Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairman, the whole point of this debate is that when the Internet Moratorium Act was passed 2\1/2\ years ago, the commission was charged with recommending a fair and equitable and nonburdensome way of giving equal taxation for the Internet and non- Internet, insofar as State sales taxes are concerned. This amendment is essential so when we are extending the Internet, whether for 2 years or 5 years, or whether we are extending the moratorium, whether for 2 years or 5 years or permanently, we at least have some basis for saying we are going to look also at the entire question which is intimately associated with this question. (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the central question of this bill is twofold: One, will we protect the Internet from multiple and discriminatory taxes? And I think we all agree the answer is we must do that. And, two, will we set it up in such a way that the States will not be prevented from levying appropriate but nondiscriminatory and nonburdensome sales taxes on transactions over the Internet so that the tax bases are not destroyed, and so that all the local malls and stores are not discriminated against? A 2-year moratorium gives us the time to work that out without allowing practices to become so set that it is impossible to deal with that question later. So that is why we ought to adopt this motion to recommit for 2 years. And unlike the previous 2-year amendment, it does not grandfather in those multiple taxes in certain States. So for a 2-year moratorium to deal with these questions and help small businesses all over the country, my colleagues should vote for this recommittal motion.

Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair specify the rule that permits that, please, in the absence of unanimous consent.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I do not recall any such unanimous consent request.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of David Merrick, a legendary Broadway producer who passed away last Tuesday at the age of 88. The Broadway theater community, which I represent, owes a great debt to the talents of David Merrick. Merrick was responsible for bringing to audiences such great works as Gypsy, Hello Dolly, 42nd Street, and Oliver!, as well as dozens of other productions. His living legacy is proven every time one of his masterpieces returns to the ``Great White Way.'' Born to a poor family in St. Louis, Merrick grew up to become a major force in the Broadway theater. Producing a half-dozen or more plays and musicals in a typical season, it was estimated that at times he employed up to 20 percent of Broadway's workforce, while his shows amassed countless Tony Awards for excellence in the theater. Feared as well as respected by those in the industry, he had a flair for showmanship and publicity that set him apart, stopping at nothing to gain recognition for his plays. David Merrick could be ruthless, tyrannical, even downright nasty, and he reveled in his reputation as ``the abominable showman,'' but he loved the Broadway theater and he spent his life bringing to the stage works that moved us and entertained us. Today, the lights on Broadway shine a little less brightly with the passing of this great showman.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Chairman Hyde, Chairman Gekas, and Ranking Member Conyers in introducing legislation to follow up on the work of the Advisory Commission of Electronic Commerce. This legislation is not intended to be a final proposal, but rather to stimulate debate on a very important subject. I have no doubt the sponsors would find portions of this bill over which they would disagree, but we believe it is necessary to initiate discussion, to have hearings during which all points of view can be considered, and determine what action might be appropriate. It is in that spirit that I join my colleagues, and I look forward to working with my fellow members, the White House, state and local officials and the industry to form a fair rational approach to these complex but important issues.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor this morning's guest chaplain, Rabbi Jacob J. Schachter of the Jewish Center in New York City whom I have known for almost 20 years. Rabbi Schachter has been the spiritual leader of the Jewish Center since 1981. Under his leadership the Jewish Center has tripled in its membership. Rabbi Schachter has brought enthusiasm for Jewish life to the synagogue and to the local community throughout his tenure. Rabbi Schachter received Rabbinic ordination from Mesvita Torah Vodaas and holds a Ph.D. in Near East languages from Harvard University. Among his many accomplishments, Rabbi Schachter is an accomplished author, having collaborated on ``A Modern Heretic and a Traditional Community, Orthodoxy, and Americana Judaism'' and is the founding editor of the Torah u-Madda Journal. He is also the founding president of the Council of Orthodox Jewish Organizations of Manhattan, is a much sought after speaker on interdenominational dialogue under the auspices of the Jewish Community Center and the 92nd Street Y, and is a member of the Board of Governors of the New York Board of Rabbis. Unfortunately, Rabbi Schachter will soon be leaving the Jewish Center to become the dean of the Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik Institute in Brookline, Massachusetts, where his daily insights, wisdom and leadership will be invaluable to the State of Massachusetts and to the Jewish community, especially in Massachusetts. I want to wish him well in his new endeavors and thank him for all that he has done for the Jewish Center, for the Jewish community, and for the entire community in New York over the last 20 years.