Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month we learned of more good economic news about the expanding economy. 947,000 new jobs created in March, April, and May alone. One might think that almost a million new jobs in 3 months constitutes big news, but it was not big news on ``CBS Evening News.'' ``The CBS Evening News'' spent 20 seconds glossing over the creation of nearly a million new jobs. CBS then aired a 2-minute report about 1,300 people being laid off in Ohio. The laying off of 1,300 workers and their families at any time is sad. I have hope and faith that those families will soon be back on their feet. But for CBS to bury the good news about a million new jobs and magnify the bad news of 1,300 layoffs smacks of partisan media bias. Twenty seconds for good economic news, 2 minutes for bad economic news. If it is not liberal media bias, I do not know what is.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for offering this amendment. In 1996, following a series of terrorist attacks throughout the world, Congress acted to make clear that this country is not to be used as a staging ground for those who seek to commit acts of terrorism against persons in other countries. One of the components in the Committee on the Judiciary's 1996 anti- terrorism legislation was to authorize the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations, or FTOs, that threaten U.S. residents or the national security of the United States. Seven years of experience with the designation process has shown that it is needlessly burdensome, draining resources that are needed in the war on terrorism. There are now some 37 designated FTOs, and the redesignation of each requires intensive interagency review and the preparation of a voluminous administrative record. Which can take months, of course. Few of the designated FTOs ever challenge their designation. For example, it is unlikely that al Qaeda will seek judicial review of the Secretary's designation of them as FTOs in the D.C. Circuit Court. Nevertheless, every 2 years the Federal Government must compile the record against them. State and Justice Department officials have informed the Committee on the Judiciary that the cost of repeatedly proving that FTOs have retained their terrorist characteristics diverts resources from other pressing counterterrorism work, including pursuit of additional designations. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) addresses each of these concerns in a way that still assures appropriate review. The text of this amendment tracks language in a bill that has been reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment would free up critical anti-terrorism resources that are now expended on the onerous and, for most groups, largely pointless task of redesignation, while assuring that affected groups have the opportunity to seek appropriate review. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was honored to have served in Congress for the last 2 years of President Reagan's second term. President Reagan devoted his life to the preservation of freedom. He believed that ``no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' His global fight against communism is one of the most significant events in world history. Many said this enemy of freedom could not be conquered. But the Berlin Wall fell because President Reagan made it fall. Since the president's death last Saturday we have heard all or parts of the speeches that inspired so many for so long. They earned him the nickname ``The Great Communicator.'' Mr. Speaker, President Reagan will always be The Great Communicator because of what he said and did. But his public remarks were also notable for what he did not say and what he did not do. He did not pound the podium. He did not flail his arms, or yell. He did not substitute manufactured emotion for reason. He did not exploit human suffering. The style and manner of his speech combined with the power of his ideas made verbal and physical gimmicks completely unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to judge a president's place in history. I believe a question we must ask is: What kind of impact on world and national events does a President have after he leaves office? By that standard President Reagan is a historical giant. Consider two examples: First, President Reagan initiated the largest peacetime expansion of our military ever. It gave him the strength to win the Cold War without firing a shot. But would our soldiers, sailors and airmen have achieved such rapid success in the first Gulf War if we sent our 1980 forces and weapons to fight? Would we have won the ground war in 100 hours without President Reagan's military build-up? Of course not. I believe we would have prevailed, but not with such stunning success. And our modern, 21st Century military that is fighting the war on terror in Iraq today would be years, if not decades away, without President Reagan's ``Peace Through Strength'' doctrine. Second, President Reagan launched the boldest economic growth plan since the New Deal. When he came to office 14 income tax brackets, with the top rate a suffocating 70 percent. After he left office there were only two income tax brackets existed, with a top rate of 28 percent. Yes, we know this created the longest economic boom in history throughout the 1980's. But what about the 1990's? Mr. Speaker, without President Reagan's three-year across-the-board tax reduction plan in 1981, and without the fundamental restructuring of the nation's income tax code in 1986, we would not have experienced the job creation machine of the 1990's. We would not have created a new class in America--the Investor Class. And our economy certainly would not have survived and rebounded as it did after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and corporate scandals. President Reagan left office with a united America, a strong America, and a prosperous America. His America is the country every president-- every American--aspires to live in.