[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2078-S2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 2031. A bill to restore Federal remedies for infringements of 
intellectual property by States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in June 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court issued 
a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to 
intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid versus College 
Savings Bank and

[[Page S2079]]

its companion case, College Savings Bank versus Florida Prepaid. The 
Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be 
held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of 
the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do 
enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.
  Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the 
same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the 
Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, 
unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, 
copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.
  I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the 
Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.
  First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal 
intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot 
tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual 
property system get legal protection but need not adhere to the law 
themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate 
a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the 
rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a 
floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid 
decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of 
affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their 
private sector competitors.''
  This concern is not just abstract. Consider this. In one recent 
copyright case, the University of Houston was able to avoid any 
liability by invoking sovereign immunity. The plaintiff in that case, a 
woman named Denise Chavez, was unable to collect a nickle in connection 
with the university's alleged unauthorized publication of her short 
stories. Now, just a short time later, another public university funded 
by the State of Texas is suing Xerox for copyright infringement.
  The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid 
decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of 
Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to-
four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' 
the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation 
with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In 
doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State 
sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of 
the Constitution.
  Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; 
but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away 
at the legitimate constitutional authority of the Federal Government. 
At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We 
are faced with a choice. We can respond, in a careful and measured way, 
by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is 
crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, 
abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, 
and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.
  Just last month, the Court decided to intervene in another copyright 
dispute, to decide whether Congress went too far in 1998, when we 
extended the period of copyright protection for an additional 20 years. 
Many of us on the Judiciary Committee cosponsored that legislation, and 
it passed unanimously in both Houses. A decision that the legislation 
is unconstitutional could place further limits on congressional power.
  About 4 months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I 
introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual 
Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore 
Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by 
states.
  I regret that the Senate did not consider my legislation during the 
last Congress. It has now been nearly 3 years since the Court decisions 
opened such a troubling loophole in our Federal intellectual property 
laws. We should delay no further.
  Last month, the Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on the 
issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual 
property. I want to thank again everyone who participated in that 
hearing, which helped greatly to clarify the issues and challenges 
posed by the Court's new jurisprudence.
  Today, I am pleased to be reintroducing the Intellectual Property 
Protection Restoration Act with my friend and fellow Judiciary 
Committee member, Senator Brownback. I commend the Senator from Kansas 
for taking a stand on this important issue. I am also proud to have the 
House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Coble 
and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill, H.R. 
3204.
  This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that 
the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual 
property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re-
engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and 
intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the 
Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has 
earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the 
endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American 
Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 
the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners 
Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion 
Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of 
America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.
  In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates 
reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in 
intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. 
States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 years after 
enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of 
the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties 
that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for 
infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived 
their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.
  This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach 
conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property 
protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as 
Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of Federal funds 
under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach 
conditions to the Federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny 
the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or 
proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full 
protection for your Federal intellectual property rights, you must 
respect those of others.
  I hope we can all agree on the need for corrective legislation. A 
recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of 
intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available 
against State infringers, just a series of dead ends.
  We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign 
trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property 
becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual 
property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the 
international ramifications here. American trading interests have been 
well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective 
intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other 
international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole 
in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has 
created.
  The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores 
protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, 
under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping 
legislation earlier this decade, but were thwarted by the Supreme 
Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation 
without further delay.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S2080]]

                                S. 2031

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in this Act to the Trademark 
     Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks 
     used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain 
     international conventions, and for other purposes'', approved 
     July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) help eliminate the unfair commercial advantage that 
     States and their instrumentalities now hold in the Federal 
     intellectual property system because of their ability to 
     obtain protection under the United States patent, copyright, 
     and trademark laws while remaining exempt from liability for 
     infringing the rights of others;
       (2) promote technological innovation and artistic creation 
     in furtherance of the policies underlying Federal laws and 
     international treaties relating to intellectual property;
       (3) reaffirm the availability of prospective relief against 
     State officials who are violating or who threaten to violate 
     Federal intellectual property laws; and
       (4) abrogate State sovereign immunity in cases where States 
     or their instrumentalities, officers, or employees violate 
     the United States Constitution by infringing Federal 
     intellectual property.

