[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 91 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4480-H4505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICA INVENTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Pursuant to House Resolution 
316 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1249.

                              {time}  1351


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1249) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide 
for patent reform, with Mr. Poe of Texas (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
June 22, 2011, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 printed 
in part B of House Report 112-111 offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith) had been postponed.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on the amendment printed in part B of House Report 112-
111 on which further proceedings were postponed.
  The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283, 
noes 140, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 481]

                               AYES--283

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--140

     Akin
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps

[[Page H4481]]


     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Landry
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McNerney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     Hurt
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Scott, Austin
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capito) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. MACK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARTLETT and MULVANEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 481 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 481 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Smith 
(TX) Manager's Amendment.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 
     25, line 12, and insert the following:
       (n) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section--
       (A) shall take effect 90 days after the date on which the 
     President issues an Executive order containing the 
     President's finding that major patenting authorities have 
     adopted a grace period having substantially the same effect 
     as that contained under the amendments made by this section; 
     and
       (B) shall apply to all applications for patent that are 
     filed on or after the effective date under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Major patenting authorities.--The term ``major 
     patenting authorities'' means at least the patenting 
     authorities in Europe and Japan.
       (B) Grace period.--The term ``grace period'' means the 1-
     year period ending on the effective filing date of a claimed 
     invention, during which disclosures of the subject matter by 
     the inventor or a joint inventor, or by others who obtained 
     the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the 
     inventor or a joint inventor, do not qualify as prior art to 
     the claimed invention.
       (C) Effective filing date.-- The term ``effective filing 
     date of a claimed invention'' means, with respect to a 
     patenting authority in another country, a date equivalent to 
     the effective filing date of a claimed invention as defined 
     in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a) of this section.
       (3) Retention of interference procedures with respect to 
     applications filed before effective date.--In the case of any 
     application for patent that is filed before the effective 
     date under paragraph (1)(A), the provisions of law amended by 
     subsections (h) and (i) shall apply to such application as 
     such provisions of law were in effect on the day before such 
     effective date.
       Page 11, lines 21-23, strike ``upon the expiration of the 
     18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act,'' and insert ``on the effective date provided in 
     subsection (n)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
California, Dana Rohrabacher, be added to this amendment as a 
cosponsor.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
amendments do not have cosponsors.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this bipartisan amendment adds an important 
provision to H.R. 1249. It would permit the conversion of the United 
States to a first-to-file system only upon a Presidential finding that 
other nations have adopted a similar one-year grace period. This one-
year grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or 
write about his or her ideas for a patent up to a year before he or she 
actually files for patent protection. And without this grace period, an 
inventor could lose his or her own patent.
  This grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor 
a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to 
the time when he's required to file a patent. During this time, this 
would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publication, stealing the 
idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the inventor's back. Yet the 
only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace period 
provision contained in 1249 is to ensure that the foreign countries 
adopt a similar grace period as well.
  The amendment would encourage other countries to adopt a similar 
period in their patent system consistent with a recommendation by the 
National Academy's National Research Council. Current law in the United 
States allows a grace period of 1 year, during which an applicant can 
disclose or commercialize an invention before filing for a patent. 
Japan offers a limited grace period, and Europe provides none.
  If the first-to-file provision in the bill is implemented, we must 
ensure that American inventors are not disadvantaged. Small American 
inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in those nations 
where there is no grace period.
  The grace period provision within H.R. 1249 would grant an inventor a 
one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to 
the time when he is required to file a patent.
  During this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this 
publication, stealing the idea, and quickly filing a patent behind the 
inventor's back.
  Yet, the only way for American inventors to benefit from the grace 
period provision contained in H.R. 1249 is to ensure that foreign 
countries adopt a grace period, as well.
  Small American inventors and universities are disadvantaged abroad in 
those nations where there is no grace period. As a result, they often 
lose the right to patent because these other countries do not care 
about protecting small business and university research.
  The United States needs to do more to protect the small inventor and 
universities not just here but abroad.
  Unfortunately, other countries will not do it on their own even 
though they want the United States to convert to a ``first-to-file'' 
system.
  If H.R. 1249 passes without my Amendment, we will be giving away a 
critical bargaining chip that we can use to encourage other countries 
to follow our lead.
  My Amendment ensures that the only way to benefit from the grace 
period in H.R. 1249 is to have foreign countries adopt a grace period.
  Without this Amendment, we will be unilaterally transitioning the 
United States to a ``first-to-file'' system with a weak grace period 
without any incentive for foreign countries to adopt a grace period.
  I should also note that identical language was included in H.R. 1908, 
the ``Patent Reform Act of 2007,'' which the House passed on September 
7, 2007.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, the Conyers amendment to tie the 
changes proposed in the America Invents Act to future changes that 
would

[[Page H4482]]

be made in foreign law is unworkable. I oppose providing a trigger in 
U.S. law that leaves our patent system at the mercy of actions to be 
taken at a future date by the Chinese, Russians, French, or any other 
country. It is our constitutional duty to write the laws for this great 
land. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the whims of foreign 
powers.
  I know that this idea has been floated in the past, but after working 
on several pieces of patent legislation over the past several 
Congresses, and particularly this year on H.R. 1249, it has become 
clear that this type of trigger idea is simply not workable and is 
counterproductive.
  The move to a first-inventor-to-file system creates a more efficient 
and reliable patent system that benefits all inventors, including 
independent inventors. The bill provides a more transparent and certain 
grace period, a key feature of U.S. law, and a more definite filing 
date that enables inventors to promote, fund, and market their 
technology, while making them less vulnerable to costly patent 
challenges that disadvantage independent inventors.
  Under first-inventor-to-file, an inventor submits an application to 
the Patent Office that describes their invention and how to make it. 
That, along with a $110 fee, gets them a provisional application and 
preserves their filing date. This allows the inventor an entire year to 
complete the application, while retaining the earlier filing date. By 
contrast, the cost of an interference proceeding before the PTO often 
runs to $500,000.
  The current first-to-invent system harms small businesses and 
independent inventors. Former PTO Commissioner Gerald Mossinghoff 
conducted a study that proves smaller entities are disadvantaged in PTO 
interference proceedings that arise from disputes over patent ownership 
under the current system. Independent inventors and small companies 
lose more often than they win in these disputes, plus bigger companies 
are better able to absorb the cost of participating in these protracted 
proceedings.
  In addition, many inventors also want protection for their patents 
outside the United States. If you plan on selling your product 
overseas, you need to secure an early filing date. If you don't have a 
clear filing date, you can be shut off from the overseas market. A 
change to first-inventor-to-file will help our businesses grow and 
ensure that American goods and services will be available in markets 
across the globe.
  In the last 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million 
patent applications filed has prevailed over the inventor who filed 
first. One out of 3 million. So there is no need for this amendment. 
Independent inventors lose to other applicants with deeper pockets that 
are better equipped to exploit the current complex legal environment.
  So the first-to-file change makes it easier and less complicated for 
U.S. inventors to get patent protection around the world. And it 
eliminates the legal bills that come with the interference proceedings 
under the current system. It is a key provision of this bill that 
should not be contingent upon actions by foreign powers and delay what 
would be positive reforms for independent inventors and our patent 
system.
  The first-inventor-to-file provision is necessary for U.S. 
competitiveness and innovation. It makes our patent system stronger, 
increases patent certainty, and reduces the cost of frivolous 
litigation.
  However, if you support the U.N. having military control over our 
troops, or if you support the concept of an international court at The 
Hague, then you would support this amendment's proposal of a trigger 
that subjects U.S. domestic law to the whims of governments in Europe, 
China, or Russia.
  It really would be unprecedented to hold U.S. law hostage to legal 
changes made overseas, and would completely go against what this great 
country stands for and what our Founders fought for: the independent 
rights and liberties we have today.
  For these reasons, Madam Chair, I am strongly opposed to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let's just note that Ms. Lofgren last night 
presented a case to this body which I felt demonstrated the danger that 
we have in this law. A move to first-to-file system, which is what this 
bill would do, without a corresponding 1-year grace period in other 
countries dramatically undermines the patent protection of American 
inventors. Some of us believe that's the purpose of this bill because 
they want to harmonize American law with the weak systems overseas.
  Well, without this amendment that we are talking about right now, 
without the Conyers-Rohrabacher amendment, if an inventor discloses his 
discoveries, perhaps to potential investors, his right to patent 
protection is essentially gone. It's not gone from just Americans. Yes, 
he would be protected under American law; but from all those people in 
foreign countries without a similar grace period to what we have here 
in our system, these people are not restricted. Thus, they could, once 
an American inventor discloses it, at any time they can go and file a 
patent and steal our inventors' discoveries.
  The only way for American inventors to benefit from a grace period 
here, which this bill is all about, is to ensure that foreign countries 
adopt the same grace period. And that's what this amendment would do. 
It would say our bill, which will make our inventors vulnerable to 
foreign theft, will not go into place until those foreign countries 
have put in place a similar grace period, which then would prevent them 
and their citizens from coming in and stealing our technology. Ms. 
Lofgren detailed last night in great detail how that would work.
  I call this bill basically the Unilateral Disclosure Act, if not the 
Patent Rip-Off Act, because we are disclosing to the world what we've 
got. And our people can't follow up on it because there's a grace 
period here, but overseas they don't have that same grace period. So 
what we're saying is, to prevent foreigners from stealing American 
technology, this will not go into effect until the President has issued 
a statement verifying that the other countries of the world have a 
similar grace period so they can't just at will rip off America's 
greatest entrepreneurs and inventors.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 5 (``Defense to Infringement Based on Prior 
     Commercial Use''), as amended, and redesignate succeeding 
     sections and references thereto (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly.
       Page 68, line 9, strike ``section 18'' and insert ``section 
     17''.
       Page 115, line 10, strike ``6(f)(2)(A)'' and insert 
     ``5(f)(2)(A)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chair, I rise to urge adoption of the Baldwin-Sensenbrenner 
amendment that strikes section 5 in the America Invents Act. Section 5 
expands the prior-user rights defense from its present narrow scope to 
broadly apply to all patents with minimal exceptions.
  As we work to rebuild our economy, Congress should be doing all that 
it can

[[Page H4483]]

to foster small business innovation and investment. I believe that 
section 5 will do just the opposite. Expanding prior-user rights will 
be disastrous for small American innovators, as well as university 
researchers, and ultimately slow job creation.
  Despite current challenges, the U.S. patent system remains the envy 
of the world. Since the founding of our Nation, inventions have been 
awarded exclusive rights in exchange for public disclosure. This system 
also creates incentives for investing in new ideas, fostering new ways 
of thinking, and encouraging further advancement and disclosures. It 
promotes progress.
  If proponents of expanding prior-user rights have their way with this 
legislation, they will give new rights to those who have previously 
developed and used the same process or product even if they never 
publicly divulged their innovation and never even applied for a patent. 
It will transform our patent system from one that values transparency 
to one that rewards secrecy.
  To understand why expanding prior-user rights runs counter to the 
public interest, it is important to reiterate how critical exclusive 
rights are for inventions to gain marketplace value and acquire 
capital. For start-ups and small businesses, raising necessary capital 
is vital and challenging. The expansion of prior-user rights would only 
make that task all the more difficult.
  Under the system proposed in the American Invents Act, investors 
would have no way of determining whether anyone had previously 
developed and used the process or product that they were seeking to 
patent. In such a scenario, a patent might be valuable or relatively 
worthless; and the inventor and potential investors would have no means 
of determining which was true.
  Madam Chairwoman, I would like to boast for a moment if I could about 
Stratatech, a fiercely innovative small business in Madison run by a 
top researcher at the University of Wisconsin who, through her research 
there, developed a human living skin substitute. This living skin is a 
groundbreaking treatment method that we hope will ultimately save the 
lives of American troops who have suffered burns while serving in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  The company was recently awarded nearly $4 million to continue 
clinical trials for their tissue product. And what can save lives in a 
desert combat setting abroad will assuredly transform the way doctors 
save lives of burn victims in hospitals around our country and around 
the world.
  Now, I wonder if Stratatech would have been able to drive this 
phenomenal innovation and life-saving technology as far as they have 
with a patent that provides only conditional exclusivity. Would 
investors have felt as secure advancing this technology in a system 
shrouded in secrecy? What if Stratatech's patent was subject to the 
claims of an unlimited number of people or companies who could later 
claim ``prior use''?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield myself 15 additional seconds.
  If we let section 5 stand, it is unclear to me whether a similar 
company would ever secure the funding that they need to grow.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the Baldwin-Sensenbrenner amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes the prior-
user rights provision from the bill. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  The bill expands prior-user rights--a strong, pro-job, pro-
manufacturing provision. This provision will help bring manufacturing 
jobs back to this country. It allows factories to continue using 
manufacturing processes without fear of costly litigation. It is 
absolutely a key component of this bill.
  This provision has the strong support of American manufacturers and 
the support of all the major university associations and technology-
transfer associations. These include the Association of American 
Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American 
Medical Colleges, Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, 
Association of University Technology Managers, and the Council on 
Government Relations representing the vast majority of American 
Universities. Prior-user rights ensure that the first inventor of a new 
process or product using manufacturing can continue to do so.
  This provision has been carefully crafted between stakeholders and 
the university community. The language provides an effective exclusion 
for most university patents, so this provision focuses on helping those 
in the private sector.
  The prior-use defense is not overly expansive and will protect 
American manufacturers from having to patent the hundreds or thousands 
of processes they already use in their plants.
  After getting initial input from the university community, they 
recommended that we make the additional changes reflected in this bill 
to ensure that prior-user rights will work effectively for all private 
sector stakeholders.
  Prior-user rights are important as part of our change to a first-to-
file system. I believe it is important to ensure that we include these 
rights to help our job-creating manufacturers across the United States. 
The philosophical objections of a lone tech-transfer office in 
Wisconsin should not counter the potential of this provision for job 
creation throughout America.
  There are potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of 
unemployed Americans who are looking for manufacturing jobs and could 
benefit from this provision. Without this provision, businesses say 
they may be unable to expand their factories and hire American workers 
if they are prevented from continuing to operate their facilities the 
way they have for years.

