September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5795 

consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. GRIFFIN) who is an active 

member of the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 

2011, and urge its passage. 

I would like to thank Congressman 

JOE HECK for his leadership on this 

issue as well as Judiciary Committee 

Chairman SMITH, also Ranking Member 

CONYERS, for their bipartisan cooperation passing this bill out of committee. 

As a proud cosponsor of the Stolen 

Valor Act, I offered a substitute 

amendment during committee consideration in response to the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Alvarez. 

The court instructed that, however 

despicable, a false claim about receiving a military award is protected by 

the First Amendment. The substitute 

amendment, which was adopted unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on 

August 1, 2012, incorporates the Supreme Court’s opinion and recommendations in Alvarez. 

The bill we consider today ensures 

that the Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, 

and other military awards will be protected from fraud and that those who 

make false claims of military service 

or awards will face criminal penalties. 

I believe that protecting the integrity 

and valor of American servicemembers 

who have distinguished themselves in 

defense of this Nation is critically important. We must ensure that the 

Medal of Honor and other military 

awards are protected from fraud, and 

the Stolen Valor Act helps in that effort. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of our time as 

well. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 1775, as amended. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

on that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946 AMENDMENT RELATING TO REMEDIES 

FOR DILUTION 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6215) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to correct an error in 

the provisions relating to remedies for 

dilution, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6215 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REMEDIES FOR DILUTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 43(c)(6) of the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in 

commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other 

purposes’’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Trademark Act of 1946’’; 

15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(6)), is amended by striking 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(A) is brought by another person under 

the common law or a statute of a State; and 

‘‘(B)(i) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or 

‘‘(ii) asserts any claim of actual or likely 

damage or harm to the distinctiveness or 

reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall apply to any action commenced on or after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from North Carolina (Mr. WATT) each 

will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

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 H.R. 6215, as amended, currently under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is 

to protect famous trademarks from 

uses that blur the distinctiveness of 

the trademark or tarnish or disparage 

it. Dilution does not rely upon the 

standard test of infringement, that is, 

likelihood of confusion, deception, or 

mistake. Rather, it applies when the 

unauthorized use of a famous trademark reduces the public’s perception 

that the trademark signifies something 

unique, singular, or particular. 

Dilution can result in the loss of the 

trademark’s distinctiveness and possibly the owner’s rights in it. 

Congress enacted amendments to the 

original dilution statute in 2006. Last 

year, two law professors discovered a 

technical problem with one of the 2006 

changes. 

During Senate consideration of the 

House bill, the section that provides a 

Federal registration defense to a dilution action was reorganized. This produced an unexpected and unintended 

change to the law. 

As originally drafted in the House, 

the provision was designed to encourage Federal registration of trademarks. 

This is a worthy policy goal that prevents State laws from interfering with 

federally protected trademarks and ensures that registered trademarks are 

protected nationwide. 

The House version promoted this 

goal and barred a State action for dilution against a federally registered 

trademark. However, the Senate reformatted the House text in such a way as 

to create a bar against State action for 

dilution as well as a State or Federal 

action based on a claim of actual or 

likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. 

This means the Federal registration 

defense is available to both State sand 

Federal dilution claims. 

b 1530 

Congress did not intend such an outcome. If all dilution claims, including 

Federal claims, are barred by registration, it becomes difficult to cancel a diluting trademark that is registered. 

This encourages illegitimate trademark holders to register diluting 

trademarks, which forces legitimate 

trademark holders to expend greater 

resources to monitor registrations, as 

well as other trademarks being used in 

commerce. That is why I introduced 

H.R. 6215 to amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. 

This bill simply reformats the affected provision to clarify that Federal 

registration only constitutes a complete bar to a State claim based on dilution, or actual or likely damage or 

harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. The change applies prospectively. 

This bill ensures that the trademark 

community is protected from those 

who seek to use this loophole as a way 

to disparage legitimate trademarks 

and cost their owners time and money. 

The only change to the bill, as reported, is a technical correction to a 

boilerplate reference regarding the 

date of enactment of the Trademark 

Act of 1946. The reported version inaccurately identifies the date of enactment as July 6, 1946. The correct date 

is July 5, 1946. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 

6214, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

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. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6215, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REPORTING EFFICIENCY 

IMPROVEMENT ACT 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6189) to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements for unfunded programs under the Office of 

Justice Programs, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6189 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reporting 

Efficiency Improvement Act’’. 

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPORTS FOR UNFUNDED PROGRAMS UNDER THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS. 

(a) DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS.—Section 2406 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3796kk–5) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(a) REPORTS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (b). 

(b) POLICE CORPS PROGRAM.— 

(1) REPEAL OF REPORT REQUIREMENT.— 

Section 200113 of the Police Corps Act (42 

U.S.C. 14102) is repealed. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994 is amended by striking the item 

relating to section 200113 in the table of contents contained in section 2 of such Act. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

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 H.R. 6189, as amended, currently under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I join the ranking member, Congressman CONYERS, in cosponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan 

bill, the Reporting Efficiency Improvement Act, and I thank him for introducing this legislation. 

The Government Performance and 

Results Modernization Act of 2010 requires Federal agencies to identify reports that may be outdated or duplicative. Then the executive branch must 

consult with Congress to determine if 

these reports can be eliminated. Here, 

the administration suggests that Congress repeal the two reports eliminated 

by this bill. Both of these reports are 

prepared by the Office of Justice Programs and the Department of Justice, 

but the underlying grant programs 

have not been funded by Congress for 

many years. Adopting this commonsense bill is a simple step that Congress can take to help Federal agencies 

work more efficiently. I hope this bill 

sets a precedent for many similar bills 

in the future. 

I again thank Mr. CONYERS for his 

initiative on this issue. I would urge 

my colleagues to support this bill, and 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

H.R. 6189, the Reporting Efficiency 

Improvement Act, eliminates two reporting requirements that the Department of Justice deems no longer needy 

or useful to the Congress. 

Under the Government Performance 

and Results Modernization Act, the Department of Justice conducts an annual review of statutory reporting requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or otherwise no longer useful. In 

this review, the Department identified 

two reports that are the subject of the 

bill before us now. The first of the two 

stems from the DNA Analysis Backlog 

Elimination Act, under which the Attorney General is required to report to 

Congress on various grants made to 

States to perform DNA analysis. Because Congress has not appropriated 

any funding for these specific grants 

since fiscal year 2003, this statutory reporting requirement has been obsolete 

for almost a decade. 

The second report is based on the Police Corps Act, originally a part of the 

Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. The 

Director of the Office of the Police 

Corps is required to make an annual report to Congress on the program’s status. However, Congress hasn’t appropriated any funds for the office since 

fiscal year 2005. 

So, H.R. 6189 is a simple cleanup of 

the Federal code. There is no need to 

have these reporting requirements on 

the books if there’s no activity for the 

Department of Justice or the Office of 

Justice Programs to report, and none 

planned at any time in the near future. 

It’s important to note that this legislation doesn’t make changes to the relevant programs; it merely eliminates 

discrete reporting requirements that 

are no longer useful. 

I want to thank LAMAR SMITH, the 

chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

for his support and eagerness in moving this legislation through the committee. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

measure. And having no other requests 

for additional speakers on this side, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

first want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CONYERS), for his nice comments, and 

I’ll yield back the balance of my time 

as well. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6189, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

b 1540 

MAKING IMPROVEMENTS IN 

ENACTMENT OF TITLE 41 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6080) to make improvements 

in the enactment of title 41, United 

States Code, into a positive law title 

and to improve the Code. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6080 

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

Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE