Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the Republic of Cape Verde. July 5, 2005 marks the 30th anniversary of this island nation's independence from Portugal and it will be celebrated by Cape Verdeans worldwide.

After an almost 20-year struggle for improved economic, social and political conditions, on July 5, 1975, under the leadership of revolutionary Amilicar Cabral, the Republic of Cape Verde emerged a country with strong economic aspirations and a commitment to the continuance of a fair and equitable society.

In 1991, the Republic of Cape Verde transitioned from a single political party to a multi-party system with no conflicts or civil unrest.

Located approximately 385 miles off the West African coast, this 10 island archipelago has developed into a key center for regional and international investment. The country's monetary and fiscal policies have made this young nation a showcase for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The United States, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, recently signed a historic 5-year Compact in excess of $110 million with the Republic of Cape Verde to support the country's goal of poverty reduction and economic growth. This agreement is a testament to Cape Verde's strong commitment to transparency and good governance, and to putting in place a policy framework that uses aid effectively.

The official language of the Republic of Cape Verde is Portuguese, but the population speaks a crioulo dialect. The rich crioulo musical and poetic tradition is filled with old fashioned stories of love, exotic journeys and family.

In the mid-19th century, Cape Verdeans were renowned for being great seafaring people, skilled in whaling and craftsmanship in the repair of ships. As a result, many Cape Verdeans settled in different parts of the world.

It is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Republic of Cape Verde on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), and a colleague who wanted to be here as well but could not be, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), to react to a unanimous decision that came down today by the Supreme Court in the MGM v. Grokster case.

That ruling is a victory for American innovation. Artists will thrive, be encouraged to create the music and movies we love, and legitimate technology companies that distribute those same movies and music will no longer have to compete with piracy profiteers. Conversely, services that breed a culture of contempt for intellectual property will have to answer for their ill-gotten gains.

In addition to providing us with movies, sound recordings, computer games and software, books and other creative works, the core copyright industry accounts for over 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Businesses that rely on copyright employ more than 11 million U.S. workers. Unfortunately, the copyright piracy taking place over peer-to-peer networks has become a great threat to the livelihoods of all copyright creators. Therefore, robust protection for creativity is necessary to support everyone from the most famous artists to the completely unknown set designer, from shareholders and executives of studios and R&D record companies and software companies to the many thousands of hourly-wage earners who work for them.

Piracy robs creators and owners of sound recordings and movies of their right to be first in the market. But most harmful, peer-to-peer networks have created a culture where too many consumers, including our children, are accustomed to receiving their choice of entertainment anytime, anyplace, in any format for free, without providing the creator his or her rightful compensation.

In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court has told businesses that facilitate copyright infringement that they will be held directly accountable for their actions. A business cannot model its success on the destruction of another's industry. To paraphrase Justice Kennedy's observation in the oral argument, unlawful expropriated property cannot be used by a business as part of its start-up capital.

This decision ``does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having lawful promise.'' It has merely found a balance between the legitimate demand of copyright owners for effective protection and the rights of others to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Just because the transmission of these files happened in the ether, does not mean that the protection should only be symbolic. Just because we are in a digital age, the definition of stealing does not change. If I go to a store and take a CD without paying for it, I am stealing. If I go to a peer-to-peer network and download a song for free, I am also stealing.

The Supreme Court has instructed businesses: ``You may not entice individuals to commit a moral and legal wrong.'' It is willing to hold businesses responsible for the part they play in promoting theft. It has issued a loud warning that companies will not be allowed to gain from illegal distribution. Those that specifically design their business models to target the demand for copyright infringement will be stuck wearing the bulls-eye.

Shed no tears: these illegitimate peer-to-peer networks are not innovators; they are free riders. Their services make it hard to teach our children about right and wrong. They send adware, spyware, viruses, and pornography on to our computers and into our homes. There are a great many reasons for parents, teachers, creators, and others to rejoice about the message the Supreme Court sent today.

Both the content and tech industry must continue developing innovative and legitimate ways to distribute content so that consumers can access entertainment on a variety of devices. This decision will improve opportunities for legitimate music and movie distribution, putting out of business the black marketeers.

This decision has provided greater protection for intellectual property rights and has provided the tools to effectively combat copyright theft. In turn, it will keep an engine of America's economic growth thriving by promoting innovation and creativity in entertainment and the arts. The decision is also a win for legitimate technology companies. Those who have structured their businesses to distribute content in innovative and legal ways that compensate the creator while providing consumers quality in choice should laud this decision.

