Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss three pieces of legislation I have introduced today. Last fall, Representative Rick Boucher and I introduced H.R. 5364, the Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000. Upon introduction of that bill, I made it clear that my primary motivation was protection of intellectual property. I believe the protection of intellectual property is critical both to innovation and to the economy, and will be advanced by assuring the highest level of quality for U.S. patents. With these same goals in mind, today Representative Boucher and I introduce three new bills. The Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2001 is very similar to last year's version, but includes several significant changes in response to legitimate criticisms of last year's bill. The Patent Improvement Act of 2001 responds to suggestions by many parties that certain provisions in last year's bill should apply broadly to all patentable inventions. Finally, the PTO funding Resolution ensures that all PTO fees will be used to fund the PTO and the vital services it provides. These bills represent a starting point, not an end point, for discussion of legislative solutions to patent quality concerns. The multitude of comments received on last year's bill demonstrate that these problems are difficult and, as yet, present no clear-cut answers. Indeed, reactions to last year's bill exhibited few consistent patterns, with members of the same industries often expressing diametrically opposed viewpoints. What was clear, however, was that introduction of specific legislation proved helpful at focusing the discussion. Thus, we introduce these bills to initiate that discussion anew in the 107th Congress. The Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2001 requires the PTO to publish all business method patent applications after 18 months. In conjunction with the publication provision, it creates opportunities for the public to present prior art or public use information before a business method patent issues. It establishes an administrative ``Opposition'' process where parties can challenge a granted business method patent in an expeditious, less costly alternative to litigation. The bill lowers the burden of proof for challenging business method patents, requires an applicant to disclose its prior art search, and finally, creates a rebuttable presumption that a business method invention constituting a non-novel computer implementation of a pre- existing invention is obvious, and thus, not patentable. The Patent Improvement Act of 2001 would establish an administrative ``Opposition'' process where parties can challenge any granted patent in an expeditious, less costly alternative to litigation. The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that any invention constituting a non- novel The PTO funding Resolution creates a point of order regarding any legislation that does not allow the PTO to spend all fees collected in the year in which they are collected. Some may consider the coordinated introduction of these three bills an unusual approach. Indeed, it will be noted that the first two bills overlap--that is, they contain many of the same provisions applied to different, but overlapping types of patents. We have chosen this approach because we consider all the bills to be improvements over current law, but are not sure which bills will generate sufficient support to be enacted this Congress. Further, we consider the PTO funding Resolution to be a necessary element of any plan to improve patent quality, but recognize that such legislation will generate its own debate. I have decided to forge ahead through these thorny issues because my concerns about the quality and effects of business method patents have not dissipated or diminished during the past year. The pace of business method patenting has picked up dramatically. While in FY 1999, the PTO received approximately 2650 business method patent applications, in FY 2000 it received 7800 such applications. The PTO reports that the first quarter of FY 2001 has seen business method applications running 18-20% higher than in Q1 of FY 2000. I commend the PTO for reducing the proportion of business method patents granted through its Business Method patent Initiative, but there is some concern that this Initiative will extend patent pendancies further. We will not know what business methods are claimed in these applications for at least eighteen months after filing, and in all probability for at least twenty-six months. Some consider this a problem in itself, as technology businesses attempting to move at Internet speed may invest enormous sums of ever-dwindling venture capital only to find important elements of their business plan covered by a patent. This is an unfortunate by-product of the patent system, but I do not believe we should address it by prohibiting patents on business methods or requiring publication upon filing. Of greater concern to me is assuring the highest quality of business method patents being issued. Unfortunately, those business methods patents of which we are aware do not give us much confidence about the quality of those yet to be published. Last year, I cited as examples of concern a patent granted for a method of allowing automobile purchasers to select options for cars ordered over the Internet, and a patent that purportedly covered the selling of music and movies in electronic form over the internet. This year I add to that list a patent for a method of operating a fantasy football league over the Internet, a patent covering incentive programs using the Internet, a patent covering the use of targeted banner advertising over the internet, and a patent covering a system for previewing music samples over the internet. I do not pretend to know whether any of these patents are valid or invalid. However, many respectable parties, including patent lawyers, patent-holding technology companies, and academics, have expressed serious concerns about the quality of such patents. I would like to see a patent system that subjects these patents to more rigorous review, and thus provide greater assurance that they are valid when issued. If there may be ways to improve the prior art available to patent examiners before they issue a patent, we should explore them. If there are ways to decrease the costs of challenging bad patents, we should enact them into law. And if retention of fees will result in better trained, more experienced examiners with access to better resources, we should let the PTO keep the fees. As I said last Congress: ``The bottom line in 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 in this very new, and rapidly growing area of patenting.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate an extraordinary individual, Yoshi Honkawa, who will be honored on April 17th as the recipient of the Allen and Weta Mathies Award for Vision and Excellence in HealthCare Leadership. This prestigious award is presented by the Partner in Care Foundation, an organization dedicated to creating new methods of dealing with long term health care needs. This innovative foundation could never have found a more perfect individual to honor for leadership in health care policy. Yoshi's career in this extremely important field--as an advocate, administrator, and mentor--spans decades and has been recognized by most of the leading health care organizations in California and in the nation. In 1964, Yoshi joined the staff of the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center. Many years later, he and his wife, May, endowed a fellowship fund in health policy and management at the University of Southern California. This act is typical of Yoshi's generosity with all of his resources, including his precious time, with young people entering the health care field. As mentor and teacher, there is no greater friend of graduate medical education than Yoshi Honkawa. He took special note of the need to increase diversity in health care professionals, serving as a founding member of the Board of the Institute for Diversity in Health Care Management. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Japanese American Cultural and Community Center, and works with that organization to preserve and promote an appreciation for Japanese and Japanese-American heritage and cultural arts. Yoshi's expertise in health care policy led to his appointment as a Commissioner on California's Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission. From this post, where he served from 1987 to 1997, he helped shape California's health policy. It was while he served at Cedars-Sinai that I really came to know Yoshi well and to appreciate his integrity, his knowledge, his ability and his humanity. As the vice-president for government and industry relations, and then as consultant for health care advocacy, I was privileged to visit with Yoshi both in Los Angeles and during his trips to Washington, where he was a tireless advocate for this prestigious medical center. Yoshi is, to put it simply, a wonderful person and I am honored to express the gratitude of the community for his tireless service and to congratulate him on this recognition of his outstanding leadership.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay heartfelt tribute to Cesar Chavez, a man of courage, faith and love who shared his great strength with thousands and inspired millions of Americans. As a leader in the fight for social justice, he was a hero to farmworkers, to the Latino community, to the labor movement and to me. Cesar Estrada Chavez was born on March 31, 1927, near Yuma, Arizona. In 1962, Cesar founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers--the UFW. With persistence, hard work and faith, Cesar Chavez built a great union that galvanized the spirit of all people through commitment to the struggle for justice through nonviolence. He devoted his life to inspire his fellow farmworkers and to fire the conscience of the rest of us. It was my great fortune to work with Cesar Chavez as a colleague and friend. Cesar's efforts were critical in focusing public attention on our nation's deplorable treatment of migrant farmworkers. Through his leadership and his legacy, the United Farm Workers has grown in strength in its efforts to achieve a lasting justice for farmworkers. On this anniversary of his birthday, it is appropriate to mention that today across the nation and in this Chamber there are numerous efforts to commemorate the life and work of Cesar Chavez. I am grateful for the opportunity to express my thoughts about Cesar and to be among the many to celebrate the life of one of the most heroic figures in American history. Cesar Chavez was a great man who exemplified justice, love and humility. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Cesar, whose dedication to the plight of farmworkers has inspired us all. I salute him for his courage and commitment to La Causa (the cause).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Ritchie Valens, who was inducted into the Rock of Roll Hall of Fame on March 19th. Although Valens died over forty years ago, his presence is still strongly felt in my congressional district, especially in the Northeast San Fernando Valley where he grew up. The recognition he is receiving brings honor to his entire community. A pioneer in the history of rock and roll who helped shape American music, Valens is considered to be the first Chicano rock and roll star to cross over into mainstream America with his hits, ``Come On, Let's Go,'' the ballad ``Donna'' and the flipside, ``La Bamba'' which is still heard all over the world. At age seventeen, his career ended tragically when he died in a plane crash along with rock and roll legend Buddy Holly and fellow rocker the Big Bopper (J.P. Richardson) on February 3, 1959. Valens achieved success and stardom at a younger age than many of rock's superstars, including John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan. The music Valens made is as vibrant today as it was when his hits were released in the late 1950's. Born Richard Steve Valenzuela, Valens began his music career by imitating the earliest rock and roll artists, especially Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, The Penguins and The Drifters. Like so many of that era, Valens was caught up in the excitement of rock and roll. The performer with the greatest influence on his music, however, was Little Richard. Ritchie would entertain visitors in his household with his versions of Little Richard's ``Ooh My Soul.'' He joined The Silhouettes, a typical high school garage band that played the popular tunes of the day at high school sock hops, church dances and local parties. Playing for the Silhouettes helped Valens realize that making music was what he wanted to do more than anything else. In 1987, Columbia Pictures released the film La Bamba, written and directed by admired Chicano playwright Luis Valdez, which immortalized Valens' brief life. The movie rejuvenated his music nearly thirty years after his death. A whole new generation of fans grew to love Valens' as his hits were re-recorded and performed by the East Los Angeles Chicano group, ``Los Lobos,'' for the La Bamba soundtrack. This contemporary band went on to become a musical phenomenon, in large part because of Valens' achievements in the early days of rock and roll. Since the release of the movie La Bamba, Valens' contributions to rock and roll have been honored many times: he received a star on the Hollywood walk of Fame, The United States Postal Service recognized his life and career with a commemorative postage stamp, the Ritchie Valens Recreation Center was formally dedicated at a park in his hometown of Pacoima, and he was inducted into Hollywood's Rock Walk for his contributions to pop music. Additionally, an annual music festival, ``The Legend Lives On,'' is held in his honor. It was an honor to work with Valens' family, friends and fans to urge the recording industry to name this outstanding artist to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Although long overdue, Valens' inclusion is richly deserved and is cause for great celebration in Pacoima today. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the late Ritchie Valens, rock and rolls' first Chicano star!

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their generous yielding of time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments in response to the gentleman from North Carolina, because he makes legitimate and accurate points about this legislation. But in response, I would make a few points. Mr. Speaker, concerning H.R. 860, the circumstances which this bill applies to are so narrow and unique, and because so many civil actions which arise out of a single action are already subject to Federal jurisdiction, there really are in a practical sense very few plaintiffs who will find themselves in a Federal court who would not have already been there. But even if they do, this bill has protection, because the bill preserves the ability of the transferee court, the Federal court to which this multi-party litigation has been assigned, it preserves the ability of that court to transfer back or dismiss an action on the ground of an inconvenient forum. So that plaintiff has the ability to make his case that even though it is a result of that single accident, even though I am alleging $150,000, in my particular situation, notwithstanding the efficiencies that would justify a single trial, for purposes of liability and other issues, we should go back to the State court. The gentleman from North Carolina says, but he has to get to that court in order to make that request. That is true.

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, this is not just about efficiency. This is also about convenience of the parties. We had a horrible accident recently with a private plane taking the Oklahoma State basketball team. That may not be applicable, because this requires 25 people. But think of a similar situation where a huge number of those passengers are from one State. The defendant is from some other State. This allows the multi-party committee, the panel that decides these multi-district multi-party cases where they should be tried, to consider the convenience of the plaintiffs in this kind of a case, not simply the question of efficiency. So there are some real positive benefits from this legislation, as well. Moreover, on the issue of damages, which can be particularly a matter to be determined by local communities and peers in the community where that plaintiff resides, this creates the presumption that that issue, the compensatory damages issue, will go back, in the case of the hypothetical that you cited, to the State court for determination. Yes, the bill will cause some plaintiffs to find themselves in Federal court, while without the bill those plaintiffs would have been able to remain in State courts. I think there are several policy considerations. I have mentioned them. As the chairman said earlier, we have to draw a balance. Having the very complicated and complex issue of liability tried in one place makes sense. As we balance these things, Mr. Speaker, I come down on the side of having the complicated, expensive, and controversial issue litigated in one court. And I might just add in the remaining seconds I have that from what I understand from plaintiff's attorneys involved in these accident cases and other cases like this that this bill addresses, that the problem is, sometimes that guy who wants to file in the State court, the lawyer who wants to file in the State court because it is an in-State defendant, he really wants to be the free rider in this. He wants the whole thing tried and all the discovery, all that done by others. Then, after that issue is settled, he will come in with a State action, not having put up his share of the costs and his efforts, and cash in. I am told that is one aspect of why some plaintiff's lawyers, no one in this room, I am sure, would actually prefer to file in the State court.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, one does not have to be an intellectual to be on that subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House passage of H.R. 860, the Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiplatform Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 860 is a narrow bill designed to improve judicial efficiency. Last Congress, the House passed a virtually identical bill, H.R. 2112, by voice vote under suspension. In three previous Congresses, the House-passed bills were comprised of section 3 of H.R. 860. The bill has two operative sections. Section 2 overturns the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1998, Lexecon v. Milberg, Weiss. Section 2 will improve judicial efficiency by allowing a transferee court to retain a case for purposes of deciding liability and punitive damages as well as for hearing pretrial motions. Through language I worked out with the chairman of the committee during committee consideration of a nearly identical bill last Congress, H.R. 860 creates a presumption that cases will be sent back to transferee courts for the purposes of determining compensatory damages. Section 3 of this bill gives the Federal courts minimal diversity jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of single accidents involving death or injury to at least 25 persons where damages of $150,000 or more are claimed by each of those persons. Section 3 applies in very narrow, strictly circumscribed circumstances. As such, it is not a significant increase of Federal court jurisdiction, and it is justified by the judicial efficiencies it will occasion. My colleagues should not confuse section 3 with the proposed class- action legislation which would cause a much greater and, to my way of thinking, more troubling increase in Federal court jurisdiction; nor should my colleagues see this bill as establishing a precedent in support of class-action legislation. Quite to the contrary, support for this bill is in no way an exception of support for class-action legislation. With this understanding about the narrow reach of H.R. 860, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 320. This bill, as amended by the Judiciary Committee last week, is comprised of language from two bills, H.R. 4870 and H.R. 5106, that the House passed by voice vote on suspension last year. As were those bills last year, the current version of S. 320 is wholly non-controversial and technical. It makes technical changes to patent, trademark, and copyright law and streamlines the operations of the PTO and Copyright Office. As amended, S. 320 will do such things as change the title of the head of the PTO from ``Director'' to ``Commissioner.'' It will also harmonize capitalizations, alphabetize definition sections, and correct punctuation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his bill.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. H.R. 741 is an important piece of legislation because it implements the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. It will allow U.S. businesses and trademark owners to become part of a low-cost, efficient system to internationally register trademarks. U.S. membership in the Protocol would assist American businesses in protecting their proprietary names and brand name goods while saving money, time and effort. That is especially critical to small businesses that may otherwise lack the resources to acquire worldwide protection for their trademark. This is the fourth Congress in which the Committee on the Judiciary has favorably reported, and I hope the House will pass this implementing legislation. In 1999, H.R. 769 passed by voice vote under suspension. While the Senate has failed to follow suit in the past, there is a reason to believe that this Congress will be different. A previous dispute over representation of the European community and its constituent nations has been resolved to the satisfaction of the State Department. Further, rum manufacturers embroiled in an unrelated trademark dispute have agreed not to interfere with House passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 741.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 727, legislation that gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission authority to regulate low-speed electric bicycles. This common-sense bill had its genesis in a meeting I had several years ago with Dr. Malcolm Currie, president of a company in my district called Currie Technologies. Dr. Currie made a convincing case that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations--which place electric bikes in the same category as mopeds--were restraining the growth of the electric bike industry. He argued that NHTSA should apply a unique set of safety requirements to electric bikes, given the modest speed at which they operate. NHTSA agreed in principle, but had little flexibility to make such a distinction in the context of their regulations. After a number of discussions with NHTSA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Representative Lois Capps, Dr. Currie and other representatives of the electric bicycle industry, it became apparent that the best way to deal with this problem was to transfer regulatory jurisdiction from NHTSA to the CPSC, which already regulates regular human-powered bicycles. H.R. 727 would provide for that transfer of regulatory authority. I commend Mr. Stearns for introducing this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the committee for so quickly allowing this legislation to be discharged and brought to the floor. I introduced this legislation to honor the memory of James C. Corman, our former colleague, who passed away last January. Jim dedicated a quarter of his life to this institution and he made his mark here in many ways, on issues great and small. He was first elected to Congress in 1960, where he served on the committee on which I now serve, the Committee on the Judiciary, through 1968. I think for any young person just getting interested in government, public affairs and politics at that time, probably the hallmark piece of legislation that passed in those early 1960s was the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim as a second-term Member of this body by virtue of his deep and abiding commitment to equal justice and to civil rights and by virtue of his skill and talent as a legislator became one of the chief architects and the floor manager for title VII of that act, that portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, creed, religion or gender in the employment practices of this country, private sector as well as public. In fact, Jim's commitment to the work of the Committee on the Judiciary caused him to call me soon after I won election to a district which by virtue of the vagaries of reapportionment now has my district representing essentially every part of what Jim represented during those 20 years. He called me and urged me to seek membership on that committee because of the great constitutional and civil rights issues that were before the Committee on the Judiciary. From 1968 to 1980, Jim moved from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Committee on Ways and Means, where he worked diligently on many important issues, taxes, trade, Social Security and welfare reform. It was particularly in the hard, nitty-gritty work, work with very little reward, in the area of welfare law and Social Security law that Jim developed a new second reputation for expertise and skill. Jim's abiding interest was to secure justice and a better life for the less fortunate in our society. He was certainly one of the most effective advocates this body has ever had for senior citizens and the poor. He was always a courtly man, kind and considerate, and he left a legacy of integrity and honor and service to others rarely matched in public life today, or then. Politics was different in those days. Now you have the slick TV commercials and the specialized direct mail and so much of it is a tactician's and strategist's effort. Jim's politics was a very personal politics. He was not interested in the latest and fanciest political techniques. Perhaps that helped to create the conditions by which he finally lost that bitter election of 1980. But everywhere I have gone, and this is now 20 years since his service to the San Fernando Valley ended in this Congress, people always ask me, ``How is Jim doing?'' ``Boy, I loved Jim Corman.'' ``Jim Corman's office did this for me.'' ``Jim Corman was always there when we needed him.'' ``I remember Jim Corman cleaning, washing, hosing off the street in front of his district office every weekend.'' Jim had a special commitment on a human level and on a person-to- person level to the constituents that he represented. One of the very valuable things for the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles that Jim did was to get the funds to build the Federal building, the first Federal building in the San Fernando Valley, and it is only fitting that this building be named after him. I have been blessed to have the opportunity to know and to learn from and to be inspired by Jim Corman. My memories of him will always be a great joy to me. I thank this body for bringing so quickly at the early part of this session this legislation to honor him to the floor.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to pay tribute to the memory of an outstanding woman, Ruth Abraham, who dedicated her life to fighting for civil rights and social justice. Ruth was well respected and admired by her colleagues, friends and family. She was a leader of progressive causes and an activist whose interest in social and political reform led her to the ACLU where she served on the staff for 18 years, and as a volunteer and board member after retiring in 1981. She was beloved throughout the organization and affectionately nicknamed ``the mother of chapters,'' because of her work to expand and nurture the chapter movement. She traveled throughout the country to teach ACLU affiliates about grassroots development. Ruth's activism was by no means limited to her work with the ACLU. She immersed herself in politics and social issues from the day she first arrived in Los Angeles in 1950. As a founding member of one of the most successful Southern Californian coalition-forming organizations of the 1960s and 1970s, Californians for Liberal Representation (CLR), she helped to elect the first African-American, Augustus Hawkins, and the first Latino west of the Mississippi, Edward R. Roybal, to Congress. In addition, she helped break other color barriers by working to elect James Jones and Julian Nava to the Los Angeles Unified School Board. Ruth played an instrumental role in electing the first African- American mayor of a predominately white American city, Tom Bradley of Los Angeles. After Mayor Bradley was elected to office in 1973, Ruth chaired the selection committee which recommended the appointment of new commissioners. Ruth was also active in the campaigns of Senator Alan Cranston, Congressman Julian Dixon and Judge Pacht in his race for Congress. Los Angeles City Controller, Rick Tuttle, described her as a ``giant fighter for the causes of civil liberties and civil rights.'' He worked closely with her and remembers her as a ``true champion'' in the battle to end racial and religious discrimination in housing during the 1960s. While students at UCLA, we first met Ruth when she was the leader of the California Democratic Council (CDC). We have been privileged to work with her on many challenging issues since that time and have seen firsthand the powerful impact she has had on those around her. She was a woman of tremendous courage, integrity, idealism and commitment. Having lived through the deaths of her husband Bud and her son, Steve, she is survived by her youngest son, Peter. Ruth will be missed by all of us whose lives she has touched. Mr. Speaker, we are proud to ask our colleagues to join us in saluting the late Ruth Abraham.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Professor Zinovy Gorbis, who will be celebrating his 75th birthday on March 3. Professor Gorbis, a faculty member of UCLA's Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering Department, committed his life to studying the properties of solid particles suspended in gas or liquid. His contribution to the field deserves our respect and admiration. He is a prolific scientist, holding 17 patents and authoring three extensive field-defining papers and numerous articles. Long before environmental concerns led to the intensive study of aerosols, Professor Gorbis identified gas/liquid- solid systems as the 5th state of matter. His ideas on the unique properties of gas solid systems continue to influence and direct research throughout the world. Despite the countless number of hours spent researching, Professor Gorbis still found time for his family. And he rarely passed up an opportunity to dance or play chess. Perhaps as well as anyone else, he has always understood the importance of life's simple treasures. Indeed, his passion for life helped him overcome formidable tribulations that most of us could not possibly imagine, As a teenager, he fled to the Soviet Union after German troops invaded his home and he experienced firsthand the horrors of war. As he grew older, he was never fully trusted because he was a Jew, despite the wide recognition and respect he received for his scientific work. In 1975, he was dismissed from his position and precluded from teaching when his oldest son, Boris, applied to leave the Soviet Union. A year later, he fled to Vilnius, Lithuania, waiting for the day that he could live in freedom and continue his crucial work. The Soviets, however, fervently refused to allow his family to emigrate, and Professor Gorbis spent the next decade in oblivion, measuring noise in elevator shafts while his wife suffered from a crippling bone disease. In 1987, Professor Gorbis and his family were finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union. He soon settled in southern California with his family, where they flourished and became outstanding citizens. Once again, he was able to contribute to science with selfless devotion. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Professor Gorbis for his outstanding achievements. His scientific work and his passion for life inspire us all. We thank Professor Gorbis and wish all the best to him and his family on his 75th birthday.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for H.R. 5562. H.R. 5562 consists of Section 2 of H.R. 2112, which the House passed by voice vote under suspension of the rules on September 13, 1999. Previously, on July 27, 1999 and also by a voice vote, the Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported H.R. 2112, including language identical to H.R. 5562. On June 16, 1999, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held a hearing on H.R. 2112, and Section 2, on which H.R. 5562 is based, was fully vetted and discussed. Therefore, in essence, the House has already fully considered H.R. 5562, found it non-controversial, and passed it. H.R. 5562 has a very narrow purpose and effect--it would overturn the 1998 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss. The Lexecon decision held that a multidistrict litigation transferred to a federal court for pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 of the Judicial Code cannot be retained by that court for trial purposes under Section 1404(a). In so holding, the Lexecon decision upset decades of practice by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel and federal district courts. The Lexecon decision also increases the cost and complexity of such multidistrict litigations by requiring courts other than the transferee court, which has overseen discovery and other pretrial proceedings, to conduct the trial. H.R. 5562 overturns the Lexecon decision in a carefully calibrated manner. While H.R. 5562 allows a transferee court to retain a case for trial on liability issues and, when appropriate, on punitive damages, it creates a presumption that the trial of compensatory damages will be remanded to the transferor court. In so doing, H.R. 5562 is careful to overturn the Lexecon decision without expanding the power previously exercised by transferee courts. More importantly, the presumption regarding the trial of compensatory damages ensures that plaintiffs will not be unduly burdened in pursuit of their claims.