Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today in the Committee on Oversight and Reform, we are going to continue without a doubt the attack on our men and women in uniform. It is clear after last week's debate in which 79 Members of the House refused to denounce MoveOn.org for their attacks on the patriotism of General David Petraeus, there are those who intend to continue to attack the war on any front. Mr. Speaker, I rise not because I support the war, not because I love war, not because in fact I have any desire to have this war or any war last one day longer than absolutely necessary. Mr. Speaker, unable to effectively portray our men and women in uniform as guilty of wrongdoing, in spite of the fact that one of our Members called in fact our marines, marines based at Camp Pendleton, killers of women and children in cold blood. Those charges for the most part have already been dismissed. Our men and women in uniform make mistakes. In the Committee on Oversight and Reform today, we are going to be talking about not our men and women in uniform, but men and women who served an average of 10 years in uniform who have joined private contractors in support of our State Department. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Blackwater. I am not defending Blackwater. The truth is neither Speaker Pelosi nor Chairman Waxman know what happened in Iraq in September. What we do know is that there are investigations going on into the specific incidents, like so many incidents in a country in which every day soldiers, sailors and marines die by IEDs and roadside bombs and other ways of killing our men and women without taking risk to their own lives. An incident like that apparently occurred in September, but instead of waiting until the IG, the FBI, the State Department concluded their investigations, today, Mr. Speaker, the Government Oversight and Reform will decide that they are going to go after the facts directly. They have subpoenaed directly the CEO of that company, not because he was there, not because he has some special knowledge, but because, Mr. Speaker, it is all about the headlines. The bodies were not even cold on that incident before the Committee on Oversight and Reform began to prepare for today's hearings. In order to believe that Blackwater is guilty before the evidence is in, you have to believe the Minister of Interior. Mr. Speaker, you have to believe the very organization that former Washington, DC, Chief Ramsey and retired four star General Jim Jones called that organization that he leads, some 300,000 police, 85 percent of whom are Shia, so corrupted and so compromised as to be disbanded. In fact, that is exactly the organization that apparently arrived and apparently is to be believed that some wrongdoing occurred. Mr. Speaker, when I went to Iraq the last time or one time, I went with Chairman Waxman and now Speaker Pelosi, our unit was guarded by Blackwater. At that time, I didn't hear any objections to the overhead cover provided by Blackwater. I didn't hear any objections to the EOD unit that was protecting us against bombs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the only time there seems to be a desire to have this type of oversight is when the headlines would help demean the very effort we are involved in in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the American people are in fact more knowledgeable of what this war is all about. Not that they want this war, but that they do not want to have the men and women in uniform or those Americans who under contract go to this combat zone willingly, most of them after service in that combat zone while in uniform, demeaned without a fair opportunity for investigation. Mr. Speaker, I was one of many Members of Congress who asked that today's hearing be postponed until at least the State Department, the FBI, and other organizations had an opportunity to do a proper investigation. I am proud to be a ranking member on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Reform, but I am ashamed that we in fact are doing trials rather than oversight. We have never done anything more shameless than what we are doing today, going after an organization without waiting for the facts. We do not oversee Blackwater in the Congress; we oversee the administration, and we should be looking at their reports, we should be looking at what they have done, and we should be in fact reforming anything that is wrong in the administration. So I trust that today's hearings will be watched by many people, Mr. Speaker. I trust that Members of this body will view this as what it is, a witch hunt, because they can't go after our men and women in uniform.