Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from Outer Continental Shelf activities, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1249) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform.

I thank the Speaker and thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the generosity of the Rules chairman on the number of occasions that I have sought to both represent my constituents at the Rules Committee and to represent issues that are of concern to America.

Let me just say that I believe in efficiency of time, but I am struck by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the deliberation and the thoughtfulness of Members of Congress. I believe the rule is not necessarily a place to express one's opposition or support, but I do believe it's important procedurally to discuss a number of issues.

The legislation that deals with the EPA, H.R. 2021, in and of itself would warrant an opportunity for full discussion, and I offered a number of amendments that I thought were quite productive, and those amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the EAB. It would have provided a review period, and one in particular that the gentleman mentioned was the opportunity to file your cases in local courts.

I'm glad that we'll have the general discussion on the floor. Far be it from me to suggest that is not a good thing, but I do want to say that I had a very strong amendment that was not included in the Rule; the Amendment was originally withdrawn but resubmitted so we did have an opportunity to correct a letter that we had sent, but I'm glad for the debate in the form of another amendment just like mine regarding local federal courts being allowed to hear these matters.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Well, reclaiming my time, whatever the reason was, we both agree we needed to have more time for the rules debate.

And I will now move to the patent bill. And as I said, I will not discuss the pros and cons of this legislation, but I will say to you-- and I see the gentleman rising over here maybe trying to correct something that was said. There's no reason to correct anything other than the fact that we had a number of amendments that we offered and we would hope that we would have had an open rule.

Thank you very much.

On the patent bill in particular, two amendments that would have been vital were to announce that this was not an undue taking of property, to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue, because I think the bill does have the ability to create jobs, and lastly is the point of being able to give small businesses an 18-month period for disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other places and the secret of their invention is exposed.

This Amendment would have added protection to small businesses and improved the debate, nevertheless I look forward to the debate, but I hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss Amendments I offered, I would like to note my support for the first to file system in H.R. 1249. I believe it to be a positive step toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our IP system. However, I am not deaf to some of the criticisms that it has received from various interests, and I believe it is imperative that this bill be a real jobs creator for small and large inventors and businesses.

The amendments I am offering today are not controversial. They simply tighten up the language of the existing provisions of the bill, and add checks to ensure that the bill, if it becomes law, is fulfilling its intended purposes.

Amendments Concerning Small Businesses, Minority-and Woman-Owned

Businesses, and, HBCU'S

Amendment #26 and #22--Inclusion of minority-and woman-owned businesses

H.R. 1249, the ``American Invents Act,'' addresses one of the concerns with the current patent system--the high fees associated with filing patent applications and the burden they impose on small businesses and not-for-profit entities wishing to secure patent protection.

It addresses this concern by giving a 50 percent discount on all USPTO fees to ``small entities'' and ``micro entities.''

My first amendment (Amendment #26) amends the definition of ``small entities'' for the purposes of receiving the fee discount to include language that ensures that minority-owned and woman-owned businesses are included.

My second amendment (Amendment #22), much like my first amendment, includes minority-owned and woman-owned businesses in the definition of ``micro entity'' for purposes of receiving the fee discounts afforded to these types of entities.

While I am sure it was the intent behind this section to extend protection for all small businesses, my amendments simply reassure inclusion of minority-owned and woman-owned businesses.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as a business which employs less than 500 employees. According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers-- representing around 99.7 percent of the nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment. The proposed patent reform will ensure that small businesses are not treated at a disadvantage. It has great potential to create job growth, and in turn spur economic development for our country.

There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private- sector employment. Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform.

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20 percent since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

Amendment #29--HBCU's and Hispanic Serving Institutions

One of the positive attributes of this bill is that it extends fee discounts to colleges and universities that engage in research and seek patent protection of their work.

H.R. 1249 does this by giving fee discounts to ``public institutions of higher education.''

For purposes of this section, my amendment includes in the definition of ``small entities'' Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCU's.

Generally speaking, HBCU's should be considered ``public institutions of higher education,'' however, in a few instances where schools receive alternative means of funding, there is a risk that minority serving institutions could be overlooked.

My amendment simply ensures that the intended goal of the language in this bill is actually achieved--that ALL colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, receive fee discounts to keep the patent system accessible.

Our Nation's colleges and universities are responsible for a vast amount of valuable research.

HBCUs are a source of accomplishment and great pride for the African American community as well as the entire Nation. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: ``. . . any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.'' HBCUs offer all students, regardless of race, an opportunity to develop their skills and talents.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, ``HBCUs play an essential role in helping our Nation boost college completion rates and achieve the President's goal for America to again have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by 2020.''

At present, HBCUs award just over 36,000 undergraduate degrees a year. More than 80 percent of those degrees, about 31,500 degrees, are baccalaureate degrees.

HBCUs currently award about 15 percent of all undergraduate degrees nationwide for African-American students.

