Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. And at this point I think maybe we should end the debate. But no part of Mr. Fortenberry's or my motivations for introducing the bill, and I wouldn't speculate on the Senate's motivations, but no part of our motivation was to take the administration out of an embarrassing place where they have been making promises that couldn't be kept. We thought that justice, fairness, American tradition, and the risks that these people have taken to help our Armed Forces and our diplomats in one of the most difficult, hazardous situations in the world gave them a claim that we should respond to, not a promise made by somebody that we are forced to keep. We wanted them to have these visas. We weren't responding to pressure to take the administration and their people in Baghdad out of an embarrassing situation.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Translators and interpreters have been crucial to our efforts in Iraq, serving as a critical link between our troops and the Iraqi population. Because of their work for U.S. forces, many of these people have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they are under serious threat. These translators and interpreters who serve bravely alongside our troops need our immediate assistance. Singled out as collaborators, many are now targets by death squads, militias and al Qaeda. In Mosul, insurgents recorded and circulated the brutal execution of two interpreters, a stark warning to others who have assisted U.S. forces in the country. U.S. soldiers and embassy employees who have attempted to help their interpreters flee from violence have had to stand by hopelessly as their Iraqi colleagues went into hiding. Often leaving their families behind simply in order to survive. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry came to me with the idea, and I agreed, and we introduced broad, far-reaching legislation on this issue. We are taking up the bill before us today because the Senate already passed this by unanimous consent, and the urgency of the situation requires us to act now. This legislation will help quickly address this crisis by authorizing up to 500 special visas for Iraqis and Afghanis who put their lives at risk by working with the U.S. military and the U.S. embassy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all realize this is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased to have worked with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on helping to get this bill before us today. The original special visa legislation included in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act has proved wholly inadequate, authorizing only 50 visas a year, creating a backlog estimated to take 9 years to clear at the current rate. As of last week, nearly 500 Iraqis and Afghanis have gone through the requisite background checks and have been approved for the visa. Because of the backlog, they are stuck in limbo waiting for a visa that may never come. These people need us to act. The Senate passed this legislation over a month ago, and the administration is supportive of taking this action. Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs recently said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the U.S. military and embassy.'' Clearly, we owe these people a debt of gratitude. They have risked everything to help us out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the least we can do is help deliver them out of harm's way. But I tell my colleagues, the magnitude of the broader refugee crisis in Iraq far exceeds anything this bill attempts to resolve. We need to address the wider refugee issue, which has forced over 4 million Iraqis from their homes. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has legislation on this subject, and I think will be speaking to that broader issue. No one should take our efforts to do this now as a notion that that satisfies our obligation on something that we played a part in, creating the situation that led to this. Let me just add, I see this as an emergency effort. It can't be the last word on this matter. We must do something to deal with the larger refugee issue in Iraq, as I said, and it's very possible that the visas we are discussing in this bill will prove inadequate for this need. Still, I think we need to act now so that the visas are available. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1104) to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants, as amended.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend from Iowa makes interesting arguments, but to some extent undermines those arguments. He says rule of law is important, and, therefore, the committee should have accepted an amendment in the committee to make illegal what folks in our embassies and in our missions did, thereby undermining the argument that in any way there was any law violated. There was no law against expending funds to process these visas. There were no promises made to Iraqi interpreters and translators they would be guaranteed a visa. But when our folks in the field see a situation developing where the people who have allowed them to do their job, at great risk for their life and limb, are in desperate need for them and their families to essentially be appreciated and rewarded for that life-threatening effort, and they tell their folks that they work for in the Defense Department and in the State Department and the folks in Congress who are dealing with these issues that we need to do something about them, and we respond, that doesn't constitute a promise that no one had authority to make, a violation of the rule or law. And, by definition, I understand, and we have had many discussions on our immigration issues; in fact, the gentleman and I are both here now rather than at a hearing on the immigration issue. I understand the gentleman has a definition of amnesty which is wider than mine, but I never realized how much wider it was, that a bill that adds to the number of visas that can be given, after background checks and going through the regular process to ensure the security interests that we have before we issue a visa, that a bill that would increase the number of visas for these people who have put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the United States is an amnesty law. This takes that very expansive definition the gentleman has and I think expands it even further. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. I certainly don't know that that is true, and I would be stunned if it were. I would be stunned if our dedicated employees in a very difficult foreign mission or in the military were out promising things they couldn't deliver. I don't think our folks operate like that. I think they were processing applications in case and in the event that we increased the number of visas because the demand was so urgent. The gentleman from Oregon talked about 4 million refugees. We are talking about an infinitesimal subset that worked for us in our campaign efforts in Iraq.