Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, three intellectual property bills have passed the House in the last 2 weeks. They were based on two principles essential to a democracy: the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services in the marketplace. The Patent and Trademark Office Fee Act protects the rights of American inventors, from the lone individual working in their garage, to the small business person with a breakthrough idea, to the large high-tech company that applies for hundreds of patents. The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act benefits artists, songwriters, music publishers and Web casters. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act allows researchers and inventors who work for different organizations to share information without losing the ability to file for a patent.

These three bills await action in the Senate where I hope they will become law. American jobs and profits are at stake.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for yielding me this time, but also for introducing this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the broadcast of offensive language is a growing and disturbing trend. Members of the Parents Television Council, a group that monitors television broadcasts, filed 85,000 complaints about broadcast obscenity and indecency with the Federal Communications last year.

The networks have pushed the limits of decency to the point that family-oriented programs and enjoyable American pastimes, such as the Super Bowl, are no longer safe for our children to watch.

Unfortunately, the FCC has given television and radio stations too much power to broadcast behavior or language they believe will bring in the high ratings or advertising dollars. This undermines standards of common decency and impedes the ability of parents to raise their children free from exposure to profane language.

Low fines for indecency only encourage more indecency. It has become apparent some performers will accept a small fine for offensive and crude behavior in return for the media attention its creates. This is one of the reasons I support this legislation that increases fines for indecent language on radio and television.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court has upheld the FCC's authority to regulate broadcasts. In fact, the court said ``Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection. Among the reasons is that broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.''

The entertainment industry has become increasingly isolated from the American people. We are still a Nation that believes in standards of common decency and respect for traditional values. This bill will help us uphold those values.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will reauthorize the State Justice Institute, which is a nonprofit corporation created in 1994 to provide grants and other funding to help State courts improve their systems.

According to the Institute's mission statement, ``Since becoming operational in 1987, SJI has awarded over $120 million to support more than 1,000 projects benefiting the Nation's judicial system and the public it serves. The Institute is unique both in its mission and how it seeks to fulfill it.''

The SJI provides funding for programs which help improve access to the courts. It trains and assists courts in child custody, domestic violence, juvenile crime, and sexual assault cases. The SJI also works to create the use of technology in the courtroom, as well as create reforms to reduce the amount of time and money associated with litigation.

By reauthorizing the State Justice Institute, we will provide them with $7 million each year for the next 4 years. This money helps Americans have access to a more effective and efficient court system. The State Justice Institute has been successful in its efforts. We should make sure they are able to continue their good work, and this bill will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the CREATE Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), allows researchers and inventors who work for different organizations and collaborate on inventions to share information without losing the ability to file for a patent.

This legislation removes roadblocks to the patenting of collaborative inventions. It empowers researchers to choose to collaborate when it is in their interest, and to compete for inventions when it is not.

Under current law, individuals who did not work on an invention or project can challenge patent applications. This leads to invalidated patents which harms our economy and the inventors, researchers and entrepreneurs who want to create new products.

Today's biotech, pharmaceutical, and nanotechnology companies conduct much of their research with partners such as universities and other public or private organizations.

In fact, the University of Texas ranks fourth on the list of universities that receive the most patents. Many of these patents result from working with the private sector on research.

America's universities, private companies, public organizations and nonprofit institutions all have a stake in ensuring the U.S. patent system rewards rather than inhibits their innovations, from life-saving therapies to fuel cells.

Yesterday, my subcommittee received a letter from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which supports this legislation. The organization stated, ``The majority of our members routinely engage in collaborative research. We believe that encouraging this type of research will greatly enhance the ability of the biotechnology industry to develop life-saving and life-enhancing products.''

The CREATE Act: (1) Promotes communication among team researchers located at multiple organizations; (2) discourages those who would use the discovery process to impede coinventors who voluntarily collaborated on research resulting in patentable inventions; (3) increases public knowledge; and (4) accelerates the commercial availability of new inventions.

The CREATE Act benefits all industries that engage in collaborative and cooperative research involving more than one organization. The classic example is biotechnology, since it has a culture and a business model that is multi-disciplinary.

When a biotechnology company decides to partner with a university, we want to prevent that partnership from being harassed by a third party. Biotech investment dollars dedicated to research should and must be used in an effective way without the possibility of a lawsuit or a grievance filed against it.

The CREATE Act was inspired by two principles essential to a democracy: The protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services.

