John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we heard about a secret agreement with Japan that no one speaks about. I am happy to find out about it. I presume that the gentleman from California is referring to a part of the GATT conference? At any rate, I will be happy to deal with that in the 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, could I just review a few circumstances that may come out as the debate goes on. The substitute of the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] provides that applications filed in this country may not be published sooner than 5 years after they are filed, and then, not if the application is under appellate review. This is one of the ways a submariner delays its own application, is to file spurious law claims and appeals. In addition, the director of the PTO must find that the application is not being pursued by an applicant before the publication can occur. I think we have some problems, because as anyone can imagine, it is almost impossible to identify maneuvers by patent lawyers to delay the processing of their applications. So this provision is not very helpful in eliminating submarining, and is almost impossible to enforce, from my perspective. Imagine telling a judge that he can only allow the public to see the court documents relating to a case when a finding was made as to whether the merits were diligently pursued. All judges, patent judges included, must give the benefit of the doubt to the filers that they are proceeding in good faith, and that they are legitimately pursuing their claims, or the whole system goes down. The Rohrabacher substitute, as I understand it, demands a presumption of guilt in order to require publishing. This is a presumption that almost never can be established, and therein lies a serious grievance between the substitute and the bill, H.R. 400. Mr. Chairman, what we are saying here is that we have a little submarining going on here on the floor. We have one bill that corrects submarining, a substitute that says, but we do, too, and then when we look at it a little more carefully there are a number of questions. And they may be drafting problems, or they may just not have been as tightly drawn, but they certainly cannot equally be said to deal with the problem of submarining. I do not think that is the case. There is another way to game the system, under the Rohrabacher substitute. An applicant could file appeals, and listen carefully to this, an applicant under the Rohrabacher substitute could file an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals which, while unlikely to succeed, are not so frivolous as to draw sanctions. That is what submariners love, new ways to game the system. I am not saying this is done in bad faith. I am sure he is trying to cure it. But it simply does not cure it. That is why 37 members on the Committee on the Judiciary took this approach in H.R. 400.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our hearings have revealed, and this is why we support the bill, it showed that 300 foreign companies were able to come into this country and game the process, so the previous speaker who says that this is all just about domestic, well, it is about foreign companies coming onto our turf, sir, and taking our patents. That is what we are trying to stop. So to say that it does not involve foreign companies, it involves 300 foreign companies, according to our hearings. In one case, a British pharmaceutical company was so effective at the submarining game that the United States competitor had to relocate its operations abroad to be able to produce a competing project. So we have our companies going out of the United States to come back in because of the submarine system, and some say this is just a domestic problem. It is not. It is a national, international problem. Now, the submarine patents which we claim are now corrected on both sides, I would point out that there was one American, and this is not a foreign entrepreneur, was able to get $500 million in royalties. For doing what? For simply delaying for 35 years in some instances, the prosecution of a patent, and then suing other manufacturers who, in the meantime, not knowing about it, started using the process. Gilbert Hyatt submarined his patent for 20 years and extracted $70 million from Texas Instruments, who started using the same computer chip technology, totally unaware of Hyatt's submarine patent. If the Rohrabacher bill cures it and the bill discussed by all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary and two Congresses, what is wrong with H.R. 400? As a matter of fact, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] came before the committee, and his ideas and discussion were taken into consideration, and we thought that we treated him very kindly. So this is a big problem we are curing. It is not overturning the patent system; it is not undermining the American process which we have put together; it is really taking care of a problem that has to be addressed and is being addressed in the committee bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge its continued support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, as far as the Rohrabacher group goes then, we do not solve that. Then let me try the prior-use doctrine. The prior-use doctrine here protects the first to invent, not the person who steals the intellectual property, and we are attempting to give that protection, which does not exist now, and that is why publication in the end, I say to my colleagues, is so important. It stops the process whereby foreign competitors can game our patent system process by filing incomplete patent applications and extend their legal monopoly rights up to 40 years. Now, the Wall Street Journal is not for or against H.R. 400 or the Rohrabacher substitute, but they are writing about Americans who are gaming the system. That is what we are