OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2021, Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1249, America Invents Act

Floor Speech

Date: June 22, 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Energy

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the base bill is estimated to have a discretionary cost of $446 million over the next 5 years, $1.1 billion over the next 10 years. The manager's amendment violates the new CutGo rules by undoing the anti-fee diversion language, which eliminates a procedure that would have decreased the budget deficit by $717 million over 5 years. This violates the CutGo rules that the majority put in place.

I would note also that the rule and the manager's amendment have many other problems. I am very disappointed that having worked on the patent reform measure since 1997 that we are yanking defeat from the jaws of victory here today. The rule does not permit the consideration of Mr. Conyers' amendment, which was focused on this fee matter that corrects the violation of the rule. It also does not permit the consideration of the grace period preservation and prior art clarification that is essential to small inventors. If we are going to go to the first-to-file system, we need to make sure that we protect prior user rights and that we protect the grace period that has been with our system for so long or else we are going to disempower small innovators. That is simply wrong.

This is a bill that had in the past gained nearly unanimous support when Mr. Sensenbrenner was chair and when Mr. Conyers was chair. I am distressed to report today that I cannot support this measure after working on it since 1997. Not only does it violate the rules, but it costs the Treasury, and it will disempower small innovative inventors. So this is wrong, and the amendments that could have been put in order to correct them were not permitted. I think this is really quite a shame, and I would urge that the measure not be brought up and, as Mr. Sensenbrenner has suggested, that it be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward