Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last winter, due to an expired exemption to existing law, consumers lost the legal right to unlock their cell phones so that they could use them on a different wireless carrier. Outraged consumers flooded Congress and the White House with complaints over this change in policy that resulted in reduced marketplace competition. In response to this impact on consumers, a bipartisan group of House Judiciary Committee members introduced H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. The legislation reinstates the prior exemption to civil and criminal law for unlocking cell phones for personal use. It also creates an expedited process to determine whether this exemption should be extended to other wireless devices such as tablets. When this legislation is enacted, consumers will be able to go to a kiosk in the mall, get help from a neighbor, or see a wireless carrier to help unlock their cell phone without any risk of legal penalties. This is not the case today, which is why this legislation is necessary. H.R. 1123 is supported by such diverse groups in the cellular industry, from the large carriers of CTIA to the small carriers of the Competitive Carriers Association. Although these two groups announced a private sector agreement in December on unlocking based upon this same legislation, that agreement cannot eliminate the potential of civil and criminal sanctions for consumers who unlock their cell phones. So the need for the legislation remains. Even Consumers Union supports this critical legislation. The committee has been aware of law enforcement concerns regarding the explosive growth in smartphone thefts. Efforts by criminals to undertake bulk unlocking and transfers of stolen phones are a growing concern in America. Smartphones seem to have become crime magnets in many cities across America. Because the policy issue has always focused on the ability of consumers to unlock their phones, the legislation is similarly focused on individual consumer unlocking without raising law enforcement concerns. Why would it make sense for Congress to enable criminal gangs to more easily make money off stolen phones instead of simply solving the main issue of consumers being able to unlock their own phones? Some would like this legislation to go even further. However, I hope all can agree that this is a good start and a solid piece of legislation that will empower consumer choice. I urge my colleagues to support this important proconsumer legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1123, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1123) to promote consumer choice and wireless competition by permitting consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., would like to take this opportunity to thank David Lachmann for his service to Congress and congratulate him on his retirement. David has worked in the House of Representatives for the past twenty-five years, many of those with the House Committee on the Judiciary. David began serving as Legislative Director for Congressman Nadler's office in January 1993. He joined the staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary in 1998 as minority staff for the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. In 2001, David moved with Representative Nadler to the Constitution Subcommittee and became its Chief of Staff in 2006. David has spent nearly thirty years in public service. Prior to joining Representative Nadler when he became a Congressman in 1993, David served as Legislative Assistant to Representative Stephen J. Solarz from 1989-1992. From 1985 to 1989, David was the Chief of Staff to Eileen C. Dugan, a member of the New York State Assembly, representing part of Brooklyn. A native of New York City, David is a graduate of Boston University and holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Political Science. David's ability to work well with his colleagues, especially across the aisle and across the Capitol, made him a valuable staff asset to passing many key pieces of legislation. He had the lead staff responsibility in the House for several significant bills that were enacted into law including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (Public Law 106-274). He was the lead Democratic staffer during the debate over the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and has been a key resource to Members, various Administrations, and colleagues on and off the Hill during the Subcommittee's consideration of critical constitutional, civil rights, and civil liberties issues. We are deeply appreciative of the service and contributions that David has provided the Judiciary Committee and the Congress for the past twenty-five years. Over this time, many people on and off Capitol Hill have been fortunate to call him a colleague and friend. He will be missed. We wish him the best of fortunes and fulfillment in his future endeavors.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, saw some of the most intense fighting of World War II. Among them on D-Day was Sergeant Robert L. Sales of Madison Heights, a member of the Virginia National Guard Company B, 116th Infantry. After coming under fierce attack in the first wave of the invasion, Mr. Sales made his way to the seawall. He was the only man from his landing craft to survive the landing and went on to continue fighting on the frontlines. Thanks to his selfless service, the citizens of France were given hope of once again living in freedom. It was this heroic service that earned Mr. Sales the French Legion of Honor nearly 70 years after the Allied invasion. He was one of six World War II veterans to receive the French Legion of Honor directly from French President Francois Hollande at a ceremony in Arlington on February 11, 2014. The French Legion of Honor is France's highest distinction and is presented as an expression of gratitude for aiding in efforts to liberate France from enemy forces. Those eligible for the medal must have fought in one of the major French liberation campaigns, which includes the D-Day landing at Normandy. As a member of ``The Greatest Generation,'' Mr. Sales joined the Virginia National Guard in 1941. The actions of Mr. Sales throughout his service in World War II also earned him America's deepest gratitude and well-deserved military honors, including the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. As we recognize the valiant service of Mr. Sales, we are reminded of all service members who have made tremendous sacrifices and our responsibility to honor them every day. I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Sales on becoming a Knight of the French Legion of Honor. I am grateful for his service, and the service of all of our veterans, in the defense of this great Nation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Representatives Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith, I submit these remarks in honor of the remarkable life of William Overstreet, Jr. and his dedicated service to the United States of America. Mr. Overstreet, a native of Clifton Forge, VA and a longtime resident of Roanoke, VA, was a veteran of World War II. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army Air Force with the 357th Fighter Group. He flew more than 100 missions in Europe. While on a mission in 1944, Mr. Overstreet's flight turned into a moment that will forever be captured in history. In pursuit of a German aircraft, Mr. Overstreet flew his plane beneath the arches of the Eiffel Tower in Nazi-occupied Paris, shooting down the enemy plane. His actions were a source of great encouragement and motivation for the French people and French Resistance troops on the ground. Mr. Overstreet received numerous honors for his actions, including France's Legion of Honor in 2009 from the French ambassador to the United States at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, VA. When presenting the medal, the French ambassador lauded the actions of Mr. Overstreet and the role he played in the liberation of France. Mr. Overstreet passed away on December 29, 2013 at the age of 92. To many in the Roanoke community, he was known as a selfless man who was dedicated to serving others. For those who knew Mr. Overstreet, it was certainly a well-deserved honor. His heroic actions in the face of the enemy have inspired many and will live on in stories told of ``The Greatest Generation'' of Americans who fought to preserve the principles we hold dear. As we remember the life of Mr. Overstreet and his valiant flight, it is a reminder that we must always pay tribute to our veterans and active military who have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure that the United States of America remains a country where liberty and freedom prevail.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I consume. However stark Americans' differences of opinions can be on the matter of abortion, generally, there has long been bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. The Hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor, former House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, has prohibited the Federal funding of abortion since 1976, when it passed a House and Senate that was composed overwhelmingly of Democratic Members. It has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for over 35 years, supported by Congress' control by both parties and Presidents from both parties. It is probably the most bipartisan, pro- life proposal, sustained over a longer period of time than any other. Just last week, a Marist landline and cell phone poll of over 2,000 adults found that 58 percent of those surveyed oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions. It is time the Hyde amendment was codified in the United States Code. H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Chris Smith of New Jersey, would do just that. It would codify the two core principles of the Hyde amendment throughout the operations of the Federal Government, namely, a ban on Federal funding for abortions and a ban on use of Federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, probably millions and millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared the horrors of abortion. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Hyde amendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer abortions each year. Let that sink in for a few precious moments. The policy we will be discussing today has likely given America the gift of millions more children and, consequently, millions more mothers and millions more fathers, millions more lifetimes and trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms. What a stunningly wondrous legacy. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would say that the evidence is overwhelming that the American people do not support using taxpayer funds for abortion, and the evidence is very strong that that should not be allowed under ObamaCare, either, and it is also very strong that individuals have the opportunity with their own private funds to purchase a policy that provides for abortion. It might be a separate policy from the policy that provides their health insurance. It would be probably not very expensive. That is their choice. That is their conscience. That is not what the American people expect to see done with their taxpayer dollars. In fact, as one of our committee witnesses pointed out, a majority of the public opposes government funding for abortion. Women oppose funding by a few percentage points more than men, and those who are poor and would presumably be those most likely to seek government funding for abortion oppose it more than those who are more affluent. The bill before us today is supported by all segments of American society, and it should be supported by this House, as well. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's pass it through the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Helene Combs Dreiling on her election as President of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). This distinguished position is well deserved and reflective of her many professional achievements in the field of architecture. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) is the professional membership organization for American architects, with more than 80,000 members across the country. In addition to her new position as President, Ms. Dreiling has served the AIA in numerous leadership roles. Currently, Ms. Dreiling serves as Executive Director of the Virginia Center for Architecture, a Richmond-based non-profit that develops the public understanding of architecture through a broad array of outreach programs. She is also a past member of the board of trustees of the American Architectural Foundation and a past president of the Virginia Society, AIA and AIA Blue Ridge. Ms. Dreiling received her Bachelor of Architecture degree from the College of Architecture and Urban Studies at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. She is a resident of Roanoke, VA, which is located in the Sixth Congressional District. Throughout the ages architecture has been at the very foundation of our society, representing the greatness of our past and the promise of our future. It can be seen in the pyramids of Ancient Egypt, the coliseums of the Roman Empire, and the monuments that grace our nation's capital today. Architecture plays an ever-important role in ensuring the structural foundations of our communities and our legacy for future generations. It is an honor to recognize Ms. Dreiling. I am certain that the AIA will benefit greatly from her leadership, and I wish her the best of luck during her tenure as President.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The manager's amendment was developed based on discussions with a cross-range of industry stakeholders, the input of Members from the House and Senate, the courts, and the administration, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. My amendment consists of technical edits and a few modifications that improve the bill. The manager's amendment includes clarifications and edits to the limitations on discovery prior to a Markman or a claim construction hearing. They ensure that the provision works effectively and can be complied with, providing additional discretion for the courts to ensure the provision does not result in reverse gamesmanship. The amendment also makes clarifications to the bankruptcy provisions so that they work properly, ensuring that U.S. law is followed and not foreign law. Further, it includes modifications to the deadlines for various studies to provide the agencies enough time to prepare and develop their reports. The manager's amendment makes additional clarifications and modifications that, on the whole, make necessary and positive improvements to our patent system. The Innovation Act targets abusive patent litigation, protects the patent system, increases transparency, prevents extortion, and provides greater clarity. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is unusual for a party in opposition to oppose a manager's amendment because they don't disagree with the provisions in the amendment but, rather, say that they don't make enough changes. So, even though it is acknowledged that this improves the bill, that still causes opposition. But I want to address what the gentleman says he wants in the manager's amendment. Section 365(n) of title XI prevents a bankruptcy trustee from terminating licenses to patents and other intellectual property of the debtor. When Congress enacted Section 365(n) in 1989, it recognized that allowing patent and other IP licenses to be revoked in bankruptcy would be extremely disruptive to the economy and damaging both to patent owners and to licensing manufacturers. Manufacturers often invest billions of dollars in reliance on their right to practice a technology pursuant to a license. Allowing the license to be eliminated in bankruptcy would create commercial uncertainty and would undermine manufacturing investment. In recent years, some bankruptcy trustees have tried to subvert the protections of section 365(n) for U.S. intellectual property by filing bankruptcy in a foreign country and demanding that U.S. courts extend comity to termination of licenses to U.S. intellectual property in the foreign proceeding. The provision that the gentleman wants would eliminate important provisions that would eliminate--the underlying bill provisions eliminate this uncertainty and would guarantee that licenses to U.S. patents and other IP will always be protected in U.S. courts. The gentleman wants something that would undermine that. Failing to include this provision, a manufacturer deciding where to build a new fabrication plant would face a powerful incentive to invest his resources in a foreign country that protects IP licenses instead of in the United States. The gentleman's provision that he would like to see in the manager's amendment would encourage offshoring of U.S. manufacturing. So I strongly support the language in the manager's amendment and object to the suggestion that his provision that is not in this amendment, which we will also address later in the amendment debate, would enhance the manager's amendment. It would not. It would have the opposite effect. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman from Michigan complains of is supported by the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the 21st Century Coalition, which is a group of manufacturers, the Semiconductor Industry Association. They very strongly support the provision in the bill that is enhanced in the manager's amendment because, otherwise, we would be allowing a foreign trustee, a foreign bankruptcy trustee to liquidate licenses and create great uncertainty in the free market. That is definitely not what is intended by this legislation, and it would create a giant loophole that would create incentives to locate businesses, manufacturing businesses outside the United States rather than inside the United States. The language is very definitely needed, and I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, this amendment includes language that we believe is already implicit in the Innovation Act's fee-shifting provision section 3. The gentleman's amendment adds language that allows a judge to reduce an award in certain circumstances. This amendment is redundant with the provisions in the bill and does not appear to add anything new but, rather, adds extraneous language that simply adds clutter to the section. The Judiciary Committee considered and rejected this amendment during its markup of the bill. The fee-shifting language in the bill is a carefully crafted compromise that we negotiated on a bipartisan basis in the committee. Mr. Jeffries offered an amendment at the committee that was adopted and included in the bill that modified the fee- shifting language. With that amendment, all but five committee Democrats joined with all voting Republicans of the committee and reported the bill by a vote of 33-5. This amendment upsets that balance and should be rejected.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. I believe it is both, and it causes confusion in the legislation, and, therefore, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).