     SEC. 3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REMEDIES EQUALIZATION.

       (a) Amendment to Patent Law.--Section 287 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) No remedies under section 284 or 289 shall be 
     awarded in any civil action brought under this title for 
     infringement of a patent issued on or after January 1, 2002, 
     if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any time the 
     legal or beneficial owner of such patent, except upon proof 
     that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a patent if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the patent, and, at the time of the purchase, 
     did not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that 
     a State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the patent.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Amendment to Copyright Law.--Section 504 of title 17, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action brought under this title for infringement of 
     an exclusive right in a work created on or after January 1, 
     2002, if a State or State instrumentality is or was at any 
     time the legal or beneficial owner of such right, except upon 
     proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the infringement commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to an exclusive right if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the exclusive right, and, at the time of the 
     purchase, did not know and was reasonably without cause to 
     believe that a State or State instrumentality was once the 
     legal or beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Amendment to Trademark Law.--Section 35 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Remedies in Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) No remedies under this section shall be awarded in 
     any civil action arising under this Act for a violation of 
     any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office on or after January 1, 2002, or 
     any right of the owner of a mark first used in commerce on or 
     after January 1, 2002, if a State or State instrumentality is 
     or was at any time the legal or beneficial owner of such 
     right, except upon proof that--
       ``(A) on or before the date the violation commenced or 
     January 1, 2004, whichever is later, the State has waived its 
     immunity, under the eleventh amendment of the United States 
     Constitution and under any other doctrine of sovereign 
     immunity, from suit in Federal court brought against the 
     State or any of its instrumentalities, for any infringement 
     of intellectual property protected under Federal law; and
       ``(B) such waiver was made in accordance with the 
     constitution and laws of the State, and remains effective.
       ``(2) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply with respect to a right of the registrant or owner 
     of a mark if--
       ``(A) the limitation would materially and adversely affect 
     a legitimate contract-based expectation in existence before 
     January 1, 2002; or
       ``(B) the party seeking remedies was a bona fide purchaser 
     for value of the right, and, at the time of the purchase, did 
     not know and was reasonably without cause to believe that a 
     State or State instrumentality was once the legal or 
     beneficial owner of the right.
       ``(3) The limitation on remedies under paragraph (1) may be 
     raised at any point in a proceeding, through the conclusion 
     of the action. If raised before January 1, 2004, the court 
     may stay the proceeding for a reasonable time, but not later 
     than January 1, 2004, to afford the State an opportunity to 
     waive its immunity as provided in paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to patent law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 296 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 296.
       (2) Amendments to copyright law.--
       (A) In general.--Section 511 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 5 
     of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 511.
       (3) Amendments to trademark law.--Section 40 of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1122) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``or (b)'' after 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR STATUTORY 
                   VIOLATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       In any action against an officer or employee of a State or 
     State instrumentality for any violation of any of the 
     provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code, the 
     Trademark Act of 1946, or the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), remedies shall be available against the 
     officer or employee in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as such remedies are available in an action against a private 
     individual under like circumstances. Such remedies may 
     include monetary damages assessed against the officer or 
     employee, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs, attorney 
     fees, and destruction of infringing articles, as provided 
     under the applicable Federal statute.

