Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2480) to amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and for other purposes, 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. 2480, as amended.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill on behalf of myself, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Lately, the need to reform Federal administrative law has become urgent. Every day the long promised economic recovery seems more like a mirage. Our top priority should be to create jobs. Protecting job creators from overregulation will help create jobs. According to the Small Business Administration, regulations impose a $1.75 trillion burden annually on the American economy. Reducing this burden will hasten our economic recovery.

The Administrative Conference of the United States is a small but important institution. It is a narrowly focused, nonpartisan body that offers an outstanding forum to reform Federal administrative law. Regulatory agencies must be efficient, effective, and accountable. This is the heart of the Conference's historical mission. Over the years, its recommendations have saved taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. For example, the Social Security Administration saved $85 million by adopting a recommendation to eliminate an unnecessary step in its appeals process. The Conference's budget was $1.8 million at the time. And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation saved more than $9 million in the first 18 months of a pilot program implementing an ACUS recommendation to make greater use of alternative dispute resolution. ACUS currently is urging agencies to expand their use of video hearings. The Social Security Administration already has saved $59 million by doing more hearings by video conference. This ACUS recommendation has the potential to save millions more across the Federal Government.

Due to a lack of funding, the Conference went dormant in 1996. It was revived in the 111th Congress, and I am glad that once again it is able to contribute to administrative law reform. The Conference is uniquely positioned to generate much savings for very little cost. Recommendations from the Conference save taxpayer dollars by helping agencies work more effectively. The Conference also helps agencies adopt better and less burdensome regulations to reduce that $1.75 trillion regulatory burden on the economy. Additionally, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law's December 2006 interim report on regulatory reform contains numerous suggested reforms that ACUS could examine and help agencies implement.

During these difficult economic times, everyone has to tighten their belts, including Federal agencies. If American families have to make tough economic choices, so should Congress. The amount authorized by this bill, $2.9 million annually for the next three fiscal years, was a bipartisan compromise. It reduces the Conference's authorization level by almost 10 percent while enabling the Conference to perform its most critical work. The Conference's past successes raise the prospect for a high return on the taxpayers' investment. It is a reasonable authorization level in light of the current need to reduce Federal spending, and I recommend it to my colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1103) to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

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 material on S. 1103, currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this September 11 marks the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. America is fortunate not to have suffered another attack of such magnitude and devastation in the past decade. America has remained safe but not because those who are determined to deny us our freedoms and destroy our way of life have given up. We are safe because of the men and women who serve our country with devotion and distinction--those who serve in our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies.

These public servants and their families make tremendous sacrifices to keep us safe and to keep terrorists on the run. Their work is often unrecognized and underappreciated. In addition to ensuring that terrorists are denied victory, some of our public servants also protect us from crime and ensure that justice is served.

The agency that is charged with this unique duty is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI director is limited to a 10-year nonrenewable term. Congress imposed this restriction to ensure political independence and to act as a restraint on unbridled power and the potential for misuse of that power.

In just a few weeks, the current FBI director, Robert S. Mueller, III, will conclude his 10-year term. The President has asked for a one- time 2-year extension for Mr. Mueller to ensure continuity in America's national security team. The killing of Osama bin Laden and personnel changes in key national security posts make these unusual times that justify a short-term extension.

Director Mueller has shown himself a dedicated public servant who has kept terrorists at bay and reduced crime.

Mr. Mueller assumed leadership of the FBI on September 4, 2001, just 1 week prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001. During his tenure, he has reformed the FBI to ensure that it is able to address not only terrorist threats, but also threats posed by traditional criminals. This request for an extension was made not by Mr. Mueller but by the President of the United States.

Mr. Mueller has agreed to accept this extension if it is approved by Congress. It's not every day that the House, the Senate, and the White House can agree, but this is something we all can agree is essential.

This bill creates a new, one time only 2-year term of service for the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Mueller will be eligible to be appointed to this new term of service with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate will hold a confirmation vote after the President signs this bill.

This new term would expire on September 4, 2013, after which, Mr. Mueller would no longer serve as director. This bill does not prevent the President from appointing a different individual to a new tenured term by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

If the President wants to continue the services of the incumbent, this bill allows that to happen for a limited time and in a constitutional manner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to continue the service of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, for an additional 2 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and Ranking Member Conyers, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize John D. Filamor who is leaving the House to take a position with the Department of Justice. Mr. Filamor served in the Office of the General Counsel for 10 years, first as a law clerk while he was still a student at George Washington University Law School; from 2001-10

as an Assistant Counsel; and more recently as a Senior Assistant Counsel. We will miss him.

Mr. Filamor provided frequent and invaluable legal advice and representation to the House Committee on the Judiciary, as well as to Members, officers and other committees of the House more generally. Our staff came to rely on his expertise and guidance in connection with many of their investigative and oversight activities, as well as in connection with the Committee's interactions with the other branches of the Federal Government. Over the years, Mr. Filamor played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Filamor served the House with great distinction, and we know he will serve the Department of Justice with that same level of distinction. On behalf of the House Committee on the Judiciary, we thank him for his many years of devoted service, and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. Speaker. I submit the following.

Media Fairness Caucus--A Look at Media Bias

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), CoChair

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), CoChair

Media's Liberal Bias Distorts Fair Coverage

From U.S. News & World Report:

``The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far

left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the

Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more

conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA

professor's new book out next month.

``In a crushing body blow to the pushers of the so-called

`Fox Effect,' which claims the conservative media is dragging

the left into the center, UCLA political science professor

Tim Groseclose in Left Turn claims that `all' mainstream news

outlets have a liberal bias in their reporting that makes

even moderate organizations appear out of the mainstream and

decidedly right-wing to news consumers who are influenced by

the slant.''

In the book, Groseclose writes: ``Fox News is clearly more

conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public

Radio. Some will conclude that `therefore, this means that

Fox News has a conservative bias.' Instead, maybe it is

centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the

others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is

short just because it is short compared to professional

basketball players.''

Americans See Media as Biased, Liberal

Two-thirds of Americans believe that reporters try to help

the candidate they want to win an election, according to a

recent Rasmussen public opinion poll. Only 2 in 10 think

reporters try to offer unbiased coverage.

The survey also found that almost half of Americans think

reporters would hide any damaging information about the

candidate they wanted to win. And by more than two-to-one,

Americans say the average reporter is more liberal than they

are, rather than more conservative.

If the national media want to earn Americans' trust, they

should give them the facts, not tell them what to think.

