I am sure that some of them exist in Texas. Many small innovators--today's Priceline.coms, Yahoo's, Google's, Facebook's, Eli Lilly's, Twitter's, akin to yesteryears Edisons--have not had time to make their views heard. Others having various levels of dependence on strong IP rights are just now beginning to consider the prospect of further changes to our patent system. We need to allow these important stakeholders their time to participate. I look forward to hearing from these witnesses but would hope that this Committee proceeds on any changes with due caution--because the ink on the America Invents Act is barely dry--and another patent bill is before us with changes that are fraught with difficulty for many in our innovation economy. My amendment modifies the Manager's Amendment to ensure that small businesses that motivated this provision are protected and by expanding the amendment so that businesses with under $25 million are included-- my hope is that it will garner the support. Under my amendment, the customer stay provision a covered customer is one who is accused of infringing a patent or patents on a covered product or process, and is a small business that has revenue of $25 million or less. I have modified this amendment from that offered in the Judiciary Committee markup in order to accommodate more businesses who feel they might benefit from the narrowed language while still maintaining the intended consequence of allowing for stays in proceedings. The expanded language might allow some businesses who are past the ``mom and pop'' growth phase but if this will provide medium-sized businesses from going bankrupt, or losing valuable revenues because of litigation, it is a useful expansion. A number of the provisions in this bill may be well-intentioned, but they have undesirable consequences for the patent system as a whole. They have the potential to undermine the enforceability of all patent rights, no matter how valuable the patent, and thus potentially incentivize infringement. That is why I offered three amendments in the Judiciary Committee and three in the Rules Committee yesterday. My first amendment struck section 9(a) of H.R. 3309 which strikes Section 9(a) of the bill which repeals Section 145 of 35 U.S.C. Under this repeal, applicants would be gratuitously denied the fundamental right of de-novo judicial review of adverse patentability determinations by the Patent and Trademark Office when it refuses to consider certain evidence. This is a limiting provision and unfairly prevents a full adjudication of the rights of litigants. The importance of this 170-year-old protective provision is in its restraining effect on PTO's potential abuse of discretion for all patent applicants--not just for those who would seek judicial review. I attempted to modify my amendment based on a meeting I had with Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent claims, and is the lodestar for patent litigation. My second amendment which was made in order by the Rules Committee yesterday evening, modifies the Manager's Amendment to ensure that small businesses that motivated this provision are protected and by expanding the amendment so that businesses with under $25 million are included--my hope is that it will garner the support. Under my amendment, a covered customer is one who is accused of infringing a patent or patents on a covered product or process, and is a small business that has revenue of $25 million or less. I have modified this amendment from that offered in the Judiciary Committee markup in order to accommodate more businesses who feel they might benefit from the narrowed language while still maintaining the intended consequence of allowing for stays in proceedings. The expanded language might allow some businesses who are past the ``mom and pop'' growth phase but if this will provide medium-sized businesses from going bankrupt, or losing valuable revenues because of litigation, it is a useful expansion. Also made-in-order by the Rules Committee is my third amendment which simply requires the PTO Director, in consultation with other relevant agencies, and interested parties, to conduct a study to examine the economic impact of the litigation reforms contained in the bill (sections 3, 4, and 5 of this Act) on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to inventions and discoveries by such individuals and small business. This amendment supplements and improves the bill, which requires PTO to conduct 4 studies and submit reports to Congress. The required studies are: 1. Study On Secondary Market Oversight For Patent Transactions To Promote Transparency And Ethical Business Practices. 2. Study On Patents Owned By The United States Government 3. Study On Patent Quality And Access To The Best Information During Examination 4. Study On Patent Small Claims Court My last amendment was done with Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee, strikes Section 3(b) which requires that courts reward attorney's fees and expenses to the prevailing party. I remain convinced that this provision is onerous and prepares us for a slippery slope that leads to more and more restraints against plaintiffs in litigation. This will have a chilling effect and deter litigation in areas which might lead to more harm being exacted on the public--particularly in areas such as civil rights, environmental protection, and business regulations. Mr. Chairman, in the name of fairness to the little person--the Davids in the land of the Goliaths, commercially-speaking--and I ask my colleagues to slow the train down and exercise prudence and due caution before we vote on H.R. 3309. We must act thoughtfully and with great caution as we pursue reforms to a system which took sixty years to change--and then in batting of a Congressional eyelash--look to significantly modify once again. I was here during the long road that led to the path that became Smith-Leahy, or the American Invents Act. That it took so long is somewhat perplexing; but even more interesting is that the bill had a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Yet we came together in a collaborative fashion and made lemonade out of sixty years of lemons while in the midst of some of the most jarring partisanship we have seen in this great body. Yet H.R. 3309 has been cobbled together in a couple of months--this is no small, technical correction bill Mr. Chairman--it is comprehensive yet potentially pernicious legislation which should be slowed, if not stopped.