                              {time}  1430

  For many manufacturers, the patent system presents a catch-22. If 
they patent a process, they disclose it to the world and foreign 
manufacturers will learn of it and, in many cases, use it in secret 
without paying licensing fees. The patents issued on manufacturing 
processes are very difficult to police, and oftentimes patenting the 
idea simply means giving the invention away to foreign competitors. On 
the other hand, if the U.S. manufacturer doesn't patent the process, 
then under the current system a later party can get a patent and force 
the manufacturer to stop using a process that they independently 
invented and used.
  In recent years, it has become easier for a factory owner to idle or 
shut down parts of his plant and move operations and jobs overseas 
rather than risk their livelihood through an interference proceeding 
before the PTO. The America Invents Act does away with these 
proceedings and includes the pro-manufacturing and constitutional 
provision of prior-user rights.
  This provision creates a powerful incentive for manufacturers to 
build new plants and new facilities in the United States. Right now, 
all foreign countries recognize prior-user rights, and that has played 
a large role in attracting American manufacturing jobs and facilities 
to these countries. H.R. 1249 finally corrects this imbalance and 
strongly encourages businesses to create manufacturing jobs in this 
country.
  The prior-user rights provision promotes job creation in America. 
Prior-user rights will help manufacturers, small business and other 
innovative industries strengthen our economy. It will help our 
businesses grow and allow innovation to flourish.
  I strongly support prior-user rights, and so I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 1\1/
4\ minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, this expansion of prior-user rights 
is a step in the wrong direction. It goes against what this House 
determined 4 years ago when we last debated this issue, and also it is 
different than what the Senate has done in March of this year.
  The fundamental principle of patent law is disclosure, and the 
provision in this bill that the amendment seeks to strike goes directly 
against disclosure and instead encourages people who may invent not to 
even file for a patent, and that will slow down research

[[Page H4484]]

and expanding the knowledge of humans.
  The gentleman from Texas talks about manufacturing. I am all for 
manufacturing. I think we all are all for manufacturing. But what this 
does is it helps old manufacturing, which we need to help, but it also 
puts new manufacturing in the deep freeze because they use the 
disclosures that are required as a part of a patent application.
  You vote for the amendment if you want disclosure and advancement of 
human knowledge. You vote against the amendment if you want secrecy in 
this process.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting CHAIR announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Moore

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 139, insert the following after line 12 and 
     redesignate succeeding sections (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly:

     SEC. 29. ESTABLISHMENT OF METHODS FOR STUDYING THE DIVERSITY 
                   OF APPLICANTS.

       The Director shall, not later than the end of the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     establish methods for studying the diversity of patent 
     applicants, including those applicants who are minorities, 
     women, or veterans. The Director shall not use the results of 
     such study to provide any preferential treatment to patent 
     applicants.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would ensure that we have the proper data to identify 
and work with sectors of the U.S. economy that are participating in the 
patent process at significantly lower rates.
  Specifically, my amendment allows the USPTO to develop methods for 
ways to track the diversity of patent applicants. It also specifically 
prohibits the office from using any such results for any preferential 
treatment in the application process.
  I certainly do applaud the USPTO for their outreach to the Women's 
Chamber of Commerce and to the National Minority Enterprise Development 
Conferences to try to increase diversity with utilizing the patent 
process. But some recent data have raised concern that minorities and 
women-owned businesses are just not keeping up with the patent process.
  Preliminary data from a 2009 Kauffman Foundation survey of new 
businesses show that minority-owned technology companies hold fewer 
patents and copyrights after the fifth year of starting than comparable 
nonminority businesses. In fact, the Kauffman data show that minority-
owned firms with patents hold only two on average, compared with the 
eight of their counterparts. Another survey uses National Science 
Foundation data to suggest that women commercialize their patents 7 
percent less than their male counterparts.
  Now, the best example I can think of this is the late great George 
Washington Carver, who we all know discovered 300 uses for peanuts and 
hundreds more for other plants. He went on to help local farmers with 
many improvements to their farm equipment, ingredients, and chemicals. 
However, Carver only applied for three patents.
  Some historians have written on whether or not Eli Whitney was, 
indeed, the original inventor of the cotton gin or whether the 
invention could have originated from the slave community. At the time, 
slaves were unable to register an invention with the Patent Office, and 
the owner could not patent on their behalf because of the requirement 
to be an original inventor.
  Now, African Americans and women have a long history of inventing 
some of the most influential products in our society, but we also 
simply do not have enough information to further explore and explain 
these results. And as our government and industry leaders look into 
these problems and possibly fix these deficiencies, they run into a 
major hurdle.
  Currently, the Patent and Trade Office only knows the name and 
general location of a patent applicant. In most cases, only the 
physical street address that the office collects is for the listed 
patent attorney on the application. Such limited information prevents 
us from fully understanding the nature and scope of the 
underrepresentation of minority communities in intellectual property. 
Until we can truly understand the nature of this problem, we cannot 
address it or do the appropriate outreach.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I just want to say to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I appreciate her offering the 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. MOORE. I certainly again want to commend efforts from Director 
Kappos and the Patent and Trade Office that, despite their not having 
to do it, they do reach out to women and minority communities to try to 
get them to utilize the Patent Office.
  I can say that the ability to innovate and create is just one part of 
the equation. The key to success for minorities in our community as a 
whole also depends upon the ability to get protection for their 
intellectual property.
  I urge the body to vote for this amendment.
  I would yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 139, insert the following after line 12 and 
     redesignate succeeding sections (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly:

     SEC. 29. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the patent system should 
     promote industries to continue to develop new technologies 
     that spur growth and create jobs across the country which 
     includes protecting the rights of small businesses and 
     inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the 
     cutting off of innovation.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, as I rise to offer my 
amendment, I take just a moment of personal privilege to say that, 
whatever side Members are on on this issue, I know that Members want to 
protect the genius of America.
  I would like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for that 
commitment, as he comes from one of the original genius proponents, and 
that is the auto industry that propelled America into the job creation 
of the century, and to the chairperson of the committee, Mr. Smith, who 
ventured out in efforts to provide opportunities for protecting, again, 
the opportunities for invention and genius.

                              {time}  1440

  My amendment speaks, I think, in particular to the vast population of 
startups and small businesses that are impacted by this legislation. In 
particular, it is a reinforcement of Congress' position that indicates 
that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop 
new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, 
which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors 
from predatory

[[Page H4485]]

behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.
  We recognize that small and minority businesses and women-owned 
businesses, which dominate the landscape of America, are really major 
job creators. Small business is thriving in my own home State of Texas, 
as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, 
accounting for 98.7 percent of the State's employers and 46.8 of its 
private sector employment. We know that there are a large number of 
women-owned businesses and as well growing African American and Latino. 
But we need more growth--with Asian businesses, small businesses, 
Hispanic, Native American, African American--all forms of businesses 
that are part of growing this economy.
  Small business makes up a large portion of our employer network. It 
is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of 
patent reform. In this first-to-file, for example, small businesses may 
in fact be concerned about trying to get investors. As they get 
investors, they may have to disclose. This sense of Congress will put 
us on notice that we need to be careful that we allow at least the 
opportunity for these investors, and that we continue to look at the 
bill to ensure that it responds to that opportunity. We must recognize 
again, as I said, that small businesses create jobs. And the number of 
new jobs that they have created are 64 percent of net jobs over the 
past 15 years. My amendment, again, reinforces the idea that small 
businesses can survive in this climate.
  I did offer an amendment which provided for a transitional review 
program for 5 years or add for that to be sunsetted. It was all about 
trying to protect our small businesses. But I believe this amendment, 
with its firm statement, gathers Congress around the idea that nothing 
in this bill will inhibit small businesses from being creative. We can 
as well recognize all of the growth that has come about from the ideas 
of small businesses.
  I think my amendment also reinforces that we do not wish to engage in 
any undue taking of property because we indicate that we want to see 
the innovativeness of American businesses continue. I believe this is 
an important statement, because the bill is about innovation, genius, 
creation, job creation, and it should be about small businesses. Small 
businesses should be as comfortable with going to the Patent Office as 
our large businesses. In years to come, because of this major reform, 
we should see small businesses creating opportunity for growth as they 
develop not into small-and medium-sized but huge international 
companies.
  So I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment, and as well I 
am recognizing that we do have the opportunity to turn the corner and 
to put a stamp of new job creation on America.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1249, the ``America 
Invents Act.'' My amendment adds a section to the end of the bill 
expressing the sense of Congress that ``the patent system should 
promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur 
growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting 
the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior 
that could result in the cutting off of innovation.''
  We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small 
companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their 
inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their 
valuable intellectual property. Several studies, including those by the 
National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, 
recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought 
were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued.
  The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as 
businesses which employ less than 500 employees.
  According to the Department of Commerce in 2006 there were 6 million 
small employers representing around 99.7% of the nation's employers and 
50.2% of its private-sector employment.
  In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28% 
while black owned was around 5%. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent 
change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5% while 
the number for men went down 1.5%.
  Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There 
were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7% of 
the state's employers and 46.8% of its private-sector employment.
  In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses 
compared to over 1 million owned by men.
  88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are 
Hispanic, and 16,000 are Native Americans.
  Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer 
network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a 
result of patent reform.
  Given the current state of the economy, we cannot afford to overlook 
the opportunities for job growth that small businesses create.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the 1992 and 
2005, small businesses accounted for 65% of quarterly net employment 
growth in the private sector.
  Even in unsteady economic times, small businesses can be counted on 
for job creation. Between 1992 and 2004, the net job creation rate was 
the highest at the smallest establishments.
  Small Businesses Create Jobs. It is a fact. According to the Small 
Business Administration, small businesses:
  Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
  Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
  Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
  Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product 
(GDP).
  Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, 
and computer programmers).
  Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 
percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
  Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting 
firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be 
among the one percent most cited.
  Many successful business owners will credit at least part of their 
success to the ability to innovate--in technologies, in strategies, and 
in business models. A huge part of this innovation comes from the 
ability to create and patent ideas.
  According to a study conducted by Business Week, half of all business 
innovation resources are dedicated to creating new products or 
services.
  Patents are the driving force behind this product innovation, and 
without strong patent protection, businesses will lack the incentive to 
attract customers and contribute to economic growth.
  While I am happy to be here debating this all important amendment to 
this bill, it is unfortunate that some of my other amendments 
supporting small businesses and acknowledging the ``takings clause'' in 
the U.S. Constitution were not accepted. In yesterday's Rules Committee 
meeting, I offered a number of amendments:
  I offered amendments that ensure the inclusion of minority and women 
owned businesses in the definition of ``small entities'' to ensure they 
receive the benefits of reduced user fees.
  I also offered an amendment ensuring the inclusion of Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions 
amongst entities that receive fee discounts.
  Another pro-small business amendment I offered would have extended 
the grace period for small businesses from one year to 18 months, 
enabling them enough time to secure financial support and develop their 
invention in order to bring it to market.
  Section 18 of the bill, which creates a transitional review program 
for business method patents, has raised concerns about the potential to 
create situations which could run afoul of the ``takings clause'' in 
the U.S. Constitution. To address these concerns, I offered a number of 
amendments:
  One of my amendments would have shortened the sunset on Section 18 
from 10 years to 5 years.
  I also introduced an amendment that would have required the Director 
of the USPTO to make a determination of whether or not a condition 
causing an unlawful taking is created by this section.
  Lastly, I introduced a sense of Congress amendment that affirms that 
no provisions in this bill should create a unconstitutional taking.
  Despite my concerns with certain provisions in this bill, overall, I 
believe H.R. 1249 will usher in the reforms needed to improve the 
patent system, making it more effective and efficient, and therefore 
encouraging innovation and job creation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I understand the underlying point of 
the Member's amendment, and I want to make it clear that my 
interpretation of this amendment and its intent is to

[[Page H4486]]

highlight the problem posed by entities that pose as financial or 
technological businesses but whose sole purpose is not to create but to 
sue. I am talking about patent trolls--those entities that vacuum up 
patents by the hundreds or thousands and whose only innovations occur 
in the courtroom. This sense of Congress shows how these patent trolls 
can hurt small businesses and independent inventors before they even 
have a chance to get off the ground. This bill is designed to help all 
inventors and ensure that small businesses will continue to be a 
fountain for job creation and innovation.
  For these reasons, Madam Chair, I support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Lujan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. LUJAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 135, line 22, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Page 135, after line 22, insert the following:
       (C) shall evaluate and consider the extent to which the 
     purposes of satellite offices listed under subsection (b) 
     will be achieved;
       (D) shall consider the availability of scientific and 
     technically knowledgeable personnel in the region from which 
     to draw new patent examiners at minimal recruitment cost; and
       (E) shall consider the economic impact to the region.
       Page 136, line 9, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, including an explanation of how the selected 
     location will achieve the purposes of satellite offices 
     listed under subsection (b) and how the required 
     considerations listed under subsection (c) were met''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. The America Invents Act provides 
for the creation of United States Patent and Trademark Office satellite 
offices. For many small businesses and independent inventors, 
navigating the patent application process can be challenging. Small 
businesses, entrepreneurs, and innovators are the foundation of our 
economy but do not always have the resources that larger corporations 
or institutions have to assist them in obtaining a patent. By improving 
access to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, satellite 
offices have the potential to help small businesses and independent 
inventors navigate the patent application process. However, this bill 
essentially provides no guidance to determine the location of such 
satellites offices.
  While the language in the bill contains stated purposes for satellite 
offices, it does not specify that these purposes be part of the 
selection process. This amendment makes it explicit that the purposes 
of the satellite offices, which are included in the underlying bill, 
such as increasing outreach activities to better connect patent filers 
and innovators with the USPTO, be part of the selection process. It 
also specifies that the economic impact to the region be considered, as 
well as the availability of knowledgeable personnel, so that the new 
patent examiners can be hired at minimal recruitment costs, saving 
taxpayers money.
  The selection of USPTO satellite offices should be done in a way that 
supports economic growth and puts investors and inventors on a path to 
success. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I urge the 
adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, though I am in favor of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, section 23 of the bill requires the 
PTO Director to establish three or more satellite offices in the United 
States, subject to available resources. The provision lists criteria 
that the Director must take into account when selecting each office. 
This is a good addition to H.R. 1249, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it. I also hope that one of those offices is in Austin, Texas.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUJAN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, because of the graciousness of 
the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, and the chairman, Mr. Smith, of 
agreeing to my amendment, Jackson Lee No. 5 that was just debated, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a record vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Without objection, the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 5 
is withdrawn and the amendment stands adopted by the voice vote 
thereon.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1450


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Peters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. PETERS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 139, insert the following after line 12 and 
     redesignate succeeding sections (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly:

     SEC. 29. USPTO STUDY ON INTERNATIONAL PATENT PROTECTIONS FOR 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) Study Required.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration, shall, using the existing resources 
     of the Office, carry out a study--
       (1) to determine how the Office, in coordination with other 
     Federal departments and agencies, can best help small 
     businesses with international patent protection; and
       (2) whether, in order to help small businesses pay for the 
     costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international 
     patent applications, there should be established either--
       (A) a revolving fund loan program to make loans to small 
     businesses to defray the costs of such applications, 
     maintenance, and enforcement and related technical 
     assistance; or
       (B) a grant program to defray the costs of such 
     applications, maintenance, and enforcement and related 
     technical assistance.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall issue a report to 
     the Congress containing--
       (1) all findings and determinations made in carrying out 
     the study required under subsection (a);
       (2) a statement of whether the determination was made 
     that--
       (A) a revolving fund loan program described under 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) should be established;
       (B) a grant program described under subsection (a)(2)(B) 
     should be established; or
       (C) neither such program should be established; and
       (3) any legislative recommendations the Director may have 
     developed in carrying out such study.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. While the America Invents Act makes a number of important 
changes to our patent system which are targeted at reducing the USPTO's 
backlogs and driving innovation, I believe that we must do more to help 
our Nation's small businesses compete in the global marketplace. 
Success in the global economy depends more and more on IP assets. 
America's IP-intensive industries employ nearly 18 million workers at 
all education and skill levels and represent 60 percent of U.S. 
exports.
  While obtaining a U.S. patent is a critical first step for our 
innovators towards recouping their R&D costs, capitalizing on their 
inventions and creating jobs, a U.S. patent only provides

[[Page H4487]]

protection against infringement here at home. If inventors do not 
register in a foreign market, such as China, they have no protection 
there if the Chinese economy begins production of their patented 
inventions. Not only is a foreign patent protection necessary to ensure 
the ability to enforce patent rights abroad; it is necessary to defend 
American inventors against foreign lawsuits.
  High costs, along with language and technical barriers, prevent many 
American small businesses from filing for foreign patent protection. 
Lack of patent protection both at home and abroad increases uncertainty 
for innovators and the likelihood of piracy. While we must reduce 
backlogs at the USPTO to make domestic patent protection more 
attainable, we must also look forward to find ways to help our 
manufacturers and other IP-intensive industries compete globally.
  This is why I am offering a commonsense, bipartisan amendment to the 
America Invents Act along with my colleague, Representative Renacci, 
whom I would also like to thank for working with me on this important 
issue.
  This amendment mandates a USPTO-led study with SBA to determine the 
best method to help small businesses obtain, maintain and enforce 
foreign patents. This study is to be conducted using existing resources 
at no cost to the taxpayers, and does not alter the score of the bill. 
I believe our amendment will help Congress and the USPTO determine the 
best ways to help American small businesses protect their IP assets, 
compete globally and boost exports.
  I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers for 
working with us on this amendment; and I urge passage of the Peters-
Renacci amendment.
  I yield my remaining time to my colleague from Ohio, Representative 
Renacci.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. RENACCI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and also for his hard 
work on the amendment on behalf of American small businesses.
  I rise today in strong support of the Peters-Renacci amendment--a 
commonsense, no-cost study to determine the best method for American 
small businesses to obtain and enforce patent protections in foreign 
countries.
  Industries that rely on intellectual property employ nearly 18 
million American workers and represent 60 percent of American exports. 
As these industries continue to grow globally, foreign patent 
protection will become increasingly important to protect these workers' 
jobs, promote exports and expand our economy.
  Our economy is becoming more global by the day, with foreign 
innovators testing the outer reaches of imagination and enjoying the 
strong support of their home nations. China, for example, is becoming 
increasingly aggressive at protecting their innovators' intellectual 
property rights and is subsidizing applications for foreign patents. We 
must develop a way here at home to make American small businesses 
equally competitive in the foreign marketplace. In order to compete 
with China, we have to stand behind our innovators with equal force.
  Our amendment simply directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to 
conduct a joint study with the Small Business Administration to issue 
recommendations on how America can do just that. Furthermore, this 
study is to be completed within 120 days, giving the 112th Congress 
ample time to implement its recommendations.
  Not only are jobs and the economy paramount, but promoting American 
innovation is also important. Innovation is about much more than 
economic growth. It breaks boundaries, connects people from distant 
lands, fires the imagination, and sends a message of hope to those who 
need it most. Americans should be on the cutting edge of innovation, 
and this amendment is a good first step toward that direction.
  I would again like to thank Mr. Peters as well as Chairman Smith and 
Ranking Member Conyers. I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I understand the underlying point of 
the Member's amendment, but other legislation and patent reform in 
particular have taught us that even small changes can have unintended 
consequences unless they have been vetted and have gone through the 
regular committee process.
  The problem is in the details. This amendment is drafted as a study. 
I agree with the first part of the amendment but not the second because 
its objectives are written very much like a piece of legislation. It 
seeks to create support for a new program whereby taxpayer funds would 
be used to pay patent fees in foreign countries.
  I am strongly committed to helping our small businesses and 
independent inventors secure their rights and have a level playing 
field abroad, but I can't support a result that could create a new 
entitlement program, a new bureaucracy and the transferring of taxpayer 
dollars directly to the treasuries of foreign governments. We should 
not use taxpayer funds to pay patent filing fees to foreign 
governments.
  I do agree with the first part of this study, and am interested to 
see how the PTO, in coordination with other agencies, can figure out 
ways to help small businesses with international patent protection. I 
hope that this will be the focus of the study. The results of this 
study will show that small business outreach and educational and 
technical assistance programs are the most effective tools for small 
business and independent inventors.
  I think that the PTO needs to continue its efforts to reach out to 
small businesses and independent inventors. This bill includes a 
provision which creates a permanent small business ombudsman at the PTO 
to work with small businesses to help them secure their patent rights. 
The PTO also conducts small business outreach programs throughout the 
country, teaching small businesses about IP enforcement and how to 
protect their intellectual property both at home and abroad.
  Though I do not agree with the policy outline in the second part of 
the study and will strongly recommend that the PTO and SBA determine 
that such a program should not be established, I will support this 
amendment to initiate the study, and I hope that the bulk of it will 
focus on how to better utilize existing government resources for 
education and technical assistance to help small businesses with 
international patent protection.
  Before I yield back the balance of my time, I hope that the movers of 
this amendment might be willing to reassure me and others about the 
intent and goals of this study.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. PETERS. I just appreciate the support for this amendment. It is 
an important amendment that will give us information we can then use to 
support our small businesses as they're doing business abroad, and I 
urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Polis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 108, beginning on line 18, strike ``pending on, or 
     filed on or after,'' and insert ``filed on or after''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, H.R. 1249 correctly changes the policy 
involving tax strategy patents. Under current law, although it was 
current law that was never specifically contemplated by lawmakers, tax 
strategy methods are

[[Page H4488]]

patentable. Now these tax strategy patents have complicated the tax 
filing process and have allowed commonsense filing techniques to be 
patentable, so H.R. 1249 removes this complication by mandating that 
tax strategies are deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed 
invention from the prior art.
  I strongly support this provision. However, there are a number of 
folks who are currently involved with the process of applying for tax 
strategy patents, and in effect, we risk changing the rules of the game 
retroactively for them, a form of takings. There are currently 160 tax 
strategy patent applications in the process. Many of the inventors have 
decided to devote thousands of hours of time to disclose their 
innovations. Again, had this window of patentability never been 
opened--and it never should have been--this would not have been an 
issue because these inventors would have retained their innovations as 
trade secrets.

