Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the time of the two previous speakers who asked for unanimous consent not be charged to the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to that ruling, and I would ask the Speaker to reverse it.

Mr. WATT. Would the Speaker explain to the House why that is the case.

Mr. WATT. Whose time got charged with the last two unanimous consent requests? Both were one sentence, and you're saying they were charged.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to the rule which prohibits Members from offering amendments that would protect the children of America from hunger.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Fattah, for convening us here and for coordinating this. I'd like to rise and pay tribute to the memory of Bill Gray also. Unlike our leader, I never had the pleasure of serving with Bill Gray. Maybe people will wonder why so many people have flocked to the floor to pay tribute to him. We put him in the same category that we put Shirley Chisholm, with whom I never served, or George H. White, with whom I never served, or many other people who came before us; because we stand on their shoulders and recognize that, but for the contributions that they made, we would not be here. And I come because Bill Gray was a friend, even though I never served with him. He regularly checked in with those of us who served just to call and say hello and encourage us to stay committed to the task that we are sent here to undertake. He regularly checked in with me because he knew I also played tennis and loved tennis and that I'd been to Wimbledon before. So I guess the great thing about it is that he died in the middle of making a trip to do something and observe something that he really loved--and with a member of his family. I want to thank Representative Fattah for convening this Special Order, and I extend my condolences to Bill Gray's family. We'll remember him forever and ever. Amen.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the residents of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, part of which is located in my congressional district, as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of the consolidation of the Town of Salem and the City of Winston. Winston and Salem consolidated on May 9, 1913 and the city is now hosting a four day celebration (May 9-13, 2013) to celebrate this historic consolidation. Today, Winston-Salem has approximately 229,000 residents, is the fourth largest city in North Carolina and is the county seat of Forsyth County. Winston-Salem is a city with a focus on education and healthcare. It is the home of Winston-Salem State University, Salem College, Wake Forest University, the North Carolina School of the Arts, Forsyth Technical Community College, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and Forsyth County Hospital. Winston-Salem is also a city with a focus on the arts. Along with the University of North Carolina School of the Arts, it is home to the Reynolda House Museum of American Art, the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art and the National Black Theatre Festival. I wish all the best to Mayor Allen Joines and to the residents of Winston-Salem as they celebrate ``Winston-Salem Centennial 1913-2013.''

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in expressing thanks and giving praise to our outgoing chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's not leaving Congress, he's just leaving the chairmanship of the Congressional Black Caucus. I don't usually come over here for these 5-minute speeches or 1- minute speeches, but today I thought I would make an exception to say some things about our outgoing chair. I want to make two points. First of all, contrary to the perception that's out in the world, there are no bad people in this body. All of us are good people who are here to serve the American people, and our constituents in particular. I characterize us as all good guys--and that includes female in that good guys category too. But then there are people who because of their particular qualities I would put in a category of really, really, really good people. It doesn't take long to detect those people; it comes through in their manner, in the way that they deal with their colleagues and the way that they consult and console you when you really need consultation and consolation; and the way they give you advice or fail to give you advice or don't give you advice when you either need it or don't need it. They're not in the way; they're just really, really, really good people. That's the category in which I would put our outgoing chair, Chairman Emanuel Cleaver. And his leadership has been outstanding, but it's not that that I came to praise. The second thing I really want to emphasize about him is that the question I get most from constituents is who's doing something inside you all's institution to make you all more compatible with each other? So every week I look forward to getting in my intra-Congress mail this letter that our outgoing chair sends to every Member of this body, just one or two or three paragraphs, one page--never longer than one page, just giving us some sage wisdom and advice about how to be nicer to each other, how to soften our edges, how to work better together to achieve the aspirations of our constituents and of our Nation. Those are the little things that people out in the public never see or hear about, and Chairman Cleaver has set that example. Sometimes I'm sure he feels like he's a voice in the wilderness by doing that, but every single week each of us gets this special appeal from Emanuel Cleaver to be what we should be, stewards of our country, and to do it in a way that does not demean our institution and demean each other, and to advocate for what we believe, but to do it in a way that is more human and kind. So I want to join with my colleagues in thanking him for his leadership, but most of all I want to thank him for the tremendous role model he has been for our institution to try to make our institution a better place in which to serve and to try to make each of us better Members of this institution.