Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce ``The Patent Reform Act of 2007'', a product of both bicameral and bipartisan effort to reform the patent system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I would especially like to thank Senator Leahy for his dedication to addressing many of the inadequacies in our current patent system. Furthermore, I appreciate my past and present partners in this area--especially Congressman Rick Boucher, with whom I've worked closely to increase patent quality for the past several years, and Congressman Lamar Smith, who championed this issue last Congress.

Introduction of this legislation follows a number of recent judicial opinions and many hearings conducted over the past several years by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property which ascertained that the current patent system is flawed. Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous attempts to define the

challenges facing the patent system today. Among the most notable contributions to this discourse are the Patent and Trademark Office's Twenty-First Century Strategic Plan, the Federal Trade Commission's report entitled ``To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy,'' The National Research Council's compilation of articles ``A Patent System for the 21st Century'' and the book titled ``Innovation and Its Discontents,'' authored by two respected economists. These studies offer a number of recommendations for increasing patent quality and ensuring that patent protection promotes--rather than inhibits--economic growth and scientific progress. Consistent with the goals and recommendations of those reports, and based on past patent bills, the Patent Reform Act contains a number of provisions designed to improve patent quality, deter abusive practices by patent holders, provide meaningful, low-cost alternatives to litigation for challenging the patent validity and harmonize U.S. patent law with the patent law of most other countries.

Past attempts at achieving comprehensive patent reform have met with stiff resistance. However, the time to reform the system is way past due. The New York Times has noted, ``Something has gone very wrong with the United States patent system.'' The Financial Times has stated, ``It is time to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law.'' Therefore, we are introducing this bill as a first step to restoring the necessary balance in our patent system.

I firmly believe that robust patent protection promotes innovation. However, I also believe that the patent system is strongest, and that incentives for innovation are greatest, when patents protect only those inventions that are truly innovative. When functioning properly, the patent system should encourage and enable inventors to push the boundaries of knowledge and possibility. If the patent system allows questionable patents to issue and does not provide adequate safeguards against patent abuses, the system may stifle innovation and interfere with competitive market forces.

This bill represents our latest perspectives in an ongoing discussion about legislative solutions to patent quality concerns, patent litigation abuses, and the need for harmonization. We have considered the multitude of comments received concerning prior patent bills and over the course of numerous negotiations between the parties. We acknowledge that the problems are difficult and, as yet, without agreed-upon solutions. It is clear, however, that introduction and movement of legislation will focus and advance the discussion. It is also clear that the problems with the patent system have been exacerbated by a decrease in patent quality and an increase in litigation abuses. With or without consensus, Congress must act to address these problems. Thus, we introduce this bill with the intent of passage in the 110th Congress.

There are a number of issues which we have chosen not to include in the bill, primarily because we hope they will be addressed without the need for legislation. For instance, the Supreme Court recently resolved questions regarding injunctive relief. In that category, we include amendments to Section 271(f) and the obviousness standard as both issues are currently before the Supreme Court. If either of those issues are left unresolved, Congress may need to reevaluate whether to include them in a patent bill.

The bill does contain a number of initiatives designed to harmonize U.S. law with the law of other countries, improve patent quality and limit litigation abuses, thereby ensuring that patents remain positive forces in the marketplace. I will highlight a number of them below.

Section 3 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. There is consensus from many global companies and academics that the switch in priority mechanisms provide the U.S. with greater international consistency, and eliminate the costly and complex interference proceedings that are currently necessary to establish the right to obtain a patent. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor to file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, we have maintained a grace period to substantially reduce the negative impact to these inventors. However, we need to maintain an open dialogue to ensure that the patent system will continue to foster innovation from individual inventors.

Section 5 addresses both the topic of apportionment and wilfullness. Patents are provided to promote innovation by allowing owners to realize the value of their inventions. However, many have argued that recent case law has tilted towards overcompensation, which works against the primary goal of promoting innovation. ``Excessive damages awards effectively allow inventors to obtain proprietary interests in products they have not invented, promote patent speculation and litigation and place unreasonable royalty burdens upon producers of high technology products. Such consequences may ultimately slow the process of technological innovation and dissemination the patent system is intended to foster.'' While preserving the right of patent owners to receive appropriate damages, the bill seeks to provide a formula to ensure that the patent owner be rewarded for the actual value of the patented invention.

Furthermore, this Section seeks to curb the unfair incentives that currently exist for patent holders who indiscriminately issue licensing letters. Patent proprietors frequently assert that another party is using a patented invention and for a fee, offer to grant a license for such use. Current law does little to dissuade patent holders from mailing such licensing letters. Frequently these letters are vague and fail to identify the particular claims of the patent being infringed and the manner of infringement. In fact, the law tacitly promotes this strategy since a recipient, upon notice of the letter, may be liable for treble damages as a willful infringer. Section 5 addresses this situation by ensuring that recipients of licensing letters will not be exposed to liability for willful infringement unless the letter clearly states the acts that allegedly constitute infringement and identifies each particular patent claim to the product or process that the patent owner believes is being infringed.

Section 6 provides a needed change to the inter-partes reexamination procedure. Unfortunately, the inter-partes reexamination procedure is rarely used, but the changes we introduce should encourage third parties to make better use of the opportunity to request that the PTO Director reexamine an issued patent of questionable validity. Primarily though, Section 6 creates a post-grant opposition procedure. In an effort to address the questionable quality of patents issued by the USPTO, the bill establishes a check on the quality of a patent immediately after it is granted, or in circumstances where a party can establish significant economic harm resulting from assertion of the patent. The post-grant procedure is designed to allow parties to challenge a granted patent through a expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation. Many have expressed concerns about the possibility of harassment of patent owners who want to assume quiet title over their invention. In an effort to address those concerns, the bill prohibits multiple bites at the apple by restricting the cancellation petitioner to opt for only one window one time. The bill also requires that the Director prescribe regulations for sanctions for abuse of process or harassment. During the legislative process we will likely provide more statutory guidance for the Director in establishing regulations guiding the post-grant opposition. We appreciate that this is an extremely complicated and new procedure and therefore we look forward to working with various industries to ensure the proceeding is balanced, fair and efficient. Part of the goal of this Section is to also address the quality problem in patents which have already been issued and are at the heart of the patent reform discussion.

Section 9 permits third parties a limited amount of time to submit to the USPTO prior art references relevant to a pending patent application. Allowing such third party submissions will increase the likelihood that examiners have available to them the most relevant ``prior art,'' thereby constituting a front-end solution for strengthening patent quality.

The bill also addresses changes to venue to address extensive forum shopping, provides for interlocutory appeals to help clarify the claims of the inventions early in the litigation process, establishes regulatory authority for the USPTO to parallel the authority of other agencies, and expands prior user rights to accommodate in part for the switch to first-inventor-to-file.

When considering these provisions together, we believe that this bill provides a balanced package of reforms that successfully accounts for the interests of numerous stakeholders in the patent system, including individual inventors, small enterprises, universities, and the varied industry groups, and that are necessary for the patent system to achieve its primary goal of advancing innovation.

This bill is the latest iteration of a process started many years ago. Deserving of thanks are the many constitutional scholars, policy advocates, private parties, and government agencies that have and continue to contribute their time, thoughts, and drafting talents to this effort, including, of course, the legislative counsel. I am pleased that finally, we have a critical mass of interested parties who understand the need for reform.

Though we developed this bill in a highly deliberative manner, using many past bills as the foundation for the provisions, I do not want to suggest that it is a ``perfect'' solution. This bill is merely the first step in a process. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences. Furthermore, there are a host of issues or varied approaches to

patent reform which are likely not even covered by the bill but may be considered at a later time. I hope to work with the many cosponsors and the diverse industry, university and inventor groups to reach further consensus as we move this bill towards final passage.

As I have said previously, ``The bottom line in this is there should be no question that the U.S. patent system produces high quality patents. Since questions have been raised about whether this is the case, the responsibility of Congress is to take a close look at the functioning of the patent system.'' High patent quality is essential to continued innovation. Litigation abuses, especially ones committed by those which thrive on low quality patents, impede the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. Thus, we must act quickly during the 110th Congress to maintain the integrity of the patent system.

Madam Speaker, for more than 40 years, Nelson W. Polsby was a leading figure in American political science years he served as editor of the subject's premier journal, the American Political Science Review, and his friendships and books and articles on the U.S. Congress, the presidency, political parties, elections, and the media made him a mentor to generations of graduate students.

Naturally warm and gregarious--with the comic timing of a master improviser--Nelson helped to build strong communities at his beloved University of California, Berkeley, at its Institute of Government Studies (IGS), which he headed for 10 years, and in the wider political science profession.

Born in 1934, Nelson Woolf Polsby came from Yankee Jewish farming stock, based in Connecticut. His family encouraged his precocious interest in current affairs. In the early 1900s a great-uncle ran for the mayoralty in New Haven as a socialist.

His father, a successful businessman, died after a surgical mishap when Nelson was 11. At prep school (there were not many Jewish farm boys, and even fewer at prep school) he was a brilliant student, turning down offers from Yale and Harvard universities to attend Johns Hopkins. This enabled him to sit in the House and Senate galleries and observe Congress at work.

His academic breakthrough came from his association with Robert Dahl's pathbreaking study of political power in New Haven in the 1950s, Who Governs? (1961). His doctorate was published as Community Power and Political Theory in 1963 and was quickly regarded as a masterpiece. He argued that rather than a single dominant elite running things, there were different elites in different areas and that this pluralism was compatible with democracy.

Polsby spent 6 years at Wesleyan University, becoming a full professor in 1967. That year he moved to Berkeley, where he remained for the rest of his career, in spite of offers from other universities, including Yale and Harvard. At an early stage, therefore, he had developed his two chief interests; the theory of democracy and how it operates in practice.

He also developed his lifelong interest in Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, in the 1960s. He showed how it had become institutionalized and how the seniority system for allocating key roles developed. He also analyzed how the large contingent of Democrats (``Dixiecrats'') from the segregationist and more conservative South, in contrast to the more liberal Democrats from the North, prevented that party from using its nominal majority to give effective leadership to Congress. Later, in How Congress Evolves (2004), he explored the decline of the South in the House and the emergence of sharper partisanship in its operations.

In 1964 he and his dynamic Berkeley colleague, Aaron Wildavsky, published Presidential Elections. Revised and published quadrennially-- its 12th edition is scheduled for publication in the summer of 2007--it remains the standard text on the topic. After Wildavsky died in 1993, Polsby was the sole author and claimed that: ``The only difference since Aaron's death is that I win the arguments.'' His prose was highly readable and marked by wide reading and incisive analysis. Polsby confessed that his insomnia was caused by noticing light in the rooms of colleagues in the early hours of the morning--they were still at work! He quipped: ``While Polsby sleeps, Wildavsky publishes.''

He also wrote witty pieces on politics under an assumed name, Arthur Clun (borrowed from Angus Wilson's Anglo-Saxon Attitudes). They prompted a publisher to offer a book contract to the mystery author. A keen observer of the British political scene, he collaborated with Geoffrey Smith, a political commentator for The Times, to publish British Government and Its Discontents in 1981.

At 37 he received the accolade of the editorship of the APSR. For 6 years he successfully managed, in a relaxed style, the journal's staff and coped with pressures from authors and reviewers.

Polsby was a popular choice to become director of the IGS in 1988. He seemed to know everybody and to have read almost everything. He invited visiting scholars and politicians to talk about their work and their experiences--his good friend, Chris Patten was a regular visitor. He did much to create a friendly atmosphere, and a high point was the afternoon tea at which he presided.

Having basked in the acclamation for his work he was desolate when his term expired in 1999, a consequence of the university's 10-year rule for tenure. The Institute had meant so much to him.

His Consequences of Party Reform (1983) was sharply critical of some of the effects of the reforms the Democratic Party made to the presidential nominating process in the late 1960s. These gave increased representation to some minorities (race and gender) but not others, and increased the influence of single-issue groups in the party's deliberations. But they also weakened the party's ability to nominate presidential candidates representative of the broad American public and to win elections. Polsby was always concerned about good government and citizenship.

If Polsby argued with someone it was a mark of his approbation. Speakers who assumed that Polsby, eyes shut and snoring in the audience, was asleep could quickly be confounded when the ``sleeper'' made a pertinent, or ferocious, intervention.

He received many honors, including an honorary degree from the University of Liverpool. He had the respect of political reporters, and many politicians, for his understanding of the constraints under which they worked, and he drew readily on his encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. politics to provide wise counsel. He regarded his frequent contributions to ``round tables'' and op-ed pages as part of a professional obligation to inform the public, entertaining ``the delusion that too few of my opinions were available to the world at large''.

At home, Polsby and his wife Linda provided rich hospitality for their many Berkeley and overseas friends. For a time they jointly wrote a column on restaurants for California magazine. He was a keen follower of the local Oakland Athletics baseball team. But most of all he loved passionate argument with friends.

I personally benefited from a number of personal contacts with Professor Polsby over the years. He always had both astute insights into what was going on in politics and a great sense of humor. But the first time I met him was perhaps the most valuable. Two or three days after I was elected to Congress, I was invited to take part in a retreat for new members from California--of which there were eight--at UC San Diego. Professor Polsby was the scholar in charge and his views on how to be effective and what to look for as a new Member of Congress have been of great value to me throughout my entire tenure in the House of Representatives.

Polsby is survived by his wife Linda, their two daughters Lisa and Emily, their son Daniel, and their grandsons Benjamin and Edward.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to honor my valiant constituent, Tec. Sgt. Irving Feinarman, as he receives the Jubilee of Liberty Medal for his courageous acts during the Normandy Invasion, and his illustrious legacy of courage throughout World War II.

Mr. Feinarman was drafted at the age of 22 into the army. He trained at Fort Meade, Camp Picket, and Fort Dix before he was sent into combat in North Africa and Sicily. After operations ended in Sicily, he was sent to train in England for the 8 months leading to a great invasion and then, as he put it, ``Before I knew it, I was on Omaha Beach on D Day!''

Tec. Sgt. Feinarman was supposed to be part of the second wave on the beach, landing at 6 a.m., but the beach was so overrun, it was difficult to tell the first from the second wave of soldiers. He and his fellow soldiers just kept fighting, cut off from their leadership, and pushing onward until they found themselves fighting in the hedgerows of Normandy.

As the Battle of the Bulge began, Feinarman had been given leave in Paris for a few days. Suddenly, however, all American soldiers were rounded up. He and his compatriots did not know that they were being put back into combat as the Germans were about to start ``their big push, trying to get us all out of Europe, period. Giving us everything they had.''

Mr. Feinarman was awarded the Bronze Star for his valor in Aachen, Germany. Surrounded by enemy tanks and cut off from the commander of his unit, he volunteered to cross the field and get help. He was shot at, but got through unharmed, and returned with the assistance his company needed.

At the end of the war, Irving Feinarman was the only man from his entire original company--over 200 soldiers--who survived and remained unwounded, an amazing victory itself.

To his family and his lifelong friend Bill Etros, Mr. Feinarman's warmth and laughter are part of every fond memory. With great humility and humor, he insists that he is no hero for his brave actions, that he was only doing his duty. Would that there were some recognition beyond a medal that this country could award Mr. Feinarman who came through the hell of war with a laugh in his heart and a smile on his lips.

I ask my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me today in expressing the Nation's gratitude to a brave soldier, Irving Feinarman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Cesar Chavez, not only because he was one of the great leaders of our country, but also because he was my friend. Cesar was a man of courage, faith, and love who shared his strength with thousands and inspired millions of Americans.

To know Cesar was to stand in awe of the enormous task he set for himself and the great moral leadership he gave to the campaign to challenge injustice and achieve peaceful change. His life, his cause, and his commitment have been and remain an inspiration to me.

His struggle for oppressed farmworkers fired our conscience. He insisted that this Nation acknowledge that every human being, regardless of origin, is of worth and is entitled to reach for a better tomorrow.

What made Cesar Chavez stand out was that he lived the principles he preached: truth and courage. He knew what it was like to be treated without respect, and to work all day, everyday, with little to show for it. A lesser man may have burned up with anger, but Chavez burned with a love of justice and hope for a brighter future.

Cesar's struggle for justice is far from over and we must continue to help others help themselves.

In Congress, we hold the power to create change. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 would bring major improvements to the lives of farmworkers in America. This bill would create a path for eligible undocumented farmworkers to apply for temporary immigration status or permanent residency based on their work experience. It would also preserve and enhance key labor protections for guestworkers.

Like Chavez, I believe there's nothing more wasteful than leaving a child with no good choices after graduation, and nothing more un- American than charging children with the offenses of their parents. With Cesar in mind, I introduced the Dream Act, a bill that helps undocumented students realize their dream of going to college and becoming permanent legal members of the communities they've always called home.

Cesar helped us see through the eyes of farmworkers--and what they saw was a dark and hopeless world. But under his leadership, they saw a new world, one of strength and hope, united against poverty and exploitation. Under UFW contracts, they won higher pay and for the first time--health coverage and pension benefits.

We will remember Cesar's fight and never forget what he taught us-- that we will succeed--that we will protect the gains that were so hard to win--that we will never give up.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor an individual whose service to the people of City of Los Angeles is as a model to us all. His dedication, talent, and integrity played a role in building Los Angeles to the cultural and cutting edge city it is today.

Philip Depoian dedicated nearly 34 years to the City of Los Angeles, serving under four Mayors and many city council members. He began his career with the city as Mayor Tom Bradley's first Scheduling Director and thereafter as Special Counsel. Mr. Depoian subsequently became the Intergovernmental Liaison to the Mayor, to the Police Department, and to Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). During his time with the mayor, Mr. Depoian took a leave of absence to work on the International Presidential Advance Planning for the White House during a portion of the Jimmy Carter Administration.

In 1994, Mr. Depoian was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley to the position of Deputy Executive Director for the Government and External Affairs of Los Angeles World Airports that includes representation for all four of LAWA's airports: Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport, Palmdale Regional Airport and Van Nuys Airport. With his extensive knowledge of governmental affairs, legislative analysis, international relations and public policy, he oversaw many divisions at LAWA including Environmental Management, Noise Management, Public Affairs and Rideshare. He also launched the Air Service Marketing Division and developed a multi-faceted approach to market LAWA's regional airports

Through Mr. Depoian's efforts, LAWA was able to expand its market overseas by creating marketing offices in Tokyo and London. He played a key role in re-establishing passenger service in Mexico and reopening U.S. Customs and Immigration there. It was through Mr. Depoian's leadership that LAWA was able to create sister-airport cooperative agreements with airports in Inchon, South Korea, and Beijing and Guangzhou, China.

Mr. Depoian is retiring to spend more time with his wife, Julie Pastor Depoian and their daughter, Katie. His retirement from city service will leave a great void to all who depended on his sage advice, his tenacity, his charm and intelligence with which he approached all tasks. He has served the city at several capacities and his innovation and expertise has helped Los Angeles keep pace with its mission as an economic hub.

It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to express my thanks, and that of a grateful city, to Philip Depoian for his years of dedication to public service. I wish him success and happiness in all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman who cosponsored this bill with me, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 580 does only one thing, it restores the checks and balances that, until last year, had long been part of the process for filling vacancies in U.S. Attorneys' offices.

I won't go through the history of how interim U.S. Attorneys were appointed, because the chairman has spelled it out, and the gentleman from North Carolina has reaffirmed that history. But I want to address the one issue my friend from North Carolina raised, which is, were we to take a longer time, this might have been, at least to his way of thinking, a better approach.

