Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), the former chief of the Border Patrol.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is a problem that we have been contacted by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors from all across this country. The broad bipartisan support that has been indicated on the Senate side that this bill, of course, has been working its way through the system for some time with the leadership of Senator Diane Feinstein of California and, of course, also with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, at the appeal of law enforcement officers and prosecutors across this Nation.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment and want to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Ranking Democrat, and the Chairman of the Procurement Subcommittee for their support of my amendment which provides an authorization of funding for the procurement of important fire fighting equipment used by the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Currently, there are twelve Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems known as MAFFS in operation, two of which operate in California. These units, which are twenty-six years old and which are used exclusively on military aircraft to help fight forest fires across the country, are now at the end of their useful life and are in urgent need of replacement. Our Air Force Reserve and National Guard believe that each year these aged and outdated systems continue to be used, the more they become a danger to the C-130s they are flown in and the crews that man them. As you know California and many other areas of the Southwest suffer from severe wildfire damage every year. These units are extremely important in helping to fight these fires and the replacement of these MAFFS units is a high priority among our National Guard. Last year, for Fiscal Year 1999, the Defense Appropriations bill included $6 million for the procurement and replacement of the first several MAFFS units. I understand the Air Force has already begun the process of competing these funds for the replacement units. My amendment simply authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out the remainder of this procurement. I understand the many competing, and important programs for which the Committees must provide funding and I appreciate the Committee's willingness to help support this critically needed firefighting equipment by accepting my amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was inspired by a House Science Committee Democratic Staff report entitled ``Spinoff or Ripoff,'' released on April 9 of this year, which examined many aspects of the technology transfer program at a government-owned contractor-operated National Laboratory. I would like to submit to the record Chapter C of the Committee Staff report, which reviews an intellectual property dispute, and the technology transfer practices at one of our National Laboratories. This amendment will help ensure that the transfer of technology from our National Labs to American business is working hard as well as it should. It will make alternative dispute resolution and mediation available to small companies that simply can't afford the time or costs associated with a prolonged legal dispute with the government-owned Labs. Avoiding a prolonged legal battle will not only save money and resources for American companies, but it will also save money for the American taxpayers. This amendment will hold the contractor that operates the Lab liable for damages to the extent that they are found at fault. This is simply assuring appropriate accountability for those who participate in technology transfer practices that may cause harm to commercial businesses. This amendment also addresses the structure of the technology transfer policies at each of the DOE National Laboratories. Today, if any company in this Nation wanted to enter into technology transfer partnerships with multiple DOE National Laboratories, they would have to deal with a different set of procedural requirements at each Lab. This amendment will ensure consistency of technology transfer policies and procedures across the Labs. We hope that this will encourage maximum utilization of tax-payer funded research and development by commercial industry. I would like to make it clear that I believe that most of the people working at our National Laboratories are among our most talented and patriotic citizens. We are concerned that the technology personnel at these Labs receive sufficient training in U.S. law governing technology transfer. This amendment requires that personnel responsible for patenting, licensing, and commercialization activities--all of which are fundamental to a successful technology transfer program--be knowledgeable about the appropriate legal, procedural, and ethical standards. This amendment is intended to help ensure that future technology transfer activities at the National Labs are carried out in a manner befitting a taxpayer-funded entity, with the goal of strengthening the competitive, scientific, and economic stature of American companies and research organizations. This amendment will strengthen the role that the National Laboratories will play in bringing this great Country into the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the future of technology transfer and our National Laboratories by supporting the McIntyre-Cramer amendment. Spinoff or Ripoff? technology transfer at department of energy national laboratories: the development & commercialization of micropower impulse radar at lawrence livermore national laboratory (C) The Intellectual Property Dispute with TDC There are four stories that can be told relating to the intellectual property dispute between the Laboratory and TDC. The first story, and the one that attracted Congressional attention, was a claim by TDC that Thomas McEwan and the LLNL/UC had appropriated TDC's technology and passed it off as their own. The second story is Mr. McEwan's story; not surprisingly, it lies approximately 180 degrees away from the TDC claims. While Democratic Staff will briefly recount these two claims, we do not have the capability to determine where the truth lies. We simply cannot ascertain whose version of the truth is right, and we repeat the tales simply to aid those who would take up further investigation and to create a context in which the third and fourth stories make more sense. It is the third and fourth stories, regarding technology transfer practices at the National Laboratories and the Laboratories' response to complaints such as TDC's, that raise important policy questions: Is there adequate guidance for inventors on what prior art they are required to cite when crafting patent applications? Are the Laboratory technology transfer attorneys doing a reliable job of scrubbing and perfecting those applications before submitting them to the PTO? \1\ Is there a policy in place at the Laboratories that directs what the response of a Laboratory should be when it is faced with a complaint like TDC's? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes at end of document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the technology transfer process at the Laboratories allows incomplete applications to go forward, it may be that there are cases out there, still unidentified, where the PTO has assigned a patent in good faith to the Laboratory based on incomplete disclosure of prior art. In this event, the taxpayers are at risk for legal costs and damages should a private firm or individual challenge that patent and win at trial. Without judging the merits of the TDC claim against the Laboratory, there may be a system in place at LLNL that could create more TDC-type complaints in the future.\2\ Finally, a fourth story can be told about the response of LLNL/UC to TDC's claim as well as to repeated requests by Members of Congress both for information and for a resolution to the problem. TDC first brought this matter to the attention of DOE in fall, 1995. It was not until December 1997 that LLNL/UC submitted the patent for reexamination to the PTO. Moreover, LLNL/UC have consistently supplied both TDC and Members of Congress misleading or factually incorrect information regarding several aspects of the commercialization of MIR technology, and their submission of this information has consistently taken much longer than it should have. The policy issue raised by this aspect of the case is whether there are options available to a small private sector entity when making a complaint against a National Laboratory to ensure that the complaint is addressed promptly and in good faith by the Laboratory in question. (1) TDC's account of intellectual property theft In essence, the TDC account is that Thomas McEwan and LLNL/ UC stole technology from TDC and Larry Fullerton. As Ralph Petroff of TDC stated in a February 9, 1999 letter to Dr. Michal Freedhoff: ``(t)his is not technology transfer; this is the `evil twin' of technology transfer--the government knowingly appropriates technology that it did not invent, sells licenses for technology that does not work, and declares the whole process ``the most successful technology transfer project in DOE history.'' TDC argues that Mr. McEwan began working on his MIR project immediately upon his return from the March, 1990 LANL meeting on UWB radar where he had heard at least one presentation involving Fullerton, and that ``Mr. Fullerton presented two papers at the Symposium.'' \3\ TDC describes this symposium as a ``small conference'' and quotes another attendee as saying that ``(y)ou could not have attended that conference without being exposed to the Fullerton technology.'' \4\ TDC also notes that Aviation Week & Space Technology, ``a publication that is widely read at LLNL,'' ran two articles subsequent to the conference that emphasized Mr. Fullerton's work and patents.\5\ Finally, TDC notes that several other publications that would probably have been seen by those in the UWB radar community in the early 1990s also mention Larry Fullerton and his inventions.\6\ In short, Mr. McEwan had to have known who Larry Fullerton was, the nature of Mr. Fullerton's work and that Mr. Fullerton held patents in the UWB radar field. More proof of Mr. McEwan's awareness of Fullerton is offered by TDC: ``The `never- heard-of-Fullerton' explanation was further contradicted by the comments of two customers (one commercial, one government) who claimed that Lawrence Livermore personnel (including McEwan himself) had contacted them in an attempt to take potential business away from Time Domain. The basic message was `You don't want to (sic) business with Time Domain. Our technology is the same as Fullerton's--only better.' '' \7\ TDC also claimed that ``McEwan himself made the comment that the `MIR technology was the same as Fullerton's--only better.'' \8\ Finally, TDC points to a September, 1990 funding proposal co-authored by Thomas McEwan and David Christie. This presentation, titled ``Ultra-Wideband Time Domain Imaging Radar,'' included a graph that TDC's attorneys concluded was a reconstruction of a graph included in the paper co-authored by Fullerton and presented at the March, 1990 LANL meeting.\9\ That presentation, according to TDC: ``utiliz(ed) only slightly reformatted graphs of the same information (emphasis in original) that Fullerton presented at Los Alamos! . . . This proves McEwan knew of the Fullerton technology and was busily preparing presentations within weeks after the Los Alamos Symposium . . . (T)his document proves that McEwan had access to Fullerton's work, and therefore that McEwan derived his invention from Fullerton.'' \10\ TDC goes on to say: ``This blatant misappropriation of intellectual property was the beginning, we believe, of the pattern of `inventions' by McEwan. McEwan's successful solicitation of financial support from LLNL led the Lab into the field of `reverse technology transfer'--taking technology from the private sector and using public funds to compete against the original inventor (emphasis in original).\11\ Review of Laboratory documents and other materials by Democratic Staff revealed at least two other occasions when, prior to his 1993 patent application, Mr. McEwan cited the work of Larry Fullerton. A June 27, 1990 internal memo from T.E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell stated: ``A recent Aviation Week article brought out another new area for fast impulses-- covert and spread-spectrum communications. Apparently some outfit perfected a time-domain encoder which uses picosecond timing to convey information and is both undetectable and undecipherable with conventional gear.'' This quote describes the substance of the June 4, 1990 Aviation Week & Space Technology article that pointed to Fullerton's work in UWB communications.\12\ On February 11, 1992, Thomas McEwan faxed a copy of a Fullerton paper entitled ``Ultra-Wideband Beamforming in Sparse Arrays'' to Mr. Bruce Winker of Rockwell International.\13\ Mr. Winker had been in discussions with Mr. McEwan and LLNL about licensing a shockline technology.\14\ Mr. McEwan had apparently promised to send Mr. Winker a paper that spoke to a technical issue that Winker had raised--Fullerton's paper is what was faxed out. This additional example confirms Mr. McEwan's knowledge of Fullerton and TDC's work in this area as of February, 1992. In August, 1992, McEwan filed his first Invention Disclosure form; in 1993 he filed his first patent applications on UWB for motion-sensing radar technology. As TDC notes, neither the Invention Disclosure nor the patent application makes any mention of Larry Fullerton despite the many occasions on which McEwan was exposed to Fullerton's work. TDC goes on to claim that McEwan was engaged in ``terminology tactics'' designed to obscure the similarities between the device he was submitting for patent protection and the inventions that Fullerton already had patents on--patents going back to 1987.