[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 26 (Wednesday, March 3, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H793-H804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK FEE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution
547 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 1561.
{time} 1633
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1561) to amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to
patent fees, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561 will help implement the Patent and Trademark
Office's Strategic Business Plan to transform the agency's operations.
The bill incorporates a revised fee schedule previously submitted by
the PTO that will generate much-needed additional revenue. The plan
also includes a true structural reform of the office, which
demonstrates that the PTO is not simply saying give us more money and
we will solve the problem. The implementation of the strategic plan is
the first step forward toward improving patent and trademark quality
while reducing application backlogs and pendency at the agency.
These goals are critical to the health of cutting-edge industries in
particular and our economy in general. Americans lead the world in the
production and export of intellectual property and related goods and
services. Time is money in the intellectual property world. If the PTO
cannot issue quality patents and trademarks in a timely manner, then
inventors and trademark filers are the losers.
By granting patents and registering trademarks, the PTO affects the
vitality of businesses and entrepreneurs, paving the way for investment
in research and development. Industries based on intellectual property,
like biotechnology and motion pictures, represent the largest single
sector of the United States economy. Approximately 50 percent of
American exports depend upon some form of IP protection.
While intellectual property protection is increasing in importance,
the PTO is collapsing under an increasingly complex and massive
workload. Patent pendency, the amount of time of patent application is
pending before a patent is issued, now averages over 2 years. Without
fundamental changes in the way the PTO operates, average pendency in
these areas will likely more than double to 6 to 8 years in the next
few years.
I would point out that the patent term is 20 years from the date of
filing. So if it takes 6 to 8 years before the PTO can decide whether
or not an application is indeed patentable and grants a patent, that
will be that much less time that the patent is actually good, and,
thus, that much less valuable to the person who has successfully
invented a new technology or product and patented it.
Moreover, the backlog of applications awaiting a first review by an
examiner will grow from the current level of 475,000 to over a million.
These delays pose a grave threat to American businesses and
entrepreneurs. The nature of technology and the nature of the
marketplace make these delays unacceptable and unsustainable.
And what I would point out to the gentlewoman from Ohio and others
who complain about this bill and the fee increases that are contained
to modernize the system is that if our competitors in an increasingly
globalized economy, in Europe and in Japan and elsewhere, are able to
obtain more prompt decisions from their patent offices, that will put
American inventors at a disadvantage considerably.
To fund the initiatives set forth in the strategic plan, the
administration has proposed in H.R. 1561 an increase in patent and
trademark fees. The proposed fee changes accurately reflect the PTO's
cost of doing business. They will benefit the PTO's customers by
reducing application filing fees and allowing applicants to evaluate
the commercial value of their inventions and recover the cost of search
and examination as the situation warrants. Most importantly, the new
fee structure will enable the PTO to reduce pendency time, improve
quality and customer service through electronic processing, and pursue
greater enforcement of intellectual property rights abroad.
For example, the additional revenue provided by the fee bill will
allow the PTO to hire an additional 2,900 patent examiners, these are
Federal employees, not outsourced employees, and move to full
electronic processing of patent and trademark applications.
The Committee on the Judiciary unanimously approved this bill on July
9, 2003. The administration and private sector strongly advocated the
adoption of the fee bill as a necessary means to address the workload
crisis at the PTO. Failure to pass the restructuring contained in H.R.
1561 will result in further degrading of PTO operations and increasing
the already unacceptable delays to patent and trademark applicants.
Mr. Chairman, I will soon offer a bipartisan compromise amendment on
section 5 of this bill. This portion of the bill, as reported, would
essentially have taken the PTO off budget, a result that our friends at
the Committee on Appropriations strongly opposed. My amendment,
developed with their input, as well as that of the majority leader's
office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Committee on the
[[Page H794]]
Budget, would deposit any fees collected in a given fiscal year in
excess of that actually appropriated in a Fee Reserve Fund. At the end
of the fiscal year, the director would then be empowered to rebate the
reserve-fund revenue to users of the agency.
I understand that the CBO and the Committee on the Budget believe
this compromise accomplishes the twin goals set forth by the majority
leader's office in backing these discussions; that we will have
eliminated the incentive to use PTO revenue for non-agency purposes
without compromising the ability of the Committee on Appropriations to
exercise their oversight prerogatives in providing appropriations for
the agency. The mainstream user groups have signaled their intent to
support the amendment based on this interpretation.
I appreciate very much the cooperation of the appropriators in
working out this compromise, and I would call on them to take this
opportunity to fully fund the strategic plan. Full funding will be
crucial to achieving the changes that we all want to see at the PTO.
Now, let me say a couple of words of what the consequence will be if
this bill is voted down. First, if this bill is voted down, the current
fee diversion that occurs, where up to 30 percent of the fees that are
collected by the PTO are not spent on PTO activities but instead are
diverted into other areas under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations, will continue.
Patent and trademark applicants should no longer be required to fund
functions of the Federal Government that have no relationship
whatsoever to Patent and Trademark Office operations. This bill, and
the amendment that I will be proposing at the conclusion of the general
debate, will end the fee diversion and will mean that fees that are
collected by the PTO will either be used by the PTO or refunded to the
applicants and other users.
Second, if this bill gets voted down, instead of having a 2-year
delay between the time of the application and the time that the
application is acted upon, within the next several years that will
expand to 6 or 8 years. And if it is 8 years, that means that the
patent will only be good and effective for 12 years, because the patent
term is 20 years from the date of application. That puts our successful
patent applicants at a considerable disadvantage over those competitors
who choose to patent their inventions overseas, where patent and
trademark offices will work in a more expeditious manner.
I would point out that the small- and medium-sized enterprises who
apply for patents under the compromise that is worked out will get a
significant fee reduction from a large corporation that is applying for
a patent. So there still is a break for small inventors. But there are
fee increases; and we need these fee increases to be able to prevent
unacceptably long backlogs from occurring, because it is anticipated
that the business of the PTO will double in the next few years.
If we do not give them more money and we do not make this into a user
fee, then the constitutional protection that the gentlewoman from Ohio
and others are referring to will end up becoming very much debased in
terms of their worth. I do not think that we want to see this happen,
and that is why this legislation is essential to maintain the
competitiveness of American intellectual property inventions and the
inventiveness that has marked American society since the beginning days
of our Republic.
The amendment that I offer in this bill is necessary for the improved
performance of the PTO, and failure to enact this legislation will
truly be a disaster for American innovation. I urge Members to support
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561 is a wonderful illustration of the principle
that something does not have to be interesting to be important.
{time} 1645
This bill is of critical importance to the health of our information
economy. Intangible property, such as patents, trademarks and
copyrights, now constitute well over 50 percent of the assets of U.S.
corporations, both large and small. Most of the great advances in
pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, biotechnology, and Internet fields
began as patented inventions. Patent protection played a critical role
in the creation and dissemination of inventions from the telephone to
fiberoptics, from injectable insulin to laser eye surgery.
The Patent and Trademark Office, which issues both patents and
trademarks, has a critical role to play in creating and securing these
assets. By facilitating many needed reforms, H.R. 1561 ensures that the
PTO plays a positive role in stimulating our information economy,
rather than becoming an obstacle to it.
Furthermore, H.R. 1561 does not saddle the U.S. taxpayer with the
cost of these reforms. The PTO is fully funded by fees from the patent
and trademark applicants, and this bill raises some of those fees to
enable those reforms. H.R. 1561 pays for other reforms by ending the
innovation tax. Throughout the last decade, over $650 million in fees
paid to PTO by American inventors and small businesses have been
diverted to unrelated agencies. H.R. 1561 stops this tax on innovators
by ending diversion once and for all.
The PTO is in a crisis that threatens the stability and usefulness of
our patent and trademark systems. At congressional urging, the PTO has
crafted a 21st-century strategic plan to address this crisis, but it
needs this legislation to implement that plan.
