Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. So 15 over 60 is 25 percent. So we are not being given equal time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the rule is open to some, not all.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Though I hoped it would be more, we will take what we can get at this point, so I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I rise in obvious strong opposition to H.R. 400. If this bill were so wonderful, then why are America's preeminent inventors opposed to it? Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of magnetic resonance scanning, Dr. Wilson Greatbatch, inventor of the cardiac pacemaker, Dr. Stephanie Kwolick, inventor of Kevlar, Dr. Jay Forrester, inventor of core memory, the first practical RAM. If this is such a great idea, then why are the people who have created America's future opposing it? I have to say this bill is about a whole lot more than just arcane patent law. It is about what our Constitution guaranteed, and that is the property rights of our inventors. I hear all this concern about foreign countries and putting us on an equal footing with foreign countries. The facts are, we are the leader in the world. Why should we want to dumb down our system or make it easier for others to tap into the inventions that our people produce? Why should we ask our inventors to have a greater burden of proof? Why should we make them be forced to get into this reexamination system? Why should we do this to the people who have built the greatest industrial and agricultural power on the face of the Earth? I say to the membership, how many complaints have my colleagues received from their small inventors except on this bill? The system works for them. The only complaint one might get is about the maintenance fees, how much they have to pay to maintain a patent, and truly that needs to be improved. But we have a wonderful system that says if you have an idea, you file it at our patent office, that that idea is yours, it is secret until that patent is issued. Why would we want to change that system?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that comment. This whole question of submarine patents and so forth, there is less than \13/1000\ percent of those that even affect this entire system, and even then we have to be about the task of protecting American inventors' rights. To the extent we can get other nations to conform their systems to ours, terrific, but why should we try to conform our system to theirs? Why should we make it more difficult for our inventors to pay the fees? This office I am told has been changed as we are sitting here today. With this corporatization of the patent office, that now apparently is not going to be allowed to accept gifts and real estate, because of pressure from Members of Congress like myself, as it is in the base bill, when I read the amendment, and I really do not have a copy of it here, but it basically says you are going to require gift rules be drafted to ensure that gifts to this new office are not only legal but avoid any appearance of impropriety. Why should they be given those gifts in the first place? Why should that be happening under this bill? And why should we take away the objectivity of our patent examiners who are completely insulated from any kind of economic coercion by the current system? I have to say that patents are the trade routes for the 21st century. America under H.R. 400 is throwing away our technological lead by publishing patent applications much earlier and taking away the secrecy that is inherent in our system to our inventors and making other radical changes which, by the way, to the membership, if anybody has a final copy of this bill I hope they will give it to me because somebody who has been as involved in this issue as any other Member, I cannot give my colleagues a bill that we will be asked to vote on here today that is accurate in terms of legislative language. We have the choice here today to create prosperity for our Nation, to provide opportunities to our children, but if we change the patent system as H.R. 400 proposes, we will be throwing away the American dream of opportunity embedded in the Constitution of the United States. I guarantee my colleagues if this bill passes, there is going to be decades of litigation as the American people fight for the rights they were granted under our Constitution. Our patent system is the heart of our economic strength because it creates new money, jobs, and new industries. I ask the membership to vote no on H.R. 400. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Kucinich], our esteemed colleague.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in support of this rule because, once it is passed, Members like myself who oppose H.R. 400 are going to be given about 15 minutes out of the hour, only one-quarter of the time to present our views. That is typical of what has been happening on this extremely important bill. I understand what the floor managers have to do here, but I truly object to the fact that we are not given equal time during debate to handle a bill of this magnitude. There is absolutely no question that this bill concerns America's future. It concerns our jobs. It concerns who controls our technology. To be muzzled on the floor when we consider a bill that has constitutional implications is beyond my wildest dreams. Why would they do this to us? We know the Committee on Small Business has not been able to hold hearings because small inventors have not been allowed to present their case to the Congress. Now on the floor we will also have our hands tied behind our backs and be allowed so little time to discuss the merits. In view of that, I say to the Members who are listening to this debate and to the people of the country, how many complaints have you ever gotten from your inventors about the current patent system? The United States leads the world in patent filings. We have 10 times more intellectual property breakthroughs than any other Nation in the world. Why would we want to change our system? I heard the prior speaker say, ``Japan or some other country.'' But, we lead the world. Why would we want to do anything to harm the system that has created the largest industrial and agricultural power on the face of the Earth? There is much at stake here, and there are many private interests that want to get their hands into what is happening at our Patent Office. We understand that well. But there is more at stake here than just arcane rules that may be administered by a department that handles our patents. I say to the membership, if they have not read this bill, if they do not understand its implications, vote no on H.R. 400 and vote for the substitute. We will talk a lot about how the period is shortened for our inventors where, if you file a patent, in 18 months they will be able to get your blueprints. Your work will not be kept secret as it is today until the patent is issued. That is absolutely wrong. Why would we want to do that to the people who are creating our future in this country? Why would we want to corporatize the Patent Office and take away the objectivity of its examiners? And why in heaven's name would you want to produce a bill, page 11, lines 15 through 17, which permits this Office, which will not have the same kind of control we have today, to accept monetary gifts or donations of services, of real estate, personal or mixed property in order to carry out the functions of the Office? We have seen all kinds of bribes in this city. I hear from the chairman that may be out. Well, I will be really interested in what else is out of the bill because this truly is a work in progress. It is unfair to the membership. It is unfair to the people of this country who are creating our future to be muzzled here on this floor.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 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.)

