Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the committee. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: ``Ms. Lofgren moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 1501, be instructed to insist that the committee of conference recommend a conference substitute that, (1) includes a loophole-free system that assures that no criminals or other prohibited purchasers, (e.g. murderers, rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, undocumented aliens, stalkers and batterers) obtain firearms from non-licensed person and federally licensed firearm dealers at gun shows; (2) does not include provisions that weaken current gun safety law; and (3) includes provisions that aid in the enforcement of current laws against criminals who use guns (e.g. murderers, rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, stalkers and batterers).'' While I understand that House Rules do not allow Members to co-offer motions to instruct, I would like to say that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) supports this motion and intends to speak on its behalf tomorrow.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this partisan amendment is overtly aimed at the First Lady of the United States and no one else. Now candidates in Government planes pay back the Government for any part of their travel which is campaign related. If a candidate has to be guarded by the Secret Service, the FEC accommodates that in the cost calculation. That is the right thing to do. A democratic Nation requires physical safety for public officials, and by the way, keeping the First Family safe benefits us all. This dangerous amendment also violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. Federal candidates who are not officeholders would pay, but not candidates who are already elected. Mr. Chairman, that is a brand-new loophole for the in-crowd. The effect would be to repeal the repayment rule, but only for those already elected to a federal office. It could benefit every Member of this House, but not those who challenge us. This amendment creates special protections for federal officeholders that singles out the First Lady for bad treatment. It is bad policy, it is unconstitutional, it is petty, and it is unchivalrous. It deserves to be voted down.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, if necessary to claim the time representing the Democratic part of the aisle, but I think, pursuant to the rule, I have been designated as the member of the minority on the committee to represent our side. But I will certainly yield time to the gentlewoman from Ohio to express her opinion.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 revamps our patent system so it is ready to meet the challenge of our Nation's high-tech industry and the global economy. We had a spirited debate in the last Congress on our predecessor bill, H.R. 400. While H.R. 400 did pass the House, it died in the Senate. This year I believe we made the changes that meet the concerns raised during the floor debate in committee. The bill was first published as a committee print so everyone could make known their objections and so final details could be carefully considered before the bill's formal introduction. Now that the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property has favorably reported the result of all that effort, as has the full committee, I encourage support of the bill. It requires early publication of our foreign competitors' technology, it protects American investors from unscrupulous invention promotors, it protects domestic manufacturers and jobs from late-filed and issuing patents, half of which are foreign owned, it provides an inexpensive and efficient system for challenging improvidently granted patents, and it gives the Patent and Trademark Office operational flexibility that it needs. Under this bill, no U.S. inventor who seeks patent protection only in the United States will have to publish their patent application, that is, if they wish to maintain their invention's secrecy. But a U.S. inventor will get to see what foreign competitors are seeking to patent here more than a full year earlier than is the case under current law. While the administrative procedure for testing patents in the PTO by expert examiners will be made fairer, thus enhancing its utility, a number of safeguards have been added to ensure that patentees, especially those of limited financial means, will not be harassed or otherwise subject to predatory tactics. In addition to the PTO's being reorganized into a performance-based organization, the creation of the statutory advisory committee will be of value both to the Congress, the President, and the public. This Act will strengthen our Nation's technological leadership, protect American workers, and reduce the cost of obtaining and enforcing patents in the United States. When I stood earlier this evening, I expressed reservations about the changes that were made in the bill between reporting, I would say unanimously by the full committee, and receipt of the bill today. As I mentioned, legislating is like making sausage. There are many aspects that are not delightful. But I would note that the changes that have been made as explained by the chairman are really discrete ones. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out, the bulk of this bill is exactly what was reported by the committee. It has been available to every Member of the public and this House for many months. The five changes that have been made, although not what I necessarily would have crafted, are those that I can tolerate, that I think American inventors can tolerate. I understand that they are necessary in order to garner the kind of broad consensus that is required in order to move this bill forward. We know that the intellectual property is the coin of the realm in an information-based economy that ours has become. Without strong protection of intellectual property, including patent law, we put at risk the tremendous prosperity that we have created here in America, our wonderful country. This bill will go a long ways towards enhancing the protection that we need for our intellectual property. Therefore, I can now, understanding the five discrete changes, support the bill. I urge that my colleagues would support the bill. I hope that the Senate will act swiftly to get this long overdue measure enacted into law.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we need to specify the security issues in this bill, but I accept the chairman's commitment to work with me, and I am sure with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), to ensure the encrypted security of these measures.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Ms. LOFGREN. Finally at this point, Mr. Speaker, I note that one change that I think I support but I have some concerns about is that the Patent and Trademark Office would be authorized to publish documents electronically. That makes sense, but because of the lack of vigorous encryption involved in the world and in government offices, I do have concerns as to the security of such publication. I do not know whether that can be addressed in the bill, but I do want to raise the issue, and my 5 minutes is expired. I want to reserve the time for the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), so I will leave that out for a later answer.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, under title VI the Public Advisory Committee for Patents has been altered to provide a quarter of the representation to independents, so-called independent inventors. There is concern that institutional inventors, including universities, might be disadvantaged by this change. Can the gentleman advise us as to the wisdom of this proposal?