The whole goal of this bill is to restore the status quo ante before a sneak attack change on the law utilized in the PATRIOT Act without anyone calling special attention to it, undiscussed by the conferees or by the members of either this House or the other body, change that law to give the executive bench total authority in this particular area.

The Senator, a member of the other body who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the other body during this time, has said that he didn't know about the provision until a colleague alerted him to it last month. The former chairman's staff told him that the Department of Justice provided the language and that it was inserted in the conference report by a member of his staff who was made U.S. Attorney in Utah only 4 months later.

Now we have a different story from the Department of Justice. Will Moschella, the former head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, now claims sole responsibility for the provision and says he pursued the change on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or the White House.

This is a Department, the Department of Justice, that says it fired eight U.S. Attorneys for not coordinating their work 100 percent with the priorities of the Department, and yet we are supposed to believe that they are permitting a relatively low-level official to fly solo in changing Federal law on the appointment of U.S. Attorneys without any other departmental involvement. It is for this reason, I say to my friend from North Carolina, that the first thing we need to do is to go back to the status quo ante, the compromise worked out in the Reagan administration with Attorney General Ed

Meese, a Democratic House and the Republican Senate in 1986, which allowed for this process where we gave for the first time the Attorney General the right to name an interim U.S. Attorney, providing the district court with the theoretical ability, should that court choose to do so, to replace or, as has been much more likely, simply reaffirm the naming of the interim U.S. Attorney if no full U.S. Attorney had been confirmed yet by the Senate.

What is clear from the e-mails provided to the Judiciary Committee is that the Department of Justice and White House employees, whatever their motivation in pushing this proposal originally, whatever their motivation, they quickly figured out that the provision created the possibility to circumvent the Senate and decided to exploit that power.

One e-mail between the Department of Justice and the White House depicts an effort to slow-walk a nomination so an interim appointee can stay in place. The two employees discussed an interim appointee in Arkansas who they knew was unlikely to get Senate confirmation.

An employee in the White House Counsel's Office writes, ``If this is a section 546 appointment for unlimited duration, he can call himself U.S. Attorney. Our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.'''

The Attorney General's chief of staff replies, and I quote, ``We should gum this to death. Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us. Pledge a desire for a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney and otherwise hunker down.''

I suggest there is ample opportunity in the record to recognize that the change we made in the PATRIOT Act without the knowledge, as far as I can tell, of any representative of either House was an ill-considered change; and the first thing we need to do and what this bill does is bring the law back to what had existed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly outstanding gentleman, Merv Griffin. Merv is a distinguished entertainer and business entrepreneur, as well as a man who is deeply committed to helping others.

Merv is a special friend of the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center and gives generously of his time and energy to fight this disease. As a prostate cancer survivor, he is deeply aware of the importance of medical research being done by the Center which was established by the Warschaw Family at Cedar Sinai Medical Center in memory of Louis, their beloved husband and father.

Merv is one of the world's great performers. He began his distinguished career as a singer at 19, and shortly thereafter formed his own record label, Panda Records. His self-released album ``Songs by Merv Griffin'' was the first American album recorded on magnetic tape. Freddy Martin, impressed with Merv's talent, asked him to tour with his orchestra. Four years later, Merv started as a solo performer, scoring a number one hit with ``I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts.''

In 1958 Merv launched his brilliant television career as host of the game shows ``Play your Hunch'' and ``Keep Talking. ``In 1963, he hosted and produced ``Word for Word. `` The following year, he produced the incredibly successful ``Jeopardy'' and followed that with ``Wheel of Fortune.'' These two shows established Merv as a television legend.

Merv was also much admired and respected as a television talk show host. Among his most interesting and controversial guests were journalists Adele Rogers St. John, futurist Buckminster Fuller, writer Norman Mailer, and philosopher Bertrand Russell.

In addition to his show business success, Merv is a real estate magnate with prestigious properties in Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, Atlantic City and Scottsdale. He raises thoroughbred racehorses on his ranch in Carmel, CA and owns St. Clerans Manor, an 18th century estate, near Galway, Ireland.

In 2001, Merv returned to singing with the release of the album ``It's Like a Dream,'' and this year his production company began pre- production on a new syndicated game show, ``Let's Play Crossword,'' which is expected to air in September.

I am proud to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Merv Griffin for his lifetime of extraordinary accomplishments, and in expressing our appreciation for his support of the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Ms. Watson for yielding me this time.

I came to Sacramento as a State assemblyman, elected in 1972, began my service in 1973, and had never known Leo McCarthy or met him before that time. Already in the California Assembly, a speakership fight was brewing between Leo McCarthy and sort of the favored candidate over the vacancy which would occur when the Speaker at that time was planning to run for Governor and would be giving up his seat. In the course of the year and a half between the time I came to Sacramento and the time that I voted for Speaker, I got to know someone who was particularly unique in terms of public office and public service.

