Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support House passage of H.R. 1038. At least five times over the past 6 or 7 years I have risen to support legislation virtually identical to H.R. 1038. Each time the legislation has stalled in the Senate.

This bill has a very narrow purpose and effect. It overturns the 1998 Lexecon decision of the Supreme Court. That decision held that a multidistrct litigation transferred to a Federal court for pretrial proceedings cannot be retained by that court for trial purpose. In so holding, the Lexecon decision upset decades of practice by the multidistrict litigation panel and Federal district courts. The Lexecon decision also increases the cost and complexity of such multidistrict litigations by requiring courts other than the transferee court which has overseen the discovery and other pretrial proceedings to conduct a trial.

The provisions of this bill overturn Lexecon in a carefully calibrated manner. While the bill allows a transferee court to retain a case for a trial on liability issues and, when appropriate, on punitive damages, it creates a presumption that the trial of compensatory damages will be remanded to the transferor court. In so doing, the bill is careful to overturn the Lexecon decision without expanding the power previously exercised by transferee courts. More importantly, the presumption regarding the trial of compensatory damages ensures that plaintiffs will not be unduly burdened in pursuit of their claims.

In addition, this bill makes technical and conforming corrections to the provisions in the 2002 Department of Justice authorization measure relating to the consolidation of mass tort cases. While not universally endorsed, most Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary have supported this piece of legislation each time it is submitted for consideration, and I ask my colleagues to once again vote for H.R. 1038.

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

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

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

I rise in support of House passage of H.R. 683. This bill makes important changes designed to protect famous trademark owners against the use of similar marks that might harm a company's reputation or confuse consumers. It also manages to balance trademark law with first amendment concerns.

In 1995, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act was passed in order to ``protect famous trademarks from subsequent uses that blur the distinctiveness of the mark or tarnish or disparage it.'' The purpose of the act was to bring uniformity and consistency to the protection of famous marks, a goal that had been complicated by differing State dilution laws.

However, since 1995, a significant split had developed among the courts in the interpretation of key elements of the dilution act. The Supreme Court eventually took a step to resolve the controversy in its recent decision in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, the Victoria's Secret case, where it interpreted the words ``cause dilution'' in the act to require a demonstration of actual dilution.

As a result of this decision, trademark holders are now required to wait until the injury happens before bringing suit. Victims of dilution have asserted that the injury caused by dilution constitutes the gradual diminution or whittling away at the value of the famous mark. They analogize the effects of dilution to 100 bee stings, where significant injury is caused by the cumulative effect, not just by one.

Section 2(c)(1) of this bill addresses this problem by changing the standard to ``likelihood of dilution.'' By lowering the standard, proof of actual harm would no longer be a prerequisite to injunctive relief, and therefore extensive damage cannot be done before relief can be sought. Furthermore, the bill includes a clear reference to dilution by tarnishment. This allows the trademark owner to protect his mark from associations which harm the reputation of the famous trademark. The bill narrows the reach of a dilution cause of action. It tightens the definition of fame by providing a specific list of factors, and eliminates the protection for marks that are famous only in niche markets.

While not universally supported, this bill has now garnered the support of the ACLU for accommodating its first amendment concerns. In section 2(c)(3), the bill addresses the balance between the rights of trademark holders and the first amendment by providing an exemption for purposes of identifying and parodying, criticizing or commenting on the famous mark. The trade groups representing intellectual property owners, AIPLA, INTA and IPO, have all endorsed this bill.

H.R. 683 achieves an important balance in the protection of intellectual property. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and to the ranking member of the committee, I thank him for involving me in what I think is a very important effort. I think both he and I are not prone to come to the floor on Special Orders, and I think our presence here tonight indicates just how strongly we feel about what is being done to a process that everyone participating in this Special Order has spent a great deal of time on.

If there is a member of the majority or a staff member of the majority watching this, I would hope they might sit back, get past the irritation over any particular action the committee has taken that they may not have liked and think what they have done and realize that what they have done in making these rules changes unilaterally and breaching the fundamental commitment to a bipartisan process, what that ultimately will do and how that will play out in terms of destroying the concept of an effective and meaningful bipartisan Ethics Committee process.

And that notwithstanding the constitutional mandate, we will be left with a situation where the rules of the House and the standards of conduct that we have promulgated and expect Members to adhere to will become essentially unenforceable because of the breach in the commitment to a bipartisan approach to these issues.

For me, that approach means the members of the committee throw aside the question of how the partisan implications of a particular action play out and search for the facts and apply the rules of official conduct and the appropriate standards that have been adopted by this body and apply those to those facts in a fair, objective, and independent way without focusing primarily on the political or partisan ramifications of that.

Both of the previous speakers have spent a great deal of time both talking about the process and developing the rule. When I was asked to become the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, Minority Leader Gephardt told me about this and after a little bit of depression at the thought that I would have to spend a serious amount of time doing this because, as the gentleman from Maryland mentioned, none of us relish this particular job, it is a great deal of time, its direct impact on our own constituents or on the substantive issues we care about is relatively minor. We are here and we have taken this position in the past because of our own commitment to the institution, a very important institution, the House of Representatives, and how the work of that House is going to be conducted.

But when Mr. Gephardt asked me to do it, I said, Dick, I don't want to fight

the political battles and the partisan battles in the Ethics Committee. He says, The reason I am asking you to take this position is because I want to end the Ethics Committee as a place where partisan battles will be carried out. It is my commitment to that process that causes me to ask you to take this position.

With that understanding, I did. And I had the great pleasure of working with three separate Republican chairmen, members of the majority, our former colleague Jim Hansen for the first 2 years, my friend and colleague Lamar Smith for the next 2 years, and in the last 2 years of the Congress for the recent chairman of the committee, Joel Hefley. In those 6 years with three different chairmen and a number of different members of the committee, particularly on the majority side, if I can think of two votes, two times where in a disciplinary matter there was a division of the vote, that we did not reach a consensus that was accepted initially by the chair and the ranking member and then by the entire committee, I cannot think of more than two votes.

And on the two times when I remember there being some divided votes, they were not done on partisan grounds; they were done on individual members' interpretations of the facts applying the rules of conduct to those facts.

What has happened here would have been unthinkable during those 6 years, that the majority party would decide to embed fundamental changes in the rules inside the larger House rules package, thereby forcing those rules to be addressed in a partisan fashion and then, without consultation with the minority, without showing the minority what those rules changes were for there to be any possible give-and- take or effort to achieve a consensus, ramming through those changes in the Ethics Committee rules in a way that I will try to establish, as I think both of the colleagues preceding me have, hurt the process and hurt it very fundamentally.

So apart from anything else and even the substantive provisions of these rules changes, the fact that it would be done on a partisan basis, without consultation, without an effort to reach a consensus, without coming from the bipartisan Ethics Committee was a terrible, terrible mistake and shakes all of our confidence in whether this process is even a process we want to participate in.