H.R. 1561 is necessary because the patent system is coming apart at
the seams. A perfect storm of sorts has hit the PTO, which administers
the patent system. This storm threatens to make the patent system
dysfunctional. This perfect storm involves a tremendous growth in the
amount and complexity of PTO workload, matched by a decreasing ability
to handle that workload. The number of patent applications received
annually by the PTO doubled between 1992 and 2003 to a figure of over
350,000 last year. What is more, the number of applications continued
to grow throughout our recent recession and is expected to increase
another 5 percent this year. This growth is fed in part by the
expanding scope of patentability. Due to a string of court opinions,
patentable inventions now include software, business methods, and
anything else made under the sun by man.
The technology boom in the United States has also resulted in
applications for patents on inventions in areas of technology that did
not exist just a few years ago. On a daily basis, PTO is asked to
review applications for patents on such things as genetic tests and
laser vision technologies.
The numerical growth, and the expanding scope, are matched by a
growth in complexity. For instance, some biotechnology patents covering
genetic sequences can occupy the equivalent of 10,000 pages. The PTO
must hire new examiners with the requisite skills in these areas or
fund extensive retraining for current examiners.
The PTO's decreasing ability to deal with this increasing workload is
the result of several factors. Most responsible is the cumulative
effect of more than a decade of fee diversion. The PTO is entirely
funded by user fees. Patent and trademark holders and applicants pay
the PTO a variety of fees to obtain and retain their patent and
trademark rights. The fees are supposed to reflect the cost of services
provided by the PTO; but between 1992 and 2003, Congress denied the PTO
the ability to spend $654 million of the fees paid to it. Instead,
Congress appropriated these fees for unrelated programs. This will stop
as a result of this bill.
As a result of that diversion, the PTO has been forced to gradually
cannibalize itself. It has deferred critical information technology
upgrades. It has squeezed every ounce of possible productivity out of
examiners, and appears now to be asking them to review applications in
an unrealistic time frame. It even laid off almost one-third of its
trademark examining corps. Despite these drastic measures, the PTO only
managed to delay, not avert, a train wreck. By all objective measures,
that train wreck is upon us.
I could go through, and my the statement in the Record will contain a
full
[[Page H795]]
statistical explanation of the incredible increase in the backlog for
patent applications, but in conclusion, it takes more than 2 years now
for a patent application to be granted or disposed. In many cases, more
than 60 months is the pendency for a patent application.
Why does this pendency matter? Why do we care about these backlogs?
It affects both the patent applicants and society at large. Patent
ownership enables individual inventors and small businesses to obtain
capital. Patent ownership gives prospective financiers, such as venture
capitalists and banks, important reassurance that investment in a small
entity is sound.
Long patent pendency also negatively affects society at large. Long
patent pendency and patent backlogs creates substantial uncertainty in
the marketplace and thus makes it difficult for all businesses to
operate. A backlog of 500,000 patent applications may cover business
methods now common in the financial service business, software
contained in every personal computer, or a type of computer chip that
will cost billions to manufacture.
As troubling as the lengthy patent pendencies are, they are not the
gravest problem facing the PTO. Even greater concern should be given to
the quality of the patents granted by PTO. When PTO grants patents in
error to things that are not true inventions, many negative side
effects occur. Low-quality patents can deter scientific research,
create obstacles to legitimate commercial activities, and create
opportunities for illegitimate rent-seeking. A bad patent on a
pharmaceutical drug means that consumers cannot obtain a cheaper
generic version. A bad patent on Web browser technology may force the
redesign of every piece of software interoperating with current Web
browsers.
Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate
for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more
than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given
time given the 7-year pendency term for patents, there are over 120,000
bad patents in force.
Enactment of this legislation will enable the PTO to substantially
improve patent quality. It will also enable the PTO to hire 750 new
patent examiners a year between 2004 and 2006, and additional numbers
in subsequent years. It will take time to train these new examiners.
They will eventually be able to shoulder some of the patent examination
workload that threatens to swamp the current examining corps. With an
expanded examining corps, the PTO will be able to give patent examiners
more flexibility in the amount of time they spend on any one
application.
I am convinced that H.R. 1561 is an important part of the solution to
the pendency and quality problems. It is a first absolutely necessary
step to reforming the PTO. There are other legislative proposals that
deal with a number of these issues, but this is the key first step. I
urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 1561.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of the legislation, H.R. 1561. Congress has been
working on this legislation for a number of years, in fact, since
before I got here. I know since the 106th Congress, they have attempted
to solve the problem that exists in the Patent and Trademark Office,
that is, funding problems, structural problems, and approval-time
problems.
Passage of this bill is imperative, and it is long overdue.
Unfortunately, quality, pendency, and overall efficiency have continued
to be a problem throughout these years. In fact, there is a greater
threat to the health of American's intellectual property system than
ever. The longer we wait to confront these issues and pass this bill,
the more costly and time consuming it will be to overcome the problems.
Through working on the legislation, it has become clear to me that a
strong patent and trademark system is not only essential for continued
growth of the high-tech industry here in this country, but for our
entire economy.
H.R. 1561 has fee readjustments that will enable the Patent and
Trademark Office to fund its operations as needed to ensure that the
long-term goals of enhanced efficiency and proficiency of staff are met
by providing a more vibrant, seamless, and cost-effective intellectual
property system.
The readjustment of the fees will generate an additional $201 million
in revenue for improvements at the Patent and Trademark Office. That
means less time to review a patent, better quality staffing, and better
quality patents.
While fee readjustment alone is insufficient, the enactment of this
bill is a necessary precursor to the implementation of crucial
administrative changes, such as quality checks at every stage of the
examination process, improvements in patent practitioners in customer
service and ability to provide competent analysis of applications,
refinement of training and performance assessment programs, testing for
and evaluations of these patent examiners to ensure thorough
understanding of relevant technology, applicable law, and related
internal procedures.
Also of key importance is acceleration of processing time by
transitioning from paper to e-government processing, hiring of almost
3,000 examiners, reduction in the pendency of these applications and
the backup at the PTO. All of these issues will be addressed under this
bill.
Failure to enact the bill will mean that quality and pendency issues
will continue to cause harm to American innovators and to American job
creators. Without this legislation, the backlog of applications will
skyrocket to over 1 million applications by 2008, more than double the
current amount. The pendency time will also continue to increase. This
cannot be tolerated. We need to pass this bill.
Finally, families in the communities I represent are dependent upon
this bill's success. A significant number of the people in my
communities are employed in the coatings industry, in the glass
industry, plastics, specialty steel, not to mention high-technology
communications and technology for health care devices. These products
are unique processes and are unique products. We need to have these
products patented to keep these jobs in the United States, to keep
these people in my community employed.
I know that employers and innovators are at the heart of providing
these jobs. We need to protect their innovations and their processes.
We need to make sure that our Patent and Trademark Office works for
them. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary
and the first articulator of the principle ``no end to diversion, no
fee increase.''
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the
subcommittee and the chairman. Yes, it is true that we have been
objecting to the diversion of fees from the Patent and Trademark Office
for some time. In fact, since 1962 some $6 million has been diverted
from the PTO and put to other uses; and according to the Patent Public
Advisory Committee, this has created a crisis at the PTO. There is
inadequate funding, and there is also a significant increase in patent
and trademark applications.
The diversion of fees is not the cause of the problems in the Patent
Office. It is the cause of the inability to deal with the problem in
the Patent Office. We know that we have to spend more to implement the
plan that Jim Rogan, our prior colleague, headed up when he was at the
Patent Office. We need to upgrade the computer system so we have a
priority search that really is worthy of our country. We know that the
amount of time that each patent examiner has to examine a patent is
insufficient. It is impossible to do the kind of job that we want them
to do and they want to do in the time available.
