Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, it is widely recognized that patent litigation is too expensive, too time consuming, and too unpredictable. H.R. 34 addresses these concerns by authorizing the establishment of a pilot program in certain United States district courts that is intended to encourage the enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.

The need for such a program becomes apparent when one considers that fewer than 1 percent of all cases in U.S. district courts, on average, are patent cases and that a district court judge typically has a patent case proceed through trial only once every 7 years. These cases require a disproportionate share of attention and judicial resources, and the rate of reversal remains unacceptably high.

The premise underlying H.R. 34 is simple. Practice makes perfect, or at least better. Judges who focus more attention on patent cases can be expected to be better prepared and make decisions that will hold up under appeal.

This bill is the product of an extensive oversight hearing which was conducted by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property in October 2005. The authors of H.R. 34, Representatives Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, introduced this measure on January 4, 2007. This legislation is identical to H.R. 5418, a bill that passed the House unanimously last September. Unfortunately, the clock on the 109th Congress expired before the other body could take up this bipartisan measure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 will require the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select five district courts to participate in a 10-year pilot program that is to begin no later than 6 months after the date of enactment.

The bill specifies criteria the director must employ in determining eligibility of districts. It contains provisions to preserve the random assignment of cases and to prevent the selected districts from becoming magnets for forum shopping litigants.

The legislation also requires the director, in consultation with the director of the Federal Judicial Center and the chief judge of each participating district, to provide the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate with periodic progress reports.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the superb job that the bill's sponsors did in seeking out and incorporating the advice of numerous experts as they developed this bipartisan legislation. Congratulations go to Congressmen Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff. Their success and cooperation have resulted in a worthy bill that deserves the support of the Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and a former chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and one of the two principal sponsors of this very worthy legislation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 44, which recognizes the 98th anniversary of the NAACP.

For almost a century, the NAACP has fought to bring justice and racial equality to all parts of America. In 1917 the NAACP won a legal victory in the Supreme Court which held that States could not restrict and officially segregate African Americans into residential areas. The same year the NAACP fought for the right for African Americans to be commissioned as officers in World War I. In 1920 the NAACP held its annual conference in Atlanta, which at the time was one of the most active areas for the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, the NAACP showed the world it would not be intimidated by racial violence.

In 1935, NAACP lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall won a legal battle to admit a black student to the University of Maryland.

During World War II, the NAACP led the effort that resulted in President Franklin Roosevelt's ordering a non-discrimination policy in war-related industries and Federal employment.

And in 1948, the NAACP convinced President Harry Truman to sign an executive order banning discrimination by the Federal Government.

In 1954, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP won one of the greatest legal victories in Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1960, in Greensboro, North Carolina, members of the NAACP Youth Council launched a series of nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. The segregation ended, and all Americans could finally break bread together.

The history of America's modern struggle to live up to our constitutional principles was often written by the NAACP, and it continues to champion the cause of social justice today. The NAACP has served as the voice of those who were mute with fear. It has served as a key for those who were handcuffed and jailed under segregationist policies. And it carried the weight for those whose backs were broken by brutal beatings. It did so peacefully, and with dignity; and, as a result, America can hold its head higher.

It is with great pleasure that I support this concurrent resolution, which I hope raises even higher the awareness of this organization's historic contributions to the cause of civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Issa), and would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control said time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 742, the Antitrust Modernization Commission Extension Act of 2007.

Our Nation's first antitrust laws were enacted at the turn of the 20th century. The Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002 created a commission to examine how to update our antitrust laws in light of the new technologies that have developed in recent years.

The Antitrust Modernization Commission, or AMC, was required to produce a report 3 years after the date of its first meeting on April 2, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the AMC will submit its recommendations to Congress and the President by the statutory deadline of April 2, 2007.

The AMC is required to terminate 30 days after submitting its report. However, the commission has requested an extension of its authorization by an additional 30 days so that it can effectively conclude its operations. This additional 30 days will allow the AMC to properly archive its records and transfer property to other agencies.

Pursuant to that request, H.R. 742 extends the authorization of the AMC by 30 days and also makes a small technical correction to the original authorization statute. This bill will not delay the submission of the AMC's report to Congress nor will it require the appropriation of any additional funds.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to cosponsor this bill, along with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to allow the AMC to wrap up its important work without imposing any additional cost on the American taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have any others who want to comment on this legislation, and so, because of that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 61, which observes and celebrates the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encourages the people of the United States to celebrate his life and legacy.

