Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, as I rise to offer my amendment, I take just a moment of personal privilege to say that, whatever side Members are on on this issue, I know that Members want to protect the genius of America. I would like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for that commitment, as he comes from one of the original genius proponents, and that is the auto industry that propelled America into the job creation of the century, and to the chairperson of the committee, Mr. Smith, who ventured out in efforts to provide opportunities for protecting, again, the opportunities for invention and genius. My amendment speaks, I think, in particular to the vast population of startups and small businesses that are impacted by this legislation. In particular, it is a reinforcement of Congress' position that indicates that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation. We recognize that small and minority businesses and women-owned businesses, which dominate the landscape of America, are really major job creators. Small business is thriving in my own home State of Texas, as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the State's employers and 46.8 of its private sector employment. We know that there are a large number of women-owned businesses and as well growing African American and Latino. But we need more growth--with Asian businesses, small businesses, Hispanic, Native American, African American--all forms of businesses that are part of growing this economy. Small business makes up a large portion of our employer network. It is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform. In this first-to-file, for example, small businesses may in fact be concerned about trying to get investors. As they get investors, they may have to disclose. This sense of Congress will put us on notice that we need to be careful that we allow at least the opportunity for these investors, and that we continue to look at the bill to ensure that it responds to that opportunity. We must recognize again, as I said, that small businesses create jobs. And the number of new jobs that they have created are 64 percent of net jobs over the past 15 years. My amendment, again, reinforces the idea that small businesses can survive in this climate. I did offer an amendment which provided for a transitional review program for 5 years or add for that to be sunsetted. It was all about trying to protect our small businesses. But I believe this amendment, with its firm statement, gathers Congress around the idea that nothing in this bill will inhibit small businesses from being creative. We can as well recognize all of the growth that has come about from the ideas of small businesses. I think my amendment also reinforces that we do not wish to engage in any undue taking of property because we indicate that we want to see the innovativeness of American businesses continue. I believe this is an important statement, because the bill is about innovation, genius, creation, job creation, and it should be about small businesses. Small businesses should be as comfortable with going to the Patent Office as our large businesses. In years to come, because of this major reform, we should see small businesses creating opportunity for growth as they develop not into small-and medium-sized but huge international companies. So I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment, and as well I am recognizing that we do have the opportunity to turn the corner and to put a stamp of new job creation on America. I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1249, the ``America Invents Act.'' My amendment adds a section to the end of the bill expressing the sense of Congress that ``the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.'' We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued. The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as businesses which employ less than 500 employees. According to the Department of Commerce in 2006 there were 6 million small employers representing around 99.7% of the nation's employers and 50.2% of its private-sector employment. In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28% while black owned was around 5%. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5% while the number for men went down 1.5%. Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7% of the state's employers and 46.8% of its private-sector employment. In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses compared to over 1 million owned by men. 88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are Hispanic, and 16,000 are Native Americans. Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform. Given the current state of the economy, we cannot afford to overlook the opportunities for job growth that small businesses create. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the 1992 and 2005, small businesses accounted for 65% of quarterly net employment growth in the private sector. Even in unsteady economic times, small businesses can be counted on for job creation. Between 1992 and 2004, the net job creation rate was the highest at the smallest establishments. Small Businesses Create Jobs. It is a fact. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Many successful business owners will credit at least part of their success to the ability to innovate--in technologies, in strategies, and in business models. A huge part of this innovation comes from the ability to create and patent ideas. According to a study conducted by Business Week, half of all business innovation resources are dedicated to creating new products or services. Patents are the driving force behind this product innovation, and without strong patent protection, businesses will lack the incentive to attract customers and contribute to economic growth. While I am happy to be here debating this all important amendment to this bill, it is unfortunate that some of my other amendments supporting small businesses and acknowledging the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution were not accepted. In yesterday's Rules Committee meeting, I offered a number of amendments: I offered amendments that ensure the inclusion of minority and women owned businesses in the definition of ``small entities'' to ensure they receive the benefits of reduced user fees. I also offered an amendment ensuring the inclusion of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions amongst entities that receive fee discounts. Another pro-small business amendment I offered would have extended the grace period for small businesses from one year to 18 months, enabling them enough time to secure financial support and develop their invention in order to bring it to market. Section 18 of the bill, which creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has raised concerns about the potential to create situations which could run afoul of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution. To address these concerns, I offered a number of amendments: One of my amendments would have shortened the sunset on Section 18 from 10 years to 5 years. I also introduced an amendment that would have required the Director of the USPTO to make a determination of whether or not a condition causing an unlawful taking is created by this section. Lastly, I introduced a sense of Congress amendment that affirms that no provisions in this bill should create a unconstitutional taking. Despite my concerns with certain provisions in this bill, overall, I believe H.R. 1249 will usher in the reforms needed to improve the patent system, making it more effective and efficient, and therefore