Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Because under this bill, they can decide to violate that Supreme Court decision, and the West Virginia Supreme Court, now the final arbiter of it, says, we did not like that decision in the first place, and now the Supreme Court cannot take jurisdiction of this case, so they decide to reverse, for West Virginia purposes, the Barnette case that the Supreme Court decided in 1944, and this bill strips away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to say, you did not follow our precedent.

Mr. BERMAN. And the voters of that State.

Mr. BERMAN. The first amendment was to protect the exercise of religion, even if the majority didn't like that religion.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of an outstanding individual, Ted Ryan. Mr. Ryan was one of amateur radio's most prolific teachers, instructing thousands from 1964 to 2000. He also pioneered the teaching of ham radio in the Los Angeles Unified School District. He was born on March 15, 1929, in Detroit, Michigan. He served in World War II in Panama, and earned the Legion of Merit for his work on a gunnery system. He studied at the University of Southern California and California State University, Northridge. Ted Ryan started his extensive amateur radio career in 1964, teaching free licensing classes at the San Fernando Amateur Radio Club, W6SD. The club grew to one of the largest and best run in the country because of his skill and competence. From 1970 to 1982, he taught electric shop and ham radio at John Burroughs Junior High School. After retiring from teaching full-time, he continued to teach at the Red Cross. Mr. Ryan saw ham radio as more than just an interesting hobby. He told his students that, if they were drafted, a ham radio license could ``put a microphone instead of a rifle'' in their hands. He was fond of saying that amateur radio saved the lives of many of his students during the Vietnam War. Mr. Ryan also emphasized the importance of public service, and taught his students to be ready to go onto emergency power in the case of an emergency. Ted Ryan is also remembered for his kindness and devotion to his students. He liked to be called ``Grandpa,'' and told his students ``Grandpa loves you.'' He always came to school early and stayed late, often inviting students to his house on Saturday mornings for tutoring sessions and extra help. Mr. Ryan touched the lives of all he knew. I am proud to honor the memory of Ted Ryan, ham radio license number WB6JXY.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sondra Frohlich, who is celebrating her retirement from her position as executive director of the Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce. Sondra has overseen the Sherman Oaks Chamber since 1997 and has been an active leader in the community for over 40 years. Sondra has been a dynamic force on the Sherman Oaks Chamber. During her tenure as executive director, the chamber experienced a 100-member net increase and expanded its involvement in business and community improvements. She was one of the founders of the Village at Sherman Oaks Business Improvement Districts, which has blossomed into one of the valley's most recognized destinations for shopping. She was also the incorporator of the Sherman Oaks Business Improvement District to the State of California. Ms. Frohlich has enjoyed many other accomplishments in her position as executive director of the chamber. She was responsible for the expansion of the Sherman Oaks Street Fair through her engagement of professional management. She coordinated the chamber fight for business tax relief and worker's compensation reforms. She won national recognition for excellence of the chamber's website. Outside of her work with the Sherman Oaks Chamber, Ms. Frohlich has been very involved in the larger San Fernando Valley community. A true leader, she has served as president of the San Fernando Valley Business and Professional Association, the Northridge Republican Women's Club, and twice has led the Rotary Club of Studio City-Sherman Oaks. She is currently the secretary of the Mid-Valley Community Police Council, a support group to the Van Nuys division of the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the Circle of Care Foundation. Sondra Frohlich is an outstanding community leader and activist. Her commitment to the San Fernando Valley is impressive, and her leadership is evident. Even with her imminent retirement, she will continue to make a difference. Ms. Frohlich may be retiring from the Chamber of Commerce, but she is not retiring from involvement in the life and growth of the valley. Ms. Frohlich has been a distinguished leader, and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring her for all of her outstanding accomplishments.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cynthia Wong who recently passed away. Ms. Wong served as a Pacoima middle-school librarian since 1994 and was an active member and officer of several professional organizations, including the California School Library Association. Ms. Wong possessed an enormous passion for books and through this passion inspired many students. The hard work she put in as a Pacoima librarian has paid many dividends to the community. She was known to engage students through her bookmark and reading contests and would spend many hours of her own time planning and leading district workshops. Ms. Wong's work has been so important to the community that her fellow staff members, along with her students, have decided to honor her through the dedication of a Professional Research Center and a Memorial Reading Garden. Both the center and the garden will be built next to the library that Ms. Wong loved for 12 years. It is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Ms. Wong for her outstanding achievements. She was an amazing person and her memory will live on through the Cynthia Wong Research Center and Reading Garden and through the many lives she touched.