First Lady Thanks Media for ``Support'' and ``Kindness''

During a recent interview on CNN, First Lady Michelle Obama

thanked the national media for their ``support'' and

``kindness.'' Below is an excerpt from the interview:

CNN reporter: ``How's the family ready for this [the

election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do

you prepare for that?''

First Lady Michelle Obama: ``You know, it's . . . we're

ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less

about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately,

we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very

grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten.

People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think,

you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's

policies or what have you, they care about children and

that's been good to see.''

Madam Chair, H.R. 1249 makes a significant change to the system by which patents are filed and granted in the United States. Moving to a first-inventor-to-file system will modernize and harmonize our patent system with our international trading partners. In so doing, we recognize that we are also modifying other parts of our patent system as part of this change.

One key part of the transition that has already been recognized by the House Judiciary Committee is the necessary inclusion of prior user rights under the new first-inventor-to-file system. The inclusion of prior user rights is essential to ensure that those who have invented and used a technology but choose not to disclose that technology-- generally to ensure that they not disclose their trade secrets to foreign competitors--are provided a defense against someone who later patents the technology. Even as we make this make this change, we recognize that uncertainty remains as to the appropriate scope of the prior-user-rights defense and how best to provide protections for America's most innovative companies.

H.R. 1249 takes steps to explore these issues, including requiring an important PTO study of prior user rights and whether we should expand the defense created by the America Invents Act. One important area of focus will be how we protect those who make substantial investments in the development and preparation of proprietary technologies. For example, in the semiconductor industry, the design of a state of the art processor takes roughly three years from the high-level specification to the production of the first silicon, at a cost of billions of dollars. Inventions such as these, which are present throughout our economy, should be protected. I should also note that parties who commercialize a product will still be able to assert a defense of prior art invalidation. Upon release of the forthcoming PTO report, we may introduce legislation that implements its conclusions and refines the nature and scope of the prior-user rights defense. This will ensure that our most innovative companies who hold many of the keys to U.S. economic competitiveness are provided sufficient prior user right protections to put them on an even competitive field internationally.

Madam Chair, I submit: (1) Manager's Statement on Supplemental Examination; (2) Manager's Statement on Genetic Test Study proposed in the Managers; (3) Statement on the codification of the Weldon amendment; (4) Statement on the business method patent transitional program; (5) Statement on the PTO fee compromise provision in the Manager's amendment; (6) November 2003 letter on the Weldon amendment from PTO Director James Rogan; (7) Information on the Weldon amendment from the Family Research Council.

Chairman's Floor Remarks/Manager's Statement: Supplemental Examination

in H.R. 1249

Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains a very important new

administrative proceeding available to patent owners, to help

improve the quality of issued patents. This new

``Supplemental Examination'' procedure encourages the

voluntary and proactive disclosure of information that may be

relevant to patent prosecution for the Office to consider,

reconsider, or correct. The voluntary disclosure by patentees

serves to strengthen valid patents, while narrowing or

eliminating patents or claims that should not have been

issued. Both of these outcomes promote investment in

innovation by removing uncertainty about the scope, validity

or enforceability of patents, and thus the use of this new

proceeding by patent owners is to be encouraged.

Subparagraph (C) relating to Supplemental Examination is

intended to address the circumstance where, during the course

of a supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding

ordered under this section, a court or administrative agency

advises the PTO that it has made a determination that a fraud

on the Office may have been committed in connection with the

patent that is the subject of the supplemental examination.

In such a circumstance, subparagraph (C) provides that, in

addition to any other actions the Director is authorized to

take, including the cancellation of any claims found to be

invalid under section 307 as a result of the reexamination

ordered under this section, the Director shall also refer the

matter to the Attorney General. As such, this provision is

not intended to impose any obligation on the PTO beyond those

it already undertakes, or require it to investigate or

prosecute any such potential fraud. Subparagraph (C) is

neither an investigative nor an adjudicative provision, and,

as such, is not intended to expand the authority or

obligation of the PTO to investigate or adjudicate

allegations of fraud lodged by private parties.

Further, any referral under this subjection is not meant to

relieve the Director from his obligation to conclude the

supplemental examination or reexamination proceeding ordered

under this section. It is important for the process to

proceed through conclusion of reexamination, so that any

claims that are invalid can be properly cancelled.

The decision to make referrals under subsection (c) is not

meant to be delegated to examiners or other agents of the

PTO, but rather is a determination that should only be made

by the Director himself or herself.

Supplemental Examination has the potential to play a

powerful role in improving patent quality and boosting

investment in innovation, economic growth, and job creation.

The Director should implement this new authority in a way

that maximizes this potential.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Conyers amendment to tie the changes proposed in the America Invents Act to future changes that would

be made in foreign law is unworkable. I oppose providing a trigger in U.S. law that leaves our patent system at the mercy of actions to be taken at a future date by the Chinese, Russians, French, or any other country. It is our constitutional duty to write the laws for this great land. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the whims of foreign powers.

I know that this idea has been floated in the past, but after working on several pieces of patent legislation over the past several Congresses, and particularly this year on H.R. 1249, it has become clear that this type of trigger idea is simply not workable and is counterproductive.

The move to a first-inventor-to-file system creates a more efficient and reliable patent system that benefits all inventors, including independent inventors. The bill provides a more transparent and certain grace period, a key feature of U.S. law, and a more definite filing date that enables inventors to promote, fund, and market their technology, while making them less vulnerable to costly patent challenges that disadvantage independent inventors.

Under first-inventor-to-file, an inventor submits an application to the Patent Office that describes their invention and how to make it. That, along with a $110 fee, gets them a provisional application and preserves their filing date. This allows the inventor an entire year to complete the application, while retaining the earlier filing date. By contrast, the cost of an interference proceeding before the PTO often runs to $500,000.

The current first-to-invent system harms small businesses and independent inventors. Former PTO Commissioner Gerald Mossinghoff conducted a study that proves smaller entities are disadvantaged in PTO interference proceedings that arise from disputes over patent ownership under the current system. Independent inventors and small companies lose more often than they win in these disputes, plus bigger companies are better able to absorb the cost of participating in these protracted proceedings.

In addition, many inventors also want protection for their patents outside the United States. If you plan on selling your product overseas, you need to secure an early filing date. If you don't have a clear filing date, you can be shut off from the overseas market. A change to first-inventor-to-file will help our businesses grow and ensure that American goods and services will be available in markets across the globe.

In the last 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has prevailed over the inventor who filed first. One out of 3 million. So there is no need for this amendment. Independent inventors lose to other applicants with deeper pockets that are better equipped to exploit the current complex legal environment.

So the first-to-file change makes it easier and less complicated for U.S. inventors to get patent protection around the world. And it eliminates the legal bills that come with the interference proceedings under the current system. It is a key provision of this bill that should not be contingent upon actions by foreign powers and delay what would be positive reforms for independent inventors and our patent system.

The first-inventor-to-file provision is necessary for U.S. competitiveness and innovation. It makes our patent system stronger, increases patent certainty, and reduces the cost of frivolous litigation.

However, if you support the U.N. having military control over our troops, or if you support the concept of an international court at The Hague, then you would support this amendment's proposal of a trigger that subjects U.S. domestic law to the whims of governments in Europe, China, or Russia.

It really would be unprecedented to hold U.S. law hostage to legal changes made overseas, and would completely go against what this great country stands for and what our Founders fought for: the independent rights and liberties we have today.

For these reasons, Madam Chair, I am strongly opposed to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment strikes the prior- user rights provision from the bill. I strongly oppose this amendment.

The bill expands prior-user rights--a strong, pro-job, pro- manufacturing provision. This provision will help bring manufacturing jobs back to this country. It allows factories to continue using manufacturing processes without fear of costly litigation. It is absolutely a key component of this bill.

This provision has the strong support of American manufacturers and the support of all the major university associations and technology- transfer associations. These include the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, Association of University Technology Managers, and the Council on Government Relations representing the vast majority of American Universities. Prior-user rights ensure that the first inventor of a new process or product using manufacturing can continue to do so.

This provision has been carefully crafted between stakeholders and the university community. The language provides an effective exclusion for most university patents, so this provision focuses on helping those in the private sector.

The prior-use defense is not overly expansive and will protect American manufacturers from having to patent the hundreds or thousands of processes they already use in their plants.

After getting initial input from the university community, they recommended that we make the additional changes reflected in this bill to ensure that prior-user rights will work effectively for all private sector stakeholders.

Prior-user rights are important as part of our change to a first-to- file system. I believe it is important to ensure that we include these rights to help our job-creating manufacturers across the United States. The philosophical objections of a lone tech-transfer office in Wisconsin should not counter the potential of this provision for job creation throughout America.

There are potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans who are looking for manufacturing jobs and could benefit from this provision. Without this provision, businesses say they may be unable to expand their factories and hire American workers if they are prevented from continuing to operate their facilities the way they have for years.

For many manufacturers, the patent system presents a catch-22. If they patent a process, they disclose it to the world and foreign manufacturers will learn of it and, in many cases, use it in secret without paying licensing fees. The patents issued on manufacturing processes are very difficult to police, and oftentimes patenting the idea simply means giving the invention away to foreign competitors. On the other hand, if the U.S. manufacturer doesn't patent the process, then under the current system a later party can get a patent and force the manufacturer to stop using a process that they independently invented and used.

In recent years, it has become easier for a factory owner to idle or shut down parts of his plant and move operations and jobs overseas rather than risk their livelihood through an interference proceeding before the PTO. The America Invents Act does away with these proceedings and includes the pro-manufacturing and constitutional provision of prior-user rights.

This provision creates a powerful incentive for manufacturers to build new plants and new facilities in the United States. Right now, all foreign countries recognize prior-user rights, and that has played a large role in attracting American manufacturing jobs and facilities to these countries. H.R. 1249 finally corrects this imbalance and strongly encourages businesses to create manufacturing jobs in this country.

The prior-user rights provision promotes job creation in America. Prior-user rights will help manufacturers, small business and other innovative industries strengthen our economy. It will help our businesses grow and allow innovation to flourish.

I strongly support prior-user rights, and so I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chair, I just want to say to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I appreciate her offering the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I understand the underlying point of the Member's amendment, and I want to make it clear that my interpretation of this amendment and its intent is to

highlight the problem posed by entities that pose as financial or technological businesses but whose sole purpose is not to create but to sue. I am talking about patent trolls--those entities that vacuum up patents by the hundreds or thousands and whose only innovations occur in the courtroom. This sense of Congress shows how these patent trolls can hurt small businesses and independent inventors before they even have a chance to get off the ground. This bill is designed to help all inventors and ensure that small businesses will continue to be a fountain for job creation and innovation.

For these reasons, Madam Chair, I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I am in favor of the amendment.

Madam Chair, section 23 of the bill requires the PTO Director to establish three or more satellite offices in the United States, subject to available resources. The provision lists criteria that the Director must take into account when selecting each office. This is a good addition to H.R. 1249, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I also hope that one of those offices is in Austin, Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I understand the underlying point of the Member's amendment, but other legislation and patent reform in particular have taught us that even small changes can have unintended consequences unless they have been vetted and have gone through the regular committee process.

The problem is in the details. This amendment is drafted as a study. I agree with the first part of the amendment but not the second because its objectives are written very much like a piece of legislation. It seeks to create support for a new program whereby taxpayer funds would be used to pay patent fees in foreign countries.

I am strongly committed to helping our small businesses and independent inventors secure their rights and have a level playing field abroad, but I can't support a result that could create a new entitlement program, a new bureaucracy and the transferring of taxpayer dollars directly to the treasuries of foreign governments. We should not use taxpayer funds to pay patent filing fees to foreign governments.

I do agree with the first part of this study, and am interested to see how the PTO, in coordination with other agencies, can figure out ways to help small businesses with international patent protection. I hope that this will be the focus of the study. The results of this study will show that small business outreach and educational and technical assistance programs are the most effective tools for small business and independent inventors.

I think that the PTO needs to continue its efforts to reach out to small businesses and independent inventors. This bill includes a provision which creates a permanent small business ombudsman at the PTO to work with small businesses to help them secure their patent rights. The PTO also conducts small business outreach programs throughout the country, teaching small businesses about IP enforcement and how to protect their intellectual property both at home and abroad.

Though I do not agree with the policy outline in the second part of the study and will strongly recommend that the PTO and SBA determine that such a program should not be established, I will support this amendment to initiate the study, and I hope that the bulk of it will focus on how to better utilize existing government resources for education and technical assistance to help small businesses with international patent protection.

Before I yield back the balance of my time, I hope that the movers of this amendment might be willing to reassure me and others about the intent and goals of this study.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment to change the effective date for the tax strategy method section of the bill.

It is possible to patent tax strategy methods, but it is bad policy. It is not fair to permit patents on techniques regularly used to satisfy a government mandate, such as one that requires individuals and businesses to pay taxes.

