John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence on September 17, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today. ``Yea''--H.R. 3246--Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar, James L.) ``Yea''--H.R. 1657--To establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for careers in the National Weather Service and in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs. (Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana) ``Yea''--H.R. 3257--To extend for two months the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. (Rep. Sherman, Brad)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, tonight members of the Congressional Black Caucus stand with the American people to tell the President once more: it is time to end the war in Iraq. As co-chairs of the Out of Iraq Caucus, two of my fellow CBC members, Representatives Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, are among the preeminent leaders in Congress in the fight to end this misbegotten war. I want to thank them for their leadership and for their tireless efforts to bring our troops home. Last week's much-anticipated testimony, report and ``new plan'' were just more of the same. Once again refusing to heed the facts on the ground and the wishes of the American people, President Bush simply reiterated his stubborn commitment to continue his failed policy in Iraq. The ``progress'' reported by the Administration is arguable. But what is not subject to debate is this: there is no such thing as ``winning'' an occupation. We cannot have a military ``victory'' in Iraq. The only way out of this quagmire is a political solution. And after more than four years, there has been no political progress in Iraq. The President seems to believe that another 10 years of occupation, to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands more American lives, is worth wagering on this disastrous conflict. The American people and the Congressional Black Caucus disagree. The White House and its emissaries continue to urge the Congress and the American people to view the disastrous conflict in Iraq through rose-colored glasses. But we know better. No independent assessment of the situation in Iraq aligns with the picture presented by the White House. The Government Accountability Office reports that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks for success in Iraq as articulated by the President himself. The Jones Commission concludes that the Iraqi National Police force that we have spent millions of dollars training and equipping is `dysfunctional,' riddled with sectarianism, corruption and inefficiency, and should be disbanded altogether. The consensus of the nation's intelligence community, in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, is that the `level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians remains high' and `Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled.' Furthermore, the Administration's use of statistics to reinforce its claims of success is problematic. According to a report in the Washington Post, U.S. military leaders and the White House are `cherry- picking' data to bolster their claims that the President's failed war strategy is working. In order to support this claim, military and Administration calculations are based on a system of categorizing and excluding statistics that `selectively ignored negative trends' and `puzzled' senior intelligence officials and the nation's chief auditor and head of the Government Accountability Office. For example, people who were killed by a shot to the back of the head are included as `sectarian' casualties, but those killed by a shot to the front of the head are not counted because they are assumed to be dead from `criminal' activity, according to an intelligence analyst quoted in the article. In fact, the death toll in Iraq is rising. The Associated Press reports that while the President's escalation has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago. The AP counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year. Though the administration continually cites a reduction in violence in Anbar province as evidence of the surge's success, in fact, the Marines had already established ties to local Sunni leaders long before the `surge' strategy was even announced. June, July and August 2007 marked the bloodiest summer so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. This grim picture is further reflected in Iraqi public opinion. A BBC/ABC News poll conducted in August concludes that Iraqi opinion is at its gloomiest since the polls began in February 2004. According to this latest poll, between 67 and 70 percent of Iraqis say the escalation has made things worse in the key areas of security, the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development. A majority (57 percent) of Iraqis believe that attacks on coalition forces are acceptable, including 93 percent of Sunnis and 50 percent of Shia. The token drawdown of troops proposed by General Petraeus and endorsed by the President, in which nearly a year would pass before troop strength returns to pre-escalation levels, is neither a political compromise nor a ``new plan.'' In fact, this drawdown has been scheduled to take place since the beginning of the ``surge,'' because to do otherwise would stretch our military beyond the breaking point. So, in effect, the President is offering nothing at all in response to the demand of the American people and the Congress to bring our troops home--except another 10 years of war and occupation. The President continues to ask our troops to referee a civil war whose outcome depends entirely on the actions of politicians in Baghdad. As General Petraeus himself has pointed out, the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily; only a political settlement by Iraq's leaders can bring this conflict to an end. Yet, despite the fact that Iraqi politicians have made virtually no progress toward this goal in four years, the President insists on a continuing American military involvement, with no end in sight. The American people understand that this policy has failed, and this Congress will continue to fight to bring an end to this disaster and to bring our troops home.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on September 10, 2007, I was granted a leave of absence to attend to personal business. In error, the Congressional Record reported that I was granted a leave of absence from September 10, 2007 through September 21, 2007. The Congressional Record should have reported September 10, 2007 as my only day of leave.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence on September 10, 2007, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance today. ``Yea''--H. Res. 257--Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month (Representative Platts--Oversight and Government Reform). ``Yea''--H. Res. 643--Recognizing September 11 as a day of remembrance, extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families, honoring the heroic actions of our Nation's first responders and Armed Forces, and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges (Representatives Hoyer and Boehner).

