Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his kind comments.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Wireless Tax Fairness Act for three successive Congresses, and I am gratified that it is being considered by the full House here today.

Nearly everyone agrees that expanding broadband Internet access and adoption is critical to the economic future of our country. As the FCC put it in the National Broadband Plan, the U.S. must lead the world in broadband innovation and investment and take all appropriate steps to ensure that Americans have access to modern high-performance broadband and the benefits it enables.

I introduced the Wireless Tax Fairness Act because discriminatory taxes on wireless services are not consistent with this top national priority. Cell phone bills are on average taxed at a far higher rate than other goods and services. In many jurisdictions, the taxation of wireless approaches or even exceeds the rates of so-called sin taxes on goods like alcohol and tobacco. These disproportionate taxes discourage investment and adoption of wireless services, including advanced wireless broadband.

Before he was the President's chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, published a peer-reviewed study finding deadweight losses to society of up to $5 for every $1 in taxes on broadband service, including wireless.

Now, these taxes fall particularly hard on working-class and lower- income Americans who are most likely to rely on their cell phone for all of their communications, including access to the Internet. And in fact, the Pew study and the CDC have indicated that usage of cell phones for Internet access among Latinos and African Americans in the United States was far higher than that among other Americans. And so, this regressive tax burden troubles me, especially in these economic times.

Now, for 14 years before I was a Member of Congress, I served on the board of supervisors of Santa Clara County. So I really do understand the need of local governments to balance their budgets every year and to get revenue. But this bill would not affect any existing revenues. In fact, it wouldn't prevent raising taxes on all goods. If you're going to have a half-cent sales tax on everything, include wireless. What this would do is prevent you from singling out wireless services for disproportionate taxation.

Ultimately, the moratorium for 5 years should yield to modernization of State and local telecommunication taxes. Separate higher taxes on wireless services are an outdated legacy of the days when telephone service was a regulated monopoly. A timeout from discriminatory tax increases will encourage States and localities to focus on enacting reforms that work for all stakeholders.

In general, I do believe that State and local governments should have the autonomy to set tax rates as they see fit. And, in fact, during the committee markup we added an amendment that allows voter-approved discriminatory taxes if that's what the voters of a jurisdiction wish to do.

But beyond that there are exceptions when Congress recognizes the need to protect in advance a national imperative. And that's one of these instances. As the national broadband plan said, wireless broadband is poised to become a key platform for innovation in the United States over the next decade.

We should not let discriminatory taxes on wireless service disrupt this potential. Several years ago, we adopted a prohibition on discriminatory taxes on Internet access. At the time, I don't think we fully realized that wireless was going to be the onramp for so many of our citizens to the Internet. And so we did not include it at that time. This is to correct that omission.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with me and all of the 236 cosponsors who are part of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Filipino American History Month. We have, as a nation, commemorated October as Filipino American History month since 1988. The legislature in my home state of California also recognizes this month. California has long historical ties with Filipino Americans, and our state is home to over half of the Filipino population of the United States.

This month is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the rich culture and history of Filipino Americans, who have contributed so much both to California and to the United States. I'm pleased that recently there has been some legislative acknowledgment of their military contributions. Just this month in California, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 199 into law, which would encourage the inclusion of the role of Filipinos in World War II in social studies curricula. Over 250,000 Filipinos fought with the U.S. in World War II. Their valiant service was largely uncompensated and unrecognized until recently.

I'm hopeful that my colleagues will take a moment to recognize the Filipino American community. This country is a nation of immigrants, and we are so much richer for the contributions that Americans of every background have made, and will continue to make as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Members of the California Congressional Delegation to honor the legacy of Steve Jobs, one of the world's greatest innovators and entrepreneurs and a committed family man. Steve unfortunately passed away last Wednesday, October 5, 2011, leaving behind his beloved wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, and four children. He embodied the American entrepreneurial spirit and was a true pioneer of California's technology sector, inspiring millions with creations at Apple that continue to sustain Silicon Valley today. His passion, ingenuity and hard work have changed the way we live and work forever.