Because of the problems in the act and the diversion of fees, I think
we have had some problems with some of the patents that have been
generated in recent times. There have been substantial questions
generated about some of them. We hear a lot about the business methods
patents, but it is not
[[Page H796]]
just about those patents; and it is important that we do not grant a
patent that cannot withstand a court challenge. It is costly and wastes
valuable resources; but more importantly, it grants unwarranted rights
of exclusivity that deter otherwise lawful activity and impedes
competition and innovation.
{time} 1700
Furthermore, the pendency for patents is now averaging 24.7 months,
which is an unbelievable delay. When we think about the pace of
technological change that a patent should on average take, 24.7 months
is really not a good thing for the innovation high-tech economy. To
quote a former First Lady, those of us on the Committee on the
Judiciary believe we should just say no to patent fee diversion.
Patentors and inventors do not object to being taxed on their income
just the way other Americans are taxed on their income but to divert
patent fees to general purposes is basically a tax on innovation, a
special tax on innovation. That is something that we should object to.
I believe that the bill before us with the compromises that have been
made is one that I can support. I think in the end it will well serve
our country. It will well serve our economy. Because as someone from
Silicon Valley, I know as well as anyone that it is innovation that
really grows the American economy and by making the Patent Office
better, by precluding the diversion of fees, we will help that
innovation economy.
I would note further that in all of my dealings with innovators in
Silicon Valley and really around the country, not one has objected to
the increase in fees. Not a single one. What they object to is the
diversion of fees. I recommend this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my sincere gratitude and
appreciation to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, for his work with me on
this bill. Working to reform the PTO to ensure timely and effective
intellectual property protection for American inventors and businesses
has been a multiyear effort for many of us, authorizers and
appropriators, on both sides of the aisle. Today, we see the fruits of
these efforts. Thanks to the support of Chairman Wolf and full
committee Chairman Young, our committees have come together and reached
an agreement on a funding mechanism that will enable the USPTO to fully
fund its restructuring and reform activities. It is my understanding
that this rebate mechanism would ensure that all revenue from patent
and trademark fees would in fact go to the USPTO or would be rebated to
those who have paid the fees. As a result, the USPTO, which receives no
taxpayer dollars and is fully fee-funded, would now be able to retain
its fee revenue and to fully fund their widely supported 5-year
strategic plan. Is that the gentleman from Virginia's understanding?
Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman from Wisconsin will yield, I concur with
the reading of the intent of this funding mechanism. I would add that
an important tool the Committee on Appropriations uses in its oversight
of the Patent and Trademark Office as a Federal agency is control over
its discretionary appropriation. We will ensure that this new funding
mechanism maintains that control and does not give the Patent and
Trademark Office a blank check particularly at a time when all
discretionary spending is tight.
The USPTO must modernize. The Committee on the Judiciary and USPTO's
user groups have developed a comprehensive 5-year blueprint to
streamline the operations of the office. Given the significant increase
in funding that this bill would provide, I have asked the General
Accounting Office and the National Academy of Public Administration to
conduct comprehensive reviews to ensure the moneys are spent to reduce
pendency and increase the quality of our patent and trademark system.
Particularly in the high-tech sector, a company's competitiveness is
directly related to the amount of time it takes to receive a patent for
their new product. They are disadvantaged when the life cycle of their
products expires before they are able to get a patent. I would also
like to thank the chairman for including language to ensure that
searches are not outsourced offshore. I think it is important for
Members to know under no circumstances should this be outsourced to
another country and under no circumstances should these searches be
conducted by non-U.S. citizens.
I commend and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work on this
measure, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the difference of view we
have on this issue, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), a tenacious fighter for that in which she believes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California for allowing this institution to function as it should and
to allow those who disagree with this bill an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Chairman, across our country we see the dismantling of jobs and
business in this country. This particular bill, H.R. 1561, dismantles
the Patent and Trademark Office as we have known it. If one reads
article 1, section 8, it says, the Congress shall have the power to
secure for inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries. Throughout the over 200-year history of our country,
that has been done through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The
bill before us on page 11 reads, the Director can provide that searches
be done by commercial entities.
That is not what the Constitution says. That is not the U.S. Patent
Office. That is a commercial entity. Yes, searches will be outsourced
from the U.S. Patent Office. You could say they would be contracted
out. That is not the U.S. Patent Office. We have plenty of examples in
this world of copycatting of inventions, of counterfeiting of
intellectual property, particularly by the Chinese and by patent
thieves and by submarine patents. There are plenty of things going on
in this world that contracting out or outsourcing of the Patent Office
does not help because you cannot secure the honesty or the integrity of
those instrumentalities. And though the bill says business concerns, it
does not say corporations, it says business concerns organized under
the laws of the United States that indeed can be a foreign corporation,
because a foreign corporation operating inside the United States, be it
Chinese, Japanese, Bangladeshi, Indian, whatever, is defined as a U.S.
corporation. That is not the Patent and Trademark Office of the United
States of America. Patent holders actually will not know if their
search is being outsourced or contracted out and they will not know to
whom. And in terms of the fees being charged, the additional tax being
put on small inventors and small companies, all this bill has, with all
due respect to the Committee on Small Business, is a study. It does not
stop those fees and taxes from being imposed. It increases them. How in
heaven's name does this make America any more secure?
I might point out to my dear friend from Wisconsin, as good a Badger
as he is, that indeed the Japanese patent system and the European
patent system are not the American system. We have the protections
here, which is why other countries want to file their patents here. We
do not want to harmonize with systems unlike ours. We want them to be
like us. Why are we doing this? And if a patent search takes a while,
that is a good thing. It protects my rights, particularly my rights as
a small inventor. So I would say with all due respect to the authors of
this legislation, changing the U.S. Patent Office, why? Why dismantle
it after over two centuries of success?
I deeply thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this
time. At least we had the opportunity to put our views on the record. I
would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1561.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, one of our jobs in Congress is to make the government
work. We have heard ample data that has been presented on both sides of
the aisle that the PTO is in crisis and unless we pass legislation,
things will get worse rather than better. What this bill does is that
it allows the PTO to
[[Page H797]]
add an additional 2,900 patent examiners, government employees, so that
there will be more people on the government payroll to examine these
applications. If the bill goes down, those 2,900 people will not be
there.
And we have heard a lot about diversion from the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren)
and others. This bill ends the diversion. So we will not be using PTO
fees for other government programs. If the bill goes down, the
diversion will continue. The outsourcing issue, the amendment that has
been agreed to will, number one, require that the outsourcing if it is
done be done by a U.S. corporation; two, it will be done by American
citizens; and, three, it will be done in the United States of America.
If we do not do that, then we are going to further complicate the
patent process. I would point out that our patent law is such that if
there is an infringement suit the patent holder must prove that the
patent is valid. That is not the case under foreign patent laws. So if
there is a bad patent that is issued because the PTO is rushed, then it
is going to cost the patent holder more when an infringement suit is
filed. That does not happen in the case of a patent that is issued by a
foreign country. This bill makes the quality of the patents that are
issued by the Patent Office better because we have got more people
looking at them and they are not as rushed.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and would
just wish to ask him this question. If there are additional staff that
will be working directly for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, then
why does this bill permit commercial entities to do the review process,
which means you are outsourcing or contracting out work that should
legitimately be done by the office?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer to the question is that it speeds up
the process. And with the WTO treaty changing the patent term to 20
years from the date of filing, every day that there is a delay in
actually determining whether the application results in the patentable
invention means that there is one less day of patent protection before
that patent expires. So if it takes 8 years for the PTO to act on an
application, that means that somebody who has invented something only
has got 12 years left. With software technology increasing at such a
rapid rate, by the time the PTO acts if we do not do something about
it, the invention is going to be practically useless.
Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman could clarify, he has stated then that
because of the World Trade Organization, the WTO requirements, this is
why we are having to pass this bill?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman from Ohio will refresh her
recollection, the WTO treaty was ratified by Congress. It was urged
upon us and signed by President Clinton. I joined the gentlewoman from
Ohio in opposing the WTO treaty when it came up in 1994 but we lost on
that and the extension or the change in the patent term from the
previous 17 years of the date of granting of the patent by the Patent
Office was changed to 20 years from the date of filing. The gentlewoman
and I voted against it but it is the law and we have to face up to the
fact that the longer the PTO delays in issuing a patent, the less time
of patent protection there is for an applicant for a patent who
succeeds.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner
and Chairman Lamar Smith for their very important changes for small
entities and other Patent and Trademark Office users. I also want to
thank their dedicated and excellent staffs, Phil Kiko, Steve Pinkos and
Blaine Merritt. I also want to thank the majority leader and his staff
led by Brett Loper for crafting a very excellent amendment to this bill
that as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business I am satisfied
that the small inventor is protected.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentlewoman argued in favor of her position, take more time.
There is no problem with taking time. The fact is we want a thorough
investigation. We want a good quality patent. But simply taking more
time, the argument against that is not simply the one made by the
chairman about the patent term and how much of it will be left, it is
that in that backlog that is getting longer and longer and longer are
lifesaving medical devices, new drugs, new technologies to make America
more productive and efficient, fascinating and important inventions
that need to be disseminated and distributed and will not be until that
patent issues.
{time} 1715
That time is costing our economy and our people both in terms of
quality of life, health care, and economic efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property and as a co-chair of the
Congressional IP Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1561, and I
am quite pleased that the House leadership has allowed this compromise
to be reached and that we have the debate today.
The Patent and Trademark Office is in severe need of additional
resources to ensure the expedience and quality of the patent
examination process. Without these valuable changes, an overburdened
and slow patent examination system will deter the innovations of
American business. Given the importance to our lives and our economy,
patent reform is one of the most important issues for increasing the
growth and strength of the economy for both small and large businesses.
Congress has the opportunity with this bill to give the PTO the
flexibility they have been asking for to strengthen and improve
America's patent system.
The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is correct to raise the issue
and the concern of loss of jobs in America and the outsourcing of jobs.
I would respectfully argue that one of the ways in which to assist
American workers in regaining what they have lost over the past 3 years
is to allow the Patent and Trademark Office these reforms that are in
desperate need and should have been done years ago.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
personally thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner);
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo); the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young); the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf);
and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member,
for their help in pulling this bill together. They helped to iron out
the wrinkles. They helped resolve the differences between many parties,
and it is much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation that I authored modernizes the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. It was inspired by two principles
essential to a democracy: the protection of intellectual property
rights and the freedom to exchange goods and services.
The Patent and Trademark Office does not receive the attention of
other government agencies such as the Department of State and
Department of Justice, but it should. The Patent and Trademark Office
is crucial to the health of our economy and to the lives of millions of
Americans.
The Patent and Trademark Office protects the rights of all American
inventors. From the lone individual working in their garage to the
small business owner with a breakthrough idea to the large high-tech
company that applies for hundreds of patents, all rely on a responsive
Patent and Trademark Office. Without a strong PTO, our economy would be
devastated, our quality of life would be diminished, and jobs would be
lost or never created in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, this bill prevents the diversion of Patent and
Trademark Office fees paid by inventors to fund government programs
unconnected to the agency. The diversion of fees to the office is
unfair, counterproductive, and an obstacle to sustained economic
[[Page H798]]
growth. Approximately $750 million has been diverted from the PTO in
the last decade alone. Such a large revenue loss has deprived the
Patent and Trademark Office of the resources it must have to serve the
patent and trademark holders of the United States. At a time when the
office is struggling to pay its examiners enough and to keep up with
applications, particularly in high-tech areas, Congress should take an
interest in protecting our economy by keeping patents and trademark
fees within the Patent and Trademark Office.
This bill enables the Patent and Trademark Office to hire 2,900 new
patent examiners. Today the average time to process a patent exceeds 2
years. Without the new examiners, agency delays will soon reach 3 or
even 4 years. If this fee bill does not become law, it is estimated
that 140,000 patents will not be issued over the next 5 years. That is
140,000 missed opportunities for the American people.
If nothing is done, if the status quo continues, it means new
products will not make it to the market, jobs will not be created, and
the inventors who came up with new ideas and products will not have
their intellectual property protected and so will not market their
inventions.
This bill helps small businesses and nonprofit institutions. It
provides a 50 percent discount on most services to small businesses,
universities, and other nonprofit entities. The benefits of an improved
and streamlined PTO will help small businesses and universities and
encourage new research and innovation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for making this issue a priority for our committee and
working with the appropriators to resolve our differences on PTO
funding.
Since U.S. Patent No. 1 was issued in 1837 for traction wheels, the
patent system and the creativity, genius, and talent that defined it
have benefited all Americans. From the revolutionary electric light
bulb to the latest software technology, patents reflect America and
contribute to our economic prosperity.
This bipartisan bill is supported by these organizations: the
Information Technology Industry Council, Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property
Owners, the International Trademark Association, the Association of
American Universities, and the Association for Competitive Technology,
as well as many others.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is good for innovation, good for the economy,
and good for the American people. The PTO has rarely been more
important than it is today. It must have the resources it needs to
professionally and expeditiously process patent and trademark
applications. American jobs, profits, and the future of entrepreneurial
capitalism are literally at stake.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this bill is consistent with an idea
expressed by a former Member of this Chamber who did pretty well for
himself, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln said that the Patent Office adds the
flame of interest to the light of creativity. And that is why we need
to improve the effectiveness of our Patent Office. We need to do so
because what we all recognize in this Chamber is one answer to the
$64,000 question of how we are going to grow jobs in this country, is
we are going to do this by playing to our American unique strength; and
the uniquely American strength is we are the best innovators, we are
the best technologists, we are the best creators for new devices the
world has ever seen. And we need to play to this unique American
strength in our strategy on how to deal with the development of the
global economy. And this bill, although it will be little noted, it
should be long remembered in our ability to play to that strength
because we have people in every district in this country who today are
working on inventions who will have the added flame of interest to
their light of creativity.
Let me give the Members an example. I have got some folks this
afternoon who are working on a potential drug in Bothell, Washington,
that could potentially actually cure in a meaningful way one type of
diabetes. Those folks who are laboring over their computers and bunsen
burners today deserve an American Patent Office that will process
patents in a timely fashion, which we simply do not have now. We do not
want to see the time period move from a horrendous 2-year delay today
up to a 4- or 6-year delay in 5 or 6 years.
So I want to show my appreciation for the chairman and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Berman), who have worked on this to get this bill
to the floor. It is one answer to how we are going to really compete in
a global economy. Let us play to the American strength. Let us improve
the Patent office. Let us grow jobs in this country.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have no further requests for time, but I do want to address this
issue of outsourcing just to get the record straight here. As a general
principle, I am opposed. I share the feelings of the gentlewoman from
Ohio regarding the general proposition, the farming government
responsibilities and jobs out to private entities and particularly when
we are dealing with core government functions; and I think searches
performed by patent examiners may be such core functions. But in H.R.
1561 what we took was an open-ended proposal from the Patent Office to
allow outsourcing of searches, and working with the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Smith), with other committee members, with the PTO,
with PTO employee unions, and with all the various industry groups, we
put constraints on the ability to outsource allowed by the bill.
Together with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith), we developed a
limiting amendment that was accepted with essentially no opposition in
the Committee on the Judiciary; and the bill, as so amended, was
reported out with Democrats and Republicans expressing just about
unanimous support for the bill.
