Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the problems with the amendment is that it does nothing about the preconditions for the allocation of funds. Currently we believe only six States qualify. Request for Modification to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the amendment in the following way: To amend section 1802, the applicability section, to provide that the requirements of that section shall not apply to the provision of these funds, that would be the prevention intervention funds, that has been suggested by the Justice Department.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to comment on the frequently repeated claim that we are already spending $4 billion on prevention programs. The YMCA, the Young Men's Christian Association, did a good analysis of that assertion, and concluded that it is actually about $70 million, based on the GAO report. There are a number of other initiatives that actually have very little to do with prevention, and even though the $70 million is really for postcrime intervention, the programs have very little to do with preventing kids from getting into trouble. I think it is important that we stand up for our future. We all know that there are young people who have done awful things. They need to be held to account for their crimes. Some of them need to be tried as adults. We acknowledge that. But if we do only that, if we do only that, we will never get ahead of the problem of youth violence and crime that besets our communities. I have heard much about the amendment that will reach us or the prevention bill from the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The authorization available to that committee is $70 million for the entire United States. We are talking here about $1.5 billion. Our priorities are all wrong if we look at only reacting to problems, and never to taking the longer view and preventing problems from occurring. Mr. Chairman, I recently read a statement from Mark Klaas, whose daughter Polly Klaas was brutally murdered, and I am glad that her murderer received the death penalty which he so richly deserved, but that will not bring back Polly. Mr. Klaas said that building prisons prevents crime about as much as building cemeteries prevents disease.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Ellen Tauscher.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, we think about juvenile delinquency, and we know it is a serious problem in our country. I think it is very easy for us to lose our way, however, because we do not, as a country, often make the distinction between what we need to do for justice compared to what we need to do for public safety. The two are not always the same. For those who have been victimized by crime, there is never a fair answer. But we do know that victims of crime seek justice. They seek to be made whole. They seek punishment for those who did harm to them or to a loved one. That is a human emotion that we all feel and share, and our hearts go out to victims of crime. However, punishment does not always mean that we will have a system that keeps us safe. Our job as legislators is to acknowledge and to provide for victim's need to have justice in the system, but in a more generic way to take thoughtful, accountable, cost-effective steps to prevent more victims from being created, and to make sure that we have a safe society. The problem with H.R. 3 is that it takes $1.5 billion and puts it into systems that have not worked instead of putting it into systems that will keep us safer. We know when we look at the Federal aspects of the bill that it is very extreme. Automatic trial of 14-year-olds without judicial review who are alleged to have committed certain offenses will not make us safer. When we look at the system put in place for the States, we have already heard the comments that most States will not be eligible for funds. We also have received a communication today from the National Conference of State Legislatures pleading with us to oppose the mandates that are embodied in H.R. 3. We know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should listen to the Nation's police chiefs. Nine out of ten of the police chiefs of America, in a recent survey, say that America could sharply reduce crime if government invested in some early prevention programs. Police chiefs picked investments in kids by a 3 to 1 margin over other alternatives, including treating and trying juveniles as adults. So, yes, let us hold young kids accountable when they need to be. There are some teenagers who need to be tried as adults, who need to be held to adult standards. Our system provides for that, and it should. But if we do only that, if we neglect the thousands and millions of young people who are starting to go off track right now, we will never get ahead of this problem and we will do a disservice to public safety.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, last week we had an open rule on patents. That is an important issue. Today we had an open rule on endangered species and flooding. My district has flooded three winters in a row. That is an important issue. But neither one of these issues rises to the importance of juvenile delinquency and the threat it poses for our country. Mr. Speaker, I think that to have 200 minutes to discuss the issues of juvenile delinquency and what as a country we can do about them is not appropriate. The underlying bill before us takes the $1.5 billion currently slated to flow into our States and communities from the Violent Crime trust fund and puts it all into a scheme of mandatory trial of teenagers as adults. The interesting thing is that from our analysis, arguably only 12 States are going to even be allowed to apply for the funding because the others do not have the scheme required by the act. Mr. Speaker, I do not think $1.5 billion for 12 States--and not one cent for prevention--is what this country needs to address juvenile delinquency. There are certainly young people who need to be tried as adults. There are young people who have done horrible things. But we know that doing nothing but punishment will not solve our problem. My friend Mark Klaas, whose wonderful daughter was murdered, said something along these lines: ``To say that we are curing crime with prisons is kind of like saying we are going to cure disease by building cemeteries.'' It is too late to deal with the problem only after the fact. We need to lend our efforts to preventing crime as well. We also need to have all of the energies and all of the thoughts of every Member of this body, not just one party line vote. We need to have rigorous debate, not 200 minutes. I would urge a no vote on the rule.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, because as so many of our colleagues, as I said earlier, have not really had a chance to take a look at this bill, and the vote will be tomorrow, that we go through some of the flawed elements of H.R. 3, and they are serious. As others have mentioned, there are currently, I think last year there were, I think, 197 juveniles in the Federal system. However, under the bill we are mandating, in the case of 14-year-olds, requiring prosecution of 14-year-olds as adults without any discretion on the part not only of judges but without any discretion on the part of prosecutors either. Further, the bill permits prosecution of 13-year- olds as adults in the Federal system. Now, I think most of us know that even very young children can do truly awful things and that there are occasions, and opinion is divided, but I believe there are even very young children sometimes who need to be held to an adult accountability. But to automatically make that decision without doing a case-by-case review is not supported by the facts and will not make us safer. There is another issue in the bill that I think many Members need to be aware of, and it is a proposed massive expansion of the Federal role in juvenile delinquency and law enforcement. Under the bill, and there will be an amendment tomorrow, there is a whole series of Federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit offenses. Included are virtually all drug crimes and drug trafficking crimes. Now, no one likes drug trafficking. No one approves of it. But when we include conspiracy to commit a drug trafficking crime, the truth is that we are talking about having Federal police having the ability to go into towns and cities throughout this country and prosecute and arrest 13-year-olds standing on the street corner, part of urban street gangs. I trust our local police, I think, a whole lot more to do that. I think I trust our local DA and our local judges a whole lot more to do that local law enforcement job than the creation of a U.S. police force. I think that is something that needs attention on the part of Members. Finally, I think we need to take a look at who, even at this late date--and this has been quickly done--who is on which side of these issues. We already know that the State legislatures oppose the bill. I just got letters in today from the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the Churches of Christ all urging Members of this House to oppose H.R. 3. Why? They realize that the scheme outlined in the bill not only will not make our country safe, but it is inimical to our Christian faith. And I think all of us need to pay close attention to the guidance that the clergy is giving to us in this matter. Finally, the gentleman from Florida, as chairman of the committee, did mention, and I think we need to review this, that there is some $4 billion in funding for prevention anyway in the government. The YMCA, the Young Men's Christian Association, did an analysis of that assertion, and I am going to make it available to Members tomorrow morning in the mail, but I think it is worth pointing out that included in that $4 billion are things that have nothing to do with prevention. And the YMCA concludes that the programs and the funding is not correct. It is misleading. I know the gentleman did not intend to mislead, but I think it is important that the Y's analysis be made available to the public. With that, I would simply say that our bill is tough on crime, it recognizes that young people do need prosecution, but it also understands if we only do that, it is saying we have to have more victims before we respond. As Mark Klaas said, ``Saying that we are building prisons to solve crime is like saying we are building cemeteries to solve the problem of the deceased.''

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is absolutely right. We need to do all of the things. We need to do prevention, intervention, we need to incarcerate some kids and in some cases there are some very tough kids who need to be tried as adults in my opinion. But to say that the $1.5 billion can go to those 12 States for incarceration because we are going to have a prevention bill coming, that prevention bill has $70 million. So the $70 million for prevention versus the $1.5 billion for trying young people as adults, that is not a balanced program. That is an extreme program and one of the reasons why we should not approve H.R. 3 tomorrow.