trying to stop. Hence, the bill. So there is something missing here in this debate. After years of working with both sides, inventors, lawyers, former patent commissioners, the administration, we finally come to closure with a unanimous vote in this Congress, and the last, and now the gentleman is telling us that this thing really was not cured. And I am stunned to find the Wall Street Journal pointing out that these kinds of fellows are the ones that we are trying to stop with this H.R. 400 and that we are not undermining the American patent process, we are really undergirding it and bringing the protection to small inventors. That is why this Member supports the bill. I am not a shill for big corporations or any other kind of association, but the fact of the matter is, we are making this a better patent law by improving the defects that have existed for a considerable number of years. I urge Members to think of these arguments. We will have the 5-minute rule in effect, and I hope that we can take care of every one of the reservations that my dear friend from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has so articulately put forward in this debate, because that is what we are here for. We want to do the right thing, and I hope that my colleagues will move our debate along in that spirit. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the gentleman from California. Please. I know this is an anxious moment which the gentleman awaited a long time, and we have granted him time, but he cannot interrupt me. Now, the manager's amendment might help bridge the difference between the unanimous conclusions of every Democrat and Republican on the Committee on the Judiciary and the distinguished gentleman from California. Manager's amendments have a way of coming up at Committee on Rules hearings. If it had been prepared earlier, we would have brought it out with the bill. So I would propose that myself and the chairman of this committee make available to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] the amendment, if the gentleman has not seen it, to see if it actually bridges any of the differences that we have, or if it fails, because if it does not, it limits what we are doing. Now, according to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and the document the gentleman has held on the floor, the submarine issue is resolved. We resolved it, the gentleman resolved it, it is not in contention from the gentleman's position. The manager's amendment also might help resolve some more issues. I am just trying to reach some resolution here. So hopefully, that will happen. Now, the vast majority of patents are filed both in the United States and abroad simultaneously, 80 percent of them. Abroad they are required to be published. So this requirement will not affect 80 percent of the patents. There is an exemption from the publications requirement for small businesses, and for the small inventor there is an exemption. This is relatively fundamental. It is in our bill.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt]. (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we are gathered here under unique circumstances. We have a manager's amendment which I think will clear up many of the problems, I hope, that the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has posed. I do not know if he is familiar with the manager's amendment. Apparently he is not.

Mr. CONYERS. Then the gentleman from California is not familiar with it. Just a moment; I have not yielded.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am here in my capacity as ranking member to urge that this rule be adopted. I understand that everybody that has spoken on the rule is supporting the rule, so very good. The only thing is that the first speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], in supporting the rule, said this was a bill that would gut the American patent process, if I heard him correctly. He is nodding, and apparently I did hear him correctly; that this bill, H.R. 400, would gut the U.S. patent process. This is the same bill that has passed out of two Republican Congresses and two judiciary committees unanimously, and but for the tremendous acumen of the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] we would unwittingly have passed out last Congress and this Congress a bill that would gut the patent process of the United States of America. We obviously owe this gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] a huge debt. I mean our obligation must go up to the sky. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for this great single feat of saving the American legal system from what would happen were it not for his substitute. Fortunately, however, there is a remedy. The rule will call for the substitute, but until the debate occurs, could the gentleman help us keep the confusion level down to about its norm by refraining from these unsubstantiated statements so far in this debate. I know in the gentleman's mind the gentleman is pretty firm where he is coming from, but for those who may not be committed yet to this bill and who may not be on the substitute, could we have a debate that merely tries to describe what our humble Committee on the Judiciary and two Congresses have attempted to do on this, and if we could do that, I think it would win the approval of all of us in the Congress and it would help us a great deal. Now, this bill is supported by five of the last six Commissioners of the Patent and Trademark Office. That means that the highest Government officials on this subject in the past have all signed off on this bill. There have been years of negotiation on this bill. We have finally reached, we thought, almost unanimity. It will stop cheating in the patent process by ending the prime delaying tactic, and on this, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and I agree, submarine patenting. It will end that process where lawyers now are coming forward representing people that are subverting the patent process. This is the best thing that has ever happened for the small inventor, and I urge the support of the rule.