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, let me say that we have worked with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella); and they both have been very active on this and very accommodating, and we on this side agree with the modification. We have no objection. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the Members of this House to vote for the Shays-Nadler-Crowley-Morella amendment, and I want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his leadership on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. These are people who face discrimination or have lost their jobs because of illness or, most cruelly, are placed in the untenable position of choosing between expensive lifesaving medications and other necessities, such as shelter. This is where HOPWA comes in. HOPWA is the only Federal housing programming that specifically provides cities and States with the resources to address the housing crisis faced by people living with AIDS. It is a locally controlled program that provides maximum flexibility to States and communities to design and implement the strategies that best respond to local housing needs. Currently, fiscal year 2000 funds are serving people in over 67 cities across 34 States. This is a well-run, far-reaching, and successful program. But as the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. Ironically, as a result of the recent advances in medical science and in care and treatment, the people currently being housed are living longer and the waiting list for these programs are growing even longer. On top of these strains on funding, new geographic areas join HOPWA every year. Without a significant increase in funding, it will be unable to serve those already in the program, not to mention those who now seek to join it. Without proper funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily in hospital rooms, in shelters, and on the streets of our cities. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which would ban legal abortion procedures, is deceptive, extreme, and unconstitutional. The bill has come before us time and time again with the obvious purpose that has been obscured behind the inaccurate and inflammatory picture. Do not be fooled. This is nothing less than an attempt to outlaw all abortion. The bill is so vague that no one is quite sure exactly what we are banning. The courts have not been able to determine it. Similar State versions of the bill are currently enjoined in 18 States. Doctors have testified repeatedly and courts across the land have found that similarly worded bans can apply to virtually all procedures used in the second-trimester of pregnancy and each to some first- trimester abortions. Why do not legislators try to simply ban all abortions, then? Because the American people would not stand for it and the Supreme Court would not stand for it. The proponents of this bill oppose all abortion. They oppose first- trimester abortion. They oppose pre-viability abortion. They oppose Roe v. Wade. They oppose health exceptions. They oppose simple-life exceptions. Some even oppose contraceptives. Just ask them. They represent extreme forces in this country and most Americans reject their rhetoric and their views. So what is it we have before us, then? A dead bill, a bill that is not going anywhere, a bill that has been defeated more times than the Washington generals. Every year we point out its shortcomings and drafting errors and they refuse to fix it. And this bill will die again. Why should it die? Because it is unconstitutional on its face, because it does not provide for health exception, because it does not provide for an adequate life exception, because it is vague, because it limits the ability of doctors to offer medical care, because it allows abusive boyfriends to beat their pregnant girlfriends, abandon them, and sue them if they have an abortion. Why should this bill be rejected? Because it substitutes for a woman's choice a Government mandate. This bill is about the right to choose. Should the woman choose, or should the politicians choose for her? During the HMO debate, we all agreed that doctors and patients should make medical decisions, not bureaucrats. The same holds true here. Doctors and patients should decide what is the safest, most medically appropriate procedure for an abortion, not the U.S. Congress. Most of us are not doctors in this House and we should not place ourselves in the operating room between the women and their doctors. I hope the House rejects this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Mr. Robert Morvillo, a distinguished lawyer from the city of New York. Tonight, Mr. Morvillo will receive the prestigious Norman S. Ostrow Award, from the New York Council of Defense Lawyer. The Norman S. Ostrow Award is a symbol of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers' aspirations, namely the defense of liberty and the preservation of individual rights. Past recipients include such notable attorneys as Arthur Liman and Charles Stillman. I am pleased that Mr. Morvillo will soon join these distinguished ranks. A former president of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers, Mr. Morvillo graduated from Colgate University in 1960, and received his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1963. In 1964 he was admitted to the Bar in New York State and has appeared in federal courts across the country, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Morvillo has had an extensive and impressive career beginning in 1963 when he worked as a Law Clerk to William B. Herlands, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. From 1964-1968 Mr. Morvillo was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He then went on to become an associate at Reavis & McGrath, currently known as Fullbright & Jaworski. In 1970 Mr. Morvillo served for 1 