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY OF STATES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS 
                   INVOLVING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

       (a) Due Process Violations.--Any State or State 
     instrumentality that violates any of the exclusive rights of 
     a patent owner under title 35, United States Code, of a 
     copyright owner, author, or owner of a mask work or original 
     design under title 17, United States Code, of an owner or 
     registrant of a mark used in commerce or registered in the 
     Patent and Trademark Office under the Trademark Act of 1946, 
     or of an owner of a protected plant variety under the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner 
     that deprives any person of property in violation of the 
     fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, shall 
     be liable to the party injured in a civil action in Federal 
     court for compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (b) Takings Violations.--
       (1) In general.--Any State or State instrumentality that 
     violates any of the exclusive rights of a patent owner under 
     title 35, United States Code, of a copyright owner, author, 
     or owner of a mask work or original design under title 17, 
     United States Code, of an owner or registrant of a mark used 
     in commerce or registered in the Patent and Trademark Office 
     under the Trademark Act of 1946, or of an owner of a 
     protected plant variety under the Plant Variety Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in a manner that

[[Page S2081]]

     takes property in violation of the fifth and fourteenth 
     amendments of the United States Constitution, shall be liable 
     to the party injured in a civil action in Federal court for 
     compensation for the harm caused by such violation.
       (2) Effect on other relief.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall prevent or affect the ability of a party to obtain 
     declaratory or injunctive relief under section 4 of this Act 
     or otherwise.
       (c) Compensation.--Compensation under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) may include actual damages, profits, statutory damages, 
     interest, costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees, as 
     set forth in the appropriate provisions of title 17 or 35, 
     United States Code, the Trademark Act of 1946, and the Plant 
     Variety Protection Act; and
       (2) may not include an award of treble or enhanced damages 
     under section 284 of title 35, United States Code, section 
     504(d) of title 17, United States Code, section 35(b) of the 
     Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117 (b)), and section 
     124(b) of the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2564(b)).
       (d) Burden of Proof.--In any action under subsection (a) or 
     (b)--
       (1) with respect to any matter that would have to be proved 
     if the action were an action for infringement brought under 
     the applicable Federal statute, the burden of proof shall be 
     the same as if the action were brought under such statute; 
     and
       (2) with respect to all other matters, including whether 
     the State provides an adequate remedy for any deprivation of 
     property proved by the injured party under subsection (a), 
     the burden of proof shall be upon the State or State 
     instrumentality.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to violations 
     that occur on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall have original 
     jurisdiction of any action arising under this Act under 
     section 1338 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) Broad Construction.--This Act shall be construed in 
     favor of a broad protection of intellectual property, to the 
     maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution.
       (c) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any 
     application of such provision to any person or circumstance 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 
     the application of the provision to any other person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected.
                                  ____


  Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002 Section-by-
                            Section Summary

