Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two amazing athletic achievements that were recently accomplished by basketball teams in my district. On March 2, the University of Texas at Arlington wheelchair basketball team, the Movin' Mavs, captured their fifth National Intercollegiate Wheelchair Basketball Championship. They were the first wheelchair basketball team to visit the White House. I am also very proud of the Duncanville High School's girls basketball team. The girls team recently won their 18 State tournament title after finishing the season with a 38-0 record. Both of these extraordinary teams deserve both praise and national recognition of their achievements. Each individual member of the Movin' Mavs has waged a personal battle to overcome disability and become a champion. And the Duncanville team's incredible run of 38 consecutive wins makes it a team for the record books. My congratulations go to the 1996-97 UTA ``Movin Mavs'' wheelchair basketball team: James Hayes, coach; Adrian Casell, manager; Jackie Middleton, trainer; Javier Gonzalez, Danny moor, Cezar Olivas, Enoch Ablorh, T.K. Dannelley, Takk Kerst, Jack Ricks, Jon Rydberg; and to the 1996-97 Duncanville High School girls basketball team: Sara Hackerott, coach; Christie Sparks, assistant coach; Andrea Bentley, Kenya Larkin, Remy McElroy, Dawn Owens, LaDonna Palmer, Tanika Catchings, Shunda Murray, Portla Lowe, Alana Griffin, Julie Jesperen, Angela Francis, Jalle Mitchell, Dana Godfrey, Jessica Barr-Long, Brianna Brown.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the African-American men and women who have helped make our Nation strong. Through mutual tolerance and understanding we have made significant strides in acknowledging and appreciating our diversity. In our Nation's short history we have learned that differences between people can be addressed in one of two ways: either through strong division and aversion, or through understanding and real cooperation. Division solves nothing, understanding is the key. Throughout much of this century, African-Americans have been the driving force in building an appreciation and understanding of diversity. One cannot look at the United States without acknowledging the contributions African-Americans have made in a variety of different areas. They have been involved in nearly every major event in U.S. history and have enriched American culture throughout. Undeniably, African-Americans have played key roles in the progress and prosperity of the Nation and the world. Only when we recognize these accomplishments can we truly see the richness of our country. In 1926, Dr. Carter Woodson first called for a period of time to be set aside for the recognition of important historical achievements by African-Americans. Fifty years later, our Nation acknowledged February as Black History Month. With each annual celebration, we find ourselves recognizing new milestones African-Americans have made and barriers that have been broken. For example, this year for the first time in our Nation's history, seven African-Americans were awarded the President's Medal of Honor for their bravery during World War II. These men were among the bravest of the brave, they risked their lives for our country. These African- Americans gave so much, so that the rest of us might be free. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I am only sorry it took so long to give these men the recognition they so rightly deserve. This honor was well overdue. It illustrates well the point that, we have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. Racial tensions still exist within our borders. It is clear to me that there is still work to be done. In schools, neighborhoods, and communities, we should seek out commonality and celebrate our diversity, instead of looking to separate as a result of our differences. This is why we need to embrace all cultures and not only recognize, but celebrate the achievements of black Americans. As we trace our history, we can point to African-Americans who have made significant contributions to our country, from authors and sports heroes to political icons, including: Booker T. Washington, Willie Mays, Thurgood Marshall, Marcus Garvey, Barbara Jordan, Langston Hughes, and many other great men and women. As a nation, let us always acknowledge the accomplishments of African-Americans and celebrate them. Not only today, or during Black History Month, but every day.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the House has lost a courageous Member of this body, and I have lost a good friend. Frank Tejeda only served in the House for 4 years, but he nevertheless had a profound impact on those of us who knew him and worked with him. He had a deep commitment to helping people who traditionally have been left out of the mainstream of society. He wanted to reach out and ensure that the disadvantaged had an opportunity to fully participate in American life, that no institution, whether it be government, education, or business, would be closed to them. Frank was also committed to ensuring that America had a strong national defense. As a former marine, Frank understood the value of freedom, and knew well the terrible cost of maintaining our cherished liberties. He worked tirelessly within the National Security Committee to see that the men and women serving in our Armed Forces had the resources necessary in today's world to protect our freedoms. Frank had fought hard for his constituents, for the people of Texas, and for all Americans. More recently, he battled valiantly against a disease that ultimately took his life. He never gave up. He will be missed.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the provision of the bill that I had introduced and that the House passed last year--H.R. 632-- has finally also been passed and returned to the House by the other body. At long last, small investors will be guaranteed fair, reasonable, and entire compensation when they are required to defend their patents rights when appropriated by the Government. When the bill was pending in the other body, we received some questions whether the legislation was intended actually to provide full coverage of costs as it states, or whether some cap on costs might appropriately be added by the Congress as has been done in some other contexts. The short answer is that the legislation means just what it says. It intends that all costs are to be reimbursed, with the only limitation being reasonableness, and the determination of reasonableness by a court is to be realistic, not miserly. If the patent holder's actual costs are within the realm of reason under the circumstance, they are to be fully compensated. A patent holder whose invention is taken by the Government can obtain compensation only by bringing a case in the Court of Federal Claims under Section 1498 (a) of Title 28, United States Code. A case brought under that Section differs substantially not only from the usual cases brought in Federal courts, but also from other eminent domain cases. There is no procedure for an offer by the Government to be submitted to a patent holder for its taking of his patent rights. There is no administrative or other simple procedure for resolution of differences and