Baseball, basketball, football, track, and the many sports that come under the olympics mandate. This bill in particular i wish to remind our colleagues again provides relief, but we really hope it is a deterrent and works to move other nations, the european union, to be able to establish these kinds of responses to doping. This act establishes criminal penalties for participating in a scheme in commerce to influence a Major International sport competition through prohibited substances or methods. It also provides restitution to victims of such conspiracy, athletes in particular, many of them who have suffered great losses because of this fraud. It protects whistleblowers from retaliation by criminalizing participation in International Doping fraud conspiracies, whistleblowers will be included in existing witness Protection Laws and establishes coordination and sharing of information with the u. S. Antidoping agency. To establish a matrix if you will, a format. So i want to say that we all have an interest in ensuring our country and our athletes are not defrauded in International Sports competitions. This bipartisan bill would fill an unfortunate gap with regard to u. S. Law enforcement to hold accountable those who engage in such fraud. It would also serve as a deterrent to those considering engaging in doping fraud conspiracies and would provide a mechanism to gain visibility in a wider net of for the National Corrupt Practices that are connected to coping fraud. I leave my i leave my colleagues with the visual that so many of us, if we were not able to be at the olympics, watched as our athletes were able to stand under our flag. The emotion of that moment. The emotion of the athletes, the emotion of those of us watching. The excitement of standing in honor of your nation and representing your nation, anyone who has talked to an olympian knows that that is one of their greatest hons honors. So lets give them that been greatest honors. So lets give them greatest honors. So lets give them that honor. I certainly will end as my friend commented here on the floor, i will end with the healthiness and the upstanding of the world series and those who will play in it. And i will take the opportunity at this time to say, go, astros. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying commonsense measure, and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from texas yields back the balance of her time. The question is, will the house suspend the ruse and pass the bill, h. R. 835, as amended. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, 2 3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider slayed on the table. Is laid on the table. To reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h. R. 2426, the copyright alternatives and small claims enforcement act, as amended. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 2426. A bill to amend title 17, United States code, to establish an alternative dispute Resolution Program for copyright small claims and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. Cline, each will control 20 minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. Mr. Jeffries i yield myself such time as i may consume. Today we will vote on h. R. 2426, the copyright alternative small claims enforcement act, otherwise known as the case act. A bill that will allow creators to protect their cop wherey copyrighted work under law. Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime. Photographers, illustraters, visual artists, authors, songwriters and musicians all rely upon their protected works to put food on the table, clothing on their back, and support their families. When their copyrighted work is used unlawfully or pirated, that is the functional equivalent of a burglary. But small creators victimized by infringement often find themselves in a tough spot. They have a right to enforce their work under copyright law, but are often unable to do so in a practical sense. On the one hand, you have the notice and takedown process that can be inefficient, cumbersome, and as many small creators will tell you, often pointless. On the other hand, there is the article 3 federal court system that can be expensive, timeconsuming and often out of reach for many working class and middle class creators. For instance, the average cost of litigating an infringement case in federal court is pproximately 350,000. But the total amount of damages that can be awarded, for instance, in a case acteligible matter cannot exceed 30,000. In that instance, the cost of litigating a case could be more than 10 times the damages that are at issue. According to a survey by the american bar association, which supports this legislation, most lawyers will not take infringement cases with damages at or lower than 30,000. As a result, many petitioners are functionally unable to vindicate their rights under law. In other words, these creators are given a right without a remedy. The case act will provide a viable alternative. This legislation would establish a voluntary forum for small copyright claims housed within the Copyright Office. Disputes would be heard by a new entity called the copyright claims board, made up of intellectual Property Experts with experience representing both creators and the users of copyrighted material. Unlike federal court, the cases before the board will have limited damages, parties would not have to appear in person, and can proceed if they choose without an attorney. These provisions address the significant burdens that currently exist, imposed by federal court litigation. Making this system more user friendly for all, regardless of your side, but inclusive of working class and middle class members of the Creative Community. And both sides must agree to participate in order for the small claims tribunal to have jurisdiction. Is a voluntary system where either side can opt out. Simply put, the legislation allows for copyright disputes to be resolved in a fair, timely and affordable manner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia, mr. Cline, is recognized. Mr. Cline thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Cline i would like to thank the gentleman from new york for his leadership on this important issue. The United States constitution expressly calls for the protection of creative works in order to promote innovation and creativity. Under that lofty authority, congress established the copyright system and, as was the hope, Copyright Intensive Industries have become critical to our economy. Reportedly contributing more than 1 trillion. Unfortunately in the system that we have today, many Small Businesses and individuals are unable to enforce their copyrights because they do not have deep enough pockets. Tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to litigate a copyright claim in federal court. Sadly, this forces individuals to stand idly by as thieves profit off of their work. Our Founding Fathers wouldnt want a copyright system that discourages creators. After all they wanted to create a system that fosters the creation of artistic works. Thats why so many members of the jish committee helped craft Judiciary Committee helped craft legislation to stop the theft of copyrighted works and so many members of the house have joined in support of it. H. R. 2426, the case act, would establish a copyright small claims proceeding within the Copyright Office to provide a less expensive alternative to costly federal court litigation. The proceedings would be simple. Conducted remotely. Handled by a panel of copyright experts. And limited to straightforward cases of alleged Copyright Infringement. Damage awards would be low, reaching a maximum of no greater than 15,000 per work, with a total award per case capped at 30,000. Participation in such a small claims proceeding would be completely voluntary and anyone falsely accused of infringement could simply opt out of the small claims proceeding. The case act includes a number of other safeguards to prevent abuse. The Copyright Office is authorized to limit the number of cases one person can file, and will review the allegations for sufficiency before forwarding them to the accused infringer. If an accuser files in bad faith, he or she would have to pay fees to the party falsely accused of infringement and be barred for one year. Several other provisions of h. R. 2426 would protect against inadvertent default judgments. They include requirements that the accused infringer be physically served. The ramifications of not responding and the accused be given several notices and changes to respond to the allegations against them. Most importantly, before a default judgment can be granted, the copyright owner must establish that their copyright was actually infringed by the accused. The bill is intended to provide a streamlined, inexpensive alternative for parties to resolve small claims of Copyright Infringement outside of court. H. R. 2426 accomplishes all of these goals. Im proud to join my colleagues, congressman jeffries, Ranking Member collins, chairman nadler, congressman martha roby, and johnson, judy chu, ted lieu and brian fitzpatrick, to provide an important avenue of relief to the creaters in our communities who provide such significant support to our local economies. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries thank you. Let me first just thank the distinguished gentleman from the commonwealth of virginia, mr. Cline, for his leadership as it relates to the case act. And let me now yield four minutes to the distinguished chair of the house Judiciary Committee, chairman nadler. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york, mr. Nadler, is recognized. Mr. Nadler i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of h. R. 2426, the copyright alternative and small claims enforcement act of 2019, or the case act. This important Bipartisan Legislation would establish a voluntary Small Claims Court within the Copyright Office to hear copyright suits seeking 30,000 or less in total damages. Today many small creators, especially digital artists, are unable to protect their rights, because the cost of pursuing infringement claim in federal court is far greater, as much as 10 times or more than the damages they could ever hope to receive. Few attorneys would take a case with such limited damages, because they would not likely recoup their costs. It is a fundamental principle of the american legal system that a right must have a remedy. But if it costs 250,000 to recover a few thousand dollars from someone who has infringed your copyright, then what remedy do you really have . The case act would provide important protections for the many independent creators who are currently unable to protect their work in federal court. It would establish a small claims board within the Copyright Office, to resolve infringement claims seeking 30,000 or less in total damages. With claims officers appointed by the librarian of congress. The proceedings are designed to be less expensive and much easier to navigate, even without an attorney, than federal court. They would enable parties to represent themselves or to seek pro bono assistance from law students. The board would conduct its proceedings entirely by telephone and the internet and no one would need to travel to a hearing or a court house. The bill caps damages at no more than 15,000 per work infringed and no more than 30,000 total and the board would work with the parties to settle their claims. Importantly, the proceedings would be voluntary. Plaintiffs can decide whether this is the proper form to file their claim, and defendants may opt out of the process if they prefer to have their case heard by a federal judge. The sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from new york, mr. Jeffries, has worked tirelessly to ensure that this legislation includes revisions and suggestions for many members and stakeholders. The revisions include various heightened and due process protections and provisions intended to reduce potential abuse of the system, all of which has made a good bill even better. For far too long, it has been virtually impossible for small creators to vindicate their right to a just measure of damages. Today we have an opportunity to take an important step in helping independent photographers, film makers, graphic designers and other creators to protect their work. I would like to thank mr. Jeffries and Ranking Member collins for their outstanding leadership in the case act. I would also like to thank the Copyright Office, which conducted an exhaustive study on the issue, and whose recommendations formed the basis for the bill. In addition, i appreciate the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentlelady from california, ms. Chu, who has introduced similar legislation in previous congresses, and who has been tireless in her work to protect creators rights. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and i urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman rom new york seek recognition . The gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from virginia. Mr. Cline we reserve and are prepared to close. Mr. Jeffries i reserve and am prepared to close. Mr. Cline i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and thank the chairman for his remarks. Again, this bill is a purely optional system and allows anyone who doesnt wish to participate to opt out. The Copyright Office considered this feature in its report back in 2013 and highlighted shortcomings of an optin regarding agreement to participate in the system. The optout system provided in the case act does not change the voluntary nature of the small claims process it creates. It is simple and respondents would be made aware. This will be explained in the notice that they receive. Again, mr. Speaker, i would say this is a Bipartisan Initiative that had several different members on both sides participate. I thank them for their hard work and thank the staff for their hard work as well. This will go a long way toward furthering the protection of eative works as our founders found in the u. S. Constitution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from new york. Mr. Jeffries the case act is the product of more than 10 years of careful study by this house and the United StatesCopyright Office. As chairman nadler indicated, i thank the Copyright Office in laying the foundation for the case act. Once again, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation so creators, authors, musicians and authors have a forum for small copyright claims where they can assert their rights and defenses. This bill has the support through cosponsorship of more than 150 members of this house on both sides of the aisle. I thank each and every one of them. The bill is endorsed by dozens of groups including the american ar association, the aflc inch o, naacp, copyright alliance, United States chamber of commerce, association of american publishers, the authors guild, creative future, nashville songwriters, the ecording academy, the latyip american academy. And the songwriters of north america as well as many, many more. I want to thank all of them for their advocacy and for their efforts. Article 1 section 8 clause 8 of the United States constitution gives congress the power to create a robust intellectual property system. In order to in the words of the framers of the constitution, promote the progress of science and useful arts. The founders recognized that ciety would on benefit if we incentivize and protect creativity and innovation. In doing so, the Creative Community will continue to share their creative brilliance with the American People and the world and experience some benefit from the fruits of their labor. Imes have changed. Since the provisions were written into the constitution in 1787, but the constitutional principle remains the same. And that is what the case act is all about. I want to thank the many cosponsors of this legislation including my good friend on the Judiciary CommitteeRanking Member, doug collins for his tremendous leadership and jerry adler and hank johnson and ubcommittee ranking woman, martha roby, judy chu and many, many others. On the senate side im grateful for senators john kennedy, dick mazey thom tillis and hirono on this companion legislation. And last congress, we came together democrats and republicans, the left and the right to pass the historic music modernization act that was signed into law by