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support NASA's new space exploration vision. Americans might ask: What is that vision? It means we are committed to these goals-- Return the space shuttle to flight; Complete the International Space Station; Develop the Crew Exploration Vehicle; Go back to the Moon; Go to Mars; Increase NASA funding by almost 6 percent. This new space exploration vision is a turning point for NASA. We know there are inherent risks that come with space exploration, which is the pursuit of new knowledge and new worlds. Skepticism and doubt are often linked to NASA and its goals. But history provides the answers to those concerns. The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs culminated in a great achievement: landing an astronaut on the moon. In the past 45 years, NASA's explorations and scientific experiments have led to technological breakthroughs that have changed our lives. They include a heart pump implant system that prolongs lives, smoke detectors that have saved thousands from death and shape memory metal used in eyeglasses and golf clubs that make them bendable. Advancements have also included the unexpected, such as a new line of shock- absorbing athletic shoes. I believe the new space exploration vision is affordable and achievable. To succeed it requires congressional support, leadership from the White House, and an unwavering belief that the impossible can one day become the possible. Mr. Speaker, NASA has inspired the public since the Mercury 7 astronauts had ``the right stuff'' to launch our space exploration program. Their legacy is secure. Our challenge today is to honor the legacy and build upon it with a new vision. I believe we can. America still has the right stuff to make other giant leaps for mankind.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states as follows: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the People of the several States. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such vacancies.'' The Constitution emphasizes the right of the people to govern themselves through their elected representatives. We should not ignore that Constitution. However, the constitutional amendment we are considering today would create unelected representatives. It would have vacancies during a disaster filled by appointees. The House already has passed H.R. 2844, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), which passed by a three to one margin. It requires special elections to occur within 45 days of a disaster that kills more than 100 Members of Congress. While some wonder how the government would operate while we are waiting for those elections, there is a House rule that provides that a quorum shall consist of all Members who are living. During a time of disaster when many Members have died, the Speaker can adjust the required quorum to reflect the number of Members still living. On the other hand, by law, Senate vacancies are filled by the governor of the affected State. So if a significant number of House and Senate Members were killed during an attack and if House Members were appointed as well, as this constitutional amendment we are considering describes, we would then have a Congress of mostly unelected officials. That is another reason we must preserve the right of the American people to have elected representatives in the House. Some claim that a constitutional amendment providing for the immediate appointment of representatives is necessary for a government to function, but Congress has granted the President significant powers to act during a national emergency. Congress could utilize that reduced quorum until elections are held. Mr. Speaker, any constitutional amendment that would deprive the American people of the right to elect their representatives should be defeated. Democracy is always better than bureaucracy.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last year illegal aliens cost taxpayers more than $1 billion in hospital costs. I support H.R. 3722, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), which requires hospitals to report the immigration status of the individuals they treat. This bill also makes employers responsible for these medical costs if they employ the illegal alien. Hospitals already collect information from patients. Reporting immigration status as a condition for receiving Federal funds is not overly burdensome. We cannot afford to ignore the growing costs associated with illegal immigration. In my home State of Texas, health care for illegal immigrants costs taxpayers at least $170 million every year. If we are serious about reducing illegal immigration, we need to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I released a letter signed by 75 Members of Congress to Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. We have serious concerns about her impartiality as a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Commissioner Gorelick never should have accepted the position in the first place. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department, she cannot be objective, especially when their policies may have contributed to America's vulnerability. If Commissioner Gorelick does not testify before the commission and respond to our letter, then a cloud will hang over the commission that brings into question its independence and supposed non-partisanship.