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I insert in the Record the list of inventors that are just a small measure of those coming from a wide array of diversity. Let me say that we are on the floor today because we do believe in innovation. We are on the floor today because we all believe in innovation. My amendment attests to that fact. Both the chairman and ranking member agree that we should look into those small inventors that have been the backbone of American society. I would ask again that as we look at the full measure of this legislation, that we also will take that into consideration. I am hoping that my amendment No. 6 will be supported. But in conclusion, I want to take note of the fact that the Jackson Lee amendment No. 5 will be voted on and Mr. Massie's amendment will be voted on. We hope that we will get a strong vote of support. But I would hope that whatever reflection those votes characterize, it in no way reflects on the issue which we are trying to bring forward. Members will vote and Members will not vote. We hope they will vote for our amendments. But, really, what this is all about is to make sure that we do cover and protect that genius that lies across the landscape of America. Maybe a 5-year-old that is tinkering with Legos is an inventor who needs to be protected. That is the gist of what our discussion and debate is. That is why my amendment No. 6 was offered and No. 5. I ask that this amendment be accepted by my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Rules Committee, particularly Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter, for making my amendment in order. Let me also express my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for their hard work on this legislation and for their shared commitment to ensuring that the American patent system remains the best in the world. The Jackson Lee Amendment simply requires the PTO Director, in consultation with other relevant agencies, and interested parties, to conduct a study to examine the economic impact of the litigation reforms contained in the bill (sections 3, 4, and 5 of this Act) on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to inventions and discoveries. Mr. Chairman, while there may be conflicting views on both sides of the aisle regarding the wisdom or necessity of some of the legislative proposals contained in H.R. 3309, there is no disagreement in this House on the central importance of honoring the mandate of the Constitution to ``Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries'' (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 8.) Mr. Chairman, the Founding Fathers understood that America's future and its security lay in its ability to transform itself from a rural and agrarian economy into a commercial and manufacturing powerhouse that produced the products and ideas and created the jobs that would give Americans the highest standard of living in the world. The patent system created by the Constitution's framers played an indispensable part in this transformation. Mr. Chairman, it is critically important that whenever we consider legislation intended to improve or modernize our patent system that we do no harm to the individual inventors whose innovations fuel our economy. We also must take that we not change the patent system in such a way that we discourage inventors from unleashing the creative energies that turn impossible dreams into practical and commercially viable products and American jobs. Mr. Chairman, my amendment supplements and improves the bill, which already requires PTO to conduct 4 studies and submit reports to Congress. The required studies are: 1. Study On Secondary Market Oversight For Patent Transactions To Promote Transparency And Ethical Business Practices. 2. Study On Patents Owned By The United States Government 3. Study On Patent Quality And Access To The Best Information During Examination 4. Study On Patent Small Claims Court What is missing from this list is a study on the impact of the changes wrought by the legislation on the very persons the American patent system was created to encourage and protect: individual innovators who take the risk to create, innovate, and invent the discoveries that change our world for the better. Inventors like Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Henry Ford (Ford Motors), Thomas Edison (GE); Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T). Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3309 contains many new and complex changes to the patent litigation system such as ``loser pays,'' delayed and restricted discovery, and heightened pleading requirements imposed on inventors seeking to protect their constitutional right to their discoveries. If these changes were found to impede their ability to protect their rights and thus discourage future innovators from inventing, would we not want to revisit the law and make the needed revisions? The Jackson Lee Amendment simply directs that the impact of these new changes be studied and reported to Congress so that identified problems, if any, may be later corrected to ensure our patent system remains the best in the world. I ask unanimous consent to append at the end of my remarks a list of some of the great advances created by American inventors of all backgrounds, races, and gender. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment #8.