Tax preparers, lawyers, and planners have a long history of sharing their knowledge regarding how to file returns, plan estates, and advise clients. They maintain that allowing the patentability of tax strategy methods will complicate the tax filing process and inhibit the ability of preparers to provide quality services for their clients.

The effective date applies to any patent application that is pending on, or

filed on or after, the date of enactment and to any patent that is issued on or after that date.

The gentleman's amendment eliminates the application of this provision to those applications pending on the date of enactment. These applications have not been approved so I disagree with excluding these patents-in-waiting.

It was a mistake for the PTO to issue these patents in the first place, given their potential to harm individual taxpayers and tax return preparers. We shouldn't leave the door ajar by allowing more applications in. This just compounds the very problem we're trying to solve.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, in 2001, a biotech entity called the Medicines Company, or MedCo, submitted an application for a patent extension that the PTO ruled was 1 day late. This application would have extended patent protection for a drug the company developed called Angiomax. In August 2010, a U.S. district court ordered the PTO to use a more consistent way of determining whether the patent holder submitted a timely patent extension application. The PTO is implementing that decision and believes the court's decision resolves the problem for MedCo. Because of this ongoing litigation, the manager's amendment struck language pertaining to MedCo. The Conyers amendment seeks to reinsert that provision.

The Conyers amendment essentially codifies the district court's decision, but it ignores the fact that this case is on appeal. We need to let the courts resolve the pending litigation. It is standard practice for Congress not to interfere when there is ongoing litigation. If the Federal circuit rules against MedCo, generic manufacturers of the drug could enter the marketplace immediately rather than waiting another 5 years. This has the potential to save billions of dollars in health care expenses. While the amendment is drafted so as to apply to other companies similarly situated, as a practical matter, this is a special fix for one company.

Finally, it would be more appropriate for this to be considered as a private relief bill. Private relief bills are designed to provide benefits to a specific individual or corporate entity. The House and the Judiciary Committee have procedures in place to ensure that such bills are properly vetted. This amendment ignores those procedures and denies Members the opportunity to know the consequences of what they are voting on.

To summarize, Madam Chair, we should not interfere with ongoing litigation which may be unprecedented, and we should give this issue regular process in the Judiciary Committee.

I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to defeat it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I think this is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment strikes the first-inventor-to-file provisions from the bill. I strongly oppose the amendment.

The move to a first-inventor-to-file system creates a more efficient and reliable patent system that benefits all inventors, including independent inventors. This provision provides a more transparent and certain grace period, a key feature of U.S. law, and a more definite filing date that enables inventors to promote, fund, and market their technology while making them less vulnerable to costly patent challenges that disadvantage independent inventors.

The first-inventor-to-file system is absolutely consistent with the Constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the inventor. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has stated that the ``provision is constitutional and helps assure that the patent laws of this country accomplish the goal set forth in the Constitution: `to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' ''

Under first-inventor-to-file, patent rights are reserved to someone who

independently conceived of an invention before it was in the public domain. And under the Constitution, that is what is required to be considered an ``inventor.''

In fact, early American patent law, that of our Founders' generation, did not concern itself with who was the first to invent. The U.S. operated under a first-inventor-to-register system for nearly half a century, starting in 1790. The first-inventor-to-register system is similar to first-inventor-to-file, a system that the Founders themselves supported early in our Nation's history.

The courts did not even concern themselves with who was the first person to invent until 1870, with the creation of interference proceedings. Those proceedings are the ones that disadvantage independent inventors and small businesses. And over the years, and in subsequent revisions of the law, those proceedings have morphed into a costly litigation tactic.

Under first-inventor-to-file, an inventor submits an application to the Patent Office that describes their invention and how to make it. That, along with just a $110 fee, gets them a provisional application and preserves their filing date. This allows the inventor an entire year to complete the application, while retaining the earlier filing date. By contrast, the cost of an interference proceeding in today's law could run an inventor $500,000.

Accusations that the bill doesn't preserve the 1-year grace period are simply false. This bill provides a stronger, more transparent and certain 1-year grace period for disclosures. This enhances protection for inventors who have made a public or private disclosure of their invention during the grace period.

The grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or write about their ideas for a patent up to 1 year before they file for patent protection. These simple requirements create a priority date that is fixed and public so that everyone in the world can measure the patent against competing applications and patents and relevant prior art.

In addition, many inventors also want protection for their patents outside of the United States. If you plan on selling your product overseas, you need to secure an early filing date. If you don't have a clear filing date, you can be shut out from the overseas market. A change to a first-inventor-to-file system will help our businesses grow and ensure that American goods and services will be available in markets across the globe.

The current first-to-invent system seriously disadvantages small businesses and independent inventors. Former PTO Commissioner Gerald Mossinghoff conducted a study that proved smaller entities are disadvantaged in PTO interference proceedings that arise from disputes over patent ownership under the current system.

In the last 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has proved an earlier date of invention than the inventor who filed first.

Madam Chair, let me repeat that: in the last 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has proved an earlier date of invention than the inventor who filed first. Independent inventors lose to other applicants with deeper pockets that are better equipped to exploit the current complex legal environment.

So the first-inventor-to-file change makes it easier and less complicated for U.S. inventors to secure their patent rights, and it protects their patents overseas. And it eliminates the legal bills that come with interference proceedings under the current system. It is a key provision of this bill.

Madam Chair, the amendment should not be approved, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment to strike the PTO fee-setting authority from H.R. 1249.

Although the PTO has the ability to set certain fees by regulation, most fees are set by Congress. History has shown that such a scheme does not allow the PTO to respond to the challenges that confront it.

The PTO, most stakeholders, and the Judiciary Committee have agreed for years that the agency must have fee-setting authority to address its growing workload. This need is critical. The agency's backlog exceeds 1 million patent applications. This means it takes 3 years to get a patent in the United States--far too long. The wasted time leads to lost commercial opportunities, fewer jobs, and fewer new products for American consumers. Moreover, the new fee structure will not only retain the existing 50 percent discount for small businesses, it creates a new 75 percent discount for micro entities. This benefit helps independent inventors and small businesses.

The bill allows the PTO to set or adjust all of its fees, including those related to patents and trademarks, so long as they do no more than reasonably compensate the agency for the services performed.

To the charge that we are abandoning our oversight of the process, I urge the Members to review the oversight mechanisms in the bill. For example, prior to setting such fees, the director must give notice to and receive input from the Patent Public Advisory Committee or the Trademark Public Advisory Committee. The director may also reduce fees for any given fiscal year, but only after consultation with the advisory committees.

