Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. That has not been the experience in Europe where this process has been used, and I would suggest that this is very much the type of change that we need in this country. This committee has improved the patent system for 200 years. I urge the support of this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have not found that to be the case.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Therefore, publication has a number of benefits to inventors, including knowing that you are not wasting your time doing something that somebody else is already ahead of you on, and getting capital investment in your invention sooner because they know that you are the first out there because you are the first published and therefore they can invest in you sooner than they can if they have to wait until they are sure you are going to get the patent because they do not know under our current secret process whether or not somebody else got in there ahead of you. This is a benefit to the small investor, not a harm. I yield to the gentleman again.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to respond. The individual who is in the process and is having a lengthier time processing the patent application than the 19-month average would be concerned about that. Under those circumstances, they would withdraw the patent application and if they wanted to try for the patent again, they are not in any way deprived from having the opportunity to resubmit the patent application which will then pick up with a lot of the work already having been done previously and process the patent through. I doubt there will be very much time lost. Against that, I want to weigh the benefit of publication. No inventor wants to spend years of their life working on something to find out that somebody else had previously already filed, whether they are a deliberate submarine patenter like some who have kept them submerged for 30 years or others.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman is correct.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman that there is a provision in the bill already that preserves the right of anybody to withdraw their patent application prior to the 18-month publication date and preserve their right to go the trade secret route. The problem we have here is there is an inherent difference between trade secrets and patents. Trade secrets are protected by keeping them secret. The formula for Coca-Cola, that is not patented, that is a recipe. They keep it locked up in a safe. On the other hand, if you want to protect something by use of the patent system, the way we do that is the U.S. Government tells the whole world that that individual is the first person to come forward with that patent and they have that protection and that right, and all publication does is give them that right sooner. It does not in any way harm them or take away that right. If they want to go the trade secret route, they can still do it by withdrawing that application. I would also point out that the average patent in this country takes 19 months, 1 month longer than the 18-month provision. So the fact of the matter is that we are doing very little to harm people and in fact publication is a positive thing.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, and not only that, but because we improve the patent pending protections, then we can come back and get royalties during that patent pending term after we have been published that we cannot get under current law. And, in addition, we found that the Europeans get that capital financing. One of the problems they have is the gap between the 18- month publication, when the patent is actually issued, saying, I am going to be exposed during that time. But, actually, the capital comes sooner because they know that since we have been published and no one else has been published ahead of us, we are the one that has that idea; and if they want to invest in it, they can do it now rather than wait until the patent is issued.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wanted to join in the conversation he had with the gentlewoman from Ohio, and point out the concern expressed by the two of them about situations in which foreign businesses might steal patent ideas published after 18 months presumes some important facts: First, that that inventor did not file for a patent in a number of other foreign countries. If they do not file for the patent when the patent is issued, and the average patent is issued in 19 months in this country, there is nothing to stop that same thing from happening upon issuance of the patent all over the world.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words,, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think the point is that this patent reform bill fights against abuse of and gaming of the current system, which is a great playground for some lawyers to make huge fees at the expense of the American consumers and taxpayers, and we are correcting that with this legislation today, quite to the contrary of those who would allege that the new laws will help lawyers, quite to the contrary.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in light of the deluge of misinformation that has been circulating recently on H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent Improvement Act, I would like to speak briefly on how this legislation benefits small inventors as well as the entire Nation. H.R. 400 benefits small inventors in four key areas. First, it allows small inventors to acquire venture capital more quickly and easily than they can under either the current system or H.R. 811, the submarine substitute offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. Presently, small inventors often have trouble attracting venture capital to transform their ideas into marketable products. By allowing publication after 18 months from filing, however, H.R. 400 brings venture capitalists together with small inventors to market ideas that will benefit all of society. Second, H.R. 400 gives inventors greater protection against would-be thieves who want to steal their ideas than they currently receive. In the present system, inventors have no protection against people who steal their ideas and commercialize them before their patents are granted. For example, third parties can currently commercialize unpublished patents by manufacturing a product and offering it for sale. The inventor is then powerless to stop the sales or to share in the profits until the patent is actually granted. Under the Rohrabacher submarine substitute, small inventors would be left to fend for themselves in these situations. H.R. 400, however, allows small inventors to receive fair compensation from any third party who steals their ideas between the time a patent is published and the time a patent is granted. This patent pending protection will give small inventors the protection they need to stop commercial thieves from stealing their ideas. Third, H.R. 400 gives small inventors longer patent terms than they receive under current law. In the old system, which the Rohrabacher submarine substitute seeks to resurrect, inventors received patent protection for only 17 years from the date the patent was granted. H.R. 400, on the other hand, gives good-faith patent applicants a minimum of 17 years of protection--and in most cases, more than that. Also, H.R. 400 provides extended protection for up to 10 years, and diligent applicants who do not receive timely ruling from the patent office will receive additional protection. Only H.R. 400 give small inventors the protection they need to survive in the marketplace. Finally, H.R. 400 gives small inventors a special option to avoid publication. While most diligent inventors will want to take advantage of the venture capital and additional protection that comes with publication, some may have second thoughts about publishing their protected ideas--especially in cases where the Patent Office indicates that it might not issue a patent. In these cases, H.R. 400 gives small inventors the option of withdrawing their applications prior to publication. They may then continue to refine their applications or seek protection under State trade secrecy law. This option is only available to small inventors-- large corporations will be required to publish their patents after 18 months. As an example of how H.R. 400 benefits small inventors, I would like to insert in the Record a letter I recently received from a small Virginia inventor supporting H.R. 400. Although a vocal minority has been engaged in a campaign of deliberate misinformation against H.R. 400 in recent weeks, I believe that this letter represents the silent majority of small inventors who fully support H.R. 400. I would also like to insert into the Record a recent Wall Street Journal article exposing the scam of submarine patents. While some may argue that submarine patents do not occur very often, this article clearly shows that submarine patents cost American consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. A single submarine patent can wipe out an entire small business--and with some submarine patents, an entire corporation. The Rohrabacher submarine substitute, which the House will consider tomorrow, would continue to encourage this devastating practice. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to urge each of my colleagues to oppose the Rohrabacher submarine substitute and to support the unanimous product of the Judiciary Committee, H.R. 400. A vote for the Rohrabacher submarine substitute is a vote against small inventors. Only H.R. 400 will give them the protection they need to compete in the marketplace. Unique Specialty Products Arlington, VA, April 11, 1997. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, 123 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Goodlatte: The 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, H.R. 400, has been favorably reported from the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled to be considered on the House floor next week. This letter is to urge your support for the committee bill and to resist crippling amendments. The bill is the work product of a bipartisan effort over several years to modernize the Patent and Trademark Office and to streamline the U.S. patent system. Extensive hearings have been held on the measure and concerted efforts have been made to accommodate those with keen interests in the legislation. The bill, if enacted, would be extremely beneficial for my company. USP is a small business engaged in the development of medical imaging software. Currently, we are engaged in an effort jointly with an European pharmaceutical company to enhance the reliability of X-ray mammography. A patent application is pending now and several others may be filed in the next several months. We will then license the European company to utilize our imaging technology in clinical trials. Several provisions of H.R. 400 will significantly help us in this regard. First, the bill authorizes and encourages the electronic filing and processing of patent applications. This is especially important in software development, where time is of the essence. The hardware and software imaging technology is evolving so rapidly, that quick response from the Patent Office is absolutely essential to survival of a company such as USP. Further, and more important, these advances in technology much reach the marketplace as soon as possible. Many lives are at stake. Second, the bill's provisions on early publication are quite significant. The U.S. is the only major advanced society that does not have early publication as a key part of its patent law. As a result, our inventors and technology companies are at the mercy of ``submariners'' who file generic, all-purpose inventions, deliberately delay consideration of the application by the PTO through delaying and dilatory tactics for years. Meanwhile, the state of the art of the technology advances. Then, belatedly a patent is approved which is overly broad and then forces others--after the fact--to pay royalties. This uncertainty can be devastating to a company such as mine. In licensing our software, we must warrant that there will be no future claims on it. We could be at the mercy of someone who had an application pending while ours was offered in the marketplace. Early publication of the claims of a pending patent go along way in preventing manipulators from playing havoc with legitimate technology developers. Only the U.S. allows this to happen. Our European clients are simply incredulous that we still follow the old practice. Further, the ``corporatizations'' of the PTO is important for us ``users'' of its services. The PTO should be insulated from bureaucratic meddling and political influence. It is a totally ``user fee'' self-supporting organization. Our filing fees should be utilized for improvement and modernization of the PTO, not siphoned off to support the Legal Services Corp or some other politically correct governmental activity that is facing budget cuts. The workload at the PTO is already overwhelming. Automation is expensive, both in terms of acquisition costs and training. In summary, I urge you to support H.R. 400. With best regards. Sincerely yours, Richard W. Velde, Manager.