I say all of that preliminarily just to say that I hope calmer minds and people who put their concern for the institution above their irritation with a particular case will think again about what they have done and convene some process by which we can bring back the comity that has existed, I think, during the gentleman from West Virginia's tenure as ranking member and certainly for the 6 years preceding that when I was ranking member, because I think we will all be better served by that.

I do want to make one other point. This is the only committee in the House that is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. It was the intention of this committee at the creation of this committee and the formation of this committee that things be done on a bipartisan basis, staff hired on a bipartisan basis, disciplinary matters dealt with on a bipartisan basis, advise and consent. When people want to know interpretations, we approach it without regard to the political and partisan implications of the Member who is requesting or the individual who is the object of the disciplinary investigation.

Going to the rules changes, when former Congressman Tauzin offered an amendment to the ethics task force report which provided automatic dismissal for 180 days, as both my colleagues who preceded me have mentioned, a far more lenient provision than the one adopted at this particular time, our friend and colleague Henry Hyde said, Why not adopt it? When juries deadlock, the case is dismissed.

But in saying so, he made our point. The judge does not tell the jury, if you don't decide in 2 days or 3 days or any number of days, if you are deadlocked at that point, the case is dismissed. You do not create incentives for people not to decide. With a rule like this in place, the respondent, the object of the complaint, knows that stonewalling ultimately leads to dismissal, that Members of the respondent's political party, be they Democrat or Republican, are now incentivized not to move ahead with the investigation because a certain result is predetermined after a certain number of days, and the kind of collaboration and coordination that takes place between the chair and the ranking member as they come to a determination of whether or not they should seek to create an investigative subcommittee or to ask the full committee to create an investigative subcommittee is over.

There can be many issues in these complaints. Some of them maybe should go forward. Some of them should not. There is a whole process by which staff and the Chair and the ranking member work together to investigate and try to come to a collaborative determination. Either one of them under the rules that have existed have a right to put the item on the agenda if they think there is no further chance at consensus. But the one thing I know is that when you set a time limit, especially a time limit as short as this one, for the automatic dismissal, you are incentivizing those who do not want the process to go forward without regard to what the facts are.

You are incentivizing them to make sure that nothing happens, because the result, the conclusion of dismissal is preordained. It is a terrible mistake. It is an assault on the collaborative process that this committee should operate under and just has to be changed if we are going to really move forward in a positive way.

The second rule that allows the demand of an immediate adjudication is also defective, because by doing so, the respondent can obviate the investigative process and it can be motivated by the same intent, to cut short the investigation, to take away the give-and-take between the parties so that they can come to an agreed-upon statement which should be sent by the full committee to the investigative subcommittee to pursue, weeding out the false complaints or the minor issues, the ones that do not raise substantial questions that the rules were violated, including the ones that do. It is just another way of undermining that process, because you cut short the whole investigation. That preliminary investigation is very important in making this whole process work.

Finally, my last comment is on the collusion rule, where you explicitly allow attorneys to represent more than one party in a matter. Not leaving it to the discretion of the committee, but saying that an attorney has a right to represent a number of the different people being investigated, you are essentially telling the Member of Congress who is the object of a complaint, Go out, hire the lawyer, pay for him to represent anybody on your staff or any of your friends who might be the subject of this investigation as well and approach a common defense which precludes the ability to really effectively ascertain the facts. It is truly a collusion rule. There may be times when it is appropriate for the attorney to represent more than one person involved in the matter, but to give it as a matter of right to the respondent in this kind of a case sets up a dynamic, again, that destroys the ability of the Ethics Committee to function effectively and efficiently.

With all of those comments, they all go to the overarching point: substantively, these rules are a mistake. The way they were done is intolerable. I do not know how one could continue to be part of a process when we have abandoned that kind of comity and bipartisanship that has been a hallmark of this process. The same leadership that decided to do this, I think, in a fit of anger and perhaps in a moment of unbridled passion has over and over again prior to this time reaffirmed their desire to have a bipartisan process as evidenced by the people they appointed and by the way those people proceeded and by the efforts to do everything on a collaborative basis.

And it worked. And it worked well. We did not go crazy going after Members on pointless grounds. We were not a runaway committee. We also, conversely, did not throw evidence of real violations into the trash can and ignore them. Why we would want to alter that fundamental process at this particular point to the damage of this institution, I do not know.

If the gentleman would yield further, a tremendous amount goes on before it ever gets to a recommendation by the Chair and the ranking member to the full committee to create the investigative subcommittee.

I think of cases where staff had to go to county courthouses to review deeds and a whole series of public records to decide if there was any basis for moving forward. It is true that the staff at that point does not have the power of subpoena and does not have the power to get records that are not in the public domain, but they do have the power to informally talk to people who would have information about this, to look at public records.

You cannot do this in 45 days. You cannot come to a serious recommendation that you are going to make to the full committee, that both the Chair and the ranking member can feel comfortable that they can go to the full committee and say we think now is the time to create the investigative subcommittee, unless you have that preliminary work. Otherwise, you just might as well send everything to an investigative subcommittee.

The flip side of an automatic dismissal is every charge gets investigated, with subpoenas and depositions and seizing of records through warrants, which would be a terrible thing for the due process rights of Members. So we are messing with something we should not be messing with here, and it is going to hurt the institution.

By the way, if this were not part of the larger rules package on an opening day, a very small part in terms of the substantive works, I believe there are Members on the other side of the aisle who would have supported the position we are now taking on the substance of these rules; and I know there were members of the committee that would have fully, both present and former, understood how dangerous these rule changes were.

If the gentleman would yield on that, the irony was at the time of the greatest anger about committee action, which was the case the gentleman participated in dealing with a sitting Speaker of the House, the response was not then to change every rule that bothered him. It was to create a bipartisan task force to look at the rules, to look at it in the context of that case, to see if anything should be changed. That is the appropriate response if you are upset with the way some particular rule seems to be working at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined by my colleague Bill Delahunt (D-MA) in introducing the Civil Liberties Restoration Act.

Three and a half years ago, following the attacks of Sept. 11th, the Attorney General asked Congress for a long list of new powers he felt were necessary to protect the United States from future terrorist attacks. Six weeks later, Congress granted those powers in the USA PATRIOT Act.

I voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001 because I felt that a number of its provisions provided essential tools to fight terrorism. I did so expecting that Congress would undertake diligent oversight of the Attorney General's use of the tools we provided. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

The Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA) is our effort to return oversight to our legal system and restore the kind of checks and balances that are the foundation of our government.

Since we enacted the PATRIOT Act almost, there has been tremendous public debate about its breadth and implications on due process and privacy. I do believe that there are some misperceptions about the law and its effects, but I also believe that many of the concerns raised are legitimate and worthy of review by Congress.