       Recent Supreme Court decisions invalidated prior efforts by 
     Congress to abrogate State sovereign immunity in actions 
     arising under the federal intellectual property laws. The 
     Court's decisions give States an unfair advantage in the 
     intellectual property marketplace by shielding them from 
     money damages when they infringe the rights of private 
     parties, while leaving them free to obtain money damages when 
     their own rights are infringed. These decisions also have the 
     potential to impair the rights of private intellectual 
     property owners, discourage technological innovation and 
     artistic creation, and compromise the ability of the United 
     States to advocate effective enforcement of intellectual 
     property rights in other countries and to fulfill its own 
     obligations under international treaties. The Intellectual 
     Property Protection Restoration Act of 2002 creates 
     reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in 
     intellectual property cases and participate in the 
     intellectual property marketplace on equal terms with private 
     parties. The bill also provides new remedies for State 
     infringements that rise to the level of constitutional 
     violations.
       Sec. 1. Short Title; References. This Act may be cited as 
     the ``Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 
     2001.''
       Sec. 2. Purposes. Legislative purposes in support of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 3. Intellectual Property Remedies Equalization. Places 
     States on an equal footing with private parties by 
     eliminating any damages remedy for infringement of State-
     owned intellectual property unless the State has waived its 
     immunity from any damages remedy for infringement of 
     privately-owned intellectual property. Intellectual property 
     that the State owned before the enactment of this Act is not 
     affected.
       Sec. 4. Clarification of Remedies Available for Statutory 
     Violations by State Officers and Employees. Affirms the 
     availability of injunctive relief against State officials who 
     violate the Federal intellectual property laws. Such relief 
     is authorized under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 
     123 (1908), which held that an individual may sue a State 
     official for prospective relief requiring the State official 
     to cease violating federal law, even if the State itself is 
     immune from suit under the eleventh amendment. This section 
     also affirms that State officials may be personally liable 
     for violations of the intellectual property laws.
       Sec. 5. Liability of States for Constitutional Violations 
     Involving Intellectual Property. Establishes a right to 
     compensation for State infringements of intellectual property 
     that rise to the level of constitutional violations. 
     Compensation shall be measured by the statutory remedies 
     available under the federal intellectual property laws, but 
     may not include treble damages.
       Sec. 6. Rules of Construction. Establishes rules for 
     interpreting this Act.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Leahy in 
sponsoring S. 2031, a bill that will protect intellectual property 
rights fully and fairly by complying with the Court's new 
constitutional requirements. This bill builds upon the same common-
sense goals as the statutes that Senator Hatch championed a decade ago. 
I would like to commend both members for their outstanding leadership 
in this area. My hope is that S. 2031 will finally bring closure to our 
efforts in trying to clarify a complex and difficult issue for both 
Congress and the Courts.
  There are two sides to this issue and both are compelling. For 
individuals and companies who make the investment and take the risk in 
creating new products and services, their property rights are at stake 
when a state infringes upon their intellectual property. States on the 
other hand also want to protect their sovereignty under the 
Constitution and want to assert their intellectual property rights 
especially in the context of private/public partnerships where 
ownership issues may be in doubt, creating the prospect for protracted 
litigation.
  That is why this inherent conflict demands congressional action. With 
the arrival of the digital revolution where exact copies and 
reproductions can be made without limitations, this is an important 
economic issue for individuals and companies trying to compete in the 
marketplace. The question is how to fashion a legislative remedy in 
light of recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down previous 
attempts to bring clarity to the issue.
  I believe the Leahy/Brownback bill is a reasonable compromise 
solution without running afoul of the constitutional issues highlighted 
by the Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe and the Florida Pre-paid cases.
  S. 2031 presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable 
incentives for States to waive their sovereign immunity in intellectual 
property cases. States that choose not to waive their immunity within 2 
years after enactment would continue to enjoy many of the benefits in 
the intellectual property marketplace. However, like private parties 
that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for 
infringement will not be able to recover any money damages unless they 
waive their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases. All 
other remedial actions will continue to be available to State 
litigants.
  As Chairman Leahy previously observed, this is clearly constitutional 
and avoids the concerns raised by the Courts with regard to past 
statutes addressing this matter. Under the Constitution's Article I 
spending power, Congress can attach limited conditions to a State's 
receipt of Federal funds. Similarly, it would seem to me that a State's 
receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under Article I's 
intellectual property power can similarly be conditioned. Especially in 
light of the commercial implications of this bill, it seems reasonable 
to expect that a condition to respect the rights of others is a 
necessary and logical complement to obtaining the full protections of 
the Federal intellectual property rights.
  I would also add that a recent GAO study initiated by Senator Hatch 
when he chaired the Judiciary Committee confirmed the lack of 
alternatives or remedies against State infringers.

  I would also like to add that this matter has repercussions which 
extend far beyond the domestic realm. The United States is one of the 
leading proponents for the enforcement of intellectual property rights 
throughout the world. That's why we cannot afford to be inconsistent in 
our own observance of intellectual property rights. Through 
international agreements such as TRIPs and NAFTA, the United States has 
vigorously challenged international institutions and other nations to 
adopt and enforce more extensive intellectual property laws. When 
States assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon 
intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United 
States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of 
our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of 
intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm 
American businesses, because of our

[[Page S2082]]

position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, 
information technology, and biotechnology.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill which provides a balanced 
and appropriate intellectual property remedy for American inventors and 
investors without compromising the sovereign rights of States under our 
Constitution.
                                 ______