H.R. 1561 prohibits the PTO from outsourcing until all of the
following criteria are met: the PTO conducts a pilot project of limited
scope for not more than 18 months to test the efficacy of outsourcing
patent searches; secondly, that the pilot program must demonstrate that
the searches performed by commercial entities are accurate and at least
meet or exceed the standards conducted and used by the PTO; the
director, third, must submit a report to Congress detailing the
methodology of the pilot and containing a comparative evaluation of
outsourced and patent examiner searches, addressing factors such as
productivity, costs, and quality; fourth, and very importantly, the
Patent Public Advisory Committee, an independent entity consisting of
patent union representatives and PTO user groups, has to submit a
report to Congress with a detailed analysis of the pilot project.
And even after that, if that independent committee, all that
concludes that it makes sense to outsource patent searches, nothing can
happen until after 1 year so that Congress has a year to decide whether
or not to continue to prohibit search outsourcing despite the results
of these reports.
H.R. 1561 prohibits the PTO from outsourcing searches unless all of
these criteria are met. The National Treasury Union, every patent user
organization that I know of, large companies, small companies,
universities, nonprofits, all of them involved in the patent process
all think this bill does not destroy the Patent Office. This bill is
the most important thing to saving the whole patent process. And the
whole point of even entertaining the idea of outsourcing is simply to
deal with better quality, better productivity, and more time. I urge
that H.R. 1561 be passed.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise today in strong support of the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Fee Modernization Act.
America's commitment to protecting intellectual property gives
America a distinct competitive advantage in the global marketplace.
When a country provides an atmosphere that is conducive to innovation
and encourages the aggressive enforcement of intellectual property
rights, businesses will seek the protection of
[[Page H799]]
that country and will make conscious decisions to innovate there.
America must continue to be the world leader in protecting intellectual
property so that it will continue to be the world leader in innovation.
H.R. 1561, the U.S. Patent and the Trademark Fee Modernization Act,
would codify a revised fee schedule that would give the USPTO the
resources it needs to increase the quality of issued patents and
trademarks, to hire additional examiners, and to reduce the backlog of
applications that is currently pending.
In addition, H.R. 1561 represents an important compromise that
effectively ends ``fee diversion,'' the current practice of diverting
the excess fees collected by the USPTO to the Federal Government. Under
the compromise, if the USPTO collects more in fees than it is
appropriated, the balance would be rebated back to the users.
Furthermore, the bill protects small businesses by reducing the
filing fee for any small entity or independent inventor by 75 percent
if those entities file their applications electronically, in addition
to other protections for small businesses.
This legislation is an important step in the ongoing effort to
enhance the quality and timeliness of patent and trademark processing.
Our Nation's investors deserve nothing less than the most efficient and
accurate patent and trademark office in the world. I urge each of my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the United States
Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561). This
legislation is crucial to America maintaining its role as the world
leader in innovative technology.
Intellectual Property is the currency that drives innovation in
America's high-tech economy, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) is charged with granting the important patents and trademarks for
these innovations. The PTO serves a critical role in the promotion and
development of new products and commercial activity in our country.
The PTO is of vital importance to the technology sector of our
economy, and it is vital that this agency have proper funding to
execute its mission. This legislation will allow the PTO to accomplish
this goal--while allowing small business innovators to compete with
larger corporations.
H.R. 1561 will eliminate patent fee diversion and will ensure that
all fees paid to the PTO will be used to expedite the time-consuming
and costly procedures associated with granting patents and trademarks.
This legislation is the first step toward improving patent and
trademark quality while reducing application backlogs. This reform will
help eliminate some of the bureaucracy that hinders businesses from
success in the marketplace and hinders the advancement of technology in
America.
I urge final passage of H.R. 1561.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 1561. The
legislation is the culmination of years of hard work between the
appropriators and the members of the Judiciary Committee. It allows the
appropriators to retain oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office,
while permanently ending the practice of diverting fees paid by users
of the Patent and Trademark Office. In the past, these fees were used
for unrelated government programs. I am pleased because these fees will
specifically go to improving patent quality, reducing the time it takes
to examine a patent and increasing efficiency of the Patent and
Trademark Office in total. These are the goals of the 21st Century
Strategic Plan that was developed by the Patent Office and reviewed by
the Congress.
Finally and most importantly this bill ensures that companies can and
will continue to have opportunities to innovate and remain competitive
in this global economy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act (H.R. 1561).
This legislation builds upon a strong foundation first established
back on April 5, 1790, when the first patent statute was passed by the
Congress of the 12 United States. That's right, we had our first patent
law before Rhode Island became our 13th State.
At the time, the first law directed the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of War and the Attorney General to determine if they, or any
two of them thought ``the invention or discovery sufficiently useful
and important'' to merit a patent.
A hefty fee between $4 and $5 was collected to process and approve
each patent petition. Interestingly, the payment did not go to the
newly created Federal Government but to a government employee, the
Chief Clerk of the Department of State. The funds went to support the
patent operations and later financed the construction of the first
Patent Office, not to support the general funds of the U.S. Treasury.
Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an office that I am
proud to say resides in my congressional district, is struggling with
an increasingly complex and voluminous workload. Last year, the office
received more than 330,000 patent applications and more than 260,000
trademark applications.
Patent applications have doubled since 1992. As a result, patent
pendency (the amount of time a patent application is pending before a
patent is issued) now averages over 2 years and is even longer in more
complicated technologies.
Without more examiners, average pendency in areas such as computer-
related technologies will double to 6 to 8 years in the next few years.
This delay is a drag, holding back our economy's full potential,
unfairly punishing American businesses and entrepreneurs at a time when
intellectual-property-based industries are essential to economic
growth.
As application processing times grow, the incentives for investment
diminish, especially for individuals and small entities with limited
resources whose inventions are in greater danger of being counterfeited
or pirated.
The status quo is a recipe for disaster, and H.R. 1561 represents a
well-conceived and bipartisan way out of this dilemma. Without the
bill, the backlog of unexamined patents will more than double--from
475,000 today to 1 million by 2008.
This legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office to
implement its 21st Century Strategic Plan by improving productivity,
patent quality, and e-government. It will give the agency the revenue
it needs to hire 2,900 needed new patent examiners.
I support the compromise that was brokered between members of the
Judiciary and Appropriations Committees that will give the
appropriators the deference they need to set the funding levels, but
will provide the authorizers and the patent community the assurances
they need to make sure that any additional funds raised through the
fees will be spent for their designated purpose. Any balance of funds
are to be returned to the patent applicants, and not be spent elsewhere
by the Federal Government.
Let me also make it clear that while I have some concerns about
outsourcing and potential liability issues outsourcing might create,
let's recognize that this is just a pilot program with ample
opportunity for Congress to exercise appropriate oversight. Whatever
civil service jobs might one day be lost by outsourcing will more than
be made up by the thousands of jobs this legislation will help create.
The Patent and Trademark Office plans to increase its patent
examining staff by about 1,000 annually in fiscal years 2005 and 2006,
reaching and maintaining a stable level of about 4,500 examiners after
that.
Mr. Chairman, our future is made more secure through a system that
protects the rights of inventors.
At the centennial celebration of the U.S. Patent Office in 1890,
Commissioner Charles Elliot Mitchell eloquently stated the important
decision of our Founding Fathers to provide protections for
intellectual property when drafting the Constitution:
For who is bold enough to say that the Constitution could
have overspread a continent if the growth of invention and
inventive achievement had not kept pace with territorial
expansion. It is invention which brought the Pacific Ocean to
the Alleghanies. It is invention which, fostered, by a single
sentence in their immortal work, has made it possible for the
flag of one republic to carry more than forty symbolic stars.
My colleagues for the sake of this great Nation, modernize the Patent
and Trademark Office; support the U.S. Patent and Trademark Fee
Modernization Act of 2003.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1561
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 ``United States Patent and
Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FEES FOR PATENT SERVICES.
(a) General Patent Fees.--Section 41(a) of title 35, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) General Fees.--The Director shall charge the
following fees:
``(1) Filing and basic national fees.--
``(A) On filing each application for an original patent,
except for design, plant, or provisional applications, $300.
[[Page H800]]
``(B) On filing each application for an original design
patent, $200.
``(C) On filing each application for an original plant
patent, $200.
``(D) On filing each provisional application for an
original patent, $200.
``(E) On filing each application for the reissue of a
patent, $300.
``(F) The basic national fee for each international
application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a)
of this title entering the national stage under section 371
of this title, $300.
``(G) In addition, excluding any sequence listing or
computer program listing filed in an electronic medium as
prescribed by the Director, for any application the
specification and drawings of which exceed 100 sheets of
paper (or equivalent as prescribed by the Director if filed
in an electronic medium), $250 for each additional 50 sheets
of paper (or equivalent as prescribed by the Director if
filed in an electronic medium) or fraction thereof.
``(2) Excess claims fees.--In addition to the fee specified
in paragraph (1)--
``(A) on filing or on presentation at any other time, $200
for each claim in independent form in excess of 3;
``(B) on filing or on presentation at any other time, $50
for each claim (whether dependent or independent) in excess
of 20; and
``(C) for each application containing a multiple dependent
claim, $360.
For the purpose of computing fees under this paragraph, a
multiple dependent claim referred to in section 112 of this
title or any claim depending therefrom shall be considered as
separate dependent claims in accordance with the number of
claims to which reference is made. The Director may by
regulation provide for a refund of any part of the fee
specified in this paragraph for any claim that is canceled
before an examination on the merits, as prescribed by the
Director, has been made of the application under section 131
of this title. Errors in payment of the additional fees under
this paragraph may be rectified in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Director.
``(3) Examination fees.--
``(A) For examination of each application for an original
patent, except for design, plant, provisional, or
international applications, $200.
``(B) For examination of each application for an original
design patent, $130.
``(C) For examination of each application for an original
plant patent, $160.
``(D) For examination of the national stage of each
international application, $200.
``(E) For examination of each application for the reissue
of a patent, $600.
The provisions of section 111(a)(3) of this title relating to
the payment of the fee for filing the application shall apply
to the payment of the fee specified in this paragraph with
respect to an application filed under section 111(a) of this
title. The provisions of section 371(d) of this title
relating to the payment of the national fee shall apply to
the payment of the fee specified in this paragraph with
respect to an international application. The Director may by
regulation provide for a refund of any part of the fee
specified in this paragraph for any applicant who files a
written declaration of express abandonment as prescribed by
the Director before an examination has been made of the
application under section 131 of this title, and for any
applicant who provides a search report that meets the
conditions prescribed by the Director.
``(4) Issue fees.--
``(A) For issuing each original patent, except for design
or plant patents, $1,400.
``(B) For issuing each original design patent, $800.
``(C) For issuing each original plant patent, $1,100.
``(D) For issuing each reissue patent, $1,400.
``(5) Disclaimer fee.--On filing each disclaimer, $130.
``(6) Appeal fees.--
``(A) On filing an appeal from the examiner to the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences, $500.
``(B) In addition, on filing a brief in support of the
appeal, $500, and on requesting an oral hearing in the appeal
before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, $1,000.
``(7) Revival fees.--On filing each petition for the
revival of an unintentionally abandoned application for a
patent, for the unintentionally delayed payment of the fee
for issuing each patent, or for an unintentionally delayed
response by the patent owner in any reexamination proceeding,
$1,500, unless the petition is filed under section 133 or 151
of this title, in which case the fee shall be $500.
``(8) Extension fees.--For petitions for 1-month extensions
of time to take actions required by the Director in an
application--
``(A) on filing a first petition, $120;
``(B) on filing a second petition, $330; and
``(C) on filing a third or subsequent petition, $570.''.
(b) Patent Maintenance Fees.--Section 41(b) of title 35,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Maintenance Fees.--The Director shall charge the
following fees for maintaining in force all patents based on
applications filed on or after December 12, 1980:
``(1) 3 years and 6 months after grant, $900.
``(2) 7 years and 6 months after grant, $2,300.
``(3) 11 years and 6 months after grant, $3,800.
Unless payment of the applicable maintenance fee is received
in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on or before
the date the fee is due or within a grace period of 6 months
thereafter, the patent will expire as of the end of such
grace period. The Director may require the payment of a
surcharge as a condition of accepting within such 6-month
grace period the payment of an applicable maintenance fee. No
fee may be established for maintaining a design or plant
patent in force.''.
(c) Patent Search Fees.--Section 41(d) of title 35, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Patent Search and Other Fees.--
``(1) Patent search fees.--(A) The Director shall charge a
fee for the search of each application for a patent, except
for provisional applications. The Director shall establish
the fees charged under this paragraph to recover an amount
not to exceed the estimated average cost to the Office of
searching applications for patent either by acquiring a
search report from a qualified search authority, or by
causing a search by Office personnel to be made, of each
application for patent.
``(B) For purposes of determining the fees to be
established under this paragraph, the cost to the Office of
causing a search of an application to be made by Office
personnel shall be deemed to be--
``(i) $500 for each application for an original patent,
except for design, plant, provisional, or international
applications;
``(ii) $100 for each application for an original design
patent;
``(iii) $300 for each application for an original plant
patent;
``(iv) $500 for the national stage of each international
application; and
``(v) $500 for each application for the reissue of a
patent.
``(C) The provisions of section 111(a)(3) of this title
relating to the payment of the fee for filing the application
shall apply to the payment of the fee specified in this
paragraph with respect to an application filed under section
111(a) of this title. The provisions of section 371(d) of
this title relating to the payment of the national fee shall
apply to the payment of the fee specified in this paragraph
with respect to an international application.
``(D) The Director may by regulation provide for a refund
of any part of the fee specified in this paragraph for any
applicant who files a written declaration of express
abandonment as prescribed by the Director before an
examination has been made of the application under section
131 of this title, and for any applicant who provides a
search report that meets the conditions prescribed by the
Director.
``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (A), a `qualified search
authority' may not include a commercial entity unless--
``(i) the Director conducts a pilot program of limited
scope, conducted over a period of not more than 18 months,
which demonstrates that searches by commercial entities of
the available prior art relating to the subject matter of
inventions claimed in patent applications--
``(I) are accurate; and
``(II) meet or exceed the standards of searches conducted
by and used by the Patent and Trademark Office during the
patent examination process;
``(ii) the Director submits a report on the results of the
pilot program to the Congress and the Patent Public Advisory
Committee that includes--
``(I) a description of the scope and duration of the pilot
program;
``(II) the identity of each commercial entity participating
in the pilot program;
``(III) an explanation of the methodology used to evaluate
the accuracy and quality of the search reports; and
``(IV) an assessment of the effects that the pilot program,
as compared to searches conducted by the Patent and Trademark
Office, had and will have on--
``(aa) patentability determinations;
``(bb) productivity of the Patent and Trademark Office;
``(cc) costs to the Patent and Trademark Office;
``(dd) costs to patent applicants; and
``(ee) other relevant factors;
``(iii) the Patent Public Advisory Committee reviews and
analyzes the Director's report under clause (ii) and the
results of the pilot program and submits a separate report on
its analysis to the Director and the Congress that includes--
``(I) an independent evaluation of the effects that the
pilot program, as compared to searches conducted by the
Patent and Trademark Office, had and will have on the factors
set forth in clause (ii)(IV); and
``(II) an analysis of the reasonableness, appropriateness,
and effectiveness of the methods used in the pilot program to
make the evaluations required under clause (ii)(IV); and
``(iv) the Congress does not, during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which the Patent Public Advisory
Committee submits its report to the Congress under clause
(iii), enact a law prohibiting searches by commercial
entities of the available prior art relating to the subject
matter of inventions claimed in patent applications.
``(2) Other fees.--The Director shall establish fees for
all other processing, services, or materials relating to
patents not specified in this section to recover the
estimated average cost to the Office of such processing,
services, or materials, except that the Director shall charge
the following fees for the following services:
``(A) For recording a document affecting title, $40 per
property.