The CLRA does not repeal any part of the PATRIOT Act, nor does it in any way impede the ability of agencies to share information. Instead, it inserts safeguards in a number of PATRIOT provisions.

The bill addresses two pieces of the PATRIOT Act in particular. First, it ensures that when the Attorney General asks a business or a library for personal records, he must have reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is an agent of a foreign power. Second, the bill would make clear that evidence gained in secret searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal proceeding without providing, at the very least, a summary of that evidence to the defendant's lawyers. One of my biggest concerns when we passed the PATRIOT Act was that the changes we made in FISA would encourage law enforcement to circumvent the protections of the 4th Amendment by conducting searches for criminal investigations through FISA authority rather than establishing probable cause. This provision in the CLRA does not take away any of the powers we provided in the PATRIOT Act. It simply requires that if the government wants to bring the fruits of a secret search into a criminal courtroom it must share the information with the defendant under existing special procedures for classified information.

The Civil Liberties Restoration Act deals with more than the PATRIOT Act. It also addresses a number of unilateral policy actions taken by Attorney General Ashcroft both before and after enactment of the PATRIOT Act without consultation with or input from the Congress. For example, the Administration has undertaken the `mining' of data from public and non-public databases. Left unchecked, the use of these mining technologies threatens the privacy of every American. The CLRA requires that any federal agency that initiates a data-mining program must report to Congress within 90 days so that the privacy implications of that program can be monitored.

The Attorney General unilaterally instituted a number of policies dealing with detention of noncitizens that we address. For example, the AG ordered blanket closure of immigration court hearings and prolonged detention of individuals without charges. The CLRA would permit those court hearings to be closed to protect national security on a case by- case basis and requires that individuals be charged within 48 hours, unless they are certified as a threat to national security by the AG as mandated under the Patriot Act.

The CLRA also addresses the special tracking program (known as NSEERS) created by the Attorney General, which requires men aged 16 and over from certain countries to be fingerprinted, photographed and interrogated for no specific cause. This program creates a culture of fear and suspicion in immigrant communities that discourages cooperation with antiterrorism efforts. The CLRA terminates this program and provides a process by which those individuals unjustly detained could proceed with interrupted immigration petitions. This is the only provision of the CLRA that eliminates a program outright, but this program has already been partially repealed by the Department of Homeland Security and largely replaced by the US VISIT system.

When I voted for the PATRIOT Act, I understood that my vote carried with it a duty to undertake active oversight of the powers granted by the bill and carefully monitor their use. When Congress passed this law, Mr. Speaker, we included a sunset provision that would require us to reconsider and evaluate the policies we adopted. This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing to consider these sunset provisions, and we heard testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking that we make the sunsetted provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent.

In light of the many policies implemented unilaterally by this Administration since passage of the PATRIOT Act, our review of this Congress must go beyond just the sunset provisions in order to fulfill our duty of oversight. The review started today by the House Judiciary Committee must encompass the whole of our anti-terrorism policies. Congress should continue to examine whether the policies pursued by the Attorney General are the most effective methods to protect our nation from terrorists, whether they represent an efficient allocation of our homeland security resources, and whether they are consistent with the foundations of our democracy.

Fortunately, the 9/11 Commission laid out a standard by which we can evaluate our current policies. First, Congress should not renew any provision unless the government can show, ``(a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties.'' Second, the Commission advises that ``if the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.'' This is the standard that we ought to apply across the board. It is the standard that Mr. Delahunt and I applied in drafting this legislation.

It is my hope Mr. Speaker, that this standard will guide us in our work and that we will enjoy an active debate on these issues and this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center--one of the premier hospitals in the world--for providing the highest quality of health care to hundreds of thousands of people, for its innovative medical research and for its dedicated work in supporting, housing and developing the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center.

Cedars is one of the largest non-profit academic medical centers in the Western United States. It has more than 1,800 physicians in all medical specialties, more than 8,000 employees and 200 volunteers. The physicians are leaders in basic and clinical research. They teach over 245 residents and fellows in 60 graduate medical education programs.

For the fifth straight two-year period, Cedars-Sinai has been named Southern California's gold standard in health care. In National Research Corporation's 2004 Healthcare Market Guide survey, Los Angeles area residents named Cedars-Sinai the ``Most Preferred Hospital for All Health Needs.'' Cedars-Sinai is internationally renowned for its diagnostics and treatment capabilities and its broad spectrum of programs and breakthroughs in biomedical research and superlative medical education. It ranks among the top 10 non-university hospitals in the nation for its research activities.

The Warschaw family, one of Los Angeles' most prominent, turned to Cedars-Sinai to establish the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer

Center with the mission of advancing the fight against prostate cancer. They did this in honor of their beloved husband and father, Louis Warschaw, who died from this disease.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in the United States. One in six American men will develop prostate cancer in the course of his lifetime. Each year more than 220,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 28,000 die from the disease. It is the second leading cause of cancer death in men and requires the heavy firepower that Cedars-Sinai can muster.

Patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center receive the best medical care possible and access to emerging therapies through its research programs. These programs rely on integrated prostate cancer clinical trials and a research lab that supports pre-clinical and clinical drug studies. In addition to receiving the most technologically advanced care, patients take comfort in knowing that experts from a range of disciplines work together to optimize their treatment.

The Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center's medical ontologists and urologists are nationally recognized experts in prostate cancer. They include: Dr. Stuart Holden, Medical Director for the Center; Dr. David B. Agus, Research Director; Dr. Mitchell E. Gross, Assistant Research Director and Dr. Christopher Nu, Urologic Surgeon. They collaborate with other leading specialists throughout the country, exchanging research and clinical insights and have helped the Center earn its stellar reputation.

Cedars-Sinai's multi-faceted team of medical professionals combat the threat of cancer by bringing together experts in surgery, radiology, radiation therapy, oncology and pathology. The Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center, the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, the Women's Cancer Research Institute, the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute, the Saul and Joyce Brandman Breast Center, the Gene Therapeutics Research Institute, and the divisions of the Medical, Surgical, Gynecologic, and Pediatric Oncology, all work together with clinical departments across specialties that include medicine, surgery, genetics, gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, imaging, radiation therapy, pathology, and the Cedars-Sinai Outpatient Cancer Center. The results of this high level of coordination and cooperation have made Cedars-Sinai into the incredible institute it is today. I am proud that Cedars is located in Los Angeles and I am thankful for the great work it does.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in saluting the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the Warschaw family for founding the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center--one of the Nation's leading research and prostate cancer treatment facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my very good friend, Bruce M. Ramer, who is receiving the Learned Hand Award at the American Jewish Committee's 25th Anniversary Dinner, March 10, 2005. Bruce is a prominent member of the legal profession, a dedicated leader in the community and a distinguished spokesman in support of human rights.

Bruce began his legal career at the prestigious entertainment law firm of Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown, and is currently a partner in the firm. Prior to moving to Los Angeles from New Jersey, he earned a graduate degree at Princeton University, attended Harvard University Law School and was active in the military. The National Law Journal ranks him among the 100 most influential lawyers in America, California Business Lawyer cites him as one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in California, and the Daily Journal places him in the top 100 lawyers in California. Over the many years of our friendship, I have developed enormous admiration for his work and valued his advice.

For more than 30 years, Bruce has supported the American Jewish Committee, AJC. He is the Chair of the AJC's Latino and Latin American Institute. He served as National President from 1998 to 2002, chaired the National Board of Governors, the National Executive Council, the National Board of Trustees, and AJC's Asia and Pacific Rim Institute. He also was the AJC's Western Region Chair and past President of the Los Angeles Chapter. His tireless efforts have helped make the AJC the incredible institution it has become.

Bruce has also provided leadership to many other worthwhile organizations. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Council on International Policy, Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, the Righteous Persons Foundation, the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games and the Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue of the Deutsche Bank. He is the Founding Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Geffen Playhouse (UCLA) in Los Angeles, and a member of the Board of Directors of Rebuild LA, LA 2000 Partnership, LA Urban League, United Way, Los Angeles Children's Museum, UCLA School of Medicine and the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles. He also served on the Economic Strategy Panel of the State of California and on the American Bar Association Special Committee on Judicial Independence. Many people, organizations, and causes have benefited from his dedication and hard work.

In addition to his professional and civic accomplishments, Bruce and his wife Madeline Smith Ramer have raised four children and are the proud grandparents of two grandsons. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join in saluting my friend, Bruce Ramer, for his successful endeavors on behalf of humanitarian and democratic ideals, his exemplary leadership and for his impressive contributions to the field of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Muff Singer, my former administrative assistant and dear friend. After a long and bitter fight with ovarian cancer Muff died on January 16, 2005.

Muff was born in Chicago, February 14, 1942, and early in life she became involved with the struggle for progressive social change through the political process. While at the University of Texas in the early 1960s she participated in civil rights picket lines, protesting the racial segregation of the University dormitories and Austin movie theaters. Muff led the way for the racial integration of one of the University's honor societies. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1964 and then attended New York University for a year of graduate work in history. She joined the Peace Corps in 1965 and taught language for two years at the Iwahig Penal Colony on the Island of Palawan, Philippines. She returned to California to work in the presidential campaign of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 during which time she met her future husband Rick Tuttle.

I was introduced to Muff through Rick Tuttle, my good friend from UCLA. Muff became my campaign coordinator for my first race for the California State Assembly, performing Herculean tasks 18 hours a day, seven days a week, for more than seven months. In an unbelievably chaotic, extremely competitive and often nasty political campaign, she conducted herself with strength, determination, grace and aplomb.

For ten years, she was my Administrative Assistant, running my district office while I served in the State Assembly. I could have done no better. She led, inspired and motivated a remarkable staff and dealt with a plethora of constituent demands--always with dedication, good judgement and tenacity. With Muff at the helm, I was able to concentrate on my legislative and political goals in Sacramento, confident in the knowledge that she was taking care of the home front, representing me with dignity, loyalty, competence and integrity. Many of my constituents lives were better because of her efforts.

A study in contrasts, Muff was slight of build and soft of voice but had a ferocity and passion for the righteous way that could bowl over those that stood in her way. Her earnest and serious demeanor belied an incredibly droll wit and joyful bemusement for life's whimsical turns. She was immune to the common political affliction of taking herself too seriously. She saw and participated in the defeat and compromises of political life on a regular basis, yet it never diminished her ardor for justice or her commitment for the less fortunate. She was thrust into the flare of public life, but remained a very private person. In a preening and boastful profession, she always maintained the modesty, humility and empathy that attracted so many of us to her in the first place.

Muff left the Assembly in 1981 to become a full time mother and begin a new career--author of children's books. She had already published her first book, the ``Mystery Reader's Quiz Book'', co-authored with Robert A. Wager and Aneta Corsault. Muff wrote or co-wrote more than 35 books for toddlers and preschoolers. In addition to picture books, she co- wrote with Nancy Lamb a book for older children, ``The World's Greatest Toe Show,'' which received great reviews. She often said her favorite book was one written with her daughter Sarah called ``Look Around with Little Fish.''

Muff is survived by her husband, former Los Angeles City Controller Rick Tuttle, her daughter Sarah, her parents Bernard and Goldryn Singer, sister Caren and a niece and nephew.

Mr. Speaker, I asked my colleagues to join me to honoring the legacy of Muff Singer who lived an incredible, fulfilling and inspirational life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, section 101, the asylum provisions, are flawed. Existing law exempts and prohibits terrorists or threats to national security or those who the government can prove through secret evidence are threats to national security from getting asylum. That is existing law. This self-executing rule, which allows amendments which have never been considered by any committee or heard through hearing or markup, do several dangerous things.

Section 101 encourages asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim simply because the applicant was able to recall or recount information later in the process that she did not mention when she was initially encountered by immigration officers. The amendment included in the rule would expand that to include consistency on matters that are entirely relevant to the basis of the claim for asylum.

It would mean that a woman who has been subjected to gang rape by government armed forces in her country who is too afraid or ashamed to tell the fact to the armed male immigration officer she first encounters at the airport in the United States could, if she tells the story later on in the process, be denied asylum simply because she was too afraid or too ashamed to tell the story to the first person she encountered.

Now, under the amendment, this woman could be denied asylum because she cannot recall facts that are irrelevant to establishing her need from protection, her high school graduation date, for example.

In a system where we rely on translations and statements taken from people in crisis, this is a very change in the law.

It is a fundamental challenge to the whole concept of the immigration judge considering all things coming into the record. The one thing I know is if section 101 becomes law, people with a well-founded fear of persecution, as a result of these changes, will be denied asylum, there will be no effort whatsoever to enhance our efforts to protect this country against terrorism, but we will have struck a fundamental blow against a tradition which I think is very important to maintain in this country and that is that we are a haven for refugees from persecution for political, ethnic, religious, gender reasons.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Even more troubling is a fact discussed in a report released this week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Often Immigration Judges determine that an applicant is not credible because their statement at the airport was inconsistent with later statements because later statements included more detail. The problem with that logic is that when an asylum applicant is interviewed in inspections, the interview stops at the moment that the person establishes a fear of persecution. They are not invited to provide more detail until a later credible fear interview. In other words, the applicant isn't the reason the details are not included. This bill would codify this preposterous failure of the Immigration Judges' logic in these cases.

Section 101 also would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim because of perceived problems with an applicant's demeanor. This would mean that a woman subjected to persecution by the Taliban who has been taught that she should not make eye contact with a man could be denied asylum simply because she did not make eye contact with the male immigration officer interviewing her.