Steve was a native of California and a product of its public education system. He hailed from San Francisco, and was adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs, who moved to Mountain View, California when he was a child. Steve attended Cupertino Junior High and Homestead High School in Cupertino, California. After briefly spending time in college in Portland, he returned to his home state to pursue his interest in computers.

In 1976, Steve founded Apple Computer in Cupertino, with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne. Almost 40 years later, Jobs has been listed as either primary inventor or co-inventor of more than 340 U.S. patents and patent applications for a wide range of technologies. His insatiable desire to innovate made Apple into one of the world's most profitable and recognizable brands.

His diagnosis of pancreatic cancer in 2004 shocked and saddened us all. However, as was often the case with Steve, he continued in sickness to lead by example. During the time between his diagnosis and death, Apple introduced the iPhone and the iPad, which have set new standards for mobile devices.

Jobs announced his resignation as Apple's CEO on August 24, 2011, and in a letter to Apple's Board of Directors, he said, ``I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it.'' We believe that the next great innovators are in California classrooms right now, learning about Steve Jobs and being inspired by his legacy.

The following are the names of the 53 Members of the California Congressional Delegation: Mike Thompson, Wally Herger, Daniel Lungren, Tom McClintock, Doris Matsui, Lynn Woolsey, George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, John Garamendi, Jerry McNerney, Jackie Speier, Pete Stark, Anna G. Eshoo, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Sam Farr, Dennis Cardoza, Jeff Denham, Jim Costa, Devin Nunes, Kevin McCarthy, Lois Capps, Elton Gallegly, Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, David Dreier, Brad Sherman, Howard Berman, Adam Schiff, Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, Judy Chu, Karen Bass, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Maxine Waters, Janice Hahn, Laura Richardson, Grace Napolitano, Linda Sanchez, Edward Royce, Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller, Joe Baca, Ken Calvert, Mary Bono Mack, Dana Rohrabacher, Loretta Sanchez, John Campbell, Darrell Issa, Brian Bilbray, Bob Filner, Duncan Hunter and Susan Davis.

The American people want us to work together to address their top priority: creating jobs. We're now 280 days into this Congress, and we haven't passed a jobs plan.

With only 22 legislative days left this Congress, instead of addressing jobs, Republicans are continuing to propose legislation targeting women's health.

This bill disregards the compromise on abortion reached during last year's debate on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA is consistent with long-standing federal law by prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered). The Act requires two separate premium payments for women and families receiving federal subsidies that choose health plans that include abortion coverage. The language is clear--no portion of federal subsidies may be used to pay for the portion of coverage that is purchased in state exchanges that relates to abortions. While I don't agree with the ban on federal funding, Members decided last year to call a truce and preserve the status quo. This bill would go further.

This bill restricts how women with private insurance can spend their own private dollars in purchasing health insurance. The Protect Life Act would prohibit all individuals who receive federal subsidies from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage (even if they are using their own private dollars to purchase the portion of coverage relating to abortions), and would also prohibit insurance plans from offering abortion services if they accept even one individual who receives a subsidy. Health care plans will likely be deterred from covering abortion, and since most insurance plans currently cover abortion, the Protect Life Act would result in millions of women losing the coverage they currently have.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican assault on women's health and to oppose the Protect Life Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of Master Sergeant, Richard Francis Murphy.

Richard was born in Providence Rhode Island on May 10, 1917. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps at the age of 19 and continued to show his dedication to our country for years to come. He served in both World War II and the Korean War before retiring as a Master Sergeant.

After his retirement from the Air Force, Richard went to work for the Electric and Water Department for the City of Santa Clara. He volunteered in his community, serving on many civic and veterans organizations including the United Veterans Council of Santa Clara County and the Air Force Sergeants Association. Richard was easily recognizable in San Jose, as he helped organize our Veterans Day parade and the Memorial Day ceremony at Oak Hill Cemetery.