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. LOFGREN. On title V, and this is something of actual considerable concern to me, the bill was amended to retain existing law for ex parte reexaminations. For inter parte's reexamination the basic framework in the bill was retained under title V but with the limitation that a third party requestor cannot appeal an adverse decision to the court of appeals for the Federal circuit court. I am wondering if the gentleman can convince us why this change made after the bill was reported from the committee was necessary and why it should compel our support.

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. So that is an accommodation that we have done, given that legislation is sausage making, to move this whole process forward. On title IV there is a provision permitting applicants to request the issuance of a patent as soon as one claim was allowed with the remaining claims to be added later, and that was deleted. I am concerned that this would change the bill as passed by the Committee on the Judiciary, but there may be some good reason that I am not aware of for the change that is proposed. Can the gentleman convince me as to why this should be supported?

Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to inquire of the chairman of the committee, rising in opposition to the bill, I need to explore the changes that have been made to this bill to understand why it is worthy of my support. In title II there is a first inventor defense that is limited to methods of doing or conducting business, and I need to understand why, what the impact of that would be and why it merits our support.

Ms. LOFGREN. I think we just solved it, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make a 10-second statement that will save us all a lot of time. After I make my opening statement, it is my intention to yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Vietnam should be able to trade with America, but only when Hanoi halts human rights abuses and establishes a fair, sound economic environment that embraces human rights. It is clear that Vietnam is eager to have an economic relationship with the United States and is willing to take the steps necessary to do so. Unfortunately, they are not where they need to be and they will not get there unless we stand firm for democratic principles and for human rights for the people of Vietnam. Vietnam embarked down the road to reform in 1986, achieving high economic growth of 8 percent per year with low inflation. As a result, the U.S. lifted economic sanctions in 1994 and normalized diplomatic relations in 1995. It was all downhill from there. The economic growth did not produce democratic and market reforms. In addition to quashing the religious, political and social freedoms of its citizens and restricting their rights to emigrate, Hanoi has taken giant steps backward from fostering sound policies and stability to bolster its economy and attract foreign investors. Erratic decision making, government red tape and high overhead makes many businesses unviable. The government's refusal to loosen its political domination and accelerate the transition to a market economy has brought the country to a critical juncture. We cannot abandon the Vietnamese people and American businesses at this critical juncture. In the case of Vietnam, trade sanctions can be an effective way of ensuring Hanoi chooses the path of reform. As we saw in South Africa, 5 years after the U.S. first imposed economic sanctions, the Pretoria government abolished apartheid. While some question the economic effectiveness of U.S. sanctions, economists agree that the psychological and political effects were of fundamental importance to eliminating apartheid. Economic sanctions are not the right tool in every case. But when they are, they take time. They only are effective when we have the patience to wait for results. The people of Vietnam deserve the same patience. Please support this resolution and join with the Vietnamese people in their struggle against communism and oppression.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would disagree with my colleague from Florida on the germaneness issue. In the example I gave in my 5 minutes in support of my amendment, I mentioned the issue where we had the possession of a Tech DC 9 by the owner of a winery and the holder of a Federal license of a winery. That is not a State license, that is a Federal license. And in order to affect that Federal license, recourse first of the ATF and later, and arguably necessarily, to the Federal courts, would be necessary. The State does not have jurisdiction over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Further, I would note that the forum of a Federal court gives multi- State enforcement opportunities that arguably are not available to the attorneys general by recourse to a State forum. And if that is not the case, if that turns out to be incorrect, then the entire basis for this act being asserted by the proponents of the Scarborough bill evaporates. Because if the point of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) is that there is adequate remedy in State court, then there ought to be adequate remedy in State court for alcohol violations as well. As the Chair will note, I did not ask for a vote on his prior ruling on the first amendment, because although I think an argument, and a good argument, could be made on its germaneness, I think that the arguments on germaneness on this amendment are weak indeed, and I would hope that the Chair would allow a vote to be taken on this amendment. We have gone to great lengths to make sure it deals with the germaneness issue. Consequently, it is much smaller in scope than I think is appropriate and warranted by the violence emergency that faces us. But I offer it because at least it is something that this Congress could do as a show of good faith to the mothers and fathers of America who, like myself, are preparing to send their children back to school in just a month or so. So I would hope that the Chair would rule that this is germane, and that absent that, those who have raised the point of order might consider withdrawing that point of order. I think it is only fair that this House be given the opportunity to do something, something for gun safety for the mothers and fathers of this country. Mr. Chairman, I submitted for the Record legal citations from the Appellate Court of Illinois on this subject matter.

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.