We should all thank Dr. King not only for his role in helping to end discrimination, but also for his role in helping to remove a stain on American history that had lingered far too long.

Dr. King's commitment to nonviolent change never wavered. Between the time he assumed leadership of the Montgomery, AL, bus boycott in 1955, until his tragic assassination years later, Dr. King faced hundreds of death threats and a firebombing of his home with his wife and children inside. Still, he remained an unblinking beacon to all those who sought peaceful change. He grew from a person taught in segregated schools to a world leader who was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Dr. King delivered his now famous speech entitled ``I Have a Dream'' following a march of 250,000 people in Washington, DC. Twenty years ago, the City of San Antonio's Martin Luther King, Jr., Commission began honoring Dr. King with a march that furthers his legacy and serves to educate local citizens regarding his deep, rich legacy. That march has become one of the largest in the country and this march marked its own 20th anniversary yesterday, the day Dr. King would have turned 78.

Despite near freezing temperatures, the San Antonio march attracted thousands of people of diverse backgrounds, which in the past has featured Rosa Parks, the woman who sparked the modern civil rights movement by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. Those in the march knew that no matter what the weather, it paled in comparison to the slings and arrows--the death threats and beatings, and the repeated arrests--Dr. King faced during his too-short but immensely inspiring life.

Such peaceful marches are possible today in large part because of Dr. King's abiding courage. The San Antonio march serves as a powerful reminder that if one person finds the strength to keep walking forward, determined to reach what Dr. King called the ``Promised Land,'' he or she can leave in their wake a lasting legacy of marches--stretching from generation to generation--that celebrate and encourage changes in both laws and attitudes that will continue to make America a better place.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.R. 2, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007,'' would benefit from a discussion of the facts.

For example, increasing the minimum wage would not have a positive impact on all working and non-working Americans.

The number of people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage is not nearly as large as some claim and those individuals who receive the minimum wage are not nearly as poor as some suggest.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 only 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers earned the minimum wage. More than a quarter of those workers are teenagers and half are under 25.

Those who support a minimum wage increase should be forthright--some Americans will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is increased, especially youth and low-skilled workers. If the minimum wage is raised, businesses will incur additional costs and some will be forced to layoff employees.

Also, most individuals who receive the minimum wage have other sources of income, such as food stamps, government allowances, or earned income tax credits.

Still, we are confronted with the stark reality that over one million families must survive on little more than $1,000 a month. These families need food, clothes, housing, transportation, and hope.

Frankly, any person who engages in honest labor deserves a worthy wage and a dignified life.

Some say there are jobs Americans won't do. That demeans hard-working Americans who do work in every occupation. It especially demeans those who work at back-breaking and dangerous jobs for little pay. If we want more Americans to take those jobs, then let's pay them more.

And today is a good time to start.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Aderholt's bill eliminates unnecessary impediments in handling the everyday transactions of individuals and businesses.

Many documents executed and notarized in one state, either by design or happenstance, find their way into neighboring or more distant states.

If ultimately needed in any one of the latter jurisdictions to support or defend a claim in court, that document should not be refused admission solely on the ground it was not notarized in the state where the court sits.

H.R. 1458 ensures this will not happen.

A notarization in and of itself neither validates a document nor speaks to the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents.

The notarization serves a different function--it verifies that a document signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly signed the document.

By executing the notarial certificate, the notary public, as a disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties relying on or using the document that it is the act of the person who signed it.

Consistent with the vital significance of the notarial act, H.R. 1458 compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document even though the notarization was performed in a state other than where the forum is located.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing out that much of the testimony we received at our Subcommittee hearing on the bill addressed the silliness of one state not accepting the validity of another state's notarized document in an interstate legal proceeding.

Some of the examples were based on petty reasons--for example, one state requires a notary to affix an ink stamp to a document, an act that is not recognized in a sister state that requires documents to be notarized with a raised, embossed seal.

Passing the bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Gentleman from Wisconsin for moving this legislatIon to the House floor.

The Committee Chairman did a good job of summarizing how the bill works, so I won't repeat his description.

I would point out that granting the additional authority to the PTO Director under H.R. 4742 is consistent with other actions by the Committee and Congress to assist other individuals and institutions in the Gulf region.

This includes enactment of legislation that allows Federal courts during emergency conditions to operate outside of their geographic domains; provide transportation and subsistence expenses for indigent defendants; and delay or toll judicial proceedings.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill that will help inventors, trademark holders, and other interested parties maintain their intellectual property rights under adverse conditions.