Furthermore, it is quite common for torture survivors suffering from post-traumatic stress to exhibit characteristics in their demeanor such as lack of eye contact, the inability to recall simple details that to an untrained person may appear to be symptoms of lying. For example, Fauyiza Kassindja, a young Togolese woman who fled female genital mutilation (FGM), would have been denied asylum under this standard with little chance of getting that determination reversed on appeal. Under current law, the Board of Immigration Appeals rightly reversed the Immigration Judge's credibility finding in her case, and that decision has helped protect other women fleeing FGM.

Section 101 would encourage asylum officers and immigration judges to deny an asylum claim when the applicant cannot provide corroborating evidence of their claims if the officer, in his unreviewable discretion, believes that the applicant should be able to provide such evidence.

This disproportionately harms applicants who are detained and/or lack counsel. Relatedly, H.R. 418 would constrain judicial review of a denial of asylum based on an applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence.

Section 101 would require some asylum applicants to prove not only that they are refugees, but also prove their persecutors' central Reason.

The additional burden on asylum applicants created by this provision is impermissible under the international law, including the U.N. Convention on Refugees to which the United States is a signatory. To meet the standard set forth in the Convention, it is sufficient to show persecution is motivated in part by one of the prohibited grounds. Asking a refugee or asylum applicant to parse his persecutor's motivations so finely as to distill the ``central Reason'' or ``central reason'' is asking asylum

seekers to read the minds of their persecutors. This additional burden will lead ineluctably to denials of legitimate asylum claims, sending helpless applicants back to face more persecution and potentially death.

The proponents of section 101 assert that we must enact this section in order to prevent terrorists from gaining asylum. My friends who are the authors of this provision are in error, however, in this assertion.

I have been informed by my staff that while several persons with terrorist connections have applied for asylum over the years, the Department of Homeland Security has not found a single terrorist has ever been granted asylum in the United States. This is because, first, current law appropriately makes terrorists ineligible for asylum, and second, the standard for granting asylum is already so high that applicants are subjected to intense scrutiny before a decision on their claims is made.

While the United States has not, as far as the Department of Homeland Security knows, ever granted asylum to a terrorist, there was, indeed, a problem more than a decade ago whereby persons could apply for asylum and then be paroled into the United States while their claims were pending. That is no longer possible today. A person who applies for asylum today is held in detention until an investigation is made on the credibility of their claim and on whether they pose a security risk to the United States.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the consequences for asylum seekers to enactment of section 101 could be catastrophic. The new standards could make it far more difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prove their claims. After all, would an asylum officer in 1938 have found Jews' claims of being thrown into the death camps and ovens of Nazi Germany credible? Would the victims of the Nazi death camps have been able to present corroboration of the specific facts asserting their claims? If a Bosnian woman who has faced rape at the hands of government agents as a systematic form of persecution is ashamed or afraid to relate her rapes in her initial interviews, should that be an automatic ground to find her not credible?

It is unclear what really motivated the drafters of H.R. 418 to put section 101 into this measure. Two things are clear, however: the provision has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and it was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Let me repeat that, because yesterday a Member of the majority claimed this bill was simply enacting recommendations of the Commission. The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission have clearly and specifically rejected that these asylum provisions are supported by their recommendations.

We should consider changes to our asylum laws in a sober and reflective manner after hearings, subcommittee consideration, and full committee consideration. Neither section 101 of H.R. 418 nor any of the other provisions of this bill had a single hearing or markup.

I urge my colleagues to stand against this rule and if the rule is not defeated, I implore you to support the amendment that will be offered later today to strike Section 101 in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my friend from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, my opposition to H.R. 418 is for two reasons, one that is broader in the context of the problems we face, and one is specific to asylum. I am just going to address the former on the issue of debating essentially an unobjectionable rule that simply allows for general debate and urge opposition on that ground alone.

The placement of the bill on this agenda at this particular time is a manifestation of the triumph of ideology over common sense, and it is a

response to spasms of anger rather than a reflection of sober analysis. Contrary to the arguments of the Republicans, including my friend, the chairman of the committee, including the majority leader of this House, the issues of immigration reform, border security, national security, and public safety are inextricably linked. But we hear not one word or hint of any intention on the part of the majority in this House, in contrast with both the President and the leadership in the Senate, of ever dealing with the fundamental issue.

Our immigration system is broken. The results of that breakdown endanger American security. Between 8 and 14 million people are in this country without legal status. They live in our shadows. They utilize false documents. Their true identity is unknown. For the most part, they work and pay taxes. And, except for their illegal status, they observe our laws.

They provide the overwhelming proportion of the workforce in critical industries. They are located throughout the country and they are subject to all kinds of exploitation, but for a variety of reasons, they have no intention of leaving this country. A few among them, without doubt, a few among them mean harm to Americans and are plotting terrorist acts. The status quo is simply intolerable.

But where the proponents of this bill are so wrong, so self- defeating, is in thinking that piecemeal fixes like this have anything to do with protecting Americans against those who are plotting to harm us. Only a comprehensive approach that deals with issues like defense, like a nonforgeable identifier, a nonforgeable Social Security card, effective enforcement, and coming to terms with the status of the 8 to 14 million people who are working and linked to working and have committed no other crimes, getting them out of the shadows so we can know who they are, we can fingerprint them and match them to watch lists. That is the only way to deal with the problem.

Look at our situation. The majority leader says ``This bill is a border security bill. It is a Homeland Security bill. Immigration reform is a completely different subject.''

The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), says ``It is to everybody's best interest to separate out the security questions from the immigration questions.'' But you cannot. President Bush knows that. He realizes that these gentlemen are wrong, that this analysis is wrong, that this piecemeal approach is not going to do the job; and he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive reform of our immigration system because ``The current system results in diverting homeland security resources to chasing people who are here because they want to put food on their table. They take resources away from catching criminals and terrorists.'' That is the President.

Senator Cornyn, the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, no liberal he, realizes that the strategy of the gentleman from Wisconsin is a mistake. He said it pretty specifically, ``I don't believe we can deal with border security and homeland security without dealing with immigration reform.''

Aside from the asylum provisions, I do not have any heartburn about these, of course, in a world where we have fixed the system so it does not have 8 to 14 million people here out of status, illegally, undocumented, and people who should not get driver's licenses. But this will not solve the problem. There will be people who are not going to be here legally, who will have driver's licenses after this bill passes, and there will be people with false IDs after this bill passes; and you will not have dealt with the fundamental issue.

For that reason, more than any other, although the fundamental change of the asylum system that is going to keep people fleeing persecution from finding their historic asylum in this country, without dealing anything with terrorists who are already eligible for asylum, is another reason to oppose this bill, and I urge opposition on it.