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague Mary Bono in introducing ``The Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006'' (Perform Act) which we hope will be the first step in addressing the convergence of digital radio and distribution technology. This bill mirrors the PERFORM ACT introduced by my colleagues two weeks ago in the Senate. The purpose of the PERFORM Act is to address current inequities in the Section 114 compulsory license of the Copyright Act. One of America's greatest treasures is its intellectual property. In cities and towns across the nation and in countries around the world, American music is heard throughout the streets. People are consuming more music than ever. Yet the music industry is in crisis. The total value for the music industry at retail declined from $14.5 billion in 1999 to $12.1 billion in 2004. In March 2005 alone, 243 million songs were downloaded from illicit peer-to-peer services (NPD Musicwatch). Our Founding Fathers recognized that in order for America to be at the forefront of creativity they must support and incentivize musicians to pursue their art by providing necessary protection to these original works to produce a return on investment in those works. In that vein, in 1995 Congress took a step forward and established a limited performance right for digital sound recordings. However, while with one hand Congress granted a right to creators when their music is performed digitally, with the other hand it took away by requiring that this new limited right be subject to a government compulsory license for radio-like services. Therefore, as we continue with this debate we must remember that copyright owners cannot negotiate a fair market price for their works in the marketplace for digital radio, and cannot withhold access to their works as leverage in the marketplace to negotiate for necessary content protection on digital radio. Cable, satellite, and Internet radio services are granted a compulsory license to broadcast (perform) music as long as they pay the statutorily defined fee (or another negotiated rate) and abide by the terms and conditions of the government license. We are fortunate that with the evolution of new technologies there are many legal music distribution services currently available. Cable, Internet and satellite platform providers all compete to provide consumers their choice of music, anytime, in any place, in any format. While I am encouraged by the many options, I am concerned that certain features of the new devices turn radio, or performance services, into distribution services. This increased functionality may cause the unintended consequence of bypassing the typical marketplace distribution channels by allowing the consumer to turn broadcasts into downloads. This utility enables consumers to create an unlicensed music library without paying the artist. However, just as consumers have certain expectations when it comes to radio usage, copyright owners have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for both the performance right (where a copy is listened to but not kept by the consumer such as a broadcast or concert) and the copying of their works into a library (such as a download or reproduction). This bill seeks the appropriate balance between promoting the creativity of music and fostering the innovation of technology. Some say the legislation is unnecessary because they assert that current business models are technically legal. While I myself refrain from statutory interpretation, the question for Congress now is how to formulate the right policy to ensure that creators receive adequate compensation for their work and that fair rules apply evenly across all platforms of music that deliver similar services to consumers. Some say this legislation is lacking because it does not provide parity across all broadcasting platforms. While I believe there should be a full performance right for all digital transmissions, across all broadcasting platforms, the bill provides a step in the right direction. We hope that with introduction of this companion bill in the House to the PERFORM Act in the Senate, Congress will act quickly to level the playing field between technologies and ensure rightful compensation to artists. In order to level the playing field for those technologies currently covered by Section 114, this bill establishes parity in the rules and regulations covering service platforms (satellite, webcasters, cable) by ensuring that satellite, webcasters, and cable operators are required to operate under the same rate standard and content protection rules. Under the bill, the performance license will only be available for behavior that constitutes a performance, and will require a radio service that wants to engage in a distribution business model to get a distribution license in the free marketplace like its competitors. For services coupled with new and proposed devices that permit subscribers to search for and keep permanent copies of songs included in the broadcaster's programming without ever listening to the program and where subscribers simply scroll through a list of songs and pick those they want to keep without ever buying the song or paying additional subscription fees a service will not be able to take advantage of the 114 license unless they get a necessary distribution license in the marketplace. The ability to enable automatic, organized copying and storage of individual songs that replace the sale of downloads or subscriptions by competitive distribution services such as Napster, Rhapsody, and iTunes should not be allowed without similar rules and compensation requirements. If listeners are able to instantly make a free copy of the song they are listening to, they will have little reason to purchase it. The use of a performance license should not be a shield against providing the requisite payment for the reproduction or distribution. Section 1 provides parity in the rate standard for the technologies currently covered under the section 114 license. All licenses under section 112 and 114 will have their rates set under the same standard, a fair market value standard, that would more closely replicate aggregate deals in the marketplace. Fair Market Value is a standard that is used hundreds of times in the laws of the United States and is one that replicates to the closest extent possible to free marketplace. Currently, the rate for satellite and cable music services are set under factors contained in Section 801(b) of the Copyright Act. The rate