encouraging innovation and job creation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much. On the patent bill in particular, two amendments that would have been vital were to announce that this was not an undue taking of property, to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue, because I think the bill does have the ability to create jobs, and lastly is the point of being able to give small businesses an 18-month period for disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other places and the secret of their invention is exposed. This Amendment would have added protection to small businesses and improved the debate, nevertheless I look forward to the debate, but I hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss Amendments I offered, I would like to note my support for the first to file system in H.R. 1249. I believe it to be a positive step toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our IP system. However, I am not deaf to some of the criticisms that it has received from various interests, and I believe it is imperative that this bill be a real jobs creator for small and large inventors and businesses. The amendments I am offering today are not controversial. They simply tighten up the language of the existing provisions of the bill, and add checks to ensure that the bill, if it becomes law, is fulfilling its intended purposes. Amendments Concerning Small Businesses, Minority-and Woman-Owned Businesses, and, HBCU'S Amendment #26 and #22--Inclusion of minority-and woman-owned businesses H.R. 1249, the ``American Invents Act,'' addresses one of the concerns with the current patent system--the high fees associated with filing patent applications and the burden they impose on small businesses and not-for-profit entities wishing to secure patent protection. It addresses this concern by giving a 50 percent discount on all USPTO fees to ``small entities'' and ``micro entities.'' My first amendment (Amendment #26) amends the definition of ``small entities'' for the purposes of receiving the fee discount to include language that ensures that minority-owned and woman-owned businesses are included. My second amendment (Amendment #22), much like my first amendment, includes minority-owned and woman-owned businesses in the definition of ``micro entity'' for purposes of receiving the fee discounts afforded to these types of entities. While I am sure it was the intent behind this section to extend protection for all small businesses, my amendments simply reassure inclusion of minority-owned and woman-owned businesses. The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as a business which employs less than 500 employees. According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers-- representing around 99.7 percent of the nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment. The proposed patent reform will ensure that small businesses are not treated at a disadvantage. It has great potential to create job growth, and in turn spur economic development for our country. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private- sector employment. Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform. Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output. Women owned businesses have increased 20 percent since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance. My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses. Amendment #29--HBCU's and Hispanic Serving Institutions One of the positive attributes of this bill is that it extends fee discounts to colleges and universities that engage in research and seek patent protection of their work. H.R. 1249 does this by giving fee discounts to ``public institutions of higher education.'' For purposes of this section, my amendment includes in the definition of ``small entities'' Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCU's. Generally speaking, HBCU's should be considered ``public institutions of higher education,'' however, in a few instances where schools receive alternative means of funding, there is a risk that minority serving institutions could be overlooked. My amendment simply ensures that the intended goal of the language in this bill is actually achieved--that ALL colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, receive fee discounts to keep the patent system accessible. Our Nation's colleges and universities are responsible for a vast amount of valuable research. HBCUs are a source of accomplishment and great pride for the African American community as well as the entire Nation. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: ``. . . any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.'' HBCUs offer all students, regardless of race, an opportunity to develop their skills and talents. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, ``HBCUs play an essential role in helping our Nation boost college completion rates and achieve the President's goal for America to again have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by 2020.'' At present, HBCUs award just over 36,000 undergraduate degrees a year. More than 80 percent of those degrees, about 31,500 degrees, are baccalaureate degrees. HBCUs currently award about 15 percent of all undergraduate degrees nationwide for African-American students. The completion gap in high-demand fields in science, technology, engineering and math is particularly troubling. Nationwide, nearly 70 percent of white students in STEM fields complete their degrees, compared with just 42 percent of African-American students. Amendment #27--Sense of Congress protecting rights of small businesses and inventors We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. Therefore, I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation. The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance. Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued. The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as businesses which employ less than 500 employees. According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers representing around 99.7 percent of the Nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment. In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28 percent while black owned was around 5 percent. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5 percent while the number for men went down 1.5 percent. Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private-sector employment. In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses compared to over 1 million owned by men. 88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are Hispanic, 16,000 are Native Americans. Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform. Amendment #23--Extension of the disclosure period for small businesses My amendment addresses the section of this bill which deals with the disclosure period, also known as the grace period. In its current state, H.R. 1249 includes a one-year grace period for inventors who make disclosures about their inventions before they apply for an actual patent. My amendment extends that grace period for small business from one year to eighteen months. When small businesses are attempting to develop an invention, oftentimes it is necessary for them to make disclosures to outside entities because, due to a lack of resources, they need to outsource the effort needed to bring an invention to market. For small businesses outsourcing their development, the one-year grace period may not be an adequate amount of time. Whenever an inventor makes the first public disclosure of an invention, then--as to whatever the inventor disclosed publicly--the disclosing inventor is guaranteed the right to patent the invention if a patent is sought during the 1-year ``grace period'' after the first public disclosure, even if during this ``grace period'' someone else (e.g., another inventor) either publishes its own independent work on the invention or seeks its own patent on the invention based on its independent work. Prior art is created when a disclosure is made available to the public. However, the ``grace period'' operates so that an inventor's own disclosure (or the disclosure by someone else that represents nothing more than the inventor's own work itself) is excluded as prior art to the extent of any of these inventor-originated disclosures made one year or less before the inventor seeks a patent. In short, inventors have one year from when they make their work public to seek patents. Amendments Addressing Section 18 (Transitional Review Process for Business Method Patents) Amendment #25--Sunset of Business Method Patents Review Program Though I am generally supportive of this bill, Section 18, which creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has come under criticism. There has been a lot of inconsistency in the status of the law surrounding business method patents over the years. Historically, business methods and systems to implement those methods were not patentable, but in the 1998 State Street v. Signature Financial Group ruling, that all changed. After that ruling, there was an explosion of applications for business method patents, and many were issued. However, many of these patents are of poor quality. Many business methods are facially obvious, whereas patentable inventions are supposed to be novel and non-obvious. They also lack prior art. It is very difficult to determine which business methods are simply common practice in different industries, but simply have been properly documented. The difficulties associated with issuing business method patents coupled with the lack of resources within the USPTO lead to issuance of many weak business method patents, some of which probably should not have been awards. Thus, a slew of litigation followed. This section, though controversial because it targets a specific type of patent, is intended to iron out the inconsistency in issuance of these types of patents and the many different rulings that flowed from mountains of litigation. While I believe it is important to achieve to consistency, I also think the necessity of this process is finite. Currently, the provision sunsets in 10 years, however, that period is too long in my opinion. Given the concerns associated with this section and the limited relevance of this provision, I have proposed an amendment that would make this provision sunset in 5 years. Amendment #24--Requiring Departmental determination that there is no ``unlawful taking of property'' As I mentioned previously, Section 18 of this bill has been subject to criticisms, most notably the fact that the transitional review program is creates may cause some patents to be taken away, which may lead to a potential violation of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution. Patents, though intangible, are considered property and they are valuable--some extremely valuable and a source of great wealth to their owners. A process that could strip a patent owner of their property without just compensation comes dangerously close to an unlawful taking, in my opinion. This is of great concern to me, and therefore I am offering an amendment to address the constitutionality issue of this provision. My amendment requires the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, within a year of enactment of this bill, to make a determination of whether the provisions of this section could create a condition that could be considered an unlawful taking of property under the ``takings clause'' found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Director would need to report to Congress the underlying reasoning for his determination. While there may be a valid intent and purpose behind the provisions in section 18 of this bill, no purpose is so great that it warrants a violation of the Constitution. My amendment will help ensure that the Constitution is upheld and adhered to, a goal that we all, regardless of party affiliation, should wholly support. Amendment #28--Sense of Congress--no violation of the takings clause The Constitution is the law of land, a body of law that we as lawmakers respect, and that the American people value as the cornerstone of democracy. Because some of the opponents of this bill have raised Constitutional concerns with specific provisions in the bill, I am offering an amendment that reaffirms our commitment to the Constitution. My amendment is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress that none of the provisions of this bill should constitute an unconstitutional taking of property under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, reclaiming my time, whatever the reason was, we both agree we needed to have more time for the rules debate. And I will now move to the patent bill. And as I said, I will not discuss the pros and cons of this legislation, but I will say to you-- and I see the gentleman rising over here maybe trying to correct something that was said. There's no reason to correct anything other than the fact that we had a number of amendments that we offered and we would hope that we would have had an open rule.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Speaker and thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the generosity of the Rules chairman on the number of occasions that I have sought to both represent my constituents at the Rules Committee and to represent issues that are of concern to America. Let me just say that I believe in efficiency of time, but I am struck by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the deliberation and the thoughtfulness of Members of Congress. I believe the rule is not necessarily a place to express one's opposition or support, but I do believe it's important procedurally to discuss a number of issues. The legislation that deals with the EPA, H.R. 2021, in and of itself would warrant an opportunity for full discussion, and I offered a number of amendments that I thought were quite productive, and those amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the EAB. It would have provided a review period, and one in particular that the gentleman mentioned was the opportunity to file your cases in local courts. I'm glad that we'll have the general discussion on the floor. Far be it from me to suggest that is not a good thing, but I do want to say that I had a very strong amendment that was not included in the Rule; the Amendment was originally withdrawn but resubmitted so we did have an opportunity to correct a letter that we had sent, but I'm glad for the debate in the form of another amendment just like mine regarding local federal courts being allowed to hear these matters.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The period is now a year--I'd indicated 18 months--because small businesses have to reach to others to help fund their inventions, and they let their secrets out of the bag. Eighteen months protects their disclosures for a period of time for them to be able to move forward. Lastly, I had a sunset provision that would help small businesses as well as relates to the sunset of the business method patents review. This could be a good bill. I hope that we can correct it, and I ask my colleagues to consider correcting this bill. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1249, ``America Invents Act.'' However I am concerned over the drastic fee charges that were made in the new Manager's Amendment completely contrary to our agreement in the House Judiciary markup--it takes enormous amounts of money from the work of the PTO. As a Senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, I am proud to support this legislation because in many ways the current patent system is flawed, outdated, and in need of modernization. The Judiciary Committee labored long and hard to produce legislation that reforms the American patent system so that it continues to foster innovation and be the jet fuel of the American economy and remains the envy of the world. This legislation incorporates amendments that I offered during the full committee markup as it recognizes the importance of converting from a first-inventor-to-use system to a first-inventor-to file will promote the progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights. Further, this new system will harmonize the United States patent registration system with similar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the United States conducts trade. This legislation will continue to ensure that the United States is at the helm of innovation. Our Nation's Founders recognized the integral role the patent system would play in the growth of our nation. Within our Constitution, they explicitly granted Congress with the power to issue patents. The Founders were supporting a fundamental part of the American dream which is to live in a free land where ideas can be shared thereby leading to the individual ingenuity, invention, and innovation. Madam Chair, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power: 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. In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically. The legislation before us represents the first comprehensive review of the patent system in more than a generation. It is right and good and necessary that the Congress now reexamine the patent system to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process. On the other hand, we must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done so at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance. From small towns to big cities, our country is filled with talent and genius. As it stands, the United States has four times as many patent applications filed here per year than in Europe. The United States Patent and Trademark office must have the tools to meet this demand. Failing to change the patent system as we know it will deny the men and women from around our nation fair and equal access to a streamlined and effective patent system. The current system has a backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents, nearly 700,000 applications are waiting to be reviewed. The USPTO is currently reviewing applications from 2007/2008, and using the fees received from the most recent patent applications to do so due to limitations in the current system under which the USPTO is funded. This has caused inventors and business creators to wait on average three years prior to receiving a determination on whether or not their patents are valid. Without that determination it is nearly impossible for a small business to receive the necessary venture capital. That's a three-year waiting period for struggling small businesses; this is a three-year gap filled with financial uncertainty which leads to a three-year delay in job creation. Only 4 out of ten applications, or 42 percent, of patent applications are approved. It is vital to have approval prior to attaining financing because there is a 58 percent chance that a patent will not be approved. Given our current economic environment, a three year backlog is too long for any individual to wait to build a business which will create new jobs, especially at a time when jobs are sourly needed by many right now. Patent reform is the key to economic change that could lead to untapped job growth. Since the creation of the USPTO in 1790 it has issued 7,752,677 patents and many of those patents have resulted in the creation of new jobs. In 2010, 121,179 patents granted by the USPTO originated in the United States of those granted 8,027 went to applicants in Texas. Imagine how many jobs could be created if there were not a 700,000 patent application backlog. Our current system is outdated and the backlog makes it evident that our system is in serious need of change. Patent reform must reflect the major advances in our society over the last 50 years. Since the last major patent reform how we live has been transformed by a variety of inventions such as the home computer, ATM, video games, cellular phones and mobile devices, and life saving technologies like the artificial heart, all of which have been invented since any major reform of our patent system. Madam Chair, patent reform is a complex issue but one thing is clear the innovation ecosystem we create and sustain today will produce tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. That ecosystem is comprised of many different operating models. It is for that reason that we evaluated competing patent reform proposals thoroughly to ensure that sweeping changes in one part of the system do not result in unintended consequences to other important parts. Let me discuss briefly some of the more significant features of this legislation, which I will urge all members to support. H.R. 1249 converts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first inventor-to-file system. The U.S. is alone in granting priority to the first inventor as opposed to the first inventor to file a patent. H.R. 1249 will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor-to-file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, a study regarding first-to-file will be conducted by the Small Business Administration and the United States Patent Office to identify any negative impact this change may have on these inventors. Furthermore, H.R. 1249 adjusts the fee structure which funds the USPTO, giving them greater control over the fees they collect for patent services and enabling the USPTO to improve its efficiency and review more patents at a greater speed. Currently, the USPTO is funded solely by the fees its receives from it's users. However, not all the fees collected are available for use by the USPTO because Congress appropriates a specific amount, and any fees above the appropriated amount are used for other non-USPTO purposes. Under H.R. 1249, the USPTO will have greater control over the use of the fees it receives, giving them greater flexibility to make necessary improvements to the patent system.