Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join in saluting my friend, Judge Bruce Einhorn, Chair of the Pacific Southwest Regional Board of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). He is a remarkable man whose accomplishments are legion.

During Judge Einhorn's tenure as Regional Chair, the organization pressed law enforcement authorities for vigorous application of appropriate hate crimes laws, and successfully opposed the deceptively named ``Racial Privacy Initiative.'' He helped the ADL prevent the spread of hatred and intolerance through the creation of new and ongoing programs designed to fight the defamation of the Jewish people and ensure justice and fair treatment for all. He also served as Chair of the ADL's San Fernando, Conejo and Antelope Valley Boards.

He is presently an ADL National Commissioner and is a member of both the League's Executive Committee for the Pacific Southwest Region and its Latino-Jewish Round Table. Also, he is a founding member of both the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC and the Museum of Tolerance in West Los Angeles.

In addition to his work with non-profits, Judge Einhorn has developed an impressive legal career. He is a well-respected Los Angeles U.S. Immigration Judge. He also serves as Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law and War Crimes Studies at Pepperdine University's School of Law, where he received the 1997 David W. McKibbin Excellence in Teaching Award. For 11 years, Judge Einhorn served as a trial attorney and later as a Deputy Director and Litigation Chief for the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, the agency responsible for seeking the identification and prosecution of Nazi war criminals residing illegally in the United States.

Judge Einhorn's commitment to civil rights, justice and tolerance for all people has been repeatedly recognized. He is the proud recipient of the U.S. Attorney General's Special Commendation Award and the State of Israel Bonds Lifetime Professional Achievement Award. In October 1999, in the presence of President Bill Clinton, he also received the Ginsberg Prize for Leadership in Civil Rights from the Anti-Defamation League at its National Commission Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Please join me in honoring Judge Bruce Einhorn and thanking him for his outstanding contributions to our community and for his steadfast commitment to the ADL's critical mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute my good friends Harlan and Jeff Lee at The Lee Group and Joseph T. Edmiston, Executive Director, of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, who are being honored by the Westside Urban Forum on June 11, 2004.

Harland and Jeff Lee are receiving the Westside Prize for successfully creating liveable urban communities in urban Los Angeles while protecting the neighborhoods and the environment. The Lee Group has been one of the premier real estate development companies and market leaders in Southern California for the past six decades. I have known first hand of their good work for many years. The Lee Group is at the forefront of the ``Smart Growth'' movement that seeks to link jobs, housing, and economic development in compact, livable environments to revitalize urban areas and preserve open space. Their projects serve as models for future development. They address housing needs, offer affordable ownership and provide senior and disabled rental housing without sacrificing aesthetics and financial feasibility.

For many years Harlan and Jeff have been recognized for their great vision, their social consciousness and their excellent taste. They have received many well deserved accolades. In 1998, they were selected by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to participate in Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH), a new housing initiative by President Clinton. On May 4, 1998, President Clinton attended the ground breaking for Village Green, a project of The Lee Group, to announce the national kickoff for the PATH program and designate Village Green as the first national PATH pilot site.

The first Westside Legacy Award is being presented to Joseph Edmiston and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC). His extraordinary vision and success has helped preserve, protect, restore and enhance significant open spaces in Southern California. I have known and worked with Joe for over two decades and am pleased he has been chosen to receive this award. He helped enact the Santa Monica Comprehensive Plan which enabled me to introduce state legislation establishing the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in 1979.

For the past twenty-four years, Joe, the staff, the board and volunteers of the SMMC have saved over 55,000 acres of land for public use. The SMMC has reclaimed land in Los Angeles' urban areas for innovative park use.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to my good friends and distinguished individuals, Harlan and Jeff Lee and Joe Edmiston for their outstanding contributions to our community.

Mr. Speaker, ninety years ago this month, President Woodrow Wilson stood in the Brooklyn Navy Yard and said of America's fallen soldiers: ``We are expected to put the utmost energy, of every power that we have, into the service of our fellow men, never sparing ourselves, not condescending to think of what is going to happen to ourselves, but ready, if need be, to go to the utter length of self- sacrifice.''

Today, American troops are again in harm's way risking their lives in defense of freedom and democracy. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we are confronting forces opposed to these values. They represent the darkness of oppression, fanaticism and fear. But America--led by its troops-- will prevail. To those brave men and women who have given their lives in this pursuit, I join my colleagues in recognizing their noble sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Waxman and I rise today to pay tribute to Dena Schechter, a good friend and wonderful person. Dena is being honored by the University of Judaism (UJ) at its annual dinner on May 20, 2004, for her leadership in Jewish education and her many outstanding contributions to worthy causes.

The UJ is one of the leading institutions of higher education in our community. It maintains a proud tradition of academic excellence and a progressive viewpoint. Dena shares the University's intellectual and spiritual vision--maintaining Judaism's traditional beliefs and values in a way that is relevant to our increasingly complex and modern world.