Mr. Speaker, what I would have asked the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), had he been willing to yield some time, was to show me where in the 9/11 Report it makes any reference to making any of the changes in the asylum law that are being proposed by the majority here in this bill. There is no reference to that whatsoever, because the 9/11 Commission knew that terrorists and threats to national security cannot get asylum.

Instead, the majority, because it does not agree with the Commission on Religious Freedom, because it does not accept fundamental traditions of people who have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political attitudes or their ethnicity or their religion or their gender, they do not want to make sure they are able to get asylum, they dump a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with terrorism in here, not recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report, and then try to claim we are simply fulfilling the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waxman and I pay tribute today to a remarkable individual and a dear friend, Dr. David Lieber. Dr. Lieber will be joined by his colleagues, family and friends on February 10, 2005, at a special University of Judaism dinner to celebrate his 80th birthday. The dinner's theme, ``Walking Humbly with God,'' is especially fitting given the enormity of Dr. Lieber's accomplishments and the humility for which he is well known.

Since 1956 when Dr. Lieber was appointed Dean of Students of the nine-year-old University of Judaism (UJ), he has been a driving force for improvement and expression. He helped transform the University from a Hebrew Teachers Institute that offered adult classes in what is now known as Korea Town into a nationally recognized educational institute complete with an undergraduate college, graduate programs in education, business administration, Jewish studies and rabbinic studies, a large library and two think tanks. He served as University President for an impressive twenty nine years until he retired in 1993.

Dr. Lieber continues to be intellectually and spiritually inspirational to the Jewish community. Since his retirement as University President, he dedicated himself to assembling a superb team of scholars and produced Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, a work that makes it possible for millions to benefit from his knowledge and dedication. We have known him for many years and have great respect for his wisdom and guidance.

Throughout his lifetime, Dr. Lieber has worked on behalf of many issues of importance to the Jewish people. He is past president of the Rabbinical Assembly and served on the Assembly's Executive Committee. He chaired its Strategic Planning Committee which evaluated needs of the religious body into the year 2000. He is an ordained Rabbi and former spiritual leader of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles 1950-1954. He served as Chaplain for B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation at both the University of Washington and Harvard University. In recognition of his work, he was awarded a Doctor of Humane Letters degree, honoris causa by Hebrew Union College in 1982 and the Torch of Learning Award by Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1984.

Dr. David Lieber received a BA, magna cum laude, in 1944 from College of the City of New York and a Bachelor of Hebrew Letters from Jewish Technological Seminary of America. In 1947 he was awarded a Master's degree from Columbia University and received a Doctor of Hebrew Literature Degree from Jewish Theological Seminary in 1951.

Dr. Lieber and his accomplished wife, Dr. Esther Lieber, were married June 10, 1945, are the proud parents of Michael, Deborah, Daniel, and Susan. They have twelve beautiful grandchildren.

It is our distinct pleasure to ask our colleagues to join us in saluting our dear friend Dr. David Lieber and the institution he built for our children and generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a timely and important issue: the International Affairs Budget, or 150 account as it is known in budget parlance.

Just prior to adjourning the 108th Congress, we completed work on a major portion of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations--intelligence reform.

The Commission also endorsed a second critical strategy for protecting America that we now must address: investing in the tools of a proactive foreign policy, including the range of diplomatic, development and humanitarian programs funded under the International Affairs Budget.

These programs facilitate the formation of international coalitions, fund essential nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and de-mining efforts, respond to global challenges such as hunger and illiteracy, and help people build a future of hope and opportunity.

They also build markets for U.S. exports, provide for embassy personnel and security, and promote good governance practices that strengthen democracies.

I am joined in my support of the 150 account by my friend and colleague Jim Leach, who--along with 110 other members of the House from both sides of the aisle--recently signed a letter to the President asking him to support a significant increase in funding for these diplomatic tools and international programs.

I would like to submit the text of that important letter for the Record.

I also commend the leadership of Senators Feinstein, DeWine, Smith and Durbin for spearheading a similar letter to the President from their colleagues in the Senate.

Over the next several weeks, the President will be putting the final touches on his fiscal year 2006 budget request. In light of all the global challenges faced by the United States, we are very hopeful that he will propose a substantial increase for international affairs programs.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic tsunami disaster in Asia has underscored the need for a robust International Affairs Budget. Indeed, the 150 account is the mechanism that has enabled the extraordinary humanitarian relief efforts.

Key actors in the rescue and recovery operations are those U.S.- supported personnel and programs that have been on the ground for years: seasoned NGO staff who have established relationships with local governments and possess knowledge of the region's terrain; embassy personnel providing critical information and communications infrastructure; American businesses and contractors with reconstruction expertise and access to capital.

Not only does the International Affairs Budget support wide-scale emergency humanitarian response operations--it is a critical addition to our military and intelligence capabilities in the fight against terrorism and the e1ffort to build global stability.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a substantial increase in the International Affairs Budget.

December 14, 2004.

President George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express strong,

bipartisan support for a robust increase in the FY06 150

International Affairs Budget as an essential investment in

America's fight against terrorism and efforts to build global

stability through promoting economic prosperity and

expressing the compassion of the American people for those in

need around the world.

Along with a range of intelligence and law enforcement

reforms, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission strongly endorsed

investments in the International Affairs Budget as vital to

protecting America and an inseparable priority from funding

homeland defense. In the final report, they wrote, ``long-

term success demands the use of all elements of national

power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law

enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy

and homeland defense.''

``Terrorism is not caused by poverty,'' the 9/11 Commission

wrote. ``Yet when people lose hope, when societies break

down, when countries fragment, the breeding grounds for

terrorism are created.'' The International Affairs Budget

incorporates the full range of diplomatic tools and

international programs that are critical in helping to

stabilize the world and promote our national interests.

Whether it is protecting our national security, spurring

economic growth or supporting humanitarian efforts, the

International Affairs Budget is working for America.

By investing in people, strengthening economic opportunity,

enhancing democracies, responding to global challenges such

as infectious diseases, hunger, illiteracy, environmental

degradation, and maternal and child health, the 150 account

is critical to creating a safer world. Export promotion

programs, commercial diplomacy, good governance and anti-

corruption programs open markets for U.S. businesses and

create jobs here at home. Vigorous public diplomacy efforts,

secure embassies, capable telecommunications, and vibrant

international exchange and education programs are vital to

delivering America's messages of freedom and democracy around

the globe.

We are more convinced than ever that America must remain

engaged in the world and utilize all of the tools and

resources that strengthen U.S. national interests--including

the International Affairs Budget. As you prepare the FY06

Federal Budget, we urge you to support substantially

increased funding for international affairs programs.

Sincerely,

Leach (R-IA), Berman (D-CA), Abercrombie (D-HI), Ackerman

(D-NY), Allen (D-ME), Baird (D-WA), Baldwin (D-WI), Bass (R-

NH), Berkley (D-NV), Biggert (R-IL).