I would say three words characterize the service of Leo McCarthy in all aspects of his public career and, I think, of his personal life: probity, energy, and a tremendous level of integrity.

This was a very unusual public servant. He cared deeply about the public interest, about policy, about learning what needed to be known to be effective and advocating for policies, about building legislative consensus, and about making things happen.

During the 5 years that he was Speaker in the State Assembly, I had the honor of being for 4\1/2\ of those 5\1/2\ years his majority floor leader. The end of our legislative careers wasn't quite as good as the start of it because we ended up in a speakership fight that got rather out of control and 11 months of battle. I think of speakership fights in California as war by other means, and that is what we had during that time. And, unfortunately, after that time while our relationship was civil and friendly, it was never as close as it was before.

I have never met anybody who made his fundamental decisions on what legislation to prioritize, what to push based on a focus on the public interest without regard to what a particular lobbyist or a particular specialist might push, with a level of integrity and with a level of energy, it has already been referenced in terms of his career, that was really unique in public office. He really was a very fine man, a very youthful man. In fact, his passing is so tragic because of that youth and vigor that he always exhibited.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 46th anniversary of the Peace Corps.

In October 1960 then Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country and the cause of peace by living and working in the developing world.

This challenge was met with enthusiasm and led to the creation of the Peace Corps less than 5 months later on March 1, 1961. Since then, over 187,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 139 countries.

Peace Corps volunteers have made significant contributions and improved the lives of individuals and communities around the world. They have impacted agriculture, business development, information technology, education, health, HIV/AIDS, and the environment.

The Peace Corps also provides short-term assistance to countries in need through its Crisis Corps Volunteer Program. These former volunteers have assisted domestically with Hurricane Katrina efforts. Internationally, they have helped with rebuilding efforts in tsunami devastated areas of Sri Lanka and Thailand, and in Guatemala after Hurricane Stan.

In addition to their invaluable work abroad, volunteers gain marketable skills for use in the United States upon returning home. Worldwide, volunteers learn over 250 languages and dialects and receive extensive cross-cultural trainings that have been put to use in Congress, the Executive branch, the Foreign Service, education, business, finance, industry, trade, health care, and the social services sector.

I am proud to be a strong supporter of the Peace Corps which has become a symbol of our nation's commitment to progress, opportunity, and development worldwide.

On this anniversary, I would also like to acknowledge the two individuals from my district who are currently volunteering in Africa: Jorge A. Gaitan who is serving in Burkina Faso and Casey L. Kohler who is serving in Togo. I commend both of them for dedicating two years of their lives to helping others abroad and for serving as ambassadors from the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 34) to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 34 and ask my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this legislation. Last Congress, an identical bill passed unanimously through the Judiciary Committee and then passed by voice vote on suspension on the House floor.

Patents are the cornerstone of our economy and provide incentives for innovation. Therefore, it is all the more important to continually assess the effect patent litigation has on the preservation of patent quality and intellectual property rights.

H.R. 34 authorizes the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to establish pilot programs in the United States district courts where the most patent cases are filed. At minimum, five courts, spread over at least three circuits, will take part. To qualify, a court must have at least 10 judges, and at least three judges must request to take part in that program in each of the districts.

The chief judge randomly assigns the patent cases. Should that judge, who is assigned the case, decline that assignment, one of the several judges who has opted to take part in the pilot program receives the case. Further, H.R. 34 requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to report to Congress on the pilot program's success in developing judicial expertise in patent law and authorizes funds to increase both judges' familiarity with patent law and provide additional funding for clerks.

Patent law is an extremely complex body of law involving analysis of intricate technologies, and Federal district court judges spend an inordinate

amount of time on patent cases, even though patent cases only make up 1 percent of the docket. The combination of the complex science and technology, the unique patent procedures and laws, the administration of the courts and their dockets, and the sheer number of issues raised by patent litigation makes improvement of the patent adjudication system a uniquely complicated, difficult, but necessary, task.

The impetus behind this bill, in part, is the high reversal rate of district court decisions. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, reverses over 30 percent of the district court patent claim constructions. Critics assert that the high reversal rate is due to judicial inexperience and misunderstanding of patent law. The pilot program we are proposing here would address this problem by increasing judicial familiarity with patent law and providing funds to pay additional clerks to assist with patent cases.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts had concerns about the effect of the pilot program on randomness of assignments. Therefore, in an amended version of the bill, we address this issue by only allowing the district courts with a large enough pool of judges to participate in the pilot program. As a result of this change, at least three judges will take part in the program to ensure that the selection of a certain court does not mean the selection of a certain judge.

Therefore, as the pilot program increases the expertise of judges who opt into the program, it also ensures that the selection of a certain district court is not outcome-determinative, and thus it does deter forum shopping.

While recent accounts demonstrate that as time passes Federal district court judges are becoming more proficient at the application of patent claim construction rules, and while reversal rates are coming down, judicial inexperience in patent law still frequently gives weak, untested and presumptively valid patents the same kind of protection previously reserved for strong and judicially tested patents.