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to express my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte and to Ranking Member Conyers. This is an unusual posture for us to be in. Again, all of us are for innovation and love the name of the legislation, but are raising concerns that would be worked out or could be worked out with a slower process. Again, I refer to the Constitution and to the aging that went on with the constitutional leaders in Philadelphia who meticulously designed how this great government would work. I noted earlier that they focused on innovation, competition, and inventiveness. My amendment builds on that of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), an inventor whom, I believe, we should listen to. He has chosen to strike the section dealing with small businesses or the covered customer issue, and mine narrowly focuses to hone in on helping small businesses. My point here on the floor of the House is that we cannot ignore that this bill skews the scales of justice against small investors. When my good friend from Virginia was explaining it, it was already too complicated. My bill is simple. It expands or provides the covered customer to small businesses making $25 million or less. So we are looking for the balance and the compromise that pointedly goes toward small businesses. It modifies that they are protected and that their litigation costs are down. Under my amendment, the definition of a ``covered customer'' is modified to be one who is accused of infringing a patent or patents on a covered product or process, and is a small business concern under section 3 that has revenue of $25 million or less. It is well-documented that our innovation ecosystem, founded on patents, started with small businesses. This bill skews the justice system away from them. Why would we want to do so? As the bill is currently drafted, the provision applies to all entities. Mom-and-pop shops at the end of the chain are, in essence, undermined. The legs have gone from underneath them. I know that all of us are committed to innovation, and I ask that the Jackson Lee amendment be accepted. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Rules Committee, particularly Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter, for making my amendment in order. Let me also express my appreciation to Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for their hard work on this legislation and for their shared commitment to ensuring that the American patent system remains the best in the world. My amendment modifies the bill to ensure that small businesses are protected and by expanding the amendment from what was offered in the Judiciary Committee markup so that businesses with revenue under $25 million are included--my hope is that it will garner more support. Under my amendment, the definition of a covered customer is modified to be one who is accused of infringing a patent or patents on a covered product or process, and is a small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act that has revenue of $25 million or less. I have modified this amendment from that offered in the Judiciary Committee markup in order to accommodate more businesses who feel they might benefit from the narrowed language while still maintaining the intended consequence of allowing for stays in proceedings. The expanded language might allow some businesses who are past the ``mom and pop'' growth phase but if this will provide medium-sized businesses from going bankrupt, or losing valuable revenues because of expensive patent litigation, it is a useful expansion. It is well documented that our innovation ecosystem--founded on patents--drives economic growth and job creation in the United States. From the hustle and bustle of downtown Houston, Silicon Valley, Chicago, New York, and even here in Washington, D.C., Americans want to keep our cherished system as strong as possible. For the future of our economy, we cannot risk jeopardizing it. Section 5 is no doubt the most overbroad proposal in this legislation. In the only Judiciary hearing none other than former Undersecretary of Commerce and USPTO Director David Kappos testified that the litigation stay provisions of H.R. 3309 would immunize from liability ALL parties and not just end users and retailers, provided they are located somewhere in a product channel downstream of the first component part maker. This grant of infringement immunity would include large commercial actors. such as manufacturers combining procured components into value-added completed devices, as well as those who assemble. My amendment seeks to narrowly tailor the language in the bill so that it harms fewer inventors and legitimate patent licensing activity. We must act thoughtfully and with great caution as we pursue reforms to a system which took sixty years to change--and then in the batting of a Congressional eyelash--look to significantly modify once again. I was here during the long road that led to the path that became Smith- Leahy, or the American Invents Act. That it took so long is somewhat perplexing but even more interesting is that the bill had a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Yet we came together in a collaborative fashion and made lemonade out of sixty years of lemons while in the midst of some of the most jarring partisanship we have seen in this great body. A number of the provisions in this bill may be well-intentioned, but they have undesirable consequences for the patent system as a whole. They have the potential to undermine the enforceability of all patent rights, no matter how valuable the patent, and thus potentially incentivize infringement. When patent rights are weakened, the incentive for investing in innovation is diminished. We must guard against that at all costs. One such provision is the customer-suit exception. Though well- intentioned, this provision is overbroad. Former USPTO Director David Kappos said this himself when he testified before us recently. As currently drafted, the provision applies to all entities in the chain of commerce of a good, not just the innocent `mom and pop' shops at the end of the chain. In fact, this provision is drafted so that it would protect the very companies that benefit the most from the sale of an infringing good. And the provision would require a patent holder to prove indirect infringement--which requires a higher level of proof--as well as direct infringement. Taken together, these changes would result in significantly more litigation, not less. My amendment modifies the Manager's Amendment to ensure that all of those small businesses that motivated this provision are protected. Please support this amendment to protect innocent end users without jeopardizing the patent system as a whole and all of the benefits that it provides us. And Mr. Chairman, I quote from the Federalist Papers No. 18: It happened but too often, according to Plutarch, that the deputies of the strongest cities awed and corrupted those of the weaker; and that judgment went in favor of the most powerful party. And that is what is the underlying theme of this amendment: protecting the small business which might grow into the bigger business. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com drove a Ford truck to make some of his earlier deliveries--but now he could probably buy Ford. In the name of fairness to the little person--the Davids in the land of the Goliaths, commercially-speaking--and I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise to speak on the rule governing debate for H.R. 3309, and about innovation in America--the great job creator. H.R. 3309 is a bill before its time as the America Invents Act was signed into law barely two years ago. Many of the major provisions of this landmark legislation which many on the Judiciary Committee and in this body voted for have not even been put into practice. It is well documented that our innovation ecosystem--founded on patents--drives economic growth and job creation in the United States. From the hustle and bustle of downtown Houston, Silicon Valley, Chicago, New York, and even here in Washington, DC, Americans want to keep our cherished system as strong as possible. For the future of our economy, we cannot risk jeopardizing it. And while the AIA was unquestionably pro-innovator legislation, its post-grant challenge provisions also unquestionably shifted the balance of rights toward implementers and away from patent holders. The question is--just how much has that balance shifted? Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3309 contains a provision that concerns me greatly. Section 3 of the bill directs a court to award attorney fees and costs to prevailing party in patent infringement cases. This provision, commonly called ``Loser Pays,'' is prevalent in England but has heretofore been unknown to the American legal system. And for good reason. Loser pays laws ensure that only the wealthiest members of society or large corporations can afford to undertake a civil action and also unnecessarily punishes individuals with serious and meritorious claims for seeking access to justice. Loser pays policies fail to recognize that a person or a business can have a legally legitimate dispute regarding fact and law, and yet still ultimately lose the case. Loser pays policy sets a dangerous precedent and may prevent individuals from pursuing even the most meritorious civil liability claims. If ``loser pays'' is implemented it could be a roadblock for people pursuing whistleblower, consumer mortgage, employment discrimination and other civil rights cases. The real losers under a ``loser pays'' system in patent cases is the individual inventor and small businesses seeking to vindicate their constitutional right to the exclusive use of the discoveries and inventions. Mr. Speaker, we should proceed with caution and engage in a deliberative process that takes the time to reh out and listen to all stakeholders. Many small innovators--today's Priceline.coms, Yahoo's, Google's, Facebook's, Eli Lilly's, Twitter's, akin to yesteryears Edisons--have not had time to make their views heard. I thank the Rules Committee for making in my amendment that modifies the Manager's Amendment to ensure that more small businesses are protected by providing that the customer stay exception applies to all small businesses with annual revenues under $25 million. A number of the provisions in this bill may be well-intentioned, but they have undesirable consequences for the patent system as a whole. They have the potential to undermine the enforceability of all patent rights, no matter how valuable the patent, and thus potentially incentivize infringement. That is why I offered three amendments in the Judiciary Committee and three in the Rules Committee yesterday. My first amendment would have modified section 9(a) of the bill to preserve the right of an applicant to file a civil action to obtain a patent in district court ``upon a showing of good cause or where justice so requires.'' I offered this amendment in response to information I received during my discussion with stakeholders, including the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent claims. I thank the Committee also for making in my amendment which requires the PTO Director, in consultation with other relevant agencies, and interested parties, to conduct a study to examine the economic impact of the litigation reforms contained in the bill (sections 3, 4, and 5 of this Act) on the ability of individuals and small businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities to assert, secure, and vindicate the constitutionally guaranteed exclusive right to inventions and discoveries by such individuals and small business. This amendment supplements and improves the bill, which requires PTO to conduct 4 studies and submit reports to Congress. The required studies are: I also joined with Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee on an amendment that strikes Section 3(b) which requires that courts reward attorney's fees and expenses to the prevailing party. I urge Members to support this amendment as well. Mr. Speaker, innovation is the engine that drives our economy. Let us not act rashly in passing legislation that will harm the ability or lessen the incentive of innovators to make the discoveries and create the products that will power our economy in the 21st century.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that many of our colleagues across the aisle are hoping and betting that the Affordable Care Act will fail. But every day it becomes clearer that they are losing that bet and their hope for failure is not shared by the American people, 105 million of whom already have received coverage for one or more free preventive health care services like screenings for breast cancer and diabetes. In my state of Texas, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more than 5,198,00 individuals with private insurance who have received coverage for one or more free preventive services due to the Affordable Care Act. Children have received free vision and hearing screenings and recommended immunizations. Adults have received free immunizations and cancer screenings such as colonoscopies for cancer, cholesterol and high blood pressure screening; and HIV. Women have received preventive services such as recommended mammograms and Pap smears; screenings for gestational diabetes; and domestic violence counseling. Our Republican friends like to tell themselves that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. But to millions of Americans living in the real world, Obamacare is an unqualified success.