Floor Statements

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for organizing this Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, today's Special Order is to honor our friend, colleague and a true American patriot, Congressman

Sam Johnson, and his 40th anniversary of freedom.

Congressman Johnson has a long history of serving our country. He spent 29 years in the United States Air Force and flew 87 combat missions during the Korean and Vietnam wars. He was awarded two Silver Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross, a Bronze Star with Valor, and has received many other recognitions. Today, we celebrate Operation Homecoming and observe the 40th anniversary of his release from a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

Congressman Sam Johnson was captured and held for 7 years in a POW camp in Vietnam. He spent 42 months in solitary confinement--an unfortunate record. Though tested both physically and mentally, almost beyond comprehension, his unwavering love of God and country remained steadfast. A firsthand account of Congressman Johnson's experience in the Vietnamese POW camp can be found in his riveting and inspiring book, ``Captive Warriors,'' which will cause you to weep.

His commitment to his country was matched only by his wife Shirley's commitment to him. Friends say she set a seat at the table every night while he was gone with the hope and expectation that he would come home.

After his release, Congressman Johnson started a homebuilding business from the ground up. Then he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives for 7 years, and he has now represented Texas' Third Congressional District since 1991.

It is a professional honor and a personal privilege to serve with Congressman Sam Johnson. Today, we thank him for his service to our country and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of House of Representatives rule XI, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3250) to amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to provide for Debbie Smith grants for auditing sexual assault evidence backlogs and to establish a Sexual Assault Forensic

Evidence Registry, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have amendments at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6586) to extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions through 2014, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Section-by-Section Summary

(a) Advice of Counsel. The AIA's section 17 created a new

Sec. 298 of title 35 that bars the use of evidence of an

accused infringer's failure to obtain advice of counsel, or

his failure to waive privilege and introduce such opinion, to

prove either willfulness or intent to induce infringement.

Section 17, however, neglected to specify when this new

authority became effective. As a result, Sec. 298 is subject

to the default effective date at section 35 of the AIA, and

applies only to patents issued one year or later after

enactment of the AIA. This subsection makes Sec. 298

applicable to all civil actions commenced after the enactment

of this Act.

(b) Transitional Program for CBMs. This subsection corrects

two scrivener's errors in section 18 of the AIA. These

changes have no substantive effect.

(c) Joinder of Parties. This subsection corrects a

scrivener's error in the new Sec. 299 of title 35. This

change has no substantive effect.

(d) Dead Zones. This subsection fixes two provisions that

inadvertently make it impossible to seek either post-grant or

inter partes review of a patent during certain time periods.

Section 311(c) of title 35 bars anyone from seeking inter

partes review of a patent during the first nine months after

the patent issues, or until a post-grant review of a patent

is completed if such review is instituted. Section 311(c) was

intended to preclude challengers from using IPR during the

period when they can instead use PGR. The problem with the

provision is that, during Senate floor consideration of the

AIA in March 2011, another provision was added to the bill

via the managers' amendment that allows only first-to-file

patents to be challenged in PGR. This provision, at section

6(f)(2)(A) of the AIA, was intended to allow USPTO a longer

period to prepare to conduct PGR proceedings, and to exclude

patents that raise discovery-intensive invention-date and

loss-of-right-to-patent issues from PGR. However, Sec. 311(c)

takes effect and applies to all petitions for IPR that are

filed on or after September 16, 2012. Yet for several years

thereafter, almost all patents that are issued will still be

first-to-invent patents. And under Sec. 311(c) of title 35,

these patents cannot be challenged in IPR during the first 9

months after their issuance, while under section 6(f)(2) of

the AIA, these patents cannot be challenged in PGR. Paragraph

(1) eliminates this nine month ``dead zone'' by making

Sec. 311(c) inapplicable to patents that are first-to-invent

patents and are thus ineligible for PGR.

Paragraph (2) addresses another dead zone that is unique to

reissue patents. Under Sec. 311(c) of title 35, IPR cannot be

sought during the nine months after a patent is reissued.

This limit was imposed in order to force challengers to bring

a PGR challenge (rather than IPR) against what is, in effect,

a new patent. However, Sec. 325(f) of title 35 then bars a

challenge to any claim in a reissue patent that is

``identical'' to or ``narrower'' than the claims in the

original patent. As a result, such ``identical'' or

``narrower'' claims could not be reviewed in either a PGR or

an IPR during the nine months after a reissue. Paragraph (2)

eliminates this dead zone by repealing section 311(c)(1)'s

limit on filing a petition for inter partes review after a

patent has been reissued.

(e) Correct Inventor. This subsection amends the

authorization of settlement in derivation proceedings to

refer to ``correct inventor'' in the singular, out of

recognition of the fact that it is the entire inventive

entity that must be named in the settlement agreement. This

change has no substantive effect.

(f) Required Oath. Paragraph (1) liberalizes the time

allowed for an applicant to file the required oath or

alternative statement, allowing him to file as late as

payment of the issue fee (rather than requiring filing prior

to allowance). Paragraph (2) corrects Sec. 115(g)(1) by using

``that claims'' rather than ``who claims,'' since the

antecedent for these words is ``application'' rather than

``inventor.'' Paragraph (2)'s change has no substantive

effect. (USPTO requests.)

(g) Travel Expenses and Payment of Administrative Judges.

Section 21 of the AIA, which makes minor changes to the law

regarding the compensation of USPTO employees for travel and

the payment of APJs, was not given its own effective date.

This subsection makes these provisions effective upon

enactment of the AIA.

(h) Patent Term Adjustments. This subsection clarifies and

improves certain requirements for seeking patent-term

adjustments. These changes allow USPTO to provide notice of

its PTA determination at the same time as the grant of a

patent, and effectively require an applicant who wishes to

pursue a civil action under paragraph (4)(A) of Sec. 154(b)

to exhaust remedies provided under paragraph 3(B)(ii). These

changes are minor, and only apply prospectively to PTAs that

are determined and to Sec. 154(b)(4)(A) actions that are

commenced after the enactment of this Act. (USPTO request.)

The Committee is aware that the district court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, on November 1 of this year,

issued a decision in the case of Exelixis v. Kappos that

appears to have adopted a highly problematic interpretation

of the patent term adjustment allowed by Sec. 154(b)(1)(B).

For reasons that remain unclear, the court concluded that

continuations and other events described in the ``not

including'' clauses of that subparagraph should not be

excluded from the subparagraph's calculation of patent term

adjustment, but instead must be read only to toll the three-

year clock that determines when patent term adjustment begins

to accrue under subparagraph (B). The district court's

interpretation of subparagraph (B) thus would allow patent

term adjustment to accrue for any continued examination

sought after the three-year clock has run. Such a result, of

course, would allow applicants to postpone their patent's

expiration date through dilatory prosecution, the very

submarine-patenting tactic that Congress sought to preclude

in 1994 when it adopted a 20-year patent term that runs from

an application's effective filing date.

Despite the absurd and undesirable results that would

appear to flow from the district court's interpretation, the

Committee declines to address this matter at this time. This

case was brought to the Committee's attention only very

recently, precluding the thorough consideration and

consultation that is appropriate before legislation is

enacted. Moreover, Congress is not in the business of

immediately amending the United States Code in response to

every nonfinal legal error made by a trial court. The

Committee, of course, reserves the right to address this

matter in the future. In the meantime, the fact that the

present bill does not amend Sec. 154(b) to address the

Exelixis decision should not be construed as congressional

acquiescence in or agreement with the reasoning of that

decision.

(i) Improper Applicant. This subsection repeals an

unnecessary limitation on who may file an international

application designating the United States. (USPTO request.)

(j) Financial Management Clarifications. This subsection

makes several technical changes to Sec. 42 of title 35,

concerning USPTO funding. These changes: (1) ensure that the

rule requiring that patent fees be spent for patent purposes

also applies to RCE fees; and (2) ensure that all USPTO

administrative costs will be covered by either patent fees or

trademark fees. (USPTO request.)

