F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business. I want him to know how much I appreciate knowing of his concerns regarding the important role of our country's patent system, and I am prepared to work with him on this subject. In fact, I share his appreciation of the entrepreneurial spirit of America, whereby inventors apply their creativity and ingenuity to technology every day in this country. I want to reassure the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that since this issue is squarely in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, it will fully get the proper attention it deserves. The bill we consider today, H.R. 1886, will not prejudice inventors, small businesses or anyone else connected with inventive activity. In fact, it will help level the playing field in this area regarding the patent code procedures. This will help us achieve our goals beyond patent reexamination, which include giving investors confidence in a patented invention so that doubts can be cast aside and that capital may be raised to help in the financing of entrepreneurial concern. Second, this bill does not create new tools for litigation to harass or abuse inventors. In the past I have opposed such legislation and will continue to do so in the future. Finally, I appreciate the concerns that the gentleman has raised. The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held two hearings on this subject earlier this year. In an effort to continue exploring this vital subject, I am directing my staff to schedule a third hearing on this subject and other issues of importance to inventors. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him on his issue.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1886) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for appeals by third parties in certain patent reexamination proceedings.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1866) to amend title 35, United States Code, to clarify the basis for granting requests for reexamination of patents, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2278) to provide work authorization for nonimmigrant spouses of intracompany transferees, and to reduce the period of time during which certain intracompany transferees have to be continuously employed before applying for admission to the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill is a companion bill to H.R. 2277, just passed. Just as H.R. 2277 provides employment authorization to spouses of E visa recipients, this bill provides employment authorization to spouses of L visa recipients. L visas are available for intracompany transferees. They allow employees working at a company's overseas branch to be shifted to the company's work site in the United States. An L visa is available to an alien who ``within 3 years preceding the time of his application for admission into the United States has been employed continuously for one year by a firm or an affiliate or subsidiary and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his services to the same employer in a capacity that is managerial, executive or involves specialized knowledge.'' To make the L visa program more convenient for established and frequent users of the program, blanket L visas are available. If an employer meets certain qualifications, such as having received approval for at least 10 L visa professionals during the past year or having U.S. subsidiaries or affiliates with an annual combined sales of at least $25 million or having a workforce of at least 1,000 employees, the employer can receive preapproval for an unlimited number of L visas from the Immigration Service. Individual aliens seeking visas to work for the companies simply have to show that the job they will be employed in qualifies for the L visa program and that they are qualified to do the job. In fiscal year 1998, 38,307 aliens, along with 44,176 dependents, were granted L visas. While the current law allows spouses and minor children to come to the U.S. with the L visa recipients, spouses are not allowed to work in this country. As I stated in regard to H.R. 2277, working spouses are now becoming the rule rather than the exception in the U.S. and in many foreign countries, and multinational companies are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade their employees abroad to relocate to the United States if it means their spouses will have to forgo employment. This factor places an impediment in the way of these employers' use of the L visa program and their competitiveness in the international economy. There is no good reason why we should put an impediment in the way of business and academia's efforts to attract talented people. There is also no good reason why husbands and wives should have to ask their spouses to forgo employment as a condition of joining them in America. Thus, H.R. 2278 would allow the spouses of L visa recipients to work in the United States while accompanying the primary visa recipients. Additionally, the current law requires that the beneficiary of an L visa have been employed for at least 1 year overseas by the petitioning employer. In many situations, this is an overly restrictive requirement. For example, consulting agencies often recruit and hire individuals overseas with specialized skills to meet the needs of particular clients. The 1-year-prior-employment requirement can result in long delays before they can bring such employees into the United States on an L visa. A shorter prior employment period would allow companies to more expeditiously meet the needs of their clients. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2278 would allow aliens to qualify for L visas after having worked for 6 months overseas for employers if the employers have filed blanket L petitions and have met the blanket petition's requirements. There is a high level of fraud in the L visa program, especially involving ``front companies'' set up purely to procure visas; and lowering the across-the-board qualifications for the L visas might encourage more fraudulent petitions. With a company that has been prescreened and approved for the ``blanket'' L visa status, the risk of fraud is much lower. Thus, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2278.