The completion gap in high-demand fields in science, technology, engineering and math is particularly troubling. Nationwide, nearly 70 percent of white students in STEM fields complete their degrees, compared with just 42 percent of African-American students.

Amendment #27--Sense of Congress protecting rights of small businesses

and inventors

We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property.

Therefore, I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.

The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance.

Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as businesses which employ less than 500 employees.

According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers representing around 99.7 percent of the Nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment.

In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28 percent while black owned was around 5 percent. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5 percent while the number for men went down 1.5 percent.

Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private-sector employment.

In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses compared to over 1 million owned by men.

88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are Hispanic, 16,000 are Native Americans.

Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform.

Amendment #23--Extension of the disclosure period for small businesses

My amendment addresses the section of this bill which deals with the disclosure period, also known as the grace period. In its current state, H.R. 1249 includes a one-year grace period for inventors who make disclosures about their inventions before they apply for an actual patent.

My amendment extends that grace period for small business from one year to eighteen months.

When small businesses are attempting to develop an invention, oftentimes it is necessary for them to make disclosures to outside entities because, due to a lack of resources, they need to outsource the effort needed to bring an invention to market.

For small businesses outsourcing their development, the one-year grace period may not be an adequate amount of time.

Whenever an inventor makes the first public disclosure of an invention, then--as to whatever the inventor disclosed publicly--the disclosing inventor is guaranteed the right to patent the invention if a patent is sought during the 1-year ``grace period'' after the first public disclosure, even if during this ``grace period'' someone else (e.g., another inventor) either publishes its own independent work on the invention or seeks its own patent on the invention based on its independent work.

Prior art is created when a disclosure is made available to the public. However, the ``grace period'' operates so that an inventor's own disclosure (or the disclosure by someone else that represents nothing more than the inventor's own work itself) is excluded as prior art to the extent of any of these inventor-originated disclosures made one year or less before the inventor seeks a patent. In short, inventors have one year from when they make their work public to seek patents.

Amendments Addressing Section 18 (Transitional Review Process for

Business Method Patents)

Amendment #25--Sunset of Business Method Patents Review Program

Though I am generally supportive of this bill, Section 18, which creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has come under criticism.

There has been a lot of inconsistency in the status of the law surrounding business method patents over the years.

Historically, business methods and systems to implement those methods were not patentable, but in the 1998 State Street v. Signature Financial Group ruling, that all changed.

After that ruling, there was an explosion of applications for business method patents, and many were issued. However, many of these patents are of poor quality.

Many business methods are facially obvious, whereas patentable inventions are supposed to be novel and non-obvious.

They also lack prior art. It is very difficult to determine which business methods are simply common practice in different industries, but simply have been properly documented.

The difficulties associated with issuing business method patents coupled with the lack of resources within the USPTO lead to issuance of many weak business method patents, some of which probably should not have been awards. Thus, a slew of litigation followed.

This section, though controversial because it targets a specific type of patent, is intended to iron out the inconsistency in issuance of these types of patents and the many different rulings that flowed from mountains of litigation.

While I believe it is important to achieve to consistency, I also think the necessity of this process is finite. Currently, the provision sunsets in 10 years, however, that period is too long in my opinion.

Given the concerns associated with this section and the limited relevance of this provision, I have proposed an amendment that would make this provision sunset in 5 years.

Amendment #24--Requiring Departmental determination that there is no

``unlawful taking of property''

As I mentioned previously, Section 18 of this bill has been subject to criticisms, most notably the fact that the transitional review program is creates may cause some patents to be taken away, which may lead to a potential violation of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution.

Patents, though intangible, are considered property and they are valuable--some extremely valuable and a source of great wealth to their owners. A process that could strip a patent owner of their property without just

compensation comes dangerously close to an unlawful taking, in my opinion.

This is of great concern to me, and therefore I am offering an amendment to address the constitutionality issue of this provision.

My amendment requires the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, within a year of enactment of this bill, to make a determination of whether the provisions of this section could create a condition that could be considered an unlawful taking of property under the ``takings clause'' found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Director would need to report to Congress the underlying reasoning for his determination.

While there may be a valid intent and purpose behind the provisions in section 18 of this bill, no purpose is so great that it warrants a violation of the Constitution.

My amendment will help ensure that the Constitution is upheld and adhered to, a goal that we all, regardless of party affiliation, should wholly support.

Amendment #28--Sense of Congress--no violation of the takings clause

The Constitution is the law of land, a body of law that we as lawmakers respect, and that the American people value as the cornerstone of democracy.

Because some of the opponents of this bill have raised Constitutional concerns with specific provisions in the bill, I am offering an amendment that reaffirms our commitment to the Constitution.

My amendment is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress that none of the provisions of this bill should constitute an unconstitutional taking of property under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee that brought this bill before the body today, and I thank the chairman, Mr. Upton, for his work on this piece of legislation. Energy security, job creation, working to reduce the pain at the pump, that is what H.R. 2021 is about, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor today.