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill and working with us next year to address the things that are not in the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. I yield such time as she may consume to a valued member of our Intellectual Property Subcommittee and a valued member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. WATT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6671. Last year, I came to the floor to oppose the predecessor bill to this legislation, which we in the House passed and sent to the Senate. But today, I rise to support the amendments to the Video Privacy Protection Act contained in the bill because of important amendments to the bill that have been made in the Senate. I said when we debated the bill before, and I say now, that while I support innovation on the Web, I do not support it at the expense of consumer privacy. I believe the Senate amendments make for a strong bill, with more robust consumer protections, and respond, in many respects, to the concerns I raised about the prior bill. The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed in reaction to the unauthorized release of Judge Robert Bork's rental history during his contentious confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court and stands today as the gold standard for privacy protection. The amendments made by this bill would allow a video service provider to obtain universal, ongoing electronic consent from consumers to share their viewing history across social media like Facebook. The consumer would have to affirmatively opt in, and the service must provide a clear and conspicuous opportunity to withdraw the consent to share video viewing information at any time. Finally, advance consent may be valid for no longer than 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied that the amendments made in the Senate, before which I testified in opposition to the original bill, have adequately addressed the privacy-related concerns I expressed. Opt-in consent is widely regarded by privacy advocates as a vigorous protection for consumers. The requirement that the consumer must revisit the decision to share his video history reinforces the protections provided in the initial consent. And finally, the bill now allows what I suggested during the Judiciary Committee markup in the House, that the consumer be provided the option to give consent on a video-by-video basis, or in advance for all views until that consent is withdrawn, or until the expiration of 24 months. Because of these important changes, I support the chairman in his effort to assist online companies to initiate creative options on behalf of their subscribers. While these are welcome improvements that allow me to support this bill, I remain concerned that the bill fails to provide needed updates to the Video Privacy Protection Act, in particular, and fails to consider implications for the ongoing national debate on privacy laws governing digital privacy. I continue to believe that the underlying Video Privacy Protection Act must be updated to address destruction of records in the online environment. Also, the damages provision should be updated to ensure that consumers are adequately compensated when harmed and that online companies are not unfairly penalized because of the reach of their media. Finally, I firmly believe that the provision in the Video Privacy Protection Act that requires a warrant for law enforcement to obtain consumer records must be preserved and that future debates on electronic consumer privacy reforms must not undercut those protections. I understand that the incoming chair of the Judiciary, my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, agrees with most of these observations and will work with me to ensure that the Judiciary Committee, next year, tries to address some of these concerns. So, Madam Speaker, my concerns are not so much about what's in this bill as much as they are concerns about what is not in the bill. So I'm agreeing not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I, therefore, ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill, but I also ask them to join me, in the next term of Congress, to protect consumer privacy and to update the outdated provisions of the Video Privacy Protection Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. And with having been granted that unanimous consent, I think I can submit substantially all of my statement into the Record. However, I did want to acknowledge the outstanding stewardship of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the director of the Patent and Trademark Office, David Kappos, and his remarkable staff for their tireless efforts both in getting patent reform across the finish line and in the timely implementation of its provisions. In connection with these amendments to the bill, Director Kappos has announced that he intends to leave the Patent and Trademark Office in January. He will leave behind a long line of achievements and good will that were instrumental throughout this process, and he will leave behind a Patent and Trademark Office that is much better respected and equipped to serve the important purpose of recognizing and protecting our important intellectual property than the office was before he arrived there. His successor, no doubt, will have some big shoes to fill. And we wish Director Kappos all our best in all of his future endeavors. Mr. Speaker, after concerted effort over at least three terms of Congress, last year we completed a major overhaul of our patent system designed to afford American inventors with a more efficient, effective, and well-resourced patent office. President Obama signed the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act into law on September 16, 2011. Since that time the PTO has been diligently working to implement the provisions of the Act which approved significant reforms designed to simplify the process for acquiring patents, enhance patent quality, reduce costs, improve fairness and make it easier for American inventors to market their products in the global marketplace. As with almost every piece of major legislation, the need for technical corrections and improvements became obvious after passage. H.R. 6621 goes a long way towards addressing the concerns which have been identified by staff, the patent office and various stakeholders in the time since the law's enactment. Among the provisions addressed by H.R. 6621, important adjustments have been made to ensure that inadvertent ``dead zones,'' in which post grant review proceedings could not be initiated as intended, are eliminated. H.R. 6621 will also tighten language to prevent dilatory tactics and gamesmanship in the newly created derivation proceedings. A third fundamental correction involves PTO funding and will guarantee that all PTO administrative costs will be covered either by patent fees or trademark fees. While there are other provisions of the America Invents Act that will likely require legislative corrections or adjustments, this bill, like the underlying Act, enjoys bipartisan support and should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding stewardship of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the PTO, David Kappos, and his remarkable staff for their tireless efforts both in getting patent reform across the finish line and in the timely implementation of its provisions. Director Kappos has announced that he intends to leave the PTO in January. He will leave behind a long line of achievements and good will that were instrumental throughout this process and he will leave behind a Patent and Trademark office that is much better respected and equipped to serve the important purpose of recognizing and protecting our important intellectual property than it was when he arrived. His successor, no doubt, will have some big shoes to fill. We wish Director Kappos the best in all his future endeavors. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 6621.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6621, as amended. (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a friend, supporter, mentor and trusted advisor to me, both spiritually and politically, Bishop George Wilbert Brooks. After 37 years of service, Bishop Brooks will retire as Senior Pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Greensboro, North Carolina on December 31, 2012. A native of Hillsborough, North Carolina, Bishop Brooks moved to Greensboro to attend North Carolina A&T State University where he earned his Bachelor's degree in Industrial Technology. He received a Master of Divinity degree from Shaw University in Raleigh and a Doctorate of Ministry degree from Friends International Christian University in Merced, California. After being licensed to preach the gospel in March 1975, Bishop Brooks moved back to Greensboro to begin his service as Pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church. Since accepting the call to lead Mount Zion Baptist Church, Bishop Brooks has set an example for community and civic leadership and involvement that others can only aspire to match. In addition to his important religious role as the leader of a dynamic congregation, he is recognized as a leader in community based self-sufficiency initiatives. He also serves on numerous local, national and international boards and has been named among the ``Most Influential Persons in the Triad'' by The Triad Business Journal each year since 2005. In addition to his church and community involvement he is a devoted husband of 44 years to Edna Brooks, father of two children and grandfather of five grandchildren. Bishop Brooks' service to Mount Zion Baptist Church and the Greensboro community is unmatched. He has been a leader and a real inspiration to countless others in word and deed and in other ways that we can only imagine. As I often tell people, he is a ``one-of-a-kind guy''. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my colleagues will join me in wishing Bishop George W. Brooks the very best in retirement, although I'm not about to let him retire from the roles he plays in my life as friend, advisor and mentor. I thank him for all he has done for me and for our community.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Johnson C. Smith University's homecoming and election day, I want to take this opportunity to honor Rose and Hank Sanders. Rose Sanders is a graduate of Johnson C. Smith University, a historically Black College located in my congressional district. She is also a graduate of the Harvard University School of Law. She was Alabama's first female African American judge and was also a lead attorney in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture which documented racial discrimination in the Department of Agriculture's allocation of farm loans and assistance. Rose Sanders' husband, Hank Sanders, also graduated from Harvard Law School. He serves in the Alabama State Senate where he has represented the 23rd State Senate District since 1983. He was Chair of the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee and is the longest serving Chair of the Legislative Budget Committee. Today, however, I want to recognize Hank and Rose Sanders for their tireless work to organize the National Voting Rights Museum & Institute and the Bridge Crossing Jubilee. The Museum and the Jubilee were organized and started to memorialize the events of March 7, 1965 which has come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday''. On that date 600 citizens, including my hero and our colleague John Lewis, were brutally attacked by Alabama state troopers, as they peacefully attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge seeking to provide the right to vote to all citizens. This attack showed the world the insensitivity and brutality of opponents to voting rights and, ultimately, led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Through the vision and work of Rose and Hank Sanders and their work through the Museum and Jubilee, thousands of Alabama children, residents, tourists and others from around our country and the world have learned about the courageous acts of those who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and others who have fought to advance the struggle to gain the civil and voting rights we now enjoy. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me and my colleague John Lewis as we commend the efforts of Rose and Hank Sanders and the important work they have done to advance justice, equality and the right to vote in the United States.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6215, which is necessary to correct a technical error in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 that inadvertently allowed the registration of a Federal trademark to be a complete bar to Federal trademark dilution claims. The concept of dilution was initially a creature of State law. Massachusetts was the first State to enact a dilution statute in 1947. The purpose of the dilution law is to protect the value and uniqueness of the plaintiff's trademark without requiring evidence about the likelihood of confusion. Over 50 years after the passage of the Massachusetts statute, the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act provided nationwide injunctive relief ``against a use that causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark.'' In 2003, however, the Supreme Court in Moseley v. Victoria's Secret Catalog, Inc., considered the question of whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark--that is, actual dilution--is required to obtain relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The Court decided that evidence of actual dilution was required, not simply a showing of likely dilution. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 amended the law in an attempt to reverse the Victoria's Secret decision and to expand the scope of State dilution claims banned under the Federal statute. During consideration of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, however, the provision allowing a Federal registration defense to dilution claims brought under State law was reorganized in such a way as to result in an unintended substantive change in the provision. As a result, the Federal registration defense is available not only against State dilution claims, but also against Federal dilution claims. The legislative history makes clear that Congress did not intend to allow a Federal trademark registration to bar a Federal dilution claim. H.R. 6215 corrects this error and has broad support in the intellectual property community and bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that ensures that the will of the Congress, as originally intended, is not undermined by an inadvertent drafting error. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, after 6 long years of negotiation, thoughtful consideration, and bipartisan cooperation, we passed a patent reform bill which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, by President Obama. At the time the bill was passed, Speaker Boehner said: Modernizing our patent system for America's innovators and job creators is an important part of the Republican Jobs Plan. This bipartisan measure reflects our commitment to find common ground with the President on removing barriers to private sector job growth, and I am pleased to see it signed into law. Under the America Invents Act, we the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue 20 implementing rules. Of the 20 implementing rules, seven have already been implemented, nine have been noticed, and four are under development. Under this bill that we are considering today, that entire process would be stopped in its tracks. Among the most troubling aspects of stopping the rulemaking process in this case is a rule that would be specifically designed to assist micro entities in securing patents for their inventions. It's a law that says, once the rule is adopted by the Patent and Trademark Office, micro entities will get a 75 percent reduction in the filing fees that they have applicable to them. The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office has said: The new micro entity provision in the America Invents Act makes our patent system more accessible for smaller innovators by entitling them to a 75 percent discount on patent fees. By paying discounted patent fees as micro entities, smaller innovators can access the patent system to move their ideas into the marketplace. Although the micro entity definition became effective September 16 when the President signed the bill into law--the date of enactment of the patent reform bill--the discount is not available to these small entities until these rules are passed, and this bill would make it impossible for us to adopt the rules. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me get this straight. We have passed a bill on a bipartisan basis that directs that rules be written, and then we want, when the rules are written, to have it come back to Congress so that we can approve those rules. Tell me, first of all, what sense that makes. Second of all, the gentleman obviously is not aware of some of the corporations that have started off as micro enterprises if he does not believe that this measures up to his $100 million, or whatever the threshold is. Let me read him some of the companies that started off as micro enterprises. What about Google or Apple or Instagram or Microsoft or Facebook, a whole litany of people that, were this 75 percent reduction in fees not in effect, might have been discouraged from ever even applying for a patent. So this notion that this doesn't add up to $100 million, or whatever this threshold is, is just false. The notion that we would tell the administration to adopt a set of rules and then say, okay, we're going to micromanage you and you've got to come back over here so we can cross your T's and dot your I's in a noncontroversial way like this and delay the process of innovation in our country is just nonsensical. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. I just want to be clear that Mr. Frank and I both voted against the bill that you're talking about, so don't try to make it sound like it's Mr. Frank's and my bill. We voted against the bill. This is Ron Paul's bill. We thought it was a terrible idea then, and we think it's a terrible idea now.

Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman. Let me say, first, that this bill is not about sunshine and it's not about transparency. It is about dissatisfaction that some individuals have with the mandate that Congress has given to the Federal Reserve. The gentleman who just spoke is absolutely right; They are supposed to deal with inflation. That's what we told them to do in their mandate. They're supposed to deal with unemployment. That's what we told them to do in the mandate we gave. And some people over there are dissatisfied with the fact that--they don't want them to deal with unemployment. They don't want them to try to adjust and make changes that will be beneficial to our economy. And if they don't want that, they ought to just introduce a bill that repeals the mandate that we gave to them. Don't come and say that we are talking about sunshine and transparency. Every time I turn on the television now, I hear the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke and members of the Federal Reserve, talking about how the economy is going. That is not lack of sunshine and lack of information. I thought we had dealt with this when Mr. Paul was the ranking member of the subcommittee and I was the chairman. Mr. Paul's problem is he doesn't like the Federal Reserve. He is avowedly in favor of doing away with the Federal Reserve. That's an honest position. But don't come in and try to cloak it in the guise of this agency is not transparent or it lacks sunshine. If you don't like the mandate that they have, then have the guts to stand up and introduce a bill that says that we are doing away with the Federal Reserve.

Mr. WATT. If you think we are in trouble now, if you get the politics and the Congress involved in transactions with foreign governments and the decisions about how we get ourselves out of this unemployment situation, if we have some answers about how to get out of unemployment, then I would assume we would come forward with them. And nobody on this floor of this Congress has done anything to take up an unemployment bill. So I'm glad we have the Federal Reserve over there at least trying to figure out how to make some adjustments in our economy that will deal with unemployment. The last thing I want is for this Congress to be second-guessing--or an auditor that is not elected by anybody to be second-guessing--the decisions of the people who are on the Federal Reserve. An auditor might be a good accountant, he can count, but I want somebody on the Federal Reserve, and hopefully it would be nice to have some people in Congress who can make some decisions about how to deal with unemployment.