``(B) For each photocopy, $.25 per page.
``(C) For each black and white copy of a patent, $3.
The yearly fee for providing a library specified in section
12 of this title with uncertified printed copies of the
specifications and drawings for all patents in that year
shall be $50.''.
(d) Adjustments.--Section 41(f) of title 35, United States
Code, shall apply to the fees established under the
amendments made by this section, beginning in fiscal year
2005.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
[[Page H801]]
(1) Section 41 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c)(1)'' and inserting
``(c) Late Payment of Fees.--(1)'';
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``(e)'' and inserting
``(e) Waivers of Certain Fees.--'';
(C) in subsection (f), by striking ``(f)'' and inserting
``(f) Adjustments in Fees.--'';
(D) in subsection (g), by striking ``(g)'' and inserting
``(g) Effective Dates of Fees.--'';
(E) in subsection (h), by striking ``(h)(1)'' and inserting
``(h) Reductions in Fees for Certain Entities.--(1)''; and
(F) in subsection (i), by striking ``(i)(1)'' and inserting
``(i) Search Systems.--(1)''.
(2) Section 119(e)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (C) of''.
SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT OF TRADEMARK FEES.
(a) Fee for Filing Application.--The fee under section
31(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1113(a)) for
filing an electronic application for the registration of a
trademark shall be $325. If the trademark application is
filed on paper, the fee shall be $375. The Director may
reduce the fee for filing an electronic application for the
registration of a trademark to $275 for any applicant who
prosecutes the application through electronic means under
such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director.
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the provisions of the second
and third sentences of section 31(a) of the Trademark Act of
1946 shall apply to the fees established under this section.
(b) Reference to Trademark Act of 1946.--For purposes of
this section, the ``Trademark Act of 1946'' refers to the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for the registration and
protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the
provisions of certain international conventions, and for
other purposes.'', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et
seq.).
SEC. 4. CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS NAMING OF OFFICER.
(a) Correction.--Section 13203(a) of the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
(Public Law 107-273; 116 Stat. 1902) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Commissioner''
and inserting ``Director''; and
(2) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``Commissioner''
each place it appears and inserting ``Director''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as of the date of the enactment of Public
Law 107-273.
SEC. 5. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FUNDING.
Section 42 of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``Appropriation''; and
(2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``To the extent'' and all that follows
through ``fees'' and inserting ``Fees''; and
(B) by striking ``shall be collected by and shall be
available to the Director'' and inserting ``shall be
collected by the Director and shall be available until
expended''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE, APPLICABILITY, AND TRANSITIONAL
PROVISION.
(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in section 4 and
this section, this Act and the amendments made by this Act
shall take effect on October 1, 2003, or the date of the
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
(b) Applicability.--
(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the
amendments made by section 2 shall apply to all patents,
whenever granted, and to all patent applications pending on
or filed after the effective date set forth in subsection (a)
of this section.
(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), sections
41(a)(1), 41(a)(3), and 41(d)(1) of title 35, United States
Code, as amended by this Act, shall apply only to--
(I) applications for patents filed under section 111(a) of
title 35, United States Code, on or after the effective date
set forth in subsection (a) of this section, and
(II) international applications entering the national stage
under section 371 of title 35, United States Code, for which
the basic national fee specified in section 41 of title 35,
United States Code, was not paid before the effective date
set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(ii) Section 41(a)(1)(D) of title 35, United States Code as
amended by this Act, shall apply only to applications for
patent filed under section 111(b) of title 35, United States
Code, before, on, or after the effective date set forth in
subsection (a) of this section in which the filing fee
specified in section 41 of title 35, United States Code, was
not paid before the effective date set forth in subsection
(a) of this section.
(C) Section 41(a)(2) of title 35, United States Code, as
amended by this Act, shall apply only to the extent that the
number of excess claims, after giving effect to any
cancellation of claims, is in excess of the number of claims
for which the excess claims fee specified in section 41 of
title 35, United States Code, was paid before the effective
date set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(2) The amendments made by section 3 shall apply to all
applications for the registration of a trademark filed or
amended on or after the effective date set forth in
subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Transitional Provisions.--
(1) Search fees.--During the period beginning on the
effective date set forth in subsection (a) of this section
and ending on the date on which the Director establishes
search fees under the authority provided in section 41(d)(1)
of title 35, United States Code, the Director shall charge--
(A) for the search of each application for an original
patent, except for design, plant, provisional, or
international application, $500;
(B) for the search of each application for an original
design patent, $100;
(C) for the search of each application for an original
plant patent, $300;
(D) for the search of the national stage of each
international application, $500; and
(E) for the search of each application for the reissue of a
patent, $500.
(2) Timing of fees.--The provisions of section 111(a)(3) of
title 35, United States Code, relating to the payment of the
fee for filing the application shall apply to the payment of
the fee specified in paragraph (1) with respect to an
application filed under section 111(a) of title 35, United
States Code. The provisions of section 371(d) of title 35,
United States Code, relating to the payment of the national
fee shall apply to the payment of the fee specified in
paragraph (1) with respect to an international application.
(3) Refunds.--The Director may by regulation provide for a
refund of any part of the fee specified in paragraph (1) for
any applicant who files a written declaration of express
abandonment as prescribed by the Director before an
examination has been made of the application under section
131 of title 35, United States Code, and for any applicant
who provides a search report that meets the conditions
prescribed by the Director.
(d) Existing Appropriations.--The provisions of any
appropriation Act that make amounts available pursuant to
section 42(c) of title 35, United States Code, and are in
effect on the effective date set forth in subsection (a)
shall cease to be effective on that effective date.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``Director'' means the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director
of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
SEC. 8. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
Subsection (c) of section 311 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended by aligning the text with the text of
subsection (a) of such section.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are in order except the amendments printed in House
Report 108-431. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed
in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-431 and made in order by the order of the House of earlier
today.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment made in order pursuant to the order of the House
of today and House Resolution 547 offered by Mr.
Sensenbrenner:
Strike section 5 and insert the following:
SEC. 5. PATENT AND TRADEMARK FUNDING.
Section 42(c) of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) There is established in the Treasury a Patent and
Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. If fee collections by the Patent
and Trademark Office for a fiscal year exceed the amount
appropriated to the Office for that fiscal year, fees
collected in excess of the appropriated amount shall be
deposited in the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. After
the end of each fiscal year, the Director shall make a
finding as to whether the fees collected for that fiscal year
exceed the amount appropriated to the Patent and Trademark
Office for that fiscal year. If the amount collected exceeds
the amount appropriated, the Director shall, if the Director
determines that there are sufficient funds in the Reserve
Fund, make payments from the Reserve Fund to persons who paid
patent or trademark fees during that fiscal year. The
Director shall by regulation determine which persons receive
such payments and the amount of such payments, except that
such payments in the aggregate shall equal the amount of
funds deposited in the Reserve Fund during that fiscal year,
less the cost of administering the provisions of this
paragraph.''.
In section 6(a), strike ``Except as'' and all that follows
through the end of the sentence and insert ``Except as
otherwise provided in this Act and this section, this Act and
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October
1, 2004, or on the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later.''.
Page 12, strike lines 17 through 20 and insert the
following:
(d) Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--Section 41(f) of title 35, United States
Code, shall apply to the fees established under the
amendments made by this section, beginning in fiscal year
2005.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Effective October 1, 2004,
section 41(f) of title 35, United
[[Page H802]]
States Code, is amended by striking ``(a) and (b)'' and
inserting ``(a), (b), and (d)''.
Page 11, add the following after line 24:
``(F) The Director shall require that any search by a
qualified search authority that is a commercial entity is
conducted in the United States by persons that--
``(i) if individuals, are United States citizens; and
``(ii) if business concerns, are organized under the laws
of the United States or any State and employ United States
citizens to perform the searches.