                              {time}  1500

  However, you can't blame them for saying, okay, there's a window on 
patentability; I will disclose so that I can have the 17-year 
exclusive. And now the risk is that that calculation that they made to 
disclose is being changed retroactively insofar as they will no longer 
have the ability to protect their innovation as a trade secret.
  In their patent applications, these applicants have described how to 
make and use their invention. Many have even provided computer 
programs, including code, to carry them out. The patent applications 
have been published, and some of them are pending for many years. 
Changing the law midstream fundamentally hurts these applicants who did 
all that was proper under the law at the time they filed their patent 
application.
  The underlying bill as drafted would make those patent applications 
useless; and because the patent applications have been published, the 
patent applicant will get nothing for disclosing their secrets, except 
the expense of pursuing a patent and of course the ability of others to 
replicate their innovation. Competitors will be free to use their 
disclosures in the published patent application process.
  Changing the law midstream simply sends the wrong message to 
inventors that one cannot trust the law that is in place when they file 
a patent. Congress would be sending a message, unless my amendment is 
incorporated into the underlying bill, that all inventors on any 
subject matter may have their disclosures taken away from them after 
they have made the decision to apply for a patent by retroactively 
negating the possibility of them receiving a patent.
  Tax strategy patents should never have been allowed under the law. I 
think there's broad agreement among all of us in this Chamber on that 
topic. It's unfortunate that there was a window. However, rational 
inventors, making a conscious choice, said, hey, in favor of 
disclosing, I will then accept a 17-year monopoly, and are now being 
penalized for making what was a very reasonable decision.
  Restore equity to the America Invents Act by supporting my amendment. 
I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support this, which 
effectively addresses only those 160 applications that are in effect 
now. It certainly continues and am in support of the ban on future 
patents for tax strategies, but there seem to be very few alternatives 
or remedies to the takings that would otherwise occur under this bill 
unless my amendment is incorporated.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the Intellectual Property 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Increasingly, individuals and companies are filing patents to protect 
tax strategies. When one individual or business is given the exclusive 
right to a particular method of complying with the Tax Code, it 
increases the costs and complexity for every other citizen or tax 
preparer to comply with the Tax Code. It is not difficult to foresee a 
situation where taxpayers are forced to choose between paying a royalty 
in order to reap the best tax treatment and complying with the Tax Code 
in another, less favorable way. Tax strategy patents add additional 
costs and complications to an already overly complex process, and this 
is not what Congress intended when it passed the Federal tax laws or 
the patent laws.
  The problem of tax strategy patents has been a growing concern for 
over a decade. Over 140 tax strategy patents have already been issued, 
and more applications are pending. Tax strategy patents have the 
potential to affect tens of millions of everyday taxpayers, many who do 
not even realize these patents exist. The Tax Code is already 
complicated enough without also expecting taxpayers and their advisers 
to become ongoing experts in patent law.
  That is why I advocated for inclusion in H.R. 1249 of a provision to 
ban tax strategy patents. H.R. 1249 contains such a provision which 
deems tax strategies insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention 
from the prior art. This will help ensure that no more tax strategy 
patents are granted by the PTO.
  Importantly, the House worked hard to find a compromise that will 
ensure Americans have equal access to the best methods of complying 
with the Tax Code, while also preserving the ability of U.S. technology 
companies to develop innovative tax preparation and financial 
management solutions. I believe the language in H.R. 1249 does just 
that.
  This amendment would allow any tax strategy patent that was filed as 
of the date of enactment of the bill to move toward issuance by the 
PTO. However, tax strategy patents are bad public policy whether they 
were filed the day before or the day after this bill happens to be 
enacted. The effective date in the underlying bill rightly applies to 
any patent applications pending on the date of enactment.
  In order to reduce the cost of filing taxes for all Americans and to 
restore common sense to our patent system, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from 
Colorado, but I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would cover not only those patent applications that 
were on file yesterday but, as I understand it, also those that are 
filed tomorrow. Tax strategy patents are a bad idea, as the American 
Institute of Certified Public Accountants states. ``It's bad public 
policy. No one should be granted a monopoly over a form of compliance 
with the Federal Tax Code.''
  This amendment is opposed not only by the American Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants but also my colleague, co-chair of the CPA 
Caucus, Mike Conaway, and a majority of the CPA and accountants caucus, 
together with the American College of Trusts and Estate Counsel and the 
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards.
  Keep in mind, the purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation. 
What interest does the Federal Government have in encouraging 
innovative ways to avoid paying taxes to the Federal Government? It is 
now time to draw a line against patents on tax compliance.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment to change the effective date for 
the tax strategy method section of the bill.
  It is possible to patent tax strategy methods, but it is bad policy. 
It is not fair to permit patents on techniques regularly used to 
satisfy a government mandate, such as one that requires individuals and 
businesses to pay taxes.
  Tax preparers, lawyers, and planners have a long history of sharing 
their knowledge regarding how to file returns, plan estates, and advise 
clients. They maintain that allowing the patentability of tax strategy 
methods will complicate the tax filing process and inhibit the ability 
of preparers to provide quality services for their clients.
  The effective date applies to any patent application that is pending 
on, or

[[Page H4489]]

filed on or after, the date of enactment and to any patent that is 
issued on or after that date.
  The gentleman's amendment eliminates the application of this 
provision to those applications pending on the date of enactment. These 
applications have not been approved so I disagree with excluding these 
patents-in-waiting.
  It was a mistake for the PTO to issue these patents in the first 
place, given their potential to harm individual taxpayers and tax 
return preparers. We shouldn't leave the door ajar by allowing more 
applications in. This just compounds the very problem we're trying to 
solve.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 32. CALCULATION OF 60-DAY PERIOD FOR APPLICATION OF 
                   PATENT TERM EXTENSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 156(d)(1) of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     flush sentence:

     ``For purposes of determining the date on which a product 
     receives permission under the second sentence of this 
     paragraph, if such permission is transmitted after 4:30 P.M., 
     Eastern Time, on a business day, or is transmitted on a day 
     that is not a business day, the product shall be deemed to 
     receive such permission on the next business day. For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `business day' 
     means any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, 
     excluding any legal holiday under section 6103 of title 5.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any application for extension of a patent term 
     under section 156 of title 35, United States Code, that is 
     pending on, that is filed after, or as to which a decision 
     regarding the application is subject to judicial review on, 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. This bipartisan amendment makes a technical revision to 
H.R. 1249. It addresses the confusion regarding the calculation of the 
filing period for patent term extension applications under the Hatch-
Waxman Act. By eliminating confusion regarding the deadline for patent 
term extension applications, this amendment provides the certainty 
necessary to encourage costly investments in life-saving medical 
research. It also is consistent with the only court case to address 
this issue entitled, The Medicines Co. v. Kappos. As a result of this 
amendment, all applications and cases will be treated henceforth in the 
same manner.
  I also want to point out that this exact language has passed the 
House overwhelmingly on a voice vote in the past, and the prior version 
of the provision was unanimously passed by the House on two previous 
occasions and was also in another instance voted out by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. It was also accepted in a 
voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee at a markup earlier this 
year.

                              {time}  1510

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, in 2001, a biotech entity called the 
Medicines Company, or MedCo, submitted an application for a patent 
extension that the PTO ruled was 1 day late. This application would 
have extended patent protection for a drug the company developed called 
Angiomax. In August 2010, a U.S. district court ordered the PTO to use 
a more consistent way of determining whether the patent holder 
submitted a timely patent extension application. The PTO is 
implementing that decision and believes the court's decision resolves 
the problem for MedCo. Because of this ongoing litigation, the 
manager's amendment struck language pertaining to MedCo. The Conyers 
amendment seeks to reinsert that provision.
  The Conyers amendment essentially codifies the district court's 
decision, but it ignores the fact that this case is on appeal. We need 
to let the courts resolve the pending litigation. It is standard 
practice for Congress not to interfere when there is ongoing 
litigation. If the Federal circuit rules against MedCo, generic 
manufacturers of the drug could enter the marketplace immediately 
rather than waiting another 5 years. This has the potential to save 
billions of dollars in health care expenses. While the amendment is 
drafted so as to apply to other companies similarly situated, as a 
practical matter, this is a special fix for one company.
  Finally, it would be more appropriate for this to be considered as a 
private relief bill. Private relief bills are designed to provide 
benefits to a specific individual or corporate entity. The House and 
the Judiciary Committee have procedures in place to ensure that such 
bills are properly vetted. This amendment ignores those procedures and 
denies Members the opportunity to know the consequences of what they 
are voting on.
  To summarize, Madam Chair, we should not interfere with ongoing 
litigation which may be unprecedented, and we should give this issue 
regular process in the Judiciary Committee.
  I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, this amendment eliminates confusion 
regarding the deadline for filing patent term extensions under the 
Hatch-Waxman Act and provides the certainty needed to encourage 
critical medical research. It also promotes good government by ensuring 
that the Patent Office and the FDA adopt consistent interpretations of 
the very same statutory language. And finally, this amendment is 
consistent with the only court decision addressing this issue. The 
court stated that the interpretation that is reflected in this 
amendment--this is from the court--is ``consistent with the statute's 
text, structure, and purpose.''
  Right now, America's next Lipitor or Prozac could be bottled up at 
the Patent Office and never made available because of uncertainty 
regarding the patent term extension process. In order to uncork 
American innovation and invention, we need a patent extension process 
that is clear, consistent, and fair. That's exactly what the Conyers 
amendment does. It enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it confirms and 
clarifies existing law. It is cost-neutral.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield, unfortunately only 75 seconds, to my good 
friend, also from Massachusetts, Mr. Richard Neal.
  Mr. NEAL. Madam Chair, I understand Mr. Smith's position here, but 
the truth is that when he suggests that we're doing things that are 
interfering with ongoing court tests, there have been a series of votes 
here already about the health care law and guaranteed to have more 
coming in this institution. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time on 
that suggestion.
  But I rise today in support of the amendment. It addresses the 
deadline for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch-
Waxman Act. By adopting a clear standard, the amendment would provide 
the opportunity and certainty needed to allow innovators to conduct the 
time-consuming and expensive medical research necessary to bring new 
lifesaving drugs to market.
  The amendment clarifies the law in a manner that tracks the only 
court decision to have addressed this particular provision. It will 
ensure that all applications and all cases are treated the same. 
Because the amendment merely

[[Page H4490]]

confirms existing law, it is budget-neutral.
  The amendment enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle. I hope 
that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I am proud now to yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas, Mike Pompeo.
  Mr. POMPEO. I rise in support of this amendment.
  As a former business owner, compliance with senseless government 
regulations was one of my biggest frustrations and, honestly, one of 
the primary reasons I ran for Congress. But it is impossible to comply 
with regulations when you get two different interpretations from two 
different agencies, and that's what we have here with this intellectual 
property rule.
  The PTO and the FDA have established two different standards, and 
this amendment simply seeks to fix that, to give an identical outcome 
from two different agencies that resulted from different 
interpretations of the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984.
  Inventors shouldn't have to guess. We can make a clean deadline. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey, Scott Garrett.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 45 
seconds.
  Mr. GARRETT. Madam Chair, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides for the 
extension of patent terms covering drug products that must be approved 
by the FDA. And the extension that we're talking about here, while 
seemingly straightforward, the Patent Office and the FDA have 
interpreted it, as we have said, in two different ways, creating 
uncertainty that has led to miscalculations.
  So our amendment, consistent with a court ruling, will clarify that 
when the FDA provides the final approval after normal business hours, 
the 60-day clock begins on the next business day. So by doing this, by 
ensuring that patent holders will not lose their rights prematurely, 
what this amendment does is it will not only resolve a longstanding 
problem but will encourage the development of innovative new drugs as 
well.
  With that, I urge the adoption of this very commonsense amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Speier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 16, line 3, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, including requiring parties to provide sufficient 
     evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, my amendment enhances the derivations 
proceedings provision in the first-inventor-to-file section of the 
bill.
  As we know, the U.S. Patent Office is a vital tool that facilitates 
universities and businesses of all sizes to turn ideas and discoveries 
into successful products. Having said that, we must ensure that our 
patent system provides strong and predictable intellectual property 
protections.
  This act creates a new process called ``derivation,'' by which a 
party can defeat an earlier filed patent application by showing that 
the invention in the earlier application was derived from the party's 
invention or concept. The bill requires a party to support a petition 
for derivation by ``substantial evidence'' in order to initiate a 
proceeding.
  The derivation proceedings in this legislation must be a process that 
is fair, reliable, and permits the Patent and Trademark Office to make 
a decision based on a solid record of relevant evidence. This amendment 
helps to accomplish this by requiring the PTO to provide rules for the 
exchange of relevant information by both parties.
  The substantial evidence threshold at the petition stage of the 
proceedings may not be reasonable in some circumstances. For example, 
consider a situation where an inventor discloses an invention to a 
venture capitalist who declines to invest in it. The venture capitalist 
has conversations with several other VCs about the invention, and 
eventually a company funded by one of those VCs files a patent 
application for something very much like the original invention. If a 
company funded by the original VC has filed the application, the 
inventor would be able to show substantial evidence of derivation 
through the disclosure to the VC and the link between the VC and the 
company filing the application. However, in the instance when an 
inventor did not personally make a disclosure to other VCs or the 
company that filed an application, it would be difficult for the 
inventor to show substantial evidence, particularly relevant to 
disclosures about which the inventor is unaware.
  The public's interest in fostering innovation requires that the 
derivation proceedings be equitable to both parties and that the PTO 
have a complete record of evidence on which to make its decision. 
Inventors must have a fair chance to prove their claim, and defending 
parties must be able to provide evidence to rebut claims. This 
amendment accomplishes these goals by requiring the PTO to provide 
rules for the exchange of relevant information and evidence by both 
parties.