year as the Chief Trial Assistant for the U.S. Attorney in Charge of Frauds Unit, and then served 2 years as Chief, Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. From 1973 up to the present, Mr. Morvillo has been a Principal of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason & Silberberg. In addition to these achievements, Mr. Morvillo lectured at Columbia Law School from 1973 to 1985, and since 1982 he has been the columnist of ``White Collar Crime'' for the New York Journal. He is a member of both the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York State and American Bar Association. From 1992 to 1996 Mr. Morvillo sat on the Board of Trustees for the Columbia Law School Association and he sat on the Board of Trustees for the Federal Bar Council from 1989 to present. He has been a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers since 1990, and is currently the Chairman of the American College of Trial lawyers, New York Downstate Committee. Mr. Speaker, I salute Robert G. Morvillo for his many years of dedication and hard work defending liberty and preserving individual rights.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, our country is flooded with deadly weapons, and it is time we take real action to protect our families and children from the wave of gun violence that is sweeping America. Too many innocent people have died because of the lack of tough, smart, Federal gun control laws. Too many criminals, mentally unstable individuals and children still have easy access to handguns. The American people are calling out for change in our gun laws. They support closing the gaping gun show loophole in the Brady law. They support banning large capacity ammunition clips. They demand trigger locks. And as the Million Mom March will demonstrate on Mother's Day, they also support handgun licensing and registration. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation that I introduced and several others introduced in September to require licensing and registration of all handguns. Mr. Speaker, the problem is not with the American people; they know what is best for the country. They support common sense gun safety legislation. The problem is with the leadership of this House that is subservient to the NRA. As long as the NRA controls this House, the people's voice will not be heard. Sadly, the American people pay a heavy price for the failure of the leadership of this House.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with an important message about the census to members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. While the census will not account for how many people are in the gay and lesbian community, the 2000 Census will count same-sex couples who live together. The census counts unmarried partners, regardless of gender, as well as their children. Mr. Speaker, the census is the most important source of information about who we are, where we live, what we earn, how we vary by race and ethnicity, and how many children we have. The census numbers matter. They lead to changes in laws and policies that affect all of our lives. I believe everyone in this Chamber is in agreement that it is important for every American to fill out their census forms and be counted. I do not believe I would be going out on a limb to say we all want people to fill out the forms openly and honestly. So if anyone out there is living with someone else as a couple, you should check ``unmarried partner'' to describe your relationship. The category ``unmarried partner'' appeared for the first time on census forms 10 years ago in 1990. That year, 150,000 households were counted as consisting of same-sex unmarried partners, clearly a severe undercount. Since then, we have seen an unparalleled increase in visibility for members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community, including those in unmarried partnerships. Yet, they are not accounted for. I applaud the efforts of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. These advocacy organizations are conducting an important national campaign known as ``Make Your Family Count,'' which urges same-sex couples to check the ``unmarried partner'' box on the census form when describing the relationship of two people from the same sex that are living together. The campaign is supported by other advocacy groups such as Human Rights Campaign and is receiving a good deal of attention in lesbian and gay news outlets throughout the country. They have also launched a Web site, http://www.wecount.org, with information about the census and guidance to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender couples on answering the census forms. Correcting this lack of accounting is an important step so that we can get an accurate picture of the American population and the current American family. The information is vital to determining congressional representation and funding for various community-oriented programs as well. I encourage everyone to accurately report to the Census Bureau critical demographic information that can lead to changes in Federal law and policy. Federal law guarantees that your answers will be kept confidential and the Census Bureau has a great record for preserving privacy, so there is no excuse for not being truthful in your response. You should make your family, you should make your relationships count. You should fill out your census forms. And if you are living with someone to whom you are not married, you should check the box for ``unmarried partners.'' Fill it out today. You will not be sorry.