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time as well as for his strong support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, a bill I introduced to require States to establish a system to verify that individuals detained in Federal, State, city, or county penal facilities are not counted as household members for purposes of determining eligibility or the level of benefits in the Food Stamp Program. The General Accounting Office recently released a report on its review of prisoners counted as household members in the Food Stamp Program. Currently, prisoners are not permitted to be included in food stamp households or receive food stamp benefits, nor should they be. Despite this prohibition, GAO's limited review discovered over 12,000 prison inmates who were included in food stamp households resulting in $3.5 million in food stamp overpayments. The bill before the House today requires States to set up a system to enforce the current prohibition in the Food Stamp Act. I believe that the GAO report identified a problem which is a significant concern. I believe that public confidence and support of the Food Stamp Program are undermined when a household receives a higher level of food stamp benefits than an identically situated household simply because the household receiving more food stamp benefits is illegally counting an incarcerated individual as a member, who is, after all, receiving three squares a day in the slammer. This concern is furthered by GAO's conclusion that a cost effective matching technique can be used to prevent this problem, but that many States have not done so. H.R. 1000 requires States to establish a system to verify that individuals detained in Federal, State, or county penal facilities are not counted as household members for purposes of determining eligibility or the level of benefits in the Food Stamp Program. H.R. 1000 allows States to avoid establishing a verification system if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that extraordinary circumstance have made it impractical for the State agency to obtain the information necessary to establish such a system. I believe that this exception should be invoked by the Secretary in rare and truly extraordinary circumstances. An extraordinary circumstance would include when a State does not have computerized records of its State or county inmate population. Under such circumstances, the State could have great difficulty establishing a verification system and the Secretary may be justified in granting an exception. I would expect, however, that in such circumstances the exception to be narrowly tailored to address the specific situation. If a State fails to comply with the requirements of this bill, the penalty provisions of section 16(g) of the Food Stamp Act apply. This provision provides the Secretary notify the State that it is in noncompliance. If a State continues to fail to establish a verification system, the Secretary may withhold a portion of the State's administrative funds. Under the Food Stamp Program, one-half of the State's administrative costs are paid by the Federal Government. Additionally, the Secretary may request the Attorney General to seek an injunction ordering a State to establish a verification system. The Food Stamp Act requires that States attempt to collect overpayments made to food stamp households. As an incentive to States, each State retains a portion of the overpayments its collects. States retain 35 percent of overpayment collections resulting from intentional program violations and 20 percent of overpayment collections resulting from recipient error. By identifying overpayments that have previously gone undetected, the verification system required by H.R. 1000 will enhance each State's abilities to identify and collect overpayments. Because States retain a portion of these collections, any increase results in additional funds for the States, clearly making this not an unfunded mandate. Finally, H.R. 1000 provides States with 1 year from the date of enactment to comply with the provisions of this bill without risk of penalty. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1000. It is an important bill that deserves their attention and full support.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I rise in strong support of H.R. 929, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. Partial-birth abortions are gruesome procedures. They are something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Only the most calloused among us can hear a description of this procedure and not wince. To borrow from John Wesley, it is the ``sum of all villainies''--infancticide in its rawest form. A greater tragedy occurred last year, however, than the several thousand partial-birth abortions that were performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy on the healthy babies of healthy mothers. That tragedy occurred when President Clinton vetoed our attempt to stop this horrific procedure. During the debate over partial-birth abortions in the 104th Congress, the pro-abortion camp asserted that this procedure is rarely performed. Those of us who supported a ban on partial-birth abortions took serious exception to this allegation, arguing that they are performed with alarming frequency. In vetoing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act last year, President Clinton obviously bought into the arguments of the pro- abortion lobby. In the last few weeks, Ron