(k) Derivation Proceedings. Currently, the third sentence

of Sec. 135(a) will allow a derivation proceeding to be

sought only within the year after the victim's claim that has

been the target of derivation has published. It is possible,

however, that a deriver could file first, but delay claiming

the derived material until more than a year has elapsed after

the victim's claims have published, in other words, until

after the current deadline has lapsed. The changes made by

this subsection preclude such a scenario by requiring the

proceeding to be sought during the year after the publication

of the deriver's claim to the invention. These changes also

add a definition of ``earlier application'' to Sec. 135(a),

correct inconsistencies in the AIA's version of Sec. 135(a),

and authorize the PTAB to conduct, and the courts to hear

appeals of, interferences commenced after the effective date

of the AIA's amendments to Sec. 135(a). (USPTO request.)

(I) Terms of Public Advisory Committee Members. This

subsection makes the terms of PPAC and TPAC members run for 3

years

from a fixed date (rather than from the date that they are

appointed), and requires Chairmen and Vice Chairmen to be

designated from among existing members. (Current law

designates only a Chairman and gives him a 3-year term.)

These changes will produce better coordination of members'

terms, will allow experienced Chairmen to be appointed

without requiring such individuals to serve two 3-year terms,

and will provide for automatic replacement of a Chairman who

does not complete his term of service. (AIPLA request.)

(m) Report on pre-GATT Applications. The URAA amendments

took effect on June 8, 1995 but were made inapplicable to

applications filed before that effective date. Unfortunately,

a small number of applicants may have engaged in clearly

dilatory behavior and continue to maintain pending

applications with effective-filing dates that precede the

URAA effective date.

It is highly unlikely that the 103d Congress ever conceived

that its amendments to Sec. 154(a) would remain inapplicable

to applications still pending in this Congress. The issuance

of any such patent at this late date would be grossly

prejudicial to the public. Many of these applications claim

invention dates in the 1980s, and some even claim priority

dates in the 1970s. To remove such technology from the public

domain in 2012 would work a clear injustice on the public,

and would bear no relation to the patent system's purpose of

promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

An earlier version of this Act included a provision that

would have required these applicants to complete prosecution

of these applications promptly after the enactment of the

Act. To avoid controversy that might delay the enactment of

this Act, the present Act substitutes the earlier proposal

with a requirement that USPTO issue a report that will

provide Congress and the public with relevant information

about these applications. The Committee expects that the

report will contribute to an understanding of whether these

applications present special circumstances that require

further legislative, executive, or judicial action in order

to ensure transparency and protect the public's interests.

(n) Micro Entity Definition. This subsection corrects a

scrivener's error in the AIA's definition of the ``micro

entities'' that are entitled to a fee reduction. This change

has no substantive effect.

(o) Default Effective Date. This subsection provides that

the amendments made by this Act apply to proceedings

commenced on or after the enactment of the Act, except where

the provisions of the Act include their own effective date or

modify an existing law's effective date.

Other Issues for Future Consideration

Post-Grant Review Could-Have-Raised Estoppel. The version

of post-grant review that was enacted by the Leahy-Smith

America Invents Act bars a petitioner who completes such a

review from challenging any of the claims of the patent that

were reviewed in the proceeding on any ground that the

petitioner ``could have raised'' in the post-grant review.

Although this broad estoppel first appeared in the bill that

was reported by the House Judiciary Committee in June 2011,

no amendment adopted by the committee authorized such a

change. The change appears to have been made by staff charged

with making technical corrections to the bill, who apparently

assumed that the omission of could-have-raised estoppel in

Sec. 325(e)(2) was an oversight.

The application of a civil-litigation could-have-raised

estoppel to PGR would cripple that proceeding if it is not

corrected. All validity issues can be raised in PGR, and must

be raised during the first nine months of the patent's life

and without the benefit of discovery. Thus if could-have-

raised estoppel were applied to PGR, a PGR challenger would

effectively have to waive the possibility of raising any

validity defense against the patent if he is later sued for

infringement--and all without an opportunity to adequately

investigate enablement and other discovery-intensive issues.

In order to ensure that the post-grant review system that

USPTO has recently implemented does not simply become a white

elephant, it is important that this scrivener's error be

corrected in the future. And, lest anyone suggest that the

correction of this error is properly regarded as

controversial, allow me to note that this correction would

simply conform the PGR estoppel provisions to those of the

bill that passed the Senate on March 8, 2011, by a vote of

95-5.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from California, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, for honoring both Neil Armstrong and NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh Dryden with this bill.

