Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Copyright Office of the United States regarding H.R. 672. The Register of Copyrights of the United States of America, Washington, DC, March 18, 1997. Hon. Howard Coble, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Coble: We note that language in House Report 105- 25 accompanying H.R. 672 regarding the Copyright Office not needing appropriations beginning in 1999 is not entirely correct. In contributing to those portions of the Report entitled ``Summary'' and ``Estimated Cost to the Federal Government,'' it appears that the Congressional Budget Office did not realize that some Copyright Office operations--for example, administration of the mandatory deposit requirements of 17 U.S.C. Sec. 407--are not fee services, and would not be covered by a fee increase, even to full cost recovery as permitted (but not required) by Section 7 of H.R. 672. We would appreciate your confirming on the floor of the House that it is not the intent of Congress that the Copyright Office become self-sustaining under H.R. 672, or that it raise fees to cover the full cost of all services that it provides. As the section-by-section analysis states correctly, the bill grants the Copyright Office, subject to contrary Congressional action, authority to ``increase fees up to the reasonable costs incurred by the Copyright Office'' plus a reasonable adjustment for future cost increases, provided those fees are ``fair and equitable and give due consideration to the objectives of the copyright system.'' This allows the Register of Copyrights to ``decide that fees may be less than the costs of the services provided, if that furthers the objectives of the copyright system.'' Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Marybeth Peters.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 672, to make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 17 of the United States Code. An amended version of this bill is presented for passage under suspension of the rules. The amendment to the reported bill corrects an error contained in the bill as introduced, which inadvertently strikes a provision of present law which should remain for purposes of maintaining consistency between certain sections in title 17. It reaffirms the current practice of the Copyright Office to allow participants in a ratemaking proceeding to share the cost of that proceeding in direct proportion to their share of the distribution. Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any opposition to this amendment. All the provisions contained in this bill are necessary for the proper functioning of the U.S. Copyright Office and the copyright system, and I am unaware of any opposition to this legislation. I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 672. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 672) to make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 17, United States Code, as amended.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, opponents of H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, have embraced a ``Chicken Little'' strategy distinguished by two attributes: First they announce H.R. 400 sells out the country and, second, they repeat it again and again. This dumbing-down approach only produces heat, not light. If these same opponents took time to read H.R. 400 they would understand why it helps our national economy. The 18-month publication requirement in the bill would allow an American inventor to review a given application and decide if he should continue to develop his own idea or to pursue other alternatives. H.R. 400 creates no opportunity to steal the contents of a published application. Our opponents believe that the patent system should serve only the selfish interests of those applicants wishing to abuse the process by suing American inventors who develop technology and create jobs. In contrast, the Constitution charges the Congress with the responsibility of creating a system that balances the legitimate needs.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago, after a Chicago Bulls star Dennis Rodman inexcusably kicked a cameraman during a National Basketball Association game, one of my constituents asked me if there was anything we in the Congress could do in response to Rodman's behavior. The NBA will ignore the incident and it will be business as usual, my constituents declared. You in the Congress address the matter, he continued. It is difficult to legislate character, I told him. His words regarding the NBA's response were prophetic. The incident was resolved very casually indeed. Many believe Rodman should have been suspended for the entire season. That would have been an appropriate conclusion. Rodman was seen laughing about the incident and one of his teammates complained that the cameraman should have more promptly removed himself from the arena floor. One is a victim of a senseless assault and battery and the victim should jump to his feet and promptly apologize to his attacker? Hardly. The attitude of many of these NBA stars is reprehensible, Mr. Speaker. Some recent years ago an NBA star was accused of improper involvement with gambling interests and possible involvement with organized crime. His response was that most people did not appreciate the pressure that surrounded his life. I have news for this self-appointed celebrity. He does not know the meaning of pressure. The guy under pressure is working for $9 an hour, who wants to purchase his son a ticket so he can watch these millionaire athletes display their wares on the hardwood. I am told that fewer fans, Mr. Speaker, are viewing televised NBA games. This may not be supported by polling data, but common sense tells me that many Americans are fed up with the condescending attitude expressed by these overnight millionaires. Perhaps they should have to try their luck at $9-an-hour jobs. Then maybe they would appreciate the fact that fans who pay their hard- earned money deserve more respect. They might then appreciate the fact that millionaire athletes, or celebrities, are indeed role models. They are not required to be good role models, but they cannot on the one hand warmly embrace their money, fame, and celebrity status, and then on the other hand reject their casting as role models. It does not work that way, fellas, and this is the climate which the NBA is now extending to high school graduates. I was recently asked, Mr. Speaker, if I would pay to attend an NBA game. One team has regional exposure to my congressional district; another team is coached by a good friend of mine. Aside from these two teams, I would pay to watch only one team in the NBA. That team has never won an NBA title, although they annually advance well into the playoff season, but no cigar is awarded. But this team is a class organization and if more NBA teams would emulate them, there would likely be an increase in spectator interest. If these self-serving overpaid athletes do not get their acts together, spectator interest will continue to wane and perhaps they will have the chance at one of those $9-an-hour jobs, and then, Mr. Speaker, they will really know what pressure is.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill which will provide concrete steps to restore accountability, efficiency, and fairness to our Federal civil justice system, the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement Encouragement Act. This legislation will implement a more complete, fair, and effective policy than exists at present to favor alternative means of resolving disputes and to encourage compromise by parties to Federal litigation. The effect of these changes will be to: First, provide for a quicker, more efficient way to resolve some Federal cases when the parties so choose; second, lessen the incentive to litigate and consequently the caseload burdens faced by the Federal judiciary; and third, assure that only meritorious and justiciable cases supported by scientific facts be adjudicated in Federal courts. This legislation would require all Federal district courts to establish an arbitration program, which in the discretion of the court could be either voluntary or mandatory. In 1988 Congress enacted chapter 44 of title 28 U.S.C. in order to authorize 10 pilot programs of mandatory court annexed arbitration that were in operation in the Federal courts, as well as to authorize 10 additional districts, which were to be selected later by the U.S. Judicial Conference, for voluntary programs. The