                              {time}  1520

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I think this is a good amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of this legislation.
  I am a strong supporter, as many of you know, of what we call our 
Make It In America agenda. ``Make It In America'' simply means that 
we're going to provide jobs, we're going to provide opportunities, and 
we're going to build the manufacturing sector of our economy. In order 
to do that, we also need to enhance the inventive, innovative, and 
development phases of our economy. This bill, I think, will facilitate 
this.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman from California for this amendment as 
well, which I think improves this bill, and I rise in strong support 
and urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. I 
congratulate all of those who have worked on this legislation.
  It is, obviously, not perfect. But then again, no piece of 
legislation that we adopt is perfect. It is, however, a significant 
step forward to make sure that America remains the inventive, 
innovative, development capital of the world. In order to do that, we 
need to manufacture goods here in America; manufacture the goods that 
we invent, innovate, and develop. Because if we continue to take them 
to scale overseas, then the inventors, innovators, and developers will 
themselves move overseas.
  So I thank Mr. Smith, I thank Mr. Watt, and I thank others who have 
worked so hard on this legislation, Ms. Lofgren as well, who have 
dedicated themselves to try to make sure that we have a context and 
environment in America which will facilitate the inventive, innovative 
sector of our economy.

[[Page H4491]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, we were expecting Congresswoman Waters. I 
would ask unanimous consent that this amendment be delayed until we can 
determine whether she is still planning to offer it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee of the Whole is unable to reorder the 
amendments.
  Mr. WATT. In that case, I offer the amendment as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from California.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 139, insert the following after line 12 and 
     redesignate succeeding sections (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly:

     SEC. 29. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
solely to say that this is a straightforward amendment that provides 
that if one part of the bill is determined to be unconstitutional, it 
can be severable from the rest of the bill and it doesn't bring the 
rest of the provisions down. That's a standard policy to put in most 
legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, although I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, I have just been advised that we were mistaken 
in the desire of Ms. Waters to offer the amendment. She didn't want me 
to offer it in her stead, and that's why she didn't show up.
  I would just ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, unless 
the chairman has an objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3 (``First Inventor to File''), as amended, 
     beginning on page 5, line 1, and redesignate succeeding 
     sections and references thereto (and conform the table of 
     contents) accordingly.
       Page 68, line 9, strike ``section 18'' and all that follows 
     through ``3(n)(1)'' on line 11 and insert ``section 17 and in 
     paragraph (3), shall apply to any patent for which an 
     application is filed on or after that effective date''.
       Page 74, line 3, strike ``derivation'' and insert 
     ``interference''.
       Page 74, line 7, strike ``derivation'' and insert 
     ``interference''.
       Page 76, line 7, strike ``Derivation'' and insert 
     ``Interference''.
       Page 76, lines 7 and 8, strike ``a derivation'' and insert 
     ``an interference''.
       Page 76, lines 12 and 25, strike ``derivation'' and insert 
     ``interference''.
       Page 77, line 6, strike ``a derivation'' and insert ``an 
     interference''.
       Page 77, line 10, strike ``derivation'' and insert 
     ``interference''.
       Page 77, line 23, strike ``a derivation'' and insert ``an 
     interference''.
       In section 7 (``Patent Trial and Appeal Board''), as 
     amended, strike subsection (d) (``Conforming Amendments'') 
     and insert the following:
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Amendments to title 35.--Sections 134, 145, 146, 154, 
     and 305 of title 35, United States Code, are each amended by 
     striking ``Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences'' each 
     place that term appears and inserting ``Patent Trial and 
     Appeal Board''.
       (2) Atomic energy act of 1954.--Section 152 of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2182) is amended, in the third 
     undesignated paragraph, by striking ``Board of Patent Appeals 
     and Interferences'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Patent Trial and Appeal Board''.
       (3) Title 51.--Section 20135 of title 51, United States 
     Code, is amended, in subsections (e) and (f), by striking 
     ``Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Patent Trial and Appeal Board''.
       Page 113, line 20, strike ``as in effect'' and all that 
     follows through ``3(n)(1),'' on line 22.
       Page 113, line 25, strike ``(as in'' and all that follows 
     through ``date)'' on page 114, line 1.
       Page 114, line 9, strike ``(as in effect'' and all that 
     follows through ``3(n)(1)'' on line 11.
       Page 115, line 10, strike ``6(f)(2)(A)'' and insert 
     ``5(f)(2)(A)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chair, section 3 of this bill creates a first-to-file patent 
system. The sponsors believe that the United States should harmonize 
with other countries' first-to-file systems. There's no reason to do 
that.
  Our patent system is the strongest in the world, and it's based upon 
the first recognition of the Constitution in any country that inventors 
should be protected. I think that the Constitution empowers Congress to 
give patents only to inventors. We had a significant constitutional 
argument on this issue yesterday. If the amendment is not adopted, the 
issue will be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court.
  The current first-to-invent system has been key in encouraging 
entrepreneurial innovation and evens the playing field for individual 
inventors who are not represented by a major industry. The first-
inventor-to-file system violates the Constitution because it would 
award a patent to the winner of the race to the PTO and not the actual 
inventor who makes the first discovery.
  If we change to a first-to-file system, inventors who believe they do 
not have sufficient resources to win the race to the PTO will not have 
any motivation at all to continue developing the new invention. This 
will stifle innovation, and given the current state of our economy, 
that's the last thing we need.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  First-to-file also invites excessive filing and will add to the 
burden of the USPTO by increasing the examiner's workload. We already 
have financing problems there. If this amendment is not adopted, it 
will be worse.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment strikes 
the first-inventor-to-file provisions from the bill. I strongly oppose 
the amendment.
  The move to a first-inventor-to-file system creates a more efficient 
and reliable patent system that benefits all inventors, including 
independent inventors. This provision provides a more transparent and 
certain grace period, a key feature of U.S. law, and a more definite 
filing date that enables inventors to promote, fund, and market their 
technology while making them less vulnerable to costly patent 
challenges that disadvantage independent inventors.
  The first-inventor-to-file system is absolutely consistent with the 
Constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the inventor. 
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has stated that the ``provision 
is constitutional and helps assure that the patent laws of this country 
accomplish the goal set forth in the Constitution: `to promote the 
Progress of Science and useful Arts.' ''
  Under first-inventor-to-file, patent rights are reserved to someone 
who

[[Page H4492]]

independently conceived of an invention before it was in the public 
domain. And under the Constitution, that is what is required to be 
considered an ``inventor.''

                              {time}  1530

  In fact, early American patent law, that of our Founders' generation, 
did not concern itself with who was the first to invent. The U.S. 
operated under a first-inventor-to-register system for nearly half a 
century, starting in 1790. The first-inventor-to-register system is 
similar to first-inventor-to-file, a system that the Founders 
themselves supported early in our Nation's history.
  The courts did not even concern themselves with who was the first 
person to invent until 1870, with the creation of interference 
proceedings. Those proceedings are the ones that disadvantage 
independent inventors and small businesses. And over the years, and in 
subsequent revisions of the law, those proceedings have morphed into a 
costly litigation tactic.
  Under first-inventor-to-file, an inventor submits an application to 
the Patent Office that describes their invention and how to make it. 
That, along with just a $110 fee, gets them a provisional application 
and preserves their filing date. This allows the inventor an entire 
year to complete the application, while retaining the earlier filing 
date. By contrast, the cost of an interference proceeding in today's 
law could run an inventor $500,000.
  Accusations that the bill doesn't preserve the 1-year grace period 
are simply false. This bill provides a stronger, more transparent and 
certain 1-year grace period for disclosures. This enhances protection 
for inventors who have made a public or private disclosure of their 
invention during the grace period.
  The grace period protects the ability of an inventor to discuss or 
write about their ideas for a patent up to 1 year before they file for 
patent protection. These simple requirements create a priority date 
that is fixed and public so that everyone in the world can measure the 
patent against competing applications and patents and relevant prior 
art.
  In addition, many inventors also want protection for their patents 
outside of the United States. If you plan on selling your product 
overseas, you need to secure an early filing date. If you don't have a 
clear filing date, you can be shut out from the overseas market. A 
change to a first-inventor-to-file system will help our businesses grow 
and ensure that American goods and services will be available in 
markets across the globe.
  The current first-to-invent system seriously disadvantages small 
businesses and independent inventors. Former PTO Commissioner Gerald 
Mossinghoff conducted a study that proved smaller entities are 
disadvantaged in PTO interference proceedings that arise from disputes 
over patent ownership under the current system.
  In the last 7 years, only one independent inventor out of 3 million 
patent applications filed has proved an earlier date of invention than 
the inventor who filed first.
  Madam Chair, let me repeat that: in the last 7 years, only one 
independent inventor out of 3 million patent applications filed has 
proved an earlier date of invention than the inventor who filed first. 
Independent inventors lose to other applicants with deeper pockets that 
are better equipped to exploit the current complex legal environment.
  So the first-inventor-to-file change makes it easier and less 
complicated for U.S. inventors to secure their patent rights, and it 
protects their patents overseas. And it eliminates the legal bills that 
come with interference proceedings under the current system. It is a 
key provision of this bill.
  Madam Chair, the amendment should not be approved, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I find myself in reluctant opposition to my 
colleague from Texas in support of the Sensenbrenner amendment. Section 
3 shifts our patent system from the unique first-to-invent system to a 
first-to-file system.
  As I speak to inventors, startups, venture capitalists and angel 
investors in California, I'm convinced that the proposed transition to 
first-to-file would be harmful to innovation and burdensome to the most 
dynamic and innovative sector of our economy.
  With the shift to first-to-file, the rush to the Patent Office will 
lead to new costs for small businesses as they prepare applications for 
inventions that they may ultimately find impractical. For small 
startups, the cost of retaining outside counsel for this purpose will 
be a drain on their limited resources and mean less money for hiring 
and the actual act of innovation.
  Supporters of first-to-file argue inventors can turn to provisional 
applications to protect their patent rights. But from talking to small 
inventors, I have learned that good provisional applications require 
substantial legal fees and time investment on the part of the inventor 
to make them sufficiently detailed to be of use.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into the bill by 
the gentleman from Texas. However, I remain deeply concerned that the 
shift to first-to-file will have lasting negative consequences for 
small investors, and I urge the House to improve the bill by adopting 
the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Madam Chair, following is my statement in its entirety: I rise in 
support of the Sensenbrenner amendment to strike Section 3 of the 
underlying legislation. Section 3 shifts our patent system from our 
unique First to Invent system to a First to File system. As I speak to 
inventors, startups, venture capitalists and angel investors in 
California, I am convinced that the proposed transition to First to 
File would be harmful to innovation and burdensome to the most dynamic 
and innovative sector of our economy.
  With the shift to First to File, the rush to the patent office will 
lead to new costs for small businesses as they prepare applications for 
inventions that they ultimately find impractical. The result will be 
more and lower quality patent applications, undermining the improved 
patent quality H.R. 1249 seeks to achieve. For small startups, the 
costs of retaining outside counsel for this purpose will be a drain on 
their limited resources, and it will mean less money for hiring and the 
actual act of invention.
  Supporters of First to File argue that it will increase certainty in 
the patent process, but I am skeptical that any such gains in 
efficiency will result. The interference proceedings at the PTO that 
are used to resovle disputes regarding patent rights are rare, 
representing only a tiny fraction of patent filings. Moreover, there is 
an established, century old body of law on FIrst to Invent. It will 
take years, if not decades, for similar clarity to develop on a First 
to File.
  Supporters of First to File argue that inventors can turn to 
provisional applications to protect their patent rights. That sounds 
good in theory, but from talking to small inventors I have learned that 
good provisional applications require substantial legal fees and time 
investment on the part of the inventor to make them sufficiently 
detailed to be of any use should another entity file a similar patent 
application.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the hard work that has gone into this bill 
and the leadership of the gentleman from Texas. However, I remain 
deeply concerned that the shift to First to File will have lasting 
negative consequences for small inventors, and I urge the House to 
improve the bill by adopting the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the 
Sensenbrenner amendment. Actually, I don't agree that first-to-file is 
unconstitutional, and I, in general, am not opposed to the idea of 
first-to-file.
  But, unfortunately, the bill is flawed, and you cannot have first-to-
file without robust prior-user rights and a broad prior-user rights 
used in the grace period. We don't have that in this bill.
  And so what we will have are established businesses having to either 
reveal trade secrets or be held up, have to license their own trade 
secrets. For startups this is a very serious problem. And coming from 
Silicon Valley, I'll tell you I've heard from a lot of startups and the 
venture world that supports them that this provision is defective.
  There were other remedies. They were not adopted. All we can do now 
is

[[Page H4493]]

to strike the first-to-file provision. I do that without any 
reluctance. It will serve our economy best. And I thank the gentleman 
for offering his amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Chair, the reason that first-to-invent is important is that it 
allows an inventor to talk to investors, conduct trial and error 
innovation and deal with leaks, because commercially important patent 
rights are determined by ordinary, nonburdensome business activities.
  Where this hurts the ordinary inventor by going to first-to-file is 
that he needs to get his venture capital together, and then go ahead 
and file for a patent. With first-to-file, he has to put all of the 
money up front to file in order to protect himself; and what that will 
do is have a chilling effect on the small inventor who needs to get 
capital in order to perfect a patent and in order to market it. That's 
why this amendment should be adopted. I urge the Members to do so.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 10 (beginning on page 81, line 14; ``Fee 
     Setting Authority''), as amended, and insert the following 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 10. ELECTRONIC FILING INCENTIVE.

