[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13346-13350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6344) to provide emergency authority to delay or toll 
judicial proceedings in United States district and circuit courts, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6344

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Responsive Government Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO DELAY OR TOLL JUDICIAL 
                   PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial 
       deadlines

       ``(a) Tolling in District Courts.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event of a natural disaster or 
     other emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or 
     rendering it impracticable for the United States Government 
     or a class of litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by 
     any Federal or State law or rule that applies in the courts 
     of the United States, the chief judge of a district court 
     that has been affected may exercise emergency authority in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Scope of authority.--(A) The chief judge may enter 
     such order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or 
     otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by 
     otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may be 
     appropriate for any class of cases pending or thereafter 
     filed in the district court or bankruptcy court of the 
     district.
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the authority 
     conferred by this section extends to all laws and rules 
     affecting criminal and juvenile proceedings (including, 
     prearrest, post-arrest, pretrial, trial, and post-trial 
     procedures), civil actions, bankruptcy proceedings, and the 
     time for filing and perfecting an appeal.
       ``(C) The authority conferred by this section does not 
     include the authority to extend--
       ``(i) any statute of limitation for a criminal action; or
       ``(ii) any statute of limitation for a civil action, if--
       ``(I) the claim arises under the laws of a State; and
       ``(II) extending the limitations period would be 
     inconsistent with the governing State law.
       ``(3) Unavailability of chief judge.--If the chief judge of 
     the district is unavailable, the authority conferred by this 
     section may be exercised by the district judge in regular 
     active service who is senior in commission or, if no such 
     judge is available, by the chief judge of the circuit that 
     includes the district.
       ``(4) Habeas corpus unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       ``(b) Criminal Cases.--In exercising the authority under 
     subsection (a) for criminal cases, the court shall consider 
     the ability of the United States Government to investigate, 
     litigate, and process defendants during and after the 
     emergency situation, as well as the ability of criminal 
     defendants as a class to prepare their defenses.
       ``(c) Tolling in Courts of Appeals.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event of a natural disaster or 
     other emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or 
     rendering it impracticable for the United States Government 
     or a class of litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by 
     any Federal or State law or rule that applies in the courts 
     of the United States, the chief judge of a court of appeals 
     that has been affected or that includes a district court so 
     affected may exercise emergency authority in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(2) Scope of authority.--The chief judge may enter such 
     order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or 
     otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by 
     otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may be 
     appropriate for any class of cases pending in the court of 
     appeals.
       ``(3) Unavailability of chief judge.--If the chief judge of 
     the circuit is unavailable, the authority conferred by this 
     section may be exercised by the circuit judge in regular 
     active service who is senior in commission.
       ``(4) Habeas corpus unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       ``(d) Issuance of Orders.--The Attorney General or the 
     Attorney General's designee may request issuance of an order 
     under this section, or the chief judge of a district or of a 
     circuit may act on his or her own motion.
       ``(e) Duration of Orders.--An order entered under this 
     section may not toll or extend a time deadline for a period 
     of more than 14 days, except that, if the chief judge 
     (whether of a district or of a circuit) determines that an 
     emergency situation requires additional extensions of the 
     period during which deadlines are tolled or extended, the 
     chief judge may, with the consent of the judicial council of 
     the circuit, enter additional orders under this section in 
     order to further toll or extend such time deadline.
       ``(f) Notice.--A court issuing an order under this 
     section--
       ``(1) shall make all reasonable efforts to publicize the 
     order, including announcing the order on the web sites of all 
     affected courts and the web site of the Federal judiciary; 
     and
       ``(2) shall, through the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, send notice of the order, 
     including the reasons for the issuance of the order, to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
       ``(g) Required Reports.--A court issuing one or more orders 
     under this section relating to an emergency situation shall, 
     not later than 180 days after the date on which the last 
     extension or tolling of a time period made by the order or 
     orders ends, submit a brief report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Judicial Conference of 
     the United States describing the orders, including--
       ``(1) the reasons for issuing the orders;
       ``(2) the duration of the orders;
       ``(3) the effects of the orders on litigants; and
       ``(4) the costs to the judiciary resulting from the orders.
       ``(h) Exceptions.--The notice under subsection (f)(2) and 
     the report under subsection (g) are not required in the case 
     of an order that tolls or extends a time deadline for a 
     period of less than 14 days.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial deadlines.''.