Ms. LOFGREN. So we are down to 11, maybe?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth pointing out, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I was distressed that this bill received just 12 hours, really, of discussion. And there were a lot of things that are unknown. For example, we did know that only arguably 12 States would qualify. I must point out, California is not among those 12. But we did not specify who gets the excess funds. So it is possible that Florida gets California's money or not. This is a real issue because right now the money we are talking about, the $1.5 billion, is in the violent crime trust fund. Those funds are currently flowing to States and localities. Every State is getting some of that money and so it will be a real loss to cops and prosecutors who are currently getting funding if States do not qualify and we know some do not and some will never. So this is important. I know you have a few closing remarks but this bill is flawed in so many ways that I hope to have an opportunity to go through some of them, because I think so many of our Members have been busy on budget or other, HUD or other items that they have not yet had a chance to really go through the bill line by line as we have on the Committee on the Judiciary and as the gentleman has as one of the co-chairs of our committee. I hope to go through a couple of other points when the gentleman finishes his presentation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Robert R. Smith, of Morgan Hill, CA, who will be honored May 31, 1997, by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and others on the occasion of his retirement. I ask that you and the other Members of this distinguished body join me to pay special tribute to his important achievements in the area of water management. Bob has been helping to manage the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Water Utility Enterprise over the last 7 years, which includes design, construction and operations programs involving groundwater recharge, importation of water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, water treatment and reclamation. His contributions to western water management span a career of over 33 years, 15 of which have been in management at the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A native of Michigan, Bob is a graduate of Michigan Technological University. He began his career at the Los Angeles County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in a variety of civil engineering positions in the areas of hydraulics and project management. During the course of his distinguished career, Bob served as superintendent of the water operations and maintenance at the northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and manager/district engineer at the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, before joining Santa Clara Valley Water District. Bob first served as flood control manager at Santa Clara then was appointed in 1990 as assistant general manager of the water utility. Bob Smith's leadership has been central to the successes the district has achieved in addressing the flood control needs and water supply challenges of Santa Clara County. His expertise and thoughtful approach to both management and technical issues continue to manifest themselves in the breadth and quality of the district's programs and projects. Bob Smith provided a major contribution to the successful implementation of the district's ongoing planning, design, and construction of its $500 million flood control program featuring Federal assistance from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service. He worked closely in negotiations with numerous Government agencies, and in collaborative discussions with State and Federal agencies in developing district solutions. His work with the district's congressional delegation over the years set the tone and standard for an emerging new era of cooperation and Federal involvement in our county. His vision and personal efforts in the establishment of State and Federal water policy at the administrative and legislative levels have been tremendous, including his participation in the resolution of the diverse issues relative to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Bob Smith epitomizes the best of a public agency executive. The high regard in which he is held throughout the California water resources establishment and in private industry marks Bob as one of our most effective and respected water leaders. He is known throughout the State for his technical expertise and insightful leadership. He has inspired and mentored many executives, and is a highly respected role model for many young managers. Mr. Speaker, one of Bob Smith's best qualities is his love and tremendous support for his family. Bob and Lolly and their children Leeanne and her husband Fred, and Robbin and her husband Oke, have built a warm family life in Morgan Hill and now the grandchildren Merideth, Miranda, and Conner are nearby, which makes life that much sweeter. While Bob and Lolly will now have more time to spend with family at their second home in Montana, we hope we can call on Bob in the future to seek his counsel on water policy matters. He will be missed tremendously at the district and in the county and State water circles. Please join me in wishing Bob and his family well and in thanking him for his outstanding service to the district and to the community.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I heard a statement just a few minutes ago, and I think it needs to be addressed, that there is nothing currently going on by way of the submarine patent issue, that that problem was already solved, and the like. I had to mention, I did mention last week a letter received by Charles Trimble, President and CEO of Trimble Navigation, one of the premier firms in Silicon Valley. I just wanted to quote a couple of the things he said in his letter. He said, From our view inside the Global Positioning System Industry, we see no harm to our industry from H.R. 400 and I support this legislation. As an inventor, I obtained basic patents, not to make money but to ensure that no one else would stop me from using my own patent or innovation in commercializing the GPS technology. Another reason for obtaining patents is to facilitate the licensing of technology to a larger company. The real issue is not only inventing a technology but reducing it to practice, generating a commercial market and creating a legitimate business activity. This activity is a critical backbone of our economy. He goes on to say that keeping patents unpublished or submarining until there is an emerging commercial industry that can be held hostage to costly and unnecessary lawsuits is a serious competitive threat to U.S. industries. And then, in fact, and this was dated March 11, 1997, Our industry is currently, he says, diverting significant amounts of money to combat a submarine patent that will most likely be proven not to read on our technology. This is a very sensitive issue. He is saying that this is not a large company versus a small company issue. This is an issue about who can get hot-shot patent lawyers to continue to press for money that they do not deserve, did not earn and are extorting.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I have struggled trying to find some way that I can support the amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. My colleague asked me to review it, and I regret that I cannot support it. I think many of us are striving to reach comity and to work in a bipartisan manner, but for this amendment it just cannot happen for me and I think that is true for many of us who have worked so long on this bill; and the main reason why is that, as others have indicated, it continues to permit submarine patents. The manager's amendment went a long way toward addressing the issue, whether anyone believes it is correct or not, addressing even the perception or the anxiety about small inventors, who wanted to not have a published application, who are uneasy about the change and updating of our law for the information age. And I think that that measure is sound and passed by voice vote last week. However, to provide that an application could never be published or might be published for many, many years later, as could be done with the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and is currently done under our present system, is not acceptable. I would point out one thing: I know this was not intended, I am sure, by the amendment, but you could, under the amendment, have a foreign inventor come to the United States, file an application for a patent in the United States only, and end up submarining American inventors. And I do not think that is a result that is good for our country. I want to mention a particular case, because so much has been said about countries in Asia. But the most notorious submarine patentor that I have been able to find is a Swedish individual, an alleged inventor, Olaf Soderblom, who filed for a United States patent in 1968 and it was not issued until 1981, 13 years later. The very early years of the patent pending application were spent by Mr. Soderblom fighting various battles with other independent U.S. patent applicants over who was the first inventor. However, a lot of the 13 years were used by Mr. Soderblom's attorney to manipulate claims to postpone any action on them. Mr. Soderblom never participated in or contributed to the public IEEE standards regarding his token ring technologies that he alleged as his idea. As he waited with his application just below the surface, the rest of the world moved forward and the token ring technologies that were really never contemplated by Mr. Soderblom at the time of his filing were invented; and fortunately for him or unfortunately for America, Mr. Soderblom did get some very excellent American patent attorneys. Press accounts indicate that he was paid over $100 million for his patent, something he never really designed, never used, never participated in. And this money came directly from United States companies and was deposited into his bank in the Netherlands, contributing to our adverse balance of trade. Mr. Soderblom has never resided in the United States. He has rarely visited the United States. He just came and took our money. Unfortunately, the amendment before us would allow that to occur again. I also need to discuss the issue of swooping, because it has been discussed several times by several speakers. Mr. Chairman, one would think by listening to the debate here that the small people, and I do not mean small in stature, but people who are not rich, people who are just starting out, are at risk under H.R. 400. The world, as my mother and father used to tell me, is not always fair. The truth is that one's ability to protect one's patent from swoopers at the time of patent issuance or at the time of publication, when rights attach under H.R. 400, is only as good as one's ability to step forward, get one's lawyers, stand up for oneself, and protect oneself. Now, fortunately, we have contingent fee operations in America, and there are plenty of attorneys who are willing to protect a good American inventor against an infringing Japanese multinational or Swedish multinational or whatever. But the truth is if one is not willing to fight for one's patent, one does not have any rights that will not be trampled on. That is true under the current system of publication at patent issuance. It is equally true under the proposed protection from the time of publication, 18 months out. I think it is important to say that because nothing changes in this regard as the result of H.R. 400.

Ms. LOFGREN. I just thought as a Swedish American I should speak as to the Nobel Prize committee and the number of Americans who are awarded Nobel Prizes. We know from Silicon Valley that Americans, and as the chairman has referenced, come in all stripes and from every part of the globe originally. One can walk into any high-tech company in the Silicon Valley and it feels like being in the United Nations, but they are all good Americans. Many of our Nobel Prize winners are originally of Asian descent, and we are proud of them as well.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. As I have listened here to this very vigorous debate, I have felt some concern, because I think there is some confusion that has been created, not intentionally I am sure. I generally, do not like agreements that are made by any administration when the Congress is not in agreement with them. I was not a Member of the House of Representatives in 1994, when this agreement was entered into. I was happily on the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, but I can recall at the time a very vigorous discussion in Silicon Valley that I participated in as a public figure about whether or not innovators and inventors believed that we should change our system to first to file, as opposed to first to invent. And it may not be that every part of the country has that kind of vigorous spirited debate about patent reform but as the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] is aware, that is the sort of thing that is discussed at home in Santa Clara County, and there were divided opinions. I think that for the most part people are very satisfied with H.R. 400 in Silicon Valley. I wanted to point out that we are not attempting to conform American patent law to Japan's laws or the European Union. What we are attempting to do is to make sure our innovators have every protection, that there is an even playing ground, that innovators are not put at a disadvantage. I think if one looks at the nature of patent law, and, actually, I have had occasion to get a copy of the Japanese patent law and compare it to United States patent and copyright laws, and almost word for word patent applicants in Japan are required to do what patent applicants in the United States and the European Union are required to do. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a copy of comparison between the Japanese, the United States, and European Community patent law. japanese law (4) The detailed explanation of the invention under preceeding subsection (iii) shall state the invention, as provided for in an ordinance of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. u.s. law Sec. 112 Specification.--The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. european community Article 83, Disclosure of the Invention.--The European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. I believe it is important that we talk about protecting our own people and our own innovators. There has been a lot of discussion that somehow the big, bad multinationals are after passage of this bill to the detriment of America. Well, the National Venture Capital Association members were here last week in the Capitol at a meeting, and the venture capitalists, who fund the startups, the little guys that are in the garages with the great ideas, they are for H.R. 400. They vigorously oppose the amendment defeated last week, and they are for small American innovators getting a better chance to be successful in America. I saw the gentleman from California's chart about Nobel prize winners in America vis-a-vis other parts of the world, and it makes me proud that we have so many great scientists in our country. I think we all have that pride. We want to make sure that we continue to have the cutting edge in innovation, that we continue to do better than everyone else in the world. Whether we agree on all of these amendments or not, I think as Americans in this Chamber we all agree we want our country to be successful. We want to keep that leading edge, because we know that the high technology, high value-added jobs that are represented by the so- called big, bad multinationals, companies I thought were good guys, like Intel, as well as the little bitty guys that are about to be funded by venture capitalists, and hopefully fulfill their dream to become a big guy like the Intels, that it is in protecting their interests vis-a-vis our foreign competitors that our future lies. Mr. Chairman, at this point we have had a very long discussion on this matter, and I do not want to unduly prolong it. I would just note that for those that are concerned about the memorandum entered into in 1994 between Commissioner Lehman and his counterpart in Japan, it was, unfortunately or not, depending on one's point of view, reached quite some time ago by the United States, and it is very clear that H.R. 400 is not really what was envisioned by the agreement although as far as I am aware we have gotten the advantage of some of their promises.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think that the secret source for uncovering this secret agreement has been found. It is the Commerce News Press Release for immediate release. It is 1994. The headline is, ``American Inventors Promised Swifter, Stronger Intellectual Property Protection by Japan.``

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note that the ranking member concurs in the analysis that the chairman of the subcommittee has just outlined.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am sorry. Of course. Since it was sent to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] I assumed, but I would be happy to, when we go back into the House of Representatives, I will ask unanimous consent that the letter be submitted in the Record. In the meanwhile I will make a copy for the gentleman.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted a quick comment. The chairman has received a letter. Mr. Lehman, our Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, has written to the chairman on this issue, and I want to quote him. He in his letter dated April 22 indicates that, and I quote: H.R. 400 contains provisions referred to as prior use rights that are intended to make the patent system fairer by allowing those who practice an invention before it was patented by another to continue to practice invention after the patent issued. According to Mr. Lehman, and again this is a quote: Mr. Campbell's amendment is unfair in limiting their rights to exploit the invention to the quantity or volume of use at the time of the prior use. In some instances they may have reasonably expected to expand operations at a later time and others that may be tantamount to eliminating the prior use right. That is Mr. Lehman's comment.