This is an important bill for our country and a step in the right direction when it comes to weaning ourselves off of foreign, Middle Eastern oil. It allows us to utilize the resources that we have in our own backyard--American energy for American jobs--responsibly and environmentally friendly.

Gas prices are fluctuating near historic levels that can send our economy into yet another recession. Millions of Americans are out of work. The unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Unrest in the Middle East has highlighted our vulnerabilities that stem from dependence on oil half a world away and from many countries that seek to do us harm. In the face of seemingly intractable problems, it is our duty as elected representatives of the people of this country to pursue solutions that benefit our neighbors and our Nation as a whole. One such solution is unlocking America's vast energy potential. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a bipartisan approach--a bipartisan bill-- to bring a massive domestic resource online and create tens of thousands of jobs.

I am delighted to have my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) as the coauthor of this legislation.

In this bill, we move in a nimble and elegant manner to tie the loose ends in EPA's permitting process and the Clean Air Act, itself, to expedite decisions on EPA's issued air permits for offshore oil exploration. The needless red tape inherent in EPA's current permitting process has blocked access to a truly enormous reserve, a reserve in our own backyard, Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Taken together, we have been told that upwards of 1 million barrels of oil a day can be brought online as a result of the responsible development of these resources, entirely offsetting our imports from Saudi Arabia. Doing so will create and sustain over 50,000 jobs as massive projects get underway to bring this resource to American consumers. Such a vast amount of oil will not only reduce prices at the pump in the future, as testimony was given before the Energy and Commerce Committee, but keep us more secure by eliminating imports from hostile regimes abroad.

For these reasons, the President agrees that we should be moving forward with permitting exploration off Alaska's coast. This bipartisan bill is the most efficient way to get the job done.

Through two exhaustive hearings on this bill, we heard testimony from numerous stakeholders and citizens of Alaska. We believe we have created a solution that balances both environmental protection with public priorities, a balance that does not exist with current EPA procedures.

During our subcommittee and full committee markups we debated numerous amendments, giving members the opportunity to propose substantive changes to the underlying bill. I'm glad that we had a very serious and thought-provoking discussion on this bill during those meetings, and I look forward to the debate today.

The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act is a serious bill with serious implications for our economy and our energy security. I am delighted to be here today working with my Democratic colleague to move forward with an effective solution to regulatory problems experienced in Alaska and Alaska's offshore areas.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

We've heard all kinds of arguments today, red herrings that would make the Fulton Fish Market proud of this debate.

This bill is not about jobs, my colleagues on the other side of this debate said. This bill is not about pain at the pump, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said. This bill won't create jobs, I've heard in the arguments today. That it is a massive excuse for people to do incredible things to the environment, unthought-of things. Again, red herrings that the American people are tired of.

The American people are asking for jobs. They are asking for relief at the pump. This bill is nothing more than creating economic opportunity for not only people in Alaska but throughout this country with the creation of 50,000 jobs. When we access our resources,

evidently, there are some who believe it doesn't create jobs. When we create 1 million barrels of oil a day coming into our supplies, apparently that doesn't create jobs. When we build operations for our workers in the north shore of Alaska, the supply facilities in the lower 48 States, apparently that doesn't create jobs.

Apparently we don't lose jobs when people are beginning to pay nearly $4 a gallon for the price of gas. That seems to be the argument that I hear against this bill.

My constituents are paying $3.50, $3.60 for a price per gallon of gas. And apparently, as energy prices increase, some believe that doesn't cut jobs, that doesn't hurt our economy. I have heard time and time again, through testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, through town meetings, constituent calls and letters, they are tired of paying $50, $60 every time they fill up the tank with gas. They are tired of paying their hard-earned money for rising gas prices because this Congress has failed to pass energy policies that rein in the bureaucrats and regulators.

We have an opportunity with H.R. 2021 to create jobs, to create opportunities for energy security in this country. And I would remind my colleagues that these permits, the rights to explore have already been leased, paid for. I ask that Members support this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

The issue that we are discussing here was actually brought up in debate at the time of the conference committee, this very language, the very title that we are discussing. I will read some language from the conference committee report.

Of primary concern is the fact that OCS air pollution is causing or contributing to the violation of Federal and State ambient air quality standards in some coastal regions.

We are dealing with onshore. The debate is on onshore. The debate at the time was over onshore regulations, on coastal regulations.

In addition, the testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee focused on this language in the regulations dealing with the rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of Federal and State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of the PSD program, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the OCS, going directly--directly--to the interpretation that the focus on OCS requirements, as the regulations themselves state, is onshore, that the onshore air quality represents a rational relationship between OCS sources and obtaining and maintaining air quality standards.