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding me this time. I support the Continuity In Representation Act of 2004. This legislation preserves the right of the people of the United States to elect their own representatives, even after a deadly attack. One of the cornerstones of our Constitution is the right of the people to govern themselves through elected representation. This right should be upheld and, in fact, continued. H.R. 2844 provides for the expedited special election of new Members of Congress if more than 100 seats are vacant. This is designed to address a situation in which our country is attacked and significant numbers of Members of Congress are killed. Mr. Chairman, in the wake of such an attack on our country, Americans need to be assured that their government is legitimate, and citizens need to feel that actions undertaken by Congress at a time of disaster or war are also legitimate. By allowing for the election of Representatives rather than for their appointment, Americans can be reassured that our government is continuing to function in a truly representative fashion. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for moving legislation that guarantees our government would survive. It has been over 2 years since September 11. This issue must be addressed today in a democratic fashion.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last month America celebrated President's Day. In recognizing a generic holiday, though, perhaps we didn't take the time to focus on our first President, George Washington. A friend, advisor, constituent and cousin, Frates Seeligson of San Antonio, wrote an article for the San Antonio Express-News that conveys the greatness of the individual called, ``First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.'' I hope my colleagues and others will enjoy Mr. Seeligson's trenchant observations. [From the San Antonio Express-News, Feb. 22, 2004] Olympian in War, Sagacious in Peace (By Frates Seeligson) During the past three decades, knowledge and appreciation of George Washington have declined to an all-time low. One survey has revealed that Washington's coverage in history textbooks has declined by 90 percent since the 1960s. One high school textbook has only a paragraph on George Washington but more than two pages on Marilyn Monroe. For that reason, his birthday today is an appropriate time to remind ourselves about his wonderful contributions to America, which resulted in his being known as the ``Father of his Country.'' It is even more appropriate at a time when we constantly are looking for role models. Consider Washington's greatest services in the creation of our country: For 8\1/2\ years, he commanded the Continental forces, which won our independence. He presided over the constitutional convention that produced the document under which we live, and without his support it would not have been ratified. He became the first president of the United States. Washington was a magnificent horseman and looked every inch a general. He was one of the wealthiest men in America, yet he pledged his life, his future, his beloved Mount Vernon and his sacred honor to win our freedom. At one battle he stopped his retreating army, turned them around and fought the British to a draw. The Marquis de Lafayette described the effect of Washington's arrival on the tired, discouraged, beaten men: ``His presence stopped the retreat. His fine appearance on horse, his calm courage, roused to animation by the vexations of the morning, gave him the air best calculated to excite enthusiasm.'' Lafayette also recalled how later he ``rode all along the lines amid the shouts of the soldiers cheering them by his voice and example and restoring to our standard the fortunes of the fight. I thought then, as now, that never had I beheld so superb a man.'' After the war, no one knew whether the 13 states would separate into different countries or become one nation. The government under which they lived was basically a league of states absorbed in their own concerns. The country found it impossible to operate under this type of government, and a constitutional convention was called. Washington was already a legend. As John Adams said: ``He made every crowned head in Europe look like a valet. Noble, incorruptible, Olympian in war, sagacious in peace, he was the ideal man to preside over the convention.'' The Constitution that the founding fathers created was absolutely new and revolutionary for its time. To create it was one thing; to get it ratified by the states was another. Washington's support was essential to its passage. As he said: ``It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted, perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. ``If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work. Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair.'' Once the Constitution was ratified, most of the European powers felt there was no question it would be a failure. They underestimated the first president. He guided the nation through its first eight years and set it on a course that has lasted to this day. Washington's last service to his nation was to retire after two presidential terms. To paraphrase what has been written before, there are two roads: one to absolutism and another road to democracy. On the first we see Napoleon and emperors, perpetual presidents, Mussolinis, Hitlers, Maos and directors of the proletariat advancing to band music to the death of political freedom. On the other road, to democracy, there is a solitary figure in a rusty blue and buff uniform hasting to the happy halls of Mount Vernon. All hail to Washington. First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, all citizens should be aware that President Bush really has two opponents in his reelection effort: the Democratic nominee and the national media. Most of the national media minimize or ignore the good news for President Bush, like last week's CBS poll showing him ahead, and magnify every criticism. That is no surprise. TV coverage of the President is mostly negative. News articles are often slanted, and three of the largest newspapers in America have not endorsed a Republican for President in 50 years. A recent survey shows that over half of the American people believe that ``media stories and reports are often inaccurate.'' Voters should insist on getting objective news reports so they can make good decisions. Democracy demands not only freedom of speech but also fair media coverage.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's recent use of foreign law as a precedent in several cases is disturbing. This judicial activism threatens our Nation's sovereignty. For example, in a capital punishment case, a justice cited the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe as precedent. Zimbabwe is led by a brutal dictator, Robert Mugabe. According to a State Department official, ``He has succeeded in reducing a once- promising nation with a bright future to a state of ruin, desolation, and isolation.'' I hope the Supreme Court in the future will not seek guidance from the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe anytime again. Our judges should enforce American laws and the United States Constitution, not the laws and legal precedents of other countries. Mr. Speaker, also, the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law is holding a hearing on this very subject right now.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it easier for federal judges to retain jurisdiction of a lawsuit when questions regarding the facts are not in dispute, such as the facts in lawsuits stemming from a plane crash. For example, a plane crash with 100 fatalities from 25 states can result in 25 different plaintiffs. This legislation allows those 25 cases to be transferred to one court, which reduces the burden on our federal courts. Thirty years ago federal judges were authorized by circuit and district court case law to transfer cases to their own district or another district for trial. This provided them the ability to consolidate cases in their jurisdiction or refer cases to the appropriated jurisdiction as they saw fit. Unfortunately, in 1998, the Supreme Court reversed that practice in the Lexecon case because of the language in the statute. The opinion said that Congress could resolve the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. The Lexecon decision has prevented the federal court system from adjudicating complex cases even when all parties to a case have agreed on the wisdom of a transfer. That is not the most efficient and effective way for the management of our federal courts. Our transferee judges are federal judicial experts. We must provide them with the freedom they need so they can supervise day-to-day pretrial proceedings, which include the underlying facts, laws and the possibility of a settlement. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, three intellectual property bills have passed the House in the last 2 weeks. They were based on two principles essential to a democracy: the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services in the marketplace. The Patent and Trademark Office Fee Act protects the rights of American inventors, from the lone individual working in their garage, to the small business person with a breakthrough idea, to the large high-tech company that applies for hundreds of patents. The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act benefits artists, songwriters, music publishers and Web casters. The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act allows researchers and inventors who work for different organizations to share information without losing the ability to file for a patent. These three bills await action in the Senate where I hope they will become law. American jobs and profits are at stake.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for yielding me this time, but also for introducing this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the broadcast of offensive language is a growing and disturbing trend. Members of the Parents Television Council, a group that monitors television broadcasts, filed 85,000 complaints about broadcast obscenity and indecency with the Federal Communications last year. The networks have pushed the limits of decency to the point that family-oriented programs and enjoyable American pastimes, such as the Super Bowl, are no longer safe for our children to watch. Unfortunately, the FCC has given television and radio stations too much power to broadcast behavior or language they believe will bring in the high ratings or advertising dollars. This undermines standards of common decency and impedes the ability of parents to raise their children free from exposure to profane language. Low fines for indecency only encourage more indecency. It has become apparent some performers will accept a small fine for offensive and crude behavior in return for the media attention its creates. This is one of the reasons I support this legislation that increases fines for indecent language on radio and television. Mr. Chairman, this is not a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court has upheld the FCC's authority to regulate broadcasts. In fact, the court said ``Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection. Among the reasons is that broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children.'' The entertainment industry has become increasingly isolated from the American people. We are still a Nation that believes in standards of common decency and respect for traditional values. This bill will help us uphold those values.