\15\ In sum, TDC argues that Mr. McEwan knew about Mr. Fullerton's work; Mr. McEwan felt Fullerton's work was important enough to cite or mention to others at the Laboratory and to an outside party with whom he was negotiating; Mr. McEwan neglected to cite any of that work in his Invention Disclosure form or patent applications to try to obscure from the PTO the similarity between his and Fullerton's work. With a patent in hand, Mr. McEwan and LLNL/ UC could then proceed to license ``their'' technology and reap the enormous profits that would come--all at the expense of TDC. To defend its intellectual property, TDC would have to bear the costs of litigation against a Federally-funded entity and the State of California. (2) Thomas McEwan's account of intellectual creativity Mr. McEwan's account of events is extraordinarily different from the TDC version. It is difficult to form a coherent picture of the McEwan and LLNL/UC account because of differences in claims that have come to us from Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC and because of holes in the documentary record provided by LLNL/UC. Consequently, some of the following is based on piecing that record together, largely from communications from Mr. McEwan to others, including Democratic Staff.\16\ Mr. McEwan became interested in UWB applications and decided to attend the March, 1990 LANL meeting. He wrote in his trip report on the symposium that his interest was piqued by an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology \17\ that ``it could defeat stealth technology and the stealth community regards impulse radar as a `very very touchy issue.' '' \18\ In preparation for the March session at LANL, he began reading relevant literature in January, 1990. His Task Progress Report (TPR) for January reads (in part): ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, with some papers on subsurface probing found.'' Mr. McEwan's February, 1990 TPR reads (in part): ``Impulse radar range calculations were made, and related survey work continued.'' Mr. McEwan attended the March, 1990 LANL meeting along with 10 other LLNL employees. This Symposium included more than 200 official participants with 74 papers presented. Mr. McEwan maintains that: ``I did not see or hear Mr. Fullerton at the conference, and can only assume that he made an oral presentation, if any, during the classified session, which I can prove I missed except for the opening paper by Col. Taylor (as I recall).'' Mr. McEwan also adds that: ``I believe Forrest Anderson orally presented the first [Fullerton] paper on antenna arrays, with Mr. Fullerton cited as a co-author. Mr. Fullerton is not listed as an author or co-author on the second paper,\19\ so I'm confused about TDC's claim that it's Fullerton's paper (don't you have to be an author to claim it's your paper?). Neither paper was mentioned in my extensive trip report, nor Dave Christie's.'' \20\ Mr. McEwan is right to raise a question about the TDC claim that Fullerton presented two papers. There are references to Fullerton in the text of the Bretthorst paper, but he is not listed as a co-author; TDC's assertion that he had two papers at the conference is misleading. In any case, Mr. McEwan's trip report does not offer clear evidence that he attended either presentation. However, he does mention work being done at Washington University, stating ``They ran probability of detection studies on 300 ps impulse returns.'' \21\ This is certainly a reference to the Bretthorst (Washington University) et al. paper. Whether McEwan attended the presentation or saw a poster regarding this work, or learned of it in some other way, is unclear. But even if he had attended the presentation, it was not given by Mr. Fullerton.\22\ Mr. McEwan submitted a very detailed, six-page trip report that mentions 23 different organizations or presentations, though it isn't always clear whether he was at a presentation, saw a poster, collected a paper or learned about the work he mentioned in another fashion. One could probably fairly characterize the majority of his discussion regarding applications that relate the possibility that UWB could defeat stealth technology. Mr. McEwan returned from LANL excited about the possibilities of developing UWB technologies. In his trip report, he writes: ``There was virtually no mention of work below 100 ps and no mention of high power avalanche shock- wave devices. By all appearances, our work in the Laser Program places us well in the lead for high power sub-100-ps pulses . . .'' \23\ ``Our work in the Laser Program positions us in the areas of waveform generation and transmitters with our avalanche shock-wave devices and in the receiver area with our high speed instrumentation work, e.g., photoconductive sensors and sampling devices. Avalanche shock-wave pulse generation is an area where LLNL retains international leadership. We are currently generating 100 kW pulses with a 25ps risetime and expect to be near the 1MW level within six months. . . . It is possible that avalanche shock-wave techniques could satisfy virtually all impulse radar requirements.'' \24\ Mr. McEwan wasn't the only one from the group who saw some possibility of applying the work they had been doing for the NOVA laser to solving challenges to UWB applications. Mr. David Christie's trip report reads in part: ``My assessment is that this technology is still in its infancy . . . Clearly, the message was that everything is at an early stage of development, not just the high average power, high rep- rate impulse generator technology. This leaves both time and room for us to get involved . . . My opinion is that the `bulk avalanche' GaAs [gallium arsenide] switch is a good candidate for further examination. Its availability at a significant peak power and rep-rate could serve to shape the direction of the impulse radar business. At a minimum, it would give us a clear entry into the early development of impulse radar technology. Power Spectra [a private firm] is known to be developing this technology for radar, countermeasure, and detonator applications. My impression is that they are still struggling with life and reliability issues. The University of Texas has one graduate student working on the avalanche mode switch, and LLNL, as you know, has a small effort funded by Engineering. The physics of the `bulk avalanche' switch are not yet understood, and . . . would be the most important thing to address first.'' \25\ Mr. McEwan did apply or internal Laboratory funding to develop this technology; he and LLNL/UC have maintained that he never received funding and had to work on the UWB technology in this spare time. However, Democratic Staff are in possession of a series of documents that indicate that he not only proposed and received funding for these efforts in FY 91, FY92, and FY 93, but was also involved in a series of marketing presentations in 1991 and 1992\26\ (see appendix 2 for citations). These presentations raise the possibility that Mr. McEwan possessed the elements for his invention well before the date on his invention Disclosure Form. However, we were unable to examine his lab notebooks to track the progress of his work. In any case, Mr. McEwan did not file an Invention Disclosure until August 28, 1992. He portrays the moment as coming from a flash of insight. A July 24, 1998 letter from Mr. McEwan to Mr. Ron Cochran states: ``I invented MIR during 1992 while experimenting with a classic impulse radar that is well-described in the technical literature; the radar was similar to ground penetrating radar, but employed sampling technology that I developed for the Nova laser program at LLNL. The idea for MIR came quite by accident and in a flash of inspiration--I still remember the moment. Its subsequent development and refinement relied heavily on my extensive background in high speed electronics, electronic warfare and sampling technology.'' \27\ After this insight, he reportedly began and completed his 30-page Invention Disclosure form (over a very short ten-day period) and worked with the LLNL patent office to prepare his first MIR patent application. Mr. McEwan has not denied knowing something about Fullerton and his work. However, he denies that he had an obligation to cite Fullerton in his patents or Invention Disclosure: ``As I understand it, TDC's position is that I should have cited Fullerton on my MIR motion sensor patent. I agree--had I known about the Fullerton motion sensor patent. I disagree with the idea that knowing someone was working in radar would be sufficient grounds to search their patent records. By that logic, I should have searched all 100 presenters at the LANL '90 conference, and (sic) well as 1000s of others in the field of radar. After all, radar is a greatly diversified field.'' \28\ He goes on to say that: ``The LLNL patent group did not perform a prior art search on the disputed MIR patent. As I understand it, LLNL patent group generally relies on the PTO to conduct a minimal prior art search. There's nothing illegal in not performing a prior art search--you are only required to submit known relevant art.'' \29\ (3) LLNL/UC technology transfer practices may be inadequate It is impossible to determine, based on the materials in our possession, whose version of the story is accurate. But from a policy perspective, our concern rests with the adequacy of the LLNL/UC patenting process. In this sense, this third story begins where Mr. McEwan's defense leaves off. Mr. McEwan's defense for not citing TDC rests on his understanding that relevant prior art resides only with patents. It is clear that even as late as October, 1998, three years after the intellectual property dispute with TDC had begun, he was still defending his failure to cite TDC based on his lack of awareness of the TDC patents. The duty of candor that comes with a patent application includes a much broader conception of prior relevant art than Mr. McEwan's position reveals.\30\ Independent patent experts contacted by Democratic Staff have said that material information could include articles in the press, white papers, presentations at conferences, or publicly available information from any other source, including but not limited to patents.\31\ Consequently, Mr. McEwan's knowledge of the Fullerton patent portfolio is not the sole universe of prior art which he should have been concerned about citing in a patent application. Mr. McEwan could reasonably have been expected, had he understood this broader definition of prior art, to have cited the Fullerton work that he was aware of that TDC can point to as proof that Mr. McEwan had knowledge of Mr. Fullerton's efforts. To put this another way, if Mr. Fullerton's work was important enough to cite in internal Laboratory memoranda and faxes to third parties, it was probably something an attorney would suggest be included in his patent applications. The evidence that Mr. McEwan may not, even now, understand this broader responsibility lies in the language of his defense; he does not say he didn't cite Mr. Fullerton's body of work because it was not relevant prior art, nor does he deny that he at least knew something about Mr. Fullerton. He rests his defense on ignorance of Mr. Fullerton's patents. This suggests that neither at the time he was preparing his patents nor to this day has Mr. McEwan been properly instructed by a LLNL/UC patent attorney on the subject of prior relevant art. LLNL/UC's technology transfer office had a duty to vet Mr. McEwan's work in a meaningful fashion.\32\ Their guidance and questioning of the inventor should have made clear the scope of materials that would constitute prior relevant art. Further, we would expect that the technology transfer office should have engaged in their own review of the literature and existing patents and Fullerton should have shown up prominently in one place or the other (or both), leading to follow-up with Mr. McEwan.\33\ This apparently did not happen. If LLNL/UC's patenting process was more rigorous, it is highly likely that at least some of Mr. Fullerton's work would have been cited as prior art. It is also likely that any one of those citations would have triggered the patent reviewers to find and examine Mr. Fullerton's patents for comparison and all parties in this dispute would have had a clearer, fuller ruling from the PTO many years ago. If these is fault here, it perhaps lies not with Mr. McEwan, but with LLNL/UC's patenting process. We strongly recommend that this process be reviewed by DOE and Laboratory management, and that steps be taken to insure that a) every disputed patent owned by LLNL/UC is thoroughly reviewed, and the PTO and general public be immediately notified of any failures to cite relevant prior art and b) every future patent application is thoroughly reviewed and appropriate prior art searches done before the attorneys for LLNL/UC move patents forward to the PTO. (4) LLNL/UC's response to TDC and Members of Congress was inadequate The fourth story associated with the intellectual property dispute between LLNL/UC and TDC is LLNL/UC's response, both to the dispute and to Congressional inquiries associated with it. In September, 1995, a meeting was held in Senator Shelby's office which included DOE personnel and representatives of a precursor entity to TDC. LLNL/UC personnel were reportedly invited but unable to attend. This meeting was the first known instance in which DOE was made aware that the MIR patent claims granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC were being contested by TDC. It also appears clear from the Taylor/ McEwan paper cited earlier that Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC personnel knew about TDC's patents by fall, 1995.