California, this was the language, this was the conversation. The debate took place during the very conference committee about coastal regions, about onshore regulations.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, which mixes two basic concepts of stationary title I issues and mobile title II sources. What we are talking about here is something akin to requiring the employee of a factory to overhaul his engine simply because he parks next to the factory. It is requiring a re-engining of service vessels simply because they happen to be in the area of a stationary source.

So basically what we are talking about in the bill is saying that once a drilling ship starts to drill, that is when it becomes stationary. To require the vessels that service that drill ship, to require them to be stationary would be like requiring the UPS truck to fall under the same regulations as the factory that it is delivering to, or treating an emissions testing facility like it has wheels and ought to be moving around to everybody else because it is testing the emissions of a stationary source. So I rise to oppose this amendment, again, because of issues it is trying to deal with, mixing stationary and mobile sources.

The issue of foreign-flagged ships is dealt with in international law under our treaties that we have in this country. It is dealt with in the MARPOL Treaty. If we want to increase those regulations on U.S. vessels, Congress can do that. However, to increase regulations on service vessels only because they were hired to service an OCS vehicle makes no sense.

It was said in debate earlier too, I believe it was said we are not going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by

producing more oil. I guess that argument means the same thing as we are not going to have more food by producing more food; we are not going to have more appliances in this country by producing more appliances. The arguments we have heard against this bill are off point, off subject, and are simply on claims that don't make any sense.

So when it comes to this particular amendment, delivery trucks aren't regulated as stationary sources, nor should the service vessels to a stationary source, the drilling ship, as will be considered once this legislation becomes law

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, we are faced with the question of whether we want to focus on the issues that this bill is intending to address--the issue of job creation, the issue of energy security-- and whether or not we are going to take advantage of the resources that we have in our own backyard, which is American energy for the American people.

This amendment presents, once again, one more distraction from the very purpose of this bill. It is a distraction for our colleagues. I understand that they want to oppose this bill, but I believe they ought to oppose the bill on its merits. If they want to oppose the bill, vote ``no'' on the bill. If they want to offer constructive amendments, then introduce amendments to try to improve the bill, but presenting red herring amendments in amendment after amendment ought to be defeated.

Aside from the distraction that this amendment creates, there is no real need for this amendment from a practical perspective. If an interested person wants to know the amounts of bonuses paid to an oil company executive, the information is available. As it is a publicly owned company, it's already available. I don't believe we require bonus disclosure when environmental groups apply for grants. When a staffer helps out on a particular piece of legislation when we introduce the bill, I don't believe that we have disclosure on a bonus to a staffer. Again, this is a red herring on a bill that focuses on jobs and job creation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Who benefits from this bill? The American people benefit from this bill.

In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, it was made very clear that the west coast could import less oil because of the development of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Testimony was received before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that this could reduce the price of gasoline when we create more supplies, particularly for areas along the west coast, because of the presence of the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea reserve. So the American people are the beneficiaries of increased American production.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So my colleagues can understand what this bill is about, this does not repeal the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board to hear issues relating to production, production permits. This simply addresses the issue at hand of whether or not the Environmental Appeals Board can be used as a stalling period for exploratory permits.

Let me say it again. Exploratory permits are for a very limited duration. We're talking an activity that may last 30 to 45 days.

Unfortunately, what has happened, the EAB, which is by all accounts litigation with judges in robes in Washington, D.C., that are appointed lifetime bureaucrats, unaccountable, created by the administration, the EAB would still be able to hear appeals related to production. They will not be a part or allowed to delay exploratory permits. Why? Because we believe exploration of our resources is important, that it should not be delayed for 5 years.

In the time that it has taken to reach this point, 400 wells have been drilled by the lessee around the world. That's job creation, but certainly not in the United States. That's energy production, but certainly not in the United States. This bill presents a solution, an up-or-down, yes-or-no answer to a permit within 6 months, without going to the EAB for a ping-pong delay back and forth, EPA, EAB, delay after delay, and says we are going to focus on an issue of national importance, developing our resources, getting exploration performed, so that we can indeed make sure that we are heading down the path toward energy security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 316? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.

The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 1249 would impose both intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on certain patent applications and other entities and would also be preempted from the authority of State courts to hear certain patent cases.

However, based upon information from the Patent and Trademark Office, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the costs of complying with those mandates to State, local, and tribal governments would fall far below the annual threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Because the costs of complying with the mandates fall below the annual threshold, the waiver is prophylactic in nature.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what's amazing about this is that we're going to stop the debate on the House floor about very important legislation that needs to move forward, both of those pieces of legislation. And so we need to have open debate on the House floor with opposing viewpoints, with the ability to have amendments added on the floor, which we have allowed in this rule.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 316 provides a structured rule for consideration of both H.R. 1249 and H.R. 2021. The rule provides for ample debate on both of these bills and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 316. As I said before, this rule provides for consideration of two different bills: H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, and H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011. Although these bills share one rule, the House will have opportunity to consider these pieces of legislation separately, and the rule ensures that we'll have full, transparent debate on both of these bills.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution delegates Congress the exclusive authority over U.S. patent law. However, Congress has not enacted a comprehensive patent reform for nearly 60 years, since the Patent Act of 1952.