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce that, as Chairman Hyde indicated, out of the goodness of my heart, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a dear friend of mine, 7\1/2\ minutes for her to dispense with as she chooses.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. It is optional with the small inventor; and if I might just read the sentence, it might change the gentleman's entire speech, and here is what it says. Just hear this. The small, the independent, inventor in small businesses have expressed concern, and so the manager's amendment will give them a choice over whether or not they wish to be published. It will effectively exempt independent inventors by deferring until 3 months.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of page 10 of the Coble manager's amendment starting at line one that exempts the small independent inventor from publication?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the original leaders of the American civil rights movement, a lifetime advocate of the American worker, and a true crusader for social justice and racial equality: Charles Arthur Hayes. Charlie was a dear friend, a respected colleague, and a trusted ally. He will be deeply missed. When Harold Washington announced his endorsement of Charles Hayes to replace him in the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington said that ``[Hayes] has shown unparalleled leadership and ability to unite blacks, whites and Hispanics into organized coalitions fighting for economic, political, and social justice.'' This is a role Hayes played throughout his life and during his entire tenure in Congress. As we remember Hayes, it is important to look back on his lifetime of work so that we might truly appreciate what it was that be brought to the House of Representatives and the Congressional Black Caucus. A tireless labor leader and a champion of racial equality, Hayes was the first vice president of a labor union to become a Member of Congress. He joined the labor movement in the 1930's after his graduation from high school. As a young machine operator in 1938 he organized a strike by black workers in a hardwood flooring company that lasted 6 weeks. The workers won--not a surprise given that Hayes was their leader. Hayes organized the group into a carpenters' local and became its president. Soon afterward, Hayes moved to Chicago's south side and organized black workers in meat-packing plants into a United Packing house Workers local. He was the key figure in the desegregation of meat-packing plants and also fought successfully for equal pay for black workers. This outstanding commitment to the plight of America's workers led Hayes to be brought before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1959. He took the fifth amendment rather than cooperate with the committee. I was proud to work with Hayes as a member of the original civil rights movement and as one of the first allies of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As a leader of the Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butchers Union, Hayes rallied support for King in the 1956 Montgomery bus boycott, the 1963 march on Washington, and the 1966 campaign for open housing in Chicago. Hayes was also the driving force behind Chicago's black independent political movement. He led the efforts to get Ralph Metcalfe and then Harold Washington elected to Congress and subsequently helped Washington to be chosen mayor of Chicago. When Hayes himself became a Member of Congress in 1983, he was once again at the forefront of a hard-fought battle, this time the political assault on President Reagan's economic policies. Hayes stated that in electing him, his constituents had ``[served] notice on Ronald Reagan.'' He vowed to replace Reagan ``with a chief executive committed to solving the problems of poor people.'' We were all thankful for Hayes' presence in this particular battle. Hayes sponsored bills to reduce high unemployment rates and make it easier for municipalities to offer affordable utility rates through the purchase of local utility companies. He was one of the earliest supporters of my bill for a 32-hour work week. In 1992, he submitted a job bill which would have created 570,000 jobs nationwide while rebuilding the country's infrastructure by channeling money to States for building roads, bridges, and schools at a rate corresponding to the State's unemployment rate. Even given Charlie's life-long crusade on behalf of America's workers, I may best remember and honor him for his unparalleled commitment to end apartheid in South Africa. In 1984, Charlie, together with Joseph Lowery, was arrested for staging a sit-in at the South African Embassy in Washington while 150 demonstrators chanted ``Free South Africa.'' The demonstration kicked off a nationwide Free South Africa Movement. Two years later, Hayes participated in a congressional delegation to the Crossroads Shantytown near Cape Town. The delegation met with Zulu Chief Gatsha Buthelezi who urged the lawmakers not to side with those favoring violent opposition to apartheid. The visit to South Africa solidified Hayes' commitment to disinvestment in South Africa and encouraged him to work even harder toward this goal, a commitment he brought back with him to the Hill. I shared a great deal of personal and political history with Charlie Hayes. We were both active in the labor movement before coming to Congress and continued to advocate on behalf of America's workers at every chance we got once on the Hill. We both fought for racial equality along side of some of the greatest leaders in American civil rights history. We both believed that the U.S. Congress was the vehicle through which to continue this work. I am committed to this vision of the Congress and to the work which both Charlie and I came here to do. It was an honor and a privilege to have known and worked with Charlie Hayes. I thank Bobby Scott for organizing this tribute and I commend the other Members who have participated. I hope that we live to see all of Charlie's battles won. Thank you.