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the NRA told us we should not pass the Brady bill because the real problem was with the gun shows. We passed the Brady bill. In the last 6 years, 500,000 felons and mentally disturbed people were prevented by the Brady law from acquiring guns; and numerous lives, obviously, were thereby saved. Now we are trying to deal with the gun shows, and we are told we cannot require a 72-hour wait. Ninety-five percent of the time they will not need a wait of more than one day. Five percent of the people who want to buy guns cannot be cleared within a day. And those 5 percent are 20 times more likely, it turns out, to be felons or mentally disturbed people who should not get the guns, but they are the ones who would get the guns because we are told we cannot have more than 24 hours. Now, in this country we have 4\1/2\ percent of the world's population and 86 percent of the gun deaths in the entire world, 86 percent. This is absurd. Now we are told that the administration is not enforcing the law. Well, I think it has enforced the law, but the administration has asked for a large increase in enforcement. And, fine, we should increase enforcement. But what kind of foolish argument is it that says, they are not punishing people enough, therefore, do not do any prevention? These bills are designed to prevent gun deaths. Enforcement is designed to punish them. Let us do both. An argument that we should have more enforcement is not an argument against intelligent preventive legislation. No one would say, prosecute the drunk drivers more and eliminate the airbags and the seatbelts. That does not make sense. Finally, all this resolution asks, Mr. Speaker, is not that these bills be passed, not that our version be adopted, but simply that the conference committee meet. It has not met since August. If the conference does not meet, if this resolution is defeated, it will simply confirm once again that the Republican leadership is totally subservient to the National Rifle Association.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that you tend to get sick every time you fly? Many of us who are frequent flyers, know that the air on commercial flights is stale and poorly ventilated, and in some cases, it really does seem to make you ill. Though hundreds of flight crewmembers have reported hundreds of separate incidents of unexplained headaches, blurred vision and other health problems, no one has closely looked into this problem. Health risks associated with poor air quality in airplanes include exposure to toxins, airborne viruses, and ozone. These risks are worsened by the fact that passengers do not breathe fresh air on flights, but instead inhale re-circulated ``bleed air'' that passes through the engine. Passengers should be able to feel confident that they are not endangering their health when they fly to visit friends and relatives or as they arrive and depart from business trips. Airline industry workers should not feel their health is threatened as they earn a living. We must learn the nature and extent of the health risks that are associated with poor cabin air quality so that the problem can be corrected. After learning of the potentially dangerous health risks for frequent flyers and flight crewmembers, I urged the AIR-21 conferees during negotiations to include a study of the air quality on commercial flights in this bill. I am pleased that the conference report calls for a comprehensive, 12-month study into the air quality of commercial airplane flight cabins. The independent study, to be undertaken by the National Academy of Sciences, will look into the contaminants to which flight crew and passengers are exposed, as well as the consequences of using engine and auxiliary ``bleed air'' as air sources. This study is long overdue. The AIR-21 conference report also provides for a one-year study into the effects of helicopter noise on individuals in densely populated areas. As a representative of Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, I have heard the pleas from many of my constituents who have been plagued by the daily disruption of helicopter noise. It is time for the FAA to investigate the harm this noise inflicts upon residents and develop procedures to reduce helicopter noise as much as possible. The conference report addresses important safety concerns, as well as the growing capacity and infrastructure demands of the aviation industry. That is why I urge my fellow colleagues to support it.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this point of order, and I want to oppose a few cliches. Number one, the State capital does not always know best. Sometimes the Federal Government knows best. That is why we have a Federal Government and a Federal structure of government. If you leave it up to the States what the minimum wage will be, you cannot enforce the minimum wage, because businesses will tend to go to those States with a lower minimum wage and with less environmental protection. That is why we have Federal minimum wage laws and Federal environmental protection laws, so you do not have a race to the bottom because of the business climate in each State, so you can have a civilized minimum wage and environmental protection laws and occupational safety and health laws to protect workers. Number two, it is not an unfunded mandate. Nobody is telling the States what they have to do, what programs they have to do. All we are saying is if you hire workers to do whatever you want to do, you have got to pay them a decent wage, not even a living wage, merely the minimum wage. That is not an unfunded mandate. Number three, if it is construed to be an unfunded mandate, it shows one of the reasons that the unfunded mandate law was a foolish thing to pass because if it deprives us of the power of insisting on a basic minimum wage for people in States whether they work for State government or for private enterprise, it is foolish if we are deprived of that power because we are the tribunes of the people who must insist on minimum standards so that people are protected.