The America Invents Act makes significant substantive, procedural, and technical changes to current U.S. patent law that is designed to put American inventors on a level playing field with their global competitors.

I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about concerns they have with the America Invents Act. In fact, I have some of those same concerns myself. As colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and some on this side of the aisle, are going to point out, this rule waives CutGo.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hate that we have to waive CutGo to bring this legislation to the House floor. However, I need to stress to Members on both sides of the aisle that even though this rule may waive CutGo, it does not increase the budget or its deficit.

The Judiciary Committee wrote a bill that violated the House rule by appropriating when it moved patent fees from discretionary spending to mandatory spending. The manager's amendment fixes the Judiciary Committee's violation of those House rules. The manager's amendment does this at the insistence of the Rules Committee and the leadership.

This is the right thing to do. The Constitution makes it clear that the power of the purse must stay in Congress, and I believe abdicating agency funding to PTO would have clearly violated the Constitution.

However, by moving money back to discretionary spending, Chairman Smith's manager's amendment does, through a technicality, violate CutGo. Again, let me remind my colleagues that while the manager's amendment does require a technical waiver of CutGo, this does not increase the deficit. Let me say it again. This does not increase the deficit.

In fact, Budget Committee Chairman Ryan supports this solution because, one, the manager's amendment ensures that the funding for PTO stays on the discretionary side where it is subject to appropriation, budget enforcement, and oversight. Two, this is the only technical waiver of the CutGo rule because the provisions of the manager's amendment were not included in the reported bill.

As I said before, I don't like it that we need to waive CutGo. However, it is the right thing to do so we can ensure, institutionally, that the power of the purse continues to lie with Congress, where our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

Additionally, I'm proud to say this is the first time ever, the first time ever this rule actually specifically designates 20 minutes for debate devoted exclusively to the constitutionality concerning H.R. 1249.

We opened the 112th Congress by reading the U.S. Constitution. As a member of the Constitution Caucus, I believe we can't let the conversation end there. Therefore, I'm proud of this rule, which continues to reflect Congress' commitment to our Nation's foundation, the Constitution.

But this rule isn't just for H.R. 1249; it's also for H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contain 27.9 billion--that's with a ``b''--barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These resources, if developed, could produce up to 1 million barrels of oil per day for domestic energy consumption.

However, while companies may have drilling leases to these lands, they continue to be mired in redtape and bureaucratic delays related to the Clean Air Act. This bill helps cut through these delays.

H.R. 2021 eliminates the permitting back-and-forth that occurs between the Environmental Protection Agency and its Environmental Appeals Board. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and then rescinded by the EPA and its review board, under H.R. 2021, the EPA will be required to take final action, either granting or denying the permit, within 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the EPA keeping us from taking advantage of our own natural resources. We're the only country in the world that does that.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has put their green agenda and EPA bureaucracy over American jobs and the ability for our energy security. H.R. 2021 helps bring an end to those irresponsible policies.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Colorado. We want to make sure that innovators like him don't have to wait 5 years to get something to market.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing when you hear the arguments in regards to CutGo that our friends are raising today; but in the 111th Congress, PAYGO was the flavor of the week, and that was violated eight times. And of those eight times, it actually increased, increased spending, and added to our deficit, each and every one of those.

This waiver of CutGo does neither. It merely is a technical ability for us to hear those two underlying pieces of legislation so we can have open debate on the House floor and have the amendment process be intact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just as a response, the letter that we have from the Congressional Budget Office of May 26 talks about ``CBO estimates enacting the bill would reduce net direct spending by $725 million.'' So I am not sure if we have the same letter. But this is the letter that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest those on the other side of the aisle may look at the same letter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment fixes a rules violation. It requires a technical waiver of CutGo to move the patent fees back to the discretionary side. Those fees were going to be put into mandatory spending. Now it is back to discretionary.

Of course the discretionary spending went up, but think about this: the fees that are utilized to pay for this come from those that actually apply for patents. The money is going to be utilized to make sure that folks like Mr. Polis don't have to wait 5 years. These are dollars collected for specific reasons. The reason is to allow us to become innovators again, to allow us to compete with China.