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives Federal prosecutors and agents stronger enforcement weapons against the most pernicious forms of human smuggling, terrorism-related smuggling and smuggling that results in kidnapping, rape or an attempt to kill. This bill is based on a provision that has been added into H.R. 1684, the Homeland Security Department Reauthorization Act, in its committee markup. The supporters of that provision agreed to withdraw it from that bill so the Judiciary Committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction, could take a closer look. The resulting bill amends both 8 U.S.C. 1324, the alien smuggling prohibition, and 18 U.S.C. 2237, the prohibition against failure to heave to, to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, increase maximum penalties for serious offenses and clarify the necessity defense that applies to legitimate maritime rescues. This bill applies not just to human smuggling in the maritime context, but to all cross-border human smuggling. It provides appropriately tough penalties for the kind of serious smuggling offenses I've just described, while distinguishing those from other types of transport such as noncommercial efforts to reunify families. While these practices also violate our immigration laws, they do not fall into the same category of offense, and should not be treated as harshly. Although the bill streamlines and strengthens the current offense language, it does not abandon existing case law that applies to alien smuggling offenses. For instance, it will remain a violation of Federal law both to bring illegal aliens to the United States and to bring other aliens across the border through places other than those designated as official entry ports. This is especially critical as Congress mandates that the Department of Homeland Security institute biometric entry and exit systems. For an orderly and fair immigration system to work, people must come in through these sites. The bill also prevents the current list of illegal activities, smuggling, recruiting, transporting and harboring, without adding new activities, such as assisting aliens in their efforts to enter our country. Again, this preserves the distinction between true smuggling and the work of groups such as faith-based organizations, who seek to serve the alien community on humanitarian grounds. Because this important distinction is preserved, the Judiciary Committee believes the religious activities exception in current law is sufficient, and the bill doesn't expand it. The bill also preserves current law in treating the offense of helping to bring in one's close family members as a misdemeanor. The bill also establishes for the first time in Federal law that it is illegal to transport persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine compartment, a storage compartment or other confined space; or overloaded or intentionally run ashore and grounded at high speed and left to scatter. Those kinds of inhumane practices have resulted in death or serious injury to numerous alien passengers. Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to consider providing further sentencing enhancements for particularly egregious offenses. Such enhancements should reach the smuggling of aliens in a life-threatening manner, the abandonment of aliens in the desert or discharging them onto spits of land that will be submerged in a high tide, or those cases that involve the facilitation of terrorism. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Hill. (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to get one sense of anger off my chest. I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois, but to talk about the Holocaust, to talk about Ahmadinejad, to talk about the historic deep commitment of this Congress and this country to the survival and the security of the State of Israel in the context of an unshown, unshared motion to recommit on a very sensitive issue partisanizes and cheapens a very important question, and I resent it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Rabbi Jonathan Jaffe Bernhard in recognition of his installation as Senior Rabbi of Adat Ari El. As a long-time member of the synagogue, I know firsthand of his excellent work and outstanding accomplishments, and have been the beneficiary of his ability to offer solace and comfort at difficult times. Jonathan Bernhard was born in Great Neck, Long Island, NY. From age seven to fourteen, he lived with his parents in London and then they returned to make their home in Manhattan. His interest in Judaism was sparked by reading Elie Wiesel's book, ``Night.'' While attending Haverford College, he majored in religious studies and he also worked on a Kibbutz. After receiving his BA in 1988, he traveled to Los Angeles to attend Brandeis-Bardein Summer Institute and then continued extensive studies at Yeshiva (Yeshivat Hamivtar) in Efrat on the West Bank. Jonathan's experiences in Israel inspired him to become an observant Jew. He wanted to become a professor of religion when he moved back to the United States. While living in Boston, he rekindled his friendship with Laurie Jaffe who encouraged him to pursue the rabbinate. They met at Brandeis-Bardein Institute in California in 1988. Upon completing his studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbi Bernhard was ordained in 1996 and took a position at Adat Ari El. Adat Ari El is in the heart of my congressional district and was the first conservative synagogue in the San Fernando Valley. Rabbi Bernhard is at the spiritual center of the Congregation and deserves commendation for his dedication to Jewish principles, education and culture. He continues to create and maintain a wonderful sense of Jewish community by helping provide an Early Childhood Center, Day School, Religious Schools, Adult Education and Sisterhood programs as well as Holiday services, daily Minyan services and the life cycle services (weddings, funerals, baby namings, bar/bat mitzvahs, unveilings.) Jonathan and Laurie married in 1992 and they are proud parents of three sons, Nathaniel, Micah and Elijah. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring Rabbi Bernhard for his invaluable role at Adat Ari El and within the Jewish community, and wishing him our fervent hope for continued success.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, this week, the Nation lost one of its most colorful and wise counselors: Jack Valenti, who was the personification of the motion picture industry in Washington. I can't think of another industry that has had a representative so well known and so highly regarded, or one so accessible in spite of his considerable fame. Much more than ``just'' a lobbyist, Jack had an intense interest in public policy and a wisdom about him that made him an extremely valuable counselor to Presidents, to Congressmen and Senators and to his peers and colleagues. He was a great man with a charm and wit that won him genuine affection as well as near universal admiration. The following op-ed article from the Washington Post of Saturday, April 28 was written by Matt Gerson, who worked with and was mentored by Jack. It describes perfectly the loss felt by those of us who were also fortunate enough to learn from this extraordinary man. What Jack Valenti Taught Us All Jack Valenti lived a unique life between two of society's fascinations--politics and Hollywood. For Republicans and Democrats, for senators and young aides, for celebrities and the legions behind the cameras, interactions with him were graduate