F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 56) supporting the goals of the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War II.

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, today I rise in favor of House Resolution 56. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Shortly afterwards, citizens of Japanese ancestry residing in the United States were prohibited from living, working or traveling on the West Coast of the United States. Executive Order 9066 ultimately led to the detention of 120,000 Japanese Americans and residents, most of whom did not see freedom until the closing days of World War II. Executive Order 9066 also resulted in restrictions upon the civil liberties of Italian and German Americans residing in the United States, including government-imposed curfews, detentions, prohibitions on items considered to be contraband by military authorities, and seizures of personal property. President Ford formally rescinded Executive Order 9066 in 1976. In his proclamation repealing this executive order, President Ford said: ``I call upon the American people to affirm with me this American promise, that we have learned from the tragedy of that long-ago experience forever to treasure liberty and justice for each individual American, and resolve that this kind of action shall never again be repeated.'' Twelve years later, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 to formally acknowledge and apologize for ``fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of individuals of Japanese ancestry.'' When signing the legislation, President Reagan said: ``Here we admit a wrong. Here we affirm our commitment as a Nation to equal justice under the law.'' In the year 2000, President Clinton signed the Wartime Violation of Italian Americans Civil Liberties Act, which formally acknowledged civil liberties violations against Italian Americans committed during World War II. In November of 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary received a comprehensive report prepared by the Department of Justice detailing civil liberties violations committed against persons of Italian American ancestry during this period. The Japanese American community presently recognizes a National Day of Remembrance on February 19 of each year to educate the public about the internment. House Resolution 56 reaffirms the importance of this day. The resolution also supports the goals of the Japanese American, German American and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance to increase public awareness of the events surrounding this difficult period of our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, all of those who have spoken during this debate have pointed out very clearly that this resolution is a good resolution and is a necessary resolution. I think that probably the key part of this resolution is that it gives Congressional recognition to the remembrances that occur on February 19 of each year, because we should not forget about the egregious error that President Roosevelt committed against the civil liberties of the Japanese Americans when he signed the executive order that resulted in their internment. The only way we will not forget is by having a remembrance that occurs, so that from one generation to the next people will see that the United States of America made a bad mistake. This resolution will come and go and maybe it will be forgotten and maybe it will not be forgotten, but the annual remembrances on February 19 will make sure that the violation of civil liberties will not be forgotten, and that is the preventive to make sure that this never happens again. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 1973, President Richard Nixon first created the Drug Enforcement Administration. The agency was created to address a growing drug problem in the United States. The DEA was the merger of separate law enforcement and intelligence agencies that shared responsibility for enforcing controlled substance laws. At the time, Congress and the administration recognized an increase in the use and the availability of illegal drugs in this country. According to DEA statistics in 1960, only 4 million Americans had ever tried drugs. That number is currently over 74 million. The DEA continues to defend our Nation from the scourge of illegal drugs. It not only enforces the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States, but the agency also recommends and supports nonenforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets. This mission is as relevant today as it was 30 years ago when the DEA was created. The families and communities affected by drug abuse recognize the important work that the DEA performs. The DEA's steadfast commitment to bringing drug traffickers to justice is crucial to protecting our communities. The DEA leads task forces of Federal, State and local law enforcement officials throughout the Nation in a cooperative effort to stop drug trafficking. However, these partnerships are not limited to our borders, as evidenced by the more than 70 field offices worldwide. The efforts of the DEA domestically and abroad are vital to our national security. The war on terrorism is fought on many fronts, including drug trafficking. It is apparent that there have been connections between the drug trade and terrorist activities. The DEA will continue this fight in an effort to remove another avenue of financing for terrorism. Today, this Congress recognizes the important work of this agency and thanks its employees, both past and present, for their continued efforts to block the flow of drugs into America's cities and towns. This resolution also acknowledges that the war on drugs is not without loss and gives special recognition to those who have lost their life or who have been injured in pursuit of this noble cause. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor the men and women who have served, and continue to serve, our country as a part of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes, half my time, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield portions of that time as he sees fit.

