[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1756-E1757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AMERICAN INVENTORS PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, August 3, 1999

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
1907, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. My position on 
this legislation is a result of my deep concern for the rights of those 
whom the bill claims to protect, the small, independent inventors whose 
ideas have revolutionized our country from its very inception. Along 
with these concerns, I object to the speed, secrecy, and convoluted 
method by which this bill has been slipped onto the floor late at night 
under suspension of the rules. The process by which H.R. 1907 comes to 
the House floor for a vote is an example in how not to proceed with a 
piece of legislation that not only attempts to

[[Page E1757]]

constrain citizens' Constitutional rights, but has vital importance to 
our nation's economy in this era of furious, global competition in 
technology.
  I find the manner with which this bill was brought to the House floor 
unacceptable. The fundamental right of a person to his or her 
intellectual property lies at stake in this situation. This is not a 
bill which should be passed without meaningful, in-depth investigation 
and debate. Far from a lengthy, informed process, H.R. 1907 make its 
way to this chamber following a slippery, silent path which featured 
name changes, number changes, unpublished documents, and finally, this 
evening, an unpublished bill, finished only minutes before being called 
up for approval. This is deplorable. Why must this bill be taken up in 
such a circuitous way? If it is a wonderful piece of legislation that 
protects the rights of the small inventor, why is it not open to more 
than the minimum debate and why can't we hold hearings on this final 
version, whose ink is not yet dry?
  The Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 1907 without the benefit of 
hearings; providing no public forum for the stakeholders involved. This 
stark omission comes despite extensive controversy surrounding this 
issue in the 105th Congress. There is no published committee report on 
H.R. 1907 and, until this evening, this House was scheduled to consider 
a patent bill almost half the length of H.R. 1907. I was expecting to 
debate H.R. 2654, and was shocked to find that H.R. 1907 was 
resurrected and had usurped its place. This is an appalling way to 
manage legislation embodying such an expansive scope and consequences.
  H.R. 1907 provides for the publication of patent applications before 
the patent is granted if the inventor also applies for a patent in a 
foreign country. This leaves open the possibility that large companies 
may prey on the unprotected ideas of the small inventor between the 
time of publication and patent approval. This type of situation needs 
to be brought to a public forum, discussed among many members, not just 
the few speaking tonight. I am deeply distressed by this lack of 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, our nation's founders designed our society to be a land 
of unfettered opportunity where individual rights are zealously 
protected and elected officials considered future laws of the land in a 
public forum. Both of these ideals are jeopardized by this legislation. 
H.R. 1907 places at risk the right to enjoy the benefits generated by a 
person's ingenuity and innovative ideas. Without this right, we 
strangle the incentive for people to create and develop vital products 
and services which could improve our daily lives and bolster our 
economy. This subject matter deserves lengthy consideration, 
substantial debate, and open discussion, not a quick, suspension vote 
after a whirlwind visit to Committee.

                          ____________________