The bill details the procedures for how the director shall consult with the advisory committees, which includes providing for public hearings and the dissemination to the public of any recommendations made by either advisory committee.

Fees shall be prescribed by rule. Any proposed fee change shall be published in the Federal Register and include the specific rationale and purpose for the proposed change.

The director must seek public comments for no less than 45 days. The director must also notify Congress of any final decision regarding proposed fees. Congress shall have no more than 45 days to consider and comment on any proposed fee, but no proposed fee shall be effective prior to the expiration of this 45-day period.

Congress will remain part of the process, but PTO is better able to respond to their own resource needs, which, after all, will benefit patent holders and subsequently the economy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, almost everyone in Congress wants to help small businesses. They are the foundation of our economy and are the primary job creators. But this amendment includes certain terms or phrases that have nothing to do with the underlying goal that it purports to achieve.

This amendment appears to focus on small businesses, but in reality the amendment attempts to provide the trial lawyer lobby and patent trolls with an exemption from PTO reexamination, allowing them to continue suing job creators using frivolous or questionable patents. This amendment has nothing to do with small businesses and everything to do with providing an exemption for some of the worst offenders of our patent system.

This amendment will not help independent inventors or small businesses. Small businesses need the PTO reexamination proceedings. Those proceedings strengthen patents, and strong patents are what investors look for when making decisions about whether or not to provide venture capital funding.

The argument that reexam proceedings harass or hurt small businesses is just plain wrong. The reexam proceedings are a cheaper, quicker, better alternative to resolve questions of patentability than costly litigation in Federal court, which can run into the millions of dollars and last for years. This amendment is an immunity agreement for patent trolls, those entities who do not create jobs or innovation but simply game the legal system.

Additionally, this amendment appears to violate our international obligations under the TRIPS agreement. Under TRIPS, we are obligated not to discriminate against any field of technology or categories of patent holders. By providing an exemption from all reexamination proceedings for technological patents granted to patent trolls or nonpracticing entities, this would create a clear violation of our legal obligations.

Our patent system should be designed to ensure that it produces strong patents and patent certainty. The PTO reexamination proceedings help ensure that these important goals are accomplished. This amendment bars any form of reexam for U.S.-owned patents and, thus, would also prevent U.S. inventors themselves from using supplemental examination to even be able to correct errors in the record about their own patents.

This amendment creates a huge loophole in our patent system by exempting entities with 100 or fewer employees. This will not help small businesses but will allow patent troll entities, foreign companies, and foreign governments to manipulate our patent system. It would bar use of the business-methods transitional proceeding against most business-method patents.

This amendment is a recipe for allowing patent trolls and foreign companies and their governments to bypass normal post-grant challenges and enables weak or questionable patents to bypass further scrutiny. There is no legitimate public policy objective in exempting large numbers of those who manipulate our patent system from the rules of the road. It is for these reasons that I strongly oppose this amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. It strikes a useful provision that would provide a way to review the validity of certain business method patents. The proceeding would create an inexpensive and faster alternative to litigation, allowing parties to resolve their disputes rather than spending millions of dollars that litigation now costs. In the process, the proceeding would also prevent nuisance or extortion lawsuits.

This provision is strongly supported by community banks, credit unions, and other institutions that are an important source of lending to homeowners and small businesses. Finally, this bill only creates a new mechanism for reviewing the validity of business method patents. It does not alter the validity of those patents. Under settled precedent, the transitional review program is absolutely constitutional.

Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that Section 18 is designed to address the problem of low-quality business method patents that are commonly associated with the Federal Circuit's 1998 State Street decision. Not all business method patents are eligible for review by the patent office under Section 18. Towards that end, Section 18 of the bill specifically exempts ``patents for technological inventions'' from review.

Patents for technological inventions are those patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical solution. The technological innovation exception does not exclude a patent simply because it recites technology. Inventions related to manufacturing and machines that do not simply use known technology to accomplish a novel business process would be excluded from review under Section 18.

Section 18 would not cover patents related to the manufacture and distribution of machinery to count, sort, and authenticate currency. It is the intention of Section 18 to not review mechanical inventions related to the manufacture and distribution of machinery to count, sort and authenticate currency like change sorters and machines that scan currency whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art. These types of patents would not be eligible for review under this program.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit and urge my colleagues to defeat it. The America Invents Act is the culmination of 6 years of effort. During this time, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees conducted 23 hearings on patent reform and brokered numerous negotiations among Members and stakeholders. H.R. 1249 has garnered bipartisan and widespread support. This bill improves patent integrity in PTO operations. The bill helps businesses from a broad range of industries, independent inventors, and universities.

But the biggest winners are the American people. They will get more job opportunities and greater consumer choices. This amendment would mean that U.S. companies and inventors would be discriminated against all over the world when they file. It would be open season on American innovators and businesses. We would no longer be able to sell products abroad, and IP theft of U.S. goods would become rampant.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit also consigns our patent system to the one created in the 1952 Patent Act, an era of landline telephones, TVs that offered three fuzzy black-and-white channels, and the manual typewriter. We need to update our patent system, and we need to do it now.

Oppose the motion to recommit and support H.R. 1249.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1249, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, the insertion of appropriate headings, and the insertion of the word ``written'' in the appropriate place in the instruction in amendment No. 1 to strike material on lines 23 through 25 on page 114.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1249.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, individuals who raise questions about the constitutionality of this legislation perhaps should review the Constitution itself. The Constitution expressly grants Congress the authority to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts.'' That is precisely what this bill does. H.R. 1249 improves the patent system, ensuring the protection and promotion of intellectual property that spurs economic growth and generates jobs.

The bill's inclusion of a move to a first-inventor-to-file system is absolutely consistent with the Constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the ``inventor.''

A recent letter by professors of law from across the country--from universities including Emory, Indiana, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, NYU, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Albany, Stanford, Chicago, Georgia, Richmond, Vanderbilt, and Washington--states that claims of unconstitutionality ``cannot be squared with well-accepted and longstanding rules of current patent law.'' And

former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has said that the provision is both ``constitutional and wise.''

In a letter to PTO Director David Kappos, General Mukasey stated that the bill's constitutionality is assured because it ``leaves unchanged the existing requirement that a patent issue only to one who `invents or discovers.' ''

Also, this provision actually returns us to a system that our Founders created and used themselves. Early American patent law, that of our Founders' generation, did not concern itself with who was the first-to-invent. The U.S. operated under a first-inventor-to-register, which is a system very similar to the first-inventor-to-file.