\34\ Appendix 4 lists more than 40 additional attempts by Members of Congress and TDC and/or its precursor entities to resolve this matter with correspondence, meetings and conversations with LLNL/DOE. In the words of TDC: ``Neither LLNL-UC nor DOE has made any serious attempt to resolve the situation. Indeed, there is little incentive for LLNL-UC to ``do the right thing'' under the present structure because they can outlast any private sector challenge by using the almost unlimited legal and financial resources of the state of California and the U.S. Government.'' \35\ Several of the contacts listed in Appendix 4 are worthy of some mention. The June 19, 1997 document entitled ``Summary of the Dispute Between Time Domain and LLNL'' is 21 pages long with a very lengthy appendix, and was provided by TDC to LLNL at the request of Dr. C. Bruce Tarter.\36\ On February 2, 1998, Dr. C. Bruce Tarter responded to the June 19, 1997 submission from TDC with a 5-page reply. The response stated that: ``In response to the initial complaint, the matter was fully investigated and no evidence was found to support any of the allegations. . . . Upon receipt of the ``new material,'' we took all the papers and exhibits you submitted and reviewed them in detail. I sought input from several associates, with knowledge of the patenting process and the technical fields. Our unanimous conclusion, after that review, was that the material did not support your representations.'' When LLNL/UC personnel were asked to provide copies of this investigation, Committee Staff were informed that the results of these endeavors were conveyed to Dr. Tarter orally, and that correspondence between LLNL/UC and its counsel was privileged and could not be shared. On September 25, 1998, Congressmen Brown, Cramer, Roemer, Aderholt and Callahan submitted 9 pages of detailed questions to both LLNL/UC and DOE.\37\ On December 21, 1998 LLNL/UC responded to this letter. The response contained few specific answers to the variety of technical and legal questions posed, referring the requesters to submissions by LLNL/UC to the PTO and other documentation. On February 23, 1999, the DOE responded with no specific answers to these questions. The LLNL/UC MIR web site continues to make no mention of this dispute or the status of the PTO reexamination. A prospective licensee who was perusing the site would know neither that the intellectual property was being challenged, nor that the PTO had issued a First Office Action. TDC attempted to resolve this matter with LLNL/UC in 1995; Nearly four years later and after numerous attempts on the part of Members of Congress to expedite the resolution of this problem, it remains tied up in what could be a lengthy and costly ruling and appeals process in the PTO--a process that was only started two and a half years after the beginning of the dispute. Dr. C. Bruce Tarter does state, in a September 17, 1998 letter to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer, that: ``For example, the allegation that LLNL has not done what it should to resolve this issue as quickly as possible is especially troubling in light of the special efforts LLNL has made toward expeditious resolution. In fact, shortly after initial questions were raised more than two and one-half years ago, a request for re-examination was proposed by LLNL. Filing this re-examination request was delayed at the urging of a predecessor to TDS in this area, Pulson, and subsequently of TDS in order to explore other approaches. Nevertheless, in LLNL's view, this PTO process continued to provide the only feasible means available to us to effect an objective and expedient resolution to this issue by an entity with the expertise to deal with the highly technical subject matter.'' \38\ Democratic Staff believes that if a private sector entity enters into dispute with a Federally Funded entity, that the Federally Funded entity should behave with the utmost haste and integrity in order to see that the matter is resolved as expeditiously as possible and with the least possible expense to the private sector entity. This may not have happened in this case. We believe that before resorting to a PTO process which can take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, Federally Funded entities should attempt to enter into a less expensive, less time-consuming solution such as alternative dispute resolution (ADR). We have been told that both TDS and DOE were willing in principle to enter into some sort of ADR, but that LLNL/UC was not; we don't know the degree to which the option was explored by LLNL/UC before it was rejected, nor do we know why it was ultimately rejected. We also note that since beginning to examine the allegations made by TDC against LLNL/UC we have been made aware of three additional disputes, two of which involve LLNL/UC, that have also been in progress for several years without any resolution.\39\ Another issue is the manner in which LLNL/UC responded to inquiries made by TDC, Members of Congress, and Democratic Staff. The responses were generally late, generally lacking specific answers to the questions asked, and at times including information later established to be incorrect or misleading. One such example (discussed in an earlier section) involves LLNL/UC's response to a question regarding the way the FCC licensing requirements were portrayed. Another involves the genesis of early UWB radar work at LLNL, as Thomas McEwan and LLNL/UC personnel have maintained a version of the circumstances surrounding the development and commercialization of MIR that is often at odds with other documentation obtained by Democratic Staff (see Appendix 2). Appendix 2, The Early Development of MIR The discovery of MIR was said to have been accidental, not to have been a result of targeted UWB radar R&D, and to have taken place in 1992 during a flash of inspiration experienced by Mr. McEwan. LLNL/UC and Mr. McEwan have made the following statements in regard to this discovery: ``Since the MIR technology was developed in conjunction with work being performed for laser fusion research, there was no separate request for funding in the early stages of the work.\40\ ``After the LANL `90 conference, LLNL turned down my radar funding requests in the `90-`93 time frame. I ended up developing MIR after hours.'' \41\ During a meeting with Committee Staff at LLNL on December 8, 1998, Dr. Michael Campbell, Director of Laser Programs at LLNL, reiterated the claim that no targeted development of UWB radar technology was funded prior to Mr. McEwan's reportedly accidental discovery of MIR in 1992. According to Dr. Campbell, Mr. McEwan's sole responsibility until the date of that discovery in 1992 was the development of the transient digitizer used in NOVA experiments, and no UWB radar work done by Mr. McEwan or anyone else in the Laser Programs division at LLNL until after the accidental 1992 discovery of MIR. However, LLNL/UC documents obtained by Democratic Staff indicate that funding was obtained to conduct this work in FY91, FY92 and FY93: January, 1990: ``Impulse radar was surveyed in the library, with some papers on subsurface probing found.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report. February, 1990: ``Impulse radar range calculations were made, and related survey work continued.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report. March, 1990: ``Attended the four day ``First Los Alamos UWB Radar Conference. . . Several basic impulse radar antennas were built and pulses were propagated. . . Met with other Lab researchers on impulse radar and decided we could all be of mutual benefit.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report. April, 1990: ``Wrote an IR&D [Industrial Research and Development] proposals on impulse radar and presented the proposal to the Lucifer group.'' Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report. May, 1990: ``A prototype solid-state pulser was built and tested. Pulse amplitude was 1.28 kV into 25m at 200ps FWHM. An annual report was written. Fast pulse/impulse radar potential users were surveyed and related proposal work took.'' Draft of Tom McEwan's Task Progress Report. May 10, 1990: ``Mike, this is in response to your recent memo. . . . With the development of higher power avalanche diodes (10MW), we could meet virtually all future impulse radar requirements. . . . Receiver development--picosecond amplifier, detector and sampler design work using the ERD foundry. . . Licensing would be a particularly sensitive issue since to some extent all the individual elements of our pulser have been published by others and so far the technology is completely off-the-shelf. . . we probably don't have a case for a patent. . . What we have is very close to a profitable product which would normally be deemed proprietary in private industry. . . we need some time to work with the Patent Office and the technology transfer people. . .'' Memo entitled Impulse Radar R&D Proposal from Thomas E. McEwan to E. M. Campbell. June 27, 1999: ``A recent Aviation Week article brought out another new area for fast impulses--covert and spread- spectrum communications. Apparently some outfit perfected a time-domain encoder which uses picosecond timing to convey information and is both undetectable and undecipherable with conventional gear.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update from Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell. June 27, 1990: ``Concerning impulse radar interest, I talked to Rick Ziolkowski of ERD's Electromagnetics Group. He said he mentioned our work to several impulse radar funding committee members in Washington, and they are very interested.'' Memo entitled Avalanche Pulser Update from Thomas E. McEwan to E.M. Campbell. September 12, 1990: ``The objective of this project is to create a unique capability at LLNL in ultra-wideband time domain imaging radar. . . FY `91 efforts will result in a demonstration of imaging with time domain radar. . . This is an opportunity to generate new programs in a growing technology. . .'' Internal funding proposal entitled ``Ultra- Wideband Time Domain Imaging Radar,'' Thomas McEwan and David Christie.\42\ February 28, 1991: A presentation by Thomas McEwan to General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' \43\ was ``building a short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had ``most of the base technology in place.'' March 1, 1991: ``We are moving closer to making serious proposals both within the Lab and through tech. Transfer, in the area of transient digitizers and impulse radars,'' memo entitled ``Monolithic Shock Line Feasibility Study'' from Thomas McEwan to Don Meeker, also at LLNL. The memo also requested funding. May 21, 1991: ``Vast market potential exists for these systems,'' that ``Impulse radar shows potential for future automotive sensors'' due to its ``simplicity and low cost,'' and that ``covert operation [of a spread spectrum communications system] is possible, especially if receiver has timing knowledge for multiple pulse integration.'' \44\ Thomas McEwan and Gregory Cooper, also of LLNL, research proposal for an internal Lab-Wide IR&D Competition entitled ``Development of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, Radar and Communications Systems.'' July 1, 1991: Thomas McEwan wrote a letter to W.R. Coggins, Commander, Naval Sea System Command, describing the UWB equipment that LLNL ``currently uses or have in design'' to include an ``ultra-low cost, compact 50ps system in design for short range mass-market applications'' in response to the Commander's June 20, 1991 request for such information. March 19, 1992: ``A transmit/receive version will be used in a very compact ultra-wideband (UWB) radar sensor,'' ``Mass market UWB radar applications'' include ``door opener, stud detector, motion detector/security alarm,'' the proximity sensor ``antenna and electronics module fit in 1" package,'' ``low cost, <$10 projected,'' ``Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation'' and ``FCC approval should be assured.'' Excerpts from a presentation by Thomas McEwan and Gregory Cooper, in a Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Midyear Review \45\ entitled ``Development of a Transmit/Receive Element for New Sensor, Radar and Communications Systems.'' May 1, 1992: ``Electrical pulse compression techniques developed under LDRD '92 funding \46\ (short title: ``transmit Element'') provide the foundation for a new sensor technology based on the direct radiation of picosecond pulses for pulse-echo radar. The sensor is expected to have a 2M range, 2mm resolution, physical dimensions on the order of 2 cm and a cost of less than $10 . . . Signal processing enhancements will allow extremely low power operation for environmental, safety and FCC compatibility. A fully functional prototype will be built as a precursor to a miniaturized version based on custom integrated circuits. . . .'' FY 93 funding proposed entitled ``Development of a Miniature Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Sensor'' by Thomas McEwan and Gregory Cooper. October, 1992: A LLNL viewgraph entitled ``FY93 RISE Electronics Engineering Technology Base Plan'' dated October, 1992, lists a project entitled ``Ultra wideband radar motion sensors'' with