Not many people know the relationship between these two men. Hugh Dryden was the visionary behind NASA's X-15 rocket plane and the Apollo program, and Neil Armstrong was the one who actually flew the spacecraft that Dryden envisioned.

The X-15 rocket plane set many speed and altitude records in the early 1960s. Hugh Dryden was the engineer and program manager for that spacecraft, which Neil Armstrong flew seven times.

While everyone knows that Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on the Moon, not many people know Hugh Dryden's role. The Soviets launched the first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957, and Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space in April 1961.

President John F. Kennedy was looking for a way to demonstrate American ingenuity and technical superiority over the Soviet Union, so he convened the National Space Council and asked for their advice on the best way for America to respond to the Soviets' string of firsts in space exploration. Hugh Dryden was the person in that meeting who recommended to the President that the goal of putting a person on the Moon within 10 years was achievable and something the American people could rally behind. The rest is history. President Kennedy grabbed Hugh Dryden's idea and addressed a joint session of Congress the very next month.

The Apollo program was the brainchild of Hugh Dryden, and Neil Armstrong turned that dream into reality by making that ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'' on another world almost 240,000 miles away. Hugh Dryden was not able to see his dream become reality, as he died in 1965, and, unfortunately, Neil Armstrong passed away last August.

It is important for us to honor both men's legacies by naming the flight research center after Neil Armstrong and the surrounding test range after Hugh Dryden. With this bill, we reaffirm that America is filled with dreamers like Hugh Dryden and doers like Neil Armstrong, who, working together, can shoot for the Moon.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman McCarthy for honoring their legacy, which reminds us that America always needs to think about new frontiers.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6029) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for increased penalties for foreign and economic espionage, and for other purposes.

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 the matter currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman-elect Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers, and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt for their work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 deters and pushes criminals who target U.S. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests.

In a dynamic and globally connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital, not only to the success of individual enterprises, but also to the future of entire industries.

In recent years, cybercriminals have shifted from the theft of personal information such as credit cards and Social Security numbers to the theft of corporate intellectual capital.

Our intelligence community has warned us that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies. In the U.S., the Economic Espionage Act serves as a primary tool the Federal Government uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft.

Our intelligence community declares that there is a ``significant and growing threat to our Nation's prosperity and security'' posed by criminals both inside and outside our borders who commit espionage. Congress should also recognize and confront this increasing threat by adjusting our penalties so that we can enhance deterrents and provide appropriate punishments for those criminals who knowingly target our companies for espionage.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6029 as it was amended by the Senate. The original bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and was unanimously reported by both the Judiciary Committee and this House. This is a commonsense and much-needed measure that deserves our full support.

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

I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman-Elect Bob Goodlatte, Ranking Member John Conyers and IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Mel Watt for their work on this bill. It has been a privilege to serve with them during my tenure as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee.

I look forward to continuing to explore areas where we can work together in the 113th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 deters and punishes criminals who target U.S. economic and security interests on behalf of foreign interests.

In a dynamic and globally-connected information economy, the protection of intangible assets is vital not only to the success of individual enterprises but also to the future of entire industries.

A global study released last year by McAfee, the world's largest security technology company, and Science Applications International Corporation, concluded that corporate trade secrets and other sensitive intellectual capital are the newest ``currency'' of cybercriminals.

In recent years, cybercriminals have shifted from the theft of personal information such as credit cards and social security numbers to the theft of corporate intellectual capital.

Our intelligence community has warned us that foreign interests place a high priority on acquiring sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies.

We know that some individuals intentionally and persistently seek out U.S. information and trade secrets. The most recent report from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive specifically cited Chinese as ``the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.''

The report also described Russia's intelligence services as responsible for ``conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from US targets.''

In the U.S., the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) serves as the primary tool the federal government uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft.

On December 18, the House passed S. 3642, an important bill that clarifies the scope of protectable trade secrets.

Since enacting the EEA in 1996, Congress has not adjusted its penalties to take into account the increasing importance of intellectual property to the economic and national security of the U.S.

H.R. 6029, which the House unanimously passed this summer, increases the maximum penalties for an individual convicted of committing espionage on behalf of a foreign entity.

The bill the House passed increases the maximum penalty from 15 to 20 years imprisonment and increases the maximum fine from $500,000 to $5 million.