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 30 years of exemplary service that Colonel Frazier of the United States Marine Corps has given to this great country. Colonel Frazier has served in many capacities since he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1974. During his seven years of enlisted service and 30 total years of service, he served a myriad of posts in a variety of locations worldwide. He has served his country both in enlisted service and in positions of leadership in Saigon, Korea, Okinawa, Thailand, Russia, Camp Pendleton, CA; Parris Island, SC; Australia, Quantico, VA; Stuttgart, Germany; and finally, in Iraq. In 1989, he earned his BS in Criminal Justice Administration from National University using the Marine Corps College Degree Program. Upon graduation from Top Level School in 2003 he was assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force G-4 Division and completed two deployments to Iraq. He was promoted to Colonel on 1 January 2005 and joined MCIWEST Headquarters in March 2006 and served concurrently as Head, Infrastructure Plans Branch and as Assistant Chief of Staff Facilities, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA. With such a diverse resume and a multidisciplinary record of leadership positions, his deep understanding of many facets of the United States Marine Corps lends him to being not only just an excellent advocate for our troops, but a quintessential example for how diversely talented a Marine can be. With his willingness to travel, to continue his education and to serve his country wherever and whenever possible, the United States and the U.S. Marine Corps could not have asked for more. In his 30 years of military service Colonel Frazier has proven himself an able and willing leader. His personal decorations include the Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, three Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, and two Good Conduct Medals. Colonel Frazier is married to the former Myra Marie Marbrey of Carlsbad, CA. They have five children: Gerald, an Air Force Master Sergeant, Clyde III, Jeremy, Michael and Anthony. On behalf of the people of the United States, whom Colonel Frazier spent a career serving, I thank him for his service and commitment to the defense of our Nation; he truly is a great American hero.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise to remember those who have died as a result of sudden cardiac arrest, and to introduce a House Resolution in support of the goals and ideals of Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Day. Sudden cardiac arrest, SCA, is a condition in which the heart suddenly and unexpectedly stops beating, causing blood to stop flowing to the brain and other vital organs. SCA usually causes death if not treated in minutes. Annually, 250,000 to 450,000 Americans have sudden cardiac arrest, and 95 percent of these people die within minutes. But SCA does not have to take this many lives. Rapid treatment of SCA with a defibrillator, a device that sends an electrical shock to the heart, can be lifesaving. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' National Heart, Blood and Lung Institute, automated external defibrillators, AEDs, which are often found in public places like airports and office buildings, can be used to save the lives of people having SCAs. On May 20, 2005, 14-year-old Travis Roy was at school in Murrieta, CA, when he suffered SCA. His school, like most schools, did not have an AED, and tragically, Travis died because treatment could not be administered fast enough. Since Travis's death, his family has campaigned to raise awareness of SCA and to get AEDs placed in schools. To date, several schools in the southern California area have implemented AED programs, including the Murrieta Valley Unified School District, Temecula Valley Unified School District, San Jacinto Unified School District and Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego. California has proclaimed September 12 as Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Day, to honor those who died as a result of sudden cardiac arrest. Awareness about sudden cardiac arrest and ensuring defibrillators are available in schools and other public buildings can save lives. Raising awareness of sudden cardiac arrest is a task worthy of Congress's attention.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I would yield to the full committee chairman.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, for those who may be interested, some of my patents have expired and more will. I am no longer a day-to-day inventor; but I will always have the soul of an inventor, the belief that in fact if you have an idea, you can go to the Patent Office and for a relative de minimis amount of money you can in fact protect that idea for a period of 20 years from the time you ask the Patent Office to protect your invention and give you an opportunity to make a small or not-so-small fortune off of it. I don't think there is anyone in the Congress who owes their reason for being here to the success of patents more than myself. My company grew and thrived because we were able to protect our intellectual property, patents, copyrights and trademarks. So since I have been here as a non-attorney coming to the Congress and asking to be on the Judiciary Committee, a little bit like Sonny Bono, that is where the things he knew about were legislated. He knew about copyrights and songs; I know a little bit about patents, and a lot about the flaws in the system. And, Mr. Chairman, there are many flaws in the system. This bill has been the best work by the best minds, both by Members of Congress, but also by staff, trade associations and industry, to bring out those mistakes and to try to find solutions. Today you have heard a lot of anger and rancor about China. Nobody could want America to prosper more than I do. But, in fact, by next year more than half of all patents in the U.S. will be granted to non- U.S. companies. This is not a debate about protecting patents against foreigners. Foreigners are patenting in our country, and we invite that innovation. It has often led to prosperity in all aspects of America. I include a long letter from UCSD CONNECT, an organization founded by Bill Otterson and the University of California at San Diego, in which they, along with California Healthcare Institute, BIOCOM, Gen-Probe, Invitrogen, Pfizer, Qualcomm and others who all say this is a good bill, but we have some additional areas we would like to find compromise on. Some of the things in this letter of yesterday are included in the manager's amendment. Some will be included in amendments that will be heard on the floor in a few minutes.