seminars in history, politics, human nature and common sense. This extraordinary communicator punctuated every conversation with a witticism linked to his beloved Texas, a quote from an obscure historical figure or a rule passed on to him by his mentor, Lyndon Johnson. In the weeks leading up to his death Thursday, all over town a simple ``How's Jack?'' almost always led to, ``You know, I try to live by something I once heard him say.'' I first noticed his reach when a lunch companion said, ``I try to return every phone call the same day I receive it, and I try to treat an appointment secretary like a Cabinet secretary.'' That was followed by a senator who revealed: ``Jack was the first one to contact me after my son died. I will never forget his concern and support. How can I reach his family?'' For those Jack mentored during the 38 years he dedicated to America's film industry, it became clear that character was defined by loyalty. In both Washington and Hollywood, people often desert ``friends'' at the first whiff of public disfavor. Not Jack--time and again he insisted that you never abandon a friend who was going through a rough time, and he always stood with a beleaguered colleague or public official who was receiving unwanted publicity. He would tell his team to respect every elected official (``because you never even ran for dog catcher, and they were sent here by the people''). He admonished us that your adversary today might be your ally tomorrow. ``In a political struggle, never get personal--else the dagger digs too deep.'' Jack rejected the partisanship that gripped Washington and would warn that ``nothing lasts--today's minority backbencher will be tomorrow's subcommittee chairman.'' On the day the Motion Picture Association of America headquarters was named the Jack Valenti Building, Senator Ted Stevens observed, ``Jack works across the aisle because he doesn't see an aisle. It is the root of his success and what others ought to emulate.''. Each of the six studio chiefs who spoke at the dedication ceremony emphasized that Jack's word was his bond--if he made a promise, he never wavered. His rock-solid commitment gave him unusual credibility with leaders on both coasts and around the world. Jack was a gifted public speaker who put incredible effort into making it all look effortless. He would rework his text behind closed doors, reciting it until the cadence was just right. Jack was ebullient when a president complimented him once on the ``extemporaneous'' remarks he had made at the Gridiron Club. ``The president couldn't believe I didn't have a prepared text. I neglected to mention that I didn't need notes because I spent several days getting ready,'' he said. It was especially fun to watch Washington's most accomplished professionals try to decipher one of his homilies. They eventually got the point and often adopted the line as their own. When a project was in trouble, it was time to ``hunker down like a mule in a hailstorm.'' [Modified from the original Texas vernacular for a family newspaper.] When prospects got even worse, ``The ox was in the ditch.'' But every problem could be addressed if you remembered ``the three most important words in the English language: Wait a minute.'' When someone from the MPAA left to take a new job, Jack would say, ``I like to think I teach my people everything they know. But I know I didn't teach them everything I know.'' That line always got a laugh. I worked with Jack for 6 years and was friends with him for nearly two decades. In the past few years, frankly, I thought I had gleaned every lesson he had to offer. But then I picked up the galleys of his soon-to-be-published memoir, a book that tracks his ``Greatest Generation'' fable. This grandson of Sicilian immigrants, decorated combat pilot, Harvard MBA (``thanks to the greatest piece of social legislation ever devised by man--the G.I. Bill''), presidential adviser and confidant of America's business leaders has left a treatise with even more rules to live by. One paragraph is a must-read for the BlackBerry-addicted. Jack quoted Emerson's observation that ``for every gain, there is a loss. For every loss, there is a gain.'' While lamenting the number of nights he spent away from his family, he reminded us that attending one more reception meant missing a meal around the dinner table, and one extra night on a business trip would mean one less chance to help with homework or watch a soccer game. I have recounted that quote many times over the past few weeks. And while this loss is devastating for many in Washington and Los Angeles, the life lessons that are his legacy are our gain.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, April 24th, marks the 92nd anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to commemorate this terrible chapter in human history, and to help ensure that it will never be forgotten. On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes. Then the government deported most Armenians from Turkish Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Many deportees never reached that destination. From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed all remaining Armenians from Turkey. We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all humanity. It is our duty to remember, to speak out and to teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people. We hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate as well the memory of genocide's victims. Sadly, we cannot say humanity has progressed to the point where genocide has become unthinkable. We have only to recall the ``killing fields'' of Cambodia, mass killings in Rwanda, ``ethnic cleansing'' in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the unspeakable horrors in Darfur, Sudan to see that the threat of genocide persists. We must renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on innocent human beings. We also remember this day because it is a time for us to celebrate the contribution of the Armenian community in America--including hundreds of thousands in California--to the richness of our character and culture. The strength they have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their success is moving testimony to the truth that tyranny and evil cannot extinguish the vitality of the human spirit. The United States has an ongoing opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system. Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce ``The Patent Reform Act of 2007'', a product of both bicameral and bipartisan effort to reform the patent system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I would especially like to thank Senator Leahy for his dedication to addressing many of the inadequacies in our current patent system. Furthermore, I appreciate my past and present partners in this area--especially Congressman Rick Boucher, with whom I've worked closely to increase patent quality for the past several years, and Congressman Lamar Smith, who championed this issue last Congress. Introduction of this legislation follows a number of recent judicial opinions and many hearings conducted over the past several years by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property which ascertained that the current patent system is flawed. Over the last 5 years, there have been numerous attempts to define the challenges facing the patent system today. Among the most notable contributions to this discourse are the Patent and Trademark Office's Twenty-First Century Strategic Plan, the Federal Trade Commission's report entitled ``To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy,'' The National Research Council's compilation of articles ``A Patent System for the 21st Century'' and the book titled ``Innovation and Its Discontents,'' authored by two respected economists. These studies offer a number of recommendations for increasing patent quality and ensuring that patent protection promotes--rather than inhibits--economic growth and scientific progress. Consistent with the goals and recommendations of those reports, and based on past patent bills, the Patent Reform Act contains a number of provisions designed to improve patent quality, deter abusive practices by patent holders, provide meaningful, low-cost alternatives to litigation for challenging the patent validity and harmonize U.S. patent law with the patent law of most other countries. Past attempts at achieving comprehensive patent reform have met with stiff resistance. However, the time to reform the system is way past due. The New York Times has noted, ``Something has gone very wrong with the United States patent system.'' The Financial Times has stated, ``It is time to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law.'' Therefore, we are introducing this bill as a first step to restoring the necessary balance in our patent system. I firmly believe that robust patent protection promotes innovation. However, I also believe that the patent system is strongest, and that incentives for innovation are greatest, when patents protect only those inventions that are truly innovative. When functioning properly, the patent system should encourage and enable inventors to push the boundaries of knowledge and possibility. If the patent system allows questionable patents to issue and does not provide adequate safeguards against patent abuses, the system may stifle innovation and interfere with competitive market forces. This bill represents our latest perspectives in an ongoing discussion about legislative solutions to patent quality concerns, patent litigation abuses, and the need for harmonization. We have considered the multitude of comments received concerning prior patent bills and over the course of numerous negotiations between the parties. We acknowledge that the problems are difficult and, as yet, without agreed-upon solutions. It is clear, however, that introduction and movement of legislation will focus and advance the discussion. It is also clear that the problems with the patent system have been exacerbated by a decrease in patent quality and an increase in litigation abuses. With or without consensus, Congress must act to address these problems. Thus, we introduce this bill with the intent of passage in the 110th Congress. There are a number of issues which we have chosen not to include in the bill, primarily because we hope they will be addressed without the need for legislation. For instance, the Supreme Court recently resolved questions regarding injunctive relief. In that category, we include amendments to Section 271(f) and the obviousness standard as both issues are currently before the Supreme Court. If either of those issues are left unresolved, Congress may need to reevaluate whether to include them in a patent bill. The bill does contain a number of initiatives designed to harmonize U.S. law with the law of other countries, improve patent quality and limit litigation abuses, thereby ensuring that patents remain positive forces in the marketplace. I will highlight a number of them below. Section 3 converts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to file system. The U.S. is alone in granting priority to the first inventor as opposed to the first inventor to file a patent. There is consensus from many global companies and academics that the switch in priority mechanisms provide the U.S. with greater international consistency, and eliminate the costly and complex interference proceedings that are currently necessary to establish the right to obtain a patent. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor to file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, we have maintained a grace period to substantially reduce the negative impact to these inventors. However, we need to maintain an open dialogue to ensure that the patent system will continue to foster innovation from individual inventors. Section 5 addresses both the topic of apportionment and wilfullness. Patents are provided to promote innovation by allowing owners to realize the value of their inventions. However, many have argued that recent case law has tilted towards overcompensation, which works against the primary goal of promoting innovation. ``Excessive damages awards effectively allow inventors to obtain proprietary interests in products they have not invented, promote patent speculation and litigation and place unreasonable royalty burdens upon producers of high technology products. Such consequences may ultimately slow the process of technological innovation and dissemination the patent system is intended to foster.'' While preserving the right of patent owners to receive appropriate damages, the bill seeks to provide a formula to ensure that the patent owner be rewarded for the actual value of the patented invention. Furthermore, this Section seeks to curb the unfair incentives that currently exist for patent holders who indiscriminately issue licensing letters. Patent proprietors frequently assert that another party is using a patented invention and for a fee, offer to grant a license for such use. Current law does little to dissuade patent holders from mailing such licensing letters. Frequently these letters are vague and fail to identify the particular claims of the patent being infringed and the manner of infringement. In fact, the law tacitly promotes this strategy since a recipient, upon notice of the letter, may be liable for treble damages as a willful infringer. Section 5 addresses this situation by ensuring that recipients of licensing letters will not be exposed to liability for willful infringement unless the letter clearly states the acts that allegedly constitute infringement and identifies each particular patent claim to the product or process that the patent owner believes is being infringed. Section 6 provides a needed change to the inter-partes reexamination procedure. Unfortunately, the inter-partes reexamination procedure is rarely used, but the changes we introduce should encourage third parties to make better use of the opportunity to request that the PTO Director reexamine an issued patent of questionable validity. Primarily though, Section 6 creates a post-grant opposition procedure. In an effort to address the questionable quality of patents issued by the USPTO, the bill establishes a check on the quality of a patent immediately after it is granted, or in circumstances where a party can establish significant economic harm resulting from assertion of the patent. The post-grant procedure is designed to allow parties to challenge a granted patent through a expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation. Many