In 1947, Dena's grandparents helped found the University. In the late 1950s, her grandparents endowed the University's first public lecture series. Throughout the years, Dena has continue her family's dedication and support for the UJ, serving on the Board of Directors and for the last five years as Chair. Under Dena's leadership the UJ'S College of Arts and Science, the Ziegler School of Business and the Fingerhut School of Education have seen tremendous growth and development. Dena has helped underwrite an innovative community service component to the UJ's undergraduate curriculum. In addition, she helped establish the Sid Levine Service Learning Program--a feature in UJ's College of Arts and Sciences that emphasizes the critical nature of community service.

To know Dena is to be greatly blessed. She is the sister of our good friend and former colleague, Mel Levine and we feel extremely fortunate to know her personally. We are inspired by her belief that ``participation in the community is not something you choose but something you are obligated to do.'' In addition to her contributions to the UJ, she actively works on behalf of the Federation Family and Jewish Family Services.

A native of Los Angeles and a graduate of UCLA with a degree in Philosophy, Dena successfully balances family, a career in business and a strong commitment to community service. She is married to Irving Schechter and is the mother of four.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join us in saluting Dena Schechter and congratulating her upon receiving this richly deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and remarkable man, Marc M. Seltzer, who is being honored on May 13th at ORT's 2004 Jurisprudence Award Dinner. Marc has made outstanding contributions in the legal field, has written extensively, and is a widely recognized expert on especially complex litigation.

Marc is a native Californian, who received his bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree from UCLA. Upon graduating from law school, he became a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California. After several years, he went into private practice and ultimately joined Jack Corinblit and Martin Shapero, forming the firm Corinblit, Shapero, and Seltzer, which later became Corinblit and Seltzer. They blazed an impressive legal trail which included a massive equity funding securities litigation case. Marc also served as the sole lead counsel for the plaintiff in one of the largest and most elaborate west coast securities fraud cases--the ZZZZ Best securities fraud case.

In 1998, Jack Corinblit retired and Marc joined forces with long-time friends and colleagues to become the resident managing partner of the newly opened Los Angeles office of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. In only a few years, the office became one of the leading litigation firms in Los Angeles.

In addition to his extensive legal accomplishments, Marc has served in a plethora of civic and professional organizations. He served as President of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles in 2002 and is currently the Vice President of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society. He is also vice chairman of the Executive Committee of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California; a member of the Board of Directors of the National Equal Justice Library; and a trustee of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He has also served as chairman of the Dean's Circle at UCLA School of Law.

Marc is married to the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge for the Central District of California. Together, this distinguished couple has given unstintingly of their time and resources to improve their profession and their community.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Marc M. Seltzer and congratulating him as he receives this richly deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to three generations of the Abelson/Lasker families and Dr. Emil and Mrs. Erika Jacoby. All of these remarkable people will be honored at a special Adat Ari El dinner on May 16, 2004, appropriately themed, ``A Vision for Generations.''

Irv and Marcia Abelson, their children, and now their grandchildren have assumed key leadership positions and worked hard to build, support and improve Adat An El and the Jewish community. They have also provided critical support for a myriad of Jewish institutions both in Los Angeles and around the world, including Camp Ramah, the University of Judaism (UJ), the New Community Jewish High School, L.A. Hebrew High School, Heschel Day School, the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Women's League for Conservative Judaism, the Masorti Foundation for Conservative Judaism in Israel and the Bureau of Jewish Education.

Both Marcia and Irv have proven to be an indispensable part of the Adat Ari El community in so many ways. In addition to serving as Adat Ari El's Sisterhood President, Marcia worked with members of the Torah Fund for the Jewish Theological Seminary and the UJ.

Their daughter Jill was the second woman to ever become President of Adat Ari El. She was Vice President and Chairperson at the University of Judaism and served on various UJ committees for many years. Her husband, Marty Lasker, blows shofar--not an easy task--every year for the High Holy Days. He serves on several important Boards for organizations such as the New Community Jewish High School, Hebrew High School and Adat Ari El. My family and I are proud to call ourselves neighbors and friends of Jill and Marty.

The Laskers' children, Zachary and Jodi, continue in their parents' and grandparents' tradition of involvement and service. Zachary starred in several United Synagogue Youth (USY) plays and was President of the USY Chapter while in high school. Jodi worked at the Temple and was a USY Director during high school. Zachary has a masters degree in education from the UJ and Jodi holds an MBA and masters degree in education from the University. Both Zachary and Jodi have worked at Camp Ramah in California for many years in a variety of leadership positions. Currently Zachary is the assistant director for the camp and Jodi teaches at the Heschel Middle School in Northridge.

The Humanitarian Award recipients, Emil and Erika Jacoby, have also made invaluable contributions to Adat Ari El and are role models for all of us. Dr. Emil Jacoby worked in the Underground during WWII to help save Jews in Nazi-occupied countries. After the war he helped relocate displaced Jews to Israel. For many years he headed the Temple's religious school and served as Head of the Bureau of Jewish Education. He has a doctorate in education from the Jewish Theological Seminary, and was director of education for 16 years at Camp Ramah during the summer months and was also an adjunct professor at the Teachers Institute at the UJ.

Erika Jacoby taught in Adat Ari El's nursery school and served on many synagogue committees. She chaired the Holocaust Remembrance Committee which resulted in the dedication of a Holocaust Memorial Pillar. Erika also gives generously of her time and energy to speak with school children about her experience as a Holocaust survivor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in saluting these incredibly accomplished and impressive people who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to Adat Ari El and a longtime commitment to public service.

