F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. It is well intentioned and relief to the airline industry is necessary to keep these vital transportation links operating. But its provisions are so fatally flawed that it will disrupt other parts of the economy and its victim compensation provisions are unfair and set an expensive precedent which Congress will rue in the future. First, the liability limitation provisions transfer the airlines' contingent liabilities to others with devastating implications on other segments of the economy. It is fine to limit airlines' liability, but this will simply put others on the hook. In addition to United and American Airlines, who will have limited liability under this bill, plaintiffs' lawyers will also likely sue Boeing, which manufactured the four planes, General Electric or Pratt and Whitney who probably made the engines, the Port Authority which is the owner of the World Trade Center, whatever company made the steel which collapsed, and on and on. These companies' liability is not limited by this bill. While the airlines will not face bankruptcy as a result of September 11, should this bill pass, its failure to limit others' liability will mean Congress will need to pass corrective legislation again and again to protect American companies and their workers' jobs because this bill did not do it right. Remember, any company having a substantial contingent liability will not be able to borrow money from the banks to keep itself afloat. The formula that compensates the airlines is not fair either. The United States Government does have a moral responsibility to make whole the airlines for the losses they suffered as a result of the FAA closing U.S. air space and the delays caused by airplane closures and heightened security. But that is not all this bill does. It makes payments based upon how many seat-miles each carrier has. That amounts to a subsidy and gives a premium to those carriers based not on their losses caused by the tragedies of September 11 but how big they are and how many seats they have. Finally, this bill creates a new entitlement program to pay families of victims of this tragedy through taxpayers' dollars. No entitlement was enacted by Congress to compensate victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida, and floods along the Mississippi River. If this entitlement is approved, does Congress really want to say no to the victims of future tragedies, whether as a result of natural or man-made disasters? If a disaster strikes in any of our hometowns, how can we explain voting for an entitlement in this bill, but not for our own constituents? Stop and think of the precedent this bill sets when a future disaster strikes. There is plenty money available to compensate the families of the victims of September 11. Mr. Speaker, $20 billion has already been appropriated for relief. The President has signed legislation to speed up payments to the families of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty, and the Crime Victims Compensation Fund has over $1 billion already available for disbursal. Millions come from FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services and elsewhere, and there will be tens of billions of dollars from insurance and those liable. But stop, let us do this right. Let us vote this bill down and come back and address these very legitimate problems.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as President Bush has said, Tuesday's attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are nothing short of acts of war. No less than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they were a premeditated, secret, and carefully orchestrated assault on the American people and the great symbols of American power and influence in world affairs. These attacks will not go unanswered. Since this dastardly attack, there has been a flurry of efforts in the House and Senate, proposed legislation, calls for hearings and oversight to find out what went wrong and what improvements can and should be made. While this is certainly understandable, any action by the Congress should not be taken in haste and should be coordinated, not piecemeal. The timing of our action is most important for another reason. In a time of war, the executive branch, and in particular the President, must be allowed to focus solely on identifying, finding, and punishing those responsible. I therefore call on my colleagues, Members and committee chairmen in both the House and the Senate, to refrain from piecemeal legislation and oversight during this crisis and to support the President fully in addressing the challenges ahead. As chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary and entrusted with oversight responsibility for all Federal law enforcement, I am compelled to remind my colleagues the criminal investigation now being conducted is paramount. From that investigation, we will learn much about the identity of the perpetrators, the means by which these attacks were carried out, and even the most effective way to respond. This is not the time, however, to assess blame, to second guess, or to appear to do so. It is time to back the President, period. I have therefore written the President to ask him to identify what law enforcement and investigative resources, including additional funding and legal authority, are needed to prosecute this effort. I have pledged to review those requests on an expedited basis. I am also concerned about the multiple and duplicative briefings requested of law enforcement, which may have the unintended consequences of impeding, impairing, or distracting law enforcement from its core mission. At the same time, I recognize that Congress needs to be kept informed on the progress of the investigation. I suggest, therefore, that there be organized, coordinated, and non- duplicative briefings that will allow law enforcement to carry on its critical mandate without undue interference from Congress. I intend to work with the Speaker, the Attorney General, and the FBI Director to provide regular law enforcement briefings to Members on the investigation. These briefings will provide Members with the information they need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities without jeopardizing the criminal investigation. The investigation may very well provide insight into how the attackers evaded our intelligence and security networks. There will certainly be ample time for Congress to address those issues later. I have been informed that we may be assured that the Federal Government's law enforcement and intelligence officials are already taking steps to prevent future attacks. I intend to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) to discourage House committees from holding premature hearings in the middle of a Federal criminal investigation of these attacks. Such hearings are likely to distract Federal resources from the immediate needs of a full investigation. Right now, it should be Congress' priority to support President Bush's efforts to make an appropriate response. Regular briefings and restraints will permit Congress to be fully informed about the developments, provide information for consideration at the appropriate time, but, most importantly, will allow the President the latitude he needs to prosecute the campaign against those who carried out these outrageous attacks on our country and its citizens. This Congress must rise to the occasion and act responsibly and wisely. History will judge us favorably from our prudence. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter written by myself; Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and Senator Hatch, to the President of the United States. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, September 13, 2001. Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides for payments to be made within 30 days to officers and their families under the Public Safety Officers Benefits of certification of a public agency that a public safety officer was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a result of a personal injury in the line of duty of rescue or recovery efforts related to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Public Safety Officer's Benefit Act provides benefits to public safety officers and their families for injury or death on duty. The program was established in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. The program provides a lump sum benefit to survivors of Federal, State, and local public safety officers whose death and disability was the direct and proximate result of traumatic injuries sustained in the line of duty. The current lump sum payment is approximately $175,000 in the case of death. The program offers aid and allows for such sums as may be necessary. The purpose of this resolution is simple and clearly warranted: that is, to provide swift aid and comfort to the survivors of the public safety officers who perished in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Their loss and the loss incurred by the New York City fire and police departments is unfathomable. The bravery exhibited by these men and women was of the greatest magnitude, and was the embodiment of noble service to our Nation and to the citizens of this country. One wonders where these firefighters and police officers mustered the strength and courage to withstand dozens of stories to battle the raging fire above, all along the way directing and calming thousands of people desperately trying to flee the deadly danger above. In the towers and on the ground, New York City public safety officers were unflinching in carrying out their mission of saving and protecting thousands of people who now owe their lives to these devoted officers. Because of their dedication to duty, many officers made the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow citizens. May God bless their souls and their families. They will never be forgotten, and their heroism will always be cherished by a grateful Nation, State, and city. Having said this, let me express my concern that paperwork might result in the delay in the payment of these benefits to families who desperately need the incomes now that a breadwinner is no longer with them. State law usually governs how a person who is missing is declared dead. This is not done by Federal law. The legislation before us today, as well as the law that has been on the books for over 30 years, requires an appropriate certification of death. Let me urge the Governor and legislature of the State of New York that if there does need to be an amendment to the law to allow for appropriate certification, including but not limited to the issuance of an official death certificate, to take prompt action so that these certifications can be made and the payments issued to the families of the police officers and firefighters who perished in the line of duty. This concern, however, for me, is not limited just to this bill, because there are literally thousands of people who are missing in the fire and collapse of the World Trade Center whose families will be waiting for insurance proceeds even though they are not police officers and firefighters; and there the same type of certification is needed so that the payments can be made to the beneficiaries under those policies. I would certainly hope that the law would be able to respond to this tragedy so that these payments can be made promptly rather than having months or perhaps even years of litigation before a certificate issues and the payment is to be made. 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 on H.R. 2882, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House just agreed to, I call up the bill (H.R. 2882) to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time, without intervention of any point of order, to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2882) to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; that the bill be considered as read for amendment; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except; 1, one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees; and, 2, one motion to recommit; and that the chair may, notwithstanding the order of the previous question, postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for recognizing this paperwork problem and drafting legislation to cut the red tape and to make sure that these payments are made to the appropriate beneficiaries in the earliest possible manner. Let me tell the Justice and Treasury Departments that if I hear of any delay in expediting these payments, I am going to be all over their back just as the gentleman from New York and other Members of this House will be on their back as well. This has to be a priority, and this Congress is stating that this has to be a priority through the passage of this bill today. I am very pleased to support the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). And I am supporting it because I am an American and because this is the right thing to do.