It wasn't until the 1870s, when the courts created interference proceedings, that our patent system began to consider who was the first-to-invent an invention. These interference proceedings disadvantaged independent inventors and small businesses. Over time, interference proceedings have become a costly litigation tactic that has forced some manufacturers to take the path of least resistance and move operations and jobs overseas rather than risk millions or billions of dollars in capital investment. The America Invents Act does away with interference proceedings and includes a provision to address prior user rights without jeopardizing American businesses and jobs.

Opponents of the first-inventor-to-file system claim that it may disadvantage independent inventors who cannot file quickly enough. But the current system lulls inventors into a false sense of security based on the belief that they can readily and easily rely on being the first- to-invent. Inventors forget that, to have any hope of winning an interference proceeding, they must comply with complex legal procedures and then spend over $500,000 to try to prove that they were the first- to-invent.

In the last 7 years, under the current system of interference proceedings, only one independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications has proved an earlier date of invention over the inventor who filed first, one out of 3 million. In fact, the current patent system's costly and complex legal environment is what truly disadvantages independent inventors, who often lose their patent rights because they can't afford the legal battle over ownership.

The America Invents Act reduces frivolous litigation over weak or overbroad patents by establishing a pilot program to review a limited group of business method patents that never should have been awarded in the first place. Section 18 deals with mistakes that occurred following an activist judicial decision that created a new class of patents called business method patents in the late 1990s. The PTO was ill equipped to handle the flood of business method patent applications.

Few examiners had the necessary background and education to understand the inventions, and the PTO lacked information regarding prior art. As a result, the PTO issued some weak patents that have lead to frivolous lawsuits. The pilot program allows the PTO to reexamine a limited group of questionable business method patents, and it is supported by the PTO.

Former 10th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Judge Michael McConnell sent me a constitutional analysis of the bill's reexamination proceedings. He stated that ``there is nothing novel or unprecedented, much less unconstitutional, about the procedures proposed in sections 6 and 18. The application of these new reexamination procedures to existing patents is not a taking or otherwise a violation of the Constitution.''

Supporters of this bill understand that if America's inventors are forced to waste time with frivolous litigation, they won't have time for innovation. That's why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, PhRMA, BIO, the Information Technology Industry Council, American Bar Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Independent Community Bankers of America, Credit Union National Association, Financial Services Roundtable, American Insurance Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the American Institute of CPAs, industry leaders, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Coalition for Patent Fairness, independent inventors, and all six major university associations all support H.R. 1249.

To quote the Chamber of Commerce: ``This legislation is crucial for American economic growth, jobs, and the future of U.S. competitiveness.''

We can no longer allow our economy and job creators to be held hostage to legal maneuvers and the judicial lottery.

American inventors have led the world for centuries in new innovations, from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford. But if we want to continue as leaders in the global economy, we must encourage the innovators of today to develop the technologies of tomorrow.

This bill holds true to the Constitution, our Founders and our promise to future generations that America will continue to lead the world as a fountain for discovery, innovation and economic growth.

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

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

It is nice to be able to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues know a lot about this subject, but I don't think they know more than the Founders themselves. The Founders, including those who wrote the Constitution, operated under a first-to-register patent system starting in 1790. This is a very similar system to the first-inventor-to-file provision in the bill. So if the Founders liked the concept and thought it was constitutional, so should Members of Congress.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the foresight of the Founders in creating an intellectual property system in the Constitution demonstrates their understanding of how patent rights benefit the American people. Technological innovation from our intellectual property is linked to three-quarters of America's economic growth, and American IP industries account for over one-half of all of our exports. These industries also provide millions of Americans with well-paying jobs.

Our patent laws, which provide a time-limited monopoly to inventors in exchange for their creative talent, helped create this prosperity.

The last major patent reform was nearly 60 years ago. During this time we have seen tremendous technological advancements, going from computers the size of a closet to the use of wireless technology in the palm of your hand. But we cannot protect the technologies of today with the tools of the past.

The current patent system is outdated and dragged down by frivolous lawsuits and uncertainty regarding patent ownership. Unwarranted lawsuits that typically cost $5 million to defend prevent legitimate inventors and industrious companies from creating products and generating jobs. And while America's innovators are forced to spend time and resources defending their patents, our competitors are busy developing new products that expand their businesses and their economies.

According to a recent media report, China is expected to surpass the United States for the first time this year as the world's leading patent publisher. The more time we waste on frivolous litigation, the less time we have for innovation.

Another problem with the patent system is the lack of resources available to the PTO. The average wait time for a patent approval is 3 years or more. These are products and innovations that will create jobs and save lives. Inadequately funding the PTO harms inventors and small businesses.

The bill allows the Director to adjust the fee schedule with appropriate congressional oversight and prevents Congress from spending agency funds on unrelated programs. This will enable the PTO to become more efficient and productive, reducing the wait time for patent approval. Patent quality will improve on the front end, which will reduce litigation on the back end.

The patent system envisioned by our Founders focused on granting a patent to the first inventor who registered their invention. This is similar to the first-inventor-to-file provision in H.R. 1249. This improvement makes our system similar to the international standard that other countries use, only it is better. We retain both a 1-year grace period that protects universities and small inventors before they file, as well as the CREATE Act, which ensures collaborative research does not constitute prior art that defeats patentability.

There are some who think this bill hurts small businesses and independent inventors, but they are wrong. It ensures that independent inventors are able to compete with larger companies,

both here and abroad. American inventors seeking protection here in the United States will have taken the first step toward protecting their patent rights around the world.

The bill also makes the small business ombudsman at the PTO permanent. That means that small businesses will always have a champion at the PTO looking out for their interests and helping them as they secure patents for their inventions. This bill protects small businesses and independent inventors by reducing fees for both.

This bill represents a fair compromise and creates a better patent system than exists today for inventors and innovative industries.

Patents are important to the United States and the world. For example, during the War of 1812, American troops burned the Canadian town of York, known today as Toronto. In retaliation, the British marched on Washington in the summer of 1814 to put the capital city to the torch.

Dr. William Thorton, the Superintendent of the Patent Office, delivered an impassioned speech to the British officer commanding 150 Redcoats who were tasked to burn Blodgett's Hotel, where the Patent Office was located. Thorton argued that the patent models stored in the building were valuable to all mankind and could never be replaced. He declared that anyone who destroyed them would be condemned by future generations, as were the Turks who burned the library in Alexandria. The British officer relented and Blodgett's Hotel was spared, making it the only major public building in Washington not burned that day.