T. McEwan as the lead researcher. The proposed funding for FY93 was $70,000--which was said to equal the FY92 level. August 28, 1992: The first known MIR Invention Disclosure by Thomas McEwan entitled ``Ultra Wideband Radar Motion Sensor'' was filed on August 28, 1992. This 30-page document states that funding had already been provided for the project. The disclosure also states that the earliest documentation of the invention was the first sketch or drawing describing it, done on August 18, 1992, only 10 days before the Invention Disclosure document was written. The first model prototype was said to have been completed 4 days later, on August 22, 1992. So, in the course of 10 days, Mr. McEwan had his idea for MIR, drew complicated circuit and block diagrams describing it, built a working prototype, analyzed operational test data and prepared a 30-page Invention Disclosure document. The disclosure states that ``no past disclosures'' of ``documents that describe the invention, that you have published or prepared for publication, or presented on the subject'' had taken place despite the February, 1991 and March, 1992 UWB radar presentations which also contained verbal and pictorial descriptions of a technology that seems extremely similar if not identical to MIR. No dated pages from laboratory notebooks are included in the Invention Disclosure submission, and no other patents or publications or references thereto are included as prior art references. footnotes \1\ Democratic Staff would certainly agree that a Laboratory stealing the innovations of a private sector firm and passing them off as their own would raise a significant policy issue. However, given the documentation in our possession, the facts are not conclusive and we are reluctant to do more than simply recount the competing claims of both sides. \2\ In fact, one such complaint has recently been brought to the attention of Democratic Staff. Biosource, a small company with ten issued patents in a particular water purification technology, believes that LLNL/UC has patented and marketed a similar technology without citing the relevant prior art and with full knowledge of the existence of that prior art. Democratic Staff have not conducted a thorough investigation of this claim. \3\ TDC's June 19, 1997 submission to Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, Director of LLNL, entitled ``Summary of the dispute between Time Domain and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,'' page 11. \4\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 11. The quote used by TDC on the impossibility of attending the conference without seeing Fulllerton is unattributed. \5\ Excerpts from these articles, both published in Aviation Week & Space Technology and authored by William B. Scott include: ``Larry R. Fullerton, president of Time Domain Systems, Inc., said his company has secured two patents on UWB-based communications techniques and one for a radar concept. Additional patent applications are `in progress' in the U.S., Europe, Japan, India, Brazil and other countries, he said. These ultra-wideband techniques are applicable to covert communications, commercial/consumer products and an area security system, in addition to standard radar applications. All of these were `reduced to practice' before he filed for patents, Fullerton said . . . Fullerton is part of a small group of researchers that has been working on UWB technologies and applications since the late 1970s.'' March 26, 1990, Vol. 132, No. 13, page 55. ``For example, Larry Fullerton, president of Time Domain Systems, Inc., built his first UWB communicator in 1976 and currently has a functioning analog breadboard system in a Huntsville, Ala., laboratory. It comprises a transmitter, receiver with cross- correlation front end, antennas, time-coding and all the necessary components and subsystems required of a military- glass UWB communications system. Fullerton recently demonstrated short-range, end-to-end transmission, reception and processing of voice information . . .'', June 4, 1990, Vol. 132, No. 23, Page 40. ``GRAPHIC: Photograph, Time Domain Systems-developed ultra-wideband or impulse communicator would find immediate applications as a covert communication device for special forces. A laboratory demonstration system currently is being tested; Graph, Time Domain Systems President Larry Fullerton demonstrates breadboard version of a basic UWB link. Cross-correlator, lock error and modulation recovery circuit boards are at lower center.'' June 4, 1990 Vol. 132, No. 23, page 40. \6\ (a) A panel convened to assess the state of UWB technology issued its report, ``Assessment of Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Technology,'' OSD/DARPA Ultra-Wideband Radar Review Panel, on July 13, 1990. The report, which examined public, private and classified work in the field, indicates that Larry Fullerton made a presentation to the panel, and that TDC was working in the UWB-related areas of Switches, Sources, Receivers, Antennas and Ranges. (b) ``The panel [the 1990 DARPA panel] listened to many proponents of and contributors to the field of Impulse Radar . . . It heard of interesting, creative work in the field by some of the principal contributors: Gerry Ross of ANRO, Roger Vickers of SRI, Larry Fullerton of Time Domain Systems, to mention some. It learned that commercially available impulse radars were doing terrain profiling, finding buried pipes and doing other jobs where the combination of good range resolution, relatively low frequency and a impulse, inexpensive systems was a clear winner for such short range applications,'' Charles A. Fowler, Chairman, DARPA UWB Radar Panel, in ``The UWB Impulse Radar Caper or Punishment of the Innocent'', IEEE AES Systems Magazine, December 1992 issue, page 3. (c) ``Other panelists included . . . Larry Fullerton of Time Domain Systems . . .'' Yale Jay Lubkin, ``illuminating the Scene with Impulse Radar,'' A&DS, September/October 1990 edition, page 15. \7\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12. \8\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 15. \9\ Wideband Beam Patterns from Sparse Arrays,'' by Forrest Anderson, Consultant; Larry Fullerton, TDS; and Wynn Christensen and Bert Kortegaard, LANL, Proceedings of the First Los Alamos Symposium, March, 1990. \10\ Summary of the Dispute,'' page 12. \11\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13. \12\ There is no definitive proof that Mr. McEwan read the March 26, 1990 Aviation Week & Space Technology article-- though he did read prior articles and cites the June 4, 1990 piece in his memo. The March 26, 1990 article specifically cites Fullerton for having secured two patents on UWB-based communications techniques and one for a radar concept. Additional patent applications were described as being in progress. \13\ F. Anderson, W. Christensen, L. Fullerton and B. Kortegaard, ``Ultra-wideband Beamforming in Sparse Arrays,'' IEE Proceedings II, Vol. 138, No. 4, August 4, 1991. This paper appears to be an updated version of the paper bearing the same title that was presented at the March, 1990 LANL meeting. An excerpt of this paper reads ``This research is also of importance to wideband radar. Medical ultrasound steered phase arrays use transmitted pulses consisting of from one to three cycles of a damped sinusoid, which is similar to certain ultra-wideband radar systems . . . This type of transmitted pulse is use in an impulse radar that is commercially available for geophysics applications . . . Wide-band arrays have been constructed and tested by Time Domain Systems . . .'' \14\ As we understand it, this technology is an impulse generation technology. Rockwell was also, unbeknownst to LLNL, talking to TDC about using their signal processing receiver design, placing Rockwell at the crossroads of integrating LLNL and TDC technologies for the purpose of developing a landmine detection and imaging system. \15\ ``Summary of the Dispute,'' page 13. \16\ We have chosen to tell Mr. McEwan's version as much as possible, rather than the pre-masticated story LLNL/UC has offered up. Mr. McEwan, as the LLNL inventor, is the central figure and has neither the management nor political concerns to temper his message that may play a role in shaping LLNL/ UC's pablum. LLNL/UC's role will be discussed in a later section. \17\ Early articles that discuss the potential ability of UWB radar to defeat stealth aircraft include ``UWB Radar Has Potential to Detect Stealth Aircraft,'' William B. Scott, and ``Radar Networks, Computing Advances Seen As Keys to Counter Stealth Technologies,'' David F. Bond, Aviation Week & Space Technology, December 4, 1989. \18\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 1. \19\ ``Radar Target Discrimination Using Probability Theory,'' C. Ray Smith, U.S. Army Missile Command; Lloyd S. Riggs, Auburn University; and G. Larry Bretthorst, Washington University at St. Louis. This second paper references Mr. Fullerton's work, stating that ``The impulse radar used to gather the experimental data used in this simulation is briefly described in the introduction. Due to proprietary restrictions, a complete description of the system cannot be given at this time--contact Mr. Larry Fullerton for further information.'' \20\ October 7, 1998 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal Freedhoff, page 5. \21\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6. \22\ While Mr. Fullerton was not a presenter or co-author on this paper, he is reported to have taken an active role in the discussion following the presentation from his seat in the audience. A February 2, 1998 affidavit from Mr. William B. Moorhead, consultant, states ``. . . Fullerton bluntly emphasized that he had some patents on his work . . . Similarly, I observed Larry Fullerton answer questions from his seat when another paper entitled `Radar Target Discrimination Using Probability Theory' was being presented. It was apparent to me that he was fielding the really difficult questions . . .'' \23\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 4. \24\ T.E. McEwan to J.D. Kilkenny, ``Report and Commentary on the Ultra-Wideband Radar Symposium, March 12, 1990, page 6. \25\ March 26, 1990 Memorandum from David J. Christie to Georg F. Albrecht entitled ``First Los Alamos Symposium on Ultra-Wideband Radar,'' page 2. \26\ While some of these were specifically about the shockline technology (which would be used to generate impulse signal), as in the Rockwell negotiations discussed in the above section, others appear to be general presentations on a complete UWB radar system--not just an impulse source. For example, a February 28, 1991 presentation by Thomas McEwan to General Motors entitled ``Ultra-Short Pulse Radar Proximity Sensor'' described a device that was ``Low cost, <$10 projected, Low power (1 microwatt) spread spectrum operation, small size & low cost, Environmental, safety and FCC approval should be assured'' whose applications were the same as those claimed by what would become known as MIR technology to be: ``position sensing, fluid levels, trunk lid position, side & rear obstacle detection, smart highway vehicle spacing, motion sensing, wheel motion, security alarm, and collision detection.'' Also, the presentation stated that LLNL was ``funded to develop a prototype chip,'' was ``building a short-pulse radar security alarm,'' and had ``most of the base technology in place.'' See Appendix 2 for other citations. \27\ July 24, 1998 letter from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Mr. Ron Cochran, page 1. \28\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal Freedhoff, page 3. \29\ October 25 email from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michal Freedhoff, page 3. \30\ Mr. McEwan was clearly aware of Mr. Fullerton's patents by November 29, 1995, when Colonel James D. Taylor sent McEwan a draft of an article on MIR that McEwan and Taylor had agreed to co-author the previous winter. The draft article states: ``MIR provides a convenient implementation of a impulse radio link. An impulse radio system using these principles was described by Mr. Larry Fullerton in his patient descriptions for a time domain radio transmission system [25] and a spread spectrum radio transmission [26].'' James D. Taylor and Thomas E. McEwan, draft article. ``The Micropower Impulse Radar.'' \31\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory guideline by all patent examiners handling patent applications at the U.S. PTO, states that: ``All individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 (reproduced in MPEP Sec. 2001.01) have a duty to disclose to the Patent and Trademark Office all material information they are aware of regardless of the source of or how they become aware of the information. Materiality controls whether information must be disclosed to the Office, not the circumstances under which or the source from which the information is obtained. If material, the information must be disclosed to the Office. The duty to disclose material information extends to information such individuals are aware of prior to or at the time of filing the application or become aware of during the prosecution thereof. Such individuals may be or become aware of material information from various sources such as, for example, coworkers, trade shows, communications from or with competitors, potential infringers, or other third parties, related foreign applications (see MPEP Sec. 2001.06(a)), prior or co-pending United States patent applications (see MPEP Sec. 2001.06(b), related litigation (see MPEP Sec. 2001.06(c)) and preliminary examination searches.'' \32\ Chapter 2000 on Duty of Disclosure of the Manual Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), used as the statutory guideline by all patent examiners handling patent applications at the PTO, states that: ``While it is not appropriate to attempt to set forth procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of disclosure, the items listed below are offered as examples of possible procedures which could help avoid problems with the duty of disclosure. Though compliance with these procedures may not be required, they are presented as helpful suggestions for avoiding duty of disclosure problems. 