       (a) In General.--An additional fee of $400 shall be 
     established for each application for an original patent, 
     except for a design, plant, or provisional application, that 
     is not filed by electronic means as prescribed by the 
     Director. The fee established by this subsection shall be 
     reduced by 50 percent for small entities that qualify for 
     reduced fees under section 41(h)(1) of title 35, United 
     States Code. All fees paid under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as an offsetting receipt that shall 
     not be available for obligation or expenditure.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon 
     the expiration of the 60-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, there are a lot of problems with this bill 
as we have heard about already. In fact, on the wall of my office here 
in Washington, I have two pictures, among many. One is a picture of W. 
Edwards Deming and myself, taken just before he passed away in 1993--
the real inventor of Lee Manufacturing. The other is of Dr. Ray 
Damadian, the inventor of the MRI who, when examining this legislation, 
said if the new changes had taken place in the patent law, had they 
been part of the patent system when he invented the MRI, the MRI never 
would have been invented. He knows more than anybody how flawed this 
bill is.
  I want to focus in particular on section 10 of the bill, which allows 
the Director of the Patent Office to set fees. I'm very concerned about 
this because, in the last patent fight, in 2004, when I chaired the 
House Small Business Committee, in return for supporting higher fees 
with a reduced rate structure for small businesses, the provision in 
that bill allowing the PTO Director to set fees was removed.

                              {time}  1540

  This new bill abrogates that hard-won compromise and allows the 
director of the PTO to set the fees. It is not wise for the legislative 
branch to give up more power and authority to the executive branch. I 
know it's inconvenient to have Congress set fees, but that's the job of 
Congress, not the job of an unelected bureaucrat.
  When I chaired the House Small Business Committee, I continued the 
tradition of preventing the SBA from unilaterally being able to set 
fees to whatever level they sought. I don't see why we have to do this 
with the PTO. Now in the present bill, section 11 actually lowers fees 
for small business people and has a good patent fee structure. However, 
section 10 would allow the PTO Director to proceed with the 
administrative process to eviscerate that section and impose its own 
fees.
  To compound the problem, the Patent Office has been saying for years 
that if they had the authority to raise fees, they would. In 2002, the 
PTO strategic plan said they needed to have a fee based upon a 
progressive system aimed at limiting applications. In 2010, in the 
white paper on patent reform, they said the same thing.
  The Patent Office's idea of cutting back on the backlog is to raise 
fees. That doesn't make sense. But let's eliminate that authority from 
the Patent Office. Let's leave that authority with the United States 
Congress.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment 
to strike the PTO fee-setting authority from H.R. 1249.
  Although the PTO has the ability to set certain fees by regulation, 
most fees are set by Congress. History has shown that such a scheme 
does not allow the PTO to respond to the challenges that confront it.
  The PTO, most stakeholders, and the Judiciary Committee have agreed 
for years that the agency must have fee-setting authority to address 
its growing workload. This need is critical. The agency's backlog 
exceeds 1 million patent applications. This means it takes 3 years to 
get a patent in the United States--far too long. The wasted time leads 
to lost commercial opportunities, fewer jobs, and fewer new products 
for American consumers. Moreover, the new fee structure will not only 
retain the existing 50 percent discount for small businesses, it 
creates a new 75 percent discount for micro entities. This benefit 
helps independent inventors and small businesses.
  The bill allows the PTO to set or adjust all of its fees, including 
those related to patents and trademarks, so long as they do no more 
than reasonably compensate the agency for the services performed.
  To the charge that we are abandoning our oversight of the process, I 
urge the Members to review the oversight mechanisms in the bill. For 
example, prior to setting such fees, the director must give notice to 
and receive input from the Patent Public Advisory Committee or the 
Trademark Public Advisory Committee. The director may also reduce fees 
for any given fiscal year, but only after consultation with the 
advisory committees.
  The bill details the procedures for how the director shall consult 
with the advisory committees, which includes providing for public 
hearings and the dissemination to the public of any recommendations 
made by either advisory committee.
  Fees shall be prescribed by rule. Any proposed fee change shall be 
published in the Federal Register and include the specific rationale 
and purpose for the proposed change.
  The director must seek public comments for no less than 45 days. The 
director must also notify Congress of any final decision regarding 
proposed fees. Congress shall have no more than 45 days to consider and 
comment on any proposed fee, but no proposed fee shall be effective 
prior to the expiration of this 45-day period.
  Congress will remain part of the process, but PTO is better able to 
respond to their own resource needs, which, after all, will benefit 
patent holders and subsequently the economy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Intellectual Property 
Subcommittee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2\1/
2\ minutes.

[[Page H4494]]

  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Senate-passed patent bill granted the PTO fee-setting authority 
into perpetuity. The Senate's goal was laudable. It wanted to allow the 
PTO to have control over the fees that it charges so that it would have 
more certainty about rolling out new programs and hiring new examiners 
to deal with pendency and quality issues. We have, as you know, a very 
long backlog--3 years, 1 million patents. However, I had strong 
concerns with granting this much authority to a government agency.
  Currently, the PTO must come before Congress to request any fee 
increases. This forces the PTO to use its current resources in the most 
efficient manner and also strengthens Congress' hand when it comes to 
oversight over the agency. Thus, I worked to get a provision into the 
House bill that would sunset the PTO's fee-setting authority. The bill 
now terminates the fee-setting authority after 7 years unless Congress 
proactively acts to extend it. This will allow the PTO sufficient time 
to structure its fees but will ensure that Congress continues to have a 
strong influence over that process.
  And I might add that the manager's amendment to the bill also 
strengthens Congress' hand and limits the objective of the PTO to 
arbitrarily raise its fees because the Congress still appropriates the 
funds and can only escrow funds--can't divert them to another purpose, 
but escrows them. PTO will have to come back to the Congress and 
justify additional funds it receives.
  I believe the bill, as it is written right now, strikes the right 
balance. And I urge Members to oppose this amendment, which would 
altogether eliminate PTO fee-setting authority.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chair, you don't strike the right balance between an inventor's 
constitutional right to file for an invention and giving a patent czar 
the authority to keep him out of the box by allowing him to raise the 
fees. Mr. Smith from Texas said it himself; he coupled patent backlog 
with the ability of the patent director to set the fees. That can only 
lead to one conclusion: They're going to raise the fees in order to cut 
down on the patent backlog. It doesn't make sense.
  This is the people's House. The Patent Office is the people's house 
for the little inventor. He must have every opportunity to exercise his 
constitutional right and file that patent. But if Congress cedes the 
authority to set those fees to a new authority of the patent director--
or we can call him now the patent czar--that patent czar will control 
for 7 years, at the minimum, the flow of traffic coming through his 
office. And you know who gets slowed? Do you know who gets hurt? It's 
the little guy. And the purpose of my amendment is to protect the 
little guy to make sure those fees are not raised, and also to make 
sure that the people in this country elect representatives in Congress 
because it's our job to set the fees, not the job of an unelected 
person, the person in charge of the Patent Office.
  I would therefore urge my colleagues to vote for the Manzullo 
amendment, to support the little inventor, to support the spirit of 
entrepreneurship in this country.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 73, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
       (i) Inapplicability of Post-grant Review to Certain Small 
     Entities.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a patent granted to a United States citizen, an 
     individually lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 
     United States, or a United States company with less than 100 
     employees shall not be subject to any form of post-grant 
     review or reexamination.
       (2) Rulemaking.--The Director shall issue such regulations 
     as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. In this debate, Madam Chairman, we have heard over 
and over and over again about the gridlock at the Patent Office, which 
is supposedly what we're trying to correct with this legislation, H.R. 
1249, which I have been contending is not designed to help the Patent 
Office, but to harmonize American law with the rest of the world and 
make it weaker patent protection for our people.
  But what does it do about the backlog, if that's really what people 
are concerned about? H.R. 1249 would actually tremendously add to the 
PTO backlog by requiring further post-grant review proceedings at the 
Patent Office, proceedings which would consume even more limited 
personnel and money. Added procedures add to the gridlock at the PTO, 
at the Patent Office, and it will also do what? It will break the back 
of small inventors and startup companies who are trying to get a new 
product on the market.

                              {time}  1550

  It will empower the multinational and foreign corporations who can 
grind down the little guy, because what we are doing in this bill is 
adding even further procedures they have to go through, even after they 
have got their patent issued to them.
  This is the big guy versus little guy legislation. That was even 
pointed out by the Hoover Institution, which did an analysis of this 
bill and said, ``The American Invents Act will protect large entrenched 
companies at the expense of market challenging competitors.''
  ``A patent should be challenged in court, not in the U.S. Patent 
Office.''
  ``A politicized patent system will further entrench those companies 
with the largest lobbying shops on K Street.''
  ``The bill wreaks havoc on property rights, and predictable property 
rights are essential for economic growth.''
  ``If America weakens its patent enforcement at home, it will set a 
dangerous precedent overseas.''
  ``The America Invents Act would inject massive uncertainty into the 
patent system.''
  This is a travesty. It is an attack on American well-being, because 
we depend on our small inventors to come up with the ideas. The Kaptur-
Rohrabacher amendment limits this new burden. If we can't get rid of 
it, at least we can limit this new burden of all these post-grant 
reviews they are going to add to companies that have more than 100 
employees. It frees up the Patent Office personnel to do their job, 
helps with that gridlock, and protects the small business man and small 
inventors at the same time.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the Kaptur-Rohrabacher 
amendment.
  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge my colleagues 
to support the Rohrabacher-Kaptur amendment, which ensures fairness for 
small and independent inventors. Without it, this bill will destroy 
American job creation and innovation since it throws out 220 years of 
patent protections for individual inventors.
  Our amendment addresses a major shortcoming of the bill by 
eliminating the burden of post-grant reviews and reexaminations on 
individual inventors and small businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
  The new procedures and regulations in this bill will make it 
extremely difficult for the average citizen to ever get a patent or 
defend one without our amendment. Our amendment clearly gives the 
Patent Office the authority to issue appropriate regulations that

[[Page H4495]]