have expressed concerns about the possibility of harassment of patent owners who want to assume quiet title over their invention. In an effort to address those concerns, the bill prohibits multiple bites at the apple by restricting the cancellation petitioner to opt for only one window one time. The bill also requires that the Director prescribe regulations for sanctions for abuse of process or harassment. During the legislative process we will likely provide more statutory guidance for the Director in establishing regulations guiding the post-grant opposition. We appreciate that this is an extremely complicated and new procedure and therefore we look forward to working with various industries to ensure the proceeding is balanced, fair and efficient. Part of the goal of this Section is to also address the quality problem in patents which have already been issued and are at the heart of the patent reform discussion. Section 9 permits third parties a limited amount of time to submit to the USPTO prior art references relevant to a pending patent application. Allowing such third party submissions will increase the likelihood that examiners have available to them the most relevant ``prior art,'' thereby constituting a front-end solution for strengthening patent quality. The bill also addresses changes to venue to address extensive forum shopping, provides for interlocutory appeals to help clarify the claims of the inventions early in the litigation process, establishes regulatory authority for the USPTO to parallel the authority of other agencies, and expands prior user rights to accommodate in part for the switch to first-inventor-to-file. When considering these provisions together, we believe that this bill provides a balanced package of reforms that successfully accounts for the interests of numerous stakeholders in the patent system, including individual inventors, small enterprises, universities, and the varied industry groups, and that are necessary for the patent system to achieve its primary goal of advancing innovation. This bill is the latest iteration of a process started many years ago. Deserving of thanks are the many constitutional scholars, policy advocates, private parties, and government agencies that have and continue to contribute their time, thoughts, and drafting talents to this effort, including, of course, the legislative counsel. I am pleased that finally, we have a critical mass of interested parties who understand the need for reform. Though we developed this bill in a highly deliberative manner, using many past bills as the foundation for the provisions, I do not want to suggest that it is a ``perfect'' solution. This bill is merely the first step in a process. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences. Furthermore, there are a host of issues or varied approaches to patent reform which are likely not even covered by the bill but may be considered at a later time. I hope to work with the many cosponsors and the diverse industry, university and inventor groups to reach further consensus as we move this bill towards final passage. As I have said previously, ``The bottom line in this is there should be no question that the U.S. patent system produces high quality patents. Since questions have been raised about whether this is the case, the responsibility of Congress is to take a close look at the functioning of the patent system.'' High patent quality is essential to continued innovation. Litigation abuses, especially ones committed by those which thrive on low quality patents, impede the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts. Thus, we must act quickly during the 110th Congress to maintain the integrity of the patent system.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, for more than 40 years, Nelson W. Polsby was a leading figure in American political science years he served as editor of the subject's premier journal, the American Political Science Review, and his friendships and books and articles on the U.S. Congress, the presidency, political parties, elections, and the media made him a mentor to generations of graduate students. Naturally warm and gregarious--with the comic timing of a master improviser--Nelson helped to build strong communities at his beloved University of California, Berkeley, at its Institute of Government Studies (IGS), which he headed for 10 years, and in the wider political science profession. Born in 1934, Nelson Woolf Polsby came from Yankee Jewish farming stock, based in Connecticut. His family encouraged his precocious interest in current affairs. In the early 1900s a great-uncle ran for the mayoralty in New Haven as a socialist. His father, a successful businessman, died after a surgical mishap when Nelson was 11. At prep school (there were not many Jewish farm boys, and even fewer at prep school) he was a brilliant student, turning down offers from Yale and Harvard universities to attend Johns Hopkins. This enabled him to sit in the House and Senate galleries and observe Congress at work. His academic breakthrough came from his association with Robert Dahl's pathbreaking study of political power in New Haven in the 1950s, Who Governs? (1961). His doctorate was published as Community Power and Political Theory in 1963 and was quickly regarded as a masterpiece. He argued that rather than a single dominant elite running things, there were different elites in different areas and that this pluralism was compatible with democracy. Polsby spent 6 years at Wesleyan University, becoming a full professor in 1967. That year he moved to Berkeley, where he remained for the rest of his career, in spite of offers from other universities, including Yale and Harvard. At an early stage, therefore, he had developed his two chief interests; the theory of democracy and how it operates in practice. He also developed his lifelong interest in Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, in the 1960s. He showed how it had become institutionalized and how the seniority system for allocating key roles developed. He also analyzed how the large contingent of Democrats (``Dixiecrats'') from the segregationist and more conservative South, in contrast to the more liberal Democrats from the North, prevented that party from using its nominal majority to give effective leadership to Congress. Later, in How Congress Evolves (2004), he explored the decline of the South in the House and the emergence of sharper partisanship in its operations. In 1964 he and his dynamic Berkeley colleague, Aaron Wildavsky, published Presidential Elections. Revised and published quadrennially-- its 12th edition is scheduled for publication in the summer of 2007--it remains the standard text on the topic. After Wildavsky died in 1993, Polsby was the sole author and claimed that: ``The only difference since Aaron's death is that I win the arguments.'' His prose was highly readable and marked by wide reading and incisive analysis. Polsby confessed that his insomnia was caused by noticing light in the rooms of colleagues in the early hours of the morning--they were still at work! He quipped: ``While Polsby sleeps, Wildavsky publishes.'' He also wrote witty pieces on politics under an assumed name, Arthur Clun (borrowed from Angus Wilson's Anglo-Saxon Attitudes). They prompted a publisher to