We need to do things in America to make us stronger; and while people might rail against the CutGo waiver, let's talk about the real issues that face America, and that is energy, in regards to finding more energy, bringing it to market, whether it is oil or natural gas. Those are the issues that are up. And it is about invention. It is about allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to actually get back to work and do the right things and have some ability to look forward in regards to what they can do in regards to moving forward the process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments. The key to this is allowing this bill to go forward. The key to this is allowing amendments to come to the floor and have open debate. Even Mr. Rohrabacher has some amendments that are going to be coming to this floor to have debate in regards to the merits; debate in regards to what is the will of the House. That's the reason we have the time set aside on each of these bills, so those that are opposed to it can be heard and those that have amendments that want to modify what the underlying legislation is can be heard. And issues about constitutionality. That's why this rule sets aside specific time to talk about the constitutionality of the America Invents Act. That's the beauty of this building that we're in and the organization and the institution that we represent, is the ability to have open debate, both sides of the aisle. It doesn't matter. It's about open debate and about changing and allowing us to hear differing opinions and different views.

So I respect those on the other side of the aisle. I respect those Members within the Republican side of the aisle. I respect the difference of opinion. That's what families are all about, so we can have an open discussion and exchange. That's what this rule does. It allows us to hear on both of these bills an open and frank discussion about the merits of each, the merits of any amendments as to how we want to change or modify.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, just as a clarification, the Rules Committee has the obligation to make sure that they move this through the House so it can come up, so these bills can come up. It's not about combining two bills; it's about a rule that allows two bills to be heard separately. That's all this does.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

I don't like the idea that we have to waive CutGo any more than anyone else in this Chamber; however, if we want to maintain Congress's constitutional ability to appropriate funds, it is necessary.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, patents are one of the most critical components that drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and innovation. Regrettably, for a variety of reasons, the bill that this rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner.

Now, I am grateful that this rule allows discussion of a number of important amendments, including my amendment, but there are a number of underlying flaws in the manager's amendment to this bill.

Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold the company and was no longer involved in the sector.

The Internet and the information economy move at a speed and a different timeframe than our current patent review process operates under. Yet, this legislation, in its current form, with the manager's amendment, might actually serve to ensure that those delays continue because of a squabble between factions on the majority side.

Rather than resolve these differences to the benefit of American inventors, instead, the baby has been split, a decision that would cause King Solomon great reticence. The bad news for any American innovator pursuing a patent, as well as for the employees that new businesses might support, is that we fail to resolve some of the most pressing issues within the patent and trademark administration through this law.

The issue is that H.R. 1249 changes what I would consider one of the most important aspects of patent reform. And while there are very legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector.

The PTO needs to be able to charge fees sufficient to recover the cost of its services and use those fees to pay for providing those services.

Now the PTO has a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications, and it takes on average--well, my wonderful documentation from my staff says 2 to 3 years for a patent to get to be approved or rejected. I have never had one reviewed in anything close to that time. Maybe they just see my name on it and they put it under a pile of notes and they take 5 or 6 years. But if we don't increase the resources of the PTO, there is no way the PTO could expand the number of highly qualified examiners to actually reduce patent review time and put it on a timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector, protecting innovation.

It's crucial that the fees generated are made available to the PTO so they can run in an efficient manner and protect American innovation here and abroad. The fees should not be held hostage to political squabbling here in this body every year on appropriations bills, every year on the budget debate. The price to American innovation is one that is too steep to pay to make that beholden to our very important political discussions that we have every year, but one that inventors need predictability and companies need predictability when deciding how much to invest in R&D and deciding how to pursue patents with their invention.

I understand that some on the other side might be satisfied with the current manager's amendment language, but the worry is that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot actually use the patent fees to search, examine, and grant patents where warranted. So I would ask: What's the point?

Patent reform is not traditionally--nor is it today, nor should it be--a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a nonpartisan issue. High- quality patents, as mentioned in the United States Constitution, are crucial to our economy getting back on track and moving forward.

President Obama issued a challenge in the State of the Union address to outinnovate, outbuild, and outeducate the world. And having a patent and trademark system that we can be proud of is an important part of American competitiveness and a mark that we fail to reach with this bill and the manager's amendment.

Contrary to the belief of some, America still does invent, build, and sell our goods and services throughout the world. In fact, one of America's main competitive advantages is in the information economy, the intellectual economy, the creative economy, the very types of economic innovations that we rely on patent trademark and copyright to protect. And yet, if we fail to improve the quality of our patent application system, including rapid and high-quality review, we risk losing our leadership in innovation.

I think this Congress needs to rise beyond the petty squabbling over committee jurisdiction, over trying to bind future Congresses, over budget and appropriations debates. We really need to rise beyond that and come up with a patent bill that we can all be proud of that leaves American innovation in good stead.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also calls for the consideration of H.R. 2021, that is called the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The proponents of this bill continue to push a false narrative sprinkled with outrage based not on facts but on sound bites. They somehow want to convince the American people that President Obama is single-handedly shutting down oil drilling when, in fact, he has granted more permits than his predecessor. We've heard this broken record from my colleagues over and over again. And as simplistic and dramatic as the story is, the fact is that it's simply not true.