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday I had the unwelcome honor of participating in the funeral service for our beloved late colleague, Julian Dixon. I submit the remarks I made therein the Record. It is said that grief and mourning are in reality selfish emotions, because we are really overcome by what we have lost. I'm feeling pretty selfish right now because I've lost my closest friend in public office. It's a sunny morning in November, 1972 as I board the flight to Sacramento to attend freshman orientation for the newly elected members of the State Assembly. As fate would have it, my seatmate is Julian Dixon, whom I've never met before, also newly elected. It is the start of a deep and enduring friendship, an ``odd couple'' relationship between the slightly self-righteous Jewish guy from the San Fernando Valley--who cut his political teeth in the left of center reform wing of our party and the more moderate and wise African-American party regular from Central Los Angeles mentored by the late Speaker Jess Unruh and then State Senator Mervyn Dymally. Together we went through a traumatic Speakership fight, Assembly leadership positions pioneering and often successful legislative initiatives, a wild and crazy Jerry Brown governorship and developed a relationship where we could share the most intimate of details and in subsequent years wonderful social occasions with our wives, Bettye and Janis. Thomas Jefferson once wrote ``on matters of style, swim with the current; on matters of principle, stand like a rock.'' He describes our friend. Julian Dixon had the uncanny ability to stake out his position, detach himself from that position, step into the other person's shoes, subordinate his own ego and shrewdly calculate how to address his advisory's concerns in order to attain his original objective. If it meant taking less credit than he deserved, so be it. He surely holds the record for fewest press conferences by a Member of Congress. But no one who knew him could mistake his calm demeanor, his thoughtful approach and his remarkable efforts at bipartisanship for a lack of passion or commitment to a progressive pro-civil rights, activist agenda. One of the remarkable scenes on the House floor was watching this serene and sedate man rise to levels of eloquence and controlled anger at a demagogic attack or a rhetorical cheapshot. The hush that would envelope the chamber when Julian's voice rose was palpable. Be it an effort to override the decision of D.C. voters or its City Council through an amendment to his D.C. appropriations bill or an attack on the all too frequent disaster relief appropriations for Los Angeles, when the voting began Members you could never imagine would flock to his position, deferring to his judgment and moved by his passion. But this was the unusual occasion. While I've chosen not to even attempt to enumerate them, most of his myriad legislative accomplishments were achieved behind the scenes, with little fanfare. In the Spring, 1999, Justices Thomas and Souter appeared before his subcommittee to testify for the Supreme Court's budget request. The nearly complete absence of minorities and the under-representation of women as law clerks to the Supreme Court justices deeply disturbed Julian. In typical fashion, Julian did not seek to rectify the situation by crafting an amendment (which would never have passed), nor did he hold a high profile press conference. He did not hurl insults. Rather, with appropriate deference and a deft and direct explanation of just why this was so intolerable, he made his case and thanked them for listening. The Justices expressed their appreciation for the way he chose to deliver his message and lo and behold, in the next term the increase in minority and female clerks was dramatic, if not yet adequate--classic Julian Dixon. As the Cold War ended, Julian left the foreign assistance subcommittee (where he had fought for foreign aid generally and aid to Israel specifically) and joined the defense appropriations subcommittee. As California slid into recession and unemployment in his own This week's Congressional Quarterly headlined its article on Julian's passing--``Remembered for Selflessness, Taking on Thankless Tasks.'' He chaired the Ethics Committee for six years and has been the ranking Democrat on the highly sensitive House Intelligence Committee, where he grappled on a bipartisan basis with our country's critical national security issues. Little publicity, less glory and no fund- raising potential. Add to the ``thankless tasks'' his many years chairing the District of Columbia appropriations subcommittee, where he fought for the city in which he was born and raised, particularly because its residents to this day are denied equal political representation. Now this latter position did carry some clout. In the mid- 1980s, I accompanied Julian to an anti-apartheid demonstration in front of the South African embassy, a sure ticket to jail. When we were booked I remarked the jail looked rather spiffy. Julian indicated that indeed it did, that before the daily demonstrations started he had suggested to key D.C. officials that they might want to give it a new paint job to impress the many Congressmen who would be passing through. Julian's loyalty to and love for the House was apparent to anyone who knew him. When Minority Leader Dick Gephardt asked me to take a slot on the Ethics Committee, Julian told me I had no choice--it was my obligation to the institution in which I had the honor to serve. Julian's friends in L.A.--he loved them dearly and they loved him in return. When he first ran for Congress in 1978, he started as a distinct underdog, representing much less of the district than one of his opponents, much less well-known than the other. (Julian had mastered the art of remaining relatively unknown to the general public)--or so I thought until today. His friends came through for him like gangbusters. They set new records for fund-raising within the African-American community, providing the resources and the volunteers to send him to a substantial victory. He never forgot them. I never met an elected official who was so attentive to people who could do nothing for him politically. He always had time to share a word with the Rayburn subway driver, the elevator operator, the committee secretary. There was always enough time to help the former staffer. He was not one to look over your shoulder to see if someone else in the room had more money, more power, more influence. One of the true joys of my life in Washington were my frequent dinners with Julian. We glided from House business to local politics to our families effortlessly. From those dinners, Bettye, I know how much you meant to him, how strong you were, how proud he was of your tremendous success in business. Julian was filled with good advice--but he was not infallible. One evening he indicated that he had begged Johnnie Cochran not to take the O.J. case, there was no way he could win and it would destroy his career. Julian was a throwback to a different political era, where discourse was civil, where adversaries at work could have a drink together in the evening, where not every interaction was defined by whom was benefitted in the next election. Perhaps, just perhaps, Julian Dixon's career and life can be instructive to us as we embark on a new Congress with a new President. I think the American people want what Julian offered--true to his beliefs and still able to see the other side, solving problems and working to make our community and country a better place--and even having a little fun while we're doing it. Dr. King once said ``If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep the streets even as Michelangelo painted or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare composed poetry. He should sweep streets so well that the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, `here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.' '' Julian--you were a great Congressman, and you did your job well. We'll miss you more than you could have imagined.