for Internet services is a ``willing buyer, willing seller'' standard that approximates what a particular willing buyer would pay a particular willing seller in the marketplace. The bill sets the standard at ``fair market value'' to provide broad-based market- influenced compensation to creators across all platforms. Section 2 provides that the technologies which broadcast sound recordings provide adequate protection to the content. These provisions ensure that all licensees under section 114 have similar content protection requirements, which respond to marketplace developments but include recording for legitimate time shifting purposes. The bill also requires that licensees use reasonably available technology to prevent copying of the transmission to prevent against third party ``stream-ripping''--the use of tools created by third parties that captures the stream, and then disaggregates the songs for storage in a manner that substitutes for a sale. However, any content protection system must allow for reasonable recording. Most notably the bill allows for all manual consumer recording to the extent such recording is consistent with fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 3 provides a placeholder for the Copyright Office to convene a meeting with interested stakeholders to discuss creation of a category of new interactive services. Currently, one of the most contested issues in the license is the definition of interactivity. The question is ``how much consumer influence is allowed before the experience has transitioned from a purely listening service to an interactive service?''. The definition of interactivity itself impacts whether one can take advantage of the compulsory license, and the share of the royalty to the artists, musicians and other vocalists. I am hopeful that the Copyright Office will be able to provide some guidance and recommendations for Congress. Finally, while not included in the bill, I do believe at some point soon, Congress needs to take another look at the Audio Home Recording Act. I don't believe that the royalties provided by the AHRA were ever intended to substitute for the marketplace licenses afforded end-to-end transmission and distribution services. The AHRA was intended to protect music creators from serial copying using off-the-shelf consumer electronics devices, not to enable transmission services to transform themselves into distribution services that provide an unlicensed download that substitutes for record sales. The time has come to re- evaluate the act in light of new technologies and changing business models. I do not want to suggest that this bill is a ``perfect'' solution. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences. This bill attempts to strike a balance between providing adequate protection to our musicians and continuing to support new innovative technologies. My goal is to preserve the legitimate marketplace by reserving downloading capability for those services that appropriately pay for it. I hope the parties can work together to reach further consensus on how to achieve parity between technologies and provide rightful compensation to our artists.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in recognition of Hal David on the occasion of his 85th birthday. Hal's philanthropic work in Los Angeles has made him a great asset to our community, and his professional career has touched the lives of countless people across the world. You may not know his name, and you may not know his face, but you all know Hal David. Hal is the lyrical mastermind behind countless musical hits. His lyrics include hits like ``Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head,'' ``What the World Needs Now Is Love, Sweet Love,'' ``Always Something There to Remind Me,'' and ``Do You Know the Way to San Jose''. If you're not already humming along, I'm sure you will be soon. The words are simple but the songs are moving and memorable. Hal says a lyricist must learn ``not to fall in love with his own lines.'' If that's true, then he's in a very small minority. Hal's lyrical genius is widely recognized by both music aficionados and amateurs like me. His talent has earned him countless awards: four Academy Award nominations, with an Oscar for ``Raindrops'' in the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; several Grammys, with three songs in the Grammy Hall of Fame; 20 gold records, the Grammy Trustees Award, and more. He has also been elected to the Songwriter's Hall of Fame, and currently serves as their Chairman of the Board. His songs span genres and generations. He is the author of lyrics to the film scores of Alfie, What's New Pussycat, A House is not a Home, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Moonraker. His songs also appear in countless other movies, from Forest Gump to Runaway Bride. Not limited to the screen, Hal's Broadway show Promises, Promises was nominated for a Tony Award and received a Grammy. Aretha Franklin, the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Isaac Hayes, Patti LaBelle, Smoky Robinson, the Carpenters, Willie Nelson and Julio Iglesias are just some of the musical legends who have sung Hal David's lyrics. Hal's impact on the music world is truly immeasurable and his many accomplishments are too numerous to list in full. Hal's notable achievements don't stop with his musical career. He also donates generously of his time and effort to charitable organizations. He and his wife are founders of the Los Angeles Music Center, which lists him as a ``Distinguished Patron of the Arts.'' He is also a member of the Cedars Sinai Medical Center Board of Governors in West Los Angeles and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, which he formerly served as President. There he is known for his work on intellectual property protection and preservation of artists' rights. Please join me in wishing him a very happy birthday and many happy returns.