     SEC. 3. WAIVER OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK REQUIREMENTS IN 
                   CERTAIN EMERGENCIES.

       Section 2 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Waiver of Requirements in Certain Emergencies.--The 
     Director may waive statutory provisions governing the filing, 
     processing, renewal, and maintenance of patents, trademark 
     registrations, and applications therefor to the extent the 
     Director considers necessary in order to protect the rights 
     and privileges of applicants and other persons affected by an 
     emergency or a major disaster, as those terms are defined in 
     section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). A decision not to 
     exercise, or a failure to exercise, the waiver authority 
     provided by this subsection shall not be subject to judicial 
     review.''.

[[Page 13347]]



     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF DIRECTOR OF PTO TO ACCEPT LATE FILINGS.

       (a) Authority.--Section 156 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Discretion to Accept Late Filings in Certain Cases of 
     Unintentional Delay.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may accept an application 
     under this section that is filed not later than three 
     business days after the expiration of the 60-day period 
     provided in subsection (d)(1) if the applicant files a 
     petition, not later than five business days after the 
     expiration of that 60-day period, showing, to the 
     satisfaction of the Director, that the delay in filing the 
     application was unintentional.
       ``(2) Treatment of director's actions on petition.--If the 
     Director has not made a determination on a petition filed 
     under paragraph (1) within 60 days after the date on which 
     the petition is filed, the petition shall be deemed to be 
     denied. A decision by the Director to exercise or not to 
     exercise, or a failure to exercise, the discretion provided 
     by this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.''
       (b) Fee for Late Filings.--
       (1) In general.--In order to effect a patent term extension 
     under section 156(i) of title 35, United States Code, the 
     patent holder shall pay a fee to the United States Treasury 
     in the amount prescribed under paragraph (2).
       (2) Fee amount.--
       (A) Fee amount.--The patent holder shall pay a fee equal 
     to--
       (i) $65,000,000 with respect to any original application 
     for a patent term extension, filed with the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, for a drug intended for use in humans that is in 
     the anticoagulant class of drugs; or
       (ii) the amount estimated under subparagraph (B) with 
     respect to any other original application for a patent term 
     extension.
       (B) Calculation of alternate amount.--The Director shall 
     estimate the amount referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) as 
     the amount equal to the sum of--
       (i) any net increase in direct spending arising from the 
     extension of the patent term (including direct spending of 
     the United States Patent and Trademark Office and any other 
     department or agency of the Federal Government);
       (ii) any net decrease in revenues arising from such patent 
     term extension; and
       (iii) any indirect reduction in revenues associated with 
     payment of the fee under this subsection.
     The Director, in estimating the amount under this 
     subparagraph, shall consult with the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
     either the Secretary of Health and Human Services or (in the 
     case of a drug product subject to the Act commonly referred 
     to as the ``Virus-Serum-Toxin Act''; 21 U.S.C. 151-158) the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.
       (3) Notice of fee.--The Director shall inform the patent 
     holder of the fee determined under paragraph (2) at the time 
     the Director provides notice to the patent holder of the 
     period of extension of the patent term that the patent holder 
     may effect under this subsection.
       (4) Acceptance required.--Unless, within 15 days after the 
     Director provides notice to the patent holder under paragraph 
     (3), the patent holder accepts the patent term extension in 
     writing to the Director, the patent term extension is 
     rescinded and no fees shall be due under this subsection by 
     reason of the petition under section 156(i)(1) of title 35, 
     United States Code, pursuant to which the Director provided 
     the notice.
       (5) Payment of fee.--The extension of a patent term of 
     which notice is provided under paragraph (3) shall not become 
     effective unless the patent holder pays the fee required 
     under paragraph (2) not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the notice is provided.
       (6) Fee payment not available for obligation.--Fees 
