[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8837-H8838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         SUPPORT THE 21ST CENTURY PATENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the unfounded and 
increasingly bizarre criticism of H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent 
System Improvement Act.
  Throughout the winter and spring of the current session, I have been 
involved with the writing, reshaping, and marshaling support for H.R. 
400. While I understand that the legislative process is necessarily 
deliberate and often contentious, I confess my ongoing amazement that 
this bill has engendered so much controversy.
  Madam Speaker, we are not talking about a red meat issue that divides 
people on partisan ideological lines. This is not a subject matter that 
hits at the gut or tears at the heart. This is not gun control, 
abortion, or the death penalty. This is a patent bill, but significant 
to America's economic well-being.
  Now, for most people the words ``patent bill'' are sufficient to 
induce sleep. For a small minority, however, it inspires a level of 
paranoia that reaches biblical proportions. I recently witnessed two 
floor critiques of H.R. 400 and S. 507 and the experience was quite 
revealing, Madam Speaker.
  Previously, I was led to believe that my exclusive motivation in 
sponsoring H.R. 400 was to destroy the U.S. patent system. But no, I am 
far more ambitious. I have now learned that Senator Hatch and I are 
part of a nefarious plot designed to ruin the United States of America 
financially.
  Madam Speaker, the two orations through which I sat were, charitably 
considered, devoid of factual content. Worst still, however, were the 
base metaphors and cliches invoked to drive home the opposition's 
point. There were references to secret deals with the Japanese 
Government that will enable Japanese corporations, Chinese 
corporations, huge multinationalists, and if it can be believed, the 
People's Liberation Army, to bully the little guy and brutalize 
Americans.
  Representatives from American corporations were criticized for having 
talked to Congressmen and were clearly identified as members of the 
enemy. Presently, the paranoid jumble was tied together and we learned 
that H.R. 400 and S. 507 constitute the first fight in a war that, if 
not won on our opponents' terms, will result in the complete 
internationalization of American economic activity and the total 
elimination of our liberty. I recall no mention of black helicopters or 
drug trafficking by the Queen of England, but such testimony is sure to 
follow.
  Madam Speaker, for anyone who cares to know the facts, H.R. 400 and 
S. 507 are forward-thinking attempts to make our current patent system 
even stronger. Both bills would allow the Patent and Trademark Office 
to operate more like a business on a day-to-day basis, while subjecting 
the agency to congressional and executive oversight.
  Good faith users of the patent system, those who the Constitution was 
intended to protect, will be guaranteed a minimum of 17 years of patent 
term and, in most instances, will receive more than 18 years.

                              {time}  1045

  Far from hurting applicants, the publication feature of H.R. 400, or 
what is left of it, will inhibit patent submarining, which does indeed 
harm American businesses and generally violates the constitutional 
spirit of patent policy. Both bills also create a new patent pending 
right, along with a commercial use defense for inventors who do not 
have the resources to file for protection. And companies which pedal 
application scams to innocent inventors will be punished severely under 
H.R. 400.
  A well-known American inventor once wrote, ``with the change of 
circumstances, institutions must advance

[[Page H8838]]

to keep pace with the times.'' This inventor, Madam Speaker, was Thomas 
Jefferson and he knew a little bit about the Constitution, which 
charges the Congress with the duty of promoting the progress of science 
and useful arts through intellectual property.
  None of us discharges his or her duty by pandering to the worst 
instincts of other people. Nor do we honor ourselves by pretending that 
complex and arcane subject matter is easily and snappily explained. The 
regrettable effect of the two lectures just described is that they may 
motivate 20 or 30 people in some Member's district to write or call 
urging a ``no'' vote on the patent bill. I urge support of the patent 
bill.

                          ____________________