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. Res. 412, the resolution currently under consideration.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417, legislation to reform the rate-making and royalty distribution system for compulsory and statutory licenses. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, for their support in making CARP reform a priority. By way of background, with the creation of three copyright compulsory licenses in 1976, Congress contemplated the need for an administrative body that would be responsible for adjusting the rates of the statutory licenses from time to time, as well as acting as the distributors of the royalties subject to these licenses. The resulting entity was the Copyright Royalty Tribunal or the CRT. In 1993, in response to criticisms voiced against the CRT, Congress reassessed the rate-making and royalty distribution system and created the current system, the Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel, otherwise known as CARPs. Among other things, H.R. 1417 addresses the uniform complaints that the CARP decisions are unpredictable and inconsistent by changing the structure from ad hoc arbitration panels to three permanent copyright royalty judges. To justify the need for these full-time judges, as well as to alleviate the overwhelming workloads at given periods of time, the bill staggers the timing at which the three various statutory licenses can be heard. The bill also addresses the complaint that the process is unnecessarily expensive by eliminating the costs of arbitration upon private parties. It does so by creating a specific process designed to give small claimants a more balanced ability to participate. The bill discourages persons or entities from disrupting the process at the 11th hour by requiring potential participants to show that they have a significant interest in the proceedings. In furtherance of marketplace negotiations, the measure establishes a cooling-off period during which time parties are to focus on reaching their own agreements. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the substitute before us incorporates certain noncontroversial amendments written to accommodate legitimate concerns that evolve after our committee reported the bill out. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1417 was painstakingly negotiated among the various congressional, executive, and industry stakeholders. We worked in a bipartisan manner and developed a consensus product that will effectively address an arcane, but important, manner. I urge its adoption. 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. 1417.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1417) to amend title 17, United States Code, to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with a Copyright Royalty Judge, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a lengthy statement that I will not read in full, but will insert in the Record. But let me state that a significant part of this amendment deals with the agreement that we have reached with the appropriators that was discussed in the colloquy which I had earlier today with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. Let me also state that the amendment contains various provisions that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I have agreed upon relative to our previous differences over the treatment of small entities under this bill. And pursuant to this agreement, my amendment applies a 50 percent discount to all searches for small entities, prohibits commercial searches that apply to classified matters, prevents commercial entities from performing searches when they have a financial interest or other conflict at stake, caps the search fee after the 6th year, and requires a joint PTO and Small Business Administration study regarding the effects of the fee structure on small entities. This, I believe, meets the objections that members of the Committee on Small Business had relative to the cost to small business of applying for and hopefully obtaining a patent. I hope that this amendment clears the way for the other body to consider this bill and bring real reform to the PTO. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to report that this amendment reflects a thoughtful compromise between myself and Mr. Wolf, chairman of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as a fair deal between the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Small Business Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. I want to thank both of them for working so steadfastly and productively on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, the heart of my amendment creates a ``refund'' program to eliminate the potential incentive for diverting PTO revenue to non- PTO programs. Briefly, if fee collections in a given fiscal year exceed the amount appropriated to the agency, the excess or overage shall be deposited in a PTO ``Reserve Fund.'' At the end of the fiscal year the Director determines if there are sufficient funds to make payments to persons who paid fees during that year. The Director is empowered to determine which recipients qualify and in what amounts, except that the payments in aggregate must equal the amount of revenue in the Reserve Fund during that fiscal year, less the cost of administering the program. This text is crucial to the bill before us. We have been at loggerheads with the Appropriations committee on this matter for nearly a decade, so I am glad to say that we have struck an acceptable compromise that serves the interests of both committees. I am grateful to the appropriators and the majority leader for working with