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of the committee and the other members of the committee for bringing the bill to the floor today. It is critical that we continue to invest in basic research and technology and support the Next Generation Internet. The Government can play and has played a critical role in stimulating science and in improving people's lives. Government investment in basic research was essential to the creation and the development of the Internet we know today. We must continue to invest in cutting-edge technology and basic science to develop the Internets of the future. We must do everything we can to support this type of research. I support this bill specifically because it continues to fund the Next Generation Internet. This initiative focuses on developing revolutionary applications and networking capabilities that will dramatically increase the speed and efficiency of the Internet. The Next Generation Internet will be capable of operating at what we today would call incredible speeds. Imagine downloading data not at 56k, but at 622 megabits per second or even 2.4 gigabits per second or even 9.9 gigabits per second. That is what the future holds for Internet users if we continue to fund this. These types of networks will enable bandwidth-intensive applications, such as telemedicine, video-conferencing, advanced engineering, and virtual-learning environments. The Internet of the future ought to be able to transmit voice, date, and video quickly and efficiently. If we invest wisely and support continued funding, then it will do so. The National Science Foundation has played a central role in steering and providing seed money for this new national network. The bill recognizes the critical importance of strong Federal investment in basic research and science and specifically in the Next Generation Internet. The research of today will stimulate future economic development as the research of yesterday has stimulated our current economic boom, and the research of today will further benefit our economy and our country in future years. Again, I congratulate the committee; and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NADLER. Yes or no?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there are two questions, sir: One, the question of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), is it not true that the effect, if not the intent, and the point of the bill that even if a company, manufacturer, knows its goods are injuring or killing people and it sits on that knowledge, does not tell anybody, does not fix it, it would under this bill not be liable for anything?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this malicious bill threatens workers' safety and strips injured workers of their rights. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) did not want to answer the question, but if a manufacturer under this bill knew his product was unsafe, knew it was killing workers, knew it was injuring workers, and sat on his hands and did not fix it, did not do anything, he cannot be sued by the workers as long as the piece was over 18 years old. If in fact a durable good malfunctions and workers were injured, they would not have the right to sue the manufacturer for their injury, no matter how negligent it was, but the business owner would still have his full rights to recover for business interruptions due to the defective machinery. So the business owner gets to recover damages and the workers do not. This bill is effectively saying that profits are more important than physical injuries. Why the inconsistency? Either the manufacturer should be held responsible for his product or he should not. If the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for workers' injuries after 18 years, why should he still be responsible for the business owner's economic loss after 18 years? And conversely, if he is still responsible for the business owner's economic losses, why not for the injuries to the worker? This bill, Mr. Chairman, simply shows contempt for the workers of the country. It is an outrage. It should be defeated. I challenge the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or anybody else on the other side to answer the question, not to say it is not the point of the bill, but is it not the effect of the bill that even if the manufacturer, after 18 years, knows his product is killing people or injuring people, knows how to fix it, knows he should warn people, and does not, he cannot be sued for physical injury; he can be sued for business damages, but he cannot be sued for physical injury? Why should he not be subject to suit for physical injury in that case? Why is the business owner's economic damages more important than the worker's physical injuries, more important than loss of a limb or loss of fertility or life or permanent disfigurement? In what contempt do we hold the workers of the country? How contemptuous of the workers' safety is this bill? I challenge the gentleman from Ohio to answer these questions.