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished Member from California. To my colleagues on the floor, this has to be, could have been or hopefully can be one of the greatest opportunities for bipartisanship that we have seen in any number of years. That was the process that was proceeded under on the Judiciary Committee, though obviously there are always disagreements; but the whole idea of our debate and the support of the present underlying legislation without the manager's amendment was to, in fact, create jobs. In the committee, a number of my amendments were accepted, but in particular, the focus of converting from a first-inventor-to-use system to a first-inventor-to-file was thought to promote the progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the exclusive right for their discoveries and to provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights. Further, this new system was to be, or should be, able to harmonize the United States patent registration system with similar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the United States conducts trade. This was to shine the light and open the door on American genius. In addition, so many of us have waited so long to be able to give the resources to the PTO in order for it to do its job. We were aghast in hearings to hear that there is a 7,000-application backlog, so I rise as well to express enormous concern with the manager's amendment, which, as the PTO director has indicated, Dave Kappos, every time we do not process a PTO, or a patent, for some genius here in the United States, for some hardworking inventor, every patent that sits on the shelf at the PTO office is taking away an American job, and that job is not being created. As well, it is denying a product from going to the market, and it is someone's life that is not being saved, and our country ceases to grow. We need jobs in this country. We need a Patent Office that is going to expedite and move forward. We don't need discussions about lawyers fighting lawyers or trial lawyers. This is not a case of anti-lawyer legislation. We hope that some of the small businesses and large companies have their lawyers fighting to preserve and protect their patents. This bill will give them the opportunity to have that protection, but I am disappointed that all of a sudden the manager's amendment changed around and took an enormous amount of those fees and invested them elsewhere instead of helping our small businesses. I am also disappointed that we don't recognize that a bill that helps big businesses can help small businesses as well, so I had offered an amendment that would extend the grace period while the small business is working to fund its patent.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 672 ``Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act.'' This bill seeks to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to terminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the EAC Standards Board, and the EAC Board of Advisors 61 days after enactment of this Act. It also requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) perform EAC functions with respect to certain existing contracts and agreements during the transition period for finishing EAC affairs. I oppose this bill because it undermines the intent behind the Help America Vote Act. Let me remind those who have forgotten of the chaos in the days following the election of 2000. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 which helped create the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC was created to help state and local election officials use current technology and best practices when overseeing elections. The EAC oversees voting-system testing and certification. The EAC tests and certifies voting machines for use in elections to safeguard against the problems of 2000 election in Florida; and creates voluntary voting guidelines for states, instilling confidence in the democratic process of this country for all voters. The Commission also develops and fosters the training and organization of more than 8,000 election administrators throughout the nation. The EAC's certification program is helping state and local governments save money by using its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure that the existing equipment meets its durability and longevity potential. This saves state and local governments from the unnecessary expense of new voting equipment. The Commission plays a major role in collecting accurate and comparable election data. Living in a nation guided by the spirit of democracy and by which the American people are the voices for change, I do not see how H.R. 672 can continue this legacy. Without the EAC, there would be no federal agency focused on improving the quality of elections. With this, the American people will lose faith in our democracy and, to tell you the truth so will I. The American people have not forgotten the chaos of the 2000, and let us ensure that this Congress remembers those troubling days as well. We must never forget the feeling of fear and uncertainty as the fabric of our democracy and our faithful constitution was put to test. I feel for scores of votes in Florida, whose voices were not heard as fraud and corruption consumed polling stations. As a representative of Texas, a state of over 20 million people, I refuse to have any voice of Texas' constituents, or mine of the 18th district, be stifled by those who think otherwise. In the society we live in, it is often those who cannot defend themselves or those with limited political power whose voices are often overshadowed. Among this group are oftentimes the poor, women, the uneducated, the inept, and the elderly. The EAC has worked tirelessly to end this trend. Through research, grant-making and the development of voting guidelines, the Election Assistance Commission is helping many groups gain their Constitutional right to vote, including racial and ethnic minorities, members of the Armed Services (especially those serving overseas), disabled Americans and senior citizens. The EAC has worked to improve the accessibility of more than 37 million disabled voters with disabilities. It also has worked to create electronic voting systems for our brave men and women in uniform fighting overseas so that they are able to vote abroad. Considering my belief that the termination of the EAC would untangle progress our democracy has made in bringing uniformity and equality among states in the voting process, I strongly urge opposition to this bill. If the EAC is terminated, it is very likely we will see many more elections like the election of 2000. If we care about the legacy of our democracy and our constitution, I urge opposition to H.R. 672.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election fairness. I would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking up the Voting Rights Act, the one of 1965, in the dark of night. We can speak lightly about this, but I will tell you that every election time someone is denied the right to vote in the United States. I hope Americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even though it is represented that the change and eliminating the particular agency that deals with the questions of fairness, the Election Assistance Commission, we're actually not saving money, and passing the responsibilities off to the Federal Elections Commission. Why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who said let's do it right. Let's have a general accountable study and know what we're doing and if we're taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote. I will tell you that the purging of voters that occurs in Texas and other places around the Nation, and in particular in Harris County, is not a minor issue. The distraction of African American male voters in Florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction. And so the question is, even if this deals with interactive data, let me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local government because without this particular commission, those resources or those responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local governments. So now we're doing unfunded mandates. I would simply say that it was painful to pass the health bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, was passed in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism. I am not here to point fingers, but I lived through that emotional time. It is history, my colleagues know that it is, but they know how painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who was turned away from the voting booth--and also the discrepancies on how we count our votes in America, the most sophisticated Nation in the world, the Nation that others look to and say, how do we promote democracy? Why would we stand on the floor of the House at 8 o'clock tonight and deny democracy? I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to stand for democracy and fairness.