Fitzsimmons--the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers--has admitted that he ``lied through his teeth'' about the nature and number of partial-birth abortions. As we argued last year, Mr. Fitzsimmons is now admitting that thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed every year, in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy or later, on healthy babies with healthy mothers. Clearly, the pro-abortion lobby engaged in a pattern of deception regarding this issue--only time will tell whether President Clinton was an ignorant victim or a knowing perpetrator of this terrible cover-up. With the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, Congress is giving President Clinton an opportunity to atone for last year's sinful veto. The President still has time to do the right thing. I hope he will. I was asked recently why, since we failed in our attempt to ban this procedure last year and Bill Clinton is still the President, the 105th Congress believes it will succeed where the 104th Congress failed. Leaving the recently-exposed lies of the abortion industry aside for a moment, the answer is that regardless of the odds, we have a duty to end injustice where we find it, and a solemn responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. At a recent subcommittee hearing, representatives from the pro- abortion lobby repeated time and again that Congress should not involve itself with this issue. However, the pro-abortion lobby needs to remember that Congress consists of the people's representatives. What these people are really saying, therefore, is that the American people should not be allowed to debate this issue through their duly elected representatives. I strongly disagree--a civilized society cannot afford to abandon its standards of morality. Mr. Speaker, Congress will continue the fight to protect and preserve innocent children. I urge all of my colleagues, whatever their position on abortion, to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 929. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, calls for reduced Government spending have echoed throughout this great Nation of ours. Unfortunately, all too often the voices of the people have not been heard by this Chamber. When these cries have been heard, the response has simply been to shift the burden of budget cuts. I believe the time has come for the Members of Congress to lead by example. Today, I have introduced legislation that demonstrates to the American people the steadfast commitment of this Congress to fight against excessive spending by tackling the largest perk in Government-- congressional pension plans. Our retirement benefits are ridiculously more lucrative than those of many private sector and all Federal employees. Some Members of Congress make more in retirement than most Americans could hope to make in a lifetime. My legislation will slam shut the doors of this congressional pension millionaires club. The bill I have sponsored recalibrates the formula used to calculate Members' pension. It changes the equation so that our pension plan is the same as that of any other Federal employee. It also increased the age at which a former member may begin to collect their benefits from age 50 to age 55. The time has come for us to address the gross disparities between congressional retirement benefits and those of the average America. The era of governmental abuse has come to a close and the buck stops with us. I urge my fellow Members to hear the calls of the American people, and demonstrate your leadership by setting the example and cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased, along with 54 of my colleagues, to introduce the Security And Freedom through Encryption [SAFE] Act of 1997. This much-needed, bipartisan legislation accomplishes several important goals. First, it aids law enforcement by preventing piracy and white-collar crime on the Internet. It an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, then an ounce of encryption is worth a pound of subpoenas. With the speed of transactions and communications on the Internet, law enforcement cannot possibly deal with pirates and criminal hackers by waiting to react until after the fact. Only by allowing the use of strong encryption, not only domestically but internationally as well, can we hope to make the Internet a safe and secure environment. As the National Research Council's Committee on National Cryptography Policy concluded: If cryptography can protect the trade secrets and proprietary information of businesses and thereby reduce economic espionage (which it can), it also supports in a most important manner the job of law enforcement. If cryptography can help protect national critical information systems and networks against unauthorized penetration (which it can), it also supports the national security of the United States. Second, if the Global Information Infrastructure is to reach its true potential, citizens and companies alike must have the confidence that their communications and transactions will be secure. The SAFE Act, by allowing all Americans to use the highest technology and strongest security available, will provide them with that confidence. Third, with the availability of strong encryption overseas and on the Internet, our current export controls only serve to tie the hands of American business. According to an economic study released in December 1995 by the Computer Systems Policy Project, failure to remove these export controls by the year 2000--just 3 short years from now--will cost our economy $60 billion and 200,000 jobs. The SAFE Act remedies this situation by allowing the unencumbered export of generally available software and hardware if a product with comparable security features is commercially available from foreign suppliers. Removing these export barriers will free U.S. industry to remain the world leader in software, hardware, and Internet development. And by allowing the U.S. computer industry to use and export the highest technology available with the strongest security features available, America will be leading the way into the 21st century information age and beyond. This bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of members and organizations across the spectrum of all ideological and