On August 21st of this year, Richard passed away in his home in San Jose at the age of 94. Richard and his wife Kay had been married for 69 years. In that time they saw the birth of five children, four grandchildren, and three great grandchildren.

Richard was not only a dear friend of mine, but he was a friend to the entire veteran community in San Jose. He was proud of his service and grateful to others who served. I wish to honor the life of this American hero and memorialize our gratefulness for his dedication to his community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and commend Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Rolanda Pierre- Dixon who is retiring in August after over 30 years of service. Ms. Pierre-Dixon's tenure has been marked by professionalism, universal respect, style and grace.

By the time Ms. Pierre-Dixon entered ninth grade, she knew that she would be an attorney. Her call to service came when, at that young age, she learned that lawyers ``speak for those who can't speak for themselves.'' She applied herself with the aim of achieving that goal and graduated from San Jose State University and Santa Clara University School of Law.

In her professional life, Ms. Pierre-Dixon has become an expert in the prosecution of domestic violence crimes. She gained this expertise in a very personal way when a friend sought her help in getting out of an abusive relationship. Seeking to give the abused a voice, in 1991, Ms. Pierre-Dixon started the Domestic Violence Unit in the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office and supervised that unit for over 17 years. This unit now reviews over 4,400 cases per year. She also serves as the Office Liaison on Human Trafficking, and she has been the Supervisor of the Family Violence Unit, Victim Witness Advocates, Criminal Issuing and the Victim Restitution Unit.

Tireless in her efforts to speak for those who can't speak for themselves, Ms. Pierre-Dixon serves on numerous committees and holds an executive office position on the Domestic Violence Council. She chairs the Domestic Violence Review Committee, is a Senior Fellow of the American Leadership Forum Silicon Valley, Advisory Board Member of the SJSU School of Nursing, Board Member of the SJSU Administration of Justice Bureau, and a Member of the State Bar Commission on Access and Fairness.

I know I join many others in Santa Clara County in thanking Ms. Pierre-Dixon for her indefatigable efforts to prevent and end domestic violence in our community, and I wish her well upon her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the centennial celebration of Santa Clara University School of Law. The law school was founded in 1911 and has always been dedicated to educating lawyers to become leaders in our community.

Santa Clara University, founded in 1851 as ``Santa Clara College,'' is California's oldest operating institution of higher learning. It was established on the site of Mission Santa Clara de Asis, one of the original California missions. The Institute of Law was formed in 1911 as a small night program and, in 1914, degrees were conferred upon the first graduating class of the law school--a class consisting of just 14 young men. Women were first admitted to the law school in 1956 and in, 1963, Associate Dean Mary Emery was among a group of 3 women who were the first to graduate. Dean Emery went on to become the Director of the Heafey Law Library, a post she continues to hold today.

Santa Clara Law has a long history of dedication to underrepresented groups. In the early 1970s, law students formed organizations for Asian, Black, Latino, and female law students, and a law clinic was formed to assist low-income clients in 1971. In the early 1980s, groups were founded to support Jewish, Middle Eastern, and gay law students as well.

In the last decade, Santa Clara Law has fought injustice with the Northern California Innocence Project, The Katharine and George Alexander Law Center, and the 9th Circuit Immigration Law Clinic. The law school has stayed on the cutting edge of local and international issues through the Law Review, High Tech Law Journal, and International Law Journal.

For the last 100 years, Santa Clara Law has educated thousands of lawyers while emphasizing the University's ideals of competence, conscience and compassion. Our Santa Clara County community as well as the legal profession have benefited from the efforts of Santa Clara to produce lawyers who lead.

I am proud to be an alumna of Santa Clara University School of Law, I would like to commend them for a hundred years of exceptional work, and I wish them the best in years to come.

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

As the author of H.R. 398, I support this bill. It's a small measure to help support members of our Armed Forces who are serving overseas and their families here at home.