Mr. Speaker, Iran has repeatedly denied that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons. But it is increasingly difficult to conceive of any other plausible explanation for its efforts to enrich uranium and develop other nuclear-related capabilities. And even harder to understand why else it would try so hard to conceal these activities from the international community. As reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has failed time and time again to comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has also failed to provide a full disclosure of all nuclear activities to the IAEA, and engaged in a pattern of lies and deception.

Since Iran's covert nuclear program was exposed to the world in February 2003, IAEA inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium, discovered that Iran had reprocessed a small amount of plutonium, and forced Iranian officials to reveal critical information about advanced centrifuge designs and components. These and other revelations about Iran's nuclear program are even more troubling in light of Iran's extensive ties to international terrorist organizations.

According to the just-released State Department report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, ``Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003.'' The report notes that some members of al-Qaeda ``have found virtual safehaven'' in Iran, while Iranian authorities continue to provide Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other radical terrorist organizations with ``funding, safehaven, training, and weapons.''

Iran also continues an aggressive program to develop ballistic missiles. According to the Congressional Research Service, Iran has hundreds of short-range missiles, and possibly 10-20 long-range Shahab- 3 missiles, which may be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Mr. Speaker, Iran has absolutely no need for a nuclear deterrent. Over the last two and a half years, we have taken care of Iran's only two enemies--the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Nor does Iran--with 7 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves on the planet--have a demonstrated need for civilian nuclear power.

We must continue to make it clear--to our European allies, who have generally favored a more conciliatory approach to Iran--and to the unelected rulers in Tehran, who continue to lead the Iranian people down this perilous path--that we will not sit idly by and allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state.

This resolution is an important part of that effort, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Tyree Weider who is celebrating her 10th anniversary as President of Los Angeles Valley College. She is a remarkable woman whose accomplishments are extraordinary.

Dr. Weider was raised in South Central Los Angeles. She attended local public schools and began her career path as a student at Compton Community College. She completed her Bachelor's degree in sociology at California State University Northridge and earned a Master's degree in Educational Psychology. A few years later, she received her Doctorate degree in Higher Education Administration from the University of California Los Angeles.

Early in her career, Dr. Weider worked as an Employment Counselor for the State Employment Service in Compton, South Central Los Angeles, and Pacoima. She also worked as a therapist in adult outpatient mental health. She then moved to Los Angeles Mission College to serve as Dean of Student Affairs and was later appointed Dean of Academic Affairs. She was then selected as the Director of Educational Programs for the Los Angeles Community College District. In 1989, she began working at Los Angeles Valley College as the Vice President of Academic Affairs. In 1995, Dr. Weider became the President of the College.

Since becoming President, Dr. Weider has taken significant steps to revitalize the campus to benefit students and the community at large. Under her guidance, the college has begun developing plans for the construction of five new educational buildings and major renovations to several campus facilities. Dr. Weider has also forged innovative partnerships with various businesses and organizations in the community to provide students an opportunity to perform community outreach and become involved in public service.

Over the years, Dr. Weider has proven to be a tireless leader for numerous community-based agencies and organizations. For example, she is currently a member of the California Community College CEO Board of Directors and a member of the advisory committee of the Auto Club of Southern California. She has also served on the Board of Directors for Northridge Hospital Medical Center, Universal City Tomorrow, the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, Catholic Healthcare West and Temple Ahavat Shalom.

Dr. Weider's hard work and leadership deserves acknowledgement. Recently she received the 2004 Pioneer Women Award. In March 2002, she was recognized as one of the most outstanding residents in the San Fernando Valley. In 1998, the Speaker of the Assembly bestowed upon her the San Fernando Valley's Woman of the Year Award. Her achievements are legion and recognition is well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and congratulating Dr. Weider for all of her wonderful accomplishments and her unyielding commitment to education and public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an important and timely issue: the right of the people of Taiwan to hold a democratic referendum.

Only 20 years ago, Taiwan was ruled by an authoritarian dictatorship under martial law. Today, it is a flourishing, multiparty democracy that holds competitive elections, respects human rights and upholds the rule of law. It is also our close friend and ally.

On March 20, Taiwan will hold its third Presidential election. That same day, the Taiwanese people will vote on two referenda related to Taiwan's self-defense.

Some argue the U.S. should oppose these votes because they will needlessly antagonize China. I disagree.

While it is important for the U.S. to have China's cooperation on a number of issues, our foreign policy should not be based on trying to avoid making China angry--that would be tantamount to giving them veto power over our actions.

Rather, our policy should be guided by U.S. national interests, which undeniably include the promotion and support of democracy in every corner of the globe.

What kind of message would it send to those courageous individuals struggling for democracy in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the world if we tell the people of Taiwan that they should refrain from exercising their hard-won right to cast a ballot on key issues of the day?

With all due respect to China, this is not about Taiwanese independence. This is not a ``provocation.'' This is about the peaceful exercise of the purest form of democracy.

I strongly support Taiwan's right to hold these referenda, free from intimidation, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2714, the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act. As the title indicates, H.R. 2714 reauthorizes the State Justice Institute, SJI. Reauthorization is necessary because Congress last enacted an SJI authorization bill in 1992 for a 4-year authorization period that expired in fiscal year 1996. While the Committee on Appropriations has continued to appropriate $7 million annually for SJI, Congress should also ensure that SJI has the necessary authorization to perform its important work.

Congress created the SJI in 1984 to provide funds to improve the quality of justice in State courts. Congress also directed the SJI to facilitate enhanced coordination between State and Federal courts and develop solutions to common problems faced by all courts. It appears that the SJI has made considerable progress in pursuit of these objectives.

Since becoming operational in 1987, the institute has awarded more than $125 million in grants to support over 1,000 projects. Another $40 million in matching requirements has been generated from other public and private funding sources. SJI is necessary because State court judges and other advocates have historically been weak at restoring resources, especially at the Federal level, from the Department of Justice. Most of the resources they receive at the State level are devoted for personnel and courthouse construction and maintenance, not the educational programs that SJI provides. About one-third of all SJI grants are devoted to educating State judges on how to improve the operations of their courts. The remaining grants are devoted to technology projects such as systems to improve recordkeeping, document imaging, et cetera.

The authorizing statute provides for regular audits of the SJI. The Institute conducts its own oversight of grantees, and the practice of allowing a grantee to draw money for a project only on a monthly or quarterly basis allows SJI to cancel mismanaged projects.

All familiar with the SJI appear to agree it performs worthy work. Federal judges, including Chief Judge Boggs of the 6th Circuit, have contacted me to laud the work of the SJI, and in particular, the educational programs it runs for judges.

The Attorney General gave high marks to the SJI in a November 2002 report which specifically noted that the Institute has been effective, has complied with its statutory mission, and observes that some degree of support for State court innovation and improvement is a Federal interest. It is evident that the SJI deserves reauthorization, H.R. 2714 will do this. I urge my colleagues to support it today.

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 support of H.R. 2391, the CREATE Act, and ask my colleagues to support it as well. The CREATE Act is a rare legislative achievement: It is a truly noncontroversial patent bill. It has achieved this unique status because it is the product of exhaustive discussion, negotiation, and redrafting at both the intellectual property subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary levels.

The CREATE Act effectively overturns the Federal court's decision in OddzON Products v. Just Toys. The OddzON decision held that certain prior art can be used to dismiss a patent application as obvious, one cannot patent the obvious, even if that prior art was confidential, shared among consenting parties or undocumented.

In layman's terms, the OddzON decision means that research collaborations between different institutions may preclude patents arising from that joint research. As a result of its holding, the OddzON decision threatens to chill informal inter-institutional research collaborations. These are just the sort of research collaborations that are increasingly important in today's complex resource constrained research environment. Even more troubling, these sorts of research collaborations disproportionately involve research universities and nonprofit institutions which do not have the same flexibility as private institutions to engage in other research arrangements.

Research collaborations contribute greatly to the U.S. economy. More importantly, they may be the key to curing many life-threatening diseases. Research collaborations are an important part of the technology transfer between universities, nonprofit institutions, and private companies that result in an estimated $40 billion of economic activity each year and support some 270,000 jobs.

Similarly collaborations between Federal laboratories and other entities have resulted in an estimated 5,000 research agreements signed since 1986.

There is no question that Congress should foster an environment in which researchers have the freedom, opportunity and incentive to collaboratively develop inventions and new ideas. By overturning the OddzON decision, the CREATE Act will remove a substantial roadblock to achieving this goal.

The CREATE Act underwent substantial revisions to adjust relevant concerns. The version before us today constitutes a real improvement over H.R. 2391 as introduced. It has the support of the university community, the patent bar, the biotech industry, patent holders, and all other interested parties of which I am aware, and I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) for working so closely with us in drafting and redrafting the CREATE Act. I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417, and I ask all of my colleagues to support what I think is fundamentally noncontroversial legislation.

H.R. 1417 has been subjected to an exhaustive review process. It emerged from a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property during the 107th Congress and from a series of open roundtable discussions convened at the U.S. Copyright Office. Early drafts were shaped by several rounds of written comments from all affected stakeholders.

After introduction of H.R. 1417 early this Congress, the subcommittee held another hearing. The subcommittee then reported by voice vote a substantially refined amendment, and the full Committee on the Judiciary made further significant revisions before also reporting its amendment by voice vote. Thus, the version of H.R. 1417 before us today has been forged through an extensive and open process.

Both the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), are to be commended for pushing H.R. 1417 forward. They have devoted significant time and energy to crafting both the substance of this bill and organizing the widespread support behind it. I thank both of them for working so closely with me and my staff, Alec French, in drafting this bill and its various iterations.

The chairmen are also to be commended for ensuring that the bill remedies the procedural effects of the CARP process without straining into substantive copyright law issues that would surely doom its prospects for passage.

H.R. 1417 focuses on a narrow, but complex, goal. It significantly reforms the system for copyright arbitration royalty panels. The U.S. copyright law contains a half dozen statutory licenses that require copyright owners to make their works available to certain users under government-set rates and terms. For instance, the section 114 statutory license allows Webcasters to perform sound recordings under government- set rates and terms. The royalty rates and terms are established by CARPs, which also determine the appropriate distribution of royalties among copyright owners.