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, and I rise to congratulate all the Members for all the hard work that has been done in the course of the many months, some would say years, in bringing this to the floor. I'd just like to make a comment about the manager's amendment that I've heard raised in the discussion because, actually, I thank the floor manager of the Rules Committee on the Republican side because we had, I thought, a very good meeting yesterday. It should be known to everyone here that the reason we had the late filing of the manager's amendment is that we were keeping it open for everybody to make their last changes. And most of the requests came from the minority side, which we were happy to accommodate. So it's in that spirit that I refer and make available to everybody here everything that are in manager's amendments, and hope that the fact that this is maybe 80 percent accomplished for almost all the many sides to this debate will carry us through the rule and through the spirit that has moved the committee and the subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee this far.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, part of the Smith-Berman-Coble trio is the chairman now of the Courts, Intellectual Property and Internet Subcommittee. His indefatigable commitment to patent reform is now well known by all of the House, and I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). He is the last Member on this side that's getting 3 minutes. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my colleague from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to call on my neighbor and friend, Marcy Kaptur from Toledo, Ohio; and I recognize her for 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I take 5 seconds to assure my distinguished friend from Maine that I have more industry in my State than he does, and I am protecting them pretty much.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, of course.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in support of the manager's amendment which is, of course, very bipartisan and which makes further changes to the underlying bill. Now, this is a work in progress. The reason it came up so late in the afternoon yesterday in the Rules Committee is we were making changes to accommodate the minority side, and so even now the manager's amendment is a piece of work that will not be concluded until we come out of conference, and I'm sure Mr. Berman will have some comments to make about that. I want anyone who has not seen the manager's amendment or wants to review it, even as it's discussed on the floor today, to please come to my seat, and I will be happy to provide them with a copy of it. Well, what does it do? We deal with damages, the most controversial provision of the bill, with labor, with the universities, with inequitable conduct, and additional changes that will be made. For workers and inventors, how do we help them? Well, there was concern that in our attempt to simplify the assignment procedures, we cut the inventor out of the process. We've ensured that changes to applications will require inventor involvement. And also, there was a fear about working environment at the PTO. We inquired of the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of examining work conditions. And finally, the examiners themselves were concerned about the quality submission requirements, that their job would be outsourced. We ensured that that will not happen. Now, damages. We made further changes to explain clearly that a portion that is not mandatory in the calculations of damages can be considered under a similar formula that courts use today. Universities, we spent enormous time, and I have as many universities in Michigan as anybody has in any other State in the Union, and to address their concern, we spent unbelievable amounts of time negotiating with them individually and collectively about the expansion of prior user rights which might reduce the value of their patents and harm their ability to license invention. We've eliminated the expansion. Instead, we're calling for a study of the operation of prior user rights in countries where they already exist to determine their effects. It allows universities to sue in districts where they are located but does not extend that right to universities' associated nonprofit organizations. We deal with inequitable conduct by tightening the standards for pleading and finding inequitable conduct as a defense to infringement. We continue to operate in good faith with additional changes. We've adopted suggestions made by outside groups to improve our post-grant opposition provision, changed the discovery standard to interest of justice and ensured that a patent owner can bring a patent suit, even if a post-grant suit is instituted. So we've addressed every concern that has been brought to our attention. No concern was too small or too technical, and we continue even now to listen to the parties in other ways to continue to enhance the bill. So now is the time for patent reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I can't help but take 6 seconds in rebuttal. The universities support this measure. Small inventors support this measure. This bill is to create jobs in America. How could anybody think that I would be supporting a bill that didn't do this in patent law reform? I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith.

Mr. CONYERS. Would the ranking member yield to me?