American inventors have led the world in innovation and new technologies for centuries, from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison to the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford. But if we want to foster future creativity, we must do more to encourage today's inventors. Now is the time to act.

I urge the House to support the America Invents Act.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts, Commercial, and Administrative Law Enforcement Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is the senior member of the Constitution Subcommittee and a senior member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for purposes of a colloquy.

I want to respond to the gentleman from New Hampshire and say that one key issue for clarification is the interplay between actions under section 102(a) and actions under section 102(b). We intend for there to be an identity between 102(a) and 102(b). If an inventor's action is such that it triggers one of the bars under 102(a), then it inherently triggers the grace period subsection 102(b).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, contrary to current precedent, in order to trigger the bar in the new 102(a) in our legislation, an action must make the patented subject matter ``available to the public'' before the effective filing date. Additionally, subsection 102(b)(1)(B) is designed to make a very strong grace period for inventors that have made a disclosure that satisfies 102(b). Inventors who have made such disclosures are protected during the grace period not only from their own disclosure but from other prior art from anyone that follows their disclosure. This is an important protection we offer in our bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who is also the vice chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), who is also a member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), as I mentioned awhile ago, the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chair, in closing, I want to thank the patent principles who devoted so much time, energy and intellect to this project. We've worked together for the common goal of comprehensive patent reform for the better part of 6 years.

While some of us still have differences over individual items, I want these Members to know that I appreciate their contributions to the project. This includes, among many others, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Watt, Mr. Issa, and Mr. Berman.

In the Senate we've worked closely with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Kyl, Hatch and others; and I want to thank them as well.

Also, we would not be at this point tonight without the support of Commerce Secretary Locke and PTO Director Kappos.

Our country needs this bill. We can't thrive in the 21st century using a 20th-century patent system. At a time when the economy remains fragile and unemployment is unacceptably high, we must include the patent system and the PTO, an agency that has been called an essential driver of a pro-growth job-creating agenda.

This bill will catapult us into a new era of innovation and enhanced consumer choice. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1249.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the manager's amendment consists of numerous technical edits and other improvements to the bill. Some of the highlights include the following provisions:

Expansion and clarification of prior-user rights under section 273 of the Patent Act.

Institutions of higher education qualify for ``micro-entity'' status when paying fees. In other words, an inventor who works for a university or who assigns or conveys an invention to a university qualifies for lower micro-entity fee status.

Consolidation of numerous PTO reporting requirements.

Inclusion of ``Weldon amendment'' language that forbids the patenting of inventions ``directed to or encompassing a human organism.'' This language has been part of the CJS appropriations legislation for years. It's directed as preventing the PTO from approving inventions related to human cloning.

And deletion of a provision that provides special treatment to one company that wants to get additional patent term protection from the

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, let me address some of the criticisms that have been made about the manager's amendment. There are some who want to make more changes to the business method patent provision in the bill. This topic is the primary reason the Judiciary Committee launched patent reform back in 2005.

In response to a number of poor-quality, business-method patents issued over the past decade, the bill creates a transitional program within PTO to evaluate these patents using the best prior art available. Bad patents will be weeded out, but good ones will become gold-plated based on their enhanced legal integrity.

There are others who have sought changes to the prior art provisions in the First-Inventor-to-File section. The language in our bill which replicates that in the Senate version has drawn support from a large cross-range of industries and investors.

Some colleagues have complained during this debate about the treatment of PTO funding in the manager's amendment. The bill that the House Judiciary Committee reported would allow the PTO to keep all the revenue it raises without having to request funding through the normal appropriations process. This is treated as mandatory spending and scored savings in excess of $700 million.

Because of concerns raised by the Appropriations Committee members, we worked with them to develop a compromise that eliminates fee diversion while permitting the appropriators to retain oversight through the traditional appropriations process. The manager's amendment accomplishes this goal, but it means that the mandatory spending provisions of the revolving fund become discretionary spending under the reserved fund. Because this change is contrary to CutGo requirements, we need a waiver for consideration of H.R. 1249.

I want to emphasize that the bill includes user fees paid by inventors and trademark filers to the PTO in return

for services. This isn't the same thing as using tax revenue from the general treasury to fund the agency, so I am not sure that the CutGo rules even apply.

Very importantly, there is no impact on the deficit. The manager's amendment is constitutionally sound, improves the base text of the bill, and incorporates a funding agreement approved by the leadership to get this bill to the floor. It's important to pass it and then move on to the other amendments.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member John Conyers and I have introduced a bill to enact title 54, United States Code, ``National Park System''. The bill restates provisions relating to the National Park System as part of a new positive law title of the United States Code. The new positive law provisions replace the existing provisions, which are repealed by the bill.

The bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285b to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States.

All changes in existing law made by the bill are purely technical in nature. The bill was prepared in accordance with the statutory standard for codification legislation. The restatement of existing law conforms to the understood policy, intent, and purpose of Congress in the original enactments. Amendments and corrections, as necessary, will remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections.

The bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect.

The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel internet site at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod/t54. Interested parties are invited to submit comments, no later than August 31, 2011, to Ken Paretzky, Senior Counsel, or Tim Trushel, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-308 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, (202) 226-9061. Mr. Paretzky's telephone number is (202) 226-9061 and his email address is [email protected]. Mr. Thrushel's telephone number is (202) 226-9058 and his email address is [email protected].

Mr. Speaker, a recent study found that the Obama Administration's so-called stimulus plan destroyed American jobs.

Economists from Ohio State University and the University of Western Ontario determined that the stimulus caused a net loss of over a half- million jobs from April 2009 to September 2010, including a loss of more than one million private-sector jobs.

If you didn't hear about this study, you're not alone--the national media largely ignored it.

Investor's Business Daily and Fox News covered the study, but most other national outlets were predictably silent.

It's no wonder only 1 in 10 Americans trust the media, according to a recent public opinion poll.

The national media should give Americans the facts, not ignore them to protect the Obama Administration.

I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.

He is absolutely correct. On September 11, 2001, Americans were attacked by foreign nationals who were able to exploit our laws and live unnoticed in the United States. The 19 hijackers obtained 17 driver's licenses from Arizona, California, and Florida and 13 State- issued IDs from Florida, Virginia, and Maryland.

With these licenses and identification cards, they boarded the planes they used to murder over 3,000 innocent Americans.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that ``the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.''