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Representative Nita Lowey to announce the introduction of two bills to reduce taxes on Social Security benefits. The first bill would repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. I have always opposed this provision, and I believe that it is now time to repeal this tax on our Nation's seniors. The 1993 economic plan imposed additional taxation on the benefits of single social security recipients with incomes over $34,000, and on married recipients with joint incomes over $44,000 by including, in each case, 85 percent of Social Security benefits in taxable income. At the time, proponents of the tax increase said it was necessary to reduce to deficit. Remember the atrocious national debt had risen from $800 billion in 1981 to more than $4 trillion in 1993. The annual deficit, which was almost $300 billion a year in 1992, was projected to increase to $500 billion a year later in the decade. We passed a tough economic plan, the economy improved, and the deficit was eliminated. I believed it was unfair to tax seniors on their social security benefits to reduce the deficit, and, therefore, I joined with Representative Nita Lowey in offering a bill which would have repealed the provision immediately and taken other steps to reduce the deficit. We demonstrated that you could still reduce the deficit without increasing taxes on social security benefits. Now that 6 years have passed and the deficit has been transformed into a surplus, it is more important than ever that we abolish this unnecessary tax on seniors. So, again, I am joining with Representative Nita Lowey to abolish this unfair tax on social security benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and work toward its swift passage. Mr. Speaker, if we are unable to implement this bill quickly, then the very least we should do is adjust the 1993 income threshold to take into account the rise in the cost of living. That is why I am also announcing the introduction of another tax relief bill for our seniors, which should be implemented immediately. Again, I am proud to work with Representative Nita Lowey to advance this effort. This bill would ensure that we do not inadvertently tax more and more seniors with relatively less income every year. Under current law, the income levels that were set in 1993 were not adjusted for cost of living increases. As a result, more and more people are having their social security benefits taxes. This is unfair and unnecessary. So, this second bill would require the 1993 level to be adjusted on an annual basis to take account for the rise in the cost of living. I am hopeful that we can build strong bipartisan support for this legislation and work together to ease the tax burden on our Nation's seniors. I urge all of my colleagues to support these two tax cut measures.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, to express my support for the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, which is included as Title IV of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act. This act is included in the Omnibus spending package, H.R. 3194, that we are considering today. This patent reform measure includes a series of initiatives intended to protect the rights of inventors, enhance patent protections and reduce patent litigation. Perhaps most importantly, subtitle C of title IV contains the so-called ``First Inventor Defense.'' This defense provides a first inventor (or ``prior user'') with a defense in patent infringement lawsuits, whenever an inventor of a business method (i.e., a practice process or system) uses the invention but does not patent it. Currently, patent law does not provide original inventors with any protections when a subsequent user, who patents the method at a later date, files a lawsuit for infringement against the real creator of the invention. The first inventor defense will provide the financial services industry with important, needed protections in the face of the uncertainty presented by the Federal Circuit's decision in the State Street case. State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir., 1998). In State Street, the Court did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory patentable subject matter. Consequently, this decision has raised questions about what types of business methods may now be eligible for patent protection. In the financial services sector, this has prompted serious legal and practical concerns. It has created doubt regarding whether or not particular business methods used by the industry-- including processes, practices, and systems--might now suddenly become subject to new claims under the patent law. In terms of every day business practice, these types of activities were considered to be protected as trade secrets and were not viewed as patentable material. Mr. Speaker, the first inventor defense strikes a fair balance between patent law and trade secret law. Specifically, this provision creates a defense for inventors who (1) acting in good faith have reduced the subject matter to practice in the United States at least one year prior to the patent filing date (``effective filing date'') of another (typically later) inventor; and (2) commercially used the subject matter in the United States before the filing date of the patent. Commercial use does not require that the particular invention be made known to the public or be used in the public marketplace--it includes wholly internal commercial uses as well. As used in this legislation, the term ``method'' is intended to be construed broadly. The term ``method'' is defined as meaning ``a method of doing or conducting business.'' Thus, ``method'' includes any internal method of doing business, a method used in the course of doing or conducting business, or a method for conducting business in the public marketplace. It includes a practice, process, activity, or system that is used in the design, formulation, testing, or manufacture of any product or service. The defense will be applicable against method claims, as well as the claims involving machines or articles the manufacturer used to practice such methods (i.e., apparatus claims). New technologies are being developed every day, which includes technology that employs both methods of doing business and physical apparatus design to carry out a method of doing business. The first inventor defense is intended to protect both method claims and apparatus claims. When viewed specifically from the standpoint of the financial services industry, the term ``method'' includes financial instruments, financial