Several Senators wanted to give further consideration to the proposed statutory maximum increase from 15 to 20 years imprisonment.

The Senate amended H.R. 6029 by deleting this single provision. They then passed it unanimously on December 19, so that we may act again and send this bill directly to the desk of the President.

I thank Senators Lee and Paul along with Senators Leahy, Kohl and Grassley for helping to resolve concerns and advancing this measure.

Our Intelligence community declares that there is a ``significant and growing threat to [our] nation's prosperity and security'' posed by criminals--both inside and outside our borders--who commit espionage.

Congress should also recognize and confront this increasing threat by adjusting our penalties so that we may enhance deterrence and provide appropriate punishments for those criminals who knowingly target our companies for espionage.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6029 as it was amended by the Senate. The original bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and was unanimously reported by both the Judiciary Committee and this House. This is a common sense and much-needed measure that deserves our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6621) to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code.

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 the matter currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA, was signed into law on September 16, 2011. It was the first major patent reform bill in over 60 years and the most substantial reform of U.S. patent law since the 1836 Patent Act. The Leahy-Smith AIA reestablishes the United States patent system as the global standard.

Over the past year, the Patent Office has worked diligently to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA in order to ensure that the bill realizes its full potential to promote innovation and create jobs. The bill that we consider today includes several technical corrections and improvements that ensure that the implementation of the bill can proceed efficiently and effectively. The bill is supported by all sectors of our economy from all across the United States, including manufacturers, universities, technology, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and innovators.

As the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA continue to take effect, our Nation's innovation infrastructure becomes much stronger, unleashing the full potential of American innovators and job creators, so I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or ``AIA,'' was signed into law on September 16, 2011. It was the first major patent reform bill in over 60 years and the most substantial reform of U.S. patent law since the 1836 Patent Act. The Leahy-Smith AIA re-establishes the United States patent system as a global standard.

Over the past year the Patent Office has worked diligently to implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA to ensure that the bill realizes its full potential to promote innovation and create jobs.

The bill that we consider today includes several technical corrections and improvements that ensure that the implementation of the bill can proceed efficiently and effectively.

The bill is supported by all sectors of our economy from all across the United States, including manufacturers, universities, technology, pharmaceutical and biotech companies and innovators.

I have also received letters in support from: the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which represents manufacturers, pharmaceutical, technology, defense companies and universities; the Innovation Alliance, which represents high tech companies and licensors; and the BSA: The Software Alliance, which represents a range of high technology and software companies.

The Leahy-Smith AIA fundamentally changes our nation's innovation infrastructure. With any such substantive and wide-ranging legislation, unforeseen issues may arise as implementation occurs.

H.R. 6621 corrects many of these issues. This package consists of several technical corrections to the AIA that are essential to the effective implementation of the Act.

Other technical corrections and improvements may arise in the future; for example, the issue surrounding the correction of the Post-Grant Review estoppel provision in the Leahy-Smith AIA.

This was the result of an inadvertent ``scrivener's error,'' an error that was made by legislative counsel. That technical error has resulted in an estoppel provision with a higher threshold than was intended by either house of Congress.

Additionally, we must remain watchful as we examine ways to deal with the abusive and frivolous litigation that American innovators face from patent assertion entities or patent trolls.

The modified bill passed by the Senate takes out the report on pre- GATT patents. Even though the report is no longer mandated, it is within PTO's existing authority to conduct such a study, and I would call on them to do so.

As the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA continue to take effect, our nation's innovation infrastructure becomes much stronger, unleashing the full potential of American innovators and job creators.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 668) to refer H.R. 5862, a bill making congressional reference to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code, the Indian trust-related claims of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah) as well as its individual members, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for sponsoring House Resolution 668.

This bill allows a Native American Tribe that resides in Oklahoma, the Quapaw, to appear before the United States Federal court of claims to plead for damages against the Federal Government for mismanagement of tribal funds. The court would issue a report, either favorable or unfavorable, to the tribe. If favorable, the Natural Resources Committee would be authorized to move separate legislation to effect the court's decision.

In 2002, the tribe filed a lawsuit for an accounting in Federal district court of the U.S. Government's mismanagement of tribal and tribal member trust assets.