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] I will not use 10 minutes, but to my distinguished colleague about to leave the floor that just was the previous speaker: I am one of those guys that get up at the crack of dawn and work hard for a living, and on behalf of a lot of them I want to tell my colleague that as bad as we want to balance the budget, we would like it to be done with the majority of the 435 Members from the several States making the decision as to how we do it as opposed to a supermajority. That poses, I think to ordinary Americans, a very serious problem because it does a jujitsu on the democratic process and allows a minority to control the majority. So on behalf of those Americans who do work, who do get up at the crack of dawn, but still want majority rule, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. Now I would also like to bring to my colleague's attention the statement of Warren Rudman; my colleagues know who he is; Sam Nunn, and they have all pointed out, and these are the bipartisan national balanced budgeters of the Nation, the Concord Coalition Committee. They ask us not to do what it is they are trying to do. They want to balance the budget, but they say in the first sentence: ``We urge you to vote against this resolution, a constitutional amendment, because it would be detrimental to the budget process.'' So in considering how to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced over the long term, all options for reducing spending or raising revenues must be kept on the table. No area of the budget on either the spending or revenue side should receive preferential treatment such as requiring supermajority votes. Now do my colleagues understand that? And if they do, what is their argument against it? Mr. Rudman goes on: In the current drive to balance the budget by the year 2002 the prevailing consensus is that the deficit should be eliminated by reducing spending. There is no sentiment for raising taxes as there was in 1993. Thus the proposed amendment seems to be fighting the last battle rather than focusing on the task at hand and taking a long view into the future. And so I want to bring that to the attention of my conservative friends, that they are shooting themselves in the foot in their zeal to accomplish their goal in that they have friends trying to do this on this side of the aisle as well. So let us proceed in a rational manner. Why put this off into the Constitution, allowing judges to do our work? I presume everyone is serious and sober when they say they want to balance the budget. So why do we not start balancing the budget? The one way to start balancing the budget is to produce a budget for this fiscal year, and that has not been done. I noticed the Speaker has not given any explanation for why the budget is not being offered. As my colleagues know, the President , and this is elementary, but I want to say it any way: The President does not initiate the budget, the Congress does; and not just somebody in the Congress, the House; and not somebody in the House, the Committee on the Budget chair, appointed by the Speaker. And yet today, as the rhetoric escalates into the heavens about the need to balance the budget, we go into this fiscal year without a budget at all and none in sight. Now it would be appropriate to all of us, and especially me, is that I get some explanation, if not from the Speaker himself, but from the leadership of this body, the Republican leadership, what is going on here? They would balance the budget, a process that would take years, and yet their job of producing a budget by April 15 goes by without hardly a murmur. Can somebody tell me what is going on here? I mean what does this mean? So I have to propose my own solutions as best I can, and I offer to stand to be corrected. The budget for this fiscal year due today is not being offered because some of the Members on their side want as much as a 30-percent tax cut. I remember the distinguished gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Dole, the late and present Mr. Dole; he said he wanted a 30-percent tax cut, and I think that may create a little difference in the ranks as to how we proceed, but I do not think we should obfuscate that difference by amending the Constitution or pretending to attempt to do that. And then there is the problem of Medicare, is there not? Medicare would have to be cut if they revealed your budget. And guess what? The Contract with America is kind of under a very heated examination right now. The scrutiny is intense; is it not? And as much as we have heard, and I think almost every day that we have been in session one of my distinguished conservative Members of the body has articulated that Medicare will never be touched. But if they reveal their budget, and when they do, Medicare I think will be touched, and maybe that is a reason that we are dealing with a constitutional amendment that will kick in in the next millennium rather than what you should be doing and should have been doing in the calendar year 1997. Have a heart. Stop kidding the American people. They can take it. They can take it on the chin. If you got to cut programs, and you think it is in the national interest, that is what you are here for. We make the laws. The law is what we say it is, the Supreme Court permitting. But let us be honest about it. Are you punting this afternoon? I mean, let us go through the constitutional process. How many States, how many years, who will be here even if it were to