political beliefs. Groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Rifle Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Netscape, Microsoft, Novell, Lotus, Adobe, Software Publishers Association, Information Technology Association of America, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Business Leadership Council, IBM, Small Business Survival Committee, Sybase, RSA Data Security, Semiconductor Industry Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, and National Association of Manufacturers strongly support this legislation, to name just a few. The SAFE Act enjoys this support not only because it is a commonsense approach to solving a very immediate problem, but also because ordinary Americans' personal privacy and computer security is being assaulted by this administration. Amazingly enough, the administration wants to mandate a back door into peoples' computer systems in order to access their private information and confidential communications. In fact the administration has said that if private citizens and companies do not voluntarily create this back door, it will seek legislation forcing Americans to give the Government access to their information by means of a key escrow system requiring computer users to put the keys to decode their encrypted communications into a central data bank. This is the technological equivalent of mandating that the Federal Government be given a key to every home in America. The SAFE Act, on the other hand, will prevent the administration from placing roadblocks on the information superhighway by prohibiting the Government from mandating a back door into the computer systems of private citizens and businesses. Additionally, the SAFE Act ensures that all Americans have the right to choose any security system to protect their confidential information. Mr. Speaker, with the millions of communications, transmissions, and transactions that occur on the Internet every day, American citizens and businesses must have the confidence that their private information and communications are safe and secure. That is precisely what the SAFE Act will ensure. I urge each of my colleagues to join and support this bipartisan effort. The original cosponsors are Representatives Lofgren, DeLay, Boehner, Coble, Sensenbrenner, Bono, Pease, Cannon, Conyers, Boucher, Gekas, Smith (TX), Inglis, Bryant (TN), Chabot, Barr, Jackson-Lee, Waters, Ackerman, Baker (NC), Bartlett, Campbell, Chambliss, Cunningham, Davis (VA), Dickey, Doolittle, Ehlers, Engel, Eshoo, Everett, Ewing, Farr, Gejdenson, Gillmor, Goode, Delegate Holmes-Norton, Representatives Horn, Mrs. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Mr. Sam Johnson (TX), Kolbe, McIntosh, McKeon, Manzullo, Matsui, Mica, Minge, Moakley, Nethercutt, Packard, Sessions, Upton, White, and Woolsey. Mr. Speaker, I would like the text of this legislation reprinted in the Record.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his fine work on this legislation. I rise in strong support of the term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Texas, the majority whip, but I would say to him and those who say that we do not need to do this because we can pass the internal reforms to accomplish this, yes, but how temporary in nature are they and how does that conflict with the very same argument that the opponents of a balanced budget amendment, that we are going to take up in this Chamber very soon, offer, that we do not need a balanced budget amendment. We can balance the budget anyway. Yes, we can and this Congress has shown the determination to do that, but how often has that occurred in the last several decades and how often has this Congress shown the determination to reform itself. Term limits brings about those reforms. More importantly, it does other things, too. It makes this body more deliberative. If you know you only have a certain amount of time here before your time will be done, you are going to focus more clearly and more enthusiastically and more forcefully on getting the job done rather than the way things work in most Congresses, which is, we can always put it off until tomorrow or next month or next year or the next Congress. Term limits lets Members know, if you are here to get something done for your constituents, you have got to do it and got to do it promptly. It alters the seniority system so badly needed to make sure that we do not elevate Members to positions of leadership and power in this Congress simply based upon how long they have been warming a seat but, rather, based upon merit and ability. And term limits, again, focuses us on that job as well. Finally term limits creates a more level playing field for those Members who want to serve in this Congress by reducing the ultimate benefit that Members of Congress have, the benefit of incumbency in election. I urge my colleagues to support the term limit amendment to the Constitution and let us show the American people that we truly do know how to reform this Congress.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today on the need for Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It has been 28 years since we last had a balanced budget. Since that time out-of-control deficit spending has brought us to a current national debt level of $5.3 trillion. This is simply unacceptable. The Federal Government has clearly forgotten a basic and fundamental fact, the money it spends belongs to the people. It is not our money to spend. It is the American people's to keep. And when the Government spends money that it does not have, it violates the people's sacred trust. That is what has been happening for the last 28 years. We can talk about the need to balance the budget as the President did 2 nights ago, but let us be honest. Until Congress passes and the States ratify a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, annual balanced budgets will not become a reality. Consider the fact that a child born today will spend almost $200,000 in taxes just to pay the interest on the debt. That is money that could be spent on roads, schools, or parks. Our failure to balance the budget is robbing our children and grandchildren of the opportunity and prosperity they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support a balanced budget amendment.