something that was designed to -- i'm sure with good intentions, but unfortunately, in its applicability, in the way it is work, the way people have used it, is now being part of a great delay. in the time that it has taken from the e.a.b. to work on this bill, five years, in the time that it has taken to work on this bill, the company that has the lease right now, has drilled 400 wells around the world. not in the united states, not creating u.s. jobs here, not creating u.s. energy, but working abroad. and if we are going to set this country toward energy security, i've said it before and continue will say -- to say it,

we have to recognize the national importance of allowing exploration to occur. exploration permits, activities that will take 35 to 45 days. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. gardner: i'll yield. >> i think you have a very good point on the balkanization. we have these federal waters, the outer continental shelf, we have a lot of oil reserves and we're trying to explore, trying to produce more oil. mr. whitfield: if this amendment is adopted, different states can have different rules so that will complicate things. and we already have a situation where we have different agencies of the federal government issuing these permits. in some areas we have the department of interior. in other areas we have e.p.a. if you take that on top of the balkanization, it's going to take a lot longer than five years. we may never get a permit. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. gardner: thank you to the gentleman from kentucky. it's frustrating, too, because we continue to hear statement from the administration, from others who wish to pursue an energy -- a vibrant energy policy for our country that they too agree we need expanded resource development in the united states, expanded u.s. energy opportunities. but it's almost like lip-synching. they are -- they are talking about it but actually not doing it. and unfortunately what we are seeing is conversations by the administration without the actions to back up that conversation. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my colleague from colorado, the author of the bill. section 328 of the clean air act is what is at issue today in this amendment. it was created more than 20 years ago largely at the insinsens of california officials. in fact, my republican predecessor, he introduced this

legislation because residents were unhappy about uncontrolled air pollution from offshore drilling as well as local industry and business groups who were upset that offshore sources were basically free to pollute while onshore producers tried to make up for the degraded air quality. only two states now have this permission to -- mr. gardner: will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. i will yield 1 1/2 minutes to my colleague from delaware, mr. carney. the chair: the gentlelady has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. carney: i rise in support of this amendment and i ask unanimous consent that this letter from the delaware department of natural resources be submitted for the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. carney: while i oppose the underlying bill, i will only speak to this amendment and address what i think is a nonpartisan issue and frankly appeals to states' rights which my republican friends typically support. delaware is a nonattainment

with federal clean air standards, mainly due to emissions that come from outside our state borders. in order to comply with federal law and protect public health, delaware has the ability to implement pollution-control strategies beyond e.p.a.'s requirements. last year delaware was given clean air act authority for the outer continental shelf. meaning that the state rather than e.p.a. regulates emissions there. delegated authority is working. the one o.c.s. permit requested of delaware was granted within weeks, not months. it goes through quick review. that does not mean a delay, as my republican colleague alleged. in fact, this delegated authority is working so well there are that other states are actively looking into it. maryland, virginia and alaska have each asked delaware for its documents or delegated authority. a one-size-fits-all approach

like h.r. 2021 is not in the best interest of our states. our amendment simply preserves delegated authority to the states that want it. enabling our states to oversee pollution control as they see fit. this is not balkanization. it's common sense. i urge my colleagues to preserve states' rights, support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: all time having expired on this debate, the question incurs on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote on this amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed.

if is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-111. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. hochul: i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by ms. hochul of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hochul, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes of this debate. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. hochul: i thank the chair. i stand here today to ask one simple question. how will the jobs and energy permitting act of 2007 reduce the cost of gasoline for consumers? this is a -- act of 2011 reduce the cost of gasoline for consumers? the price of gasoline is soaring in our country and across the nation americans are

paying too much at the pump. the average gasoline right now is $3.63, up over $1 from a year ago. diesel, which our struggling farmers have to pay, has gone up a dollar in the same time frame. however, as i stated on this floor before, the people in my district are paying much more than that. in the past, western new yorkers have paid some of the highest gas prices in this nation. rising fuel prices have hurt our small businesses. they hurt our farms, and they hurt our families at a time when money is far too scarce. and that is why we must know why -- how the jobs and energy permitting act of 2011 will increase oil and gas production, and we need to know that this will decrease the cost of energy for our consumers. under this bill american people are supposed to put their trust in the same oil companies that have consistently betrayed that