legislation further required that the Federal Judicial Center [FJC] submit a report on the implementation of the act, which it transmitted to Congress on October 4, 1991. Based upon this study, the Federal Judicial Center recommended to Congress that it enact a provision authorizing all Federal courts to adopt, in their discretion, local rules for arbitration to be mandatory or voluntary in the discretion of various courts. This bill does just that. The goal of court-annexed arbitration is to provide more options for litigants, while reducing cost, delay, and court burden. In addition, it is the only option that provides to litigants in cases where smaller amounts are in controversy the opportunity for an early advisory adjudication on the merits of the case. In addition to creating more opportunities for alternative dispute resolution, this bill will also encourage parties to settle their cases by offering an incentive to accept good offers of settlement. This section of the legislation, developed in the last Congress by Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, a senior member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, would amend 28 U.S.C. section 1332, the provision granting diversity jurisdiction in U.S. district courts, by creating an incentive triggered by an offer of settlement. The intent of this procedure is to encourage and facilitate the early settlement of lawsuits and reduce protracted litigation. The offer of settlement procedure would allow a party to make, by filing with the court in writing and serving on an adverse party, at any time up to 10 days before trial, a formal offer to settle any or all claims in a suit for a specified amount. If the offer of settlement is accepted, the claim or claims are resolved pursuant to the terms of the agreement. If the offer is rejected, however, and the offeree does not obtain a judgment, order, or verdict more favorable than that offered on the applicable claims, the offeree is liable for the costs and attorney's fees of the offeror for those claims from the date the last offer was made by the adverse party. Usually this will be for an amount including costs of up to 10 days before trial. There are two exceptions to the requirement that a court award costs and attorneys fees. The first exception would allow the court to exempt certain individual cases based upon express findings that the case presents novel and important questions of law or fact and that it substantially affects nonparties. The second instance where a court would not be required to award costs and attorney's fees or may reduce such costs or fees would be when it finds that it would be manifestly unjust to do so. This bill would not necessarily require an offeree to pay the entire amount of the offerer's attorney's fees. Rather, it would limit the offeree's liability for the offeror's attorney's fees to an amount not exceeding the amount the offeree paid its own attorney. If the offeree hired its attorney on a contingency basis--an agreement in which a plaintiff does not pay unless it prevails--and, because it lost, paid its attorney nothing, then it would be liable for the offeror's attorney's fees up to the amount that would have been incurred by the offeree for an attorney's noncontingency fee. This will encourage accurate reporting and maintenance of hourly work and costs by attorneys hired under a contingency agreement, since a fee petition containing hours worked must be presented to the court within 10 days of entry of a final judgment, order, or verdict on a claim in order to collect such costs and attorney's fees. The House passed this settlement encouragement legislation last Congress, and I am convinced it will prove to be a valuable resource to both parties to Federal litigation and to the courts in promoting quick and fair settlement. This legislation would also amend rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows expert witnesses to testify as to their expert opinions with respect to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Such evidence may have an enormous impact on a jury's decision because of its nature. Accordingly, assuring that such evidence is valid and reliable is of utmost importance. With that in mind, the amendment would make a scientific opinion inadmissible unless it is: First, scientifically valid and reliable; second, has a valid scientific connection to the fact it is offered to prove; and third, sufficiently reliable so that the probative value of such evidence outweighs the dangers specified in Federal rule of Evidence 403. The standard for admissibility of scientific expert testimony was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993), on remand, No. 90-55397 (9th Cir., Jan. 4, 1995, Kozinski, J.). In that case, the Supreme Court held that rule 702 does not require that scientific evidence have general acceptance in the relevant scientific community to be admissible. Rather, the Court held that the rule requires that expert testimony rest on a reliable foundation; that is, the methodology from which the evidence is derived must be based on scientific knowledge and be relevant to the task at hand; that is, it must assist the trier of fact and have a logical scientific nexus to the subject matter of the suit or other admitted evidence. This legislation would serve to codify and is meant to complement the standards established in Daubert by the Supreme Court. It requires that the methodology from which scientific evidence is derived be based on scientific knowledge and that it have a logical, scientific nexus to the subject matter of the suit or other admitted evidence. Finally, this bill would make expert testimony inadmissible if the witness is entitled to receive any compensation contingent on the legal disposition of any claim with respect to which such testimony is offered. The reason for this provision is that an expert witness who receives a contingency fee is less likely to furnish reliable testimony than one who receives a flat or hourly fee since he or she has a vested interest in the outcome of the litigation. The provision would exclude evidence if the witness receives any contingency fee, even if such fee is not a percentage of the judgment or settlement, but rather is a flat fee or hourly fee the payment of which is contingent upon the legal disposition of the claim. This bill will prevent trial lawyers from taking advantage of the court system. If there is a consensus in the scientific community that a hazard or risk--usually of a product--is real or substantial, the trial lawyers will implore that consensus to support complaints for compensatory and punitive damages. If the consensus in the scientific community is that a hazard or risk is trivial or imaginary, however, the same lawyers should not be able to brush that fact aside and find fringe experts to testify otherwise. Even in cases where real hazards exist, trial lawyers will attempt to stretch claims beyond validity in order to collect punitive damages. By creating a presumption of inadmissibility, rebutted by the standards created by the Supreme Court in Daubert, along with a lower standard of prejudice, an amended rule 702 will be effective in weeding out junk science as evidence in our Federal courtrooms. These amendments to rule 702 would apply only to civil and not criminal cases. They would most frequently be used in product liability cases. This will prevent frustration in the important use of scientific evidence such as blood-type analysis and DNA testing in criminal proceedings. Mr. Speaker, the importance of this legislation to our Federal courts cannot be underestimated. Congress must play a key role in affording Federal litigants efficient, quick, and fair adjudication of their claims. This bill will move us firmly in the right direction.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill which responds to an aspect of the budget proposed by the administration last Thursday and to congressional practice over the past 6 fiscal years. The administration's budget proposal would divert $92 million in fiscal year 1998 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which receives no taxpayer dollars, to other tax-funded areas of the Government. In 1999, the administration proposes that $119 million be diverted. In fiscal year 1997, Congress diverted $54 million, a significant increase over previous diversions. This legislation would correct this serious and growing problem, without harming the budget, so that the PTO can continue to be the engine that fuels the creation of competitive American technology. Last month, Representatives Goodlatte, Conyers, Lofgren, and I introduced H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill which will make critical reforms to our Nation's patent laws and to the PTO for America's high-technology industries. However, unless we move quickly to preserve and stabilize the finances of the PTO, these improvements and the patent system itself will be in jeopardy. The Patent and Trademark Office is funded totally through the payment of application and user fees. Taxpayer support for the operations of the Office was eliminated in 1990 with the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The act imposed a massive fee increase-- referred to as a ``surcharge''--on America's inventors and industry in order to replace taxpayer support the Office was then receiving. The revenues generated by this surcharge, $119 million, which constitute approximately 20 percent of the PTO's operating budget, are placed into a surcharge account. The PTO is required to request of the Appropriations Committees that they be allowed to use these surcharge revenues in this account to support the 20 percent of its operations these revenues represent. It was anticipated in 1990 that Congress would routinely grant the PTO permission to use the surcharge revenue since it was generated originally from fees paid by users of the patent and trademark systems to support the cost of those systems. Unfortunately, experience has shown us that the user fees paid into the surcharge account have become a target of opportunity to fund other, unrelated, taxpayer-funded Government programs. The temptation to use the surcharge, and thus a significant portion of the operating budget of the PTO, has proven increasingly irresistible, to the detriment and sound functioning of our Nation's patent and trademark systems. Beginning with the diversion of $8 million in 1992, Congress has increasingly redirected a larger share of the surcharge revenue, reaching a record level of $54 million in the current year. In total, over the past 6 fiscal years, over $142 million has been diverted from the PTO. This, of course, has had a debilitating impact on the Patent and Trademark Office. The effort to reclassify the patent search file to keep it current with developing technologies had to be eliminated. The efforts to provide technological training for patent examiners and to expose them to the latest developments in their fields has been reduced. The support of legal training for patent examiners has been cut 50 percent. One of the most promising cost-saving steps contemplated by the PTO, allowing applicants to file their applications electronically, has been postponed indefinitely. Since the diversion of $54 million this year, the Office has been forced to reduce the hiring of patent examiners 50 percent at a time when patent application filings are increasing by nearly 10 percent annually. In the budget delivered to this body by the administration last Thursday, the President is proposing that we continue to increase these diversions in the amount of $92 million in fiscal year 1998 and $119 million, the amount of the entire surcharge, in each of the succeeding years through fiscal year 2002. In anticipation of this denial of user fees, the PTO has canceled totally all plans for hiring patent examiners this year because it would not have sufficient funds to pay for them next year. We cannot afford to allow this dismantling of our patent system to occur. The legislation I am introducing today is revenue neutral. It does not increase an expenditure of taxpayer revenues which would increase the deficit. It would merely permit the PTO to use all of the patent and trademark fees it receives to examine patent and trademark applications, to grant patents and to register trademarks. It does this by placing the fees generated by the surcharge mandated by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 into the same category as the other user fees paid by patent and trademark applicants. Specifically, it would characterize these fees as ``offsetting collections'' rather than ``offsetting receipts'' so that all of the fees collected could be used for the purposes for which they were paid. We must stop this unwarranted tax on innovation. Our Patent and Trademark Office cannot operate effectively on 80 percent of its operating budget--all of which is paid for not by you and me, but by the applicants who use it. I look forward to working with all interested parties to reverse this potential decline in the services offered by the PTO. In this increasingly competitive world, the economic survival of the United States will be dependent upon high technology products and services. We cannot allow the pillar upon which our competitiveness in the global economy rests to be destroyed.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Today, I am introducing the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. This implementing legislation for the protocol related to the Madrid Agreement on the International Registration of Marks was introduced in both the last Congress and in the 103d Congress. While the administration has still not forwarded the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the introduction of this legislation is important to send a signal to the international community and to U.S. businesses and trademark owners that the U.S. Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, efficient system for the international registration of trademarks. The international system for the registration of trademarks established and operating under the Madrid Protocol, which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, would assist our businesses in protecting their proprietary names and brand- name goods while saving cost, time and effort. This is especially important to our small businesses who may only be able to afford world- wide protection for their trademarks through a low-cost international registration system. The Madrid Protocol went into effect in April, 1996 and currently binds 12 countries. Without the participation of the United States, the Protocol may never achieve its purpose of providing a one-stop, low- cost shop for trademark applicants who can, by filing one application in their country and in their language, receive protection by each member country of the Protocol. There is no opposition to this legislation, nor to the substantive portions of the treaty. The State Department is attempting to work out differences between the administration and the European Union regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the Protocol. Under the Protocol, the European Union receives a separate vote in addition to the votes of its member states. While it may be argued that the existence of a supra-national European trademark issued by the European Trademark Office justifies this vote, the State Department finds the provisions of the Protocol allowing intergovernmental organizations to have a vote in addition to the votes of its constituent member States to be in opposition to the fundamental democratic concept of one vote for each State. They also fear that this voting structure may constitute a precedent for deviation from the one state-one vote principle in future international agreements in other areas. Those differences need to be settled before the Secretary of State will recommend to the President that a ratification package be presented to the Senate. The State Department is working closely with the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, which I chair, to formulate a proposal to the European Union, and subsequently to the members of the Protocol, to amend the Madrid Protocol Assembly voting procedures in a way which would provide for input by the European Union without circumventing the one member-one vote principle. It is important to move this legislation forward at this time, however, to encourage negotiation, and to assure that the U.S. stands ready to benefit from the Madrid Protocol as soon as it is ratified.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce an updated version of legislation originally drafted in the last Congress by two former members of the Judiciary Committee who have since retired, Carlos Moorhead and Pat Schroeder. Many of us were cosponsors in the 104th Congress, including our distinguished chairman, Mr. Hyde, and ranking member, Mr. Conyers. Original cosponsors of this bill include Mr. Goodlatte, a senior member of the Subcommittee on courts and Intellectual Property, Mr. Conyers, and Ms. Lofgren, also a member of the subcommittee. This legislation is necessary to allow American businesses to compete effectively in markets today and into the 21st century. The United States is by far the world's largest producer of intellectual property. This success is of course due to the great creativity of our citizens, but this success is also the direct result of a rational and sound policy of protecting intellectual property--a system that encourages the development of new inventions and processes. However, America does not have a monopoly on creativity. Many other nations have learned from our success--America no longer stands alone in its commitment to a strong system of patent protection for its inventors, small businesses and industries. Consequently, it is more important now than ever that we adopt certain reforms that will ensure that America maintains its position as the world leader in the production of intellectual property. Under current law, foreign companies enjoy certain benefits in America that American companies do not enjoy in their countries, like the advantages of publication and prior user rights; the changes proposed today are especially useful for small businesses--many of which simply will not survive if foreign competitors continue to operate on a tilted playing field in America. This legislation will benefit American inventors and innovators and society at large. First, by providing more efficient and effective operation of the Patent and Trademark Office; second, by furthering the constitutional incentive to disseminate information regarding new technologies more rapidly; third, by guaranteeing that patent applicants will not lose patent term due to delays that are not their fault; fourth, by improving the procedures for reviewing the work product of patent examiners; fifth, by protecting earlier domestic commercial users of patented technologies; and sixth, by deterring invention promoters from defrauding unsuspecting inventors. As I mentioned, this legislation is the successor to a bill developed by the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property in the last Congress and reported by unanimous vote by the Judiciary Committee late in the second session. The version of the bill that I am introducing today is nearly identical to last year's bill, and includes the contents of a manager's amendment that was developed with the Senate, the administration and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and which would have been offered if the bill had been scheduled for a vote in the House. This legislation was the subject of several days of hearings in the last Congress. I would like to place in the Record a letter written by the Secretary of Commerce on September 12, 1996, that expressed the strong support of the Clinton administration for last year's bill, including the proposed manager's amendment. The Secretary of Commerce, Washington, DC, September 12, 1996. Hon. Carlos J. Moorhead, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts and Intelligence Property, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding Title I of H.R. 3460. The Department of Commerce is pleased that we have been able to work together in a truly bipartisan effort to ``reinvent'' the Patent and Trademark Office. We appreciate your staff's and Ranking Member Schroeder's staff's work to address the Administration's concerns with Title I. The Administration believes that the changes that we have crafted together in the en banc floor manager's amendment will create an organization consistent with the essential principles of the Vice President's vision for a Performance Based Organization, to further our mutual goal of creating a more efficient and effective patent and trademark office. In light of these changes, the Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3460 with the en banc manager's amendment. It is our joint vision to have a more business-like patent and trademark organization that can better serve the public and the innovators whose ideas are the engine of growth for our economy. By granting the new organization operational flexibility in exchange for greater accountability for achieving measurable goals, delineated in an annual performance agreement between the Secretary of Commerce and the Commissioner, the bill makes that vision a reality. It is also our joint view that the Executive Branch must, as you put it, ``be able to establish an integrated policy on commercial and technology issues.'' By making clear that the bill does not alter the Secretary of Commerce's statutory responsibility for directing patent and trademark policy with respect to the duties of the Patent and Trademark Office, we have ensured the continuity of appropriate policy direction and oversight. We also believe that other changes you have added to address Administration concerns, such as ensuring that there is independent Inspector General oversight and adequate personnel safeguards, will strengthen accountability mechanisms that we all endorse. The Administration is also pleased that the en banc manager's amendment addresses the central Constitutional and policy concerns of the Department of Justice with Title I. We are committed to continuing to work together this year and in the future to perfect this bipartisan effort to invent anew the Patent and Trademark Office so that it will remain one of the Nation's most important resources for protecting and encouraging the preeminence of American innovation. We believe, for example, that there is still further work that we must do to address our concerns in the area of procurement, where we believe that the exemptions are broader than necessary to provide the flexibilities required. H.R. 3460 contains five other titles that we believe will substantially improve the level of patent protection provided in the United States. These patent reforms are supported by the Administration and are of great importance to the Nation's economic competitiveness. We hope that they can be enacted in legislation this session. Title II provides for the publication of patent applications eighteen months after the date on which they are filed or from the date on which the earliest referenced application was filed. This publication will help prevent economic disruption by those who now delay the grant of patents to extend their period of protection unfairly. It will also promote patent law harmonization that in the longer term will make it easier and cheaper for our small businesses and individual inventors to obtain protection abroad, as well as discouraging duplicative research. As a safeguard for those whose applications are published, it establishes a provisional patent right that allows a patent owner to obtain a reasonable royalty if, between the date of publication and the date of grant, another party infringes an invention substantially identically claimed in the published application and the patent. Also, it makes some administrative delays a basis for extension of the patent term, to ensure that diligent applicants are fully protected. Title III creates a defense to an infringement action for parties that can establish prior use in commerce, including use in the design, testing, or production in the United States of a product or service before the date a patent application was filed in the United States or before the priority filing date. This ensures that inventors, who do not seek patent protection, will not be precluded unfairly from practicing their invention by other inventors who later obtain patent protection for the same invention. Title IV is aimed at ensuring that inventors are fully informed prior to entering into a contract for invention development services. It also provides a cause of action if the service provider makes fraudulent claims or neglects to disclose material information to the inventor. Title V amends the patent reexamination procedure to allow greater participation of their parties who request reexamination and expands the grounds for examination. Enhanced reexamination procedures will provide a less expensive and more timely alternative to costly patent litigation. Lastly, Title VI contains several miscellaneous or ``housekeeping'' amendments, including one to ensure that our law provides priority consistent with our obligations to WTO countries and one to authorize submission of patent applications through electronic media. However, the Department of Justice opposes section 604 and the Administration urges that this provision be deleted. The recovery of attorneys' fees by individuals and small businesses from the Government in cases brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1498(a) is already provided in the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d). By contrast to EAJA, section 604 would provide for attorneys' fees even where the position taken by the Government is substantially justified by the law. This provision would, in fact, place the Government in a worse position than a private defendant in a patent infringement suit, against whom attorney fees can be awarded in ``exceptional'' cases. The provisions would discourage appropriate settlements and engender unnecessary litigation, by allowing private litigants to reject reasonable settlement offers safe in the knowledge that the Government will pay their attorneys' fees even if they are awarded damages less than the settlement offer. For these reasons, the Administration will continue to seek deletion of Section 604 before final Congressional action on this legislation. Once again, we thank you for your commitment to working together in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to craft legislation that provides for important patent reforms to help to ensure our nation's continued economic growth. The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3460 with the en banc manager's amendment. Sincerely, Michael Kantor. My bill is supported by an exceptionally large and diverse coalition of small and large companies, independent inventors and associations representing every type of U.S. industry and inventor that utilizes the patent system. The coalition includes companies that are responsible for large numbers of high wage manufacturing jobs in America, such as Microsoft Corp., Digital Equipment Corp., IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Caterpillar, Inc., Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., Illinois Tool Works, and Procter & Gamble Co. The Biotechnology Industry Organization with over 560 members, has expressed its full support for this legislation. The White House Conference on Small Business supports this legislation. Independent inventors such as the inventor of the quartz technology used in watches support this legislation. I can proudly say that after many hearings and negotiating sessions, it now has the full and unqualified support of an overwhelming number of American industries that utilize our patent system. Title I modernizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by establishing it as a wholly owned government corporation--a government agency with operating and financial flexibility that will enable it to improve the services it offers to the public. The Office will remain under the policy direction of the Secretary of Commerce, but will not be subject to micromanagement by Commerce Department bureaucrats. Because the Patent and Trademark Office is funded completely by user fees, and not by tax dollars, it is one of the few government entities recommended by the National Academy for Public Administration to operate under structure and oversight commanded in the Government Corporation Act, rather than the structure followed by taxpayer-funded agencies. The bill has a variety of provisions in title I that will free the Patent and Trademark Office from the bureaucratic redtape that impedes the Office's efforts to modernize and streamline its operations. For example, the bill provides that the Office shall not be subject to any administratively or statutorily imposed limitation on the number of positions or employees. This will exempt the Office from ceilings on the number of full-time equivalent employees, giving the Office flexibility to hire the number of employees it needs, based on its income from applications, to process the applications filed by and fully paid for by the users. The bill gives the Office greater flexibility with respect to management of its office space, procurement, and other matters. The users of the Patent and Trademark Office will be represented on a management advisory board that will advise the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Office's operations. Making the Office accountable to its users through consultations with them is a significant step in improving its operations. Title II improves the procedures for examining patent applications. It provides for the publication of most U.S.-origin applications 18 months after the date of application filing, unless a patent already has been granted by that time. It also requires publication of foreign- origin applications in the English language generally within 6 months after they are filed in the United States--a full 12 months earlier than under current law. Unlike the situation today, the owner of the patent application will have a provisional right to a royalty from other parties who use the invention after publication and before patent grant. Publication of new technologies eliminates duplication of effort and accelerates technology licensing. Early publication is accompanied by a guarantee that U.S. inventors, especially independent inventors and small businesses, can receive an indication of their likelihood of obtaining a patent before their application is published. They will then be able to make an informed decision regarding whether they should withdraw the application before publication. Title II also makes some other improvements including the rules for extending the term of a patent when delays occur that are not the fault of the applicant. Title III creates a defense against infringement charges for parties who have independently developed and used technology in the United States before a patent application was filed on that technology by another party. This will protect the investments of innovative American manufacturers who have built plants using technology later patented by their foreign competitors. Title IV protects inventors from the fraudulent practices of invention development firms by requiring disclosure of a firm's track record and allowing the inventor to withdraw from a contract with a developer within a reasonable time. Title V makes improvements in the procedures for reexamining a patent in the Patent and Trademark Office after it has been granted by the Office. The refined reexamination procedures in the bill will give the public a fairer opportunity than is presently allowed to have the Office consider information missed by the examiner. The revised procedures will better balance the interests of the patentee and the public and offer an effective alternative to expensive litigation in court. Title VI provides a number of other improvements in our patent laws. It ensures that U.S. law provides priority consistent with our obligations to WTO countries and authorizes submission of patent applications through electronic media. I look forward to working with all interested parties as we prepare to move this important and necessary patent legislation through this Congress. The reforms contained in this bill are needed to make the patent system best serve the country now and into the next century.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I preferred to speak to this point on the floor last Saturday, but the late hour and the uncertain schedule precluded that. The purpose of these remarks is to advise all that the Congress of the United States will lose one of its leading members with the imminent departure of Bill Zeliff. I frequently refer to Bill Zeliff as the common sense voice of reason from the ``northern tier''--New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont. Bill Zeliff speaks authoritatively for the private sector because, as an innkeeper, he, his wife, his family and his able staff personify the private sector. Several months ago Bill called me to complain of a rumor he had heard regarding the transfer of a Coast Guard cutter from her New Hampshire port. He was upset and asked my assistance in retaining the cutter in this port. I told him my belief was that there was no move afoot, but checked with the Commandant of the Coast Guard who verified my conclusion. I then assured Bill not to worry. That was not good enough for Zeliff. He insisted that I come to New Hampshire to meet with Coast Guard officials and assure them that the cutter would remain stationed in New Hampshire. I complied with his request and we did in fact meet with Coast Guard officials as well as interested citizens. This episode convinced me, once again, that Bill Zeliff is Mr. Persistence. This Coast guard cutter, by the way, continues to call New Castle, NH her home port. I could speak hours about the outstanding manner in which Bill Zeliff represents his constituents in Congress, but it is not necessary because they know they have been represented by an outstanding Member of Congress. Literally hundreds of New Hampshire citizens: male, female, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, have told me Bill Zeliff is the most popular and most effective elected official in New Hampshire. So long Bill--you will be missed.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, since 1980, the Girl Scout Gold Award has been the highest award that a Senior Girl Scout can earn. In the Sixth District North Carolina, we are proud to announce that 88 members of the Tarheel Triad Girl Scout Council have earned this prestigious honor. The Gold Award is the most highly valued honor in Girl Scouting. The potential honoree must spend 2 to 3 years committing herself to hard work in order to obtain a Gold Award. Her efforts must express a special dedication to personal growth, helping her community and her world, and to her future. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four Interest Project Patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Leadership Award, and the Girl Scout Senior Challenges. She must also design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project that takes a minimum of 50 hours to complete. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout, an adult advisor, and the community in which she lives. We are pleased to state that the following Girl Scouts from the Tarheel Triad Girl Scout Council of North Carolina have achieved the ultimate success--the Gold Award. Gold Award Recipients--1995-96 Troop Year Kathryn Abel, Anna Antonowicz, Kendall Bain, Anne Beatty, Renee Blackburn, Kerstin Blomquist, Jennifer Bowman, Dana Braddy, Karen Bright, Hana Brown, JoNelle Bruff, Anna Bulluck, Melissa Burgess, Hillary Craven, Jocelyn Crawford, Aarika Cupp, Janet Dawson, Jennifer Dickson, Kristen Dowler, Jennifer Duncan, Anne Duquette, Danette Farmer, Kristin Felts, Ashley Finn, Erin Florence, Christianna Floyd, Jillian Fulbright, Leta Jo Gardner, Heather Gillaspie, Elizabeth Grabasky, Jessica Grandon, Nyia Gravely, Sikia Gravely, Lara Hensley, Robin Huckabee, Mary Kathryn Jester, Julie Johnson, Laurie Jones, Emily Knott, Heather Lloyd, Heather Long, Katherine Love, Kelly Lowry, Erin Lutz, Whitley Maner, Kara Marcus, Kelly McBrayer, Tonia McCaslin, Erin McClure, Jennifer McGinnis, Amber McKinnon, Rowena McNairy, Hawanya Miller, Kristina Miller, Charita Moore, Lindsey Moxley, Erin Murphy, Carrie Navey, Meredith Newlin, Lauren Pate, Amanda Patty, Monica Pedelty, Katie Potts, Katie Raines, Katherine Redding, Kate Roskelly, Mary Kathryn Ross, Elizabeth Rowland, Jerilyn Shaw, Valerie Smith, Drema Snedeker, Dawn Sneed, Dawn Snider, Katherine Spencer, Meredith Stewart, Lindsey Strickland, Aisha Taylor, Jinger Thies, Margaret Tilley, Mary Elizabeth Waddell, Wellsley Wallace, Mary Weatherly, Anna West, Dana Wiley, Valerie Williams, Vachelle Willis, Meredith Wood, and Patty Yu. We often hear about the negative achievements of today's youth. I am pleased to share with my colleagues the positive developments of a group of young women in my district. On behalf of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we offer our congratulations to every recipient of the Girl Scout Gold Award.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, since it is not likely that we will be in session when the anniversary occurs, I wanted to share with my colleagues an upcoming milestone in the life of an extraordinary arts program in the Sixth District of North Carolina. On November 16, 1996, the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival [NCSF] in High Point, NC, will celebrate its 20th anniversary. For two decades, the NCSF has provided thousands of North Carolinians with an appreciation and understanding of great works of art. The North Carolina Shakespeare Festival was founded in High Point in 1977 by Mark Woods and Stuart Brooks. Since that time, the NCSF has grown from a four-week festival with a budget of $100,000 to a 26-week festival with a budget in excess of $1 million. NCSF is nationally recognized for its artistic quality and for performing Shakespeare and other great plays in a way that is relevant to today's audiences. The NCSF's Educational Outreach Program brings professional, live theatre to many students in high schools and colleges each year. Last year, approximately 34,000 students were served. The home of NCSF is located in High Point, but the festival serves our entire Piedmont Triad region with audience members, supporters and board members from Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point. In addition, NCSF is a statewide resource that provides quality cultural and educational programming in schools, civic centers and theatres throughout North Carolina. The NCSF also serves as North Carolina's ``Cultural Ambassador'' when its annual tours travel to as many as nine Southeastern and East Coast states. The NCSF is an outstanding cultural organization, and it also contributes to both economic development and tourism by being an important part of the North Carolina quality of life. For two decades, the NCSF has shared its artistic light with countless audiences. On the 20th anniversary of the North Carolina Shakespeare Festival, we look back with pride at what its members have achieved, and we eagerly await its future productions. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate the NCSF for outstanding artistic achievement.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. He and the gentleman from North Carolina have pretty well given Members a good review of this proposed legislation. Chief Heineman, as the gentleman from Florida said, is recuperating from intestinal surgery. Mr. Speaker, he may have a hole in his intestine but he has fire in his belly when it comes to diligent work for law enforcement. He is a former New York cop, a street cop, a former chief of police in Raleigh, the capital city of my State, and he has worked diligently on this methamphetamine control act bill as well as on the telemarketing fraud bill which we will discuss subsequently. Meth, or speed, is highly addictive and can cause permanent brain damage, as has already been indicated. Secret labs around the country have begun to manufacture speed with chemicals that have legitimate medical uses. Rogue chemists, Mr. Speaker, I am told, can easily convert cold and flu medicines into meth. Representative Heineman's bill strikes a balanced approach to combat this problem by, A, increasing penalties for possession and trafficking of meth, while at the same time establishing a safe harbor for ordinary over-the-counter products containing the relevant chemicals. It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge its passage.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes a speaker's messages are inaccurately interpreted. This may result because of the speaker's ineptitude and/or the inability of the listener to properly interpret the message. My final two speeches prior to the break for our August district work period were misunderstood by some. My first speech came in response to my Democrat friends who accuse the Republicans of opposing passage of the minimum wage increase. I then admonished my Democrat colleagues for having bashed the Republicans and reminded them that it was they, the Democrats, who, during the 103d Congress, controlled the House, they who controlled the Senate, they who controlled the White House. I reminded them as well, Mr. Speaker, that during their control of the past Congress I did not recall their having uttered one peep about the minimum wage. I was then accused of hypocrisy, since I was bashing them while at the same time lecturing them for having bashed us. But it was not the bashing of which I was critical, but rather the unjustified bashing. My second speech came in response to the proposal to approve the extension of increased COLA's, cost of living allowances, to the Vice President, to Members of Congress, to members of the Federal judiciary, and the Executive Schedule Levels 1 through 5, highly salaried appointees and/or bureaucrats. I opposed this proposal and explained that I represent constituents in my district who earn $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 per year. I then explained, furthermore, it would be an obvious slap across their faces to those who are barely hanging on by rewarding the Vice President, Members of Congress, Federal judges, and Executive Schedule Levels 1 through 5 a generous increase in COLA's. I subsequently was accused by colleagues of opposing Federal judges and Members of Congress. My message was again misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. I am not averse to rewarding people whose work is exemplary. I am opposed, however, to extending increased COLA's to the aforesaid group, on the one hand, while on the other hand we are desperately trying to convince the President of the significant importance of balancing our budget. The two are simply not consistent. So to sum up, and hopefully to illustrate with convincing clarity, I am, A, not opposed to bashing or vigorously debating issues on this floor. I am indeed opposed to bashing when it is not justified by the surrounding circumstances. The rule of equity rewards only those who come to the court with clean hands. And B, I have great respect for most Members of Congress, and for most Federal judges, five or six of whom I call good personal friends. I have respect as well for the Vice President, and as far as members of the Executive Schedule Levels 1 through 5, Mr. Speaker, I can neither condemn nor praise them because I am familiar with only a small, limited number. But I will continue to oppose the rewarding of increased COLA's to this group until we can somehow manage to live within our means. It is my belief that those who are earning $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 per year can relate to this type of reasoning, and, for that matter, so should we all.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, last week I said to Cass Ballenger, the primary sponsor: How could anyone oppose this legislation? The employer makes it available. He does not have to. He makes it available. It does not have to be activated. The employee has the option to activate this proposal. Once he enrolls in it and decides he wants to disenroll, it shuts down. The employee is in control. This, Mr. Chairman, provides comp time flexibility which may be paid in any time period during the calendar year, and must be paid out at the calendar year's end. I repeat, to my friend from North Carolina, how could reasonable people not agree with this? They keep talking about employees being afraid. If employees read this bill, they will not be afraid. If they listen to the rhetoric coming from this hall, they will run to the high ground for fear because it is laced with fear. This bill is generous and the employee is the direct beneficiary of the generosity.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak today. I have no prepared text. But I get tired of bashing. It is easy for Democrats to bash Republicans, easy for Republicans to bash Democrats. We seem to be in the bashing game. I was back on the rail, listening to the bashing exercise. I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I think if memory serves correctly, and it does, during the 103d Congress, when my Democrat friends controlled the House, controlled the Senate, controlled the White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, not one word was mentioned about minimum wage. They were in the wheelhouse of that ship. My colleagues had control of the ship. But minimum wage was not on their radar screen, my friends. Now all of a sudden it is a hot item and it is the Republicans' fault. I tire of it, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the American public tires of it and can see through it. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, some years ago a Federal judge appeared before our House Committee on the Judiciary and he said he was earning less money than any of his classmates from law school. I said, Judge, why do you not resign your job from the bench and start practicing law? My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, did not appeal to him. My point is very simple, Mr. Chairman. I represent people in my district who earn 25, 30, $35,000 a year and they are barely making it. Now, if we, on the other hand, tonight extend a generous cost of living allowance to the Vice President, to the Executive Schedule levels 1 through 5, to the members of the Federal Judiciary to the Members of Congress, I think it would be an obvious slap in the faces of these people who are barely hanging on. Now, all of us knew what the pay way when we signed on, Members of Congress and Federal judges as well. The time to address the matter of COLAs is not this night, and it is not on this floor.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the Ledford High School Panthers are State champions once again. On June 9 in Raleigh, the Ledford women's softball team captured the North Carolina State 2A softball championship, defeating the Forbush High School Falcons, 4-1. For the women of Ledford it was their second consecutive championship and their third in the past 6 years. With the title win, the Panthers capped off an outstanding 25-4 season under head coach John Ralls. Like much of their season, the Panthers' pitching was the key to victory. The championship game's Most Valuable Player, Melissa Petty, was superb on the mound, holding Forbush to just one run off of five hits. But, Mr. Speaker, defense alone does not win championships. The Panther offense was led by Stacey Hinkle, who knocked two home runs as Ledford rolled to victory. Mr. Speaker, congratulations must also go to team members Kelly Thomas, Ashley Craven, Molli Patterson, Angie Wesson, Quinn Homesley, Amy Disher, Heather Pitts, Courtney Troutman, Laurie Smith, Paige Koonts, Kim Clodfelter, Amy Wells, Ginger Whitt, Amanda Reece, Lauren Craven, Misty Sharp, Leslie Thomas, Janell Curry, assistant coaches Joe Davis, Danny Thomas, David Smith and manager Tara Bowers. To Principal Max Cole, Athletic Director Gary Hinkle, and to all of the students, faculty, staff, families, and friends of Ledford High School, congratulations on winning the North Carolina State 2A women's softball championship. Mr. Speaker, as we honor Ledford High School's season, we must also commend two other Sixth District high schools on their fine seasons on the diamond. The North Davidson High School Black Knights women's softball team, under Coach Mike Lambros, went undefeated this season and made it all the way to the North Carolina State 3A/4A semifinals. Congratulations must also be extended to the East Davidson High School men's baseball team, which recently finished a terrific 22-8 season, making the North Carolina State 2A semifinals. Mr. Speaker, the Sixth District is proud of the winning tradition of its high school athletes and wishes them much success next season.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this provision sets aside $5 million of the appropriation for recreational boating safety for the new discretionary boating safety grant program. This is not authorized by law and is contrary to the distribution of funds under existing law and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the language beginning with the colon on page 10, line 25 through ``program'' on page 11, line 3.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in continuing that dialogue with my friend from Virginia on this issue.