     received under this subsection are not available for 
     obligation.
       (7) Director defined.--Except as otherwise provided, in 
     this subsection, the term ``Director'' means the Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director 
     of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
       (c) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply to any application--
       (A) that is made on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (B) that, on such date of enactment, is pending before the 
     Director or as to which a decision of the Director is 
     eligible for judicial review.
       (2) Treatment of certain applications.--In the case of any 
     application described in paragraph (1)(B), the 5-day period 
     prescribed in section 156(i)(1) of title 35, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be 
     deemed to begin on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive 
Government Act of 2008, bipartisan legislation with strong support on 
both s des of the aisle.
  The bill consists of three major components, each of which has, in 
substance, previously passed the House on the suspension calendar.
  Section 2 of the bill takes into account the practical realities of a 
natural disaster or other emergency situation where compliance with 
filing deadlines or other court rules would be impracticable, 
dangerous, or simply impossible.
  In emergency situations, such as those which occurred during, and in 
the aftermath of, Hurricane Katrina, this section of the bill would 
provide the Chief Judge of the affected District Court or Court of 
Appeals with the authority to excuse a failure of litigants or the U.S. 
Government to comply with filing deadlines.
  Section 3 grants similar authority to the Patent and Trademark Office 
to excuse failures to comply with filing deadlines caused by a natural 
disaster or other emergency.
  Section 4 of the bill also involves a grant of authority to the 
Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to excuse specific late 
filings--this time, in connection with unintentional human error.
  Section 4 would provide the USPTO with the authority to accept an 
application for patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act if 
that application is filed within 3 business days of the existing 60-day 
deadline.
  This small but important change simply gives the USPTO discretion to 
accept a late application, within a limited time period, under specific 
conditions. This change is both good patent policy and good for public 
health.
  Under current law, the 60-day deadline is absolutely rigid, and the 
consequences of that rigidity can be draconian and harshly 
disproportionate.
  Up to 5 years of patent protection can be destroyed on account of a 
minor, inadvertent filing error of as little as 1 day.
  This penalty is not merely disproportionate and excessive, it is also 
out of sync with most other patent laws and regulations, which 
typically give the USPTO Director the authority to excuse minor errors.
  For instance, currently, if an applicant files an incomplete Hatch-
Waxman application, the USPTO can grant up to 2 extra months to correct 
the application.
  H.R. 6344 would eliminate this dichotomy, bringing the deadline 
provision of Hatch-Waxman into greater harmony with other relevant 
patent laws and regulations.
  Moreover, H.R. 6344 would save lives. The reality is that the 
unnecessary forfeit of years of patent rights for drugs can have an 
extremely damaging effect on patients.
  When the existing rigid deadline operates to strip away up to 5 years 
of patent protection, it significantly reduces the likelihood of the 
research and innovation that a full patent term would encourage.
  This is not just a theoretical problem. A small U.S. maker of 
Angiomax, a blood thinner, stands to lose 4\1/2\ years of patent 
protection as a result of inadvertently filing its Hatch-Waxman 
application for patent term restoration 1 day late.
  Angiomax is considered the best alternative to heparin in coronary 
angioplasties, and shows great promise with respect to open heart 
surgery and the treatment of stroke and peripheral artery disease.
  Public health and safety pushes us to promote effective substitutes 
for heparin, such as Angiomax.
  Earlier this year, contamination problems in Chinese manufacturing 
plants, where heparin is made from pig intestines led to 81 patient 
deaths.
  Even apart from problems of contamination, thousands of people die 
every year from adverse reactions to heparin.
  At this moment, when the serious shortcomings of heparin have come 
into bold relief, we have rightfully turned our attention to adjusting 
a flawed patent provision in a manner that can improve and even save 
the lives of large numbers of sick patients for years to come in this 
and other instances.
  Taken together, the three components of this bill--the discretion 
provided in cases of emergency and the discretion provided in the

[[Page 13348]]

case of unintentional human error--are all sound public policy, and 
have justifiably attracted bipartisan backing.
  This bill is not inconsistent with, nor does it detract from, other 
legal authorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield such time as he may consume 
to the author of this measure, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt), who has worked tirelessly to make sure that this measure 
arrives on the floor for consideration today.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6344.
  This is an extremely important bipartisan measure that combines sound 
judicial policy with rational patent law and good public health policy. 
The bill is aptly named Responsive Government Act because through its 
provisions, Congress provides the judicial and executive branches with 
commonsense flexibility to ease certain administrative requirements 
which would otherwise result in undue hardship for diligent and well-
intentioned individuals and entities.
  The House has previously passed this proposal in either identical or 
similar language, and I should note under a suspension of the rules; 
however, the other body has failed to act in a timely manner, but I 
understand now the other body is prepared to proceed expeditiously.
  Let me describe the measure.
  Sections 2 and 3 provide the Federal courts and the Director of the 
Patent and Trademark Office, respectively, with needed emergency 
authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings or statutory deadlines 
in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation which 
makes it impractical for parties, including the United States, to 
comply with certain filing conditions or, to the extent deemed 
necessary, to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by 
certain emergencies or a major disaster.
  We recently all too often have observed how the ravages of natural 
disasters disrupt the lives of our fellow citizens, which can impede 
the ability to comply with strict statutory deadlines. Thus the 
Responsive Government Act provides critical flexibility to the courts 
and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by 
these emergency situations.
  Finally, section 4 provides the PTO Director with the discretion to 
accept an application for a patent term extension filed not later than 
3 days after the expiration of the 60-day period in title XXXV of the 
U.S. Code, provided the Director determines that the delay in filing 
the application was unintentional.
  This provision corrects an anomaly in the patent law and provides the 
PTO with the discretion to excuse minor filing errors, discretion it 
already has in most circumstances. As the PTO has testified to Congress 
in the past, it would bring this provision of law in line with over 30 
other patent laws and regulations. It would prevent the inappropriate 
sacrifice of valuable earned patent rights. More importantly, this 
adjustment would promote important clinical research that can benefit 
the lives of seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of 
leading medical researchers and practitioners across the Nation.
  It addresses a particular section of the Hatch-Waxman Act that 
provides a patent holder with up to 5 years of restored patent 
protection for time lost while awaiting FDA approval. This extra time 
is critical because for many highly innovative medicines, as research 
continues even after the drugs have been approved and released to 
market for a particular use. Many of these medicines have additional, 
potentially lifesaving uses that would not be discovered without 
further research, which is made possible by the years of patent 
protection beyond the drug's initial release.
  I note the presence here of our friend the delegate from the Virgin 
Islands, who I am sure will speak to this measure, but I would commend 
to all of our colleagues a review of her commentary that appeared some 
time ago describing one drug in particular and what it means for 
medical research and for practicing physicians such as herself.
  By removing the unnecessary barriers to medical research, section 4 
of this act will promote research into modern, safer, and more 
effective medicines, saving lives and reducing burdening costs to our 
health care system.