trust. they tell us we need to drill more and they tell us they need to get more permits on expedited basis in order to do so. well, i agree. i agree we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but i'm looking for the proper oversight. i want to know the permits we're issuing -- how we know the permits we're issuing so oil companies can drill in our waters will result in that production of oil and gas. how do we know they simply won't secure permits and not choose to drill to keep oil and gas off the market or even worse, just to drive up the price of oil by manipulating supply? the amendment i'm offering today is quite simple and straightforward. in one line it gives the e.p.a. administrator 60 days to submit a report dealing how this bill will increase oil and gas production while lowering the price of energy for consumers. it has nothing to do with the merits of the bill which i'm not weighing in at this time, but i think that asking for a report within two months of

passing this act is not unreasonable. which is why i ask all my colleagues to join today with me in supporting this amendment. today, the people back home in my district and all across this nation are still fed up with high gas prices and they want to know what we are going to do about these problems. this amendment in a bipartisan way can be a step toward finding that solution. i yield back the balance of my time, and i thank the chair. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: we certainly want to thank the gentlelady from new york for introducing this amendment, and to answer the question about how is this bill going to help oil prices and provide more oil for the marketplace, obviously you can't do it overnight. but the reason that we're here

is because it's taken e.p.a. five years and they still have not even rendered a decision on a simple exploratory drill permit request. which is not even a long-term activity. it's simply to explore, to determine is oil there and can we use it. now, in america we're using around 20 million barrels of oil a day. and the vast majority of that is being imported in the u.s. from other sources. and so all we're attempting to do in this bill, we're not changing any aspect to the clean air act, we're not changing mobile source rules, stationary source rules, national ambient air quality standards. we're not changing that. we're not changing the environmental appeals board from hearing appeals on any other permit other than an

exploratory permit and that's all this bill does. and we want to do it because we're trying to find additional oil in america and we know we have it. and we also know that if we have more oil, obviously we can't get it produced tomorrow. we've been trying five years just to get the permit and we don't have that yet. but we want any company to have the ability to go out and drill and to get an expedited answer from the e.p.a. we're not even directing e.p.a. to approve the permit. we're simply saying, make a decision. and then if the other side does not like the decision, they have an opportunity to go to court. under the way it's operating today, we do not even -- we can't get a final decision to even go to court. so here we are in limbo. and while -- i might also say

that on the gentlelady's amendment, she does not give any time for this report to be issued. and knowing e.p.a.'s track record, we could be here 10 years waiting for a report. but more important than that, e.p.a. really does not perform economic analysis of energy markets. the energy information administration does that. they have the modeling to do it. they have the technicians to do it. they have the information to do it. e.p.a. really does not even do a very good job on their regulations of thinking about the impact on jobs in america. so i understand the gentlelady's intent. i think it's a very good intent, but as i said, one of the real reasons we're here, she doesn't even set a timeline for this and i would reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman from new york having yielded her time -- mr. whitfield: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserve. the gentlewoman from new york has yielded her time. do you seek to -- mr. whitfield: you've yielded your time? i yield back the balance of my time. >> will the gentleman from kentucky yield? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield the gentleman 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from kentucky. thank you, mr. chairman. this issue of studies, this issue of blue ribbon commissions, you know, it doesn't address the actual fact that prices very much depend on supply. that's the testimony that we have received. if we have a million barrels of oil coming into this country from our own resources, american resources, we believe, we know from testimony at the hearing that it will impact

price. testimony at the hearing has said the west coast of this united states would have to import less, that it would reduce the price at the pump in california. and we don't have time to create commissions that don't actually relieve the american consumers' pain at the pump. they're paying for it now. i, too, represent farmers, businesses that are paying $3.50 a gallon. they were paying higher just a few weeks ago. and none of them have come to me and said, you know, i wish you could study whether or not high prices are impacting me or not. i wish you could study whether american production will actually reduce the price at the pump because they know intuitively that increased supply, american energy resources when we develop them will add to our supply and it's a function of supply and demand. we have the opportunity in this

country to create american jobs. i ask for a no vote on this amendment. the chair: all time having expired on this debate, the question is on the adoption of the amendment of the gentlewoman from new york. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. hochul: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york will be postponed. the chair: is now in order to consider amendment number 10. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 part a house report 112-111, offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 316, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a gentleman opposed will be recognized for five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment. this amendment is very simple. it protects 363 miles of fragile oregon coastline and many of the communities that depend on it. this amendment would prevent any permits required under the clear air act on the outer continental shelf off the coast of oregon and respects oregon's state's right to decide what is best without federal interference. our coastal communities depend on the vitality of the pacific ocean and they already face tremendous pressure in the tourism economy and cannot afford an environmental catastrophe like deepwater horizon. while oregon has operated under a moratorium on drilling since 1982, this has expired in 2008. oregon citizens and its businesses deserve certainty to be able to invest in our fishery

and tourism infrastructure. we respect other states' rights. oregon is leading the way in renewables. we have a state energy portfolio that highlights wind, solar, biomass, not oil or coal. and with that, i would like to yield one minute to my colleague from the north coast. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wu: i rise in strong support of this amendment. as a citizen of oregon, i question why we would risk our coast to support an energy industry of the last century rather than of the next september try. why we would subject our fisheries and visitor-based coastal economy to the dangers of a bp-style disaster in oregon waters. we should focus on generating local jobs, not profits for far-off oil companies.

we can create these local jobs by investing in the energy industries of the next century that are uniquely suited to the oregon coast. wave energy and next generation offshore wind. oregon can be the saudi arabia of renewable wave energy. wave energy depends on two things, big waves and seabed con tours suited to exploit those waves. oregon has both. oregon is the best place in the world where these two factors come together. as for wind energy, new, next generation technology will allow floating wind farms to be operated 100 miles offshore. these are the jobs of the future and these are the technologies and energy of the future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time in this debate? mr. schrader: reserve our time. the chair: who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from kentucky, for what purpose do you rise?

>> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: you have to get an air permit for the energy production that my colleague was just discussing. you have to get an air permit for the offshore wind development, for the wave development. so i believe opposition to this bill actually hurts the very projects that he is promoting. and so, again, i rise in opposition to this amendment, because it would -- it basically puts this country in a situation where you can lease -- go get an energy lease, but you can't get a permit for. so does that create additional liability for this country or going to end up into an area where we will get sued? not only for the oil and gas development, but for the very projects that my colleague was addressing. and see here we are in a situation that gets back to the

fundamental question at issue. are we going to allow a bureaucratically created board in washington, d.c., wearing robes and hearing basic judicial proceedings or are we going to allow them to stall an issue of national importance? five years it's taken. five years it has taken in this one particular instance. access to federal offshore areas is not determined by the e.p.a.-issued air permits. it's determined by the president of the united states when through the department of interior lease sales are or not held for federal lands and waters. this is -- once again, it's an attempt to shut off exploration activity in the pacific. the matter is not to be decided through air permits but to be decided when and if air and wind lease sales are proposed for those areas.