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will allow the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to receive a limited number of special immigrant visas, 100 per year, to allow broadcasters to work in the United States for the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. This legislation would allow the BBG to utilize a uniform visa category for all of its broadcast entities; allow the family members of those serving U.S. interests to integrate into U.S. life; and provide protection through permanent residency to those broadcasters whose lives may be threatened because they provide accurate information about dictatorships and corrupt officials abroad. U.S. international broadcasters continue to reach societies which live under regimes that censor the information available to their citizens. Some, after serving U.S. international broadcasting, are unable to return to their countries of origin for fear of retaliation against themselves or their families. Certain employees of Radio Free Iraq have been threatened with their lives because of the work they do to empower citizens through the free flow of accurate information. U.S. international broadcasting remains a vital part of our international effort to encourage democracy-building abroad. Its successes precede and follow the Cold War. For example, the most recent BBG survey showed that RFE/RL was the number-one radio station among Serbians during the recent attempt to topple Slobodan Milosevic. Foreign populations rely on broadcasting sponsored by the U.S. as a lifeline in a crisis. Recognizing this, we need to provide the means for the BBG to recruit, retain, and protect the talented individuals it employs.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and our ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), as well as the leadership of both Houses for introducing this resolution and bringing it up for a vote at this time. This is the time for this House to express its solidarity with the state and the people of Israel. Back in September of 1993, Chairman Arafat wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, and will assume responsibility over all the PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators. In July of 2000, Prime Minister Barak made a proposal to the Palestinian Authority, the successor to the PLO, providing for statehood for the Palestinians, for withdrawal and secession of 90 percent of the land to the Palestinian state, for removal of jurisdiction of Israel and sovereignty of Israel from a substantial number of settlements now occupied by Israelis and, where the Israelis are now living, for substantial control in the city of Jerusalem, including two of the four quarters of the old city of Jerusalem, as well as a number of Palestinian areas within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. That offer was rejected. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my friend, pointed out, no counterproposal was made. There is a mythology going on here. There are two myths, which I would like to deal with. One is that the violence that we are seeing now was triggered by the trip, by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. There are quotes throughout July and throughout August from Palestinian leaders, from officials in the Palestinian authority, which indicate that now is the time as Yasser Arafat found that world opinion was against his rejection and failure to make a counter to the Israeli proposal at Camp David, that now is the time to resume the Intifada. Those quotes included references to the fact that this Intifada will not simply be an Intifada of stones, but that the substantial amount of weaponry now held in the hands of Palestinians and the Palestinian Fatah militia would be utilized in this Intifada. Sharon's trip was a pretext. It was not a reason for this violence. This violence had been planned. The quotations are out there, and the people of this Chamber, and the people of this country should understand that. The tragedy of this, the young people who have died, in some cases the innocent people have died. But another one of the myths is that this is caused by rock-throwing young people with an excessive Israeli response. Read yesterday's U.S. Today, ambulance drivers bringing rocks and ammunition to Palestinian militia, ambulance drivers claiming to be on a humanitarian mission, getting out of their ambulance and shooting assault weapons at Israeli troops. The fact is the general conventional belief about what is going on there is not accurate. Mr. Speaker, I urge people to look more closely at what is happening and at this effort to try an armed uprising. This is the time for this resolution. I urge the body to adopt it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to discuss the importance of legal protection for databases. Databases are extremely important to the continued growth of our hightech based economy. Within databases--organized collections of information--lie the basic tools of the Information Age. The continued development of new and exciting database products depends on adequate legal protection from piracy. Over the past two Congress' we have grappled with the scope of protection that should be afforded database producers. We have worked hard to produce a well balanced approach. Unfortunately, we were unable to bring the development of this legislation to a close in time for consideration before this body. I believe that addressing this issue must be a priority for the 107th Congress and will do all that I can to facilitate passage of database protection legislation in the next Congress.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully have to rise in opposition to the conference report, with great respect to the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I know have done their best to put together an attractive proposal. But I believe we pay too high a price in this legislation. Several months ago, the House passed the Sanford amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill by a vote of 232 to 186, prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce the travel restrictions on Cuba, now we see, as the price paid to allow our farmers to export the codification of restrictions which work against the very goals that the proponents of those restrictions constantly proclaim they want. The whole history of the downfall of tyranny comes from contact with people from democracies, with human rights crusaders, with people who want to establish people-to-people programs. Instead of allowing the flexibility to move ahead and advance these kinds of programs and other kinds of useful contacts, we codify a policy that, for 40 years, has failed to achieve its primary goal. That is a terrible mistake. It is a violation of the civil liberties of the Americans and Americans right to travel. It undermines the very goal we seek in our Cuba policy. For the life of me, I would love to hear the explanation which prohibits export financing to Cuba but gives waiver authority and discretion to the executive branch when we talk about export financing of our exports to both Libya and to Iran. Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear the gentleman from Washington or someone else defend that distinction.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in recent months, substantial concern has been expressed over the patenting of Internet and business strategies and techniques. Both the quality and appropriateness of a number of recently granted patents have been questioned. My primary concern in this issue is the protection of intellectual property, which I believe is critical both to innovation and to the economy--and in that context, I want to make sure that the quality of U.S. patents is the highest possible. As the breadth of patentable subject matter grows, it is incumbent upon Congress to consider two questions. First, are the Patent and Trademark Office and the courts properly interpreting the scope of what should be patentable? Second, is the process for patenting appropriate for the subject matter we allow to be patented? It is clear from my conversations with those who are developing the Internet, those financing Internet ventures, individuals conducting business and those in the patent community--and the public at large-- that the patenting of Internet and business strategies and techniques is controversial and deserves serious examination. Some believe that ``business method'' patents should simply not be allowed. They argue, by analogy, that a toaster should be patentable but the idea of toasting bread should not. Others argue that business methods should remain patentable, but the PTO should apply much greater scrutiny when it examines such patent applications. To extend the analogy: we have been toasting bread for a long time and if you are going to patent a method of doing so, the PTO better make sure that it has never been done in just that way before. Some note that people have received patents on activities that have been undertaken for decades and even centuries, and argue that merely placing an activity on the Internet does not make for novelty. Finally, there are a number of strange examples that lend themselves to questions about whether