In November 2004, the tribe and the U.S. Government agreed that the tribe and third-party contractors would conduct an accounting of the U.S. Government's actions and inactions related to the trust assets. This was to facilitate a mediated solution to this lawsuit's claims. In exchange for this mediated route, the tribe would dismiss the lawsuit.

In June 2010, after 5 years of accounting and related analysis, the Quapaw Analysis was completed and shared with the U.S. Government. This set the stage for mediation. That analysis confirmed that the government's mismanagement of the Quapaw's trust constituted a breach of trust.

The tribe initiated multiple attempts to resolve their claims, which the government rejected. By 2011, the tribe sought relief in court from the government's failure to fulfill its trust obligations and to mediate and settle the trust claims.

Last year, eight Quapaw Tribe members filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other individuals for damages based on breach of trust. The government filed motions to dismiss the case and also refused to respond to a formal settlement demand proffered by the tribe.

The government's foot-dragging necessitates our passage of House Resolution 668 today. The bill doesn't guarantee a desired outcome; it only allows the Quapaw a chance to go before the Federal court of claims and make their best case. Even if the court rules in their favor, the Natural Resources Committee must still move subsequent legislation that incorporates the court's decision through both Houses of Congress.

Also, a revision to the bill stipulates that an award of damages by the court only applies to claims that are not already pending before the Court of Federal Claims. This ensures that claimants will not be doubly or excessively compensated.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his persistence on this issue and for introducing this particular bill. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 668.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6621) to correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and title 35, United States Code, as amended.

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. 6621, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA, was signed into law on September 16, 2011. It was the first major patent reform bill in over 60 years and the most substantial reform of U.S. patent law since the 1836 Patent Act. The Leahy-Smith AIA reestablishes the United States patent system as a global standard.

Over the past year, the Patent Office has worked diligently to implement the provisions of the act to ensure that the bill realizes its full potential to promote innovation and create jobs. The bill that we consider today includes several technical corrections and improvements that ensure that the implementation of the bill can proceed efficiently and effectively.

The bill is supported by all sectors of our economy from across the United States, including manufacturers, universities, technology, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and innovators. I've also received letters in support from the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which represents manufacturers, pharmaceutical, technology, defense companies, and universities; the Innovation Alliance, which represents high-tech companies and licensors; and the BSA, the Business Software Alliance, which represents a range of high technology and software companies.

The Leahy-Smith AIA fundamentally changes our Nation's innovation infrastructure. With any such substantive and wide-ranging legislation, unforeseen issues may arise as implementation occurs. H.R. 6621 corrects many of these issues.

This package consists of several technical corrections to the AIA that are essential to the effective implementation of the bill. Other technical corrections and improvements may arise in the future, for example, the issue surrounding the correction of the post-grant review estoppel provision in the Leahy-Smith AIA. This was the result of an inadvertent scrivener's error, an error that was made by legislative counsel. That technical error has resulted in an estoppel provision with a higher threshold than was intended by either House of Congress.

Additionally, we must remain watchful as we examine ways to deal with the abusive and frivolous litigation that American innovators face from patent assertion entities or patent trolls.

As the provisions of the Leahy-Smith AIA continue to take effect, our Nation's innovation infrastructure becomes much stronger, unleashing the full potential of American innovators and job creators.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, The report on pre-GATT applications refers to applications that were filed prior to the Uruguay Round amendments taking effect in June 1995. The 103rd Congress intended for a brief transition period as the United States patent system was updated. Unfortunately, a small number of applicants have engaged in clearly dilatory behavior and continue to maintain pending applications with effective filing dates that predate 1995. In fact, some of these applications have been pending for 20, 30, and even 40 years.

The 103rd Congress never intended for such applications to stay pending for half a century. To remove such technology from the public domain in 2012, would bear no relation to the patent system's Constitutional purpose to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

Now it is important for the 113th Congress and the Public to learn fully about these applications from the USPTO. The Committee expects that the report will contribute to an understanding of whether these applications present special circumstances that require further action to protect the public's interests.

Those who may have concerns about this report must understand that there is no way to ``target'' these submarine applications--the targets are, in fact, the people who will be sued once these submarine patents surface. The real targets are American job creators like small businesses, innovators and university researchers. And the public has a right to know in advance if certain widely used and long known technology is about to be withdrawn from the public domain.