The American people know that prices at the pump--and that has caused difficulty for a lot of American families--have nothing to do with drilling here or now. Not only is there a lag effect in the 5- to 10- year timeframe, but, in fact, the domestic part of that equation in terms of reflecting gas prices is di minimus. The U.S. simply doesn't have enough oil to feed our addiction to oil, and gas prices are controlled by international markets and international supply and demand.

Despite the close relationship between the oil industry and the Bush administration, the Obama administration is allowing more drilling than the Bush administration did--much to the chagrin of some Members of the Democratic Caucus. The Obama administration approved more leases in 2010 than the Bush administration did in 7 out of 8 years of its Presidency.

In addition to more drilling, we are producing more oil, yet gasoline prices continue to go up--again, gasoline prices, international markets, supply and demand, separate from the long-term issues of drilling in this country.

The United States produces 9.7 million barrels of oil per day, and that's the most oil that we've produced in 20 years. We are just behind Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer. We have been raising production steadily since 2005--and that's a trend that I think we will be able to continue--and yet over this same period, oil hit a record high of $147 a barrel in 2008 during our period of production rise.

We need a real solution, not simply a solution that is focused on a 2012 election, on policy decrying President Obama's policies. We need a real solution to help end our Nation's reliance on fossil fuels and reduce our demand as well as supplement the energy supply with renewable energy sources.

Again and again, Republicans are proving that their energy platform isn't ``all of the above'' that common sense would dictate but, rather, ``oil above all,'' ``drill, baby, drill.''

Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bills are bad policy. I think we need an open discussion of these issues rather than trying to split the baby in half, pleasing no one; and on the energy issue, rather than giving a sound bite approach, to really require a comprehensive national energy strategy, including ``all of the above.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

To be clear, the gentleman from Florida refers to a letter that was regarding the initial bill. The manager's amendment actually changes the equation the gentleman indicated and renders that side letter inaccurate relating to the manager's amendment, which, if adopted under this rule, will then be part of the bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield the gentlewoman 45 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a champion of individual inventors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I've been advised by some of our advisers on our side that, in fact, this would have been a CutGo violation even if this had been an amendment in committee.

This is a serious discussion. When we're talking about CutGo, it's a serious issue. I think this Congress on both sides of the aisle have come here to balance the budget, to restore fiscal discipline to our country; and setting the precedent of a CutGo violation so early in the term really calls into question what a ``rule of the House'' even means if it is to be so casually disregarded.

I yield 45 seconds to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I think some of the frustration here, Mr. Speaker, is that the work product of the committee is being disregarded in favor of a rule that provides for a manager's amendment that fundamentally alters the character of the bill in a way that many Members of both parties have quite a few problems with.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson Lee

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I want to point out that the vote my friend from California referenced on the committee by a 10-1 margin is a completely different bill and finance mechanism than is contemplated under the manager's amendment to this bill. This manager's amendment has not been seen or voted on by any of the committees of jurisdiction and is a major break from precedents on this issue.

I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I would express my hope to the gentleman from Florida that this discussion might continue on his time. We are down to our last minute and a half on this side.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, appropriations are at the discretion of Congress every year. For that reason and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills. Patent reform is critical, it's important, and it's the right way to go, but this bill and the manager's amendment and the rule are the wrong approach.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to remove the $712 million plus CutGo waiver for amendments to

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, because while it has shortcomings, at least the CutGo rule provides some checks on increasing spending. By waiving CutGo today, this Congress might risk demonstrating how little we care about fiscal discipline.

In order to get patent reform right, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, as we prepare to take up an important piece of legislation today, H.R. 2021, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

At this time, Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Madam Chair, I might just add here that the University of Alaska did a study on this legislation in oil and gas development in Alaska's arctic seas, and they concluded that the full development there would create 54,000 jobs.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I might remind our friend from Massachusetts that EPA actually approved the drilling permit, the exploratory drilling permit for Shell, in this case, on three separate occasions; but the delay has been the appeals by the opposing party to the Environmental Appeals Board, which is not even in the clean air statute. So this bill is simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate time to oppose the exploratory permitting.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who's a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I might just also remind everyone that this 5-year, 6-year period for this permit was for only an exploratory permit, not even a production permit.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Madam Chair, I would also like to clarify that this bill does not change the Clean Air Act in any way as it relates to monitoring

stationary sources or mobile sources. I wanted to point that out.

Second of all, the gentlelady from California mentioned additional drilling going on in the Pacific region. The government records show that since 1994, not one exploratory permit has been issued. There are production wells out there, but not one new exploratory permit since 1994.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Madam Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle would make it appear that we are abandoning all environmental protections, and I would say that under this bill, there are still five opportunities for public comment. The NEPA process is not changed in any way.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

I would like to say that the American people expect the Congress to provide opportunities for us to fully explore our natural resources. This is a very modest bill that only changes one very small part of the Clean Air Act. It relates explicitly only to exploratory drilling permits, and it changes only appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board. The Environmental Appeals Board is not even in the statute of the Clean Air Act; it was put in by regulation.