The Founding Fathers dealt with pirates on the high seas and had the intuition to address the pirates over the air. They afforded protection in the Constitution for intellectual property rights that serve as the cornerstone of American innovation. The Supreme Court today has helped carry out the mission of article I section 8 of the Constitution by promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Mr. Speaker. Mr. Waxman and I ask our colleagues to join us today in honoring Dr. Howard Elinson, who was born on the 11th of January, 1940 in New York City and who passed away on Friday June 17th, 2005 in Los Angeles at Midway Hospital.

Howard earned his B.A. and his Ph.D. in Sociology at UCLA. He taught for 1 year at Yale and for 7 years at UCLA. He worked as Administrative Assistant and Consultant for 27 years for Congressman Henry Waxman. Six of those years were when Waxman was a State Assemblyman.

Howard is survived by his beloved and devoted brother Mark who is an admired and respected high school teacher of Social Studies in the Los Angeles City School system. He also serves as an Adviser to the L.A. Unified School District, instructing Social Studies teachers on the best techniques for teaching Social Studies.

Howard Elinson was and is unforgettable to any or all who knew or met him (no matter how casually or for how short a time). He changed the life of everyone in his personal orbit by his magnetic personality his unique insight into the human condition, his sharp wit his gigantic intellect his mastery of any human behavior subject, and his generosity and kindness.

But, unknown to most Californians and ``Angelenos'' (and unmentioned in media accounts) Howard Elinson changed the face of California and Los Angeles politics.

It was Howard Elinson who conceived and invented individually targeted computerized mail--the campaign technique that was instrumental in the 1968 primary election victory of Henry Waxman for State Assembly (by, still to this date, the largest margin against an incumbent--this one a 26 year incumbent--of his own party), and the 1972 primary and general election victory of Howard Berman for State

Assembly (the general against, ironically, a 26 year Republican incumbent).

It was Howard Elinson's ideas that were instrumental in electing Congressman Henry Waxman Congressman Howard Berman, Congressman Mel Levine Congressman Julian Dixon State Senator Herschel Rosenthal, State Assemblyman Burt Margolin, State Assemblyman Terry Friedman and countless others.

And it was Howard Elinson who inspired the strategy and direct mail efforts that led to the election of Mayor Tom Bradley in 1973.

But Howard Elinson's life was much more than about politics. As a devout and Orthodox Jew his faith came first. And imagine this dark suited, yarmulke wearing, fast-talking man writing the ``early 60's seminal study'' of voting behavior for his Ph.D. thesis. He conducted lengthy and open-ended interviews, drawing out in their homes 50 white working class voters in Bell, California--the then-place-of- entry of the vast immigration from Oklahoma, the mid-west and the South to Southern California.

These Christian and working class people had perhaps never before met a Jew--and certainly not a readily recognizable Orthodox Jew. Yet they opened their hearts to this amazing man. They trusted him--no matter how ``New York'' he spoke, no matter how foreign he might have looked. That was the uniqueness, the special nature of Howard Elinson.

Perhaps inspired by his faith, or by his innate decency, Howard Elinson affected the lives of everyone who knew him. Many dozens of interns, staff, and budding politicians that came through Henry Waxman's office sought Howard Elinson's advice and counsel--both personal and career. Hundreds of young people confused by the conflicts between a traditional religious life and modernity sought Howard Elinson's advice on how to cope--``who better to ask?'' Children flocked to him--no child was unworthy of his attention, his sense of playfulness, his devotion to the child's value as a human being. No one in need (whether for a religious cause or in personal need) was turned down for a contribution. Howard Elinson's generosity was open ended and well known.

The untimely death of Howard Elinson was not just a loss to his family and friends, but to the people who have had in him a champion of a tolerant, liberal, and more humane America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for taking out this Special Order for those of us who wanted to, but because of the craziness of our own lives, could not attend the funeral; and this is the chance to testify for the record of my own affection and love for our former chairman who so many of my colleagues have already spoken of.

I do not want to dwell on Peter Rodino's incredible role as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary during the impeachment of Richard Nixon. His modesty, his humility, combined with his wisdom and his strength are known to anyone who is alive and aware at that particular time.

I want to speak just a moment about the way he treated a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary. When I came to Congress with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), in 1982, I was assigned to that Committee on the Judiciary; and I want to speak of Peter Rodino as mentor and as an example.

In our first term in Congress, my passion at that particular point was about the State of farm workers in this country. It had been for a long time and, to a great extent, still is. At that time, a major overhaul of our immigration

laws known as, in that first Congress, the 98th, the Simpson-Mazzoli Law, was coming through our committee. There was a great deal of controversy, and a particularly contentious part of that bill that bothered me tremendously was the fact that it resurrected the Bracero program, a massive exploitation of U.S. farm workers, displacement of unprotected guest workers at the time who would come in, much like a program that had been discontinued a number of years before.