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the CREATE Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), allows researchers and inventors who work for different organizations and collaborate on inventions to share information without losing the ability to file for a patent. This legislation removes roadblocks to the patenting of collaborative inventions. It empowers researchers to choose to collaborate when it is in their interest, and to compete for inventions when it is not. Under current law, individuals who did not work on an invention or project can challenge patent applications. This leads to invalidated patents which harms our economy and the inventors, researchers and entrepreneurs who want to create new products. Today's biotech, pharmaceutical, and nanotechnology companies conduct much of their research with partners such as universities and other public or private organizations. In fact, the University of Texas ranks fourth on the list of universities that receive the most patents. Many of these patents result from working with the private sector on research. America's universities, private companies, public organizations and nonprofit institutions all have a stake in ensuring the U.S. patent system rewards rather than inhibits their innovations, from life-saving therapies to fuel cells. Yesterday, my subcommittee received a letter from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which supports this legislation. The organization stated, ``The majority of our members routinely engage in collaborative research. We believe that encouraging this type of research will greatly enhance the ability of the biotechnology industry to develop life-saving and life-enhancing products.'' The CREATE Act: (1) Promotes communication among team researchers located at multiple organizations; (2) discourages those who would use the discovery process to impede coinventors who voluntarily collaborated on research resulting in patentable inventions; (3) increases public knowledge; and (4) accelerates the commercial availability of new inventions. The CREATE Act benefits all industries that engage in collaborative and cooperative research involving more than one organization. The classic example is biotechnology, since it has a culture and a business model that is multi-disciplinary. When a biotechnology company decides to partner with a university, we want to prevent that partnership from being harassed by a third party. Biotech investment dollars dedicated to research should and must be used in an effective way without the possibility of a lawsuit or a grievance filed against it. The CREATE Act was inspired by two principles essential to a democracy: The protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services. Research collaborations are essential to the discovery of new inventions, the creation of new jobs, and the health of the U.S. economy. Protecting them will provide greater incentives to develop new technologies.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

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

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will reauthorize the State Justice Institute, which is a nonprofit corporation created in 1994 to provide grants and other funding to help State courts improve their systems. According to the Institute's mission statement, ``Since becoming operational in 1987, SJI has awarded over $120 million to support more than 1,000 projects benefiting the Nation's judicial system and the public it serves. The Institute is unique both in its mission and how it seeks to fulfill it.'' The SJI provides funding for programs which help improve access to the courts. It trains and assists courts in child custody, domestic violence, juvenile crime, and sexual assault cases. The SJI also works to create the use of technology in the courtroom, as well as create reforms to reduce the amount of time and money associated with litigation. By reauthorizing the State Justice Institute, we will provide them with $7 million each year for the next 4 years. This money helps Americans have access to a more effective and efficient court system. The State Justice Institute has been successful in its efforts. We should make sure they are able to continue their good work, and this bill will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo); the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young); the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf); and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member, for their help in pulling this bill together. They helped to iron out the wrinkles. They helped resolve the differences between many parties, and it is much appreciated. Mr. Chairman, this legislation that I authored modernizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It was inspired by two principles essential to a democracy: the protection of intellectual property rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services. The Patent and Trademark Office does not receive the attention of other government agencies such as the Department of State and Department of Justice, but it should. The Patent and Trademark Office is crucial to the health of our economy and to the lives of millions of Americans. The Patent and Trademark Office protects the rights of all American inventors. From the lone individual working