Research collaborations are essential to the discovery of new inventions, the creation of new jobs, and the health of the U.S. economy. Protecting them will provide greater incentives to develop new technologies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, our country has long worked to support and protect copyright holders to ensure they receive fair compensation for their creative works.

Over the last 20 years, Congress has attempted to develop the appropriate mechanism to govern royalties; that is, how to distribute royalties to those who create and how to adjust royalties when necessary. In other words, we have tried to find a compromise that allows for the fair distribution of royalties when two parties cannot agree on the value of a creative work.

When I say ``fair distribution of royalties'' that could mean many things to different parties, particularly the creators of copyrighted works themselves. It is a major reason why this issue is again before Congress.

Congress established the first entity to deal with this in 1976. Ten years ago, that system was abolished to create the current Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, or CARP, system.

This legislation that I authored addresses the main problem: frivolous royalty claims, which is a growing trend, as well as decisions made by the copyright panel that are unpredictable and inconsistent.

Much like another intellectual property rights bill that reforms the Patent and Trademark Office, this legislation is critical to the entertainment industry and a growing economy. It is of great importance to artists, songwriters, music publishers and webcasters.

For example, take the case of a songwriter and a webcaster. If a songwriter cannot reach an agreement with a webcaster about the value of a song in the marketplace, the matter is brought to the copyright royalty and distribution system. The private parties involved, of course, pay for the process.

What happens now is the songwriter or the webcaster, or both, often are not left with much of a royalty payment because the process is too lengthy and too costly. If the songwriter cannot make enough on his creations to support himself, then he will no longer be able to create, and our economy and our society will be the loser.

This is the central reason why we are here today: to ensure that the songwriter has the incentive to create and the webcaster has the benefit of distributing enjoyable musical creations.

Unfortunately, American songwriters and webcasters today are caught up in a royalty system that is anything but fair. The current proceedings to establish royalty rates are long, laborious and costly. They harm our economy and take a tremendous toll on the businesses and persons involved. Congress must reform this broken system, which is exactly what this bill does.

I urge my colleagues to support a balanced and fair process that will, for example, help songwriters and bring a little more melody into the lives of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo); the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young); the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf); and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member, for their help in pulling this bill together. They helped to iron out the wrinkles. They helped resolve the differences between many parties, and it is much appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation that I authored modernizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It was inspired by two principles essential to a democracy: the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services.

The Patent and Trademark Office does not receive the attention of other government agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Justice, but it should. The Patent and Trademark Office is crucial to the health of our economy and to the lives of millions of Americans.

The Patent and Trademark Office protects the rights of all American inventors. From the lone individual working in their garage to the small business owner with a breakthrough idea to the large high-tech company that applies for hundreds of patents, all rely on a responsive Patent and Trademark Office. Without a strong PTO, our economy would be devastated, our quality of life would be diminished, and jobs would be lost or never created in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, this bill prevents the diversion of Patent and Trademark Office fees paid by inventors to fund government programs unconnected to the agency. The diversion of fees to the office is unfair, counterproductive, and an obstacle to sustained economic

growth. Approximately $750 million has been diverted from the PTO in the last decade alone. Such a large revenue loss has deprived the Patent and Trademark Office of the resources it must have to serve the patent and trademark holders of the United States. At a time when the office is struggling to pay its examiners enough and to keep up with applications, particularly in high-tech areas, Congress should take an interest in protecting our economy by keeping patents and trademark fees within the Patent and Trademark Office.

This bill enables the Patent and Trademark Office to hire 2,900 new patent examiners. Today the average time to process a patent exceeds 2 years. Without the new examiners, agency delays will soon reach 3 or even 4 years. If this fee bill does not become law, it is estimated that 140,000 patents will not be issued over the next 5 years. That is 140,000 missed opportunities for the American people.

If nothing is done, if the status quo continues, it means new products will not make it to the market, jobs will not be created, and the inventors who came up with new ideas and products will not have their intellectual property protected and so will not market their inventions.

This bill helps small businesses and nonprofit institutions. It provides a 50 percent discount on most services to small businesses, universities, and other nonprofit entities. The benefits of an improved and streamlined PTO will help small businesses and universities and encourage new research and innovation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for making this issue a priority for our committee and working with the appropriators to resolve our differences on PTO funding.

Since U.S. Patent No. 1 was issued in 1837 for traction wheels, the patent system and the creativity, genius, and talent that defined it have benefited all Americans. From the revolutionary electric light bulb to the latest software technology, patents reflect America and contribute to our economic prosperity.