I urge Members to support H.R. 4742.

Mr. Speaker, the fair use exception is of great Importance to ensure that the threat of dilution claims does not chill the exercise of free speech, particularly in expressive works of authorship.

Parody, criticism, and commentary are familiar and important examples of fair use.

Another common example is the appearance of trademarks when products are used in motion pictures as props, ``set dressing,'' and the like.

I also want to clarify that nothing in H.R. 683 is intended to amend, change, or disturb the fair-use defenses available in a claim of trademark infringement under Section 43 or other applicable sections of the Lanham Act.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.'' This bill demonstrates the strong bipartisan commitment of Congress to address to the terrible crisis in Sudan.

Day after day, month after month, we have watched the situation in Darfur deteriorate before our eyes. The genocide occurring there is a clear example and tragic reminder that atrocities still exist in the world today.

This bill sends a clear message that the United States and the entire global community must do more to intervene in this catastrophe. It will expand our ability to support peacekeeping operations in the region and will hold accountable those responsible for committing atrocities.

I recognize that this bill alone will not stop the violence in Darfur. However, it is a step, and an important step. I am hopeful that this will signal the beginning of our increased engagement with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation which was introduced by Congressman Chabot. It protects the Americans' private property.

The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to private property. Such a right lies at the foundation of a democracy where citizens have the freedom to buy, sell, exchange, or make a profit on all forms of property.

In recent years, it has become more and more common for the government to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain for ``public'' use.

This is something that landowners in my home state of Texas are already frequently faced with under the Endangered Species Act, which prevents a landowner from developing

their property if an endangered species is found on the land.

Under last year's Supreme Court decision in Kelo, state and local governments now can take property from a private landowner in order to give or sell it to another private owner. So, we need to make sure Americans can protect their private property ownership.

The Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 clarifies current law in order to give America's property owners those tools.

For instance, H.R. 4772 corrects an anomaly created by two Supreme Court decisions that prevents a property owner from having their federal takings claim decided in Federal Court without first pursuing the case in state court.

And the legislation clarifies that the standard for due process claims in a takings case is ``arbitrary and capricious'' and not the much higher ``shocks the conscience'' standard that some courts are using and that almost no property rights case can meet.

The bill also clarifies what constitutes a ``final decision'' on an acceptable land use from a regulatory agency for purposes of being able to take the claim to federal court.

Some regulatory agencies have avoided making such ``final decisions'' in order to prevent the property owner from moving forward with the property rights claim.

H.R. 4772 is a good bill that will protect Americans' property rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chabot for offering this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, who is the chairman of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy for yielding to me; and I want to express my appreciation to Mrs. Biggert for assembling this legislation, which will contribute mightily to our energy independence.

H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act, incorporates two pieces of legislation that I introduced: the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006 and the Solar Utilization Now, or SUN Act, of 2006. They will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil by promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles and the use of solar power.

The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act establishes a partnership between public and private entities and requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research and development for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive transportation technology. The goal is to develop a plug-in vehicle that can travel up to 40 miles on battery power alone.

The bill also establishes a pilot program of grants to State and local governments and metropolitan transportation authorities.

Congress has a responsibility to help promote this new technology.

I introduced the SUN Act of 2006 because the answer to much of our energy needs in fact comes up every morning. The goal of this legislation is to make electricity from solar power cost-competitive by 2015. The SUN Act encourages State governments and private industry to team up to apply for Federal grants. Solar power is clean, plentiful, and it generates zero emissions and zero waste.

The Federal Government needs to ensure that the research and development of alternative energy technologies continues. Americans are concerned about high gas prices, our dependence on foreign oil and global warming. This bill addresses those concerns and is good for our energy security, national security and environmental security.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Biggert for taking the lead on these issues and for getting this package to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5418, a bill ``[t]o Establish a Pilot Program in Certain United States District Courts to Encourage Enhancement of Expertise in Patent Cases Among District Judges,'' deserves the support of the Members of the House.

For the past 2 years, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property has conducted a thorough review of problems associated with the issuance of patents and the adjudication of patent claims.

H.R. 5418 focuses on one aspect of patent litigation--the recognition that judges are too often inexperienced in dealing with technical areas of the law and that they rarely have the opportunity to have a patent case go all the way through trial.

Patent cases equal only 1 percent of cases filed in U.S. District Courts but are responsible for nearly 10 percent of complex cases. On average, an individual federal judge has only 1 patent case go all the way through trial every 7 years, which means trial-level judges may have no more than 3 or 4 such cases over their entire judicial career.

These statistics suggest judges could benefit from the development of greater expertise and that they might develop this ability by handling these cases, which are so vital to American companies.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is designed to enable designated federal judges to have the opportunity to enhance their expertise in handling these cases and to measure the effects, if any, on patent litigation.

Introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa and Adam Schiff, the bill followed an October 2005 Subcommittee oversight hearing on proposals to structurally reform the patent litigation system.

This bipartisan measure was approved by the Subcommittee on July 27, 2006 and approved by the full Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2006.

As amended, the bill will require the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to select 5 districts to participate in a 10-year pilot project.

It will also require the Director, on a periodic basis, to prepare and report to Congress on aspects of the project and to make a recommendation on whether the program should be extended, expanded, or made permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

Those who oppose the Terrorist Surveillance Program say that it violates civil rights, that it sends the wrong message to U.S. citizens and foreign nations, and that it should be stopped.

To the contrary, the Terrorist Surveillance Program protects Americans' lives and sends terrorists the message that we will use every legal means possible to defend ourselves. It should be continued, not eliminated.

Before 9/11, information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence officials was almost non-existent.

The hands of our criminal investigators and intelligence investigators were tied and they

were unable to alert each other to terrorist threats.

After 9/11, that was changed.

Now some want to halt government programs that help intelligence officials figure out who wants to harm us.

We cannot afford to return to a pre-9/11 status. We cannot dismiss the possibility of a terrorist attack. We cannot throw away the tools we need to protect us.

And the Terrorist Surveillance Program is one of those tools.

The ``Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act'' allows the President to continue the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Let's keep our guard up and our defenses strong, and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1038, I call up the bill (H.R. 2679) to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2679, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2679, the Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006, which was introduced by our colleague from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler); and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on November 7 by voice vote. Let me describe the unfair situation that this legislation addresses.

Today, under Federal law, attorneys' fees can be demanded in lawsuits against States or localities brought in under the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

These lawsuits could mandate, for example, that veterans' memorials must be torn down because they happen to have religious symbols on them; that the Ten Commandments must be removed from public buildings; and that the Boy Scouts cannot use public property.

The case law under the Establishment clause is so confused that States and localities know defending themselves in such lawsuits is simply unpredictable.

In 2005, for example, the Supreme Court issued two rulings on the same day that contained opposite holdings in cases involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. In one case, the court found a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse hallway to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion, but in the other case the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. Not only were these two rulings different, but different constitutional tests were used in each case.

The threat to States and towns having to pay attorneys' fees in such cases, should they happen to lose at any level, often leads those States and localities to give up whatever rights they might have under the Constitution, even before such cases go to trial.

This bill will prevent the legal extortion that currently makes State and local governments, and the Federal Government, accede to demands for the removal of religious imagery when such removal is not even constitutionally compelled by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has stated that ``the State may not establish a religion of secularism in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.''

Contrary to that principle, current litigation rules are hostile to religion because they allow some groups to coerce States and localities into removing any reference to religion in public places.

This unfair result is made possible because 42 United States Code, section 1983, and 42 United States Code, section 1988, allow advocacy organizations to put the following choice to localities: either do what we want and remove religious words and imagery from the public square, or risk a single adverse judgment by a single judge that requires you to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in a case you cannot afford to litigate.

Consequently, local governments are being forced to accede to the demands of those seeking to remove religious words or tear down symbols, and ban religious people from using the public square, even when allowing those uses might, in fact, be constitutional.

H.R. 2679 amends 42 U.S.C. so that attorneys' fees could not be awarded to prevailing parties in Establishment Clause cases. It amends 42 U.S.C. to make clear that while Establishment Clause cases can continue to be brought against State and local governments, they can be brought only for injunctive or declaratory relief.

This means that a court can still order that a State official or local government stop doing whatever was an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause.

One example of the unfairness this legislation would prevent is a recent case in which the County of Los Angeles was forced to remove a tiny cross from its official county seal that symbolized the founding of that city by missionaries. This tiny cross was on the seal for 47 years. This is costing the county $1 million, as it entailed changing the seal on some 90,000 uniforms, 6,000 buildings, and 12,000 county vehicles.

In Redlands, California, the city council reluctantly gave in to demands and agreed to change their official seal. But Redlands did not have the municipal funds to replace the seal. As reported by the Sacramento Bee, ``rather than face the likelihood of costly litigation,'' Redlands residents now ``see blue tape covering the cross on city trucks, while some firefighters have taken electric drills to `obliterate it' from their badges.''