ensure that the new regulatory burdens in this bill do not 
disproportionately impact individual inventors. This amendment is about 
ensuring fairness for small inventors.
  We urge our colleagues to support the Kaptur-Rohrabacher amendment so 
all inventors in America have a chance to realize their dreams, and, in 
realizing their dreams, assuring that we will have robust innovation 
and job creation in our country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, our amendment empowers the 
Director of the Patent Office to extend this 100-employee standard to 
other small businesses and individual inventors overseas if this is 
required by a treaty; yes, small businesses and individual inventors 
overseas. So our amendment does nothing to violate any treaty 
obligations by giving our own people special rights over foreign 
individuals.
  What it does do, however, is prevent foreign corporations from 
grinding down our inventors here, like they grind down their inventors 
overseas. This is what we are doing to prevent a harmonization of our 
laws, because we don't want weaker patent protection for our people. 
They already got it overseas against their foreign corporations that 
grind them down. We want to protect our own people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, almost everyone in Congress wants to 
help small businesses. They are the foundation of our economy and are 
the primary job creators. But this amendment includes certain terms or 
phrases that have nothing to do with the underlying goal that it 
purports to achieve.
  This amendment appears to focus on small businesses, but in reality 
the amendment attempts to provide the trial lawyer lobby and patent 
trolls with an exemption from PTO reexamination, allowing them to 
continue suing job creators using frivolous or questionable patents. 
This amendment has nothing to do with small businesses and everything 
to do with providing an exemption for some of the worst offenders of 
our patent system.
  This amendment will not help independent inventors or small 
businesses. Small businesses need the PTO reexamination proceedings. 
Those proceedings strengthen patents, and strong patents are what 
investors look for when making decisions about whether or not to 
provide venture capital funding.
  The argument that reexam proceedings harass or hurt small businesses 
is just plain wrong. The reexam proceedings are a cheaper, quicker, 
better alternative to resolve questions of patentability than costly 
litigation in Federal court, which can run into the millions of dollars 
and last for years. This amendment is an immunity agreement for patent 
trolls, those entities who do not create jobs or innovation but simply 
game the legal system.
  Additionally, this amendment appears to violate our international 
obligations under the TRIPS agreement. Under TRIPS, we are obligated 
not to discriminate against any field of technology or categories of 
patent holders. By providing an exemption from all reexamination 
proceedings for technological patents granted to patent trolls or 
nonpracticing entities, this would create a clear violation of our 
legal obligations.
  Our patent system should be designed to ensure that it produces 
strong patents and patent certainty. The PTO reexamination proceedings 
help ensure that these important goals are accomplished. This amendment 
bars any form of reexam for U.S.-owned patents and, thus, would also 
prevent U.S. inventors themselves from using supplemental examination 
to even be able to correct errors in the record about their own 
patents.
  This amendment creates a huge loophole in our patent system by 
exempting entities with 100 or fewer employees. This will not help 
small businesses but will allow patent troll entities, foreign 
companies, and foreign governments to manipulate our patent system. It 
would bar use of the business-methods transitional proceeding against 
most business-method patents.
  This amendment is a recipe for allowing patent trolls and foreign 
companies and their governments to bypass normal post-grant challenges 
and enables weak or questionable patents to bypass further scrutiny. 
There is no legitimate public policy objective in exempting large 
numbers of those who manipulate our patent system from the rules of the 
road. It is for these reasons that I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which is a bad idea. Post-grant review is one of the most 
important provisions in this bill. It allows third parties, for a 
limited window of 9 months after a patent is issued, to submit evidence 
that the patent should not have been granted in the first place.
  This allows third parties, many of whom will be small businesses 
themselves who are familiar with the subject matter, to provide a check 
on patent examiners. If the evidence shows that the patent is indeed 
invalid, then the patent applicant should never have received the 
patent in the first place. If the evidence shows that the patent is 
valid, then the patent is made stronger and more certain by surviving a 
post-grant review.
  The amendment would exempt small businesses from the post-grant 
opposition proceeding. However, the quality of a patent examination 
does not hinge on the size of the applicant, whether it was a small 
business, an independent inventor, or a large corporation. It hinges on 
the PTO job of scrutinizing that patent. A bogus patent held by an 
independent inventor is no less deserving of a second look than a bogus 
patent held by a Fortune 500 company.
  For these reasons, I urge opposition to this very bad amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to refute Mr. Smith's argument. In fact, he 
has manufactured an argument against our amendment that says it will 
violate WTO obligations, specifically citing TRIPS. He seems to object 
to the use of references to American citizens and U.S. companies, but 
obviously failed to read the entire amendment which allows the Patent 
Office to issue relevant regulations for properly implementing this 
amendment. And if he was so concerned about WTO compliance, he should 
strike section 18 of his own bill which is clearly WTO noncompliant 
because it creates a special class for only one industry, the banking 
industry.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and for the 
Rohrabacher-Kaptur amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Schock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in part B of House Report 112-111.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 112, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 
     118, line 2, and redesignate succeeding sections and 
     references thereto (and conform the table of contents) 
     accordingly.
       Page 68, line 9, strike ``in section 18 and''.

                              {time}  1600

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Schock) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H4496]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SCHOCK. I thought when we started this Congress that we had 
agreed to no more earmarks, no more handouts, no more special 
privileges for any specific industry. But based on reading H.R. 1249, 
it's obvious to see that it includes controversial language which does 
just that--section 18, which sets forth a new and different process for 
certain business method patents for any other patents seeking approval.
  Section 18 carves out a niche of business method patents covering 
technology used specifically in the financial industry and would create 
a special class of patents in the financial services field subject to 
their own distinctive post-grant administrative review. This new 
process allows for retroactive reviews of already-proven patents that 
have undergone initial scrutiny, review, and have even been upheld in 
court. Now these patents will be subjected to an unprecedented new 
level of interrogation.
  The other side will argue that somehow magically a number of these 
financially related patents breezed through the patent office and thus 
must be reviewed. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. In 
fact, the allowance rate for these business method patents is the 
smallest of any of the art forms. In fact, roughly 10 percent of those 
business method patents applied for are actually approved.
  At a time when these small entrepreneurs and innovators need to be 
dedicating their resources and new advancements to innovation, they 
will instead, because of section 18, be required to divert research 
funds to lawyers to fight the deep pockets of Wall Street, who will now 
attempt to attack their right to hold these financially related 
patents.
  With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. It strikes a useful 
provision that would provide a way to review the validity of certain 
business method patents. The proceeding would create an inexpensive and 
faster alternative to litigation, allowing parties to resolve their 
disputes rather than spending millions of dollars that litigation now 
costs. In the process, the proceeding would also prevent nuisance or 
extortion lawsuits.
  This provision is strongly supported by community banks, credit 
unions, and other institutions that are an important source of lending 
to homeowners and small businesses. Finally, this bill only creates a 
new mechanism for reviewing the validity of business method patents. It 
does not alter the validity of those patents. Under settled precedent, 
the transitional review program is absolutely constitutional.
  Madam Chair, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. GRIMM. I rise today to call on my colleagues to oppose the 
Schock-Waters amendment. This amendment would strike one of the 
legislation's most important reforms, a crackdown on low-quality 
business method patents, which have weakened the patent system and cost 
companies and their customers millions of dollars. Infamous patent 
trolls--people who aggressively try to enforce patents through courts 
in friendly venues--have made business method patents their specialty 
in recent years. These same patent trolls have funded an elaborate 
propaganda campaign targeting the reforms in section 18.
  Let us simply set the record straight. Section 18 allows patent 
experts to reexamine through temporary pilot programs legally 
questionable business method patents, a problem that the Patent Office 
has already said it is ready and willing to tackle. Opponents have 
asserted that the measure would help only the banks. This isn't true. 
The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have 
endorsed this provision. Companies impacted include McDonald's, 
Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowes. These don't sound 
like banks to me.
  Opponents also claim that this section is unconstitutional.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. GRIMM. Again, there has been a tremendous propaganda campaign 
basically to sell untruths that we simply need to get past. The truth 
is, this is best for the small guy. If we really care about the small 
inventors that create innovation in this country, then we should oppose 
this amendment.
  Don't take my word for it--read the words of Judge Michael 
McConnell--once the most influential federal appeal court judge in the 
nation--and now the head of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford 
Law School:
  He said, ``There is nothing novel or unprecedented, much less 
unconstitutional, about the procedures proposed,'' and ``we can state 
with confidence that the proposed legislation is supported by settled 
precedent.''
  I think it is time we stop listening to patent trolls who abuse our 
court system, and start listening to the businesses that drive job 
creation and economic growth in this country.
  Madam Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill 
and oppose the Schock-Waters amendment to strike Section 18.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the cosponsor 
of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong 
support of the Schock-Boren-Waters-Sensenbrenner-Franks-Kaptur 
amendment to strike section 18. For years, the too-big-to-fail banks 
have attempted to eliminate their patent infringement liabilities to 
smaller companies and inventors that have patented financial services-
related business method patents. They are now coming to Congress in 
hopes that you will help them steal a specific type of innovation and 
legislatively take other financial services-related business method 
patents referenced in H.R. 1249, section 18. This is simply wrong.
  Elected Members of Congress should not allow the banks to use us to 
steal legally issued and valid patents. Financial services-related 
business method patents have saved financial services companies 
billions of dollars. But that's not enough for the banks. Because the 
banks have failed at every attempt to void these patents, they're 
attempting to use their power to write into law what they could not 
achieve at PTO or in the courts.
  Don't be tricked, don't be fooled, and don't be used. I urge my 
colleagues to listen to the floor debates.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who is a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that would 
eliminate section 18 of the underlying patent reform bill. Section 18 
empowers the Patent and Trademark Office to review the validity of so-
called business method patents. This language was drafted in close 
cooperation with the Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of 
Commerce. It also enjoys the wide bipartisan support of the Judiciary 
Committee, which defeated a similar amendment during committee 
consideration of this bill.
  Further, this amendment does not hurt any legitimate inventors. It 
only allows for the review of abstract patents issued since 1988 when a 
Federal court ruled that business methods could be patented--a ruling 
which the U.S. Supreme Court limited significantly last year.
  What are these business methods I'm talking about? In one case, a 
business method patent was issued for interactive fund-raising across a 
data packet transferring computer network. Once obtained, the patent 
holder sued the Red Cross for soliciting charitable contributions on 
the Internet, claiming that his patent covers this entire field. In 
another example, a patent was granted covering the printing of 
marketing materials on billing statements.
  These patents, and many others in this space, are not legitimate 
patents that help advance America. They are nuisance patents used to 
sue legitimate businesses and nonprofit business organizations like the 
Red Cross or any other merchants who engage in normal activity that 
should never be patented. In fact, this language will not go after any 
legitimate patent, but only allow a

[[Page H4497]]

review of illegitimate patents, like those looking to patent the 
``office water cooler discussion.'' No legitimate inventor needs to 
worry about a post-grant review. In fact, under this section, the PTO 
cannot even look at a patent unless they determine that it ``more 
likely than not'' would be invalid. That's a very high standard.
  Let's help America grow and succeed and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend and 
cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
that I've coauthored with Mr. Schock. During my time in Congress I have 
been a consistent supporter of small businesses. Here on the House 
floor we are told nearly every day that small businesses are the engine 
of our Nation's economy, and there's no discounting that fact.
  If included in the final bill, I believe section 18 will pose a 
devastating threat to America's small business community. Business 
method patents already endure a lengthy approval process, and section 
18 would only make it more difficult for inventors to defend their 
patents.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
There is no doubt that the PTO has issued business method patents of 
questionable merit over the years. Many of these patents are still on 
the books. Unfortunately, many of these patents are being used by 
aggressive trial lawyers to extort money from deep pockets. Section 18 
of the bill simply creates a process that allows experts at the PTO to 
reexamine the types of business method patents that the PTO believes to 
be of the poorest quality. This section was drafted in close 
coordination with the USPTO and is a pilot program that simply allows 
them to review certain business methods patents against the best prior 
art in a reexamination process.

                              {time}  1610

  Why would anyone oppose a process that allows low-quality patents, as 
identified by the USPTO, to be reviewed by the experts?
  Business method patents on financial activities are the type of 
patents that are the subject of lawsuits and abuse most often. They are 
litigated at a rate 39 times greater than any other patents. Section 18 
is designed to correct a fundamental flaw in the system that is costing 
consumers millions each year. The provision is supported by a broad 
bipartisan coalition that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  I urge Members to reject this amendment, which strikes an important 
litigation reform provision in the underlying bill.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of my time 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCHOCK. I now yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. 
Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I might just say 
that, in answer to the question raised by my friend from Virginia ``why 
would anyone oppose this?'' it is because of the Constitution.
  This provision, section 18, is clearly violative of the Constitution. 
It would have you believe that you could go to court, an article III 
court, and have a final decision--a final judgment--rendered by a 
court, including a jury. Then after that, there's not an appeal to an 
appellate court but an appeal somehow back to an administrative agency?
  Does anybody sense there is a violation of the separation of powers? 
Does anybody understand what the Court said in the Plaut case, which 
said that the Constitution gives the Federal judiciary the power to not 
merely rule on cases but to decide them subject to review only by 
superior courts in article III hierarchy?
  You can argue all you want, but that's what the Supreme Court says.
  This is an obvious, blatant violation of the Constitution. That's the 
answer to my friends who say we have to have this provision. Yes, it 
may be that the U.S. Constitution is the inconvenient truth here. We 
are not allowed to violate it even though we do it with the best of 
intentions.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Chairman, for so many reasons, this provision of the 
bill is flawed. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the repeal 
of section 18, and simply ask this:
  Regardless of where your support lies as to the underlying bill, why 
are we doing something separate for financial services patents? Why are 
we doing something separate for the business method patents? Shouldn't 
all reforms affect all patents and all industries?
  I would argue this is an earmark and a special provision for one 
industry, and for so many reasons would ask for a ``yes'' vote on my 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chair, I want to clarify that Section 18 is 
designed to address the problem of low-quality business method patents 
that are commonly associated with the Federal Circuit's 1998 State 
Street decision. Not all business method patents are eligible for 
review by the patent office under Section 18. Towards that end, Section 
18 of the bill specifically exempts ``patents for technological 
inventions'' from review.
  Patents for technological inventions are those patents whose novelty 
turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are 
concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical 
solution. The technological innovation exception does not exclude a 
patent simply because it recites technology. Inventions related to 
manufacturing and machines that do not simply use known technology to 
accomplish a novel business process would be excluded from review under 
Section 18.
  Section 18 would not cover patents related to the manufacture and 
distribution of machinery to count, sort, and authenticate currency. It 
is the intention of Section 18 to not review mechanical inventions 
related to the manufacture and distribution of machinery to count, sort 
and authenticate currency like change sorters and machines that scan 
currency whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the 
prior art. These types of patents would not be eligible for review 
under this program.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I would like to place in the record my 
understanding that the definition of ``covered business method 
patent,'' Section 18(d)(1) of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, is 
intended to be narrowly construed to target only those business method 
patents that are unique to the financial services industry in the sense 
that they are patents which only a financial services provider would 
use to furnish a financial product or service. The example that I have 
been given is a patent relating to electronic check scanning, which is 
the type of invention that only the financial services industry would 
utilize as a means of providing improved or more efficient banking 
services. In contrast, Section 18 would not encompass a patent that can 
be used in other industries, but which a financial services provider 
might also use. Lastly, it is also my understanding from discussions 
with the Committee that Section 18 is targeted only towards patents for 
non-technological inventions.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the America Invents 
Act. This is a historic bill. It will drive innovation, create jobs, 
improve patent quality, and reduce frivolous litigation. This is a good 
bill for current and future patent holders--big and small.
  I do rise today with some disappointment, however, that opponents of 
this bill have recklessly spread misinformation about the bill and some 
of its most important provisions. The move to first inventor to file is 
wholly constitutional and it will strengthen the patent system for 
entrepreneurs and small businesses. They will no longer have to compete 
with big business to prove the validity of their patents after filing.
  Mr. Chair, I would also like to speak to one of the legislation's 
most important reforms--a crackdown on low-quality business-method 
patents, which have weakened the patent system and cost companies and 
their customers millions of dollars in extra fees. Infamous ``patent 
trolls''--people who aggressively try to enforce patents through the 
courts in friendly venues--have made business-method patents their 
specialty in recent years.
  These same patent trolls have funded an elaborate propaganda campaign 
targeting the reforms in Section 18. Let us set the record straight--
Section 18 simply allows patent experts to re-examine--through a 
temporary, pilot program--legally questionable business-method patents. 
A problem the patent office has said it is ready and willing to tackle.

