F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other government officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4772, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, to help all Americans defend their property rights. We are all painfully aware of one Supreme Court decision that threatens to deny Americans their constitutionally protected property rights. I refer to the notorious case of Kelo vs. The City of New London, in which the Supreme Court held that a city can take private property from one citizen and give it to a large corporation for ``economic development'' purposes. I led the charge to correct that terrible decision by introducing H.R. 4128, which passed the House of Representatives by the overwhelming bipartisan margin of 376-38. However, that bill now languishes in the other body despite overwhelming popular support. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's recent disregard for constitutionally protected private property is not confined to the Kelo decision. In the case of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, which was reaffirmed last term in the case of San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court upheld a set of procedural rules that effectively prohibit property owners from ever getting into Federal court to have their Federal property rights claims heard on the merits. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for authoring this vital legislation which will allow property owners to finally have their Federal property rights protected by the Federal courts. This bipartisan legislation was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on July 12, and I hope that this bill will receive similar bipartisan support on the floor today. I urge my colleagues to defend the private property rights of all Americans by supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5323, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5323, the Proud to Be an American Citizen Act, which enables U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or nonprofit entities to conduct naturalization ceremonies on or near Independence Day each year. The legislation gives us an opportunity to underscore the importance and privilege of U.S. citizenship. This legislation does not authorize new funds, but would provide up to $5,000 for each ceremony organized on Independence Day out of the funds already available to the Department of Homeland Security. The moneys provided under this bill would be sufficient to cover the basics for a ceremony to honor those who have worked hard and met the legal requirements to become United States citizens. The funds may be used only for the cost of government personnel needed to administer the Oath of Allegiance, facilities rental, brochures, and other logistics. The bill requires any nongovernment entity seeking to organize a naturalization ceremony to receive approval through the Department of Homeland Security. The bill allows new Americans to celebrate their naturalization in conjunction with celebrating America on Independence Day. I believe it is important that we support those who want to take the final step toward becoming Americans and those who have legally moved through the immigration system to obtain citizenship. I urge Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5323) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide for ceremonies on or near Independence Day for administering oaths of allegiance to legal immigrants whose applications for naturalization have been approved, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I do the same.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 683, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. The foundation of trademark law is that certain words, images and logos convey meaningful information to the public, including the source, quality and goodwill of a product or service. Unfortunately, there are those in both commercial and noncommercial settings who would seize upon the popularity of a trademark at the expense of the rightful owner and the public. Dilution refers to conduct that lessens that distinctiveness and value of a mark. This conduct can debase the value of a famous mark and mislead the consuming public. A 2003 Supreme Court decision, Mosely v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., compelled the Committee on the Judiciary to review the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. H.R. 683 was drafted based on this review and is intended to clarify what Congress meant when it passed the dilution statute a decade ago. Enactment of this bill will eliminate confusion on key dilution issues that have increased litigation and resulted in uncertainty among the regional circuits. H.R. 683 provides that the owner of a famous distinctive mark is entitled to an injunction against any person who uses in commerce a mark that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment. The bill states that a mark may only be ``famous'' if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public in the United States. In determining whether a mark is famous, a court is permitted to consider all relevant factors, including the duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark. Finally, the bill provides that the owner of a famous mark is only entitled to injunctive relief under the bill, unless the defendant acted willfully. In the case of a willful act, the owner may also seek damages, costs, and attorneys' fees as well as destruction of the infringing articles under separate Lanham Act provisions. Mr. Speaker, the House passed this bill on April 19, 2006, by a roll call vote of 411-8. The other body amended the bill on March 8, 2006, and passed the version before us by unanimous consent. The amendments narrow the application of the dilution statute to trademark dress law; creates a free-speech exclusion for noncommercial use of a mark; and shifts the burden of proof in certain trade-dress actions to the plaintiff. These changes were negotiated with the full participation