offer a book contract to the mystery author. A keen observer of the British political scene, he collaborated with Geoffrey Smith, a political commentator for The Times, to publish British Government and Its Discontents in 1981. At 37 he received the accolade of the editorship of the APSR. For 6 years he successfully managed, in a relaxed style, the journal's staff and coped with pressures from authors and reviewers. Polsby was a popular choice to become director of the IGS in 1988. He seemed to know everybody and to have read almost everything. He invited visiting scholars and politicians to talk about their work and their experiences--his good friend, Chris Patten was a regular visitor. He did much to create a friendly atmosphere, and a high point was the afternoon tea at which he presided. Having basked in the acclamation for his work he was desolate when his term expired in 1999, a consequence of the university's 10-year rule for tenure. The Institute had meant so much to him. His Consequences of Party Reform (1983) was sharply critical of some of the effects of the reforms the Democratic Party made to the presidential nominating process in the late 1960s. These gave increased representation to some minorities (race and gender) but not others, and increased the influence of single-issue groups in the party's deliberations. But they also weakened the party's ability to nominate presidential candidates representative of the broad American public and to win elections. Polsby was always concerned about good government and citizenship. If Polsby argued with someone it was a mark of his approbation. Speakers who assumed that Polsby, eyes shut and snoring in the audience, was asleep could quickly be confounded when the ``sleeper'' made a pertinent, or ferocious, intervention. He received many honors, including an honorary degree from the University of Liverpool. He had the respect of political reporters, and many politicians, for his understanding of the constraints under which they worked, and he drew readily on his encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. politics to provide wise counsel. He regarded his frequent contributions to ``round tables'' and op-ed pages as part of a professional obligation to inform the public, entertaining ``the delusion that too few of my opinions were available to the world at large''. At home, Polsby and his wife Linda provided rich hospitality for their many Berkeley and overseas friends. For a time they jointly wrote a column on restaurants for California magazine. He was a keen follower of the local Oakland Athletics baseball team. But most of all he loved passionate argument with friends. I personally benefited from a number of personal contacts with Professor Polsby over the years. He always had both astute insights into what was going on in politics and a great sense of humor. But the first time I met him was perhaps the most valuable. Two or three days after I was elected to Congress, I was invited to take part in a retreat for new members from California--of which there were eight--at UC San Diego. Professor Polsby was the scholar in charge and his views on how to be effective and what to look for as a new Member of Congress have been of great value to me throughout my entire tenure in the House of Representatives. Polsby is survived by his wife Linda, their two daughters Lisa and Emily, their son Daniel, and their grandsons Benjamin and Edward.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Cesar Chavez, not only because he was one of the great leaders of our country, but also because he was my friend. Cesar was a man of courage, faith, and love who shared his strength with thousands and inspired millions of Americans. To know Cesar was to stand in awe of the enormous task he set for himself and the great moral leadership he gave to the campaign to challenge injustice and achieve peaceful change. His life, his cause, and his commitment have been and remain an inspiration to me. His struggle for oppressed farmworkers fired our conscience. He insisted that this Nation acknowledge that every human being, regardless of origin, is of worth and is entitled to reach for a better tomorrow. What made Cesar Chavez stand out was that he lived the principles he preached: truth and courage. He knew what it was like to be treated without respect, and to work all day, everyday, with little to show for it. A lesser man may have burned up with anger, but Chavez burned with a love of justice and hope for a brighter future. Cesar's struggle for justice is far from over and we must continue to help others help themselves. In Congress, we hold the power to create change. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 would bring major improvements to the lives of farmworkers in America. This bill would create a path for eligible undocumented farmworkers to apply for temporary immigration status or permanent residency based on their work experience. It would also preserve and enhance key labor protections for guestworkers. Like Chavez, I believe there's nothing more wasteful than leaving a child with no good choices after graduation, and nothing more un- American than charging children with the offenses of their parents. With Cesar in mind, I introduced the Dream Act, a bill that helps undocumented students realize their dream of going to college and becoming permanent legal members of the communities they've always called home. Cesar helped us see through the eyes of farmworkers--and what they saw was a dark and hopeless world. But under his leadership, they saw a new world, one of strength and hope, united against poverty and exploitation. Under UFW contracts, they won higher pay and for the first time--health coverage and pension benefits. We will remember Cesar's fight and never forget what he taught us-- that we will succeed--that we will protect the gains that were so hard to win--that we will never give up.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor an individual whose service to the people of City of Los Angeles is as a model to us all. His dedication, talent, and integrity played a role in building Los Angeles to the cultural and cutting edge city it is today. Philip Depoian dedicated nearly 34 years to the City of Los Angeles, serving under four Mayors and many city council members. He began his career with the city as Mayor Tom Bradley's first Scheduling Director and thereafter as Special Counsel. Mr. Depoian subsequently became the Intergovernmental Liaison to the Mayor, to the Police Department, and to Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). During his time with the mayor, Mr. Depoian took a leave of absence to work on the International Presidential Advance Planning for the White House during a portion of the Jimmy Carter Administration. In 1994, Mr. Depoian was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley to the position of Deputy Executive Director for the Government and External Affairs of Los Angeles World Airports that includes representation for all four of LAWA's airports: Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport, Palmdale Regional Airport and Van Nuys Airport. With his extensive knowledge of governmental affairs, legislative analysis, international relations and public policy, he oversaw many divisions at LAWA including