products, financial transactions, the ordering of financial information, and any system or process that transmits or transforms information with respect to investments or other types of financial transactions. in this context, it is important to point out the beneficial effects that such methods have brought to our society. These include the encouragement of home ownership, the broadened availability of capital for small businesses, and the development of a variety of pension and investment opportunities for millions of Americans. As the joint explanatory statement of the Conference Committee on H.R. 1554 notes, the provision ``focuses on methods for doing and conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale or transfer of useful end results--whether in the form of physical products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other useful results; for example, results produced through the manipulation of data or other inputs to produce a useful result.'' H. Rept. 106-464, p. 122. The language of the provision states that the defense is not available if the person has actually abandoned commercial use of the subject matter. As used in the legislation, abandonment refers to the cessation of use with no intent to resume. Intervals of non-use between such periodic or cyclical activities such as seasonable factors or reasonable intervals between contracts, however, should not be considered to be abandonment. As noted earlier, in the wake of State Street, thousands of methods and processes that have been and are used internally are now subject to the possibility of being claimed as patented inventions. Previously, the businesses that developed and used such methods and processes thought that secrecy was the only protection available. As the conference report on H.R. 1554 states: ``(U)nder established law, any of these inventions which have been in commercial use--public or secret--for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid U.S. patent.'' H. Rept. 106-464, p. 122. Mr. Speaker, patent law should encourage innovation, not create barriers to the development of innovative financial products, credit vehicles, and e-commerce generally. The patent law was never intended to prevent people from doing what they are already doing. While I am very pleased that the first inventor's defense is included in this legislation, it should be viewed as just the first step in defining the appropriate limits and boundaries of the State Street decision. This legal defense will provide important protections for companies against unfair and unjustified patent infringement actions. But, at the same time, I believe that it is time for Congress to take a closer look at the State Street decision. I hope that next year the Judiciary Committee will consider holding hearings on the State Street issue, so that Members can carefully evaluate its consequences.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Modernization Act. Our rail freight system is an integral part of the distribution of goods across the Nation. The safe and efficient movement of rail freight in this country is an important, though at times unnoticed, part of the economy and the lives of everyday citizens. We take for granted that this system is working properly until goods do not arrive on supermarket shelves or the cost of heating our homes skyrockets due to costs caused by shipping delays. The trend of carriers to consolidate has left the Nation with only six major railroads. As a result of these mergers, new problems and issues have been created that were not addressed in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the law that created the STB. This bill attempts to address those issues and would improve the efficiency of the Nation's rail system and address many of the concerns of labor, shippers, and communities. First, this bill would provide necessary protection to rail workers by ending ``cram down.'' Cram down occurs when merging railroads override collective bargaining agreements with workers and ``cram down'' new terms on the workers to realize merger benefits. The STB has approved this practice for far too long. Under this bill, a collective bargaining agreement could be modified only if both the rail carriers and affected laborers agree. In addition, the existing minimum level of labor protection would be codified. Second, this bill would improve the efficiency of shipping in several ways. It would bring an end to ``bottlenecks'' along rail lines. In bottlenecks, the STB allowed one rail carrier to prevent or discourage a shipper from interchanging with another rail carrier for more direct service by refusing to quote a rate or quoting an excessive rate along its portion of a line. In addition, this bill would broaden the STB's authority to transfer or direct the operations of a line and ease the ability of a carrier to gain access to terminal facilities; and narrow the exemption from antitrust laws that railroads currently enjoy. Third, the bill contains several miscellaneous provisions that would address problems faced by rail carriers, shippers, and the public. The bill would reduce fees for bringing disputes before the STB, provide tax relief for carriers that invest in their rail yards, and codify the STB's decision to eliminate the requirement that shippers show an absence of product and geographic competition in rate cases. Fourth, this bill would create a Federal Railroad Advisory Committee to study, among other things, the efficiency, maintenance, operation, and physical condition of the Nation's rail system. After 2 years, the Committee would make recommendations for improving the system to Congress and the President. Overall, the STB Reauthorization Act of 1999 would guarantee that our Nation's rail system will be competitive, efficient, and safe as we enter the 21st century.