Our troops, who take up our country's call to service and volunteer to place themselves in harm's way, face uncertainties every day. For countless soldiers, the peace of mind that they get from family back home helps to keep them focused on the important job at hand. For that reason, it is critical that we not add to their burdens and instead seize the opportunity to alleviate even a small amount of the anxiety they feel.

As the chairman has indicated, there is a conditionality placed on residents gained through marriage. Couples are given a 90-day period just before the second anniversary of the grant to file to remove the conditions, and then they get only 90 days to appear in person for an interview. Now, only after this is done are the conditions removed. And if the conditional status is not removed in this way, the residence is terminated and the foreign national spouse could be deported. That means that either the spouse of one of our soldiers could be deported or the soldier himself could be deported.

Now, it's pretty hard to appear for the interview if you're serving in Iraq, and we certainly don't want our soldiers or their spouses to be deported. So I support this measure.

In 2008, as chairwoman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, I convened a hearing on the immigration needs of America's fighting men and women. At the hearing, we heard from members of the Armed Forces about countless challenges that they face because of our rigid and unyielding immigration system.

This bill will help to resolve just one of those challenges. It will not excuse military families from the requirements. It will simply allow them to put off those requirements if they choose during overseas deployments.

Of course, there are many problems with our country's immigration laws that this bill does not address, too many to count. And as we know from our 2008 hearing, those problems will continue to unnecessarily tear military families apart, distract from our mission abroad, and betray the fundamental values that we claim to hold dear.

But despite this great need, it is only this small bill, a bill that should help a few dozen servicemembers a year, that is on the floor for action.

I commend my colleagues Lamar Smith, Elton Gallegly, and John Conyers for joining me in introducing this very modest measure.

Our men and women on the front lines are standing in defense of our country, and their loved ones back home stand in defense of them. As Members of Congress, it's both a responsibility and an honor to provide whatever support we can. And while this bill may be small, it is important for the few dozen soldiers it may help each year. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will not repeat the information provided by Chairman Smith. I will simply state that the H-1C program was first created in 1999 to address shortages in both rural and inner-city hospitals. The 500 visas per year actually only go to 14 hospitals in the United States spread out across America. And of course the program has now expired.

As Chairman Smith has indicated, this bill would reauthorize but reduce the number from 500 to 300, create certain other protections as mentioned by the chairman, and allow the maximum stay to go to 6 years. Because the bill would double the duration of H-1C status, I offered an amendment in committee, which was accepted by all, to make the H-1C visas portable among the 14 hospitals authorized to employ H-1C nurses. Right now, the nurses are entirely dependent on their employers to provide them their immigration status, and visa portability would level the playing field and allow a nurse to switch employers if something was wrong.

I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to accept that, and I thank the chairman for introducing this bill and working with me to ensure that H-1C

nurses are better protected against exploitive situations.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a bipartisan bill, which I support. I would just note--and I know the gentleman's long history with mine of advocating for human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. I hope that we can follow up this great effort with a similar effort really specifically oriented toward the religious oppression that's going on in Vietnam against the Buddhists, against the Cao Dai, against the Catholics and many others. I commend the gentleman for this bill. I just wanted to raise that issue in the hopes that it can be addressed at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2417, the so-called Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act.

H.R. 2417 would repeal the lighting energy efficiency standards set in the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA) of 2007. This would be a major setback in improving energy efficiency in homes and buildings across the country. Commercial and residential lighting consume over 20 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. The new lighting standards will help to ensure that more energy efficient light bulbs, including incandescents and LEDs, are available to consumers in order to reduce energy use.

The BULB Act would also repeal California's state standards on lighting efficiency that went into effect earlier this year. In a letter from California Senator Darrell Steinberg, President pro Tempore, Senator Alex Padilla, Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, and Senator Fran Pavley, Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, opposing H.R. 2417, they note that the state's standards could save California consumers $35.6 million in electrical costs.