the concerns will be represented by our colleagues who are proposing this amendment by the opportunity that remains that debate and provide comment through the nepa process, through the leasing process. there are five opportunities for public comment to be provided on exploration activity. 30 to 45 days' worth of activity, five opportunities for the public to comment. we've got to get this country into a position where we recognize that it is a good thing for american-produced energy to have opportunities to be developed. we heard testimony from the state of alaska. this bill has bipartisan support. it is an effort to say you know what? we have resources in reserves, we have facilities like the

trans-squean pipeline that 650,000 barrels of oil a day that was designed to bring in two million barrels of oil a day. if it gets lower, it will create mechanical problems transporting the oil. if it gets below 200,000 barrels, it will be decommissioned and torn apart. the potential to bring 2.1 million barrels of oil a day into this country will be gone if the trans-alaska and pipeline is removed. the jobs and energy permitting act, h.r. 2021, gives this body the answer to say we are going to utilize our resources in a responsible manner. we're going to tell the e.p.a. that they've got six months to do the analysis, approve it or don't approve it. but make a decision because the american people deserve a decision.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. who seeks time? the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: i yield one minute to the congressman from southern oregon. the chair: the gentleman from southern oregon is reckniesed -- recognized. mr. defazio: you are either for states' rights or not. when it is veept to their agenda, they are for states' rights, my state voted the legislature, just last year for 10-year moratorium on their lands as an expression of interest not only to ban the leasing of the lands within the coastal waters, but beyond that. we are serious about protecting our fisheries. we are serious about our profitable tourism industry and yes, we are serious about wind and wave development. and the gentleman made no sense. he said somehow this would preclude wind and wave development. not at all.

you don't need a clean air permit for something that doesn't potentially pollute the air. i don't have enough time. i only have one minute. so at this point, i would just suggest that let's be consistent. state of alaska wishes to push ahead. the gentleman from alaska has the bill before us. the republican party controls the house, great. he has always had a rule that people from local districts and local states, the gentleman from alaska, get to have their prerogative. this is our prerogative representing the state of oregon. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. when your time has expired, your time has expired. the gentleman from cole. -- colorado. you have one minute remaining and the gentleman from colorado is recognize dollars.

-- recognized. mr. schrader: i recognize the gentleman for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate all my colleagues who represent the oregon coast in bringing this forward. my district may not touch the oregon coast but my constituents spend time there and value its beauty, the ecosystem and the economic benefits it brings to the united states. the underlying bill could allow an expedited drilling for offshore oil, a process that is expedited for those who would drill, but a process that is much worse for citizens who may object. we need to continue to respect the wishes of the people of oregon to keep oil rigs off our shores to drill off the coast of oregon. this is an appropriate safeguard

to protect our coastal communities. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserve? mr. schrader: reserves. the chair: who seeks time? the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: when i was seeking the opportunity to ask the gentleman to yield, section 328 applies to any offshore projects authorized under the outer continental shelf lands act. all offshore energy projects must have a permit. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves. who seeks time? the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 30 minutes reseconds. mr. schrader: would like to reserve. mr. gardner: i believe we have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. schrader: the people of

oregon do not want or need drilling off our coast. this amendment is supported by all three members of the entire oregon coastline and our state legislature. we respect, i hope, this body would respect the people of oregon's right to determine their own destiny. we aren't talking about the state of alaska but the state of oregon and only talking about oil and natural gas permits. house members representing this coast are very passionate about its health and future vitality. we urge this body to pass this amendment and respect oregon's destiny. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. and i oppose the amendment. we have an opportunity with the jobs and energy permitting act to get this country on a path towards a secure energy future. it's a matter of national interests, not just a matter of oregon, colorado or alaska. everyone who is suffering through the pain at the pump

realizes that the resources we have been blessed with in this country when used responsibly, can be used for the benefit of our country to the benefit of all. the 112th congress has continued to focus on job creation, just like the jobs in the energy permitting act. job creation, long-term economic well-being. it was said before that somebody on the other side said we aren't going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing more oil. that doesn't make any sense at all. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate having expired, the question occurs on the a adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. schrader: i would like a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 112-111, on which further proceedings were postponed and these votes will occur in the following order, amendment number one, by ms. speier of california, amendment number 2 of mr. hastings of california, amendment number 3 by mr. welch of vermont. amendment number 5, mr. rush of illinois, amendment number 6, by mr. quigley of illinois, amendment number 7 by eshoo of california, amendment number 8 by ms. capps of california. amendment number 9, by ms. hochul of new york and amendment number 10 of mr. schrader of oregon. the chair will reduce to five

minutes after the first vote. the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-111 by the gentlewoman from california on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report number 112-111 offered by misspear of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 176, the nays are 248 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business before the house is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part a of house report 112-111. the chair: a vorded -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] .

