[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10259-H10261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300
                  PLANT PATENT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1197) to amend title 35, United States Code, to protect 
patent owners against the unauthorized sale of plant parts taken from 
plants illegally reproduced, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1197

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Plant Patent Amendments Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The protection provided by plant patents under title 
     35, United States Code, dating back to 1930, has historically 
     benefited American agriculture and horticulture and the 
     public by providing an incentive for breeders to develop new 
     plant varieties.
       (2) Domestic and foreign agricultural trade is rapidly 
     expanding and is very different from the trade of the past. 
     An unforeseen ambiguity in the provisions of title 35, United 
     States Code, is undermining the orderly collection of 
     royalties due breeders holding United States plant patents.
       (3) Plant parts produced from plants protected by United 
     States plant patents are being taken from illegally 
     reproduced plants and traded in United States markets to the 
     detriment of plant patent holders.
       (4) Resulting lost royalty income inhibits investment in 
     domestic research and breeding activities associated with a 
     wide variety of crops--an area where the United States has 
     historically enjoyed a strong international position. Such 
     research is the foundation of a strong horticultural 
     industry.
       (5) Infringers producing such plant parts from unauthorized 
     plants enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over producers 
     who pay royalties on varieties protected by United States 
     plant patents.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to clearly and explicitly provide that title 35, United 
     States Code, protects the owner of a plant patent against the 
     unauthorized sale of plant parts taken from plants illegally 
     reproduced;
       (2) to make the protections provided under such title more 
     consistent with those provided breeders of sexually 
     reproduced plants under the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2321 and following), as amended by the Plant Variety 
     Protection Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-349); and
       (3) to strengthen the ability of United States plant patent 
     holders to enforce their patent rights with regard to 
     importation of plant parts produced from plants protected by 
     United States plant patents, which are propagated without the 
     authorization of the patent holder.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Rights in Plant Patents.--Section 163 of title 35, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 163. Grant

       ``In the case of a plant patent, the grant shall include 
     the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the 
     plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the 
     plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the 
     United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or 
     any parts thereof, into the United States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any plant patent issued on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the

[[Page H10260]]

gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial measure which, incidentally, 
has already passed this House as a portion of H.R. 400, the Plant 
Patent Amendments Act of 1997. It will serve as a needed complement to 
current plant patent law.
  Briefly, since 1930, the Patent Act has permitted inventors to obtain 
plant patents. Individuals wishing to skirt protections available under 
the law have discovered a loophole, however, by trading in plant parts 
taken from illegally-produced plants. H.R. 1197 closes this loophole by 
explicitly protecting plant parts to the same extent as plants under 
the Patent Act.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is identical to language that was contained 
in an omnibus patent legislation passed earlier in the term that has 
since died in the Senate. There is no opposition to the bill, and I 
urge its adoption, as it will benefit American patent holders and the 
plant producers who honor their work by paying the necessary royalties.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr), one of the cosponsors of the bill.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Plant Patent Amendments 
Act of 1998.
  Before I get started, I just want to say a few words about the 
cosponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), 
my chairman, friend, and a Willamette Bearcat. He is chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture. He is leaving us at the end of Congress.
  He has served the Second District of Oregon and this Nation with 
honor and an acute sense of propriety. For that he is to be commended. 
I think that he does not want any accolades, but to all of us who have 
served on the Committee on Agriculture and watched his style, his 
humor, his ability to bring a consensus, he is certainly one of the 
most tenacious agriculture traders. He has taken the committee to other 
countries, and every time he has gone he has been able to sell an awful 
lot of American agricultural products.
  This country is going to miss him, this Congress is going to miss 
him. I wanted to take this moment to mention that.
  I also wanted to say that this bill is noncontroversial. There is no 
opposition to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1197, the Plant Patent 
Amendments Act of 1998 and I thank you for allowing us the time to 
debate this legislation today. I would also like to thank Mr. Coble and 
Mr. Frank for managing this legislation that will make a simple 
technical clarification to the Plant Patent Act of 1930.
  Before I get started, I want to say a few words about the sponsor of 
this legislation my chairman and friend, the gentleman a Willamette 
Bearcat from Oregon, Mr. Smith who will be leaving us at the end of 
this Congress, again. The gentleman has served the 2nd District of 
Oregon and this nation with honor and an acute sense of propriety and 
for that he is to be commended.
  His authoritative voice will certainly be missed on the Agriculture 
Committee in the 106th Congress. I also know that the entire 
agriculture community from apple producers in Oregon or to flower 
growers in California, wheat farmers in the Midwest, citrus growers in 
Florida will miss our standard bearer for open, fair, and free 
agriculture trade. I know of few people that have traveled the globe 
more promoting U.S. agriculture products.
  Chairman Smith, you will certainly be missed as a legislator and a 
friend.
  I want to start my statement on H.R. 1197 by informing my colleagues 
that this should be a simple vote because this legislation has already 
been voted on and passed in this chamber as part of the Omnibus Patent 
Act of 1997 in April of last year. Unfortunately, the larger patent 
reform package, H.R. 400, is not expected to be completed before 
Congress adjourns. That is why we need to pass this legislation today 
so we can get this legislation through the other body and signed into 
law before the end of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, California leads the nation, holding a 22 percent share 
for the production of flowers, foliage, and nursery products in the 
United States. For California, this two billion dollars plus industry 
ranks in the top ten of all agriculture commodities in the golden 
state.
  Yet despite these positive statistics the number of American 
chrysanthemum growers has fallen by 25 percent, the number of carnation 
growers has fallen as by much as one-third and the remaining major 
commercial types of flowers have fallen in the double-figure range as 
well.
  There are two primary reasons for this spiraling loss of American 
agriculture production relating to flower, foliage and nursery 
products. The first, can be addressed today by passing H.R. 1197 and 
the second is a failed drug policy established in the Andean Trade 
Preference Act.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1197 is a simple technical clarification to a 
loophole in the Plant Patent Act of 1930. This legislation will fulfill 
the original intent of Congress by specifically providing that plant 
patents are extended to include parts of plants, thus halting the 
current abuse of U.S. patent holders and growers' rights of cut 
flowers, fruit crops, timber crops, and other propagated plants.
  Currently, plant breeders, patent holders and growers are being 
harmed by a loophole in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 which allows 
foreign competitors to asexually reproduce and propagate plants that 
hold U.S. patents.
  Without passage of H.R. 1197 during this Congress, the U.S. position 
as a world leader in plant research and development will continue to 
erode. U.S. and foreign growers of protected varieties, who are now 
paying royalties and growing U.S. patented varieties legally, are at an 
unfair competitive disadvantage to such infringing imports.
  It was Congress' original intent in the Plant Patent Act of 1930 that 
it should be illegal to sell the fruit, flowers, and other products 
derived from a patented plant reproduced without authorization. H.R. 
1197 reaffirms this intent.
  This legislation has broad support from the American Nursery and 
Landscape Association, the American Bar Association, the International 
Rose Breeders Association, the Society of American Florists, the 
American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, the American Seed 
Trade Association, the National Association of Plant Patent Owners, and 
the Wholesale Nursery Growers Association.
  As I mentioned there are two primary reasons that we are losing this 
sector of American agriculture. The first, we will begin to take care 
of today with passage of H.R. 1197. The second, I will continue to push 
for in the next Congress. We need fairness for our farmers by ending a 
failed drug policy.
  Since enactment in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) has 
provided duty-free access to the U.S. market for flower exporters in 
four Latin American countries: Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. 
For seven years it has allowed flower growers in these four countries 
to avoid tariffs normally imposed on their product, tariffs ranging 
from 3.6 percent to 7.4 percent.
  The ATPA simply provides Colombian flower growers an unnecessary edge 
in a market they already dominate--to the detriment of domestic flower 
growers. The International Trade Commission acknowledged in 1995 and 
1996 that the ATPA has had a greater impact on the U.S. fresh cut 
flower industry than any other market examined.
  The purpose of this preferential treatment was intended to encourage 
Andean countries to develop legal alternatives to drug crop cultivation 
and production. However, coca eradication efforts to date in Colombia 
have been much less than anticipated. This policy has failed. For the 
third consecutive year Colombia has failed in its efforts to be fully 
certified or reduce the production of illegal drugs. In order to 
maintain an open dialogue the Administration recently made the 
determination to put forward a national interest waiver with respect to 
Colombia. The results in Colombia are particularly disheartening, given 
that eradication is generally a bilateral effort in which the United 
States supplies the funding, fuel, and herbicides with the host 
government providing the personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1197 
and the American flower, foliage and nursery growers that