Mr. Speaker, the current lighting standard has generated domestic jobs as companies have created new and innovative lighting options for consumers. For example, Philips Lumileds Lighting Company has a manufacturing facility that makes LEDs for energy efficient LED light bulbs in San Jose, California. This facility creates hundreds of local jobs, while traditional incandescent light bulbs are mainly manufactured abroad. The EISA energy efficiency standard is an opportunity for the United States to build a domestic manufacturing industry, generating jobs and economic activity.

H.R. 2417 is a job killer, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.R. 2417.

Mr. Speaker, in October, our troops will have been in Afghanistan for ten years. It is the longest war in our country's history. I am concerned that the mission has become more ambitious and our exit strategy has become increasingly vague.

This year is on pace to become the deadliest of this war. Over 1,600 Americans have been killed and 11,000 wounded in Operation Enduring Freedom. A 2008 study by RAND Corp. estimates that over 26 percent of troops may return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with mental health issues. In terms of financial costs, California taxpayers alone have

spent over $50 billion on the war in Afghanistan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ending the wars could save $1.4 trillion.

The President's announcement that he will begin removing surge troops does not reflect a significant policy change in Afghanistan. Removing the 30,000 surge troops from Afghanistan over the next year and a half only means that by the end of next year, we will be exactly where we were before the surge in December of 2009. Roughly 100,000 American soldiers will remain in Afghanistan to fight a war that I have serious reservations about.

I urge President Obama to reconsider his Afghanistan policy and commit to a meaningful drawdown of our troops.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Sensenbrenner amendment. Actually, I don't agree that first-to-file is unconstitutional, and I, in general, am not opposed to the idea of first-to-file.

But, unfortunately, the bill is flawed, and you cannot have first-to- file without robust prior-user rights and a broad prior-user rights used in the grace period. We don't have that in this bill.

And so what we will have are established businesses having to either reveal trade secrets or be held up, have to license their own trade secrets. For startups this is a very serious problem. And coming from Silicon Valley, I'll tell you I've heard from a lot of startups and the venture world that supports them that this provision is defective.

There were other remedies. They were not adopted. All we can do now is

to strike the first-to-file provision. I do that without any reluctance. It will serve our economy best. And I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the vote be retaken. We had a tremendous effort that consumed money and time for a similar incident in a previous Congress. The smart thing to do would be to recognize this was error, and redo the vote so that we can all move forward in comity.

Mr. Speaker, the base bill is estimated to have a discretionary cost of $446 million over the next 5 years, $1.1 billion over the next 10 years. The manager's amendment violates the new CutGo rules by undoing the anti-fee diversion language, which eliminates a procedure that would have decreased the budget deficit by $717 million over 5 years. This violates the CutGo rules that the majority put in place.

I would note also that the rule and the manager's amendment have many other problems. I am very disappointed that having worked on the patent reform measure since 1997 that we are yanking defeat from the jaws of victory here today. The rule does not permit the consideration of Mr. Conyers' amendment, which was focused on this fee matter that corrects the violation of the rule. It also does not permit the consideration of the grace period preservation and prior art clarification that is essential to small inventors. If we are going to go to the first-to- file system, we need to make sure that we protect prior user rights and that we protect the grace period that has been with our system for so long or else we are going to disempower small innovators. That is simply wrong.

This is a bill that had in the past gained nearly unanimous support when Mr. Sensenbrenner was chair and when Mr. Conyers was chair. I am distressed to report today that I cannot support this measure after working on it since 1997. Not only does it violate the rules, but it costs the Treasury, and it will disempower small innovative inventors. So this is wrong, and the amendments that could have been put in order to correct them were not permitted. I think this is really quite a shame, and I would urge that the measure not be brought up and, as Mr. Sensenbrenner has suggested, that it be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further work.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to oppose H.R. 1249.

I have worked on the patent reform effort since 1997 and am disappointed that here today I am unable to support the bill as it exists. I did vote to report this bill out of our Judiciary Committee, but since that time we have seen two unfortunate things occur that have made this bill simply not viable. The first, and exceedingly important, is the protections for patent fees, so that all the fees would stay in the office, have been removed. The regular appropriations process will allow for fee diversions in the future.