The patent system was never intended to be a playground for trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. Sound patents should issue in a timely manner and should be used to create wealth and jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6014) to authorize the Attorney General to award grants for States to implement minimum and enhanced DNA collection processes, as amended.

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. 6014, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. H.R. 6014, the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, authorizes incentive grants to States that implement programs to collect DNA samples from felony arrestees.

DNA arrestee programs provide an important law enforcement tool to identify perpetrators of open and unsolved cases. DNA arrestee programs can also prevent crimes by linking career criminals to crimes and locking them up before they have the chance to strike again.

By collecting DNA samples from arrestees and uploading them into the national DNA database, States can empower police and prosecutors to not only solve cold cases but also to apprehend violent criminals before more innocent people are victimized or precious lives are lost. Similar legislation passed the House last Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 357-32.

H.R. 6014 adds a new purpose area to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act to fund State DNA arrestee programs. This is limited, cost-effective legislation that will help States make use of DNA evidence to catch serious criminals at the earliest stage possible.

In the 20th century, law enforcement used fingerprints to link criminals to unsolved crimes. In the 21st century, law enforcement can now use DNA fingerprint technology to apprehend dangerous offenders.

I want to thank my colleague from California, again, Mr. Schiff, for his hard work on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who happens to have passed legislation very similar to this when he was in the legislature in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, once again, thank my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Schiff) for introducing this bill and for getting us to the point at which we are now--hopefully, on the cusp of passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3642) to clarify the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 3642, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act, EEA, and protects American jobs and businesses from the theft of their valuable trade secrets. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this piece of legislation.

Since 1996, the EEA has served as the primary tool the Federal Government uses to protect secret, valuable, commercial information from theft. The Second Circuit's Aleynikov decision revealed a dangerous loophole that demands our attention. In response, the Senate unanimously passed S. 3642 in November. We need to act today to send this important measure directly to the President. We must also take action in response to the Second Circuit's call and ensure that we have appropriately adapted the scope of the EEA to the digital age.

I again thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012,'' clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) and protects American jobs and businesses from the theft of their valuable trade secrets. I thank Senator Leahy for his hard work on this bill.

Sergey Aleynikov was convicted for stealing and transferring valuable proprietary computer source code that belonged to his former employer, Goldman Sachs. Earlier this year, he was released from a federal penitentiary after serving only one year of an eight-year sentence.

According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, he had accepted an offer in 2009, to become a senior executive at a Chicago-based startup that intended to compete against Goldman in the provision of high frequency trading (HFT) services.

The Appeals Court explained:

just before his going-away party, Aleynikov encrypted and

uploaded to a server in Germany more than 500,000 lines of

source code for Goldman's HFT system . . . On June 2, 2009,

Aleynikov flew . . . to Chicago to attend meetings at Teza.

He brought with him a flash drive and a laptop containing

portions of the Goldman source code. When Aleynikov flew back

the following day, he was arrested by the FBI . . .''

Aleynikov was convicted of violating the EEA and the National Stolen Property Act. After reviewing the trial record, the Appeals Court issued an order in February 2012, which reversed Aleynikov'convictions on both counts.

The court's decision construed the scope of the two federal criminal statutes. It observed that there is a limitation that products be ``produced for'' or ``placed in'' interstate or foreign commerce.

The court concluded, ``Goldman's HFT system was neither `produced for' nor `placed in' interstate or foreign commerce,'' despite evidence that it facilitated millions of proprietary trades and transactions each year. It then determined that the theft of source code was not an offense under the EEA.

The court explained that when a statute, particularly a criminal statute, is ambiguous, it is appropriate to construe it narrowly and, ``to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite'' before choosing a stricter interpretation.

In his concurring opinion, Judge Calabresi [Cal-abress-E] directly called upon Congress to clarify the scope of the EEA as he wrote:

[I]t is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in [the

EEA], actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which

Aleynikov engaged . . . [n]evertheless, while concurring [in

the opinion], I wish to express the hope that Congress will

return to the issue and state, in appropriate language, what

I believe it meant to make criminal in the EEA.

The FBI estimated earlier this year that U.S. companies had lost $13 billion to trade secret theft in just over six months. Over the past six years, losses to individual U.S. companies have ranged from $20 million to as much as $1 billion.