Mr. CONYERS. We have reviewed the amendment. It's an important contribution. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Could the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) yield briefly?

Mr. CONYERS. I'm glad we've all proved our working class credentials in support of working people, and I'm very impressed, if not surprised. And so I want to describe this debate that's currently going on on this second provision. Here is the one man in Congress with more patents as a small-time inventor than anybody in the House and the Senate being explained to why this is contrary to the interests of small-time inventors. Very interesting.

Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentlemen, I keep noticing that the opponents to the bill, opponents to the rule, opponents to the manager's amendment, opponents to the amendments to include it in this are all opposed to everything, anything. And I am glad these great sons of Labor, like the gentleman from California who knows his voting record on Labor and so, unfortunately, do I, recognize how he is supporting the working people and the person who has invented more inventions than all of us put together is opposing the small inventors. What a debate this is. I just rise to let you know, sir, that on this side of the aisle, we are proud to support this amendment. Announcement by the Acting Chairman Mr. Acting CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair.

Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Not only to thank the gentleman for producing this amendment, but also to appreciate all the work that he did on helping us make this bill as good as it was. We thank you very much.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, I am proud and privileged to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this historic consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I can't help but begin by commending those members of Judiciary who were in this battle before I became chairman, namely, Lamar Smith of Texas; namely, Howard Berman of California; namely, Mr. Coble of North Carolina, all who have worked in a remarkable way. Even when the leadership changed in the committees and Smith became ranking and Berman became Chair, the cooperation and bipartisanship continued. I think it is important to lay that groundwork because of the intense cooperation in which we have sought to consult with every conceivable organization, individual, all stakeholders in this matter; and I think it has had a very telling effect on a bill that brings us all together here this afternoon. After all, patent reform is enshrined in the Constitution, isn't it? Article I, section 8. After all, we have had a patent office pursuant to constitutional direction since 1790. So for a couple hundred years, this has been the driving force for American competition, creativity, inventiveness, and a prosperous economy. Thomas Jefferson was the first patent examiner in our American history. So I am humbly standing in the well to tell you that the continued robustness of the patent concept is very important. It has been estimated that the value of intellectual property in the United States amounts to $5 trillion, and much of that is in the value of the patents that come from the legislation produced by this bill. Well, if it is so great, why are we here? Well, because certain things have happened over the course of years that need some re- examination. One of them is the trolling situation in which patents of less than high quality, they have created a whole legal industry, as some will continue to describe here today, in which, with very little pretext or excuse, patents are challenged and create a huge nuisance value. They flood the courts with unnecessary litigation. There are abusive practices that have grown up around the concept of patents, and there are certain inefficiencies where, for example, we use the first- to-invent system of granting patents, while most of the active and creative inventors in other countries use the first-inventor-to-file system, and we harmonize that in this legislation. So there are problems, and they have been addressed with great care, because sometimes they go against the grain or to the detriment of the rest of the people, the stakeholders in this great legal activity of granting patents. So I am here to tell you that we finally closed the circle, and I am proud of this, being from the highly organized State of Michigan, that with our friends in Labor we have been able to work out differences that they had originally had with this measure. All the consumer groups, there are several of them that have now joined with us. The United States Public Interest Research Group has come in. The pharmaceuticals have mostly come in. The Association of Small Inventors has come in. We have done a great job, and we have created a manager's amendment to which we have allotted 20 minutes to discuss separately from the bill itself. I am proud, as you can tell, of the bipartisan nature of this work, because that is what it takes to make some 22 changes in the manager's amendment, more than two dozen changes in the underlying bill; and dealing with the question of damages and post grant opposition are stories that can only be told by the gentleman from California with his appropriate brevity. So it is in this spirit that we begin this final discussion of this measure. I thank all the Members of the Congress not on the Judiciary Committee who have helped us in so many different ways. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. I just want to tell the previous speaker that we have had to accommodate about 20 different parts of our American industry and society, and, of course, everybody is not equally happy. Apparently you are one of those. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson). (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to add to that trio in the Judiciary that has worked for so long on patent reform. Her name is Zoe Lofgren, and she is a subcommittee Chair; but she stayed with patent reform. I yield her 2\1/2\ minutes.