become actual? Well, the answer is most of the self-imposed term limiters will not be here. A few more will have met their fate at the hands of their constituency when they really understand that the contract was on them and not with them. So I just ask for as much candor as we can muster in our debate on this very crucial subject, and I would urge anybody that is not yet settled in their mind what they are going to do on this resolution, vote against it. Mr. Speaker, thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] who has done a magnificent job of leading the debate on our side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today, Jackie Robinson played first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. It was the first time that a black baseball player took the field with a major league baseball team in the modern era. Although he did not get a hit in four trips to the plate, he did score the game's winning run. But most importantly, Jackie Robinson paved the way for thousands of athletes to follow and gave dignity to millions of African-Americans as they struggled in a society where segregation was institutionalized in its laws and customs. Robinson did more than just break the color barrier in major league baseball. He excelled at, and helped redefine, the sport. He was named Rookie of the Year in 1947 and had a lifetime batting average of .311. Although he played only 10 seasons, he hit 137 home runs, drove in 734 runs, and stole 197 bases. In 1949, he was named the league's Most Valuable Player, and beginning in 1949, he was elected to six consecutive all star teams. And what makes Jackie Robinson's baseball accomplishments all the more remarkable is the fact that many inside and outside of baseball tried their best to ensure Robinson's failure. Pitchers threw at him, runners spiked him, and opposing teams shouted racial taunts at him. Crowds booed him and sportswriters vilified him. But all of this only strengthened Robinson's resolve to prove himself on the playing field. And prove himself he did. But I don't want to focus solely on what Jackie Robinson did on the baseball diamond, because his off-field activities and accomplishments are what made Jackie Robinson a truly remarkable individual. Given the racial abuse Robinson endured as a player, it would have been perfectly understandable for him to not get personally involved in the civil rights struggle of this country. He could have viewed his breaking the color barriers as his contribution to the African-American struggle. But as Robinson said in 1964, ``Life is not a spectator sport. * * * If you're going to spend your whole life in the grandstand just watching what goes on, in my opinion you're escaping your life.'' So after he left baseball, Robinson continued to fight for the rights of all Americans. He preached the message that racial integration and equality would not just improve the lives of African-Americans, it would enrich the Nation. ``Negroes aren't seeking anything which is not good for the Nation as well as ourselves,'' Robinson once said. ``In order for America to be 100 percent strong--economically, defensively, and morally--we cannot afford the waste of having second-and-third class citizens.'' Every American President who held office between 1956 and 1972 received letters from Robinson expressing his concerns about their failure to advance the cause of civil rights as forcefully as possible. He made no regard to party affiliation--Democrats were just as likely as Republicans to hear from Robinson. Robinson was unapologetic about his political efforts: Civil rights is not by any means the only issue that concerns me--nor, I think any other Negro. As Americans, we have as much at stake in this country as anyone else. But since effective participation in a democracy is based upon enjoyment of basic freedoms that everyone else takes for granted, we need make no apologies for being especially interested in catching up on civil rights. So as we reflect on the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's debut in major league baseball, let us also reflect on what Robinson fought for off the field. African-Americans still are under represented in many segments of our society, from the front offices of major league baseball to corporate boardrooms to the U.S. Senate. Black babies still are more likely to die than their white counterparts and black motorists still are more likely to be stopped by the police. And let's not be patient in our fight for justice and equality. Robinson realized that official calls for patience were really calls for inaction. After President Eisenhower, addressing an audience at the summit meeting of negro leaders, urged patience, Robinson wrote President Eisenhower, saying: I respectfully remind you sir, that we have been the most patient of all people. When you said we must have self- respect, I wondered how we could have self-respect and remain patient considering the treatment accorded us through the years. 17 million Negroes cannot do as you suggest and wait for the hearts of men to change. We want to enjoy now the rights that we feel we are entitled to as Americans. This we cannot do unless we pursue aggressively goals which all other Americans achieved over 150 years ago. There is much still to be done in the civil rights struggle. So let us follow Robinson's advice and be vigilant and aggressive in our fight.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to point out to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] that my referencing the statement that I read was implied from a Federal court decision in Ohio entitled Women's Medical Professional Corporation versus Voinovich. general leave

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Chet Edwards.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, the ranking member of our subcommittee. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)