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Yorker, but what happened at the World Trade Center in New York could have happened anyplace in the country, because terrorism knows no boundaries. It could have happened in Milwaukee or San Francisco or Atlanta or anyplace else. Americans throughout our land, as well as people around the world, witnessed in horror what unfolded on Tuesday morning. First one building was hit, then a second building was hit, then both of the buildings collapsed, and there were hundreds or thousands of people who were in them. But over and above everything, the public safety officers in New York, the firefighters and the police officers, were unflinching in doing their duty, which was to try to save lives and to protect property. Over 200 of them are now reported as missing and presumed dead. We could be talking about the Milwaukee police and fire department or San Francisco police and fire department or the police and fire department of any community in the country, but New York was the city that was hit. It is our responsibility to make sure that the families of the fallen receive the benefits that the Federal Government has extended to them for over 30 years as quickly and as promptly as possible. They will suffer enough pain with the loss of their loved ones. They should not be financially strapped because paperwork does not get done quickly. This bill is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for New York today, and it would be the right thing to do for public safety officers who perish in large numbers as a result of a tragedy anyplace else in the country at any time in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, is a date that will forever be etched in our memories as a day our very way of life was attacked. These acts of cowardice took the lives of innocent souls away from their families and friends. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones and my thanks go out to all of the emergency personnel who risked their lives to save others. The perpetrators believe that our weakness is our freedom. They are so wrong. This will unite our country and they will soon know that freedom is our greatest strength. We should support President Bush and we should expeditiously make available all necessary means so that justice can be carried out. God Bless America.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1866, as amended, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Congress established the patent reexamination system in 1980. The 1980 reexamination statute was enacted with the intent reexamination of patents by the Patent and Trademark Office would achieve three principal benefits, first, to settle validity disputes more quickly and less expensively than litigation; second, to allow courts to refer patent validity questions to an agency with expertise in both the patent law and technology; and third, to reinforce investor confidence in the certainty of patent rights by affording an opportunity to review patents of doubtful validity. More than 20 years after the original enactment of the reexamination statute, the Committee on the Judiciary still endorses these goals and encourages third parties to pursue reexamination as an efficient way of settling patent disputes. Reexamination worked well until recently when it was severely limited by a Federal Court of Appeals decision. H.R. 1866 is intended to overturn the 1997 In re Portola Packaging case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit. That decision severely impairs the patent reexamination process. Reexamination was intended to be an important quality check on defective patents. Unfortunately, this decision severely limits its use. The Portola case is criticized for establishing an illogical and overly strict bar concerning the scope of reexamination requests. The bill permits a broader range of cases to be the subject of a request, as was the case for the first 16 years since the law was enacted. The bill that we consider today preserves the ``substantial new question standard'' that is an important safeguard to protect all inventors against frivolous action and against harassment, while allowing the process to continue as originally intended. It also preserves the discretion of the Patent and Trademark Office in evaluating these cases. The bill has been amended since its introduction by the full committee. I wish to take a moment to explain this to my colleagues. Since its introduction, we heard from the public members of the bar and critics of the Portola decision who have recommended that we make an additional change to ensure the result that we seek. The text is clarified to permit the use of relevant evidence that was ``considered'' by the PTO, but not necessarily ``cited.'' Some would say this is redundant, but I prefer to clarify precisely when reexamination is an available procedure. This will ensure that the system is flexible and efficient. While many believe the base text is satisfactory to meet that goal, I hope that the amendment removes any doubt. I believe that adding this one sentence to the Patent Act will help prevent the misuse of defective patents in all fields, especially those concerning business methods. An efficient patent system is important for inventors, investors and consumers. I urge Members to support H.R. 1866. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1886, the bill presently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill also attempts to improve the patent reexamination system. It aims at closing an unfortunate administrative loophole and bridging a legal gap in the working of our patent system. The reform also comes out of two hearings that the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held earlier this year. While I strongly endorse the professionalism of the Patent and Trademark Office, I believe it is necessary to place a check on the PTO's actions by affording all participants judicial review before a Federal appeals court. This check by a higher independent authority is an important safeguard and adds transparency to the process. Rest assured this appellate review will not impose additional burdens on patent-holders arising from Federal trials. This is an important and necessary amendment that is an overdue change to our intellectual property laws. I urge Members to support H.R. 1886. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2408 will require the Attorney General to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary regarding the effectiveness of the State Justice Institute. This report would be due by October 1, 2002. Congress established SJI as a private, nonprofit corporation in 1984. Its stated purpose is to further the development and adoption of improved judicial administration in State courts. SJI is to accomplish this goal by providing funds to State courts and other national organizations or nonprofit organizations which support the State courts. SJI also fosters coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern. Since becoming operational in 1987, the institute has awarded more than $125 million in grants to support over 1,000 projects; another $40 million in matching requirements has been generated from other public and private funding sources. As noted, H.R. 2048 would require the Attorney General to study the operations of the institute and release a report on its effectiveness. After 14 years and $165 million in grants, it is now more appropriate to take a closer look at the efficiency and effectiveness of this institute and the project it supports. Madam Speaker, this concludes my description of the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2048) to require a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.