                              {time}  1530

  In closing, I want to commend Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar 
Smith, and our distinguished Chair of the Intellectual Property 
Subcommittee, Mr. Berman, for their outstanding work in preparing the 
Responsive Government Act of 2008, and urge that my colleagues approve 
this helpful and necessary measure.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government Act of 
2008, and urge my colleagues to adopt it today. There are three major 
components to the bill. First, the legislation authorizes Federal 
courts to toll or otherwise delay deadlines outside of their 
statutorily defined geographic domains during times of emergency. The 
text is identical to that of H.R. 3729 from the 109th Congress, passed 
on July 17, 2006, by a voice vote under suspension of the rules.
  The need for this legislation became apparent following the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact that these disasters had 
on court operations, in particular in New York City.
  In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining 
district or circuit might be more readily and safely available to court 
personnel, to litigants, to jurors, and the public, than a facility at 
a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true 
in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas, 
and Kansas City, where the metropolitan areas include part of more than 
one judicial district.
  This reform is also needed to address natural disasters. The impact 
of Hurricane Katrina on the Federal courts in Louisiana, Alabama, and 
Mississippi once again demonstrated the importance of congressional 
action on this proposal.
  Where court operations cannot be transferred to other divisions 
within the affected judicial district due to widespread flooding or 
other destruction, judges must be empowered to shift court proceedings 
temporarily into a neighboring judicial district.
  The advent of electronic court record systems will facilitate 
implementation of this authority by providing judges, court staff, and 
attorneys with remote access to case documents.
  Secondly, the bill allows the PTO director to waive various patent 
and trademark filing requirements during emergencies. This text is 
identical to that of H.R. 4742 from the 109th Congress, passed on 
December 5, 2006, by voice vote under suspension of the rules.
  The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf region 
affected the ability of applicants, patentees, trademark holders, and 
other interested parties to do business with the Patent and Trademark 
Office. Despite its best efforts to date, the PTO needs additional 
authority to provide individuals and businesses with relief from 
certain statutory deadlines, especially those pertaining to the 
maintenance of patents and trademarks.
  Pursuant to the bill, the PTO may waive statutory provisions 
governing the filing, processing, renewal, and maintenance of patents, 
trademarks, and applications to the extent the director deems necessary 
to protect the rights and privileges of applicants and other persons 
affected by an emergency or major disaster.
  Third, the bill grants the PTO director discretionary authority to 
accept a late-filed application for patent term extension in certain 
cases if the application is filed not later than 3 business days after 
statutory deadline and the applicant files a petition within 5 business 
days of the deadline that shows that the delay was unintentional.
  This provision is similar to legislation, H.R. 5120, which passed the 
House

[[Page 13349]]