in their garage to the small business owner with a breakthrough idea to the large high-tech company that applies for hundreds of patents, all rely on a responsive Patent and Trademark Office. Without a strong PTO, our economy would be devastated, our quality of life would be diminished, and jobs would be lost or never created in the first place. Mr. Chairman, this bill prevents the diversion of Patent and Trademark Office fees paid by inventors to fund government programs unconnected to the agency. The diversion of fees to the office is unfair, counterproductive, and an obstacle to sustained economic growth. Approximately $750 million has been diverted from the PTO in the last decade alone. Such a large revenue loss has deprived the Patent and Trademark Office of the resources it must have to serve the patent and trademark holders of the United States. At a time when the office is struggling to pay its examiners enough and to keep up with applications, particularly in high-tech areas, Congress should take an interest in protecting our economy by keeping patents and trademark fees within the Patent and Trademark Office. This bill enables the Patent and Trademark Office to hire 2,900 new patent examiners. Today the average time to process a patent exceeds 2 years. Without the new examiners, agency delays will soon reach 3 or even 4 years. If this fee bill does not become law, it is estimated that 140,000 patents will not be issued over the next 5 years. That is 140,000 missed opportunities for the American people. If nothing is done, if the status quo continues, it means new products will not make it to the market, jobs will not be created, and the inventors who came up with new ideas and products will not have their intellectual property protected and so will not market their inventions. This bill helps small businesses and nonprofit institutions. It provides a 50 percent discount on most services to small businesses, universities, and other nonprofit entities. The benefits of an improved and streamlined PTO will help small businesses and universities and encourage new research and innovation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for making this issue a priority for our committee and working with the appropriators to resolve our differences on PTO funding. Since U.S. Patent No. 1 was issued in 1837 for traction wheels, the patent system and the creativity, genius, and talent that defined it have benefited all Americans. From the revolutionary electric light bulb to the latest software technology, patents reflect America and contribute to our economic prosperity. This bipartisan bill is supported by these organizations: the Information Technology Industry Council, Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners, the International Trademark Association, the Association of American Universities, and the Association for Competitive Technology, as well as many others. Mr. Chairman, this bill is good for innovation, good for the economy, and good for the American people. The PTO has rarely been more important than it is today. It must have the resources it needs to professionally and expeditiously process patent and trademark applications. American jobs, profits, and the future of entrepreneurial capitalism are literally at stake.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, which is the result of careful negotiations between the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees. The two goals of the underlying bill are to improve PTO operations and to end fee diversion. This amendment makes sure those goals are achieved. In order to eliminate the incentive to divert fees from the PTO, the amendment establishes a rebate program that will deposit any fee collections that exceed the amount of money appropriated to the PTO in a ``reserve fund.'' At the end of each year, the PTO Director will determine whether there are sufficient funds to make payments to users who paid applicant fees that year. By ending fee diversion and allowing the PTO to keep the fees its users pay each year, the agency will be able to make many much-needed reforms to increase its efficiency and productivity. This amendment also contains provisions that will ensure the PTO will operate effectively. It establishes a pilot program to allow private entities to perform the search function associated with obtaining a patent. This will free up patent examiners to focus on other work. Some have mischaracterized this provision as ``outsourcing'' that will cut American jobs and send work overseas. In fact, this amendment specifies that participation in the pilot program is restricted to American businesses and American citizens. By allowing patent searches to be performed by commercial entities, this pilot program will simply allow the private sector to take some of the load off of an already overburdened patent evaluation system at the PTO. Twenty-five to thirty percent of the 355,000 patent applications the PTO receives each year come from small businesses. The Sensenbrenner amendment has many provisions to help small businesses obtain patents. The PTO is one of the most important agencies in the country. It is the agency behind the innovation and invention that drives our economy. We must give it the funding it needs to implement meaningful reform and improve its operations. This amendment strengthens the underlying bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, our country has long worked to support and protect copyright holders to ensure they receive fair compensation for their creative works. Over the last 20 years, Congress has attempted to develop the appropriate mechanism to govern royalties; that is, how to