When the bill came to the floor, this, what we referred to as a bracero program, passed as an amendment, and the bill went to conference committee. I was a freshman Member of the House, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary; but because of my concern about the way farm workers were treated, Peter Rodino ensured that Speaker O'Neill put me on the conference committee of that legislation, just for that issue, just for the issue of farm workers and the guest workers program to make my fight against that legislative amendment.

Two years later, when the chairman himself took over the legislation, it had died in the conference committee, and I was not unhappy about that. It was clear that the bill was moving, it had momentum, it did some controversial things, but it also did some important things; and it was on its way to passage. But Peter Rodino held up that bill for at least 7 months against the pressures of the Reagan administration, against the pressures of the Senators who had already dealt with the legislation, against constant pressures from both the Republicans and from the House leadership to get the bill moving.

He held it up until a few of us, Leon Panetta, Chuck Schumer, and I had negotiated an alternative program to the Bracero program, an adjustment program for farm workers which both protected U.S. workers, protected immigrant farm workers, and gave them a chance to come out of the shadows and into the mainstream of American society.

Withstanding that pressure, because of an issue he cared about, was so emblematic of the kind of role that Chairman Rodino played in all kinds of areas, in all kinds of legislation that came before the Committee on the Judiciary. He was, for a mild-mannered and soft-spoken person, he was a very, very strong person; and he could withstand the pressures that come to that Committee on the Judiciary as well as anyone I have ever met.

I had a chance to, one of those rare chances you get, people pass away and you wish you had spoken to them and talked to them; I had a chance to talk to him just after he came back from the hospital and probably less than a month or 6 weeks before he passed away, and a chance to tell him what he meant to me and what he had meant to so many people around the country whose work he had benefited; and his record and his performance, his stature will always be remembered by me; but I think by millions of Americans as well.

So to his wonderful family I offer my condolences, as have my colleagues; and they should know how well he served his country from the soldier to his post-retirement teaching, and, of course, during his many years in the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, very quickly, while I strongly disagree with the underlying framework that mandates a dues cut-off if all these conditions are not met, this particular condition, I think, seeks a very important goal of American foreign policy and the implementation of U.N. Security Resolution 1559 and the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the disarming and dismantlement of all the militias in Lebanon. So I compliment the gentleman for proposing this, and ask him to reconsider the underlying structure of the bill on which we will be voting.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentlewoman for raising the subject of the U.N. Democracy Fund, but this is a wonderful illustration of the road we are embarking on here.

The gentlewoman seeks to add a condition which must be met, or else we will slash the dues to 50 percent. In other words, if the rest of the world that are member nations of the United Nations do not create and support this U.N. Democracy Fund, we will cut our dues.

The Lantos substitute authorizes a contribution to the U.N. Democracy Fund. The condition that the gentlewoman proposes on the base bill threatens to cut funds. It does not authorize any contribution by us to a very important fund. The gentlewoman spoke eloquently about what we want to achieve here, and then says we are cutting it unless somebody else does it. The Lantos substitute says this is a wonderful idea; we authorize $10 million in contributions to this fund.

There is also a second issue. The gentlewoman properly encourages contributions to democratic governments, but it is most important to push democracy in those places where there are not democratic governments. There is no eligibility in her amendment for contributions from this U.N. Democracy Fund to nongovernmental organizations and dissidents and democratic forces in nondemocratic governments.

But, by and large, the gentlewoman is focusing on an issue that is important. Unfortunately, it is in the context of a mandatory imposed cut.

I will just end by quoting a woman I know the gentlewoman respects, our former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who said on this subject, ``Withholding U.S. dues to the United Nations may sound like smart policy but would be counterproductive at this time, so soon after the Helms-Biden process was completed. It would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform.''

Withholding the dues to the U.N. is the wrong methodology. When we last built debt with the U.N., the U.S. isolated ourselves from our allies within the U.N. and made diplomacy a near impossible task. In other words, everything we share in common and want to achieve is undercut by the base bill to which the gentlewoman is proposing a condition.

I am going to support her amendment. I simply wanted to use this time to point out what I think are a few flaws in the amendment, the absence of a positive authorization of money for the U.N. Democracy Fund, and remind people why the underlying bill is in this case wrong-headed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

Because he is not on the floor at this point, I am not going to take this opportunity, I will have many more, to express in some detail my affection, my respect and my admiration for the chairman of our committee who sponsors this bill and who has announced his intent not to seek reelection to the next Congress. But once in a while in the course of both of our tenures here, I have had occasion to oppose an initiative, and in this case I do so very strongly.