Congress paid attention and passed the REAL ID Act. The law is critical to national security. This administration has undermined the REAL ID Act at every turn. They extended the compliance deadline two times, most recently last March, so now States do not have to be REAL ID-complaint until January 1, 2013. That is 11\1/2\ years after the 9/ 11 attacks.

And Secretary Napolitano consistently pushes for repeal of REAL ID instead of compliance. Most recently, before a March 9, 2011, Senate Judiciary hearing, she urged Congress to take a fresh look at legislation that would actually repeal the REAL ID Act.

States are making progress on REAL ID. In fact, as of March 29, 2011, Maryland, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Dakota, and Delaware have submitted full compliance certification packages to DHS. Twenty-three other States are compliant and/or are issuing compliant documents. Four additional States have enhanced driver's license programs comparable to REAL ID guidelines.

For these reasons, congressional support, including funding, is critical to REAL ID implementation. I am concerned that H.R. 2017's grant reform initiative may give the impression that Congress no longer supports REAL ID funding.

So I ask the gentleman from Alabama: How do you respond to that concern?

I thank the gentleman for that statement, and I ask him if he would further yield.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama and his endorsement of the REAL ID Act. The risk to not implementing REAL ID is great. Perhaps most recently this was evidenced by the facts surrounding the February arrest of Khalid al- Dawsari in Texas on a Federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. According to the arrest affidavit, when the FBI searched his residence, they found his journal in which

he wrote of the need to obtain forged U.S. birth certificates, multiple driver's licenses, and a U.S. passport. He planned to use those driver's licenses to rent several cars, each with a different license specifically to avoid detection.

So terrorists are still planning to exploit the weaknesses in our driver's license issuance processes in order to attack us. If we don't do everything in our power to prevent that from happening by fully implementing REAL ID, we set ourselves up for another attack.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Alabama as this bill moves forward and on future appropriation bills to support States as they move toward full implementation of REAL ID.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Peter G. LeFevre. Mr. LeFevre has served in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for 30 years, and has spent the past 7 years as the head of that Office. He will retire on June 1, 2011.

The job of the Law Revision Counsel primarily involves two tasks. The first is maintaining the United States Code. Mr. LeFevre determines what part of the legislation that Congress enacts every year is law of a general and permanent nature that should be written into the Code, finds the best place in the Code to put each enactment, and accurately restates the legislation as part of the Code. The second task is to revise the existing titles of the Code. Mr. LeFevre takes out obsolete provisions, corrects errors, clears up ambiguities, improves the structure, and prepares codification bills for the Judiciary Committee to enact the old titles as new positive law titles of the Code.

Mr. LeFevre's leadership has earned him regard by his colleagues as the master of the Code. His great attention to detail, ability to retain detailed information, and long experience have given Mr. LeFevre an encyclopedic knowledge of the Code. While being respectful of the practices of the Office, he has simultaneously encouraged his staff to rethink the way things are done in order to streamline the work without sacrificing accuracy. He has fostered a collegial atmosphere in the Office, where new ideas are welcomed and given thoughtful and fair consideration. Mr, LeFevre's dedication to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and its staff has earned him the admiration of all who know him.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank Mr. LeFevre for his important contributions to the work of the House and wish him many happy and fulfilling years of retirement.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (S. 990) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 990.

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

Mr. Speaker, 4 months from now, America will mark the 10-year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Tonight at midnight, three national security provisions that have helped prevent another 9/11 attack will expire. Congress must do its job and approve this legislation to reauthorize them before time runs out.

Some argue that since we haven't had a major terrorist attack since September 11, we no longer need these laws. Others argue that the death of Osama bin Laden brought an end to al Qaeda and the war on terror, but both of these claims lack merit.

The Patriot Act provisions continue to play a vital role in America's counterterrorism efforts not only to prevent another large-scale attack but also to combat an increasing number of smaller terrorist plots.

Earlier this year, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia was arrested in my home State of Texas for attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. Khalid Aldawsari attempted to purchase chemicals to construct a bomb against targets including the Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush, several dams in Colorado and California, and the homes of three former military guards who served in Iraq. Information obtained through a section 215 business records order was essential in thwarting this plot.

Make no mistake, the threat from terrorists and spies is real. These provisions are vital to our intelligence investigations, and they are effective.

We also have heard repeatedly from the Obama administration about the critical importance of extending these laws. S. 990, the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise to reauthorize the existing Patriot Act provisions for another 4 years. By doing so, Congress is ensuring that critical intelligence will be collected and terrorist plots will be disrupted.

In February, Congress approved a 90-day extension of these provisions. During the last 3 months, the House Judiciary Committee has thoroughly reviewed the Patriot Act and how its provisions are used in national security investigations. The Crime Subcommittee has held three hearings specifically on the Patriot Act, the full committee held oversight hearings of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and all committee members were provided a classified briefing by the administration. Attorney General Eric Holder told the committee that he supports these provisions and encouraged Congress to reauthorize them for as long of a period of time as possible.

The roving wiretap provision allows intelligence officials, after receiving approval from a Federal court, to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects, regardless of how many communication devices they may use. We know terrorists use many forms of communication to conceal their plots, including disposable cell phones and free email accounts. Roving wiretaps are nothing new. Domestic law enforcement agencies have had roving wiretaps for criminal investigations since 1986. If we can use roving wiretaps to track down a drug trafficker, why shouldn't we also use it to prevent a terrorist attack?

The business records provision allows the FBI to access third-party business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and espionage cases. Again, this provision requires the approval of a Federal judge. That means the FBI must prove to a Federal judge that the documents are needed as part of a legitimate national security investigation. These two provisions have been effectively used for the last 10 years without any evidence of misuse or abuse.

Our national security laws allow intelligence gathering on foreign governments, terrorist groups, and their agents. But what about a foreign terrorist who either acts alone or cannot be immediately tied to a terrorist organization? The lone wolf definition simply brings our national security laws into the 21st century to allow our intelligence officials to answer the modern-day terrorist threat.

Since 9/11, we have seen terrorist tactics change. In addition to coordinated attacks by al Qaeda and other groups, we face the threat of self-radicalized terrorists who are motivated by al Qaeda but may not be directly affiliated with such groups. The lone wolf definition ensures that our laws cover rogue terrorists even if they aren't a card-carrying member of al Qaeda or another terrorist organization.

The terrorist threat will not sunset at midnight and neither should our national security laws. The Patriot Act is an integral part of our offensive against terrorists and has proved effective at keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the current chairman of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the House Administration Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee Crime Subcommittee. He is also both a former U.S. Attorney and district attorney.