Environmental Management, Noise Management, Public Affairs and Rideshare. He also launched the Air Service Marketing Division and developed a multi-faceted approach to market LAWA's regional airports Through Mr. Depoian's efforts, LAWA was able to expand its market overseas by creating marketing offices in Tokyo and London. He played a key role in re-establishing passenger service in Mexico and reopening U.S. Customs and Immigration there. It was through Mr. Depoian's leadership that LAWA was able to create sister-airport cooperative agreements with airports in Inchon, South Korea, and Beijing and Guangzhou, China. Mr. Depoian is retiring to spend more time with his wife, Julie Pastor Depoian and their daughter, Katie. His retirement from city service will leave a great void to all who depended on his sage advice, his tenacity, his charm and intelligence with which he approached all tasks. He has served the city at several capacities and his innovation and expertise has helped Los Angeles keep pace with its mission as an economic hub. It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to express my thanks, and that of a grateful city, to Philip Depoian for his years of dedication to public service. I wish him success and happiness in all his future endeavors.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to honor my valiant constituent, Tec. Sgt. Irving Feinarman, as he receives the Jubilee of Liberty Medal for his courageous acts during the Normandy Invasion, and his illustrious legacy of courage throughout World War II. Mr. Feinarman was drafted at the age of 22 into the army. He trained at Fort Meade, Camp Picket, and Fort Dix before he was sent into combat in North Africa and Sicily. After operations ended in Sicily, he was sent to train in England for the 8 months leading to a great invasion and then, as he put it, ``Before I knew it, I was on Omaha Beach on D Day!'' Tec. Sgt. Feinarman was supposed to be part of the second wave on the beach, landing at 6 a.m., but the beach was so overrun, it was difficult to tell the first from the second wave of soldiers. He and his fellow soldiers just kept fighting, cut off from their leadership, and pushing onward until they found themselves fighting in the hedgerows of Normandy. As the Battle of the Bulge began, Feinarman had been given leave in Paris for a few days. Suddenly, however, all American soldiers were rounded up. He and his compatriots did not know that they were being put back into combat as the Germans were about to start ``their big push, trying to get us all out of Europe, period. Giving us everything they had.'' Mr. Feinarman was awarded the Bronze Star for his valor in Aachen, Germany. Surrounded by enemy tanks and cut off from the commander of his unit, he volunteered to cross the field and get help. He was shot at, but got through unharmed, and returned with the assistance his company needed. At the end of the war, Irving Feinarman was the only man from his entire original company--over 200 soldiers--who survived and remained unwounded, an amazing victory itself. To his family and his lifelong friend Bill Etros, Mr. Feinarman's warmth and laughter are part of every fond memory. With great humility and humor, he insists that he is no hero for his brave actions, that he was only doing his duty. Would that there were some recognition beyond a medal that this country could award Mr. Feinarman who came through the hell of war with a laugh in his heart and a smile on his lips. I ask my colleagues here in the House of Representatives to join me today in expressing the Nation's gratitude to a brave soldier, Irving Feinarman.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman who cosponsored this bill with me, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee. H.R. 580 does only one thing, it restores the checks and balances that, until last year, had long been part of the process for filling vacancies in U.S. Attorneys' offices. I won't go through the history of how interim U.S. Attorneys were appointed, because the chairman has spelled it out, and the gentleman from North Carolina has reaffirmed that history. But I want to address the one issue my friend from North Carolina raised, which is, were we to take a longer time, this might have been, at least to his way of thinking, a better approach. The whole goal of this bill is to restore the status quo ante before a sneak attack change on the law utilized in the PATRIOT Act without anyone calling special attention to it, undiscussed by the conferees or by the members of either this House or the other body, change that law to give the executive bench total authority in this particular area. The Senator, a member of the other body who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the other body during this time, has said that he didn't know about the provision until a colleague alerted him to it last month. The former chairman's staff told him that the Department of Justice provided the language and that it was inserted in the conference report by a member of his staff who was made U.S. Attorney in Utah only 4 months later. Now we have a different story from the Department of Justice. Will Moschella, the former head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, now claims sole responsibility for the provision and says he pursued the change on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or the White House. This is a Department, the Department of Justice, that says it fired eight U.S. Attorneys for not coordinating their work 100 percent with the priorities of the Department, and yet we are supposed to believe that they are permitting a relatively low-level official to fly solo in changing Federal law on the appointment of U.S. Attorneys without any other departmental involvement. It is for this reason, I say to my friend from North Carolina, that the first thing we need to do is to go back to the status quo ante, the compromise worked out in the Reagan administration with Attorney General Ed Meese, a Democratic House and the Republican Senate in 1986, which allowed for this process where we gave for the first time the Attorney General the right to name an interim U.S. Attorney, providing the district court with the theoretical ability, should that court choose to do so, to replace or, as has been much more likely, simply reaffirm the naming of the interim U.S. Attorney if no full U.S. Attorney had been confirmed yet by the Senate. What is clear from the e-mails provided to the Judiciary Committee is that the Department of Justice and White House employees, whatever their motivation in pushing this proposal originally, whatever their motivation, they quickly figured out that the provision created the possibility to circumvent the Senate and decided to exploit that power. One e-mail between the Department of Justice and the White House depicts an effort to slow-walk a nomination so an interim appointee can stay in place. The two employees discussed an interim appointee in Arkansas who they knew was unlikely to get Senate confirmation. An employee in the White House Counsel's Office writes, ``If this is a section 546 appointment for unlimited duration, he can call himself U.S. Attorney. Our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.''' The Attorney General's chief of staff replies, and I quote, ``We should gum this to death. Our guy is in there so the status quo is good for us. Pledge a desire for a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney and otherwise hunker down.'' I suggest there is ample opportunity in the record to recognize that the change we made in the PATRIOT Act without the knowledge, as far as I can tell, of any representative of either House was an ill-considered change; and the first thing we need to do and what this bill does is bring the law back to what had existed.