by voice vote under suspension of the rules as part of S. 1785, the 
Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2005. That passed on 
December 6, 2006.
  Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It helps Federal litigants, 
inventors, trademark holders, and other interested parties to maintain 
their rights under adverse conditions. I urge Members to support the 
bill, but I am intrigued by the name of the bill, the Responsive 
Government Act of 2008. One would think that this government could be 
responsive to the tremendous problem we have with high energy costs in 
this country, not just gas prices, but home heating oil, the cost of 
electricity, natural gas.
  So with just one week left before the July 4 break, we would hope 
that the Democrat majority would be willing to bring a bill to the 
floor, something that is meaningful to provide some solutions to 
increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices. 
Perhaps next time we won't leave town if the price of gasoline is $5 a 
gallon. The way it's going, that may be the case. We shouldn't wait for 
that. We should act now.
  So we should have another Responsive Government Act of 2008, one that 
responds to the needs and concerns of the American people. Americans 
are paying, all Americans are paying, on average, about $1.74 more for 
a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline than they were on the day that 
the Democrats took over this House, promising a new, commonsense 
approach to energy that would not only stop increases, but bring it 
down. Unfortunately, just the reverse has been the case.
  Perhaps we could work together somehow, agreeing that America has 
never been afraid of the future. America has always embraced the future 
and America has used technology here in the United States to surmount 
obstacles. It seems strange that we would have American technology now 
being used in waters off of Brazil to explore where they have just 
found the largest single oil find in the last 25 years. There are some 
that suggest that Brazil will now be energy-independent. They won't 
even have to use the ethanol they produce from their sugar because of 
this find. If the Congress of the United States had controlled Brazil, 
they wouldn't have been able to find it, because it's offshore.
  Last week, I remind my colleagues, the Democrat leadership had time 
to schedule legislation to prohibit the interstate sale and transfer of 
monkeys, but they apparently didn't have enough time to listen to the 
large majority of Americans who support more U.S. energy production.
  The new Fox News poll shows that 76 percent of Americans support 
immediate efforts to drill more in the United States in order to boost 
American energy production and help lower record prices. There's only 
one thing standing in the way of this Congress. If we are to be truly 
responsive, in addition to this fine bill that we are voting on today, 
ought we not also respond to the most immediate concern of Americans in 
every State, in every congressional district, and do something about 
the supply of American-made energy and lower gas prices.
  The response is not, as my friend on the other side said, all we need 
to do is sue a little bit more. If we can have a few more people and a 
few more courts, and sue, that will somehow solve the problem. No. The 
answer is increase the supply of American-made energy and lower gas 
prices right now. That is what the American people are asking for.
  So as I rise in support of the Responsive Government Act of 2008, I 
would hope we would have another Responsive Government Act, one that 
will be responsive to the concerns expressed by the American people.
  With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are in a spirit of bipartisanship and we are reaching out. Let's 
not nationalize the oil companies. We agreed on that. Let's go from 
shale to coal and let's go into all the alternatives. We are all for 
that. No suing. Drill, drill, drill. No sue, no sue, no sue.
  Now we are getting down to the 41 million acres of leased oil, and he 
knew I was going to bring that up, that have been unused, and I don't 
know how to make those oil companies drill and find out if there's 
anything there or not. Maybe they don't want to know. Maybe they do 
want to know but they don't have the machinery or equipment.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. Maybe there's a technological problem that is beyond the 
understanding of we mere mortals on Judiciary.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield, as I 
yielded to him?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes. The gentlemen yielded to me, so I will yield to 
him.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman.
  In response to the question, I am sure the gentleman may be aware of 
the fact that 52 percent of the exploratory wells that were drilled by 
American companies in America over the last 5 years were dry wells. So, 
in some cases, they have taken leases on land offshore, and that has 
proven not to be a successful well.
  The problem is that those that have the greatest prospect for 
yielding real petroleum and natural gas have been prohibited by this 
Congress. As the gentleman may know, they pay for those leases. They 
continue to pay for those leases. I have not heard anybody on this 
floor accuse the oil companies of paying for something for nothing. 
They pay for those leases. There is a limit on the time that they can 
have those leases when they do not produce them.
  So, in all cases, they have made judgments as to whether or not the 
leases they have are yielding leases, and in many cases, 52 percent, 
they have tried to find oil, and they haven't found it.
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his courtesy.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Would the chairman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. You know, we had a hearing on this subject. The oil 
execs of the five companies came before us. In the other body, three of 
them told us how much they made. As you know, they make the top profits 
of any executives in business, short of the pharmaceuticals, of course. 
I don't want to short them. We found out that two of them couldn't even 
remember how much they made.
  Look; salaries, options, stock, bonus. Who knows what else. I hope my 
dear friend from California will join me on the letter that I am 
sending to the two, referring them to look up their accountant, because 
I know they paid their taxes on April 15, and just give us a ballpark 
figure of how much they made. If the gentleman will join me in this 
consideration, I'd be very grateful.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. It's seldom that my dear friend from 
California errs, but I would point out that the 41 million acres that 
the Chair of the committee alluded to is actually 41 million acres 
under water. According to the latest statistics, that represents some 
80 percent of the proven reserves that are available in terms of 
offshore waters.
  So I don't know where the gentleman gets his statistics, but I would 
think after we pass this Responsive Government Act, that we could sit 
down and work out some legislation that would rescind those leases that 
are currently being banked by leaseholders and the consequences of 
which are reducing the supply of oil and gas so that as the demand 
increases, naturally the price explodes.
  We cannot afford to have given away our natural resources to major 
oil companies and have them sit on it and do absolutely nothing, 
because the gentleman is right, and he well knows it, that the American 
people are hurting.

                              {time}  1545

  There is legislation I know that the dean of the Massachusetts 
delegation, Congressman Markey, has either filed or is preparing to 
file, and I am sure that he would welcome my good friend the former 
Attorney General of California to be an original cosponsor.