Blumenauer (D-OR), Boehlert (R-NY), Boswell (D-IA), Brown

(D-OH), Capps (D-CA), Cardin (D-MD), Chandler (D-KY), Crowley

(D-NY), Davis (D-IL), Davis (D-FL).

Davis (D-CA), Delahunt (D-MA), DeLauro (D-CT), Deutsch (D-

FL), Dicks (D-WA), Dreier (R-CA), Emanuel (D-IL), Engel (D-

NY), English (R-PA), Etheridge (D-NC).

Farr (D-CA), Fattah (D-PA), Filner (D-CA), Frank (D-MA),

Gordon (D-TN), Green (D-TX), Greenwood (R-PA), Hinchey (D-

NY), Honda (D-CA), Hoyer (D-MD).

Inslee (D-WA), Isakson (R-GA), Jackson (D-IL), Jefferson

(D-LA), Johnson (R-CT), Johnson (R-IL), Kaptur (D-OH),

Kennedy (R-MN), Kennedy (D-RI), Kildee (D-MI).

Kirk (R-IL), Knollenberg (R-MI), LaHood (R-IL), Lampson (D-

TX), Langevin (D-RI), Lantos (D-CA), Larsen (D-WA), Larson

(D-CT), LaTourette (R-OH), Lee (D-CA).

Levin (D-MI), Lewis (R-CA), Lewis (D-GA), Lofgren (D-CA),

Lowey (D-NY), Lynch (D-MA), Maloney (D-NY), Manzullo (R-IL),

Matsui (D-CA), McCollum (D-MN).

McDermott (D-WA), McGovern (D-MA), Meeks (D-NY), Menendez

(D-NJ), Millender-McDonald (D-CA), Miller (D-CA), Moran (D-

VA), Nadler (D-NY), Oberstar (D-MN), Owens (D-NY).

Pallone (D-NJ), Payne (D-NJ), Pelosi (D-CA), Pomeroy (D-

ND), Price (D-NC), Rothman (D-NJ), Rush (D-IL), Sanchez (D-

CA), Schakowsky (D-IL), Schiff (D-CA).

Serrano (D-NY), Shays (R-CT), Sherman (D-CA), Shimkus (R-

IL), Simmons (R-CT), Slaughter (D-NY), Smith (D-WA), Smith

(R-NJ), Snyder (D-AR), Solis (D-CA).

Stupak (D-MI), Tauscher (D-CA), Tierney (D-MA), Tubbs Jones

(D-OH), Udall (D-CO), Udall (D-NM), Van Hollen (D-MD), Waters

(D-CA), Waxman (D-CA), Weller (R-IL), Wexler (D-FL), Woolsey

(D-CA).

Mr. Speaker, on January 4, I joined the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative John Conyers, and the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, in introducing H.R. 24, the ``Preservation and Restoration of Orphan Works for Use in Scholarship and Education (PRO USE) Act of 2005.'' The PRO USE Act will benefit libraries, archives, schools and other users of copyrighted works. It will do so by facilitating the preservation, use, and dissemination of orphaned works.

Though a technical amendment, Title I of the PRO USE Act makes a important change in the Copyright Act. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (SBCTEA) enacted section 108(h) of the Copyright Act to ensure that copyright term extension would not adversely impact the preservation, scholarly, and research work of libraries, archives, and non-profit educational institutions. Section 108(h) permits such entities to reproduce, distribute, display and perform copyrighted works during the extended copyright term if the work is not subject to commercial exploitation and is not available at a reasonable price.

Unfortunately, due to a drafting oversight, the SBCTEA did not amend section 108(i). As a result, section 108(h) cannot fully achieve its intended objective. Section 108(i) in effect renders 108(h) partially meaningless by excluding musical, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, as well as motion pictures and other audiovisual works, from the scope of 108(h). In other words, section 108(i) prevents archives from preserving and performing an orphan film in its last 20 years of copyright term.

The PRO USE Act will correct this oversight, and thus enable libraries and archives to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display all orphan works in the course of their preservation, scholarly, and research activities.

Title II of the PRO USE Act will also facilitate the preservation of, and scholarship related to, orphaned motion pictures.

Title II reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board (NFPB) and the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) for 10 years. The NFPF is an independent, nonprofit organization established in 1996 with bipartisan congressional support to help save America's film heritage. The NFPF is the charitable affiliate of the NFPB of the Library of Congress, which was also established in 1996.

This legislation also increases the authorized appropriations for the NFPF from $530,000 in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 up to $1,000,000 in fiscal years 2007 through 2915. It authorizes additional appropriations not to exceed $1,000,000 for cooperative film preservation and access initiatives by the NFPF for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2015. All authorized appropriations are only to be made available to match private contributions to the NFPF.

The excellent work and strong track record of the NFPB and NFPF justify both the reauthorization and increased authorization of appropriations provided by this bill. Working with archives and others in the film preservation community, the NFPF supports activities that save films for future generations, improve film access for education and exhibition, and increase public commitment to preserving film as a cultural resource, art form, and historical record. In essence, its mission is to save America's ``orphan films''--newsreels, silent films, documentaries, avant-garde works, and other independent films that are not preserved by commercial interests.

Since its inception, the NFPF has done great work in furtherance of this goal. Working with more than 80 organizations, it has helped preserve approximately 600 films and collections. Through its preservation efforts, the NFPF has made it possible for organizations in 34 States and the District of Columbia to use these films in education and research. Many of the films preserved provide unique windows into American history and culture. For instance, films preserved through NFPF efforts include social dramas from Thomas Edison's studio, the earliest ``talkie'' of an American president, and home movies clandestinely shot by Japanese Americans in World War 11 detention camps.

With authorization for the NFPB and NFPF having expired on September 30, 2003, congressional reauthorization is long overdue. Reauthorization not only provides these organizations with important recognition, but is also critical to their ability to attract the private donations that provide a great majority of their funds. Failure to reauthorize will hamper the critical work of the NFPB and NFPF.

Over 50 percent of the films made before 1950 have disintegrated, and only 10 percent of the movies produced in the United States before 1929 still exist. We must act to stem further losses of this rich cultural heritage. No art form is more uniquely American than film, but unfortunately, few art forms are more susceptible to degradation through passage of time and poor preservation.

I hope that all parties interested in preservation and expansion of the public domain, whether for research, education, or further commercial exploitation, join Representative Conyers, Representative Lofgren, and myself in pressing for passage of the PRO-USE Act. This bill will provide real, tangible help to those interested in preserving orphaned works and enhancing the public domain. The failure of the 108th Congress to pass the same legislation shows it will not be easy to pass. Thus, we need all champions of the public domain to devote their efforts to the passage of this legislation. While working to pass this targeted legislation may not seem as intellectually stimulating as debating radical copyright revisions or arguing novel legal theories before the courts, it will provide real, tangible benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidable detained and therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall No. 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting Senate Concurrent Resolution 145. It is a critical adjunct to H.R. 1417, the next bill to be considered on the suspension calendar today. S. Con. Res. 145 will correct a number of drafting errors within H.R. 1417 prior to enrollment of that bill. While many of these drafting errors are purely technical in nature, some may have significant negative repercussions. So it is critical that we concur in S. Con. Res. 145 now and thus ensure these errors will be corrected before H.R. 1417 becomes law.