There is widespread agreement among copyright owners and users alike that the CARP process is broken. The costs involved are often so high that parties cannot either afford to participate or find that the costs outweigh any potential royalties or efficiencies. The decisions often take too long to issue and thus create uncertainty and confusion among licensers and licensees alike. Finally, even when decisions do issue, they are often overturned or modified, are inconsistent with precedents, and cannot be effectively implemented until corresponding rule-makings are completed.

H.R. 1417 will go a long way to remedying the defects of the CARP process. While the changes are too copious to list in total, I would like to highlight a few of the improvements made by the bill.

The primary flaw of the CARPs is they are conducted by private arbitrators who often have no prior experience in conducting a statutory license rate-setting or distribution, much less any prior familiarity with the substantive law or industry economics involved. Because the CARP arbitrators have neither the experience nor authority to do so, the Copyright Office is often called on to issue regulations resolving substantive legal issues that arise during CARPs, and all too often, as we saw in the 2002 webcasting CARP, the Copyright Office is called upon to overturn a CARP decision.

H.R. 1417 replaces the part-time arbitrators with a panel of three full-time copyright royalty judges. These three CRJs will be appointed by the Librarian of Congress to serve staggered 6-year terms. Each panel will bring at least 6 years of experience to every rate-setting and distribution proceeding. Further, the Librarian is required to appoint CRJs with a breadth of experience in copyright law, economics and adjudications.

Mr. Speaker, rather than list a number of the key changes in this bill, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detail all the different provisions contained in this bill. There are many and they are important. They deal with a problem in the past of setting rates retroactively and how under these reforms rates will be set prospectively, and they deal with the integration of the Copyright Office and its role in providing advice and opinions on matters of law into the process.

They create mechanisms for small participants to participate at much less cost than they now participate through all paper rate-setting proceedings, make some changes in evidentiary rules and discovery rules, and at the same time, they enable the copyright owners to negotiate voluntary agreements rather than go through the whole full blown rate-setting and distribution proceedings.

I do want to call the attention of the body to one particular provision which I think is very important. We rationalize in this bill, H.R. 1417, the ability of the parties to engage in voluntary negotiations in the context of the Section 115 statutory license for reproductions of musical compositions. The Section 115 license currently provides copyright owners and users a limited antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate rates and terms for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries of musical compositions. With the acquiescence of the Justice Department, H.R. 1417 extends this narrow antitrust exemption to all of Section 115, so that it now covers similar negotiations for mechanical reproductions of musical compositions, as well as the digital deliveries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417. I ask all my colleagues to support this non-controversial legislation.

H.R. 1417 has received exhaustive process. It emerged from a hearing before the Intellectual Property Subcommittee during the 107th Congress, and from series of open roundtable discussions convened at the U.S. Copyright Office. Early drafts were shaped by several rounds of written comments from all affected stakeholders. After introduction of H.R. 1417 early this Congress, the subcommittee held another hearing. The subcommittee then reported by voice vote a substantially refined amendment, and the full Judiciary Committee made further significant revisions before also reporting its amendment by voice vote. Thus, the version of H.R. 1417 before us today has been forged through an extensive and open process.

Both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee are to be commended for pushing H.R. 1417 forward. They have devoted significant time and energy to crafting both the substance of this bill and the widespread support behind it. I thank them both for working so closely with me in drafting this bill and its various iterations.

The chairmen are also to be commended for ensuring that the bill remedies the procedural defects of the CARP process without straying into substantive copyright law issues that would surely doom its prospects for passage.

H.R. 1417 focuses on a narrow but complex goal: It significantly reforms the system for Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels--or CARP.

U.S. copyright law contains a half-dozen statutory licenses that require copyright owners to make their works available to certain users under Government-set rates and terms. For instance, the section 114 statutory license allows webcasters to perform sound recordings under Government-set rates and terms. The royalty rates and terms are established by CARPs, which also determine the appropriate distribution of royalties among copyright owners.

There is widespread agreement among copyright owners and users alike that the CARP process is broken. The costs involved are often so high that parties either cannot afford to participate, or find that the costs outweigh any potential royalties or efficiencies. The decisions often take too long to issue, and thus create uncertainty and confusion among licensors and licensees alike. Finally, even when decisions do issue, they are often overturned or modified, are inconsistent with precedents, and cannot be effectively implemented until corresponding rule-makings are completed.

H.R. 1417 will go a long way to remedying the defects of the CARP process. While the changes are too copious to list in total, I would like to highlight a few of the improvements made by this bill.

The primary flaw with CARPs is that they are conducted by private arbitrators who often have no prior experience in conducting a statutory license rate-setting or distribution, much less any prior familiarity with the substantive law or industry economics involved. Because the CARP arbitrators have neither the expertise nor authority to do so, the Copyright Office is often called on to issue regulations resolving substantive legal issue that arise during CARPs. And all too often, as we saw in the 2002 webcasting CARP, the Copyright Office is called upon to overturn a CARP decision.