distribute royalties to those who create and how to adjust royalties when necessary. In other words, we have tried to find a compromise that allows for the fair distribution of royalties when two parties cannot agree on the value of a creative work. When I say ``fair distribution of royalties'' that could mean many things to different parties, particularly the creators of copyrighted works themselves. It is a major reason why this issue is again before Congress. Congress established the first entity to deal with this in 1976. Ten years ago, that system was abolished to create the current Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, or CARP, system. This legislation that I authored addresses the main problem: frivolous royalty claims, which is a growing trend, as well as decisions made by the copyright panel that are unpredictable and inconsistent. Much like another intellectual property rights bill that reforms the Patent and Trademark Office, this legislation is critical to the entertainment industry and a growing economy. It is of great importance to artists, songwriters, music publishers and webcasters. For example, take the case of a songwriter and a webcaster. If a songwriter cannot reach an agreement with a webcaster about the value of a song in the marketplace, the matter is brought to the copyright royalty and distribution system. The private parties involved, of course, pay for the process. What happens now is the songwriter or the webcaster, or both, often are not left with much of a royalty payment because the process is too lengthy and too costly. If the songwriter cannot make enough on his creations to support himself, then he will no longer be able to create, and our economy and our society will be the loser. This is the central reason why we are here today: to ensure that the songwriter has the incentive to create and the webcaster has the benefit of distributing enjoyable musical creations. Unfortunately, American songwriters and webcasters today are caught up in a royalty system that is anything but fair. The current proceedings to establish royalty rates are long, laborious and costly. They harm our economy and take a tremendous toll on the businesses and persons involved. Congress must reform this broken system, which is exactly what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to support a balanced and fair process that will, for example, help songwriters and bring a little more melody into the lives of the American people.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, few scientists write as well as Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California. This column he wrote about the Mars rover for the San Jose Mercury News offers compelling arguments for pursuing scientific discoveries and exploring space. [From the San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 7, 2004] Geologist On Wheels Takes Human Curiosity to Mars

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman I support this bill. It allows consumers to benefit from the changes to the bankruptcy system that were approved by this House last year. It's time for Congress to enact permanent meaningful bankruptcy reform. Recent surveys show that 70 percent of Americans support reforming our nation's bankruptcy laws. Unless we take action, consumers will continue to be negatively impacted by the current system and fraudulent filings will continue to be rewarded rather than discouraged. In 1980, 300,000 bankruptcy petitions were filed. This past year, over 1.2 million were reported during just the first nine months. Many of these filings are legitimate attempts by debtors to pay their debts and obtain a fresh start. However, bankruptcy is too often used as a way to avoid responsibilities. Unnecessary Bankruptcy filings continue to increase at dramatic rates. This is bad for consumers and bad for our economy. The costs of these filings are passed on to America's businesses and consumers, who should not have to absorb these debts. We must ensure that debtors actually belong in bankruptcy and are not using the system to avoid their obligations. This legislation encourages personal responsibility, protects consumers, and ensures that bankruptcy is used only as a last resort and is not abused by those who can afford to repay their debts. Bankruptcy reform is good for consumers, family farmers, and our economy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1947) to prohibit the offer of credit by a financial institution to a financial institution examiner, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, an architecture firm in my hometown of San Antonio recently received well-deserved national recognition. Lake/Flato Architects Inc. won the 2004 American Institute of Architects Architecture Firm Award, the highest honor given in its category. The annual award goes to a firm that consistently has produced distinguished architecture for at least 10 years. Founded in 1984 by David Lake and Ted Flato, the firm today employees forty-four talented people, including six partners. At its best, architecture warms the heart, uplifts the spirit, and engages the mind. It inspires us, even if we don't know all the reasons why. That Lake/Flato would be singled out by the AIA is no surprise. The firm already has picked up more than 90 regional and national architecture awards, including honorable mention awards from the AIA in 1992, 1997 and 1999. And it has inspired thousands of individuals throughout the United States with its eye-catching designs. This is only the second time that a Texas architecture firm has garnered the top prize from the AIA.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 S. 1947.