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to join my colleagues in commemorating the 91st anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is a very powerful word, and should be reserved for only the most horrific examples of mass killing motivated by a desire to destroy an entire people. Without a doubt, this term is appropriate to describe the unimaginable atrocities suffered by the Armenian people from 1915 to 1918. During this period, more than one million Armenians died from starvation or disease on long marches, or were simply massacred by the Ottoman Turks. Some still deny these events, or try to justify them as an extension of war. But the debate on this historical issue has been settled. The distinguished International Association of Genocide Scholars, among others, has concluded that it is undeniable. Others, including some who accept the historical facts, say Congress should not pass a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide because it will irreparably damage our relationship with Turkey. This is a phony argument. The European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and many European countries, including France, Germany and Italy have formally recognized the Armenian Genocide. Yet this has not dissuaded Turkey from actively seeking to join the European Union. At some point, every nation must come to terms with the wrongs committed by previous generations. For Germany, the Holocaust. For South Africa, Apartheid. And for our country, slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. In the same spirit, Turkey should allow--and indeed, encourage--an open and honest discussion of the Armenian Genocide. Adolf Hitler once remarked, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the Armenian Genocide, and other genocides, because, in the immortal words of Spanish philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, several years ago we discovered that Iran was operating a secret program to enrich uranium and carry out other sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities. Iran's failure to report these activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency was a blatant violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The more we have learned about Iran's nuclear program in the intervening months, the more obvious it's become that Tehran's true intention is not peaceful power generation, but the development of a nuclear arsenal that could threaten the United States, our allies in the Middle East, and any other part of the world within the range of Iran's increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles. Any seeds of doubt on the purpose of Iran's nuclear activities were dispelled once and for all by their outright rejection of a sensible proposal offered by our European allies and, more recently, Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment in defiance of the international community. The election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made the urgency of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that much greater. His messianic world view, vocal support for ``wiping Israel off the map,'' and close ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations make the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran truly unimaginable. Everyone hopes we can find a diplomatic solution to this crisis, and the IAEA's recent decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council was a long-overdue step in the right direction. But tough words must be backed by tough action, and we have got to keep the pressure on Russia and China to support meaningful measures that will cause the Iranian regime to reevaluate the wisdom of its current course. And, through this legislation before us today, we must push our own Executive Branch to enforce the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, legislation passed by Congress back in 1996 to deter investment in Iran's oil and gas sector. By requiring the President to impose sanctions on foreign firms that continue to invest in Iran, we hoped to starve the Iranian regime of hard currency necessary to pursue nuclear weapons and support terrorism. In the months after ILSA was signed into law, there were strong indications that it was having the intended deterrent effect. But then, in an effort to avoid offending our allies, the Clinton Administration made a decision not to enforce the law--a shortsighted policy continued by President Bush. H.R. 282 would close a legal loophole that has allowed the State Department to sit on investigations for years without making a determination, one way or the other, if a foreign firm has in fact made an investment in Iran. Madam Speaker, this legislation won't make Iran's nuclear program go away, but it is an important step in the right direction, and--with 360 cosponsors--sends a clear signal that Congress is extremely concerned about this critical matter.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I join Representative Boucher in introducing the Patents Depend on Quality Act of 2006 (PDQ Act). Introduction of this legislation follows a series of hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property which ascertained that the current patent system is flawed. Over the course of the last 4 years, there have been numerous attempts to define the challenges of the patent system today. For example, the Patent and Trademark Office developed their Twenty-First Century Strategic Plan, not much later the Federal Trade Commission released a report entitled ``To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy,'' The National Research Council published a compilation of articles entitled ``A Patent System for the 21st Century,'' and two economists authored a critique of patent law in a book titled Innovation and Its Discontents. These accounts make 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, the PDQ Act contains a number of provisions designed to improve patent quality, deter abusive practices by unscrupulous patent holders, and provide meaningful, low-cost alternatives to litigation for challenging the patent validity. Past attempts at achieving more comprehensive patent reform have met with resistance and recently have resulted in a call for additional hearings. However, the call for legislative action is loud. The New York Times has noted, ``[s]omething has gone very wrong with the United States patent system.'' The Financial Times has stated, ``[i]t is time to restore the balance of power in U.S. patent law.'' Therefore, today, we are introducing a narrowly tailored bill to address some of the more urgent concerns. 