H.R. 1417 replaces the part-time arbitrators with a panel of three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges. These three CRJs will be appointed by the Librarian of Congress to serve staggered 6-year terms. Thus, each panel will bring at least 6 years of collective experience to every rate-setting and distribution proceeding. Further, the Librarian is required to appoint CRJs with a breadth of experience in copyright law, economics, and adjudications.

The bill contains a number of other provisions that further consolidate and strength the authority of the CRJs. For instance, the bill gives CRJs continuing jurisdiction to ensure

that they have the ability ``to respond to unforeseen circumstances that preclude the proper effectuation of the determination.''

The continuity, experience, and enhanced authority of the CRJs should lead to decisions that are quicker, more consistent, more likely to withstand appeal, and in the long run, far less expensive to secure.

While the new CRJs will have requisite authority and expertise to make good decisions, H.R. 1417 ensures they will be able to draw on, and benefit from, from the substantial expertise of the Copyright Office in this area. H.R. 1417 requires that the Librarian consult with the Register of Copyrights when appointing CRJs. Furthermore, the bill requires the CRJs to solicit the written opinion of the Copyright Office on novel questions of law, and allows the CRJs to consult--on the record--with the Register of Copyrights on all matters other than questions of fact.

H.R. 1417 addresses another major flaw of the current CARP process-- the fact that the rates for several statutory licenses are set retroactively. The webcasting CARP concluded in 2002 demonstrates the problems with retroactive rate-setting. When rates were set in 2002 for webcasting that occurred between 1998 and 2002, many small webcasters found their viability threatened because they had not set aside enough money to defray the royalty obligations they had already incurred.

H.R. 1417 addresses this problem through a series of interrelated changes to the various statutory licenses. H.R. 1417 ensures that all rates and terms for statutory licenses will be set prospectively, and eliminates the possibility that a time period covered by a statutory license will commence before the establishment of rates and terms.

H.R. 1417 also addresses a variety of concerns about how CARPs gather evidence, conduct hearings, determine participation, requires parties to present their cases, and treat negotiated settlements. In addressing these concerns, H.R. 1417 hews closely to the overall objective of promoting expeditious, well-reasoned, and widely-supported outcomes.

The bill substantially improves the CARP process from the perspective of small participants. H.R. 1417 allows CRJs to conduct an all-paper, rate-setting proceeding, which in many circumstances, should substantially reduce the barriers to participation for small copyright owners and users. H.R. 1417 also creates an expedited small-claims process to facilitate the distribution of royalties to small claimants.

The bill substantially alters some evidentiary rules, while retaining others used by previous CARPs. It allows admission of hearsay ``to the extent deemed appropriate'' by the CRJs, rather than according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and allows CRJs to issue subpoenas for relevant and material information. It directs the CRJs to conduct discovery conferences for the purpose of setting a schedule for completing discovery.

The bill retains the discovery rules currently used in CARP distribution proceedings because distribution participants expressed general satisfaction with those rules. In rate-setting proceedings, the amendment limits discovery to relevant and material information, and allows the CRJs to deny discovery for good cause. The circumstances that constitute ``good cause'' include where the discovery requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, easily obtainable from another source, the burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit, and other circumstances.

H.R. 1417 clarifies the rules regarding participation on CARP proceedings. It also ensures that only parties who have fully participated in the proceeding, and are bound by its determination, will have the right to appeal that determination.

H.R. 1417 also retains the ability of copyright owners and users, under a number of statutory licenses, to negotiate voluntary agreements rather than suffer through full-blown rate-setting and distribution proceedings. While H.R. 1417 maintains the ability of various statutory licensors and licensees to agree to out-of-cycle rate determinations through voluntary agreements adopted by the CRJs, it allows the CRJs to reject such out-of-cycle determinations if workload concerns so merit.

H.R. 1417 also rationalizes the ability to engage in voluntary negotiations in the context of the section 115 statutory license for reproductions of musical compositions. The section 115 license currently provides copyright owners and users a limited antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate rates and terms for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries of musical compositions. With the acquiescence of the Justice Department, H.R. 1417 extends this narrow antitrust exemption to all of section 115, so that it now covers similar negotiations for mechanical reproductions of musical compositions.

A comprehensive description of this seventy-page bill would take more time than I am allotted, so I will leave off there. However, I will note that adoption of the CARP reform bill is not the end of the story for reforming the CARP system.

Unlike the current CARP system, the bill requires appropriated funds to pay for the new CRJ process. Since Congress has decided the public interest is served by the creation of compulsory licenses in certain instances, it is entirely appropriate that Congress should provide the funds necessary to make the licenses work. CARP costs should not dissipate the meager Government-set royalties received by copyright owners, nor make participation by licensees uneconomical. However, if adequate appropriations are not secured, this legislation will only create further chaos. In this time of record budget deficits, it will take a concerted effort by all interested parties to ensure sufficient appropriations are forthcoming.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think H.R. 1417 will substantially improve the CARP process, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers seeking recognition on my side of the aisle, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and appreciate her comments.