Mr. Speaker, this is just the kind of injustice this bill seeks to correct.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2679 is clearly constitutional. It has a secular legislative purpose, namely that of preventing the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits their constitutional actions. In doing so, this bill restores the original purpose of 42 U.S.C., which was to protect individual rights, not Establishment Clause claims.

H.R. 2679 also does not have the primary effect of either promoting or inhibiting religion. Rather, it simply removes the burdensome effects of the current legal rules.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is constitutional and does not prevent lawsuits from being filed.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and protect the religious rights of all citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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

Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this legislation are arguing that attorneys fees are needed and that establishment clause lawsuits will be deterred unless the people bringing these lawsuits have their attorneys fees paid. This is simply not true.

First, we are aware of no organization that has said they will not bring a good cause case under the establishment clause if they can't be awarded attorneys fees. In fact, the ACLU has said just the opposite. Peter Eliasberg, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, has said recently, ``Money has never been a deciding factor when we take cases.'' When asked specifically what the ACLU would do if attorneys fees in establishment clause cases were prohibited, he said, ``It wouldn't stop us from bringing lawsuits.''

Second, this section of the U.S. Code H.R. 2676 amends was never intended to apply to establishment clause cases. 42 U.S.C. 1988, which allows attorneys fees in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, was intended only to allow the award of attorneys fees under civil rights laws enacted by Congress after 1866.

The history of 42 U.S.C. is as follows: in Alaska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society, the Supreme Court held that Federal courts do not have inherent power to award prevailing party attorneys fees to remedy government violations of the law. The Court observed that the American rule, that is, the rule that each party bears its own attorneys fees ``is deeply rooted in our history and in congressional policy.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more point, and that is to emphasize that under H.R. 2679, establishment clause cases can in fact continue to be brought against State and local governments for injunctive or declaratory relief, which means that the court can still order that a State official or local government stop doing whatever it was in alleged violation of the establishment clause

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have just had a speaker arrive on the House floor, and I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) if the gentleman from New York doesn't object.

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

Mr. Speaker, today under Federal law, attorneys fees can be demanded from the winning side in lawsuits against States or localities, or the Federal Government, brought under the Constitution's establishment clause.

Current litigation rules are hostile to religion because they allow some groups to force States and localities into removing any reference to religion in public places.

H.R. 2679 would prevent the legal extortion that currently forces State and local governments, and the Federal Government, to accede to demands for removal of religious text and imagery when such removal is not compelled by the Constitution.

Current laws allow plaintiffs to put the following choice to localities: either do what we want and remove religious words and imagery from your public square or risk a single adverse judgment from a single judge that requires you to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in a case that you can't afford to litigate through the appeals process.

Mr. Speaker, local governments are being forced to accede to the demands of opponents, even when their actions are in fact constitutional.

The section of the U.S. code H.R. 2679 amends was never intended to apply to establishment clause claims. 42 U.S.C. 1988, which allows attorneys fees, was intended only to allow the award of attorneys fees civil rights laws enacted by Congress after 1866. We need to return to that original purpose and pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Sensenbrenner just stated, H.R. 1036, the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, amends certain technical aspects of the Copyright Act which itself was amended by the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004.

A chief objective of the Copyright Reform Act was to delineate between functions of the Copyright Office and the functions of the newly established Copyright Royalty Judges, or CRJs.

Unfortunately, during the bill enrollment process, the law was written to state that the Librarian of Congress was charged with authorizing the distribution of funds. The language could be subject to an interpretation that Congress wanted the Librarian to retain a role that had clearly been intended to be exercised only by the new CRJs.

The purpose behind this bill is to correct errors such as this and to enable the reform act to operate as Congress originally intended.

In addition, the bill contains a number of other noncontroversial stylistic, technical, clarifying, and conforming changes that have been considered and agreed to by Members on both sides of the aisle.

As Chairman Sensenbrenner noted, H.R. 1036 has already passed the House of Representatives without objection on November 16, 2005.

The reason the bill has returned is because the other body amended it to include language from H.R. 5593, the Royalty Distribution Clarification Act of 2006, which was a bill I authored and introduced along with Ranking Members Conyers and Berman. The purpose of that bill and the incorporated language is to provide the CRJs with explicit statutory language to distribute, prior to the end of a royalty distribution proceeding, part of the royalty pool when it is established who the rightful claimants are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the amended Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act and send the bill directly to the President for his signature.