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 patents that are truly inventive. 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 be issued 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 and patent litigation abuses. We have considered the multitude of comments received on prior patent bills. We acknowledge that the problems are difficult and, as yet, without agreed-upon solutions. It is clear, however, that introduction and movement of legislation, not necessarily additional hearings, 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 soon to address these problems. Thus, we introduce this bill with the intent of propelling the debate forward in the 109th Congress. The bill contains a number of initiatives designed to improve patent quality and limit litigation abuses, thereby ensuring that patents are positive forces in the marketplace. I will highlight a number of them below. Section 2 creates a post-grant opposition procedure. In certain limited circumstances, opposition allows parties to challenge a granted patent through an expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation. In addition, Section 2 provides a severely needed fix for the inter-partes re-examination procedure, which provides third parties a limited opportunity to request that the PTO Director re-examine an issued patent. The current limitations on the inter-partes re- examination process restricts its utility so drastically that it has been employed only a handful of times. Section 2 increases the utility of this re-examination process by relaxing its estoppel provisions. Further, it expands the scope of the re-examination procedure to include redress for all patent applications regardless of when filed. In addition, Section 2 contains a limitation on use of inter-partes re- examination procedure as a ``second bite at the apple'' after district court litigation. Other provisions in this bill, such as the second window in the post-grant opposition proceeding, will sufficiently address the quality problem in patents which have already issued. Sections 3 and 4 permit patent examiners to consider certain materials within a limited time frame submitted by third parties regarding a pending patent application. Allowing such third party submissions will increase the likelihood that examiners are cognizant of the most relevant ``prior art,'' thereby constituting a front-end solution for strengthening patent quality. Section 6 addresses the unfair incentives currently existing for patent holders who indiscriminately issue licensing letters. Patent holders 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 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 6 addresses this situation by ensuring that recipients of licensing letters will not be exposed to liability for willful infringement unless the letter specifically states the acts of infringement and identifies each particular claim and each product that the patent owners believe have been infringed. Section 8 is designed to address the negative effect on innovation created by patent ``trolls.'' We have learned of countless situations in which patent holders, making no effort to commercialize their inventions, lurk in the shadows until another party has invested substantial resources in a business or product that may infringe on the unutilized invention. The patent troll then steps out of the shadows and demands that the alleged infringer pay a significant licensing fee to avoid an infringement suit. The alleged infringer often feels compelled to pay almost any price named by the patent troll because, under current law, a permanent injunction issues automatically upon a finding of infringement. The threat of a permanent injunction would, in turn, cause the alleged infringer to lose the substantial investment made in the allegedly infringing business or product. While we may question their motives, we do not question the right of patent trolls to sue for patent infringement, to obtain damages, and to seek a permanent injunction. However, the issuance of a permanent injunction should not be granted automatically upon a finding of infringement. Rather, when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction, courts should have the discretion to weigh all the equities in order to prevent the violation of a patent right. That requires balancing the inventor's exclusive right designed to provide the incentive and reward for invention and those equities which may be necessary for the public interest, such as whether the patent troll has ``unclean hands,'' the failure to commercialize the patented invention, the social utility of the infringing activity, the loss of invested resources by the infringer and, of course, the quality of the patent. After weighing the equities, the court may still decide to issue a permanent injunction, but at least the court will have ensured that the injunction serves the public interest. Section 8 accomplishes this goal. When considering these provisions together, we believe that this bill provides reform necessary for the patent system to achieve its primary goal of promoting innovation. As the New York Times has pointed out, ``[t]here is legislation in the House to address th[e] issue[s], and it needs to be taken up.'' We hope introduction of this bill will facilitate the necessary movement of patent reform legislation. I would especially like to thank Congressman Boucher with whom I have been working on patent reform for the past few years even before the issue was en vogue. Also deserving of thanks are the many constitutional scholars, policy advocates, private parties, and government agencies that continue to contribute their time, thoughts, and drafting talents to this effort. I am pleased that, finally, at least a consensus has emerged among the various collaborators in support of the basic ``post-grant opposition'' approach embodied in the legislation. This bill is the latest iteration of a process we started over 5 years ago. Though we developed this bill in a highly collaborative and deliberative manner, I do not want to suggest that it is a ``perfect'' solution. Thus, I remain open to suggestions for amending the language to improve its efficacy or rectify any unintended consequences. As I have said previously, ``The bottom line is this: 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 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 109th Congress to maintain the integrity of the patent system.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the chairman for yielding. I congratulate him on his new position. The gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman from Maryland, the gentlewoman from California, myself, and a number of other Members of the House are driven by our concerns related to the lack of information available from the university community about their antipiracy efforts. A Judiciary subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Smith of Texas, has issued a request to the Government Accountability Office to gather data on whether schools have adopted strong acceptable use policies, enforcement mechanisms, in addition to whether they are taking action on DMCA notices, and monitoring local agency networks where much of this piracy is taking place. This information is important so that the extent of the problem can be assessed.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Arthur K. Weinstein on the occasion of his retirement. Judge Weinstein is being honored by his colleagues, family and friends for his lifelong commitment to public service. After graduating from Boston University, Arthur's mother encouraged him to ``do something for the world.'' Inspired by her words, he joined the Peace Corps. He was assigned to a small, remote village in Malawi, Africa where he helped build a clinic for infants which is still in use today. Although he had to extend his stay an additional year to complete the project, he never wavered. The clinic has helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. In 1969, not wanting to veer from his personal mission, Arthur moved to California to attend UCLA and earn a masters degree in public health. He then served as a senior health educator for the county of Los Angeles. During these years he married, raised a family and attended evening law school classes. His strong interest in public service led him to become a defense attorney for the State Compensation and Insurance Fund and a certified specialist in Workers Compensation Law. Arthur Weinstein was appointed a Workers Compensation judge nearly 5 years ago, achieving a long sought after goal. He has earned a stellar reputation and the respect of his peers. Judge Weinstein is married to Dina and they have three grown children and six grandchildren. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting an outstanding member of the community, Judge Arthur Weinstein.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today on H. Con. Res. 341 because I was traveling on official business to a Middle East regional security conference in Athens, Greece, and then on to Egypt and Israel for meetings with top government officials. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, we learned that Iran was operating a secret program to enrich uranium and carry out other sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities. Iran's failure to report these activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency was a blatant violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The more we learn about Iran's program, the more obvious it's become that Iran's true intention is not peaceful power generation, but the development of a nuclear arsenal that could threaten the United States, our allies in the Middle East, and even Europe. Any seeds of doubt on this issue have been dispelled once and for all by Iran's rejection of a sensible proposal put forward by Great Britain, France and Germany, and more recently, its move to resume uranium enrichment. The election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made the urgency of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that much greater. With his comments about the Holocaust being a ``myth,'' endorsement for ``wiping Israel off the map,'' and enthusiastic support of Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations, this vile anti- Semite has made his true intentions crystal clear. The IAEA's decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council is a long-overdue step in the right direction. But tough words must be backed by tough action. We must continue to push the other members of the Security Council--especially China and Russia--to meet their international obligations. Congress should also pass H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act. This important legislation will close a loophole in the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act that has allowed successive administrations to avoid penalizing foreign firms that continue to invest in Iran's oil and gas sector.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on S. Con. Res. 79 today because I was traveling on official business to a Middle East regional security conference in Athens, Greece, and then on to Egypt and Israel for meetings with top government officials. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a top Hamas leader was recently quoted as saying the U.S. would ``get used to Hamas in a year or two.'' I'm afraid he's sadly mistaken. America will never accept a Palestinian Authority controlled by a terrorist organization--1 year, 5 years, 10 years or 50 years from now. Hamas must face reality. Either they meet the conditions of the international community--recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, renounce terrorism and disarm--or face a massive reduction of assistance and isolation. The civilized world should not bend to Hamas; they must bend to us. This resolution--to be followed soon by binding legislation--sends an unambiguous signal to Hamas and the rest of the world that Congress will not bankroll a terrorist government responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and committed to the destruction of Israel.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my long time friend, Yoggi Riley, in recognition of her February 3, 2006, retirement from the U.S. Postal Service. Ms. Riley had a long and distinguished career with the Postal Service--almost 38 years. She proved herself a leader through her tireless work with the Postal Workers Union. Throughout her career she helped improve the lives of countless other postal workers through her union service. In September 1967, Yoggi began working at the Post Office Department as a special delivery messenger. After witnessing the hardships experienced by the postal workers on the picket lines during the 1970 New York postal workers strike, which spread throughout the country, she joined the San Fernando Valley Area Local Branch of the American Postal Workers Union, APWU. This decision not only changed her life, but because of her tenacity as a union leader, it ultimately impacted the lives of many others. While her desire to help fight for and protect the rights of her fellow employees was kindled by that strike, it has continued to burn brightly throughout her career. Yoggi's exceptional leadership as a union representative became apparent during the 1970s. In 1979, she was elected President of the local union and ultimately served two terms. During her tenure, the quality of service and the reputation of the local union increased markedly. Although she turned over the reins of leadership to spend more time with her family, whenever the union needed her she rose to the occasion. When organized labor fell on hard times and employees were required to work longer hours for less pay, the local union sought out Yoggi's help. She returned as Office Manager, and served as Secretary and then as Treasurer. Her leadership was tested in the mid-nineties when postal management attempted to change the definition of a special delivery messenger and in the process deprive workers of their right to be represented by the union of their choice. During this crisis, she sprang into action, helped confront management, and enlisted the support of the national union. She then entered into a test case to resolve the issue through arbitration. Acting in concert with the national union, an agreement was reached with management that all messengers would remain, as stated in the law, in their union of choice. This was a great victory for postal workers. Yoggi settled into a job as Mailing Requirement Clerk advising postal customers about the best way to make and prepare their mailings. In 2001, the Postal Service recognized Yoggi with its Diversity Award, an honor justly deserved. Although she has now retired from the UPS, Yoggi has not retired from her quest to help postal workers. In recognition of her passion and ability to help postal workers, the APWU has asked Yoggi to conduct seminars on retirement and to help other workers appropriately prepare for that transition. Not surprisingly, she has taken on this challenge with zeal and will, no doubt, continue to make a tremendous impact. Yoggi is a very special woman. In addition to all she has done on behalf of postal workers, she has also devoted herself to raising a family. She is married to Lester Riley and they have two children and six grandchildren. The time and energy she gave to coaching children's baseball and t-ball was so well known that the community renamed the playing field across from her home after her. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Yoggi Riley, congratulating her on her retirement, and wishing her success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment because if this amendment passes, we go down the slippery slope of 1986. There are three parts of this amendment. It takes the base bill, which creates one of the four steps, one of the four pillars that I think are vital to doing something about illegal immigration, which is a meaningful employer verification system. And it says, essentially, the penalties for employers who do not use that system and hire people in violation of our law, they get one free bite. They say they did not know, they were acting in good faith, penalty totally waived. Secondly, you provide a safe harbor for subcontractors. Everybody knows what goes on in agriculture and in construction. Growers hardly at all hire the people anymore. They bring in a farm labor contractor. He hires somebody else. They get the coyote. They go out and they recruit. I did not know what the guy was doing? I get a safe harbor. They create dummy subs. They have no assets. There are no meaningful penalties. They go off scot-free. This amendment gives them a safe harbor. This is the employer's way of dealing with your effort to try to deal with illegal immigration, weaken and undermine the whole structure of a comprehensive system. Now, everyone knows that I do not like the bill because it is not comprehensive, but the way to make this bill right is not to go and do the employers' work in getting them out of the problem. That was our flaw in 1986. Employer sanctions were a joke. If this amendment passes, employer sanctions are once again a joke. And you will be back here in 20 years with millions of more undocumented workers brought in by employers who have no accountability. And the third part is you put caps on the maximum penalties. The exploitation and money that could be made by hiring people who are afraid to complain, who are willing to work at very low wages and maybe under the minimum wages of our own laws and of the States they are working in, and you now cap the penalties. The bill before it had a serious strengthening of the penalties for these activities by unscrupulous employers. Now you have put a cap on them. So a safe harbor when they go out to a contractor, so they have no liability. Their first violation, they get it waived. They say, I did not know. I was acting in good faith. I did not know, even though you have a verification system under this bill. And then you put caps on it so that they can make an economic test, that it makes more sense to find the undocumented person who will work at a very low wage at very long hours under very onerous conditions, that they make more money by that, and they have a cap penalty that they know they never have to go beyond. Do not do this and claim you are serious about dealing with illegal immigration. This is a gaping whole in the whole structure of your legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BERMAN. Are we now voting on the Sensenbrenner amendment to reduce the crimes on illegal immigrants?