At this time I will not get into the issue of the restricted nature under which outsourcing is permitted, but I think the gentlewoman accurately described the base bill. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary will be offering an amendment with respect to outsourcing outside the United States that restricts even the limited outsourcing that is allowed under this bill to companies organized under the laws of the United States. As the gentlewoman mentioned, that in and of itself does not protect against international outsourcing, or any State, and employ U.S. citizens to perform the searches.

So there will be an amendment to the base bill at the time that once the rule is adopted, if it is adopted, that will deal with that specific issue very specifically and prohibit that kind of outsourcing that the gentlewoman was concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I take the gentlewoman's point about U.S. companies and who might be called a U.S. company. I simply wanted to point out that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has a manager's amendment that will not simply limit this to U.S. companies, but limit it to searches only by companies employing U.S. citizens to perform the searches. So there is that as an additional element.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561 is a wonderful illustration of the principle that something does not have to be interesting to be important.

This bill is of critical importance to the health of our information economy. Intangible property, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, now constitute well over 50 percent of the assets of U.S. corporations, both large and small. Most of the great advances in pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, biotechnology, and Internet fields began as patented inventions. Patent protection played a critical role in the creation and dissemination of inventions from the telephone to fiberoptics, from injectable insulin to laser eye surgery.

The Patent and Trademark Office, which issues both patents and trademarks, has a critical role to play in creating and securing these assets. By facilitating many needed reforms, H.R. 1561 ensures that the PTO plays a positive role in stimulating our information economy, rather than becoming an obstacle to it.

Furthermore, H.R. 1561 does not saddle the U.S. taxpayer with the cost of these reforms. The PTO is fully funded by fees from the patent and trademark applicants, and this bill raises some of those fees to enable those reforms. H.R. 1561 pays for other reforms by ending the innovation tax. Throughout the last decade, over $650 million in fees paid to PTO by American inventors and small businesses have been diverted to unrelated agencies. H.R. 1561 stops this tax on innovators by ending diversion once and for all.

The PTO is in a crisis that threatens the stability and usefulness of our patent and trademark systems. At congressional urging, the PTO has crafted a 21st-century strategic plan to address this crisis, but it needs this legislation to implement that plan.

H.R. 1561 is necessary because the patent system is coming apart at the seams. A perfect storm of sorts has hit the PTO, which administers the patent system. This storm threatens to make the patent system dysfunctional. This perfect storm involves a tremendous growth in the amount and complexity of PTO workload, matched by a decreasing ability to handle that workload. The number of patent applications received annually by the PTO doubled between 1992 and 2003 to a figure of over 350,000 last year. What is more, the number of applications continued to grow throughout our recent recession and is expected to increase another 5 percent this year. This growth is fed in part by the expanding scope of patentability. Due to a string of court opinions, patentable inventions now include software, business methods, and anything else made under the sun by man.

The technology boom in the United States has also resulted in applications for patents on inventions in areas of technology that did not exist just a few years ago. On a daily basis, PTO is asked to review applications for patents on such things as genetic tests and laser vision technologies.

The numerical growth, and the expanding scope, are matched by a growth in complexity. For instance, some biotechnology patents covering genetic sequences can occupy the equivalent of 10,000 pages. The PTO must hire new examiners with the requisite skills in these areas or fund extensive retraining for current examiners.

The PTO's decreasing ability to deal with this increasing workload is the result of several factors. Most responsible is the cumulative effect of more than a decade of fee diversion. The PTO is entirely funded by user fees. Patent and trademark holders and applicants pay the PTO a variety of fees to obtain and retain their patent and trademark rights. The fees are supposed to reflect the cost of services provided by the PTO; but between 1992 and 2003, Congress denied the PTO the ability to spend $654 million of the fees paid to it. Instead, Congress appropriated these fees for unrelated programs. This will stop as a result of this bill.

As a result of that diversion, the PTO has been forced to gradually cannibalize itself. It has deferred critical information technology upgrades. It has squeezed every ounce of possible productivity out of examiners, and appears now to be asking them to review applications in an unrealistic time frame. It even laid off almost one-third of its trademark examining corps. Despite these drastic measures, the PTO only managed to delay, not avert, a train wreck. By all objective measures, that train wreck is upon us.

I could go through, and my the statement in the Record will contain a full

statistical explanation of the incredible increase in the backlog for patent applications, but in conclusion, it takes more than 2 years now for a patent application to be granted or disposed. In many cases, more than 60 months is the pendency for a patent application.

Why does this pendency matter? Why do we care about these backlogs? It affects both the patent applicants and society at large. Patent ownership enables individual inventors and small businesses to obtain capital. Patent ownership gives prospective financiers, such as venture capitalists and banks, important reassurance that investment in a small entity is sound.

Long patent pendency also negatively affects society at large. Long patent pendency and patent backlogs creates substantial uncertainty in the marketplace and thus makes it difficult for all businesses to operate. A backlog of 500,000 patent applications may cover business methods now common in the financial service business, software contained in every personal computer, or a type of computer chip that will cost billions to manufacture.

As troubling as the lengthy patent pendencies are, they are not the gravest problem facing the PTO. Even greater concern should be given to the quality of the patents granted by PTO. When PTO grants patents in error to things that are not true inventions, many negative side effects occur. Low-quality patents can deter scientific research, create obstacles to legitimate commercial activities, and create opportunities for illegitimate rent-seeking. A bad patent on a pharmaceutical drug means that consumers cannot obtain a cheaper generic version. A bad patent on Web browser technology may force the redesign of every piece of software interoperating with current Web browsers.

Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given time given the 7-year pendency term for patents, there are over 120,000 bad patents in force.

Enactment of this legislation will enable the PTO to substantially improve patent quality. It will also enable the PTO to hire 750 new patent examiners a year between 2004 and 2006, and additional numbers in subsequent years. It will take time to train these new examiners. They will eventually be able to shoulder some of the patent examination workload that threatens to swamp the current examining corps. With an expanded examining corps, the PTO will be able to give patent examiners more flexibility in the amount of time they spend on any one application.

I am convinced that H.R. 1561 is an important part of the solution to the pendency and quality problems. It is a first absolutely necessary step to reforming the PTO. There are other legislative proposals that deal with a number of these issues, but this is the key first step. I urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 1561.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the first articulator of the principle ``no end to diversion, no fee increase.''

Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the difference of view we have on this issue, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a tenacious fighter for that in which she believes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentlewoman argued in favor of her position, take more time. There is no problem with taking time. The fact is we want a thorough investigation. We want a good quality patent. But simply taking more time, the argument against that is not simply the one made by the chairman about the patent term and how much of it will be left, it is that in that backlog that is getting longer and longer and longer are lifesaving medical devices, new drugs, new technologies to make America more productive and efficient, fascinating and important inventions that need to be disseminated and distributed and will not be until that patent issues.

That time is costing our economy and our people both in terms of quality of life, health care, and economic efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

I have no further requests for time, but I do want to address this issue of outsourcing just to get the record straight here. As a general principle, I am opposed. I share the feelings of the gentlewoman from Ohio regarding the general proposition, the farming government responsibilities and jobs out to private entities and particularly when we are dealing with core government functions; and I think searches performed by patent examiners may be such core functions. But in H.R. 1561 what we took was an open-ended proposal from the Patent Office to allow outsourcing of searches, and working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), with other committee members, with the PTO, with PTO employee unions, and with all the various industry groups, we put constraints on the ability to outsource allowed by the bill. Together with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), we developed a limiting amendment that was accepted with essentially no opposition in the Committee on the Judiciary; and the bill, as so amended, was reported out with Democrats and Republicans expressing just about unanimous support for the bill.

H.R. 1561 prohibits the PTO from outsourcing until all of the following criteria are met: the PTO conducts a pilot project of limited scope for not more than 18 months to test the efficacy of outsourcing patent searches; secondly, that the pilot program must demonstrate that the searches performed by commercial entities are accurate and at least meet or exceed the standards conducted and used by the PTO; the director, third, must submit a report to Congress detailing the methodology of the pilot and containing a comparative evaluation of outsourced and patent examiner searches, addressing factors such as productivity, costs, and quality; fourth, and very importantly, the Patent Public Advisory Committee, an independent entity consisting of patent union representatives and PTO user groups, has to submit a report to Congress with a detailed analysis of the pilot project.

And even after that, if that independent committee, all that concludes that it makes sense to outsource patent searches, nothing can happen until after 1 year so that Congress has a year to decide whether or not to continue to prohibit search outsourcing despite the results of these reports.

H.R. 1561 prohibits the PTO from outsourcing searches unless all of these criteria are met. The National Treasury Union, every patent user organization that I know of, large companies, small companies, universities, nonprofits, all of them involved in the patent process all think this bill does not destroy the Patent Office. This bill is the most important thing to saving the whole patent process. And the whole point of even entertaining the idea of outsourcing is simply to deal with better quality, better productivity, and more time. I urge that H.R. 1561 be passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my strong support for this amendment. If I were a betting man, I would have bet a lot of money that the chairman would not have been able to deal with the end of diversion in the fashion that he was able to without at least 25 or 30 appropriators on the House floor. I congratulate both him and the subcommittee chairman for their excellent work, and I urge the manager's amendment be adopted.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to pay tribute to Tasker L. Edmiston who recently passed away, at the age of ninety-four. Mr. Edmiston was a remarkable man whose accomplishments were legion and whose passion was indefatigable. He was an avid outdoorsman and a very important figure in California's conservation movement.

Mr. Edmiston was born on January 22, 1910, in Los Angeles, California. His love for the environment and the outdoors began as a young boy. He was a Sea Scout, an Explorer Scout and later he ran track and set several records in speed-climbing.

During World War II, Mr. Edmiston demonstrated his creativity and entrepreneurial spirit by inventing a new series of food canning machinery. His invention increased the volume and quality of food that was distributed to the Armed Forces in the Pacific.

In the 1960's and 1970's, Mr. Edmiston turned his attention to the conservation movement. He was one of the cofounders and the first treasurer of the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He proved to be instrumental in the establishment of the Edmund C. Jaeger Nature Sanctuary and the Desert Lily Sanctuary. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Desert Protective Council and the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs.

Mr. Edmiston is survived by his son, Joseph T. Edmiston, his daughter-in-law, Pepper Edmiston, and seven grandchildren.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Tasker L. Edmiston and offering our heartfelt condolences to his family members.