It has been the policy of the House, for example, not to divert fees from the Office. However, fees continue to be diverted. In fact, in the CR approved by the House this year, we diverted between $85 million and $100 million in fees from the Patent Office, and that is under the existing prohibition. So that is a major reason why the bill is defective.

I would note also that if we are moving to a first-to-file system, there has to be robust protection for prior user rights, including prior user rights in the grace period that exists under current law. Sadly, those protections are missing in this bill. The manager's amendment talks about disclosures only. It is a shame that other prior art, such as trade secrets and the like, would not receive the same protection.

So I would urge that the bill, unfortunately, cannot be supported. I intend to oppose it, as well as the manager's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the distinguished ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

At this point, I would be honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I want to talk a little bit about the manager's amendment under this general debate time because there is a very constrained amount of time for that discussion.

I want to touch on two things in particular. First is the fee issue. I know that there's been discussion that somehow the fees won't be diverted under

the manager's amendment, and I just think that is not a credible argument.

I remember back in the year 2000 when we were promised that the fees would not be diverted by the appropriators, but then subsequent to that, there was diversion. And the truth is that so long as this is part of the appropriations process, the fees can, and I predict will be, diverted just as they were diverted during the adoption of the CR this year. The PTO estimates an $85 million to $100 million diversion of fees in the CR that was adopted earlier this year. That conceptually is really just a special tax on innovators. If you raise the fees and you divert it for general purposes, that's just a special tax on inventors, and I just think it's wrong and I cannot support it.

I want to talk also, my colleague, Mr. Watt, said that other than the fee bill, we could resolve the issues, and I think we could have but we're not. There are two issues that I want to address and they are really closely related, and they're complicated but they're important.

Under our laws, an idea must be new, useful, and nonobvious in order to receive patent protection, and this is evaluated in comparison to what's known as prior art. That's the state of knowledge that exists prior to an invention. If an idea already exists in the prior art, you can't get a patent. Under current law, a variety of different things create prior art, such as descriptions of an idea in previous patents, printed publications, as well as public uses or sales. But current law has what's known as the grace period, which provides 1 year for an inventor to file a patent application after certain activities that would otherwise create patent-defeating prior art.

So, for example, if an inventor published an article announcing a new invention, he or she would have a year under this grace period to file a patent application for it, and this is a very important provision of patent law. It's pretty unique, actually, to the United States. The PTO director, David Kappos, referred to this grace period as ``the gold standard of best practices.''

As we move into the first-to-file system as is proposed in this bill, it is absolutely essential that the revised grace period extend to everything that is prior art under today's rules. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the manager's amendment. The grace period would protect, and this is a direct quote, ``only disclosures.'' Well, what would that not protect? Trade secrets. Offers for sale that are not public. You could have entrepreneurs who start an invention and start a small business who won't be able to get a patent for their invention under the grace period, and entrepreneurs might then be forced to delay bringing their products to market, which would slow growth. This needs to be addressed, not in a colloquy but in language, and we agreed in the committee when we stripped out language that didn't fix this that we would fix the 102(a) and (b) problem in legislation. There was a colloquy on the Senate floor similar to one that has just taken place, but we know that the language of the bill needs to reflect the intent. Judges look to the statute first and foremost to determine its meaning, and the legislative history is not always included.

So the ambiguity that's in the measure is troublesome. And although we prepared an amendment to delineate it, it has not been put in order, and, therefore, this remedy cannot be brought forth, and small inventors and even big ones may have a problem.

We now have our iPads on the floor, and while I was sitting here, I got an email from the general counsel of a technology company. I won't read the whole thing, but here is what this general counsel said:

``The prior use rights clause as written will be a direct giveaway to foreign competitors, especially those from countries where trade secret test is rampant.''