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. 2048, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2277) to provide for work authorization for nonimmigrant spouses of treaty traders and treaty investors.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2277.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today the House is likely to approve, for the fourth and fifth time this year, pro-family, pro-immigrant legislation that we have crafted in the Committee on the Judiciary. This body can be proud of the work it has done upholding the Nation's tradition of welcoming immigrants to our shores in a responsible manner. This particular bill, H.R. 2277, would allow spouses of E visa recipients to work in the United States while accompanying the primary visa recipients. E visas are available for treaty traders and investors. A visa is available to an alien who ``is entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national . . . solely to carry on substantial trade, including trade in services or trade in technology, principally between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, or . . . solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which he has invested . . . a substantial amount of capital.'' Alien employees of a treaty trader or treaty investor may receive E visas if they are coming to the U.S. to engage in duties of an executive or supervisory character, or, if employed in the lesser capacity, if they have special qualifications that make the services to be rendered essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise. The alien employee would need to be of the same nationality as the treaty trader or investor. For fiscal year 1998, 9,457 aliens, including dependents, were granted E visas as treaty traders; and 20,775 aliens, including dependents, were granted E vision as treaty investors. While current law allows spouses and minor children to come to the U.S. with the E visa recipients, spouses are not allowed to work in the United States. Since working spouses are now becoming the rule rather than the exception in our society and in many foreign countries, multinational corporations are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade their employees abroad to relocate to the United States. Spouses, often wives, hesitate to forego their own career ambitions or a second income to accommodate an overseas assignment. This factor places an impediment in the way of the use by employees from treaty countries of the E visa program and their contributing to trade with and invest in the United States. There is no good reason why we should put an impediment in the way of the business's effort to attract talented people. There is no good reason why husbands and wives should have to ask their spouses to forego employment as a condition of joining them in America. Thus H.R. 2277 would simply allow the spouses of E visa recipients to work in the United States while accompanying the primary visa recipient. Families will no longer have to chose between the advancement of either spouse's career in order to grasp an opportunity to come to America. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that health care coverage is more available and affordable to all Americans. These medical malpractice reform provisions will benefit the American people by limiting costs to doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, which in turn will improve access to affordable health care insurance for all. Unfortunately, the current medical malpractice litigation is a wealth redistribution lottery that benefits trial lawyers, instead of an efficient system designed to fairly compensate those injured by the wrongful acts of others. Medical malpractice lawyers often simply target the perceived deep pockets of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. In many cases, defendants know a lawsuit would not succeed on its merits, but agree to settle out of court just to avoid the endless and expensive legal process. In the end, the lawyers often walk away with as much money as the plaintiff. This injustice raises the price of health care, causes unwarranted personal anguish and unfairly damages reputations. Doctors and hospitals should be held responsible for truly negligent behavior resulting in actual harm. But a system that perpetuates the concept of joint and several liability has no effective mechanism, such as the cap on noneconomic damages, to deter frivolous lawsuits is simply not just. America is the only country in the world that provides unlimited compensation for noneconomic damages. Of course, noneconomic damages are separate from and do not include payment for medical costs, lost wages and other out-of-pocket expenses. Therefore, a cap on noneconomic damages would not in any way limit the amount of money an injured plaintiff could receive for their hospital costs, doctor bills, other medical expenses, and lost wages. Malpractice insurance is expensive because many of the claims brought against doctors and other health care providers are lengthy and frivolous. In the year 2000, the average medical malpractice claim took more than 5 years to settle. Statistics also show that 80 percent of all medical malpractice claims do not even involve a negligent adverse event to the plaintiff. Furthermore, only one out of six plaintiffs who receive compensation from these claims present any evidence of negligent medical injury. We also have the ever more prevalent problem of doctors practicing defensive medicine. Many doctors are ordering unnecessary and costly medical tests and procedures solely to insulate themselves from potential lawsuit and not for the medical benefit of their patients. For example, conservative estimates predict that with effective medical malpractice tort reform, $600 million a year would be saved in Medicare payments in just the area of treating cardiac disease. Let me be perfectly clear about who benefits from our current health care liability system: the trial lawyers in America, who continue to line their pockets with each outrageous verdict or settlement. Congress' concern should be helping improve America's health care system, not helping the trial lawyers purchase fancier homes, cars, boats, and country club membership. This amendment is clearly needed if we are going to make a definitive step today to improve the health care system. The AMA supporters of the Ganske-Dingell patients' bill of rights approach recognized this fact, as was stated by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means earlier tonight. My colleagues, the choice is simple: the more dollars which are spent on medical malpractice lawsuits, insurance premiums and lawyers, the fewer dollars there are for Americans to receive quality medical care. Let us put patients' rights ahead of lawyers' avarice, and support this much needed amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), I do not think the gentleman has read the bill and I do not think he has been listening to the debate. This bill does not stop scientific research. This bill does not stop stem cell research. This bill stops research in destruction of cloned embryonic stem cells, no other stem cells whatsoever. I do not think Dr. Salk used cloned material when he developed the polio vaccine. Nobody even thought of cloning 45, 50 years ago when Dr. Salk was using his research. Please, let us talk about what is in the bill and what is in the Greenwood substitute, rather than bringing up issues that are completely irrelevant to both. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the coauthor of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Mr. Pitts. Mr. Speaker, we need to clarify something here. This issue is not about what the other side called a group of cells or insoulment or a leap of faith; it is about human life at its very beginning. This amendment is not a cloning ban. It has a 10-year moratorium in it; but, in fact, for the first time this amendment would specifically make cloning legal, and it would require that human clones be killed after they are made, which is even more unethical. Now, some have suggested that cloned embryos are not really embryos at all. That is ridiculous. We might as well say that Dolly, who began as a cloned sheep embryo, is not really a sheep, even though now she is 5 years old. Even President Clinton's Bioethics Advisory Commission was clear. The commission began its discussion fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg, in other words, cloning, involves the creation of an embryo. Eighty-eight percent of the American people want cloning banned, not merely because they believe it is bad science, but because they think it is morally wrong. Let us stop playing games with words. Reject the Greenwood amendment. Support Weldon-Stupak. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., and a copy of a letter written by Mr. Douglas Johnson: National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Washington, DC, July 30, 2001. Federal panels and Researchers Agree: Human Cloning Creates Human Embryos Dear Member of Congress: At a press conference today, Congressman Greenwood and Congressman Deutsch asserted that the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute amendment to the Weldon- Stupak bill (H.R. 2505) would allow ``therapeutic cloning,'' but they asserted that this process would not involve the creation of any human embryos. This ``argument,'' if it can be called that, shows a breathtaking lack of candor. For years, federal bio-ethics review bodies have acknowledged that the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer would indeed produce human embryos. For example, President Clinton's handpicked National Bioethics Advisory Commission acknowledged in its 1997 report Cloning Human Beings, ``any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.'' [emphasis added] Earlier this month, Michael West, the head of the major biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Massachusetts, told journalists that the firm intends to start cloning ``soon.'' As recently as the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, three members of the ACT team, including Dr. West, along with bioethicist Ronald Green of Dartmouth University and two other bioethicists, co-authored a major paper on human cloning that freely acknowledged that the method creates human embryos. They wrote, ``. . . because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions,'' [emphasis added] The attached factsheet includes numerous such admissions from diverse researchers and public bodies. Thus, it is past time for Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Deutsch to drop their disinformation campaign and engage in an honest debate over whether human embryo farms should be allowed in this country. If you oppose the establishment of human embryo farms, vote no on the Greenwood-Deutsch substitute. Sincerely, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 214, I call up the bill (H.R. 2505) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 2505, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. This bill criminalizes the act of cloning humans, importing cloned humans, and importing products derived from cloned humans. It is what is needed, a comprehensive ban against cloning humans. It has bipartisan cosponsorship. It was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 24, and is supported by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy J. Thompson, and by President Bush. Today we are considering more than the moral and ethical issues raised by human cloning. This vote is about providing moral leadership for a watching world. We have the largest and most powerful research community on the face of the Earth, and we devote more money to research and development than any other Nation in the world. Although many other nations have already taken steps to ban human cloning, the world is waiting for the United States to set the moral tone against this experimentation. Currently in the United States there are no clear rules or regulations over privately funded human cloning. Although the FDA has announced that it has the authority to regulate human cloning through the Public Health Service Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, this authority is unclear and has not been tested. The fact of the matter is that the FDA cannot stop human cloning; it can only begin to regulate it. This will be a day late and a dollar short for a clone that is used for research, harvesting organs, or born grotesquely deformed. Meanwhile, there is a select group of privately funded scientists and religious sects who are prepared to begin cloning human embryos and attempting to produce a cloned child. While they believe this brave new world of Frankenstein science will benefit mankind, most would disagree. In fact, virtually every widely known and respected organization that has taken a position on reproductive human cloning flatly opposes this notion because of the extreme ethical and moral concerns. Others argue that cloned humans are the key that will unlock the door to medical achievements in the 21st century. Nothing could be further from the truth. These miraculous achievements may be found through stem cell research, but not cloning. Let me be perfectly clear: H.R. 2505 does not in any way impede or prohibit stem cell research that does not require cloned human embryos. This debate is whether or not it should be legal in the United States to clone human beings. While H.R. 2505 does not prohibit the use of cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, and animals other than humans, it does prohibit the creation of cloned embryos. This is absolutely necessary to prevent human cloning, because, as we all know, embryos become people. If scientists were permitted to clone embryos, they would eventually be stockpiled and mass-marketed. In addition, it would be impossible to enforce a ban on human reproductive cloning. Therefore, any legislative attempt to ban human cloning must include embryos. Should human cloning ever prove successful, its potential applications and expected demands would undoubtedly and ultimately lead to a worldwide mass market for human clones. Human clones would be used for medical experimentation, leading to human exploitation under the good name of medicine. Parents would want the best genes for their children, creating a market for human designer genes. Again, governments will have to weigh in to decide questions such as what rights do human clones hold, who is responsible for human clones, who will ensure their health, and what interaction will clones have with their genealogical parent. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) have introduced this legislation before a cloned human has been produced. As most people know, Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1997. Since that time, scientists from around the globe have experimentally cloned a number of monkeys, mice, cows, goats, lambs, bulls and pigs. It took 276 attempts to clone Dolly, and these later experiments also produced a very low rate of success, a dismal 3 percent. Now, some of the same scientists would like to add people to their experimental list. Human cloning is ethically and morally offensive and contradicts virtually everything America stands for. It diminishes the careful balance of humanity that Mother Nature has installed in each of us. If we want a society where life is respected, we should take whatever steps are necessary to prohibit human cloning. I believe we need to send a clear and distinct message to the watching world that America will not permit human cloning and that it does support scientific research. This bill sends this message, that it permits cloning research on human DNA molecules, cells, tissues, organs or animals, but prevents the creation of cloned human embryos. Mr. Speaker, support H.R. 2505. Stop human cloning and preserve the integrity of mankind and allow scientific research to continue.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume first to state that I have no objection to the motion to instruct, and I would urge that the House go on and speedily approve it, hopefully without a rollcall. Secondly, a concern that I have, and I am looking at the Senate amendment and I am not sure whether it is properly drafted, is to make sure that a family fisherman is a commercial fisherman, rather than having someone claim to be a sport fisherman and thus protecting very expensive yachts, that are used occasionally for fishing purposes, from being sold and the assets distributed amongst the creditors. So the provision in the Senate bill might need some clarification. But with that reservation, I am happy to support the motion to instruct. 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 to include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees currently under debate.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 333) to amend title 11, United States Code, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.