``(G) A search of an application that is the subject of a
secrecy order under section 181 or otherwise involves
classified information may only be conducted by Office
personnel.
``(H) A qualified search authority that is a commercial
entity may not conduct a search of a patent application if
the entity has any direct or indirect financial interest in
any patent or in any pending or imminent application for
patent filed or to be filed in the Patent and Trademark
Office.
Page 12, insert the following after line 20 and redesignate
the succeeding subsection accordingly:
(e) Fees for Small Entities.--Section 41(h) of title 35,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Fees charged under
subsection (a) or (b)'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph
(3), fees charged under subsections (a), (b), and (d)(1)'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The fee charged under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be
reduced by 75 percent with respect to its application to any
entity to which paragraph (1) applies, if the application is
filed by electronic means as prescribed by the Director.''.
(f) Size Standards for Small Entities.--
(1) Study.--The Director, in conjunction with the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, shall conduct a study on the effect of patent
fees on the ability of small entity inventors to file patent
applications. Such study shall examine whether a separate
category of reduced patent fees is necessary to ensure
adequate development of new technology by small entity
inventors.
(2) Report.--The Director shall, not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit a report
on the results of the study under paragraph (1) to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
the Judiciary and the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate.
Page 8, line 3, add the following after the period: ``For
the 3-year period beginning on October 1, 2004, the fee for a
search by a qualified search authority of a patent
application described in clause (i), (iv), or (v) of
subparagraph (B) may not exceed $500, of a patent application
described in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) may not exceed
$100, and of a patent application described in clause (iii)
of subparagraph (B) may not exceed $300. The Director may not
increase any such fee by more than 20 percent in each of the
next 3 1-year periods, and the Director may not increase any
such fee thereafter.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have a lengthy statement that I will not read in full, but will
insert in the Record. But let me state that a significant part of this
amendment deals with the agreement that we have reached with the
appropriators that was discussed in the colloquy which I had earlier
today with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
Let me also state that the amendment contains various provisions that
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I have agreed upon
relative to our previous differences over the treatment of small
entities under this bill. And pursuant to this agreement, my amendment
applies a 50 percent discount to all searches for small entities,
prohibits commercial searches that apply to classified matters,
prevents commercial entities from performing searches when they have a
financial interest or other conflict at stake, caps the search fee
after the 6th year, and requires a joint PTO and Small Business
Administration study regarding the effects of the fee structure on
small entities.
{time} 1730
This, I believe, meets the objections that members of the Committee
on Small Business had relative to the cost to small business of
applying for and hopefully obtaining a patent. I hope that this
amendment clears the way for the other body to consider this bill and
bring real reform to the PTO.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to report that this amendment reflects a
thoughtful compromise between myself and Mr. Wolf, chairman of the CJS
Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as a fair deal between the
Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Small Business Committee,
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. I want to thank both of them
for working so steadfastly and productively on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, the heart of my amendment creates a ``refund'' program
to eliminate the potential incentive for diverting PTO revenue to non-
PTO programs. Briefly, if fee collections in a given fiscal year exceed
the amount appropriated to the agency, the excess or overage shall be
deposited in a PTO ``Reserve Fund.'' At the end of the fiscal year the
Director determines if there are sufficient funds to make payments to
persons who paid fees during that year.
The Director is empowered to determine which recipients qualify and
in what amounts, except that the payments in aggregate must equal the
amount of revenue in the Reserve Fund during that fiscal year, less the
cost of administering the program.
This text is crucial to the bill before us. We have been at
loggerheads with the Appropriations committee on this matter for nearly
a decade, so I am glad to say that we have struck an acceptable
compromise that serves the interests of both committees. I am grateful
to the appropriators and the majority leader for working with us on
this point. I emphasize that without this language, support for the
bill dissipates.
In addition, the bill as reported contains a pilot program to
determine the efficacy of allowing commercial entities to perform the
search function, thereby relieving the agency of the burden and freeing
up examiners to do other work. The amendment specifies that
participation in the pilot program will be restricted to American
businesses and American citizens. We have worked closely with Chairman
wolf's staff on this point.
Also, in furtherance of the ongoing modernization efforts at PTO, the
Director is required to reduce the filing fee for any small entity,
independent inventor, or nonprofit organization by 75 percent provided
those so qualified file their applications electronically.
As I noted a moment ago, Mr. Manzullo, and I have resolve dour
differences over the treatment of small entities under H.R. 1561.
Pursuant to recently agreed-upon changes, my amendment: Applies a 50
percent discount to all searches for small entities; prohibits
commercial searches that apply to classified matters; prevents
commercial entities from performing searches when they have a financial
interest or other conflict at stake; caps the search fee after the
sixth year; and requires a joint PTO-SBA study regarding the effects of
the fee structure on small entities.
Mr. Chairman, by addressing the fee diversion and other issues, this
amendment clears the way for the other body to consider H.R. 1561 and
bring real reform to the PTO. I urge its adoption.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my strong support for this
amendment. If I were a betting man, I would have bet a lot of money
that the chairman would not have been able to deal with the end of
diversion in the fashion that he was able to without at least 25 or 30
appropriators on the House floor. I congratulate both him and the
subcommittee chairman for their excellent work, and I urge the
manager's amendment be adopted.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment,
which is the result of careful negotiations between the Judiciary and
Appropriations Committees.
The two goals of the underlying bill are to improve PTO operations
and to end fee diversion. This amendment makes sure those goals are
achieved.
In order to eliminate the incentive to divert fees from the PTO, the
amendment establishes a rebate program that will deposit any fee
collections that exceed the amount of money appropriated to the PTO in
a ``reserve fund.'' At the end of each year, the PTO Director will
determine whether there are sufficient funds to make payments to users
who paid applicant fees that year. By ending fee diversion and allowing
the PTO to keep the fees its users pay each year, the agency will be
able to make many much-needed reforms to increase its efficiency and
productivity.
This amendment also contains provisions that will ensure the PTO will
operate effectively. It establishes a pilot program to allow
[[Page H803]]
private entities to perform the search function associated with
obtaining a patent. This will free up patent examiners to focus on
other work.
Some have mischaracterized this provision as ``outsourcing'' that
will cut American jobs and send work overseas. In fact, this amendment
specifies that participation in the pilot program is restricted to
American businesses and American citizens. By allowing patent searches
to be performed by commercial entities, this pilot program will simply
allow the private sector to take some of the load off of an already
overburdened patent evaluation system at the PTO.
Twenty-five to thirty percent of the 355,000 patent applications the
PTO receives each year come from small businesses. The Sensenbrenner
amendment has many provisions to help small businesses obtain patents.
The PTO is one of the most important agencies in the country. It is
the agency behind the innovation and invention that drives our economy.
We must give it the funding it needs to implement meaningful reform and
improve its operations.
This amendment strengthens the underlying bill and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 108-431.
The gentleman from Illinois apparently is not offering his amendment.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 108-431.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask, is this the final
amendment in the series, and then will we move to final passage?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct.
The Chair is ready to proceed. Apparently the gentlewoman from Texas
does not offer her amendment.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Cunningham) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1561) to
amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to patent fees, and
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 547, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 379,
nays 28, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 38]
YEAS--379
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NAYS--28
Bartlett (MD)
Brown (OH)
Carson (IN)
Clay
Costello
Cummings
Evans
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Meek (FL)
Oberstar
Obey
Paul
Ruppersberger
Sanders
Schakowsky
Strickland
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Aderholt
Ballenger
Berry
Calvert
Carson (OK)
Castle
Cole
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Hall
Hinojosa
Hooley (OR)
Istook
Kucinich
Lantos
Lucas (OK)
Menendez
Pence
Rodriguez
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Sullivan
Toomey
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Young (FL)
[[Page H804]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1802
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, OBEY, WYNN and RUPPERSBERGER changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________