1. Many attorneys, both corporate and private, are using letters and questionnaires for applicants and others involved with the filing and prosecution of the application and checklists for themselves and applicants to ensure compliance with the duty of disclosure. The letter generally explains the duty of disclosure and what it means to the inventor and assignee. The questionnaire asks the inventor and assignee questions about--the origin of the invention and its point of departure from what was previously known and in the prior art--possible public uses and sales--prior publication, knowledge, patents, foreign patents, etc. The checklist is used by the attorney to ensure that the applicant has been informed of the duty of disclosure and that the attorney has inquired of and cited material prior art. The use of these types of aids would appear to be most helpful, though not required, in identifying prior art and may well help the attorney and the client avoid or more easily explain a potentially embarrassing and harmful ``fraud'' allegation. 2. It is desirable to ask questions about inventorship. Who is the proper inventor? Are there disputes or possible disputes about inventorship? If there are questions, call them to the attention of the Patent and Trademark Office.'' \33\ Professor Donald Chisum (a nationally recognized expert on patent law whose treatise is often cited in case law), clarifies the duty of candor requirements further in ``A Review of Recent Federal Circuit Cases and a Plea for Modest Reform,'' published in 1997 by the Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. Law Journal: ``The duty of candor requires persons who are substantively involved in a prosecution to disclose only what they know. Courts decisions do not impose a duty to conduct a search of the prior art, but they caution that a person may not cultivate ignorance, that is, `disregard numerous warnings that material information or prior art may exist, merely to avoid knowledge of that information or prior art.' '' It isn't clear from this guidance whether Mr. McEwan, who had at least general knowledge of Mr. Fullerton's work, should have engaged in a more thorough effort to search for his patents. However, we would argue that the patent attorneys at LLNL/UC had a duty to go beyond the bare minimum requirements for prior art searches because of the competitiveness consequences of filing and prosecuting a patent that treads upon existing patents held by private entities. In this regard, the Laboratories should establish patent review and application processes that are so thorough and rigorous so as to be above suspicion. \34\ It is worth noting that 18 MIR patents (see appendix 3 for a list) that did not include citations of TDC's patents were prosecuted by and granted to Mr. McEwan and LLNL/UC subsequent to fall, 1995, and 19 new MIR license agreements granting rights under LLNL/UC's patents were signed. The Democratic Staff has not attempted to determine which, if any, of the MIR patents granted subsequent to November, 1995 should have included citations of TDC's patents, and the PTO has not yet been asked to reexamine any of these patents. \35\ February 9, 1999 letter from Mr. Ralph Petroff, President and CEO of TDC to Dr. Michael Freedhoff. \36\ The document contains: (1) the history of TDC's inventions and the dispute with LLNL/UC; (2) two claim--by- claim patent comparisons of TDC's patents with the MIR patents; (3) estimation of damages to TDC' (4) a proposal for a settlement agreement; and (5) documentation to substantiate their allegations. \37\ The questions included requests for: (1) detailed and specific technical differences that led LLNL/UC to state that the MIR inventions were patentably distinct from TDC's; (2) substantiations of statements made by LLNL/UC that the allegations made by TDC were false, including all documentation surrounding the complete investigation into the matter that LLNL/UC claimed to have made; (3) information on how the First Office Action made by the PTO would, if upheld, impact the rest of the LLNL/UC MIR patent portfolio; (4) information on how LLNL/UC would respond to a Final Office Action by the PTO should it be substantially similar to the First Office Action; (5) clarifications of statements made by LLNL/UC in light of the materials in the June 19, 1997 package submitted by TDC to LLNL; (6) clarifications of statements made by LLNL/UC at a July 29, 1998 briefing with Committee Staff; and (7) export control documentation for international LLNL/UC MIR licensees. \38\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer, page 1. \39\ The claims have been made by: Ultratech, a stepper company who believes that LLNL/UC illegally disclosed their intellectual property in September, 1997; Biosource, a company with ten issued patents in the area of capacitive deionization of water, who believes that LLNL/UC filed and obtained a similar patent in 1995 even though the LLNL inventor knew about Biosource's prior art; and Mr. Sanford Rose, who has been in litigation with Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) since 1993 because he believes he acquired an exclusive license to a cleanup technology developed by BNL that BNL later reneged on in order to further develop and commercialize the technology on its own. We have not attempted to determine the validity of these claims and cite them only to point out that the TDC dispute is not an isolated one. We believe that DOE and the Laboratories involved should take immediate steps to investigate and resolve these additional disputes in the fairest and most expeditious way possible, perhaps through the use of independent mediators. \40\ September 17, 1998 letter from Dr. C. Bruce Tarter, Director LLNL, to Congressmen Brown, Cramer and Roemer. \41\ October 25, 1998 e-mail from Mr. Thomas McEwan to Dr. Michael Freedhoff. \42\ According to Mr. Christie's recollection, the proposal was partially funded for FY 1991. However, Mr. Christie left LLNL in early 1991, and Democratic Staff have not been able to determine how much money was received or what it was used for. \43\ It is not clear whether the funding discussed in this presentation was related to the September 12, 1990 funding proposal by Christie and McEwan. \44\ Interestingly, the part of the June 4, 1990 article in Aviation Week & Space Technology that Mr. McEwan chose to highlight in his June 27, 1990 memo to Dr. E.M. Campbell was TDC's covert and spread spectrum UWB communications device. This article also described the patented timing system used by TDC in its UWB receiver. \45\ The fact that this was a mid-year review suggests that his project did receive funding in FY 1992. \46\ This also suggests that funding was received in FY 1992.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Joe Hadden, a man distinguished by his 35-year dedication to our system of jurisprudence and, particularly, his service on the bench of the Ventura County Superior Court. Judge Hadden has decided to retire. His careful exercise of the law will be missed within the Ventura County Hall of Justice. After a stint in the U.S. Army, where he rose from private to first lieutenant, Judge Hadden attended and graduated from law school and was admitted to the California Bar in 1964. He served a year as a Ventura County deputy district attorney, then became a partner in Hadden, Waldo and Malley, where he specialized in probate, estate planning and representing businesses. Judge Hadden served as a Ventura County Superior Court Arbitrator from 1976 to 1980. He was appointed to the Municipal Court bench in 1980 and the Superior Court bench in 1981 by Gov. Jerry Brown Jr., a fact I won't hold against him. The wisdom of the voters prevailed. They approved Judge Hadden's appointment by electing him in 1982 and re- electing him ever since. Outside the courtroom, Judge Hadden serves as a member of the Ventura County Legal Aid Association. He has a myriad of other interests, as well. He was an amateur sports car racer from 1954 to 1974, runs marathons, scuba dives, skis, plays tennis, works with stained glass and plays the flute. It's obvious he will have plenty to keep him busy. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing Joe Hadden for his decades of service and in wishing him and his family Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the parents, students, faculty and staff whose dedication to excellence has earned Hollow Hills Fundamental School, in my hometown of Simi Valley, CA, recognition as a national Blue Ribbon School Hollow Hills Fundamental School is a shining example of what can happen when parents, teachers and administrators collaborate on the best approaches for providing a quality education. The school's motto-- Committed to Excellence--is not merely a slogan. It's a way of life that other campuses would be well served to follow. A combination of a structured, consistent learning environment with an emphasis on basic skills and traditional American values ensures intelligent, socially responsible students and future adults. Mr. Speaker, the school will be honored at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley on Tuesday. It's a particularly fitting tribute to Hollow Hills. President Reagan once made this statement to a group of educators: Our leaders must remember that education doesn't begin with some isolated bureaucrat in Washington. It doesn't even begin with state or local officials. Education begins in the home, where it is a parental right and responsibility. That principle is fully integrated into Hollow Hills' lesson plans. The school was founded in 1982 in collaboration with parents. Every year, Hollow Hills parents, students and educators formally rededicate themselves to quality education through a ``Commitment to Excellence'' agreement. The school boasts a strong PTA and dedicated parents who volunteer their spare time to enhance their children's education. In addition to stressing basic reading and math skills, the school also emphasizes art, music and technology, guaranteeing students a well-balanced education. Hollow Hills also stresses attributes that unfortunately are missing in many schools today: personal responsibility, diligence, courtesy, respect to authority, punctuality and respect for the law. These ingredients are just as important to raising intelligence and socially responsible adults. Mr. Speaker, as our nation works in concert to better our education system, it would serve us well to study the successes of our Blue Ribbon Schools. They are the best of the best and a key to our future. I know my colleagues will join me in applauding Hollow Hills Principal Leslie Frank, her entire staff, and the parents and students of Hollow Hills for raising the bar and setting a strong example for others to follow.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, criminals should not profit from illegal acts. That is why I introduced H.R. 1887 last week that will ban illegal, disgusting acts that are occurring nationwide. People around the country are making ``crush videos.'' These videos feature women crushing small animals with their feet while wearing spiked heals. The videos are sold nationwide to people who enjoy this type of so-called ``foot fetish.'' and sellers of the video are making millions of dollars. The acts of animals cruelty featured in the video are illegal under state law. However, according to District Attorney Michael Bradbury of Ventura County, California, it is difficult to prosecute these acts under state animal cruelty laws. First, a District Attorney must identify the individual in the video. This is a difficult task given the fact that most of the time, only the actress' legs are shown. Second, it is difficult to prove that the act featured in the video occurred with in the statue of limitations. Third, local animal cruelty laws do not prohibit the production, sale, or possession of the video. There are also no federal laws that could be used to prosecute the individuals. Sick criminals are taking advantage of the loopholes in the local law and the lack of federal law on animal cruelty videos. This is a serious problem. Thousands of these videos are being sold. Thousands of dollars are being made. By not closing these loopholes and allowing this sick behavior, we are encouraging people to profit from violating the state animal cruelty laws. This must be stopped! H.R. 1887 will put a stop to this offensive behavior. This legislation is narrowly tailored to prohibit the creation, sale or possession of a depiction of animal cruelty in interstate commerce for commercial gain. H.R. 1887 does not preempt state laws on animal cruelty. Rather, it incorporates the animal cruelty law of the state where the offense occurs. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in pursuing this legislation which will put an end to profiting from these disgusting criminal acts. Please contact Wendy Wiseman of my staff at 5-5811 to cosponsor H.R. 1887.