I am not going to bore my colleagues with an explanation of all the technical changes made by S. Con. Res. 145, but I would like to bore my colleagues with a few of the changes that have the most substantive effect.

S. Con. Res. 145 ensures that H.R. 1417 will not create a major conflict with H.R. 4518, the satellite bill now pending before the Senate. Section 6(b)(2) of H.R. 1417 states that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, satellite license rate-setting proceedings will be conducted pursuant to the law, rules and practices in place prior to enactment of H.R. 1417. Thus, even if H.R. 4518 is enacted after H.R. 1417, section 6(b)(2) would take precedence over the provisions of H.R. 4518. Such an outcome would undo provisions of H.R. 4518 that created an expedited procedure for submitting and adopting voluntary section 119 rate agreements and thus undo language critical to the viability of H.R. 4518. S. Con. Res. 145 fixes this problem by ensuring that the process H.R. 4518 may later establish for determining satellite TV royalties will not be preempted by the terms of H.R. 1417.

S. Con. Res. 145 also addresses the concern that the Senate amendments to H.R. 1417 will render it impossible for decisions of copyright royalty judges to take effect.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 1417 state that the Librarian of Congress shall cause a copyright royalty judge determination to be published in the Federal Register following the Register's review of the CRJ's determination. However, the Register's review is both permissive and unlimited in time. If the Register never undertakes such a review, H.R. 1417 would appear to prohibit the Librarian from publishing the CRJ's determination.

S. Con. Res. 145 addresses this problem by establishing a time frame within which the Register must complete its review for legal error. As a result, the Librarian will, after a date certain, be authorized to publish the determinations of CRJs.

S. Con. Res. 145 addresses concerns that, as structured in Senate- passed H.R. 1417, the small claims process in distribution proceedings would not work. H.R. 1417 allows a distribution proceeding participant, who has a legitimate claim of $6 to avoid being forced into a small claims proceeding if he asserts a claim of $10,005. However, under H.R. 1417, that same participant cannot be sanctioned for bad faith inflation of a claim because the amount in controversy is less than $10,000. This anomaly allows participants to game the system and force full-blown distribution proceedings, exactly the problem small claim proceedings were designed to address.

S. Con. Res. 145 addresses this problem by hewing to the approach taken in the House-passed version of H.R. 1417. This approach ensures that participants are forced into small claims proceedings if the contested amount of their claim is $10,000 or less. Thus, a participant who asserts a claim of $10,005 could still be forced into a small claims proceeding if other participants asserted they were willing to pay $6, and thus the contested amount is less than $10,000. If the participant attempts to game the system by asserting a claim of $10,007, then the participant would face fines for asserting in bad faith an amount in controversy in excess of $10,000.

And, finally, S. Con. Res. 145 addresses one further substantive problem created by the Senate amendments to H.R. 1417. H.R. 1417 unintentionally removed the current legal requirement that voluntary agreements submitted to establish rates and terms under the section 112 compulsory license must include a minimum payment for uses of copyrighted works covered by section 112. S. Con. Res. 145 would ensure that H.R. 1417 does not alter this current legal obligation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, adoption of S. Con. Res. 145 is critical to ensuring that H.R. 1417, which we will take up next, will operate as intended. Thus, I urge its adoption by my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417. The House passed a substantially identical version of this bill by a vote of 406 to zero on March 3. After making a number of amendments, the Senate passed H.R. 1417 on October 6 by unanimous consent. I think it is safe to say this bill is noncontroversial, and I ask all of my colleagues to once again support it.

Certainly, my colleagues should be aware that the Senate amendments do make some significant changes to the bill as passed by the House. However, I believe those changes are noncontroversial. Further, our passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 145 just minutes ago ensures that H.R. 1417 will now work as intended.

Since H.R. 1417 already passed the House unanimously, I will spare my colleagues a detailed explanation of the provisions with which they are already familiar. In summary, H.R. 1417 significantly reforms the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, or CARP, system. CARPs establish the rates, terms, and distribution of royalties generated by the half dozen statutory licenses that require copyright owners to make their works available to certain users under government-set rates and terms. There is widespread agreement that the CARP process is broken, and H.R. 1417 is designed to remedy its defects.

After House passage in March, the Senate gave full consideration to H.R. 1417. Following a September markup before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Senate passed its own amendments to H.R. 1417. These amendments largely leave intact the substance and structure of H.R. 1417. Rather than make wholesale changes, the Senate has made a number of focused amendments to several provisions of the House-passed bill. Many of

these changes are distinctive improvements to which I can give my wholehearted support. Others may not reflect the exact policy choices I would prefer, but are still acceptable in the context of this bill.

Perhaps the most significant changes made by the Senate amendments involve the interplay between the new Copyright Royalty Judges and the Copyright Office. The Senate opted to give the CRJs less autonomy and independence from the Copyright Office. For instance, the Senate amendments give the Copyright Office the right to review for legal errors CRJ interpretations of the Copyright Act. Further, the Senate amendments require the CRJs to obtain Copyright Office approval before correcting clerical technical errors in their issued determinations. While I reserve the right to revisit some of these changes in future legislation, I do not think they should prove fatal to the bill before us today.

Another major change implemented by the Senate amendments to H.R. 1417 involves the discovery process that will be utilized in rate- making proceedings. In essence, the Senate amendments more severely limit the discovery that will be available to participants in rate- making proceedings. To my mind, these amendments represent a significant improvement over the analogous provisions in the House- passed version of H.R. 1417. These changes will further reduce the cost of participation in rate-making proceedings and thus advance one of the fundamental goals of H.R. 1417. I commend the Senate for making these improvements.

In addition, the Senate amendments altered to a certain degree the ability of affected parties to object to negotiated settlements of royalty rates. In essence, the Senate amendments give all parties bound by proposed rates the ability to comment, but only allows participants in a proceeding to actually object to the proposed rates.

The Senate amendments also make a number of other changes; but as they are primarily technical, they do not merit discussion in the full House.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think H.R. 1417, as corrected by Senate Concurrent Resolution 145, will substantially improve the CARP process, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) for those comments. But in all fairness, I have to thank the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle here who deserve great appreciation because this may not be interesting, but it is complicated, and they spent dozens and perhaps hundreds of hours working through the details of what I think is actually a very significant reform of a process that is very important for a select group of people.

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