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In short, this amendment simply seeks to maintain our historic and important American-only right for an inventor who was denied a patent to keep that patent a secret. Additionally, it allows sufficient time in the process for a patent holder to know that his patent, his or her patent, either will or will not likely be granted significant claims. For that reason, we struck a balance between the rest of the world that recognizes that patents are normally published after 18 months. We said, no, it will be the greater of the second office action, which can be anywhere from 3 to 5 years or 18 months, and we did so because we believe somebody should know when they receive significant claims or not before they are forced to decide whether or not to retain a trade secret. It's an important issue; it's one that I believe will allow us a final and lasting way for a secret to be balanced with the interest to not have submarine patents and unknown information. I yield to the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under the current law when your patent claims are granted, you have an obligation to make available to the world and to people of ordinary skill in the art how to knock off your product. That's current law. That has been around since the founding. The deal between the Patent Office, the American people, if you will, and the inventor is that you have disclosed to the world if you are given those claims for a limited period of time. We are not changing that in 200 years. We are protecting your right if you are not granted a patent. That is what current law does; that is what this amendment does.

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Both of my amendments are intended to improve this bill. I don't stand before the Committee of the Whole to say that this bill will become perfect. As a matter of fact, in the general debate, I named companies like BIOCOM and GenProbe and Invitrogen, who are part of UCSD CONNECT, who have specific areas we are including in the material that they want continued work done on. They are, in fact, dissatisfied with the bill because it hasn't done everything it could do. But this amendment on rulemaking which would stop an arbitrary decision by the Patent Office on something it may want to do such as eliminate continuations, et cetera, is there for a reason. And I would hope that people who are going to perhaps oppose the bill as not yet good enough would recognize that it is crucial for this amendment to get into it if we are going to protect against arbitrary action by the Patent and Trademark Office. And last but not least, Ms. Kaptur was kind enough to ask one more question during the previous amendment that couldn't be answered, and I just want to make it clear on the previous amendment, you will be able to keep your secret through an unlimited period of debate back and forth with the Patent Office up to two full rejections and then 90 days in which to close. And I would hope the gentlewoman would recognize that that is an improvement even if nothing is perfect.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I'll briefly explain the amendment. Almost every single agency of the Federal Government has rule-making authority. But, quite frankly, rules are, in fact, laws made by agencies. So when the Patent and Trademark Office repeatedly has asked us for rule-making authority, it has been a long process to figure out the best way to allow them to make rules but to retain our genuine constitutional obligation over the effects of those laws. So, in doing so, what we did was we crafted a constitutional review. We're not allowed to veto these agencies, but we are allowed to overrule them. And in doing so, what we have decided to do is to allow any Member of the House or the Senate to bring a motion in opposition to any rule produced or proposed by the Patent and Trademark Office, and we will, in fact, within 60 days, hear that rule, that opposition and make a decision. This is designed specifically to stop any overreaching under this underlying bill from potentially causing things which we would not have legislated to, in fact, be legislated, while recognizing that we want the Patent and Trademark Office to have the ability to move swiftly and accurately to the conclusion of patents on behalf of our economy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISSA. It does. Under this provision, if you receive your second and usually final rejection and you say, okay, I'm going to take my, within 90 days, I'm going to discard my patent, that wrapper is not available to anyone. It remains a secret and you're allowed to keep your trade secrets.

Mr. ISSA. I would be glad to yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess as a machinist union worker and a mechanic, I'll get that out there so that I get my claim to union membership and to having gotten a lot of grease under fingernails, for Ms. Kaptur's understanding, because I think what she brought up is crucial, and full understanding is essential as to this amendment. This amendment, if it takes 10 years to get a second office action, will give the inventor 10 years of no one else seeing it. It is an infinite period of time, subject to the 20-year expiration. It is, in fact, an infinite period of time. And as an inventor, I chose the second office action, even though small inventors had said the first office action was good enough, because I was aware that the first office action is most often a rejection over which you overcome most of the objections. The second rejection, if there is one, they usually accept some, and if they give you a rejection, you usually don't overcome them, and the venture community, if you've had a second rejection, tends to discount potential additional claims. So that's the reason I chose those because, in fact, it gives you unlimited time to pursue your patent up to and through a second and, usually, final rejection.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The fact that this is what one might consider Democrat time being yielded to a Republican probably says just how bipartisan this bill is. This has been worked on in a Republican majority and in a Democrat majority. It's been cosponsored by the chairman and the ranking members of the committees. It is, in fact, an unusual piece of work. Additionally, this rule, and I've been voting against rules lately because they weren't open and fair. This rule accommodated virtually every amendment offered. In fact, many of the people speaking here today against the bill and against the rule didn't offer any amendments. Whether you're on the committee or not, this is your opportunity, after nearly 4 years of this being an open process under leadership on both sides of the aisle, this is your opportunity, if you have solutions. I urge the passage of this rule and the passage of the underlying bill because, in fact, it is the best work the best minds on both sides of the aisle could produce over 3 years. Now, people who, in fact, are saying they don't want to vote for it are saying we just need more time. In fact, the engine that drives the economic wealth of our country cannot afford for us to simply let the men and women in black robes continue to try to patch a broken system, as the Supreme Court has done. Not moving in this Congress, and rapid pace could be another year, including the other body. Not moving in this Congress would force the Supreme Court to deal with an out-of-date set of laws. We need to vote this bipartisan bill through a very positive rule, and then to final passage. I strongly recommend that people look at the fact that amendments were accepted by both sides of the aisle, and, as the chairman said, more were accepted by the Republicans, in addition to literally hundreds of suggestions being incorporated into the manager's amendment. I move that we pass the rule, pass the underlying bill, continue a bipartisan process that, of course, will always have somebody who feels they're not benefited. But, in fact, you can't get this kind of support by people who do not normally work well together unless, in fact, this process has been full and fair, as it has been. I thank the ranking member and the chairman for their bipartisan work.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to lower the tone and the rhetoric for just a moment and in 2 minutes give the American people and the body here the opportunity to reflect on what we're really doing here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I travel throughout the Arab world regularly. People in that area of the world are more afraid of Islamic terrorism than any American here tonight. They count on us to be their eyes and ears. Most of those countries do not have the resources we have. So when they hear tonight that we don't want a foreign terrorist who calls into a cell in the U.S. to be listened to, they're shocked. They're shocked that we wouldn't at least listen to the foreign side of the operation or see the e-mail, and if the President doesn't sign this by tomorrow, there will be plenty of terrorists who will take note of this because they didn't think, in fact, we weren't able to listen to foreign callers who are calling in to their terrorist cells. Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, September 11 is a story of exactly this, that we were not listening to Osama bin Laden. We were not monitoring Osama bin Laden's instructions to his cells as they went back and forth into the U.S. and even into my home of San Diego. Mr. Speaker, what's amazing to me here tonight is that we're arguing as though we're changing the Constitution arbitrarily. Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is passing a stopgap 6-month, I repeat, 6-month bill. This thing sunsets in 6 months. One of those months, everybody here will be out on vacation or in their districts doing town hall meetings. The fact is that only 5 months will remain when we come back from the August recess to work further on refinements on a lasting bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I would close by saying, if people would understand, that really what we're doing is we're simply buying the ability to leave town and letting our allies and the American people know that they can sleep safely tonight. I urge you to take this compromise bipartisan bill.

Mr. ISSA. That's fair. Thank you.

Mr. ISSA. Is the gentleman withdrawing them without any other reservation?

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman asked to withdraw the what statements? I couldn't quite hear it.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.