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The opportunities for Members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. And I respect my colleague from Iowa for his right to offer an amendment. But it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from Iowa, who served with me on the Judiciary Committee, would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers, Native Americans farmers, and others impacted have experienced over several decades; to raise the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose eloquent story and painful story of the loss of her father in the segregated South, who was murdered, and the family had to survive after his tragic murder because of his color--to my knowledge, a farmer, man of the Earth. I sat on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years, and this legislation proceeded through the Judiciary Committee. I join the gentleman in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. I want to stand alongside a transparent system. But this was a lawsuit that many of the litigants died before they even got to the settlement. This is the American way--a battle in the courts, a settlement--had it not been for the good will of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, members of the Congressional Black Caucus who joined with members of the Democratic Caucus, Republicans, past Presidents, who were concerned and interested in the devastation tragedy of the segregated South and a segregated Department who treated black farmers in a disparate way from others. Individuals who went bankrupt, who lost farms because they could not get the same access to agricultural loans that others could. And in the wisdom of the court system and the wisdom of this body and the wisdom of a settlement, relief was brought not before many had died and their heirs, trembling, limited, scattered, few, were able to come together and receive the funding. I'm sorry Mr. King was not at the signing of that final settlement and to see those historic families, patriots, who expressed nothing but love for this country. What a tragedy to come and interfere with an existing settlement. I don't even know how he can put this amendment up on the floor. It's late. We're losing our voices here. But I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the Agriculture Department and the surrounding entities that are dealing with the distribution of these funds be transparent and without fraud. But it would be absurd for any Member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and disparate treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. Farming is part of the American fabric. And if there's any body of people who understands farms, it is the ex-slaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the South. I ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment, and I rise respectfully to oppose it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, let me thank Mr. Farr and Mr. Kingston. I had hoped my friend from Georgia could see in his heart that this is a very small microcosm for a very large issue, and that is that food deserts do exist and the families that are impacted, number of families that include those who are members of the United States military from the very youngest child. I have been fiscally responsible, if that is the case, to narrow this very well, and I have no quarrel with individual chains engaging in marketing outreach. But I'm talking about hard-to-serve areas that include urban and rural areas where there are no food chains to engage in any benevolent assistance. I'm also suggesting to you that if you look at the landscape of districts across the Nation, just take for example my district is number 32 in regards to food insecurity, but there are 31 above me. The people have limited access to food. I enjoy the point that Mr. Farr made about Ms. Kaptur's farmers markets. This will infuse energy into the farmers markets. This will create jobs for a limited amount of pilot resources. This is the right thing to do. This is to take a great land like America and say we want everybody to minimally have access to good, healthy, nutritious food. So I would ask for the humanitarian consideration of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thank the gentleman from California for his instructiveness and the work of the members of this Appropriations Committee, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment. It fills the gaping hole of the lack of food by providing resources to cure the problem of food deserts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for their kindness and their deliberateness in this very long evening and as well the ranking member along with the chairman. This is a simple amendment about food and about helping more Americans get healthy food. There is not one of us that does not understand how dry and difficult a desert is. This amendment is simply about food deserts in rural and urban areas. This amendment provides a $5 million increase to the Office of the Secretary to allow assistance to provide relief to those who are suffering from the lack of access to food quality. This is a healthy child, we would hope. That healthy child needs to have good food. These funds will increase the availability of affordable healthy food in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers. Fast-food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low- income neighborhoods, offering few if any healthy options. In rural areas, there may be no access at all. This particularly impacts African American and Hispanic communities and, as I indicated, rural communities. This climate in the difficult times that we have requires us to be able to allow families to have access to good food. We also have the issues of obesity and as well nutrition. Food deserts impact many districts, and I will say to you that Texas in particular has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas face a nutrition issue. Targeting assistance to food desert areas will provide healthy food to affected areas, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities. Farmers markets are a good idea, but farmers markets sometimes are difficult to find in our communities. Again, let me emphasize, this is about rural and urban areas. This initiative will provide for the availability of healthy food alternatives to some 23 million people living in food deserts. Let me just suggest to you that these families that we care for, families, young families of the military, many of you have heard stories where the military families are on food stamps. Many of them live in areas beyond their bases, and some of their families are back home in rural and urban areas. This amendment, which will provide an $8 million gift back to the government, will give a mere $5 million to provide the opportunity for those food desert loopholes, if you will-- rural places in our Nation where there are big gaps with access to food, and as well urban areas--to have access to the opportunity for good and healthy food. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that addresses the question of helping those who need healthy food. I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, which will reach back into the bill to increase the funding for the Office of the Secretary by $5 million dollars. This increase, provided for by reducing the funding for operations and maintenance of Buildings and Facilities in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative, HFFI. Supporting this amendment will not only fund an important pilot program, but save the government $8 million. Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers. These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options. Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities. Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families. The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children. Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, and citizens throughout the state of Texas. Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, identified 92 food desert census tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low income residents, with 33 percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering affect food deserts have on the health of low income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food. Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities. The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout, or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods. This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of emphasizing the importance of urban gardening. My amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. Forty-seven million American families live in poverty that restricts their access to healthy food. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country. Seventeen million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop in a country so full of resources. It is unconscionable that millions of children do not have enough to eat. We cannot consider proposals that would contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security, such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. In my home State of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, 17.4 percent of all households struggle with food security. Community Food Projects Competitive Grants are a vital aspect of the Food and Nutrition Act and must be preserved. Community Food Projects Grants have helped thousands of people in low-income communities combat food insecurity by developing community food projects that encourage healthy habits and self-sufficiency. These grants increase the self- reliance of low-income communities that have historically encountered difficulties in providing foods. Programs funded by Community Food Projects Grants have been successful in cities and towns. And, in fact, more than 550,000 Harris County residents relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to buy food. But one of the important aspects of this is the urban garden. The People's Garden School Pilot Program will develop and run gardens in high-poverty schools. Teaching students about health and nutrition and increasing access to healthy foods are invaluable benefits of schools where more than 50 percent of the student body qualifies for free or reduced-cost lunches. I rise to encourage support for this particular part of the bill so that we can continue to support urban gardening. And I want to salute Veggie Pals, a gardening program that does just that. It finds patches of land wherever it might be, and it makes sure that we provide healthy food. This amendment would ensure that nothing in this legislation, nothing in this appropriation would prohibit the growth and continued expansion of this very important concept of urban gardening. The number of Americans who suffer from poverty and hunger is unacceptable. Reducing or redirecting funding meant to increase food security and nutrition is simply not an option. Join me in recognizing the value of urban gardens. And thank you to the Veggie Pals gardening program that has educated how many thousands of children and emphasized the value of good and healthy food. This program, Veggie Pals, urban gardening, educating people about nutrition, meal preparation, physical activities, cookbooks, Olympics and others, promotes healthy behavior. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues today to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, ``Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 47 million American families live in poverty that restricts their access to healthy food. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country. 17 million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop. In a country so full of resources, it is unconscionable that millions of children do not have enough to eat. We cannot consider proposals that would contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security, such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. In my home state of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, 17.4 percent of all households struggle with food security. Community Food Project Competitive Grants are a vital aspect of the Food and Nutrition Act that must be preserved. Community Food Project grants have helped thousands of people in low- income communities combat food insecurity by developing community food projects that encourage healthy habits and self-sufficiency. These grants increase the self reliance of low income communities that have historically encountered difficulties in providing for their own food needs. Programs funded by community food project grants have been successful in cities and towns across America, and would certainly make a difference in the 18th Congressional District. In December of 2010, more than 550,000 Harris County residents relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program to buy food. Hunger and food insecurity have grave impacts on children. Students do not have the opportunity to succeed if they are hungry. The People's Garden School Pilot program will develop and run gardens at high poverty schools. Teaching students about health and nutrition and increasing access to healthy foods are invaluable benefits at schools where more than 50 percent of the student body qualifies for free or reduced cost lunches. Community food project grants and other initiatives such as the People's Garden Project represent practical and long term solutions to ending food insecurity in America. We must be committed to funding programs that encourage self-sufficient food sources, highlight the importance of nutrition, and reach children at an early age. The number of Americans who suffer from poverty and hunger is unacceptable. Reducing or redirecting funding meant to increase food security and nutrition is simply not an option. We must continue to fund programs like the community food project grants and the People's Garden. It is the responsibility of each and every Member in this chamber to work for the well-being of our constituents and to ensure that the basic needs of constituents are met. I urge my colleagues to think of those who are affected by hunger in their districts and support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As I discuss my amendment, I want to indicate to my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the life of me, I can't understand why you would oppose an amendment that costs no funds and only emphasizes the importance of urban gardening. There lies the ludicrousness of the lack of collaboration and understanding when there are amendments that would help all of us. So I do express my great disappointment that you didn't understand the amendment and, rather than ask what the amendment meant, you voted loudly ``no.'' That's unfortunate for the American people. We do that all the time. But I rise today to emphasize the importance of making sure that we implement the judgment that has already previously been discussed