Since 1996, the EEA has served as the primary tool the federal government uses to protect secret, valuable, commercial information from theft.

The Second Circuit's Aleynikov [Alay-na-kov] decision revealed a dangerous loophole that demands our attention. In response, the Senate unanimously passed S. 3642 in November.

We need to act today to send this important measure directly to the President. We must also take action in response to the Second Circuit's call and to ensure that we have appropriately adapted the scope of the EEA to the digital age.

I again thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6671 makes a minor, overdue change to update the Video Privacy Protection Act. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for sponsoring this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

The Video Privacy Protection Act prohibits video stores from disclosing certain ``personally identifiable information'' of their customers.

In the event of an unauthorized disclosure, an individual can sue in civil court for damages. But the law has always allowed some personally identifiable information to be released in limited circumstances, such as in response to a court order or when the customer gives their prior, written consent.

However, the technologies of entertainment are changing. Today, consumers are just as likely to stream a movie from the Internet as they are to rent a movie from a video store. And when people view entertainment on the Internet, often they like to share their activities with friends through social media like Facebook and Twitter.

Under current law, the social media sites would have to obtain written consent each time someone wishes to share their video choices.

H.R. 6671 does not change the prohibition on disclosure of personal information or expand the exceptions when information can be disclosed. It does not change the requirement for informed, written consent by a consumer. It simply allows the consumer to consent once before using new social media programs to share their movie or TV show preferences.

An earlier version of this bill passed the House last year, by a vote of 303 to 116. In the Senate, two amendments were adopted to make the bill even more consumer friendly. This new version adopts these amendments to accommodate concerns about consumer choice and privacy.

H.R. 6671 adopts an amendment proffered in mark-up by Congressman Nadler, which requires the consumer consent agreement to be in a completely separate form apart from the other contract details.

In addition, H.R. 6671 adopts two Senate amendments that place limitations on how consent is obtained from consumers. The bill now limits the disclosure agreement to 2 years.

The bill also requires the video provider to give consumers easy options to end the sharing agreement. These changes will ensure that consumers are aware they are sharing information and are voluntarily taking part.

Rather than dramatically alter the Act's existing provisions, H.R. 6671 keeps the vast majority of the Act in place and simply modernizes the way in which consumers can give their informed consent. This bill brings the Video Privacy Protection Act into the 21st century. And the changes adopted made from the previous bill increase consumer protection from the beginning of the process to its end.

I again thank my colleague from Virginia, the Chairman-Elect of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, for his work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time.

Today we say good-bye to a friend and colleague and a friend on the House floor who has served Congress for more than three decades. I have known and appreciated Jay Pierson for many years. He's sitting to my right back here on the floor right now.

Jay has been an integral part of the daily activities on the House floor, serving as floor assistant to Speakers Gingrich, Hastert, and Boehner. It seems there isn't a question to which Jay doesn't know the answer--except

perhaps when we leave this week. Each time I see Jay on the floor, he is always informed and gives good advice.

Jay has served the House of Representatives with a smile on his face for the last 34 years. His expertise and enthusiasm will be missed. And we all wish him the best on his well-deserved retirement.

So, Jay, thank you again for all you've done for so many of us.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, America watched as Kerrville, Texas' own star quarterback received College Football's most prestigious award--the Heisman trophy.

Johnny Manziel, the Tivy High School graduate and current Texas A&M University quarterback, became the first college freshman to follow in the footsteps of some of the sport's greatest athletes.

Known by his fans as ``Johnny Football,'' it seems as if Manziel was born to play the game. His first year at Tivy High School, Manziel started out on the freshman football team. By the end of the season, he was playing on Varsity. He was the only quarterback in America named as a Parade All-American his senior year.

This year, Manziel led the Aggies to a victory over Alabama, the number one ranked team in the nation. He is the first freshman and only the fifth player in the NCAA to pass for 3000 yards and rush for 1000 yards in a season.

The champion who Americans have now been introduced to is the same humble young man that Kerrville, Texas, has known all along. Hard work, determination and graciousness have been Johnny Manziel's trademark all along.

From the halls of Congress, and from the heart of Texas District 21, congratulations, Johnny, on well-deserved award.