[[Page 13350]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a leader in 
universal health care activities.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Conyers for 
yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 6344, the Responsive Government 
Act of 2008.
  Before I speak to that bill, I also want to register my support for 
the previous bill, H. Res. 1293, which honors the memory of the three 
brave young men, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner, 
who gave their lives to ensure that the right to vote would be 
guaranteed to every American. We thank them and their families for 
their service and their sacrifice.
  Among its provisions, the Responsive Government Act of 2008 will make 
a minor but important amendment to the landmark Hatch-Waxman Act patent 
act of 1984. This act of 1984 has done much to make medicine available 
and more affordable for countless people in this country. Inadvertently 
though, in patent term restoration, there is an inflexible deadline 
provision which has the potential to limit the good that the act can 
do.
  Within H.R. 6344 is a provision which will grant discretion to the 
Patent and Trademark Office to excuse minor filing errors as is the 
case with other patents. This will ensure that needed medication that 
treats sometimes life-threatening illnesses, like Angiomax and others, 
will be more readily available, while continuing to ensure patient 
protections.
  This is an issue I have worked on as Chair of the Health Braintrust 
of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I am glad that it is on the 
floor for passage today. I applaud my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Delahunt, for his work on this bill, and the Chair and ranking member 
of the committee for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to pass 
H.R. 6344.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 6344 the ``Responsive Government Act of 2008. This bill is 
important because it liberalizes the technical filing requirements in 
judicial proceedings in the event of a disaster or other emergency 
situation. The bill provides flexibility in both criminal and civil 
matters, including patents. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Hurricane Katrina was the costliest and one of the deadliest 
hurricanes in the history of the United States. It was the sixth-
strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the third-strongest 
hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States. Katrina 
formed on August 23 during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 
caused devastation along much of the north-central gulf coast of the 
United States. Most notable in media coverage were the catastrophic 
effects on the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, and in coastal 
Mississippi. Due to its sheer size, Katrina devastated the gulf coast 
as far as 100 miles from the storm's epicenter.
  The images of the detriment and devastation remain deeply etched in 
my mind and much of the remnants of the tragedy still remain in those 
communities today. The storm surge caused severe and catastrophic 
damage along the gulf coast, devastating the cities of Bay St. Louis, 
Waveland, Biloxi/Gulfport in Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama, and Slidell, 
Louisiana and other towns in Louisiana. Levees separating Lake 
Pontchartrain and several canals from New Orleans were breached a few 
days after Hurricane Katrina had subsided, subsequently flooding 80 
percent of the city and many areas of neighboring parishes for weeks. 
In addition, severe wind damage was reported well inland.
  This commonsense bill recognizes that deadlines in judicial 
proceeding need to be relaxed when there are natural disasters and 
emergencies. I support the bill.
  Specifically, the bill provides federal courts with needed emergency 
authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of a 
natural disaster or other emergency situation in which courts are 
closed, making it impracticable for parties, including the United 
States, to comply with certain filing deadlines.
  Section 3 of the bill provides authority to the Director of the 
Patent and Trademark office to waive statutory provisions governing 
patents, trademark registrations and applications to the extent the 
Director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of people 
affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster.
  The Responsive Government Act provides essential flexibility to the 
courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused 
by these emergency situations.
  Finally, Section 4 provides the Director of the Patent and Trademark 
Office with the discretion to accept an application for a patent term 
extension filed not later than three days after the expiration of the 
60-day period in Title 35 U.S.C. 156, provided the Director determines 
that the delay in filing the application was unintentional.
  This provision, which corrects an anomaly in the patent law, will 
provide needed flexibility to the PTO to excuse minor filing errors and 
will promote important clinical research that can benefit the lives of 
seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of leading 
medical practitioners across the Nation.
  This bill is common sense. It relaxes the technical filing 
requirements during times of disaster or emergency. Given the disaster 
and tough times that we have faced within the last 8 years, with 
disasters such as Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and the tragic events of 
9/11, Congress needs to have a sensible response to these events. 
Litigants and patentees should not be penalized because of force majeur 
and other events beyond their control.
  Because this bill is sensible, responsible legislation, I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back any time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 6344.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________