On the surface this may look like a partisan conflict, but in reality it is not. The Ambassador under Ronald Reagan to the United Nations says about the bill before us, Reforming the United Nations is the right goal. Withholding our dues to the U.N. is the wrong methodology. When we last built debt to the U.N., the U.S. isolated ourselves from our allies within the U.N. and made diplomacy an impossible

task. Modernizing the United Nations to be more capable and effective must be done through engaging our allies and being a leader for creating a U.N. for a new century. That is Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, no member of the United World Federalists is she.

A recent commission co-chaired by our former speaker Newt Gingrich, not a man enamored of ideological multilateralism, prepared a report on much-needed U.N. reforms and never suggests a mandatory dues cut as a way to effectively achieve those results.

The President of the United States and this administration, which I believe is a Republican administration, indicates very strongly the error of this approach and asks this body to reconsider moving ahead with this particular bill.

But the area that I want to most focus on does not deal with the dues cut, but has a provision on peacekeeping that is particularly egregious. Based on the failure to implement five reforms by the effective date of this bill, the day after this bill is signed into law, and those reforms are much needed, I think they are on the way to happening, I do not quarrel with any of them, in fact, I think they are compelling in their nature, this bill mandates the President of the United States to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to veto any new or the expansion of any existing peacekeeping operation.

In other words, the Congress steps in, usurps the executive branch function of formulating foreign policy in exercising its discretion on what its appointee will do in the end without regard to U.S. national interests and in direct violation of executive branch prerogatives.

For the chairman of this committee to sponsor a bill that does something like that is, I would suggest, quite out of character because there is no one in this House who has made a stronger point in his career of trying to ensure that the President's power as Commander in Chief and implementer of foreign policy is maintained.

The national interest issue compels us to say this is not the right approach. What if a new U.N. peacekeeping operation, the problems with China or Russia in the context of Darfur are overcome, and there is a consensus for a new augmented operation there involving African countries, involving European countries, perhaps with no commitment whatsoever from the United States for such an operation? Because of the failure to fully implement all five of these reforms, our Ambassador, notwithstanding the humanitarian tragedy, notwithstanding how the United States will look to the rest of the world, our Ambassador is required to veto such a peacekeeping operation?

What if a situation like East Timor comes up again, and whatever the problems have been, and whatever the failures to fully implement these reforms, there is a compelling national interest reason for us to support a peacekeeping operation once again that may not involve U.S. troops or forces? Why would we want to mandate something that is fraught with constitutional problems and does a disservice to our national interest in such legislation? This is a foolish and improper amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to respond to what I think was an inadvertent misstatement by the gentleman from Indiana on what I think is an over- the-top provision of this bill, requiring a veto of any new or expanded peacekeeping operations in the Security Council. He referred to it as an ability for the U.S. to withhold its forces for it. But read the provision you have written: the President shall direct the United States permanent representative to the U.N. to use the voice, the vote and the influence of the U.S. at the U.N. to oppose the creation of a new or expansion of existing peacekeeping operations.

``Vote'' means ``veto'' at the Security Council. You veto the peacekeeping operation, it does not happen. The genocide in Darfur continues, no matter what the political will is of the body, because we have only trained 60,000 of the 68,000 peacekeepers by the day this bill passes. This has nothing to do with the debate about withholding dues as leverage. This has to do with define our own national interests in the name of I do not know what. It makes no sense, it is unconstitutional, and it should have been stricken from this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I might, to ask the gentleman from Minnesota a question.

His amendment says that nothing in this title, this title that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has brought to us, should be construed to supersede the Uniform Code of Military Justice or surrender U.S. officials to a foreign country or international tribunal.

Could the gentleman tell the body what section of the gentleman from Illinois' (Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed to require the surrender of officials, what section of the gentleman from Illinois' (Chairman Hyde) bill could be construed as requiring superseding the Uniform Code of Military Justice? I am certainly unaware of any such section, and I am certainly unaware of any desire by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) to present to the body such a section.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, would it be fair to say that, in effect, his effort is an effort to gild the lily?

Mr. Speaker, today I join Representative Smith (TX), Boucher, Goodlatte, Lofgren and Schiff in introducing the Patent Act of 2005 (PA Act). Introduction of this legislation follows the acknowledgment by multiple sources that the current patent system is flawed. The release of 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 an economic analysis of patent law in a book titled Innovation and Its Discontents all speak to the challenges facing the patent system today. These accounts make 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, the PA Act contains a number of provisions designed to improve patent quality, deter abusive practices by unscrupulous patent holders, and provide meaningful, low-cost alternatives to litigation for challenging the patent validity. Additionally, the PA Act begins to harmonize U.S. patent law with those of foreign countries.