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the State of North Carolina is home to a great soccer tradition, particularly in women's soccer. This year, Mr. Speaker, the Sixth District of North Carolina is proud to add two more chapters to this outstanding tradition. North Carolina has long divided its schools into classifications to determine sports champions. That way schools of equal size can compete fairly. This system also allows more schools the opportunity to compete for titles and trophies. We are proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Piedmont Triad is the home of the North Carolina 1A/2A/3A and the North Carolina 4A women's soccer champions for 1996. The Ragsdale High School Tigers of Jamestown, NC, captured the 1996 1A/2A/3A State women's soccer championship, and the Whirlies of Grimsley High School in Greensboro, NC, claimed the 4A women's soccer championship. Both teams were crowned champions on June 1 in Raleigh, NC. In the 1A/2A/3A class, the Ragsdale Tigers captured the State title with a 3 to 0 shutout of the Asheville Roberson Rams, limiting the Rams to just four shots on goal all game. The championship win capped off a brilliant 23-3 season for coach Brien Braswell's squad. The Ragsdale Tigers have been outstanding in the championships, claiming two State titles in the last 3 years. Congratulations go to Sarah Judy, who won the championship game's Most Valuable Player Award. Mr. Speaker, congratulations on a great season are in order for Coach Braswell, manager Joey Menendez, Trainer Julie Hutchens, and team members Cindy Mullinix, Kyleen Hudson, Kelly Martin, Kristin Wittenborn, Anna Dellosa, Jordan Allison, Erin Beeson, Paige Waggoner, Vickie Cortes, Nicole Brannan, Ashline Green, Christie Dixon, Lindsey Moorefield, Laura Pendergrass, Ryan Andres, Danielle Gain, Emily McCoy, Cari Hammond, Michelle Pizzuro, Becky Garmon, Amanda Holtzman, Meg Herndon, and Kellie Dixon. To athletic director Mike Raybon, principal Dr. Kathryn Rogers, the faculty, staff, students, parents, and friends of Ragsdale High School, we offer our congratulations for winning the North Carolina 1A/2A/3A State women's soccer championship. Raleigh also was the site of another Sixth District high school State championship. The women's soccer team of Grimsley high School in Greensboro, NC, captured the 1996 State 4A women's soccer championship, defeating the Raleigh Broughton High School Caps 2 to 1. The victory moved the Grimsley Whirlies to a stellar record of 21-1-1 for the 1996 season. The State championship was the third in 5 years for the Whirlies, and the win was truly a team effort. As Coach Herk DeGraw put it, ``This one is sweet. Everybody stepped up and did their jobs extremely well.'' Congratulations go to Laurie Benson, who won the championship game's Most Valuable Player Award. Congratulations are also in order for team members Meagan Renn, Cori Stevens, Lacy Ross, Sarah Ann Davis, Mollie Lynch, Meredith Seawell, Sarah Atkinson, Mikel Casey, Kristy Shumate, Kelly Clark, Jennifer Marsh, Carrie Anderson, Jamie Bombart, Kristen Moody, Courtney Black, Jessica Overby, and Ashley Andringa. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, let me congratulate the 1996 Grimsley Whirlies on their State championship. Congratulations to head coach Herk DeGraw, assistant coach Susie Williams, announcer Dick Forrester, faculty trainer Joe Franks, student trainer Pablo Torrente, and statisticians Lisa Evans, Zach Wineberg, Tyler Spence, and Mike Cleaver. To athletic director Bob Sawyer, principal Tom Penlend, the faculty, staff, students, parents, and friends of Grimsley High School, we offer our congratulations on winning the North Carolina 4A State women's soccer championship. Once again, North Carolina remains a soccer hotbed and the Sixth District is proud to claim two more champions.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Tobacco has surfaced as the perennial convenient whipping boy. Tobacco, the ``golden weed'' we used to affectionately call it in the Tobacco Belt. Whipping up on tobacco again. Mr. Chairman, I was not even going to get into this until the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] mentioned about teenage smoking. Some days ago a fellow in my district came up to me and said, ``I have a cure for teenage consumption of tobacco. Why do you all in Congress not enact legislation requiring teenagers to consume tobacco?'' He said, ``Given the ingenuity of American teenagers, they will manage to violate that law some way, and the problem is cured.'' He said that, of course, Mr. Chairman, with tongue in cheek, but it makes about as much sense as what we are about today. The Durbin amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] said it, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] said it very adeptly, it will do nothing to discourage smoking or reduce tobacco consumption. Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what it will do. It will unfairly attack and penalize small farmers by denying them critical agricultural administrative services available to every other family farmer known to me producing agricultural commodities under a Federal program. Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what it will do. It singles out tobacco farmers, particularly small ones, and tramples upon their right to earn a living in regions often inhospitable to growing alternative crops. This amendment damages, emasculates the small tobacco farmer, not the industry at large. The amendment undermines a decades-old relationship between farmers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, destroying the farmers' safety net and placing tobacco farmers at the mercy of the elements, the weather, diseases, pests. The demise, Mr. Chairman, of the tobacco program would destroy, I repeat, destroy the nature and structure of agriculture in the southeast farm area, what we commonly know as the tobacco belt. Tobacco, my friends, is a crop that is lawfully grown, lawfully cured, lawfully marketed, lawfully processed, lawfully sold in the marketplace, lawfully consumed. And Americans benefit, Lord only knows how much, from this product. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do not permit this antitobacco propaganda to damage innocent farmers who are trying their best to keep their heads above water, to provide for their families by growing a legal and marketable commodity. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding individual, Capt. John Michael Crye, who is due to retire later this year. Captain Crye has served our country for more than 20 years, most recently as Deputy Chief, Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs. He also served as Coast Guard Legislative Counsel in the Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs Office. It is a privilege for me to recognize his many outstanding achievements and commend him for his superb service to this legislative body and our great Nation as a whole. A native of Knoxville, TN, Captain Crye received his commission from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT. He was commissioned as an ensign in May 1972, first assigned as a deck watch officer aboard the Cutter Morgenthau. Following this tour, Captain Crye was assigned to the Greater Antilles Section in San Juan, PR, as an operations center and search and rescue coordinator. He participated in several heroic search and rescue cases and law enforcement seizures. Completing a successful tour at Greater Antilles Section, PR, Captain Crye returned to his alma mater, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, as the non-appropriated funds activities officer. His outstanding performance at the Coast Guard Academy led to his selection to the University of Miami School of Law. Upon completing law school, Captain Crye was assigned to numerous legal staff positions throughout the Coast Guard. His most notable legal staff assignment was to the Coast Guard Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic, where he defended and prosecuted some of the most detailed and controversial Coast Guard Courts-Martial Cases in Coast Guard history. Due to his continued outstanding performance, Captain Crye was handpicked for an assignment to the Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs Office. During his tour as legislative counsel, Captain Crye worked very closely with congressional staffs in drafting important maritime and safety legislation such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the passenger vessel Safety Act. As a result of his efforts, he was nominated for the ``Justice Tom C. Clark Outstanding Lawyer Award.'' Captain Crye was later promoted to his current position as Deputy Chief of the Coast Guard Congressional and Governmental Affairs Office. In this position, Captain Crye has provided the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, our personal staffs as well as many of you standing here today, with superior support regarding Coast Guard plans and programs. His valuable contributions have enabled Congress and the Department of Transportation to work closely together to ensure the Coast Guard remains ``Semper paratus''-- always ready. Mr. Speaker, Captain Crye, his wife, Sheila, and their two children, Marilena and John, have made many sacrifices throughout his career. Captain Crye will be retired on August 1, 1996, and I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in wishing him much success, as well as fair winds and following seas.