As the importance of intellectual property continues to grow in our economy, we can expect that the Federal courts will spend even more time on patent cases. Thus, we must act now to improve the timeliness and quality of their decisions.

A patent program, combined with a study of its results, serves as a valuable tool in assessing the ability of the courts to become more knowledgeable about the specific laws and technologies involved in patent cases. By providing extra resources and fostering judicial experience in patent law, we can lower the reversal rate of district court decisions and ensure that invalid patents do not receive protections.

Questions have arisen about why the legislation is necessary. All Federal district judges should already be striving, obviously, to enhance their knowledge of patent law through extra classes and training. I want to make clear, this bill does not serve as a cushion for judges who shy away from patent law. Instead, H.R. 34 will assess the benefits of the channeling of patent cases towards judges with greater interest and expertise in patent law and determine whether the program improves patent quality and expedites the adjudication process. This bill is only a pilot program.

Patent quality has been a long-time priority of mine, and I believe H.R. 34 is a first step to resolving some of the deficiencies in the patent system. But this in no way substitutes for comprehensive overhaul of the patent system designed to ensure that innovation is not at risk in the 21st century. By increasing judicial expertise in patent law, H.R. 34 should ultimately improve both patent quality and the litigation process.

As I mentioned previously, this bill has the full support of the Judiciary Committee and many industries and trade groups, including the pharmaceutical, technology, biotech and consumer electronics industries and intellectual property owners and other intellectual property organizations.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 34.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I simply join with my friend the ranking member in complimenting both the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the other gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

If one could patent all of Mr. Issa's ideas, the Patent Office would truly be backlogged for a very long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 34.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 44) honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 98th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 44.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today I rise to join my colleague Al Green of Texas in honoring the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, on its 98th anniversary. As we observe Black History Month this February, it is only appropriate that we recognize the Nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Ninety-eight years after its inception, we salute the NAACP for its continued commitment to promoting equality and justice for all Americans.

The NAACP has been at the forefront of every brave and courageous moment in this Nation's civil rights history. This was particularly evident during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. In 1954 the NAACP secured one of the greatest legal victories with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In 1960 the NAACP Youth Council organized a series of sit-ins at lunch counters throughout the country, an activity which I think for many of us, I know for myself, helped to pique and motivate our interest in the ability of politics and movement to make change on behalf of people. And in 1965 the NAACP successfully sought enactment of the Voting Rights Act.

Today the NAACP priorities continue to ``ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons,'' as its mission statement reads. Last year the NAACP addressed such issues as voter disenfranchisement, HIV/AIDS, and the conflict in Sudan. In 2007 the organization continues to confront these and other domestic and international concerns. Most recently, the NAACP supported Congress' efforts to increase the minimum wage.

We in this body congratulate the NAACP for this work and their continued efforts to protect the civil and human rights of our citizens. On its 98th anniversary, the NAACP remains an integral and essential part of this society. We salute the NAACP on this significant occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 122) recognizing the significance of the 65th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 9066 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and supporting the goals of the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War II.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 122.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, but no more than 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in favor of House Resolution 122. Sixty- five years ago, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, leading to the detention of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans. They were forced to live in isolated camps, to sell or lease their property, often at huge losses, and to give up their businesses and livelihoods. The freedom and civil liberties of Italian and German Americans were also violated during World War II by measures that branded them enemy aliens and went as far as restricting their movement and seizing their personal property. Thirty years passed before Executive Order 9066 was formally rescinded in 1976.

House Resolution 122 recognizes the devastating impact of that executive order. The resolution also supports and commends the efforts of the Japanese, Italian and German American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance for their history of restriction, exclusion and internment during World War II. The failure of our political and judicial system to prevent the injustices against them still reverberates today.

The decision to intern Japanese Americans was based not on evidence, but rather on fear and panic. In 1980, Congress established a Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. That commission, after conducting 20 days of hearings and receiving testimony from over 750 witnesses, concluded that Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, but resulted from ``race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.''

In 1988, Congress enacted, and I was proud to be here and a part of that fight, the Civil Liberties Act to formally acknowledge and apologize for violations of fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights of these Japanese Americans.

In 2000, President Clinton signed the Wartime Violation of Italian Americans Civil Liberties Act, which formally acknowledged civil liberty violations against Italian Americans.

The most honorable and principled way to show respect to those Americans who suffered injustices during World War II is to dedicate ourselves to fighting for the fundamental American principles of liberty of which their mistreatment remains to this day a glaring reminder.

Once again, I want to join with my colleagues in recognizing the very important work of the Japanese American, the German American and the Italian American communities in raising awareness of the National Day of Remembrance, and to particularly commend Representative Honda for his efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the chief sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Before yielding to our next speaker, I just want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Honda and Mr. Issa. For one who remembers some of the key figures in this terrible tragedy, President Roosevelt; Justice William Douglas, who is an icon and a symbol of respect for civil liberties generally, you learn what war hysteria and a tendency to extrapolate the notion of an enemy into sweeping generalizations which are not justified by the evidence is something that we should be careful of.