such common human activities deserve patent protection at all. Surely, the patent system is functioning in a curious manner when patents have been issued on a technique for measuring a breast with a tape to determine bra size (Pat. No. 5,965,809), methods of executing a tennis stroke (Pat. No. 5,993,366) and swinging a golf club (Pat. No. 5,616,089), an architect's method of eliminating hallways by placing staircases on the outside of buildings (Pat. No. 5,761,857), and a method for teaching custodial staff basic cleaning tasks (Pat. No. 5,851,117). Others have noted with suspicion the patent for a method of exercising a cat using a laser light as a tease (Pat. No. 5,443,036). Other patents, granted to more serious endeavors, have also have been roundly criticized. With regard to patenting Internet adaptations of brick-and-mortar businesses, questions have arisen about patents granted for a method of selling music and movies in electronic form over the Internet (Pat. No. 5,191,573), a method of developing a statistical ``fantasy'' football game using a computer (Pat. No. 4,918,603), a method of allowing car purchasers to select options for cars ordered over the Internet (Pat. No. 5,825,651), a method of rewarding online shoppers with frequent flyer miles (Pat. No. 5,774,870), and an arguably very broad patent on managing secure online orders and payments using an ``electronic shopping cart'' to purchase goods on the Internet (5,745,681). In lay terms, the basic question in each case is whether the patent owner merely adapted a well known business activity to the Internet in a straight forward manner. In patent parlance, the question is whether any of these activities are truly new and would not be obvious to one skilled in the relevant art. Other questions that may be relevant are whether others in the United States had known of the invention or had used it, and whether the invention was used or sold in public prior to the filing for a patent. I am not asserting that any of these patents should be invalidated. However, patents are becoming a critical factor in valuing many new economy businesses, and that means they are significant to the health of the economy. If business method patents are indeed being issued based on insufficient information about the relevant inventions that preceded the patented invention or if a patent is issued on the basis of insufficient ``prior art,'' there is substantial risk to the inventor that those who know of the ``prior art'' could step forward at any time, invalidating the patent. This uncertainty means that investors cannot be confident that businesses will in fact reap the returns they expect on the patented inventions. In the context of the Internet, many argue that rather than spurring innovation, patents interfere with innovation; that fierce commercial competition, as opposed to patent monopolies, has driven innovation; and that a culture of open sharing of innovation has been the key to the Internet's rapid growth. Whether this is true or false, an invention that is tied up because of an inappropriate grant of patent is problematic and may interfere with the advancement of technology. If a patent is granted for an invention that is not truly novel or one which is obvious to an expert in the field, it may then become unavailable for competitors to exploit. Such a patent may also open the user of the prior invention to an infringement lawsuit. The U.S. patent system, created under the specific authority of the Constitution, grants for a limited time a statutory monopoly over one's inventions. An inventor should have an incentive to create--a monopoly for a limited time allows an inventor the opportunity to appropriately benefit from his creativity, and at the same time, reveal in detail the invention to allow others to build on his advances. Historically, the concept of invention was limited to the physical realm, a machine or process by which a product is produced. Over the years, however, the courts and the PTO have expanded the scope of patentable subject matter. In fact, the Patent and Trademark Office is of the view that it is operating under Supreme Court instruction to patent ``anything under the sun made by man.'' To that end, they have allowed the patenting of business methods. Three events have contributed to the rapid growth in the number of applications for business method patents: In the 1998 ruling in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, (which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals) concluded that methods of doing business implemented using a computer are patentable. Some interpret the opinion as not even requiring computer implementation, and thus more broadly affirming the patenting of any business method. State Street was notable because it resolved a question where there had previously been divergent opinions among the lower courts. Some courts were of the view that there was a ``business method exception'' to patentability dating back to at least 1868. In resolving this issue, the court opened the flood gates for business method patents. The second key event has been the explosive growth of the Internet. As businesses move to the Internet, they either adapt methods of doing their ongoing brick-and-mortar business or they invent new and innovative methods to take advantage of the unique qualities of the Internet. Finally, business executives and entrepreneurs alike are gaining a better understanding of the economic value of intellectual property and patents, and are pursuing ways to take advantage of these opportunities. Given this growth in patent applications, has the quality of patents suffered? There are several reasons identified for the lessening of the quality of patents in this area. In the view of some, the existing patent corps does not have the expertise to examine these ``new tech'' and ``business'' patents. The PTO needs more resources to enhance their examiners expertise and increase the size of the examiner corps in the relevant areas of art. Also, as a result of industry practices, there is a dearth of ``prior art'' data, the evidence of preexisting inventions, available in the areas of the Internet and business methods. To be patentable, an invention has to be novel, useful, and not obvious to an expert in the field. Novelty is judged by comparing the invention with both patented and non-patented inventions. Determining whether an invention existed before the patent application was filed-- or whether the invention is obvious--is an extraordinarily difficult task in the realm of business methods and the Internet. Core Internet tools such as the Amazon.com ``1-click'', may have been in use prior to the filing of Amazon's patent application. Priceline.com's ``buyer-driven sales'' over the Internet arguably may have been ``obvious'' to an expert in the field of auctions. I do not know whether these patents should or should not have been granted (and ongoing litigation will inevitably make that determination), but it is clear that the review of business method patent applications is impaired by the lack of documentation capturing the history of innovation in the Internet or the development of business techniques and methods. By contrast, in the fields of engineering or science (two areas in which many patents are sought), inventions and innovations are meticulously documented and published. With these publications at hand, an examiner has easy reference to existing inventions. But very little published information exists with Internet and hi-tech practices . . . and most of what does exist is analogous to ``folk knowledge'', handed from person to person orally or in chat rooms or by e-mail. Where developments are documented, there is no common organizing scheme. Where business plans are involved, they are usually closely held as trade secrets. Since an examiner can reject a patent application only on published ``prior art'', informal communications are excluded. As to obviousness, it is usually up to the patent examiner--using his own expertise and research of ``prior art''--to assess whether an expert in the field would think to come up with the applicant's invention. In the area of business method patents, the endeavors for which patents are being sought are very new to the PTO. It has been only five years since the Internet became a tool of business, and only two years since the court clearly established the rule that a business method is patentable in the United States. Unfortunately, although PTO is taking strides to develop expertise in the appropriate fields, there must be improvement in how experts can submit information to the PTO regarding specific patent