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Ventura High School Wind Orchestra, which earned a near-perfect score at the National Adjudicators Invitational last month in Virginia Beach, Virginia. This group of dedicated musicians walked away with Outstanding Concert Band Trophy, the Outstanding Percussion Trophy and the Outstanding Brass Trophy. Piccoloist Karen Magoon won the Outstanding Soloist Trophy, perhaps the most prestigious prize at the competition. As a group, they earned a Performance Trophy Superior Rating, scoring 99 out of a possible 100 points. During the contest, their rivals from schools across the United States gave the Ventura youngsters two standing ovations. Mr. Speaker, as our nation works in concert to better our education system, it's important that we support our music programs as part of an overall educational experience. Recent studies indicate that a study of music helps children's comprehension of math. It also gives them a feeling of accomplishment and worth. At the very least, it brings beauty into our world. Michael Takazono, the Ventura High School Wind Orchestra director, deserves much credit for teaching his young charges the fulfillment of playing good music well. The members of the Ventura High School Wind Orchestra deserve our congratulations. They are: Brian Anderson, Luke Bechtel, Andrew Bittner, Jeremy Black, Kori Brashears, Amy Chinn, Bryson Conley, James Davis, Josephine DeGuzman, Joshua DeGuzman, Tim Eckberg, Shelby Fannan, Johann Gagnon-Bartsch, Russell Gardner, Joe Gartman, Laura Hardesty, Natasha Hart, Isaac Hilburn, Kelsey Hollenback, Derek Hutchison, Malena Jones, Matt Liter, Chad Long, Karen Magoon, Veronica Matsuda, Brianna McIntosh, Sarah Merin, Jason Morgan, Nathaniel Morgan, Ariel Murillo, Joshua Norton, Aaron Novstrup, Rahsaan Ormsby, Nicole Paillette, Michael Parker, Dana Parry, Megan Price, Aaron Singer-Englar, Rebecca Sams, Roger Suen, Graham Talley, Emily Talwar and Viena Wagner. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in applauding Mr. Takazono and the fine young musicians who comprise the Ventura High School Wind Orchestra.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concerns for the current situation in Kosovo and the military policies being pursued by the Clinton Administration. Let met say at the outset that I fully support our military men and women. They are the finest in the world. Further, in no way do I wish to send a message to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic that I consider him to be anything other than a barbarian and a thug. His policies in Kosovo of ``ethnic cleansing'' and mass deportation of the Albanian majority are nothing short of deplorable which serve to reinforce his pathologic quest for ultimate power and authority. There can be no doubt that as Secretary of Defense Cohen has stated, ``Mr. Milosevic and his minions are engaging in rape, pillage, and murder on a scale that we have not seen since the end of World War II'' * * * ``Milosevic is an ex-communist thug who has been appallingly brutal to the Kosovo Albanians.'' Kosovo is much more than a civil war. It is in effect an extension of what we have already experienced in Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia. Serb forces, including elements of the Yugoslav Army, Serb special police and paramilitary units have attacked towns and villages throughout Kosovo in a clear pattern similar to what we saw in Bosnia. The world has a right to be outraged and to demand that Mr. Milosevic end his brutal campaign of hatred and expulsion. Like many, I do believe that the nations of Europe had the right to decide that the situation in Kosovo was no longer tolerable and had to be stopped before a broader war in the Balkans ensued. NATO's reason for taking action in Kosovo is honorable. Ethnic cleansing must be condemned. Clearly, the United States does have a national interest in a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Peace and stability in southern Europe is important. If the current situation persists, Montenegro could be next and perhaps Bosnia could flare up again. The current situation also places our friends and allies in Greece and Turkey in a tenuous situation which could rekindle old animosities. But does the United States have such a strategic national interest in the Balkans that we should commit U.S. military forces to the region? I do not believe so. Is it in the best interest of the European nations of NATO to act to resolve this conflict? Yet it is. And, as a member of NATO, should the U.S. participate in some way? Yes, we could. But do we need to be in the forefront of the military operation, providing the bulk of the air-strike forces and potentially the ground forces? I do not believe so. If the European nations of NATO wish to intervene militarily, I believe the U.S., as a NATO ally, can assist with communications, intelligence, logistics, and medical support. And if that is not enough for the NATO alliance to act in a case such as this to enforce their own responsibilities to preserve stability in Europe, then I question the real resolve of the alliance and wonder what kind of an alliance we have if it cannot function without the U.S. in the lead. That is why I voted today to remove our air forces from the operations over Yugoslavia and will oppose the commitment of United States ground combat forces to Kosovo should the President decide to do so. Last March, I voted against authorizing American ground forces to be used as a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. I did so because NATO didn't have a clearly defined mission or strategy to win the conflict. We also didn't have an exit strategy. I said then that I hoped I would be proven wrong. That hasn't been the case. When feasible, the United States and NATO should take well thought- out steps to stop aggression or in this case the brutal extermination or deportation of an ethnic population. Our actions, if we are to take them, must be swift and taken with overwhelming force. But we have done the opposite in Yugoslavia. If we are to be intellectually honest, we have to admit that an air war cannot stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Air wars alone have never succeeded. If we are to be intellectually honest, we have to admit that the air war is in all likelihood a prelude to a ground war. If we are to be intellectually honest, we have to admit that incrementally increasing our war effort is a losing strategy. Even General Clark, the NATO supreme commander has stated that ``air power alone will not be sufficient to stop the ethnic cleansing''. Instead of stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, our strategy seemingly has hastened it. The administration was caught off guard by that. Milosevic has achieved most of his objectives. He has extended his control over Kosovo, and he has successfully expelled a large portion of the ethnic Albanian population. Now he is suggesting to Russian negotiators that he is ready to talk peace. Perhaps this option should be seriously reconsidered, instead of being summarily dismissed, as the Administration has done. If we resort now to a ground war, we risk far more casualties and an open-ended commitment to Kosovo that could quickly become a long-time quagmire. When we put our troops in Bosnia, the President promised they would be home in a few months. That was four years ago, and 3,000 troops are still there. He's not saying how long our troops would be in Kosovo. And because our mission and exit strategy remain unclear to me, I fear that we would have to send an invasion force into Kosovo at least as large as the one we used in the Persian Gulf and that those forces would be required to remain in Kosovo for a very long time. Furthermore, we are also asking our military men and women to do a job without supplying them with the necessary tools. Today, there are 265,000 American troops in 135 countries--including 50,000 in Korea and several thousand more in the Persian Gulf. At the same time, since the end of the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by 40 percent. Since 1990, the Air Force has shrunk from 36 active and reserve fighter wings to 20. The Navy is sending warships to sea hundreds of sailors short of a full crew. The Marines and Army are running out of ammunition. If we needed to, we would be hard-pressed to respond elsewhere in the world. Already, we have had to divert planes from their patrol over Iraq to fly Kosovo missions. As we commit American troops to more hotspots around the world, coupled with the defense cutbacks this Administration has made over this decade, it means our tissue-thin military resources have become even thinner. My prayers go to the outstanding men and women in U.S. uniforms involved in this confrontation and those facing danger throughout the world. I have the greatest confidence in their commitment, to their honor and in their willingness to fight for freedom. Had we given them the tools, the strategy, and the commitment to win, I know they would prevail in Kosovo. But we haven't. So they should no longer be engaged and certainly should not be committed to a ground war.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon as the U.S. National Decathlon Champions. This is the first time a team from Ventura County, California, has won this premiere scholastic contest. In fact, it's the first time a team from Ventura County has competed in the nationals. Team members Arturo Barragan, Alexandria Dove, John Ellis, Valerie Lake, Nick Lange, Mitul Patel, Ari Shaw and Rebecca Wershba are now recognized as the best and the brightest in the country. They are the pride of their county and their country. These youngsters won by literally dedicating their lives to the challenge. For months, these teen-agers studied at school until 10 p.m., then hit a coffee shop or a student's home to study some more. They gave up weekends, vacations, part-time jobs and time with their families. Their coaches, head coach Larry Jones and assistance coach Michelle Bergman, did the same. Larry Jones has said he will retire. Not everyone believes him. But, at a minimum, he and Michelle have earned some relaxation in the glow of a job well done. We wish both of them the best in whatever their futures bring. Moorpark High School fielded two teams to complete in the Ventura County Academic Decathlon on February 6. Moorpark High's two teams bested all the rest, coming in first and second. The A Team then competed against the best in California on March 12, coming away with the state title, and opening the way for their national title this weekend. Mr. Speaker, one of the team members, Ari Shaw, served as an intern in my office last year. He brought the knowledge gained inside the halls of Congress to the contest by giving a speech on his experiences here, a speech that won him several accolades. It should please my colleagues to know that our young people leave Capitol Hill with positive memories. As we get ready to approve the Education Flexibility bill this week and consider other education measures this year, let us keep in mind the members of the Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon team and all the worthy competitors they faced from schools across our great nation. These are the real people behind our efforts to improve our schools. They are representative of those striving to get the best education they can, to be the best they can. It is incumbent upon us to keep them to reach their goals. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in applauding eight such real people who achieved a very prestigious goal--Arturo Barragan, Alexandra Dove, John Ellis, Valerie Lake, Nick Lange, Mitul Patel, Ari Shaw and Rebecca Wershba--the U.S. champion Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon Team.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I rise in support of H. Res. 110, a bill which congratulates El Salvador on its recent Presidential elections. On Sunday, March 7, the people of El Salvador went to the voting polls to choose a new President and Vice-President. This election marked the second successful Presidential election and third general election since the signing of the 1992 Peace Accords which ended 12 years of brutal civil war in that small country. H. Res. 110, introduced by myself and several members of the Subcommittee, congratulates the government and the people of El Salvador for completing this successful multiparty election which was deemed to be free and fair by an international observer group which included a member of my Subcommittee staff. This election, in which every registered political party received votes, represented a clear expression of the will of the people of El Salvador; reaffirmed the success of the Peace Accords; and demonstrated the strength and diversity of the democratic process in El Salvador. Since 1994, current President Armando Calderon Sol has worked tirelessly to ensure that the peace accords have been properly implemented and that El Salvador progressed both politically and economically out of the post-war era. For that effort, and for the continued cooperation of the opposition FMLN leadership, El Salvador should be commended. Now, President-elect Francisco Flores will lead a new government into the new century and I am confident he will continue the progress made thus far in national reconciliation and reconstruction. We wish him well. Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of El Salvador have made great strides over the past seven years. This election serves to validate a key element of that progress and reaffirms their strong commitment to the democratic process. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Moorpark High School, which, for the second consecutive year, will represent Ventura County in the Academic Decathlon California state finals on March 12. These 16 students are representative of the best and brightest our country has to offer. I say that without exaggeration. Moorpark High School's A Team is rated second-best in the country--quite a feat for a relatively small high school. And their coaches, head coach Larry Jones and assistant coach Michelle Bergman, are examples of what is right in our educational system today. Their dedication is to be applauded. Moorpark High School fielded two teams to compete in the Ventura County Academic Decathlon against the best and brightest from other country high schools on Feb. 6. At the end of the day, Moorpark High's two teams bested all the rest, coming in first and second. Now they are readying themselves to take on last year's state champion--El Camino High School, which is the only school rated higher than Moorpark in the nation. Unfortunately, because of contest rules, only Moorpark's A team will be able to compete in the state contest, even though the B team is rated higher than many of the other contestants. But rather than dwell on the unfortunate, the B team members are rallying their A team peers. These teen-agers are taking nothing for granted. For several weeks, the academic achievers have been studying at school until 10 p.m., then hitting a coffee shop or a student's home to study some more. The fine students representing the A team are: Valerie Lake, Mitul Patel, Ari Shaw, Arturo Barragan, Alexandra Dove, Rebecca Wershba, John Ellis and Nick Lange. The B team is represented by Shanna Gibbs, Tiffany Chou, Jennifer Lawrence, Shaun Berry, Tara Hernandez, James Marlier, Charles Pomerantz and Jason Sweitzer. On a personal note, let me add that Ari Shaw served as an intern in my office last year. The time he spent here apparently was positive: He won a gold medal during the contest for a speech on his experiences. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Moorpark High School Academic Decathlon Teams for their achievements to date, and in wishing the A team great success in the state championships.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to William L. Peck, a man distinguished by his 37-year dedication to our system of jurisprudence and, particularly, his service on the bench of the Ventura Country Superior Court. Judge Peck retired last month. His passion, wisdom and outspokenness in defense of the law will be missed within the Ventura County Hall of Justice. Judge Peck graduated from Boalt Law School at the University of California and Berkeley in 1961, and joined the Ventura County District Attorney's Office in 1962. In 1965, he went into private practice, where he remained until his appointment to the Ventura County Superior Court bench in 1980. He served in many capacities during his judicial service, including presiding judge in 1985 and 1986. During his tenure he also served as presiding judge of the Appellate Department of the Court, and retired as supervising judge of the Civil Trial Judges of the Superior Court. Judge Peck believes the justice system fails when a civil case goes to trial, and worked tirelessly over the years to bring parties to agreement. His efforts are credited with greatly reducing the court's calendar. The law was equally important in Judge Peck's work outside the courtroom. He served in several capacities on the Ventura County Bar Association, including president in 1972. For several years he served on the Conference of Delegates for the State Bar of California. He served on the California Judges Association Board of Directors. In addition, Judge Peck held memberships in the Ventura Country Criminal Defense Bar Association, Ventura County Trail Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association. He also shared his love of the law with schoolchildren by participating as a judge for several years at the Mock Trials Competition for Ventura County High Schools. He supported the education of our youth as a member of the Ventura County School District Board of Education, the Ventura County School Boards Association, the Ventura County Committee on School District Organization and the California School Boards Association. Judge Peck also served on a myriad of other community committees and boards throughout his distinguished career. His service was also recognized through numerous awards, including his selection as Citizen of the Year by the Ventura Junior Chamber of Commerce in 1983; and the Petit Award for Outstanding Community Service in 1980 from the Ventura Chamber of Commerce. When not accepting assignments as a retired jurist, Judge Peck will share his retirement with his wife, Laura. They have two children, Eric and Adair. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing William Peck for his decades of service and wish him and his family Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, all Children deserve to be educated to their fullest potential. It is for this reason I am reintroducing my measure today from last Congress, the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, along with my colleagues, Representatives Baldacci, Barrett (NE), Etheridge, Davis (FL), Ackerman, Shows, and Morella. Currently, the educational needs of our most talented students are not being met. Secretary of Education Richard Riley has even referred to this situation as a ``quiet crisis.'' As a result, these students are not reaching their full potential and not performing at world-class levels. This was clearly demonstrated by the disappointing results of Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) where our brightest students scored poorly and were not able to compete with their international counterparts. Our nation must foster excellence in these students who will become leaders in areas such as business, the arts, the sciences, and the legal and medical professions. The Gifted and Talented Students Education Act would provide incentives, through block grants, to states to identify gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic and racial backgrounds-- including students of limited English proficiency and students with disabilities--and to provide the necessary programs and services to ensure these students receive the challenging education they need. Funding would be based on each state's student population, with each state receiving a minimum of $1 million per year. I know you are as committed as I am to ensuring our nation's youth have all the tools they need for their future. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in pursuing this legislation which will ensure our nation's gifted and talented students reach their fullest potential and to ensure we have a new generation of Americans ready to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, providing a high quality education to our children is my highest priority. The key to achieving this goal is having high quality teachers. It is for this reason I am reintroducing my measure today from last Congress, the Teacher Investment and Enhancement (TIE) Act, along with my colleagues, Representatives Horn, Pomeroy and Paul. While it is important to know how to teach, it is equally if not more important to know what you are teaching. However, many teachers are teaching ``out-of-field'' and, therefore, are not sufficiently knowledgeable in their subject area. The TIE Act addresses this problem by providing secondary teachers the incentives to return to college to take courses in the classes they teach. This will be accomplished by doubling the current Lifetime Learning Tax Credit for tuition expenses for the continuing education of secondary teachers in their fields of teaching. This increase would allow such teachers to receive up to a $4,000 tax break for college tuition costs. It is pivotal to ensure teachers are well-educated. Offering more education opportunities for our teachers is an investment in our children and one we cannot afford not to take. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation and work for its passage.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Leonard Somdahl, a good friend and a man dedicated to the economic betterment of his community. On a day fraught with solemn, weighty and sad decisions, it's important to recognize the Americans in whose names we vote today, Americans who raise their families and work to make America strong. Leonard Somdahl is one such American. Leonard Somdahl was born and raised in Minnesota. He moved to the San Joaquin Valley in California in 1946, then migrated south to Ventura County. He worked for McMann Furniture, then went into business for himself. Thirty-one years ago, he started with First American Title Co. He retired from First American in August, but hasn't stopped working. I met Leonard during my years in the real estate business. His dedication to his profession and the business community impressed me. In addition to his dedication to First American, Leonard Somdahl took an active role in the Building Industry Association, Ventura County Chapter; the Ventura County Economic Development Association; the Christian Business Men's Committee in Santa Barbara and Ventura; and the Ventura County Taxpayers Association. As a member of the International Right of Way Association, he held all chairs and ultimately became president of Santa Barbara Chapter 47. Non-industry groups have also benefited from his generosity. Leonard Somdahl has participated as an active board member and charter member of Network for Housing, a nonprofit group to support affordable housing in Ventura County; is a past member of the Y's men's club and a financial support group for YMCA activities; and is a past volunteer for the Oxnard Boys Club. He has donated to such groups as Navajo schools in Arizona, the Lions Club, Muscular Dystrophy, the American Cancer Society, the Ventura County Rescue Mission, and City Impact, an organization to help young people get off drugs and improve their self- esteem. Leonard Somdhal is also a dedicated family man. He and his wife. Ellen, have raised a daughter and three sons. The couple have five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing Leonard Somdahl for his decades of service and wish him and his family Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very trying time for all of us, for the President, and for the country. But there are few things more important than standing up for the Constitution of the United States and for the rule of law. There are three points I will make this morning in support of the articles of impeachment. First, I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. And based on months of review, it is clear to me that President Clinton repeatedly lied under oath, intentionally and willfully, during a civil deposition and before the Federal grand jury. He also attacked the integrity of Congress by lying under oath in response to the 81 questions submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. Our legal system, which protects the rights and liberties of all citizens, is dependent on telling the truth, telling the truth under oath. The President is our chief law enforcement officer and our chief magistrate. When he lies under oath, he undermines the integrity of our judicial system and threatens the right and liberties of every one of us. Second, lying under oath after swearing before God and country to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is, and my fellow members I believe I know what ``is'' is, is an impeachable offense. Our legal system is dependent on people telling the truth, telling the truth under oath. Lying under oath undermines the rule of law. By lying under oath, President Clinton has also violated his presidential oath of office. Third, this is not about sex. It is about the rule of law. It is about lying under oath before a Federal judge and a Federal grand jury. Every citizen must obey the law, period. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore their laws are condemned to violence and chaos. We must state directly and strongly that the integrity of the judicial branch must not be violated. We must make it clear that all Americans are equal under the law. After much painful soul searching, I have reached the conclusion that impeaching the President for repeatedly and willfully lying under oath is necessary to protect the rule of law which is the foundation of our republic.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, the flu precludes me from taking part in this important debate on the Floor today. Nevertheless, I support this resolution, which expresses our strong support for the men and women of our military forces in their current action against the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. This resolution also reaffirms the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Over the past year, Saddam Hussein has been playing this cynical game of failing to fulfill the very inspection agreements which he, himself, signed as part of the peace agreement following his ill-fated invasion of Kuwait. Several weeks ago when Saddam Hussein notified the United Nations weapons inspectors that he was no longer going to cooperate with them and was halting the inspections, the world knew that Saddam was not serious about cooperation and that he was attempting to protect a dangerous arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons which he intended to use on his neighbors and enemies in the future. At that time, 6 weeks ago, the U.S. military leadership drafted a plan to resume military air strikes against Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The President ordered those plans to be executed and the air strikes were given the green light. We all know that at the last minute Saddam backed down and agreed to allow the U.N. inspectors to resume their work and the military strikes were called off. Many of us in the Congress, and in the country, were disappointed that the President backed down because we all knew that Saddam would not keep his word and that we would once again face down the road the need to strike at his weapons arsenal. Many argued that the failure to respond to Saddam at that time would create a greater threat to the region and to the world and would further embolden Saddam to flaunt his word and create these crises over and over again, betting that no action would ever be taken. Saddam's refusal last week to again honor his commitments, thus forcing the withdrawal of the U.N. inspection team from Iraq, had to be the last straw. The decision to bomb by the Commander in Chief, with the full support of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the correct decision because Saddam through his lack of compliance presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the region and the security of the international community. Last night's air raids despite their curious timing, represented the kind of decisive action which has been inevitable and unavoidable as long as Saddam felt he could get away with his acts of noncompliance. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein has proven time and time again that he is intractable. If Saddam had felt he could continue to get away with his actions without incurring any penalty, he seriously miscalculated the will of the people of the United States and that of the international community. As a Member of the International Relations Committee, and as one who has been a leader in support of decisive military action against Saddam Hussein as far back as 1991, I support the decision to take these actions against the regime of what can only be called a tyranny and a menace to society. I support the courageous men and women our military forces in these critical times and I wish them and their families Godspeed on this important mission.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Bill Morris, Jr., who was recently awarded the prestigious and rare 50 Years of Service plaque from Chevrolet Corp. He is the second of three generations to operate Chevrolet dealerships in Simi Valley-Moorpark, Fillmore and Santa Paula. He also has the distinction of being the second generation holder of a 50-year plaque; his father, Bill Sr., also earned one. His son Jeff is continuing the family business. If service to motorists of all shapes, sizes and automotive tastes was all Bill Morris had accomplished in the past 50 years, it would be quite a feat. But service is a byword with Bill: service to his business, to his family, and to his community. It is an attitude that helped his business to thrive. Many of his customers are second- generation buyers who bring with them bits of memorabilia or family pictures when they arrive to buy their car. Bill's father moved his family to Ventura County from the San Fernando Valley in 1929 to open a dealership in Fillmore. Soon thereafter, Bill Sr. opened a second dealership in Moorpark, which eventually moved to Simi Valley. A third location, in Santa Paula, was opened in 1939. The father passed to his son his business savvy and his belief that dedication to your family and community are the responsibilities of a successful man. Bill Jr. learned that lesson well. He and wife Jean have seven children and 14 grandchildren. Son Jeff is the newest operator of Wm. L. Morris Chevrolet. Bill has been a tireless supporter of our community's youth as continuous sponsor of community Little League teams and, most significantly, through Bill's tremendous involvement with the YMCA. His dedication to the business community earned him the distinguished Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce Businessman of the Year award in 1988. Bill raised his sons through the YMCA Indian Guide program. In 1984, he initiated the drive to start a YMCA in Simi Valley and served as the campaign chairman. In 1987, he served as Chairman of the Board for the Southeast Ventura County YMCA, which includes Simi Valley. As the years passed, the Simi Valley YMCA expanded from its initial leased classroom at a local church. The philanthropy now serves 400 children before and after school at 11 school sites, and 500 children and families in the YMCA's Indian program. Countless others participate in teen, Y-camper and grief support programs. When the board decided it needed a central facility, Bill once again stepped to the plate, taking on the chair of ``The Time Is Now'' capital campaign. Its aim is to build a $2 million, state-of-the-art, 23,000-square-foot facility with aquatics and fitness centers, a child-watch area, a multipurpose room, meeting rooms, offices and a park. With Bill at the helm, I have no doubt the dream will come true. Bill was also instrumental in building equestrian trails in Simi Valley and throughout Ventura County. He is honorary Past President of the Ventura Taxpayers Association, a 50-year member of Rotary International and a Paul Harris Fellow of the Rotary Foundation. His success as an entrepreneur and his willingness to share have helped to generate a successful community. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing Bill Morris, Jr. for his many years of service to his community through his business and philanthropic prowess.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as 1998 draws to a close, four countries in the Western Hemisphere bear close observation. Events taking shape in those nations could have a substantial impact on the region's stability, the pace of democratization and the success of economic reform. These nations worth watching include: Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Paraguay.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, It has come to my attention that a pending change to Medicare policy enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act will curtail access to needed outpatient therapy services for persons with severe disabilities and chronic health conditions. Effective January 1, 1999, this change limits payments for Medicare outpatient occupational therapy and physical therapy/speech-language pathology services (combined) to $1,500 per beneficiary per year. This is an arbitrary limit that will cause thousands of Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities to forfeit necessary care in excess of the $1,500 level, force them to switch health care providers when the $1,500 cap is reached, or require them to struggle to pay for continuing services out-of-pocket. Individuals recovering from stroke, who have Alzheimer's Disease, or who have advanced multiple sclerosis are among the Medicare beneficiaries that often need therapy services beyond that available under the $1,500 cap. It is these individuals and their families who will be hurt by this pending provision. I know that major national consumer, professional, and provider organizations are calling for the repeal of this provision or, at a minimum, for a delay in its implementation. For the past six months, these groups have explained that such limits on rehabilitation services are necessary, are not grounded in rational policy, and will carry harmful consequences for Medicare beneficiaries. Despite much discussion, it appears that this Congress will conclude its work without addressing the $1,500 Medicare cap issue. I share the concern that many Medicare beneficiaries are at risk of losing access to need outpatient therapy services after January 1, 1999. I urge my colleagues to investigate the consequences of this pending change in Medicare payment and remedy the situation before it begins to cause serious harm to beneficiaries with disabilities and chronic health conditions and their families.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Greg Stratton, the man who was elected to the Simi Valley City Council in the same election as I, and who succeeded me as Mayor of the city I still call home. Greg's guidance as mayor for the past 12 years has kept Simi Valley a most extraordinary place to live, even as it has matured and endured its share of arrows and hardships. Greg was elected to the Simi Valley City Council in 1979, but his involvement in the community began long before that. Soon after he moved to Simi Valley, Greg began making a difference through his involvement in the Simi Valley Jaycees and his role in helping to found the Boys & Girls Club of Simi Valley. He served on the City Incorporation Study Committee and chaired a Neighborhood Council. In 1986, he was elected Mayor of Simi Valley. Under his leadership, Simi Valley has consistently been recognized as one of the safest cities of its size in the country. For the past 18 years, the city has also been recognized for the quality of its Financial Reporting program by the Government Finance Officers Association, a testament to Greg's reputation as a fiscal conservative, or--as some would say--tightwad. During his tenure as councilman and mayor, Greg was vital in preserving the community's hillsides and controlling residential development through the City's Hillside Performance Standards and City Council-initiated Growth Control Ordinance. Those balanced measures still allowed for residential and business growth in an orderly fashion. Greg also deserves credit for the construction of several new city facilities, including the City Hall in 1984, the Senior Citizens Center at about the same time, and a Transit Maintenance Facility for the city's bus fleet in 1989/90. A new, 53,000-square-foot, state-of-the- art Police facility opened adjacent to City Hall this month. Greg was also instrumental in bringing other government services to Simi Valley and centrally locating them at the Civic Center. Among them are construction of a state Department of Motor Vehicles office in 1989 and construction of a County courthouse in 1990. Also under his direction, the City's Sanitation Treatment Plant was expanded and was recognized by the State of California as ``Plant of the Year.'' Being Mayor, however, does not mean just providing government facilities. A brand new facility for the Boys & Girls Club opened in 1996 under his guidance. The Community Methodist Church was restored and transformed in a 300-seat Cultural Arts Center in 1985. Amtrak passenger rail and Metrolink commuter services came to Simi Valley under his reign. New businesses have come in, providing a needed equilibrium in the community. Potholes have a short lifespan. Smut has been discouraged. Gang activity has decreased. Greg exhibited true leadership when a trial was thrust upon the community that threatened to unfairly soil its name and again when the Northridge earthquake devastated much of the city. It is a leadership that will be sorely missed. However, Greg's legacy will live on. In 1995, he launched the Vision 2020 Project, a strategic planning process designed to lead the city's evolution well into the next millennium. It was launched as a community project, ensuring its endurance even as Greg moves on. Mr. Speaker, Greg is retiring from public office, but I have no doubt he and his lovely wife, Ede, will continue to make their presence known in all aspects of the Simi Valley community. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him godspeed in any endeavors he wishes to tackle.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I, without pleasure, rise today in support of the resolution. General Leave

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Moustapha Abou-Samra, this year's recipient of the Physician of the Year Award from the Ventura County Medical Resource Foundation. Dr. Abou-Samra, a neurosurgeon who practices at Community Memorial Hospital, Ventura County Medical Center and St. John's Hospital, has made valuable contributions to Ventura's medical community for nearly 20 years. He is president of the Community Memorial Hospital Foundation, serves on its Board of Trustees and is a member of the Benefactor's Committee. At Ventura County Medical Center, Dr. Abou-Smara served as president of the medical staff, was Chief of Surgery, and served as Chairman of the Quality Assurance Committee and of the Ethics Committee. Dr. Abou-Samra also taught classes on ``Understanding Cancer.'' He served as the president of the board for the American Cancer Society and was presented the prestigious Golden Sword Award by the organization. Dr. Abou-Samra introduced and coordinated the ``Think First Program,'' a head and spinal prevention program that has become recognized nationwide. Dr. Abou-Samra also has served on numerous other boards, including the Easter Seals Board of Medical Directors, the Ventura County Symphony and St. Paul's Parish Day School. He is currently on the board of the Ojai Festival. Dr. Abou-Samra is obviously deserving of this award. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing Dr. Abou-Samra for his many years of promoting a healthy America and wish him many more years of service to the medical community.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. I do object.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. I rise reluctantly because I have tremendous respect for my chairman. He has done a yeoman's job. I do not know of anyone that has worked harder to try to reach a consensus on a very difficult piece of legislation, a very important piece of legislation. But I will reluctantly oppose the unanimous consent.