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 patents that are truly inventive. 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 patent harmonization. We have considered the multitude of comments received on prior patent bills as well as the more recent subcommittee print. We acknowledge that the problems are difficult and, as yet, without agreed-upon solutions. It is clear, however, that introduction of this 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 soon to address these problems.

Thus, we introduce this bill in the beginning of this Congress with the intent of framing the debate and with every intention of passing legislation in the 109th Congress.

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

Section 3 alters the conditions for patentability. Currently, the U.S. grants patents to whomever is ``first to invent.'' The bill amends this standard so that the ``first inventor to file'' is entitled to the ownership of a patent. This distinction encourages inventors to file immediately, enabling the invention to enter the public realm more quickly. Additionally, this modification will bring U.S. patent laws into harmony with the patent law in many foreign countries.

Section 6 addresses the unfair incentives currently existing for patent holders who indiscriminately issue licensing letters. Patent holders 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 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 6 addresses this situation by ensuring that recipients of licensing letters will not be exposed to liability for willful infringement unless the letter specifically states the acts of infringement and identifies each particular claim and each product that the patent owners believes have been infringed.

Section 7 is designed to address the negative effect on innovation created by patent ``trolls.'' We have learned of countless situations in which patent holders, making no effort to commercialize their inventions, lurk in the shadows until another party has invested substantial resources in a business or product that may infringe on the unutilized invention. The patent troll then steps out of the shadows and demands that the alleged infringer pay a significant licensing fee to avoid an infringement suit. The alleged infringer often feels compelled to pay almost any price named by the patent troll because, under current law, a permanent injunction issues automatically upon a finding of infringement. Issuance of a permanent injunction would, in turn, cause the alleged infringer to lose the substantial investment made in the allegedly infringing business or product.

While we may question their motives, we do not question the right of patent trolls to sue for patent infringement, obtain damages, and seek a permanent injunction. However, the issuance of a permanent injunction should not be granted automatically upon a finding of infringement. Rather, when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction, courts should weigh all the equities, including for example, the ``unclean hands'' of the patent trolls, the failure to commercialize the patented invention, the social utility of the infringing activity, and the loss of invested resources by the infringer. After weighing the equities, the court may still decide to issue a permanent injunction, but at least the court will have ensured that the injunction serves the public interest. Section 7 accomplishes this goal.

Section 8 allows the Director of the USPTO to establish regulations limiting the circumstances under which a patent applicant may file a continuation application. Unfortunately, current practice guiding continuation applications is prone to abuse. There are limited restrictions specifying the circumstances under which an applicant can broaden the claims described in the patent application and still retain the original filing date. This practice may enable the applicant to claim the priority rights to another's invention by appropriating that new invention as an expansion of the claims in the original application. By authorizing the Director to change current policy on continuation applications, the bill tasks the PTO with tackling current abuses in the application process.

Section 9 creates a post-grant opposition procedure. In certain limited circumstances, opposition allows parties to challenge a granted patent through an expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation. In addition, Section 9 provides a severely needed fix for the inter partes re-examination procedure, which provides third parties a limited opportunity to request that the PTO Director re-examine an issued patent. The current limitations on the inter partes re- examination process restricts its utility so drastically that it has been employed only a handful of times. Section 9 increases the utility of this re-examination process by relaxing its estoppel provisions. Further, it expands the scope of the re-examination procedure to include redress for all patent applications regardless of when filed.

Section 10 permits patent examiners, to consider certain materials within a limited time frame submitted by third parties regarding a pending patent application. Allowing such third party submissions will increase the likelihood that examiners are cognizant of the most relevant ``prior art,'' thereby constituting a front-end solution for strengthening patent quality.

Other provisions include an expansion of prior user rights, publication of all application at 18 months, limitation on the calculation of damages to the value of the invention, and changes to the duty of candor defense and elimination of the best mode requirement.

When considering these provisions together, we believe that this bill provides the comprehensive reform necessary for the patent system to achieve its primary goal of promoting innovation.

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property,

Mr. Smith, deserves credit for bringing these issues to the forefront through numerous hearings on patent quality. In addition, I would especially like to thank Congressman Boucher with whom I have been working on patent reform for the past few years. Also deserving of thanks are the many constitutional scholars, policy advocates, private parties, and government agencies that continue to contribute their time, thoughts, and drafting talents to this effort. I am pleased that, finally, at least a consensus has emerged among the various collaborators in support of the basic ``post grant opposition'' approach embodied in the legislation. This bill is the latest iteration of a process we started over four years ago.

Though we developed this bill in a highly collaborative and deliberative manner, I do not want to suggest that it is a ``perfect'' solution. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences.

As I have said previously, ``The bottom line in this: 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 those which thrive on low quality patents, impede the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. Thus, we must act during the 109th Congress to maintain the integrity of the patent system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Linda Liss Fine. Linda was a compassionate and courageous individual whose dedication and service greatly enhanced the lives of many in Chicago's elderly Jewish community.

Linda was respected and admired by her colleagues, friends and family. Her creative and pioneering work as Director of Selfhelp, an independent organization providing the residential and health care needs of the Jewish elderly, has been recognized and greatly appreciated by many. During her time with Selfhelp, Linda immersed herself in community activities focusing on improving the quality of life of everyone with whom she came in contact. Through her devotion and extraordinary sense of caring, she transformed the institution into a vibrant community where elderly residents would enjoy cultural events such as classical music concerts, take part in educational events such as computer classes and otherwise maintain active and full lives. She was an outstanding member of Chicago's Jewish community and she immeasurably improved many people's lives under her care. Her residents viewed Linda not as merely an administrator, but as a cherished member of the family.

Born in Chicago in 1942, Linda Liss Fine attended Chicago's public schools before embarking on career in the health care profession. As a registered nurse, she worked in a variety of hospital and home health care positions. After work, and while raising three children, she worked tirelessly and attended classes at night, completing her university degree in health care administration.

Linda is survived by her husband, Bernard, son David, daughters Dawn and Dana, sister Hedda, several grandchildren and many relatives across the country.

Linda Liss Fine will be missed by all those whose lives she touched and will be remembered affectionately by her many friends and colleagues. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an outstanding individual, a loving wife and mother, selfless caretaker and innovative director--Linda Liss Fine, a woman who brought joy and love into the lives of so many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the publication of an English translation of Passage Through Hell: A Memoir. The original version was written in 1955 by Armenian poet, educator and author Armen Anush. It has been published by Hagop and Klar Manjikian on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Armen Anush was an eyewitness to the deportation and massacre of Armenians by the Turks during 1915-1916. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community members and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes. Then the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination.

From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation and disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey. The Armenian Genocide was a tragedy not only for the Armenian people but a tragedy for all humanity. Passage Through Hell: A Memoir is critically important because it recounts the horrors of genocide and the psychological impact it had on the survivors.

I hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate the memory of genocide's victims. This book should be read by all whose ancestors were in any way involved and by everyone who cares about understanding history.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Hagop and Klar Manjikian for making this important book available in English.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a talented and creative friend, Cheryl Saban, who is being honored by Parents' Action for Children for her many outstanding contributions and longtime support of the organization. Parents' Action for Children

is a national organization dedicated to advancing the interests of families and young children. Cheryl's heartfelt compassion for children make her an outstanding choice for the recognition.

Cheryl is a selfless, caring person of enormous energy, intellect talent and integrity. She is an author, producer, philanthropist and child advocate. As a mother of four, she understands the critical services needed by parents to ensure the wellbeing and future success of their children. She actively transforms this understanding into a plethora of positive and highly effective projects.

Cheryl authored 50 Ways to Save Our Children and founded the 50 Ways to Save our Children Foundation which provides resource guides for individuals interested in finding ways to help children and families. She also authored a toddler series, Miracle Child. Griffin. Sins of the Mother and Recipe for a Good Marriage. Her credits also include television films ``Au Pair'' and ``Au Pair II' which she co-wrote and co-executive produced for the Fox Family Channel.

In addition to devoting time and energy to her own initiatives, Cheryl works diligently with many of America's most respected non- profits. She is a Board Trustee of Children's Hospital Los Angeles where she focuses on pediatric research and volunteers in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. She serves on the Board of United Friends of the Children, an organization dedicated to foster youth, on the Advisory Board of the Marc and Jane Nathanson Mental Health Resource Center at UCLA and on the Boards of Parents' Action for Children, and Los Angeles Universal Preschool, and Crossroads School. She is a member of Every Child Foundation and recently served on the Los Angeles City Commission for Children, Youth and Their Families.

Cheryl has a master's degree in Psychology and has recently received a Ph.D. in Pediatric Psychology. Married to Haim Saban, together they have made a tremendous difference in the lives of countless numbers of children and their families.

I am proud to be one of the many friends of this charming and accomplished woman, and it is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Cheryl Saban for her outstanding contributions to our community.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. The point she raises now brings to mind a point I wanted to make about what is really an unbelievably reckless amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) regarding empowering local police to detain and remove people based on illegal immigration status without checking or verifying that status with INS or the Federal agencies.

A group of people with no training in this particular effort will have the ability to pick up people, assume, or come to the conclusion that person is not here in legal status and, without checking with the Federal Government or the INS, to deport and remove that person from this country. That person may be an asylee, having a well-founded fear of persecution. The person may

not have the right documents on him but be a naturalized citizen or be here under some kind of temporary visa that he cannot show the police. It will all of a sudden give thousands and thousands of law enforcement officials an ability to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, marking the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Today, as those who witnessed the horrific crimes perpetrated during the Holocaust are becoming fewer, great effort must be taken to ensure that both we and generations to come will never forget this, the most monstrous event in the history of the modern world.

This year, we mark this solemn day by reflecting on the liberation of the Jews of Europe and the pursuit of those responsible for committing these heinous offenses. Sixty years ago as allied forces pressed farther into reaches of Nazi-occupied Europe, the names of places such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, and Mauthausen had yet to be seared into our collective conscious. As allied soldiers broke down the doors of the camps, they were overwhelmed by the sights of human suffering that confronted them. The scale of that suffering was unimaginable.

The allied powers, faced with the enormous task of bringing to justice the perpetrators of this genocide, together established the International Military Tribunal. The legacy of Nuremberg lives on in the tribunals held for perpetrators of war crimes in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia among others.

Today we remember those destroyed by the Nazis, but unlike sixty years ago, we cannot stay silent when confronted by such crises as the genocide now occurring in Darfur. We must renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on innocent human beings.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me time.

I see the logic of the majority. If they were commenting on the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment is an amendment designed to quash evidence coming from an unlawful search and seizure that could allow the conviction of sexual predators. The fifth amendment gives sexual predators the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. The sixth amendment allows wily and cunning lawyers to use cross examination and technical rules to keep sexual predators from getting convicted.

This is how the majority chooses to interpret, in this particular case, the substance and the intent of a series of amendments made to the bill we voted on last week.

I have great respect for the chairman of the committee. He is a fair and honest man, and he has worked hard to defend the jurisdiction of the committee. And what has been done here with this majority report in that context is a tremendous disappointment to me. It essentially left us with no recourse but to bring a motion like this to the floor of the House.

To create the absurd situation and then characterize the result of a particular amendment by that absurd situation does not do any justice or any service to this process, to this institution, or to our committee.

We depend, we in the minority depend on a process that relies on honesty and good faith and the duties and those duties, I truly believe, were breached in the case of this report.

The minority has regarded to file its dissenting views without the benefit of having to have seen the report which they are dissenting. That is inherently an illogical system, but we have gone along with it, but when something like this happens, it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of that particular process.

I think a great wrong has been done to several Members of this body by virtue of the way the majority has characterized this amendment. I think those characterizations should be withdrawn. I think an apology should be made to them, and I urge the passage of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, April 24th, marks the 90th anniversary of the beginning the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to commemorate this terrible chapter in human history, and to help ensure that it will never be forgotten.

On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes. Then the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination.

From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey.

We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all humanity. It is our duty to remember, to speak out and to teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people.

We hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate as well the memory of genocide's victims.

Sadly, we cannot say humanity has progressed to the point where genocide has become unthinkable. We have only to recall the ``killing fields'' of Cambodia, mass killings in Rwanda, ``ethnic cleansing'' in Bosnia and Kosovo, and most recently, the unspeakable horrors in Darfur, Sudan to see that the threat of genocide persists. We must renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on innocent human beings.

We also remember this day because it is a time for us to celebrate the contribution of the Armenian community in America--including hundreds of thousands in California--to the richness of our character and culture. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their success is moving testimony to the truth that tyranny and evil cannot extinguish the vitality of the human spirit.

The United States has an ongoing opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system.

Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 167, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this worthy legislation.

Prior to reporting S. 167 by voice vote last month, the Committee on the Judiciary gave the bill all due deliberation. The provisions in this bill and its precursor, H.R. 4077, which passed the House last year, were the subject of multiple subcommittee hearings and markups.

Through the extensive consideration given on the provisions of S. 167, the Committee on the Judiciary has agreed to a bill that makes important contributions to the fight against the proliferation of pirated copyrighted works and that encourages the preservation and protection of creative content.

In addition to providing us with entertainment and education in the form of movies, sound recordings, software, books, computer games and other products, the core copyright industries account for over 6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Businesses that rely on copyright employ more than 11 million U.S. workers. Robust protection for creativity supports everyone from the most famous artist to the completely unknown set designer.

Unfortunately, copyright piracy has become a grave threat to the livelihoods of all copyright creators. We live in an environment where consumers want their choice of entertainment to be available at any time, in any place, in any format. While copyright owners are excited by the new opportunities to allow greater access to their works, they must battle with those that give away their products for free.

Pirates have taken over the ship of distribution and now provide users with sound recordings before they are released, copies of movies for $1 on the street, and pirated computer software as part of the sale of computers. Without adequate copyright protection, the developers and creators of new and original works have no protection from the rampant theft of their work that goes on every day. While not a magic bullet, S. 167 will play a valuable role in addressing the piracy problem. Last year's bill provided more expansive protection. However, S. 167 contains important disincentives to the making of unauthorized use of a copyrighted work. It isolates a number of areas necessary to preserve the integrity of the works.

It has become clear that pirates are most harmful when a creator delivers a new or highly anticipated product. Title I of S. 167 is designed to prevent the pirates from obtaining an initial copy of a motion picture through camcording or distributing by computer network a work being prepared for commercial distribution. Section 102 clarifies that it is a felony to surreptitiously record a movie in a theater. This section deals with the growing phenomenon of copyright thieves who use portable digital video recorders to record movies of theater screens during public exhibitions. Organized piracy rings then distribute copies of these surreptitious recordings both online and on the streets.

This section also provides immunity for a movie theater owner who detains

a person who is camcording the movie. It also allows those affected by the crime to file a victim impact statement to illustrate the loss accrued by the piracy. This, hopefully, will deter those who contribute to the ease with which pirated material is obtained.

Even more detrimental to copyright owners than camcording a movie in the theaters is the effect of distributing an unauthorized copy of a movie or sound recording as it is prepared for commercial distribution. Distributing a film before final edits are made can undermine artistic integrity and can also harm the film's commercial prospects because the release is typically coordinated with a marketing effort. Sections 103 and 104 provide for enhanced penalties for prerelease of a work being prepared for commercial distribution. Furthermore, it requires the Copyright Office to establish rules for preregistration of works. We need to address the problems generated when new works are leaked and pirated before they are made available for sale, the prerelease problem.

For example, today, any basement can become a top-of-the-line recording studio, so the law and Copyright Office regulations must reflect the realities of the fast-paced creative entertainment businesses. Unauthorized prereleases are unfair to an artist because his or her song is circulating even before it is in its final form. Just as we edit letters and speeches, we must allow songwriters to tweak and refine their works. They deserve to have the tools to penalize those who thrive on the ability to leak a song or CD before it is available in stores or other legitimate avenues of commerce.

This bill also addresses consumer concerns related to preserving content in orphan works, those works not available in the marketplace at a reasonable price. In section 402 of the bill, we have amended the Copyright Act to enable libraries and archives to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display all orphan works in the course of their preservation, scholarly and research activities.

Furthermore, sections 302 and 312 ensure that the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation are reauthorized. These groups help maintain our history of film, which helps foster the creative process.

Title III of S. 167 did generate some concern during the hearings held by the Committee on the Judiciary because it resolves a legal question at the heart of a pending Federal litigation. The Family Movie Act inappropriately intervenes in this pending legislation, shields one specific company from liability for altering the viewed performance.

Directors should have the ability to control the content they create. Although I personally oppose this section, I, like many Members of the Committee on the Judiciary, believe that the bulk of the anti-piracy provisions contained in S. 167 are essential and therefore support the bill as a whole.

The provisions included in S. 167 are derived from a more expansive bill passed by the House last year, H.R. 4077, which contained multiple sections designed to give additional resources statutory authority and incentives to law enforcement authorities to make them productive participants in the anti-piracy battle.

There were also several provisions addressing the problem of copyright infringing files being illegally offered for distribution through peer-to-peer file-swapping networks. I urge the committee and my colleagues to include these provisions in future legislation.

It is worth noting that, while not universally embraced, S. 167 has gained widespread consensus support. Groups as diverse as the Video Software Dealers Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, and the American Medical Association have written in support. On balance, S. 167 is an important advancement in the ongoing effort to battle copyright piracy, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the founder and chair of the Congressional Entertainment Caucus, and a very diligent fighter for the protection of intellectual property and the vibrancy of an industry very important to our area and to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my better judgment notwithstanding, the arguments on this one aspect of the bill on which the majority and I disagree requires me to make just a couple of points.

There is no one who thinks parents do not have and should not have the right to skip over, pass up or omit scenes of any video production they think are inappropriate for their children to see. No one debates that. No one debates they have the right to do that.

What some of us do debate is the right of a commercial enterprise to peddle a technology which fundamentally alters the creator's work any more than some publisher has the right to take an unabridged version of a book that is under copyright, in order to excerpt and take out objectionable patches of that book, and then make a commercial profit without the permission of the copyright owner in peddling that book. That is the issue underlying our opposition to the Family Movie Act.

Parents should have all of these rights, including the right to just say ``no'' to their kids watching a movie or reading a book that is not appropriate. There is no dispute about that. This is a dispute about a particular type of technology that this bill seeks to immunize from liability for employing some young people to decide what someone else should see and not see. But I will not get myself too worked up about a bill that I plan to actively support.

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