applications. Many of the changes needed can be met only by legislative action. It is critical that we create new mechanisms to get ``prior art'' into the system and make it available to applicants and the PTO. We must enhance the deference given the PTO in rejecting patent applications on the basis of all of the provisions of subsections 102(a) and (b) of title 35 by allowing examiners to rely on evidence of knowledge, use, public knowledge or sale in the U.S. that may not be documented in published references. I am today introducing with Mr. Boucher a bill that will enhance the quality of Internet and non-Internet business method patents by increasing the opportunity for expert input into the patenting process. These improvements will provide patent owners and investors alike with greater confidence in the quality of their patents. The bill requires the PTO to publish business method patent applications and give the members of the public an opportunity to present ``prior art'' they believe may disqualify the application. Members of the public may also petition the PTO to hold a hearing to determine whether an invention was known, used by others, or in public use or on sale in the U.S. prior to the filing of the application. The bill also establishes an expeditious administrative ``opposition'' process by which a party will be able to challenge a business method patent. The opposition process provides parties with substantial evidentiary tools but will be much less costly and more efficient than litigation. The opposition process must be invoked within 9 months of the granting of a patent, and must be concluded within 18 months thereafter. Thus, we assure that within 27 months after the granting of the patent, a patent owner will either have enhanced confidence in the quality of their patent--something akin to quiet title--or will know the patent has been invalidated. The procedure will be presided over by an Administrative Opposition Judge who has substantial patent expertise and will have the responsibility to assure efficient review. In regard to adaptations of business methods to the Internet, the bill establishes that where an invention only differs from ``prior art'' in that it is implemented using computer technology, such an invention shall be presumed obvious and therefore not patentable (this presumption can be overcome if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the invention was not obvious). Finally, the bill lowers the burden of proof for a challenge to a patent from ``clear and convincing evidence'' to ``a preponderance of the evidence''--an appropriately lower standard where the difficulty of producing evidence is complicated by the traditions and practices of the industries. In introducing this legislation I am not taking a final position as to whether business methods should be patentable--I tend to think they should be, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I am not wed to any particular provision of this bill itself But I do believe that we need to be sure that the Patent and Trademark Office is well equipped to consider these patents, that there are adequate means to get good information into the system describing prior inventions, and that there are the appropriate standards and processes in place to assure the quality of the patents that are actually issued. There should be no question that the U.S. patent system produces high quality patents. This bill is a work in progress, and one that will likely generate great debate. As I have noted, there are some who believe that ``business methods'' should not be patentable at all. Others who are certain to argue that current law ``ain't broke'', so there is no need for Congress to fix it. Still others believe that, to the extent there may be a problem, the Patent and Trade Mark Office will address it administratively. My intent with this legislation is to stimulate the dialogue. We need to air these issues and ultimately (and hopefully quickly) find the proper solutions.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding attorney and model citizen, Mr. Donald Biederman who will be saluted tonight by Southwestern University Law School on his appointment as the head of its Entertainment and Media Law Institute. I have been proud to call Don a friend for almost twenty years. He is a man of enormous energy, intellect and integrity, who is an outstanding choice for this position. As a J.D. and LL.M. recipient from Harvard and New York University Law Schools respectively, Don has enjoyed an illustrious legal career in both the private sector and academia. He first began practicing entertainment law in 1972, when he became the chief legal officer at CBS Inc. From there, he moved to ABC Records Inc., where he served as the Vice President for Legal Affairs and Administration. Prior to starting his most recent position to the private sector, Executive Vice President and General Counsel at Warner/Chapell Music, Don was a partner at the law firm of Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp. Throughout his legal career, Don has been a vigilant and outspoken opponent of intellectual piracy. The Record Industry Association of America and Billboard are just two of the many organizations that have honored him for his efforts in this area. Despite leading a distinguished career in the corporate world, Don has found the time for an equally outstanding tenure in academia. He has taught at such institutions of higher learning as: Peperdine University School of Law, USC Law Center, the UCLA School of Law, the Anderson School of Management, Vanderbilt, Harvard and Stanford. Prior to assuming his current position at Southwestern, Don was the director of USC's Entertainment Law Institute. While in academia, Don co-authored Law and Business of Entertainment Industries, a widely-used textbook on Media Law. He also wrote articles for a variety of publications including: the Hastings Communication/ Entertainment Law Journal, Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, and the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law and Practice. I am proud to be a friend to such an accomplished individual, and it is my distinct pleasure to ask my colleagues to join with me in saluting Professor Donald E. Biederman on his new position as the Director of Southwestern Unversity Law School's Entertainment and Media Law Institute. Southwestern could not have chosen a finer individual.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to add, while this in some way seems like a simple and straightforward proposition, it took a huge amount of time. I think it is worth paying special note to the staff, to Debbie Rose Aaron Blain, and Sampak Garg, Alec French of the subcommittee staff, and Stacy Baird and all the other staffers who worked on this, because they did invest a great deal of time; and I think they should be commended for that.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for shepherding this bill forward. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) indicated, last year Congress enacted substantial reforms to the patent system. After the enactment last year of the American Inventors Protection Act and the intervening months of implementation, it has become apparent that several minor adjustments to the law are needed. Most of the corrections within the manager's amendment and the underlying H.R. 4870, the Intellectual Property Technical Amendments Act, are truly technical, correcting punctuation and the like. There are some minor substantive changes that are needed to implement last year's legislation. H.R. 4870, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary and the manager's amendment, address several such issues. I want to thank the legislative counsel's office and those at the Patent and Trademark Office and the patent and trademark communities who have assisted us in identifying the problems with this bill that it addresses, and I urge the body's vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) once again for his able leadership in moving this bill forward expeditiously. H.R. 5106, the Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000, which I introduced with the chairman earlier this month, makes a number of technical corrections which merely change punctuation, correct cross references or paragraph numbering or correct editorial style in copyright law. I want to join the chairman in thanking the Copyright Office and the legislative counsel for their assistance in the drafting of this bill, along with the staffs to the majority and my own subcommittee minority staff as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill.