F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 802) to authorize the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 802, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 2001, was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, together with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Crime. This bill establishes a National Medal of Valor to be awarded each year by the President in the name of Congress to public safety officers who have displayed the highest degree of valor in the performance of their duties. The bill is substantially similar to H.R. 802, introduced in the 106th and 105th Congresses. In the 106th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 46 by voice vote, and the bill passed the House by a recorded vote of 412 to 2. In the 105th Congress, the committee reported H.R. 4090 by voice vote, and the House passed the bill by voice vote as well. Unfortunately, neither bill became law. H.R. 802 presently before us was ordered favorably reported by voice vote out of the Committee on the Judiciary on March 8. Mr. Speaker, many countries award a national medal to public safety officers for heroism in the line of duty. Unfortunately, the United States does not. This bill would rectify that shortcoming. I believe it fitting and proper that our Nation honor those public safety officers who demonstrate the highest forms of heroism and valor in the course of their duties. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. 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. 802.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 741, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, and urge the House to pass the measure. H.R. 741 is the implementing legislation for the Protocol Related to the Madrid Agreement on the Registration of Marks, commonly known as the Madrid Protocol. This bill is identical to legislation introduced in each of the preceding four Congresses and will again send a signal to the international business community, U.S. businesses and trademark owners that the 107th Congress is determined to help our Nation and particularly our small businesses become a part of an inexpensive, efficient system that allows the international registration of marks. As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, the ratification of the Protocol and the enactment of H.R. 741 will enable American trademark owners to pay a nominal fee to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which will then register the marks in the individual countries that comprise the European Union. Currently, American trademark owners must hire attorneys or agents in each individual country to acquire protection. This process is both laborious and expensive and discourages small businesses and individuals from registering their marks in Europe. A final comment on an issue peripheral to this bill, Mr. Speaker. While there is no opposition to the bill, I note that two companies, Bacardi and Pernod, are in the process of attempting to settle a dispute over rights to a mark which each wishes to market. At least one of these companies believes that the implementing language should be amended to reflect its position on the matter. It is also my understanding that talks between the two companies are fluid and ongoing and that a resolution to this problem may be forthcoming in the near future. I therefore urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today and to allow these talks to continue. Once a compromise is reached I am confident that the other body will shortly ratify the Protocol and pass the implementing language. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 741 is an important and noncontroversial bill that will greatly help those American businesses and other individuals who need to register their trademarks overseas in a quick and cost- effective manner. I urge the House to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 860) to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain multiparty, multiforum civil actions, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the author of H.R. 860, I am grateful for the opportunity to consider it on the floor today. The bill before us has had a long legislative life, having been considered in one form or another since the 101st Congress in 1991. This legislation addresses two important issues in the world of complex multidistrict litigation. Section 2 of the bill would reverse the effects of the 1998 Supreme Court decision in the so-called Lexecon case. It would simply amend the multidistrict litigation statute by explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial for the purpose of determining liability and punitive damages or refer them to other districts as it sees fit. In fact, section 2 only codifies what had constituted ongoing judicial practice for nearly 30 years prior to the Lexecon decision. Section 3 addresses a particular species of complex litigation, so- called disaster cases, such as those involving airline accidents. The language set forth in my bill is a revised version of a concept which, beginning in the 101st Congress, has been supported by the Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, two previous Democratic Congresses, and one previous Republican Congress. Section 3 will help reduce litigation costs as well as the likelihood of forum shopping in single-accident mass tort cases. All plaintiffs in these cases would ordinarily be situated identically, making the case for consolidation of their actions especially compelling. These types of disasters, with their hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs and numerous defendants, have the potential to impair the orderly administration of justice in Federal courts for an extended period of time. This committee and the full House unanimously passed the precursor to H.R. 860 last term. During eleventh hour negotiations with the other body, I offered to make three changes in an effort to generate greater support for the bill. As a show of good faith, I have incorporated those changes into the bill we are considering today. They consist of the following: First, a plaintiff must allege at least $150,000 in damages, up from $75,000, to file in U.S. district court. Second, an exception to the minimum diversity rule is created. A U.S. district court may not hear a case in which a substantial majority of plaintiffs and the primary defendants are citizens of the same State and in which the claims asserted are governed primarily by the laws of that same State. In other words, only State courts may hear such cases. Third, the choice-of-law section is stricken. Upon further reflection, I believe it confers too much discretionary authority on a Federal judge to select the relevant law that will apply in a given case. In sum, this legislation speaks to process, fairness, and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for litigators. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to support the Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2001. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California 1 minute.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 320) to make technical corrections in patent, copyright, and trademark laws, as amended.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 320 consists of noncontroversial, technical amendments to the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. This bill corrects clerical and other technical drafting errors, and makes important clarifications in the American Inventors Protection Act which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress. It also makes technical changes to title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, title 17, and other copyright and related technical amendments. On February 14, 2001, S. 320 passed the other body by a recorded vote of 98 to 0. However, upon further review, drafting errors were discovered in the bill. The Committee on the Judiciary adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute which corrected the drafting errors. The amendment and S. 320, as amended, were unanimously agreed to by voice vote in the committee. These are important and necessary amendments to our intellectual property laws, and I urge Members to support S. 320. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 861) to make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United States Code.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 861, and in so doing, feel inclined to paraphrase Daniel Webster, who, in defending Dartmouth College, noted that ``It may be small, but there are those who love it.'' Nothing could be more true with this bill, as H.R. 861 makes a truly technical correction of the most noncontroversial nature. It simply corrects section 10 of title 9 of the United States Code, which is a typographical flaw that has long evaded detection. This section enumerates several grounds for vacating an arbitrator's award, with each ground beginning with the word ``where.'' The fifth clause of section 10, however, is obviously not a ground for vacating an award, but rather, the beginning of a new sentence. This bill corrects this error. However small this change may be, through the years this bill, which has come to be known as ``the comma bill,'' has engendered great affection. Some may try to diminish the importance of this bill, but one should never underestimate the importance of a comma. To paraphrase the late Everett Dirksen, a comma here, a comma there, and pretty soon you have got a full sentence. Let us be honest with ourselves, when used properly, a comma can be devastatingly effective. For those, especially school children, who think that grammar and punctuation do not matter and tune themselves out during English class, today's action shows clearly that it does. Thankfully, not every grammar mistake, not every misplaced comma takes an act of Congress to correct, but this particular section of the United States Code does. This bill has been passed by each of the past two Congresses, only to be held hostage by unrelated issues in the other body. To my colleagues here and on the other side of the Capitol who have previously loaded up this bill with unrelated legislation, I say free the comma, and I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 861. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 809) to make technical corrections to various antitrust laws and to references to such laws.

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 the following bills: H.R. 809, H.R. 741, H.R. 860, S. 320, H.R. 861 and H.R. 802.