that helps the unfortunate farmers that experienced proven discrimination at the Department of Agriculture and to credit Members on both sides of the aisle for recognizing it and recognizing the importance of not infringing upon a judicial decision, a settlement that could help a number of farmers in all categories that were acknowledged by many Members of this body. I thank a number of my colleagues who worked on these issues for a number of years. They worked on it with great sincerity and, as well, they recognized that it is important for us to continue to produce food, but, as well, we need to ensure that all farmers, small farmers and certainly minority farmers, have the opportunity to engage in their trade. My amendment would ensure that the agricultural appropriations are effectively and promptly made available as necessary through this process and, as well, to work with cooperatives supporting small socially disadvantaged producers. The amendment would make the allocation of funds to cooperatives supporting the work of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers as provided in section 310(b)(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act a priority. Again, this particular amendment requires no money. It just indicates that we should follow through on the provisions. However, this funding is vital to support the many farmers and their families that work tirelessly to make sure that other hardworking families have food to eat. It would be hard to deny the vital role that American farmers play in our society. It is also important that this significant group of American farmers not be overlooked, not be marginalized. And I would, frankly, say that we support their continued existence. They have a long history, and I believe it is important to do so. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I remember the long journey we took in order to ensure that African American, Latino and Native American farmers would not be shortchanged of grants, loans, and programs. This amendment simply seeks to reinforce that. Finally, I would make the point that I hope that we would have the opportunity to find the necessary collaboration again to settle claims of discrimination from those farmers who had not yet come under the particular recent settlement. The President had requested some $40 million to provide settlements for discrimination claims filed under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It is unfortunate that those resources apparently were not able to be included. The USDA anticipates that 600 claims will need to be settled under this action. The estimate of funding needed to settle these 600 cases is based on the average settlement cost for claimants under other civil rights class action law suits, most notably the already settled Pigford discrimination lawsuit. This request was only of $20 million. It is not in this bill. This amendment does not address the fact that it's not in this bill; it simply says we are fair when we understand the issue. I hope that we will have the opportunity to understand the issue. The more farmers we can have producing the good food that has made America great--the bread basket of America--is the better way to go. So I hope my colleagues will support this amendment that simply reinforces the importance of creating equal access to resources so that we can produce the food necessary for the American people. I showed just a moment ago that of a healthy child and a military family. We need to make sure that all Americans have access to food, and we should extinguish the concept of food insecurity. We can do that by helping the many different farmers and small farmers that rely upon these very important programs to help them produce the food for America. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues today to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, ``Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would ensure that agricultural appropriations are effectively and promptly made available to minority farmers and cooperatives supporting small, socially disadvantaged producers. This amendment would make the allocation of funds to cooperatives supporting the work of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers as provided in Section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act a priority. I believe by considering cooperative development grants for farmers for the fiscal year 2012, we as a Congressional body have already taken a step in the right direction. This funding is vital to support the many farmers and their families that work tirelessly to make sure that other hardworking American families have food to eat. It would be hard to deny the vital role that American farmers play in our society. The benefits of their labors are immediately visible in our schools' cafeterias, our local grocery stores, and even on our dining room tables. American farmers and farming programs should be appreciated, supported, and funded. However, in this significant group of American farmers, it is important that we not overlook the too often marginalized population of minority farmers. As many of you may know, the history of minority farmers and government programs is a long and tumultuous one. Minority farmers have faced years of institutionalized discrimination when applying for Federal Government funding. This is a fact that is discouraging for many minority farmers, and quite frankly embarrassing for many government institutions. As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have been actively involved in the fight to ensure that minority farmers receive justice for the many discriminations that they have faced and a fair chance at achieving the American Dream. Too often African American, Latino, and Native American farmers have been shortchanged on agricultural grants, loans, and programs. This injustice has prevented minority farmers from being as successful as they could be. It has also prevented American society in general from reaping the benefits of their labor. It is with this very saddening fact in mind that I propose the immediate distribution of funding designated for cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, socially disadvantaged producers. By accelerating the disbursement of this funding, minority farmers and cooperatives supporting minority farmers will have earlier access to the resources that they need and deserve. The results of this funding--technological advances and agricultural sector growth--will benefit not only farmers, but American society as a whole. The benefits will be evident on our local farms, in our neighborhood supermarkets, and in our national economy. If we want our agricultural sector to grow, thrive, and compete, we must consider this amendment to make the distribution of these funds urgent and effective. The time has come for the United States to take a proactive role in upholding the standards of equality and fairness in the agricultural sector. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we make use of every available opportunity to acknowledge the work of all Americans whose labor contributes to the health and welfare of society. All agricultural workers, minority farmers in particular, should be provided the necessary assistance to ensure that the fruits of their labor can continue to fuel our daily work. This is not just because the government has historically done such a poor job providing equal and fair support to minority farmers, but because it is the right thing to do. With this in mind I urge the adaptation of my proposed amendment to H.R. 2112. Thank you for your time and consideration in this imperative matter.