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will yield time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] in just a second, but I wanted to answer the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], since he referenced me at least three times in his remarks. Mr. Chairman, I see a big difference between 18 months, 17 years, and 20 years. Under the bill the gentleman supports, the gentleman requires that there be publishing of all patent applications 18 months after they have been filed, whether or not the patent has been issued. Eighteen months is less than 2 years. The GAO says it takes at least 4 years, the Patent Office says it takes 2 years, average application time, but whatever the time is, some patents take 10 years, 12 years. The gentleman is saying 18 months. That information is made available under the gentleman's radical proposal. It is a radical departure from the current system which says that once a patent is issued, an inventor has protection for 17 years, almost 2 decades. The gentleman said, oh, but I give you 20 years, 20 years is better than 17 years. No, your 20 years does not begin when the patent is issued, it begins when the patent is filed. I was courteous to the gentleman when he was talking to me. I would certainly appreciate a little eye contact here while I am talking to him. So there is a big difference, numerical difference to the protection of the inventors of this country. I feel bad the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] did not yield to me, but I wanted to clarify for the Record, there is a whole lot at stake. Every single day of a patenter's life of his invention is important. They have a lot on the line. Some of them have their whole future on the line. For America, we have America's future on the line. So the difference between 17 years of guaranteed covered and 18 months when you have to divulge the secrecy of your information is a pretty big difference. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Ms. KAPTUR. Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, if they have not read H.R. 400, I say vote ``no.'' No one will have been able to read it because it has been changed so much, there is no final bill for Members to review. Support the substitute. Remember, the United States leads the world in intellectual property breakthroughs by 10 times. Why change a system that is working, for a bill which Members have no final copy of to review? Why support a bill that takes away the guaranty of secrecy our patent applicants receive until their patent is granted? Why do that to them? Why support H.R. 400, when it puts a greater burden of proof on our inventors to defend themselves, forcing them to sue, forcing them to greater re-examination procedures? Why do this to them? Why support a bill that undermines the objectivity of our patent examiners, and changes our Patent Office? This is a battle that goes to the heart of the constitutional rights of our citizens to invent opportunity in the 21st century. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 400. Support the substitute.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, because I know he approaches all these issues with complete objectivity and he tries to do what is best for the country.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, that is right. Actually, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, was down here earlier and had to go back to a markup. She is supporting this legislation. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Dick Gephardt, our minority leader, will be supporting the Rohrabacher substitute. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. David Bonior, on our side of the aisle will be supporting the substitute. So frankly, I think this issue goes down to the point of who has actually read the legislation and who has not, and most Members do not serve on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. Therefore, they have not had an opportunity to follow some of the machinations. I respect the gentlewoman's work on this measure. I know how hard she has worked on it, I know she has been accommodating to many of the changes we have been trying to make. Mr. Chairman, the bill is not where we would like it to be yet, and therefore I remain supporting the Rohrabacher substitute, but we have broad bipartisan support on our side of the issue, and I look forward to the vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rohrabacher substitute and against H.R. 400. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read into the Record some of the organizations that are opposing H.R. 400 and supporting the Rohrabacher substitute, organizations like the Alliance for American Innovation, the American College of Physician Inventors, the American Small Business Association, the National Association for the Self-employed, the National Association of Women Business Owners, the National Congress of Inventor Organizations, the National Patent Association, the National Small Business United. These are not insignificant organizations. The Patent Office Professional Association, the Ohio State Bar Association, from my home State. This is a very small, partial list. The Small Business Legislative Council, the Small Business Technology Coalition, the Small Entity Patent Owners Association, United Inventors of America. One of the great scholars of our time, Franklin Modigliani at MIT, a Nobel laureate. These are not insignificant organizations, nor individuals; inventors like Dr. Paul Burstein, the inventor of rocket motor inspection systems, or Gertrude Elion, the inventor of leukemia-fighting and transplant rejection drugs. There are people here who recognize what is being proposed in the base bill is in fact a significant departure from current practice. They are not satisfied with the so-called changes that are being made actually every moment, from what I can tell from this position here, in order to accommodate the flaws that exist in the base bill. So I would say to the Members, Mr. Chairman, that it is very important to recognize that we not tamper with a system that is working, that has worked for centuries, and certainly for the last several decades as the United States in this century became the preeminent industrial and agricultural leader of the world. H.R. 400, in contrast to the substitute, is actually taking us back, not forward. Why we would want to subject our inventors to divulge the contents of their patent application before it is granted is beyond me. I do not know why we want to take that secret protection away and involve them in litigation. Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to do that domestically, and certainly why would we want to subject them to cases internationally, which are so expensive that most of the smaller inventors cannot even afford to defend their interests? The average American knows it is hard for them to go to court and pay the court costs in this country. Can Members imagine what it is going to be like to deal with international infringements on their patent applications if they have to function under this proposed base bill?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. KAPTUR. In this case we disagree. I think that one of my greatest misgivings about the H.R. 400, and the reason I am supporting the substitute is because, having met many inventors, in a State like Ohio, what this bill does is it, and the gentleman says, well, they can defend their rights, and the gentleman from the other side was saying the same thing, but this is a real lawyers' field day because the small inventor, maybe the person who is working on their first patent, will be forced to take money that many of them do not have. People can defend themselves if they are representatives of a large corporation that has a patent or is filing for a patent. They do not have as much trouble. But the average small inventor under this bill is seriously compromised by the system the gentleman is setting up where we publish after 18 months.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question. Assuming that happened to an inventor and he or she were published and that information were taken by some other interest in another nation, knowing some of the inventors that I know, if they had to sue, many of them do not have deep enough pockets. In fact, 80 percent of the inventors are small inventors and, if they had to take a case, would it not be extremely difficult for many inventors to try to protect their property rights internationally?

Ms. KAPTUR. They are both attorneys. It is so interesting the way this debate goes.