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly outstanding gentleman, Merv Griffin. Merv is a distinguished entertainer and business entrepreneur, as well as a man who is deeply committed to helping others. Merv is a special friend of the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center and gives generously of his time and energy to fight this disease. As a prostate cancer survivor, he is deeply aware of the importance of medical research being done by the Center which was established by the Warschaw Family at Cedar Sinai Medical Center in memory of Louis, their beloved husband and father. Merv is one of the world's great performers. He began his distinguished career as a singer at 19, and shortly thereafter formed his own record label, Panda Records. His self-released album ``Songs by Merv Griffin'' was the first American album recorded on magnetic tape. Freddy Martin, impressed with Merv's talent, asked him to tour with his orchestra. Four years later, Merv started as a solo performer, scoring a number one hit with ``I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts.'' In 1958 Merv launched his brilliant television career as host of the game shows ``Play your Hunch'' and ``Keep Talking. ``In 1963, he hosted and produced ``Word for Word. `` The following year, he produced the incredibly successful ``Jeopardy'' and followed that with ``Wheel of Fortune.'' These two shows established Merv as a television legend. Merv was also much admired and respected as a television talk show host. Among his most interesting and controversial guests were journalists Adele Rogers St. John, futurist Buckminster Fuller, writer Norman Mailer, and philosopher Bertrand Russell. In addition to his show business success, Merv is a real estate magnate with prestigious properties in Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, Atlantic City and Scottsdale. He raises thoroughbred racehorses on his ranch in Carmel, CA and owns St. Clerans Manor, an 18th century estate, near Galway, Ireland. In 2001, Merv returned to singing with the release of the album ``It's Like a Dream,'' and this year his production company began pre- production on a new syndicated game show, ``Let's Play Crossword,'' which is expected to air in September. I am proud to ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Merv Griffin for his lifetime of extraordinary accomplishments, and in expressing our appreciation for his support of the Louis Warschaw Prostate Cancer Center.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Ms. Watson for yielding me this time. I came to Sacramento as a State assemblyman, elected in 1972, began my service in 1973, and had never known Leo McCarthy or met him before that time. Already in the California Assembly, a speakership fight was brewing between Leo McCarthy and sort of the favored candidate over the vacancy which would occur when the Speaker at that time was planning to run for Governor and would be giving up his seat. In the course of the year and a half between the time I came to Sacramento and the time that I voted for Speaker, I got to know someone who was particularly unique in terms of public office and public service. I would say three words characterize the service of Leo McCarthy in all aspects of his public career and, I think, of his personal life: probity, energy, and a tremendous level of integrity. This was a very unusual public servant. He cared deeply about the public interest, about policy, about learning what needed to be known to be effective and advocating for policies, about building legislative consensus, and about making things happen. During the 5 years that he was Speaker in the State Assembly, I had the honor of being for 4\1/2\ of those 5\1/2\ years his majority floor leader. The end of our legislative careers wasn't quite as good as the start of it because we ended up in a speakership fight that got rather out of control and 11 months of battle. I think of speakership fights in California as war by other means, and that is what we had during that time. And, unfortunately, after that time while our relationship was civil and friendly, it was never as close as it was before. I have never met anybody who made his fundamental decisions on what legislation to prioritize, what to push based on a focus on the public interest without regard to what a particular lobbyist or a particular specialist might push, with a level of integrity and with a level of energy, it has already been referenced in terms of his career, that was really unique in public office. He really was a very fine man, a very youthful man. In fact, his passing is so tragic because of that youth and vigor that he always exhibited.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 46th anniversary of the Peace Corps. In October 1960 then Senator John F. Kennedy challenged students at the University of Michigan to serve their country and the cause of peace by living and working in the developing world. This challenge was met with enthusiasm and led to the creation of the Peace Corps less than 5 months later on March 1, 1961. Since then, over 187,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 139 countries. Peace Corps volunteers have made significant contributions and improved the lives of individuals and communities around the world. They have impacted agriculture, business development, information technology, education, health, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The Peace Corps also provides short-term assistance to countries in need through its Crisis Corps Volunteer Program. These former volunteers have assisted domestically with Hurricane Katrina efforts. Internationally, they have helped with rebuilding efforts in tsunami devastated areas of Sri Lanka and Thailand, and in Guatemala after Hurricane Stan. In addition to their invaluable work abroad, volunteers gain marketable skills for use in the United States upon returning home. Worldwide, volunteers learn over 250 languages and dialects and receive extensive cross-cultural trainings that have been put to use in Congress, the Executive branch, the Foreign Service, education, business, finance, industry, trade, health care, and the social services sector. I am proud to be a strong supporter of the Peace Corps which has become a symbol of our nation's commitment to progress, opportunity, and development worldwide. On this anniversary, I would also like to acknowledge the two individuals from my district who are currently volunteering in Africa: Jorge A. Gaitan who is serving in Burkina Faso and Casey L. Kohler who is serving in Togo. I commend both of them for dedicating two years of their lives to helping others abroad and for serving as ambassadors from the United States.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 122.