[[Page H10261]]

are in a unique situation. They are the economic poster children for a 
failed trade policy and the sacrificial lamb in a failed foreign policy 
war to end drug trafficking.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California just referred to my friend 
from Oregon as a Bearcat. I never heard that before, but it is probably 
applicable. I agree with the gentleman from California, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) will indeed be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to rise to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from California, for his kind words, and my dear friend, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), for bringing this issue to us, as well 
as the chairman of the full committee. I appreciate it very much. It is 
an important piece of legislation for us. I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1197, the Plant Patent 
Amendments Act of 1997. I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman 
Coble of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property 
and Chairman Hyde of the Full Judiciary Committee for allowing me to 
bring this important bill to the floor today. I would also like to take 
a moment and thank my colleague from California, Representative Sam 
Farr, for his hard work in bringing this important matter to the floor 
today.
  We are here today to reaffirm the protection of patents by U.S. 
growers that has already been passed overwhelmingly by the House in 
April of last year as part of the Omnibus Patent Act of 1997, H.R. 400. 
Unfortunately, that bill is not expected to be approved by the other 
body. My legislation, H.R. 1197, is simply the stand-alone version of 
that section of the bill already passed by the House. It addresses an 
issue that has long needed clarification. Agricultural producers can 
not afford to wait another year for the protection from bootleggers of 
plant parts this bill provides.
  H.R. 1197 is a simple technical clarification to a loophole in the 
Plant Patent Act of 1930. When Congress drafted the Plant Patent Act of 
1930, it had no way of knowing the technological advances that science, 
and the agricultural industry, would make in the growing of plants. 
Plant breeders and growers in the U.S. are being denied the protection 
intended by Congress when it enacted the Plant Patent Act of 1930 
because of an ambiguity in the law. H.R. 1197 clarifies this ambiguity 
by specifically including the coverage of plant parts in the Plant 
Patent Act of 1930. U.S. breeders and growers of patented plants are 
incurring substantial losses from unauthorized propagation of their 
plant inventions in foreign countries, and the subsequent export to the 
U.S. of plant parts such as flowers and fruit harvested from these 
bootlegged plants.
  Currently, foreign growers can come to the U.S., acquire a plant, 
grow the plant, and then sell its fruits or flowers in U.S. markets 
without paying any royalty. This practice undercuts U.S. businesses 
that own the patents and penalizes growers who honor the U.S. patent. 
U.S. plant breeders lose a substantial amount of income annually from 
uncollected royalty payments due to this practice.
  The loss of royalty income, and U.S. market share, adversely affects 
U.S. domestic research and breeding. This lost income inhibits 
investment in the plant research and development programs which are the 
foundation of a strong horticultural industry. Additionally, those who 
sell plant parts from unauthorized plants, and do not pay royalties for 
varieties illegally grown, enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over 
both producers who pay royalties and the patent holder who also markets 
the product.
  It is time to clarify the Plant Patent Act of 1930 and protect U.S. 
businesses who develop and produce the plants that we all use and 
enjoy. Please join me and my fellow colleagues here today and pass H.R. 
1197.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1197.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof), the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________