And what's happening here in the one issue that we're talking about today, the EPA has approved this drilling permit on three separate occasions, yet it's been appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board, and it's tied up and tied up and they will not make a final decision. And if you cannot exhaust your administrative remedies, you cannot even go to the court system. So this legislation simply expedites the process without removing protections for people concerned about the environment, as we all are. And I wanted to make that comment.

I would also at this point like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield myself 3 minutes.

The gentleman, in his statement, noted that we consume 25 percent of the world's oil, but we possess only 2 percent of the world's reserves. And that's precisely why we're trying to pass this bill, because oil resources can only be counted as proven reserves if they've been fully explored, and we have not had the opportunity to fully explore.

And so why should we continue to be dependent on foreign oil when we have not been able to even explore because we have a bureaucratic agency at EPA, the purpose of which is to deny the opportunity to fully explore?

This is modest legislation. It simply clarifies that if you have a ship, that ship is going to be treated as a mobile source. If you have a drilling platform, that's going to be treated as a stationary source.

If you're drilling, we're going to look at the ambient air quality impact onshore, not offshore. And then we're just going to ask the EPA to eliminate the Environmental Appeals Board for exploratory permits only, nothing else, and to make a decision within 6 months after the completed application is there.

I think that this graph adequately demonstrates what our problem is here in America. This is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In 1985 we were moving 2.1 million barrels a day through that pipeline. Today, we're down below 600,000 barrels a day. So if we have the reserves, the American people are simply asking us to restore some balance in these Federal agencies. We want to protect the environment, but we also want an opportunity to explore and use our own oil resources, and we have reason to believe that they are abundant.

I want to thank Mr. Gardner for his leadership on this issue. And I would urge everyone in this body, just like we had five Democrats in committee who voted for this bill, I think it's imperative for the American people that we do so, and I would urge that we adopt H.R. 2021.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I would like to quote from Lisa Jackson, who was talking explicitly about the permitting issue here. She said: I believe that the analysis clearly shows that there is no public health concern here. And that's why EPA, on three separate occasions, approved this air quality permit, but on the appeal process it was denied by the Environmental Appeals Board.

Now, if you look at the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it is very clear in that legislative history that, as it pertains to Outer Continental Shelf sources, they were concerned about the impact onshore and the ability of onshore to attain and maintain their Clean Air National Ambient Air Quality standard requirements.

And so all this legislation does is to clarify that point. We're not changing

the ambient air quality standards. We're not changing the way they monitor stationary sources. We're not changing the way they monitor mobile sources. We're simply clarifying that that was the legislative history, that was the intent, and the full range of environmental protections are still in place.

So I believe that this amendment is not necessary. We already have adequate monitoring in place.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield the balance of my time, in opposition, to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I've had the opportunity to serve many years with the gentleman from Illinois, who's the ranking member of this subcommittee, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. But I would point out to him that this legislation does not in any way curtail, stop, impose the opportunity for anyone to express opposition or comment about a permit. We do not in any way change the comment period that EPA has to determine if they're going to issue, in this case, an exploratory permit.

We do not in any way change the National Environmental Policy Act that provides four additional opportunities for communities, local, State, individuals, environmental groups to comment on an exploration permit. There are today five opportunities for people to comment about air permits. After this bill is passed, there will still be five opportunities for entities to comment.

Today, individuals and entities can file a lawsuit against the EPA and their actions. After this bill is passed, they can still file a lawsuit.

This amendment basically gives the EPA Administrator the opportunity to grant 30-day extensions on final agency action as the Administrator deems it necessary; but it's not limited to one 30-day period, two 30- day periods or three 30-day periods. In fact, it could go on ad infinitum, and that's the whole reason we have the bill here today, because I don't care what company it is out there trying to explore to determine if the oil is there, if you cannot even get an administrative decision, as in the case in point it has taken 4 or 5 years and there's still no decision, you can never get to the court system.

So this bill is a commonsense bill that provides some balance, some checkpoints at EPA so that we have the maximum opportunity to explore, to determine how much oil we have off the coast of Alaska. And I might say, in the hearings Alaska government authorities came up and pleaded for us to do something to help get a decision from EPA.

So I would oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

To close this debate, I would simply say that we think 6 months is totally adequate to make some decisions about air quality permits for exploratory purposes only, and I would remind everyone here that EPA had a 60-day comment period for its utility MACT regulation that was a 1,000-page regulation imposed by EPA's own estimate of $10 billion on the American people and increased electricity costs, if it goes into effect, by 4 or 5 percent, and they did that in 60 days.

Certainly, the 6 months that we give in this bill for an air quality permit for drilling purposes alone is adequate, and I would respectfully request that we oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.