Mr. BERMAN. To soften the penalties?

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to clarify, there are provisions about border enforcement in this bill, but when you implement, as this bill pretends to do, a massive comprehensive verification system, that has nothing to do with border protection. That is about ensuring that no one gets hired who is here without status. We cannot do that with 11 million people in this country, many of whom are working now. I am sorry for cutting the gentleman short.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this generous amount of time in the context of the deliberations on this bill. I would like to lay a little bit of a foundation for a question which I would like on my time to yield to either Mr. Dreier, because we have spoken privately about this issue for so long, or Mr. Putnam, who very specifically and straightforwardly addressed the issue on the floor. And that is, the background, I have said on a number of occasions in the Rules Committee and in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor yesterday that this bill is either an insult to our intelligence or a con on the American people. And I say that, and those are harsh comments, and I do not use that language a lot around here, because one of two things is going to happen: Either the leadership of this House and the Rules Committee is refusing to allow us to address a fundamental and essential question of whether or not to have a program for the adjustment of 11 million or more people now in this country where they would come out of the shadows, be identified, deport the criminal aliens and find a way to condition those who are working in this society into coming out and giving us their true identities; and dealing with future shortages and a temporary guest worker program, particularly for seasonal industries. The refusal to do that tells me that J.D. Hayworth is right. There is one of two agendas here. One agenda is the agenda that Mr. Putnam and that Mr. Flake hoped for, and that is we will pass a bill with a number of really some very silly and harsh provisions; the Senate will clean those up, turn it into a comprehensive approach; and the people here who have been screaming the word ``amnesty'' for any effort to solve this problem will now be forced to come back and cast a vote for it. I do not think that is what is going to happen. This bill will probably pass today, and we will never again in this Congress see the immigration issue. And guys will go back to their districts, and they will talk about how they tried to get tough on the border and they tried to do something. This is not a border enforcement bill. There is a case that we could try to do some things on the border to be more effective than we have been. When this bill tries to deal with employer verification in the context to our 11 million people in this country who are working without documents or without work status, we know it can never go into effect. We have to either deal with that and then do employer verification, which is the critical component of a comprehensive approach, or we are never going to pass this bill into law. So what I would like to do is have Mr. Dreier or Mr. Putnam, and I do not know how they want to do it, if they would be willing to, explain to me what the fairness is of not letting this body decide, and J.D. Hayworth has one view, Howard Berman has another view, but decide whether or not on a critically important issue that the President has spoken of the need for, others have denounced, why we cannot have a debate and a vote on that kind of a program.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, might I ask the author of the amendment, as he was speaking I was wondering what was going on. It sounded like he was giving a very articulate and reasoned, I disagree with some of the points, but reasoned position for an amendment that he was not allowed to offer under this rule. I am wondering whether he thought it might have been appropriate that a coequal branch of the Congress, the House of Representatives, on an issue as fundamental as the one he has just spoken to might have been allowed to have had a couple of amendments in order for this issue to be discussed and voted on in this body. Would that have been a sensible way to approach this issue?