[[Page H4498]]

  Opponents have asserted that the measure would help only banks. That 
isn't true. The National Retail Federation and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce have endorsed this bill. Companies impacted include Wal-Mart, 
Costco, McDonalds, Best Buy, Home Depot, and Lowes. Do any of these 
companies sound like banks to you? They don't to me, either.
  Opponents also claim that this section too is unconstitutional--
another untruth. Don't take my word for it--read the words of Judge 
Michael McConnell--once the most influential federal appeal court judge 
in the nation--and now the head of the Constitutional Law Center at 
Stanford Law School: He said, ``There is nothing novel or 
unprecedented, much less unconstitutional, about the procedures 
proposed,'' and ``we can state with confidence that the proposed 
legislation is supported by settled precedent.''
  I think it is time we stop listening to patent trolls who abuse our 
court system, and start listening to the businesses that drive job 
creation and economic growth in this country. Support this bill and 
oppose the Schock-Waters amendment to strike Section 18.
  Mr. SCHOCK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
112-111 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. Baldwin of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Conyers of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Manzullo of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Schock of Illinois.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 316, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               AYES--105

     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Carson (IN)
     Clarke (MI)
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hirono
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lujan
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McNerney
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Southerland
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     West
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--316

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Webster
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berg
     Dold
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stivers


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at

[[Page H4499]]

Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.

                              {time}  1641

  Messrs. AUSTRIA, WHITFIELD, BLUMENAUER, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. 
GARAMENDI, NUGENT, FLEMING, MEEHAN, BRALEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. 
DICKS and LANGEVIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. HONDA, PAUL, McNERNEY, and Mrs. BACHMANN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 482, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 482 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the 
Conyers (MI)/Rohrabacher (CA) Amendment (No. 2).
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Emerson was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                  Congressional Women's Softball Game

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have an announcement that's 
not quite as exciting as that which we've just been watching. However, 
this is the Congressional Women's Softball Team, and Joe Baca is an 
honorary member of the team. He is one of our coaches.
  Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I, who are the cocaptains, wanted to, 
number one, tell you all that we will be playing the Washington news 
media tonight at 7 o'clock at Watkins Recreation Park up at 12th and D 
Streets Southeast.
  We invite everybody to come and cheer us on. We are going to win this 
year. We're good.
  Probably more than anything else, this has been a wonderful 
opportunity for us to really bond as friends and as colleagues, not in 
any partisan way. And we're just very excited and happy that we're 
playing tonight. We need all of your support.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I want to thank all the women and 
our male coaches. We've been practicing for 3 months, two or three 
times a week at 7 in the morning, all to raise money for a great cause, 
for the Young Survival Coalition, which helps young women who are 
struggling with breast cancer or who have survived breast cancer. All 
of you know that I am a breast cancer survivor, along with Sue Myrick 
on the other side of the aisle.
  But this game is our opportunity to come together as women, as 
sisters, as a bipartisan representation in the fight against breast 
cancer. We invite you all out to come to the game tonight, 7 p.m. at 
Watkins Recreation Center, and watch us beat the Capitol press corps.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Baldwin

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 342, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 483]

                                AYES--81

     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bilirakis
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Coffman (CO)
     Conyers
     Critz
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Filner
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Hartzler
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Long
     Lummis
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     McNerney
     Moore
     Payne
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Quigley
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Sensenbrenner
     Southerland
     Stark
     Terry
     Towns
     Turner
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--342

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Grijalva
     Holden
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers

[[Page H4500]]




                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1648

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 483 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the 
Baldwin (WI)/Sensenbrenner (WI) Amendment.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and a result was announced, 
when the following occurred.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The gentlelady was in the well attempting to 
cast her vote. The Chair did not acknowledge that the gentlelady was in 
the well and continued to conclude the vote. I think it's appropriate 
that the House of Representatives, consistent with its rules, and Lord 
knows, I've been in your position many times, and I've had to stop the 
vote because a Member was in the well.
  It is the tradition of the House to acknowledge a Member in the well 
when they are casting their ballot, and it does not get shut off.
  I would like to make a motion that we reconsider the vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is constrained to advise the gentleman 
that a motion to reconsider is not available in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous 
consent that the vote be retaken. We had a tremendous effort that 
consumed money and time for a similar incident in a previous Congress. 
The smart thing to do would be to recognize this was error, and redo 
the vote so that we can all move forward in comity.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I support the request for unanimous 
consent.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the proceedings are vacated to 
the end that the question be put de novo.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 198, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               AYES--223

     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder

                               NOES--198

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hochul
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hall
     Holden
     McIntyre
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers
     Waxman

                              {time}  1659

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote #485 in order to attend my grandson's graduation. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Conyers (MI)/
Markey (MA)/Neal (MA)/Pompeo (KS)/Garrett (NJ) Amendment (#9).

[[Page H4501]]

             Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 295, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               AYES--129

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Chaffetz
     Clarke (MI)
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Landry
     Lee (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McNerney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nunnelee
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--295

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Womack
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers

                              {time}  1703

  Mr. THOMPSON of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 486, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 486 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the 
Sensenbrenner (WI) Amendment.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92, 
noes 329, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 487]

                                AYES--92

     Adams
     Amash
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Boren
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Davis (IL)
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     Landry
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McClintock
     McCotter
     Miller (FL)
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Polis
     Posey
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Towns
     Turner
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--329

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell

[[Page H4502]]


     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers
     Woodall

                              {time}  1707

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 487 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the 
Manzullo (IL) Amendment.


              Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81, 
noes 342, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 488]

                                AYES--81

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Burgess
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hirono
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Jones
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Landry
     Latham
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCotter
     McNerney
     Miller (FL)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Polis
     Posey
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schilling
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Southerland
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Thompson (PA)
     Tonko
     Turner
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Webster
     West
     Wolf

                               NOES--342

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berg
     Garrett
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers

                              {time}  1712

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 488 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have

[[Page H4503]]

voted ``nay'' on the Rohrabacher (CA)/Kaptur (OH) Amendment.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Schock

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Schock) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 262, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               AYES--158

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke (MI)
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crawford
     Critz
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Watt
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass (CA)
     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     McKinley
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers
     Welch

                              {time}  1715

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 489 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the 
Schock (IL)/Boren (OK)/Waters (CA)/Sensenbrenner (WI)/Franks (AZ)/
Kaptur (OH) Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Latham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair 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. 2149) to 
amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 316, reported the bill back to the House 
with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment 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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. MILLER of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 1249 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end of the bill the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 34. PRIORITY IN PROCESSING PATENT APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Priority.--The Director shall prioritize patent 
     applications filed under title 35, United States Code, by 
     entities that pledge to develop or manufacture their 
     products, processes, and technologies in the United States, 
     including, specifically, those filed by small businesses and 
     individuals.
       (b) Denial of Priority.--The Director shall not grant 
     prioritization for patent applications filed under title 35, 
     United States Code, by foreign entities that are nationals of 
     any country that the Director has found to deny--
       (1) adequate and effective protection for patent rights; or
       (2) fair and equitable access for persons that rely on 
     patent protection.

[[Page H4504]]

                              {time}  1720

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. The consideration of this bill has been 
bipartisan to this point, and that certainly does not need to change 
now. This motion to recommit does not really send it back to committee. 
It certainly doesn't kill it. It is consistent with the spirit of the 
bill. This is simply the last amendment and should be considered in the 
same bipartisan way all the other amendments have been considered.
  Mr. Speaker, our future prosperity does depend upon our being the 
most innovative country in the world, the most innovative economy in 
the world. American scientists and American engineers are doing great 
work. We are doing some of the most advanced, sophisticated research in 
the world. For instance, we lead the world in solar cell research. We 
are making some of the greatest breakthroughs in that technology. Much 
of it is funded by the Department of Energy or by other Federal 
research programs. But 80 percent of the manufacturing of solar cells 
is being done in Asia, mostly in China.
  What is happening is that firms are getting Federal funds to do 
research to improve solar cell technology. They're developing advanced 
technology, but when the time comes to manufacture a product coming out 
of that research, those firms are contracting with Chinese 
manufacturers to make the products. That is just one example of 
companies that are doing research here but manufacturing somewhere else 
when American workers need good manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the benefit of innovation should not just be higher 
profits for American corporations. The benefit should be good jobs for 
American workers. Under this motion to recommit, those companies will 
still get their patents, but they don't go to the front of the line. 
The people who go to the front of the line are those who will pledge 
that they will do their manufacturing here in the United States, 
creating good jobs for American workers.
  Second, we all know that there are countries in the world that don't 
really respect American patent rights and that don't treat American 
inventors fairly when they try to get patents in those countries. This 
motion to recommit will still allow those inventors, people from those 
countries, to get patents. We will treat them better than their 
countries treat American inventors. But they go to the back of the 
line. They do not get priority when it comes time to have their patents 
considered.
  Help American workers share in the prosperity that comes from 
American innovation from our research, from our innovation. Support 
this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit and 
urge my colleagues to defeat it. The America Invents Act is the 
culmination of 6 years of effort. During this time, the House and 
Senate Judiciary Committees conducted 23 hearings on patent reform and 
brokered numerous negotiations among Members and stakeholders. H.R. 
1249 has garnered bipartisan and widespread support. This bill improves 
patent integrity in PTO operations. The bill helps businesses from a 
broad range of industries, independent inventors, and universities.
  But the biggest winners are the American people. They will get more 
job opportunities and greater consumer choices. This amendment would 
mean that U.S. companies and inventors would be discriminated against 
all over the world when they file. It would be open season on American 
innovators and businesses. We would no longer be able to sell products 
abroad, and IP theft of U.S. goods would become rampant.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit also consigns our patent system 
to the one created in the 1952 Patent Act, an era of landline 
telephones, TVs that offered three fuzzy black-and-white channels, and 
the manual typewriter. We need to update our patent system, and we need 
to do it now.
  Oppose the motion to recommit and support H.R. 1249.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 251, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 490]

                               AYES--172

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--251

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney

[[Page H4505]]


     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Watt
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     Lamborn
     Napolitano
     Rangel
     Stivers


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1743

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 490 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the 
Motion to Recommit H.R. 1249--America Invents Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304, 
noes 117, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 491]

                               AYES--304

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--117

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Chaffetz
     Clarke (MI)
     Coffman (CO)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Denham
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hartzler
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lee (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McNerney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nunnelee
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Posey
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berg
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Holden
     Meeks
     Napolitano
     Pitts
     Polis
     Rangel
     Stivers

                              {time}  1749

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 23, 2011, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 491 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 
1249--America Invents Act.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 491 on final 
passage of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, I am not recorded 
because I was absent due to a death in my family which required me to 
immediately return to Georgia. Had I been present, I would have vote 
``aye.''

                          ____________________