us on this point. I emphasize that without this language, support for the bill dissipates. In addition, the bill as reported contains a pilot program to determine the efficacy of allowing commercial entities to perform the search function, thereby relieving the agency of the burden and freeing up examiners to do other work. The amendment specifies that participation in the pilot program will be restricted to American businesses and American citizens. We have worked closely with Chairman wolf's staff on this point. Also, in furtherance of the ongoing modernization efforts at PTO, the Director is required to reduce the filing fee for any small entity, independent inventor, or nonprofit organization by 75 percent provided those so qualified file their applications electronically. As I noted a moment ago, Mr. Manzullo, and I have resolve dour differences over the treatment of small entities under H.R. 1561. Pursuant to recently agreed-upon changes, my amendment: Applies a 50 percent discount to all searches for small entities; prohibits commercial searches that apply to classified matters; prevents commercial entities from performing searches when they have a financial interest or other conflict at stake; caps the search fee after the sixth year; and requires a joint PTO-SBA study regarding the effects of the fee structure on small entities. Mr. Chairman, by addressing the fee diversion and other issues, this amendment clears the way for the other body to consider H.R. 1561 and bring real reform to the PTO. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman from Ohio will refresh her recollection, the WTO treaty was ratified by Congress. It was urged upon us and signed by President Clinton. I joined the gentlewoman from Ohio in opposing the WTO treaty when it came up in 1994 but we lost on that and the extension or the change in the patent term from the previous 17 years of the date of granting of the patent by the Patent Office was changed to 20 years from the date of filing. The gentlewoman and I voted against it but it is the law and we have to face up to the fact that the longer the PTO delays in issuing a patent, the less time of patent protection there is for an applicant for a patent who succeeds. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, for his work with me on this bill. Working to reform the PTO to ensure timely and effective intellectual property protection for American inventors and businesses has been a multiyear effort for many of us, authorizers and appropriators, on both sides of the aisle. Today, we see the fruits of these efforts. Thanks to the support of Chairman Wolf and full committee Chairman Young, our committees have come together and reached an agreement on a funding mechanism that will enable the USPTO to fully fund its restructuring and reform activities. It is my understanding that this rebate mechanism would ensure that all revenue from patent and trademark fees would in fact go to the USPTO or would be rebated to those who have paid the fees. As a result, the USPTO, which receives no taxpayer dollars and is fully fee-funded, would now be able to retain its fee revenue and to fully fund their widely supported 5-year strategic plan. Is that the gentleman from Virginia's understanding?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, one of our jobs in Congress is to make the government work. We have heard ample data that has been presented on both sides of the aisle that the PTO is in crisis and unless we pass legislation, things will get worse rather than better. What this bill does is that it allows the PTO to add an additional 2,900 patent examiners, government employees, so that there will be more people on the government payroll to examine these applications. If the bill goes down, those 2,900 people will not be there. And we have heard a lot about diversion from the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and others. This bill ends the diversion. So we will not be using PTO fees for other government programs. If the bill goes down, the diversion will continue. The outsourcing issue, the amendment that has been agreed to will, number one, require that the outsourcing if it is done be done by a U.S. corporation; two, it will be done by American citizens; and, three, it will be done in the United States of America. If we do not do that, then we are going to further complicate the patent process. I would point out that our patent law is such that if there is an infringement suit the patent holder must prove that the patent is valid. That is not the case under foreign patent laws. So if there is a bad patent that is issued because the PTO is rushed, then it is going to cost the patent holder more when an infringement suit is filed. That does not happen in the case of a patent that is issued by a foreign country. This bill makes the quality of the patents that are issued by the Patent Office better because we have got more people looking at them and they are not as rushed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer to the question is that it speeds up the process. And with the WTO treaty changing the patent term to 20 years from the date of filing, every day that there is a delay in actually determining whether the application results in the patentable invention means that there is one less day of patent protection before that patent expires. So if it takes 8 years for the PTO to act on an application, that means that somebody who has invented something only has got 12 years left. With software technology increasing at such a rapid rate, by the time the PTO acts if we do not do something about it, the invention is going to be practically useless.