This bipartisan bill is supported by these organizations: the Information Technology Industry Council, Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners, the International Trademark Association, the Association of American Universities, and the Association for Competitive Technology, as well as many others.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is good for innovation, good for the economy, and good for the American people. The PTO has rarely been more important than it is today. It must have the resources it needs to professionally and expeditiously process patent and trademark applications. American jobs, profits, and the future of entrepreneurial capitalism are literally at stake.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, which is the result of careful negotiations between the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

The two goals of the underlying bill are to improve PTO operations and to end fee diversion. This amendment makes sure those goals are achieved.

In order to eliminate the incentive to divert fees from the PTO, the amendment establishes a rebate program that will deposit any fee collections that exceed the amount of money appropriated to the PTO in a ``reserve fund.'' At the end of each year, the PTO Director will determine whether there are sufficient funds to make payments to users who paid applicant fees that year. By ending fee diversion and allowing the PTO to keep the fees its users pay each year, the agency will be able to make many much-needed reforms to increase its efficiency and productivity.

This amendment also contains provisions that will ensure the PTO will operate effectively. It establishes a pilot program to allow

private entities to perform the search function associated with obtaining a patent. This will free up patent examiners to focus on other work.

Some have mischaracterized this provision as ``outsourcing'' that will cut American jobs and send work overseas. In fact, this amendment specifies that participation in the pilot program is restricted to American businesses and American citizens. By allowing patent searches to be performed by commercial entities, this pilot program will simply allow the private sector to take some of the load off of an already overburdened patent evaluation system at the PTO.

Twenty-five to thirty percent of the 355,000 patent applications the PTO receives each year come from small businesses. The Sensenbrenner amendment has many provisions to help small businesses obtain patents.

The PTO is one of the most important agencies in the country. It is the agency behind the innovation and invention that drives our economy. We must give it the funding it needs to implement meaningful reform and improve its operations.

This amendment strengthens the underlying bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, few scientists write as well as Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California. This column he wrote about the Mars rover for the San Jose Mercury News offers compelling arguments for pursuing scientific discoveries and exploring space.

[From the San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 7, 2004]

Geologist On Wheels Takes Human Curiosity to Mars

Mr. Chairman I support this bill. It allows consumers to benefit from the changes to the bankruptcy system that were approved by this House last year.

It's time for Congress to enact permanent meaningful bankruptcy reform. Recent surveys show that 70 percent of Americans support reforming our nation's bankruptcy laws. Unless we take action, consumers will continue to be negatively impacted by the current system and fraudulent filings will continue to be rewarded rather than discouraged.

In 1980, 300,000 bankruptcy petitions were filed. This past year, over 1.2 million were reported during just the first nine months. Many of these filings are legitimate attempts by debtors to pay their debts and obtain a fresh start. However, bankruptcy is too often used as a way to avoid responsibilities.

Unnecessary Bankruptcy filings continue to increase at dramatic rates. This is bad for consumers and bad for our economy. The costs of these filings are passed on to America's businesses and consumers, who should not have to absorb these debts. We must ensure that debtors actually belong in bankruptcy and are not using the system to avoid their obligations.

This legislation encourages personal responsibility, protects consumers, and ensures that bankruptcy is used only as a last resort and is not abused by those who can afford to repay their debts.

Bankruptcy reform is good for consumers, family farmers, and our economy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, an architecture firm in my hometown of San Antonio recently received well-deserved national recognition. Lake/Flato Architects Inc. won the 2004 American Institute of Architects Architecture Firm Award, the highest honor given in its category.

The annual award goes to a firm that consistently has produced distinguished architecture for at least 10 years. Founded in 1984 by David Lake and Ted Flato, the firm today employees forty-four talented people, including six partners.

At its best, architecture warms the heart, uplifts the spirit, and engages the mind. It inspires us, even if we don't know all the reasons why.

That Lake/Flato would be singled out by the AIA is no surprise. The firm already has picked up more than 90 regional and national architecture awards, including honorable mention awards from the AIA in 1992, 1997 and 1999. And it has inspired thousands of individuals throughout the United States with its eye-catching designs.

This is only the second time that a Texas architecture firm has garnered the top prize from the AIA.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1947) to prohibit the offer of credit by a financial institution to a financial institution examiner, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S. 1947.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the basic pilot program was originally authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act. It allows employers in six States to verify the validity of the Social Security numbers of new hires. S. 1685 reauthorizes this program and expands it to allow employers in all 50 States to voluntarily participate in the basic pilot program.

The program offers employers the opportunity to ensure that individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States.

Illegal immigrants drive down wages and take jobs from American workers. Recent studies show immigration has depressed the wages of American workers in similar jobs by more than $2,500 per year. Ninety percent of the American people believe that we should reduce illegal immigration, and 79 percent feel that the Federal Government should require employers to verify the work status of potential employees. The main attraction for the 10 to 20 million illegal aliens who have crossed our borders is work. If we want to reduce the incentive for illegal immigration and its negative impacts, we must reduce the availability of jobs for illegal immigrants.

This program reduces illegal immigration because it allows employers to make sure they are only hiring someone who is eligible to work in the United States.

Everyone who is concerned about lost jobs and unemployment should support the expansion of the basic pilot program. If we are serious about saving jobs for citizens and legal immigrants, we should pass S. 1685.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which includes concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees and veterans. Currently, disabled retiree and veterans' benefits are offset by the amount of disability pay that they are eligible to receive. The legislation corrects that unfairness.

Members of Congress representing hundreds of thousands of retirees and veterans came together to achieve a significant, victory for disabled retirees and veterans. We fully support our soldiers--past and present.

The bill is fair, responsible, and appropriately recognizes the service of our nation's disabled retirees and veterans. It establishes a concurrent receipt for more disabled military retirees and veterans than ever before, and provides them with the retirement income they have earned and deserve.

Under current law, a disabled military retiree or veteran could be entitled to $1,000 a month in military retirement and $300 a month in disability. But the amount of the disability payment is subtracted from the retirement pay, leaving the soldier with a check for $700 in retirement and $300 in VA disability. A retiree or veteran is no better off if they suffered a disability than if they didn't. The legislation eliminates this inequity.

Active duty combat retirees and veterans who are 60 percent disabled and above now have full concurrent receipt. The key part of the agreement expands full concurrent receipt to all combat retirees and veterans with a Veterans Administration disability between 10 percent and 100 percent.

The agreement not only provides a full concurrent receipt benefit for active duty retirees and veterans, but also for reservists and national guardsmen who currently do not qualify for concurrent receipt under either Purple Heart or combat-related disability pay. The reservists and national guardsmen will receive full concurrent receipt if their disability is between 10 percent and 100 percent.

The legislation establishes benefits for those remaining retirees and veterans at 50 percent disability and above. They presently do not receive any benefits. That means every disabled military retiree and veteran with a disability greater than 50 percent will be entitled to concurrent receipt.

It also creates a 13-member bi-partisan commission appointed by Congressional leaders and the White House. Under the commission, for the first time since 1946, there will be a top-to-bottom review of the disability system. The commission's goal is to review the disability system to ensure that the appropriate benefits are provided to our retirees and veterans.

From World War II to Vietnam, from the Persian Gulf War to the War on Terror, we provided our active military with the tools they need to do their jobs, and our retirees and veterans with the proper benefits for their years of service. The concurrent receipt agreement follows that tradition and honors those who have served our country.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Associated Press carried a biased and inaccurate story on border security.

The writer said the U.S. has not prevented ``even one known militant'' from crossing our border with Mexico. I guess the person caught with a telephone number in his pocket linking him to three of the 9-11 terrorists did not count.

The point of border security is to prevent would-be terrorists from entering. Of course, there is no way of knowing how many people did not come because they were worried about being caught.

The reporter then tries to suggest that border security is a waste of money and blames the U.S. Border Patrol for deaths in Mexico of prospective illegal aliens.

Most Americans oppose illegal immigration and support our efforts to know who is coming into our country and why. They also know better than to blame America for Mexico's failure to stop its own citizens from making a dangerous trip.

Mr. Speaker, if Americans do not get the facts from the media objectively reported, they do not have a basis on which to make good decisions. For example, a few days ago The Washington Post ran a six-column page 2 story about the redistricting process that the Texas legislature completed earlier this month. The writer quoted eight Democratic Members of Congress but not one Republican official. This was obviously a one-sided report that did not give their readers a balanced accounting.

A recent Gallup Poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14 percent say the news media are too conservative. Ultimately, it is a matter of trust, whether the media trusts the American people with the unvarnished facts. They should. Let the people make up their own minds, not be told what to think.