settlement. There is no prominent single-issue such as valuation as in real estate condemnation cases, but instead a series of issues of unusual complexity. The patent holder must initiate a lawsuit, and must marshall professional assistance capable of establishing the validity of the patent, the infringement of the patent, and the proper valuation of the damages stemming from the infringement. Such lawsuits are exceedingly difficult and time-consuming to prepare and present to the court. They require extensive review, research, analysis, and presentation by capable professionals in the fields of law, engineering, science, accounting, and licensing. The time of such professionals is not inexpensive. Yet a patent holder has no choice but to engage such competent assistance, and to incur such costs, if he is to defend his patent right against the Government's taking. It is our intent and our expectation that the court bear in mind these unique characteristics of Section 1498(a) lawsuits in the course of judging the reasonableness of the patent owner's costs during the investigation, preparation, liability, and accounting phases of such a case. It is also our intent and expectation that the court base its determination on a realistic view not only of the kinds of costs that it is reasonable to incur in such cases, but also of the reasonableness of the amounts of those costs. With respect to the kinds of costs that it would be reasonable to incur, apart from the costs of professional assistance, we have in mind such court costs as may be taxed under Section 1920 of 28 United States Code, as well as reasonable out-of- pocket expenses charged to the patent owner by expert witnesses and attorneys for such items as computerized research, communications, travel, hotels, and meals. With regard to the reasonableness of the amounts to be reimbursed, we note that suits under section 1498(a) are not elective ones such as prompted the Congress in the past to impose arbitrary limits on attorney's fees as in 28 United States Code, Section 2412(d)(2)(A), and on expert witnesses fees as in 28 United States Code, Section 1821(b). Thus, the touchstone for the court is simply a realistic appraisal of what is reasonable under the circumstances. Certainly, when a small patent holder's economic survival may be threatened by the cost of responding to an unwelcome governmental taking, the concerned patent holder cannot be limited to bargain-basement professional assistance if he is to receive ``just'' compensation as required by the Constitution. In such a situation, as well as in less dire circumstances, the intended test of reasonableness of professional fees actually incurred by the patent holder is whether they are within the range commonly charged by competent professionals in the same locality, in cases of similar complexity and similar importance to the patent holder. In short, we intend that the Court of Federal Claims at last be empowered to do complete justice in such cases, and we believe that complete justice requires realism and practicality in the assessment of the reasonableness of the patent holder's costs.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago the Washington Senators baseball team moved to Arlington, TX, in the heart of the 24th Congressional District. For 25 seasons, that team--the Texas Rangers--played baseball without reaching the post-season playoffs. This Texas drought ended last night when the Texas Rangers won the Western Division of the American League. No current team in major league baseball had played as many consecutive seasons without ever reaching post-season play. There is joy today deep in the heart of Texas. I want to take this occasion to recognize the terrific season-long play of the Texas Rangers, the quiet steady leadership of their manager Johnny Oates and the skill of their front office headed by Club President Tom Schieffer. The Rangers combined clutch hitting, excellent defense and improved pitching to take their first division crown. They enjoyed tremendous fan support in their new stadium, the ballpark, and now anxiously await their first post-season playoff series against the New York Yankees. Congratulations Rangers on a landmark season.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. At this point then, Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time and ask for a no vote on the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. FROST. The gentleman has no more speakers?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority seems to have no shame when it comes to playing political games. The fact that this House is being asked, at what seems to be the 11th hour of this Congress, to consider this very bad bill--and under a closed rule--that's right, a closed rule--ranks right up there with some of the worst legislative chicanery I have seen in the 18 years I have been privileged to serve in this body. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why this proposition is being brought before us today. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this bill is under consideration in a futile attempt to save a faltering and failing Presidential campaign. Mr. Speaker, the Gallegly amendment threatened to bring down the whole immigration conference report and so it was excised and relegated to the trash heap. But now, like the phoenix, it rises from the ashes and this House is being asked to vote once again on a proposition that directly attacks some of the most vulnerable in our society. Mr. Speaker, whether these children should or should not be in this country is really beside the point. The fact is that every child, no matter his or her race, creed, nationality, religion, or immigration status should have a desk in a school. Every child living in this Nation should be entitled to an education. Denying the children of illegal immigrants access to education will not solve the problem of illegal immigration and seal our borders. What good does it do to punish children? Is that what this Republican-controlled, and family friendly Congress is to be remembered for? Mr. Speaker, I cannot be party to standing in the schoolhouse door as the Republican leadership seems so willing to do. I urge each and every one of the Members of this body to reject out of hand this closed rule and this very bad bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is my intention, when they are through, to yield some additional time to the gentleman in the well.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object. I would, however, like to clarify with the distinguished majority leader our understanding of what the procedure will be on Wednesday, September 4, with regard to suspensions. It is our understanding that his office will supply us with the final list of suspensions he intends to consider on September 4 by noon on August 21st. We have requested this information from him in order to notify our Members in advance just what bill will be under consideration so that our Members who are interested in debating the bills could arrange to be here. It is our understanding that no additional bills will be added to this list without the unanimous consent of the minority.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)