of interested legislators and stakeholders, including Internet service providers and the American Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 683 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1036, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1036, the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act. This legislation amends certain technical aspects of the copyright act that were substantively amended by Congress' enactment of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. At the outset, it should be noted that H.R. 1036 was considered by the House under suspension of the rules last November and passed by a voice vote. The other body took up the bill in July and amended it to incorporate related noncontroversial language from the text of H.R. 5593, the Royalty Distribution Clarification Act of 2006. Copyright Royalty Judges are responsible for distributing hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments to rightful copyright holders to make partial distributions of any noncontested royalties prior to the end of a distribution proceeding. The purpose of H.R. 5593 and the Senate amendment now before us is to provide the judges the ability to more efficiently administer their fiduciary duties and enable copyright holders whose works are used under the various compulsory licenses contained in title 17 of the United States Code to have greater access to their own funds. Like the earlier version approved by the House, this iteration of H.R. 1036 makes only noncontroversial changes in the copyright royalty and distribution system. The enactment of this bill will assist the CRJs and the Library of Congress in administering the copyright royalty and distribution system and help to resolve disputes in a more efficient, predictable, and rational and manner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1036) to amend title 17, United States Code, to make technical corrections relating to Copyright Royalty Judges, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5454 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5454, to provide a cost-of- living adjustment for Federal judges in fiscal year 2007. In 1975, Congress enacted the Executive Salary Cost of Living Adjustment Act to give judges and Members of Congress and high-ranking executive branch officials automatic COLAs accorded other Federal employees unless rejected by Congress. In 1981, Congress amended the statute by enacting section 140 of Public Law 97-92, which requires specific congressional authorization to grant judges a COLA. The legislation we consider today is substantially similar to other cost- of-living increases for Federal judges approved in previous fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, I believe in fairness, which is why I introduced this bill to ensure that Federal judges receive a COLA when other civil servants, including Members of Congress, receive theirs. I urge Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to clarify the record. The only thing that is in H.R. 5454 is the judges' COLA. I think it is relatively noncontroversial, but it is a housekeeping thing that we have to do before the session adjourns. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5092 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5092, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Modernization and Reform Act of 2006. The bill is a bipartisan bill aimed at providing ATF with a full complement of enforcement tools needed to ensure compliance by Federal firearms licensees with Federal regulations. A series of oversight hearings by the Crime Subcommittee showed that ATF'S existing enforcement authorities actually hinder its ability to enforce our Nation's gun laws and unfairly impact Federal firearms licensees. This legislation provides a comprehensive response to the concerns raised in those hearings. For too many years, ATF has labored under a restrictive enforcement scheme which forces the ATF to either revoke a license or do nothing at all. This bill would provide ATF with graduated penalties so that licensees will face the possibility of civil penalty suspensions and the ultimate penalty, revocation of the license. No longer will ATF have to try to cajole licensees to comply or threaten them with heavy- handed revocation proceedings. With this measure ATF will be able to seek a penalty that fits the infraction, depending upon the seriousness of the violation. In addition, the bill replaces the existing adjudicatory system, which consists of former ATF employees who sit as Administrative Law Judges, with a professional and neutral staff of ALJs who will sit and hear enforcement cases. The bill includes deadlines for hearings and decisions so that enforcement will be expedited. The bill also authorizes ATF to shut down licensees who pose a serious harm to the public. The bill also remedies a significant problem of enforcement. ATF has used its enforcement authority to threaten revocation of licenses against gun dealers who make inadvertent or technical mistakes in their paperwork. The subcommittee has heard testimony on this issue, which revealed that ATF treats virtually all errors in dealers records, no matter how few or how minor, as willful violations. For example, a witness cited that a licensee received a revocation notice for writing a ``Y'' or an ``N'' instead of writing out ``yes'' or ``no'' on a firearms transactions form. That does not make sense. Or in a number of transactions, a revocation notice cited the failure of a firearm arms purchaser to identify country of residence, although the purchaser listed county of residence. Such enforcement activities are not fair to any notion of due process. The bill clarifies that violations must be knowing and intentional violations versus good faith or technical mistakes in recordkeeping. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan bill, which will improve ATF's enforcement authorities and fairness and justice of their treatment of gun dealers Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.