At this point, I am very pleased to yield to my dear friend, whose late husband I worked with very much on the 1988 legislation who was one of the great spark plugs in passing that legislation and now his widow and our colleague, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 109) recognizing the historical significance of the Pinedale Assembly Center, the reporting site for 4,823 Japanese Americans who were unjustly interned during World War II.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 109. We have been discussing in the previous resolution Executive Order 9066. When President Roosevelt signed that order, approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps, leading to the loss of their livelihoods, homes, and jobs. This action was the largest relocation of Americans in our history. Before being deported to permanent camps in desolate areas and behind barbed wires, thousands of Japanese Americans were temporarily held at assembly centers. Close to 5,000 Japanese Americans reported to the Pinedale Assembly Center in Fresno, California.

The Pinedale Assembly Center Memorial Project Committee will establish a memorial at that site, marking the tragedy that occurred there. The groundbreaking ceremony for the memorial will take place in just a few days, on February 19, 2007, 65 years after the signing of Executive Order 9066 and a day that the Japanese American community most appropriately recognizes as a national day of remembrance.

H. Res. 109 recognizes the historical significance of the site. The site is a symbol of the injustices suffered by Japanese Americans during World War II and a reminder of how fragile our civil liberties are in the face of fear, prejudice, and paranoia. I particularly want to commend my colleague, Representative Costa of California, for introducing this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize our new colleague, the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) for 5 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished and accomplished constituent: Louis Posen, who has dedicated the last 6 years of his life to two extremely important causes: achieving mental health parity and reducing the unacceptable rate of suicide that plagues this country.

Each year, more than 30,000 people die from suicide. For our youth, it is the third leading cause of death. And these deaths can be prevented.

Louis's story is remarkable in many ways. In 1993, he started his own record label, and called it Hopeless Records--not for lack of hope, but in honor of one of the first songs he produced.

It is hard to imagine that this successful label began in his living room with only $1,000 of seed money which was contributed by his helpful brother.

As Hopeless Records grew, Louis started a subsidiary label called Sub City. From this label grew the Take Action Tour, which uses the proceeds from concerts and record sales to support worthy charities.

Since 2001, the Tour has joined with the National Hopeline Network, 1-800-SUICIDE. So far, Louis and the Tour have raised over $1 million to help target the Hopeline and other mental health issues.

Louis has also collected over 100,000 signatures in support of mental health parity. He has educated both the public and their elected representatives about this and other important mental health issues.

As recently as 2000, the Federal budget had no funding for suicide prevention. Due in no small part to Louis's tireless work, Congress now provides at least modest support for programs to help prevent suicide.

We are grateful to Louis and the Tour for helping to fund programs such as the National Suicide Hotline and the Youth America Hotline. These are extremely valuable resources for individuals in times of crisis.

It is also a privilege today to recognize Reese Butler, founder of the Kristin Brooks Hope Center and the National Suicide Hotline.

Together, Reese and Louis have created a public/private partnership that has helped tens of thousands of people and is a great example of how such a partnership can work.

I strongly support legislation to provide mental health parity and additional funding for programs that will help reduce the unacceptably high number of suicides in this country. Again, I congratulate the Take Action Tour, Reese Butler and Louis Posen for their work on these critical Issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this long- overdue legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The war on terror isn't just a military operation--it's also a battle to persuade people in Arab and Muslim countries that the universal values of freedom and democracy are far superior to radical ideologies that preach intolerance, hate and violence.

This bill includes several important provisions to help us succeed in that struggle.

Building on previous legislation, it establishes an enhanced International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund to provide educational opportunities for young people.

The Fund will support teacher training, the development of modern curricula, and the translation of western publications to help ensure that students have alternatives to the radical Madrassas that nurtured the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

A related provision in the bill extends a program I authored with Mr. Knollenberg that provides scholarships for Arab and Muslim students to attend American-sponsored elementary and secondary schools in their home countries.

This can be a cost-effective means to ensure that needy students receive an American-style education and exposure to western ideas and values.

H.R. 1 also authorizes the designation of a Middle East Foundation to support democracy, human rights, civil society, independent media and the rule of law in countries throughout the greater Middle East.

Like the highly successful Asia Foundation, this non-profit, non- governmental institution will make it easier for the U.S. to support reform-minded organizations and individuals without arousing the suspicion and mistrust that often comes with direct government funding.

Consistent with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this legislation also calls for a significant expansion of U.S. international broadcasting and other public diplomacy in Arab and Muslim countries, and provides new authority that will allow the Broadcasting Board of Governors to respond quickly to a crisis overseas.

As Congress takes these steps to improve our international broadcasting capabilities, I hope the President will appoint a new Chairman of the BBG to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of that important organization.

Finally, this bill also contains some very important provisions to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It repeals unnecessary restrictions on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, strengthens the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, and establishes a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important legislation.