What we're saying to American companies is that if you have a trade secret that you want to protect under the grace period prior art rules, you're out of luck. You are quite potentially out of luck. You'll either have to disclose that trade secret, and we know that there are serious concerns in doing that. We don't want to get into maligning countries around the world, but there are some that do not have the respect for intellectual property that we have. Or else we will say to that inventor or company that you can't use your own invention that you have devised without being held up for licensing fees with somebody who got to the office before you did.

This is a big problem that is not resolved. Even if the manager's amendment is defeated, this problem will remain in the bill. It is an impediment to innovation and an impediment to making first-to-file work. If we're going to have first-to-file, and I can accept that, it must have robust, broad, rigorous protection under the grace period with a broad definition of a prior art that is protected. That is just deficient in this bill.

This is, I know, down in the weeds. It's a little bit nerdy. We've spent many years talking about this in the Judiciary Committee. I'm just so regretful that this bill after so many years has gone sideways in the last 2 days and is something that we cannot embrace and celebrate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to the original reason why we've worked so hard on this bill, only to be here at the end of this process with a bill that we can't support. We started with hearings in the 1990s with the Federal Trade Commission and the National Academy of Science. And one of the things they pointed out was that there are more patents than there are inventions. We started focusing in on the abuse of litigation that occurred as well as the needs of the office.

My colleague is correct: The Patent Office has a tremendous backlog, and that is a serious concern for inventors and really for the country. The examiners have such an enormous backlog, they can't spend sufficient time reviewing the applicants. This has led to a flood of poor-quality patents that were issued over the last decade and a half that I think--and most believe--should have been denied by the office. These dubious patents do significant damage to particular industries, like the information technology industry, as they can be used by nonpracticing entities to demand rents from legitimate businesses and to interfere with the development of legitimate products. Now, I don't blame the examiners at the PTO. They are working hard, but they don't have enough time to give each application the consideration it deserves.

A bill, as approved by the Judiciary Committee, would have helped remedy this problem by making sure--a lot of people don't realize that the Patent Office doesn't get any taxpayer money. The Patent Office is entirely supported by fees submitted by inventors. So keeping all of those fees that the inventors are paying in the office so that the patents can properly be dealt with in a timely fashion was a key component of this measure. Unfortunately, under the manager's amendment, that strong protection is simply gone.

And I know, as I said in the past, we've had unanimous votes in the Judiciary Committee. We've had promises never to do it again; but the diversions have continued, and it is clear that they will continue under the manager's amendment provision because it allows the regular process to continue as it has in the past.

I have not submitted lists of letters of who's in favor, who's opposed to this bill. It's my understanding that the Realtors Association is, in fact, opposed to the manager's amendment; but we're not going to vote on these amendments tonight. We're rolling these votes until tomorrow. So we will research that, and we will find the truth of where they are and make that information available to the Members because certainly Realtors are a very valuable part of our Nation's economy.

I want to talk a little bit as well about whether we can fix the defect on prior art by an amendment that will be offered later in the week by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). They propose that the first-to-file patent system that is being promoted to harmonize our system with other countries would not go into effect until the grace period, which is the critical part of the patent system, actually is fixed and harmonized.

If the manager's amendment is passed, the fatal defect of defining the prior art is disclosures, I don't believe can be fully remedied by this amendment, although I think that this amendment is a good one, and I intend to support it. So I think it's very important that the manager's amendment be defeated. I would hope that if that happens, that we might have a chance to step back and to fully examine where we are in terms of the prior user rights and the grace period because, as the patent commissioner had said, this is the gold standard, the United States has had the gold standard in patents with this grace period. It would be a shame not just for the Congress but for our country and our future as innovators to lose this genius part of our patent system.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time remains.

Well, I will use those 15 seconds, Madam Chair, by saying just a few things. First, the litigation reform mentioned is really to retroactively undo a case that was fairly and squarely won in the courts.

Number two, that section 18 is basically just a giveaway to the banks. There's some good things in this bill. The post-grant review, overall it does more harm than good.

I yield back the balance of my time.