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 167, the nays are 254, this amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-111, offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 183, the nays are 238. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on earment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-111, by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four, printed in part a of house report 112-111, offered by mr. keating of massachusetts.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 167 and the nays, 255.

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas 167 and the nays, 2858. the amendment is not adopted. the jon finished is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5, printed in part a of whose report 112-11 by mr. rush and the noes prevailed by voice

vote. the clerk: amendment number 5, print d in house report a 112-11 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise a and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five hive minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 272 and the nays are 15 and the amendment is not adopted. the request is for a recorded vote on amendment number 6

printed in house report 112-111 on which the knows prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered bring mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment the nays are -- the ayes are 173, the nays are 251, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the amendment printed in house report 112-111, offered by ms. eshoo. the clerk willres. re-designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part a of house report 112-111, offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this resolution, the yeas are 183, the nays are 240. the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in part a of house report 112-111, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 17 , the nays are 290. the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 190, the nays 280,

the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on earment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-11, by the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hochul, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report part a of 112-111, by ms. hochul of new york. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a five-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 186 and nays, 2838. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part a 112-111 and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 112-111 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment, the yeas are 160, the nays are 262, the amendment is not agreed to. under the rule, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house has had under consideration h.r. 2021 and reports the bill back to the house with no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the

committee has under consideration h.r. 2021 and pursuant to house resolution 316, reports the bill back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: to amend the clean air act regarding air pollution from the outer continental shelf activities. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. mr. speaker, i'm opposed to it in its current form. mr. speaker, point of order. i can't hear myself think. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. keating of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2021 to the

committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report back to the house with the following amendments. after subsection b of section 3128 of the clean air act as proposed to be added by section 4 of the bill, insert the following, e, determination of lower gas prices at the pump. in conducting analysis relating to requirements for pollution controls pursuant to this section, the administrator shall determine whether the controls under review will result in lower gasoline prices in the united states, including the retail price charged at service stations. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes many support of his motion. mr. keating: mr. speaker, i rise to offer this final amendment that i believe will greatly increase economic and job safeguards for the american people. simply put, the underlying legislation -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order.

the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. keating: simply put, the underlying legislation is risk versus reward. we know what the reward is. trillions of dollars of profit over the last decade for oil companies and preferred stock buy-backs for executives and we know what the proponents of this bill say the reward will be and that is lower gas prices at the pump. now bheas the risk that we're looking at? the risk is existing jobs, existing jobs in the marine industry, fishing industry, the tourism industry, industries that are among the most job -producing in my state and so many other people in this chamber. my amendment requires the administrator to determine whether or not this will lower gas prices for american citizens. i believe we need a safeguard for the american public who

should not bear the burden of the risk with no guarantee of the reward. i'm sure the many small businesses in the gulf and in my district that rely on the marine economies and tourism would agree with this and this final amendment is a commonsense compromise and regardless of how the members feel of the underlying legislation, this is something we should be all be able to support. . when i offered my amendment earlier, my colleague across the aisle said it was irrelevant and did not deal with what the heart of the bill was spezzed to do, which according to him was to increase oil production to translate to decreased gas prices at the pump. now if it's not for lower gas prices for consumers, then the only rationale for this must be that it's for higher profits

for oil companies. all day, proponents have said the reason for the bill is the lower gas prices. this amendment simply put asks them to mean what they say. and i ask all my colleagues to please support this final amendment and mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the house will be in order. for what purpose -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> seek recognition in opposition to the amendment the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the motion to recommit that's been offered is something we talked about today will result in lower prices at the pump. mr. gardner: i don't think our constituents will put appreciate it if we put a big sign on the gas pump that says,

you're going to pay $3.50 or $4 for gas while we study it, while this blue ribbon commission continues. this needs to be done in a timely manner to relieve prices at the pump. americans are tired of overregulation and job-killing registrationlations. americans are tired of the pain at the pump they face each and every day. this pill presents an opportunity to create 54,000 jobs. in the time that it has taken to access, to get a permit approved overseas, 400 wells have been drilled around the world. they created jobs in other countries they created energy in other countries, but they didn't do it in our own backyard. this is our opportunity to get american resources online in a responsible manner. this amendment is one more stall, one more study, one more way to tell the american people that we're not interested in

help regular leave the pain at the pump, we're going to study it, we're going to commission it, and then we're not going to do anything. 54,000 jobs, one million barrels of oil a day brought into, online, from alaska, creating jobs, not just there, throughout the 48 states. the other day i heard people talking about make it in america. make it in america. you know what we need to make it in america? we need an energy policy that allows an abundant, afordable energy resource. to make it in america, we need opportunities to secure policies that don't overregulate and kill jobs. if you want to make it in america, rejeck this motion to recommit. develop american resources. put america back to work and vote yes on the underlying bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker -- mr. keating: i request a recorded vote on this the speaker pro tempore: a vorded -- a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes any question on the -- any vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on the motion the ayes, 177, nays, 245. the motion is not adopted. the question is now on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman seeks a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 253, the nays are 166, the bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i am writing to notify you of my resignation from the armed services committee effective june 22, 2011. i look forward to continuing to

serve the tampa bay area and the state of florida from the energy and commerce and budget committees in the 112th congress. signed, kathy castor, united states representative, florida district 11. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 321 rerks solved that the following named member be -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman rise?

>> i send to the desk a privilege red port for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 320, resolution providing for consideration of the bill 2219, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 655, an eakt to -- an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service to in cary, mississippi, as the spencer burg powers post office.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1380, the new alternative transportation to give americans solutions act of 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? does the gentleman from texas seek recognition for general leave request? the gentleman from texas. >> i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remark -- their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1249. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: and -- mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 316, and rule 18, the chair

declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1249. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1249 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 35, united states code, to provide for patent reform. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. an initial period of general debate shall be confined to the question of the constitutionality of the bill and shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, or their designees.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, for 10 minutes. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: individuals who raise questions about the constitutionality of the legislation should review the constitution itself. the constitution expressly grants congress the authority to, quote, promote the progress of science and useful arts, end quote. that is precisely what this bill does. h.r. 1249 improves the patent system, ensuring the protection and promotion of intellectual property that spurs economic growth and generates jobs. the bill's inclusion of a move to a first inventor to file system is consistent with the constitution's requirement that patents be awarded to the inventor. a recent letter by professors of law from universities including emery, missouri,

n.y.u., wisconsin, stanford, albany, georgia, vanderbilt and others say that clismse constitutionality cannot be squared with patent law. former attorney general my ball mukasey said the law is constitutional. another person said the constitutionality is assured because it leaves unchanged the rule that a patent issued only to one who invents or discovers. this actually returns us to a system our founders created and used themselves. early american patent law, that of our founders' generation, did not concern itself with who was the first to invent. the u.s. operated under a first inventor to register, which is a system very similar to the

first inventor to file. it wasn't until the 1870's, when the courts created interference proceedings, that our patent system began to consider who was first to invent an invention. these disadvantaged independent inventors and small businesses. over time, interference proceedings have become a costly lit gailings tactic that caused some to take the path of least resistance and move jobs overseas rather than risk millions or billions of dollars in capital investment. the america invents act includes a provision to adoctors prior user rights without jeopardizing american businesses and jobs. opponents of the first inventor to file system claim it may disadvantage independent inventors who cannot file quickly enough but the current system lulls inventors into a false sense of security based on the thought that they can

prove they were first to invent. they have compleeks procedures and spend over half a million dollars to try to prove they were first to invent. in the last seven years urn the current system, only one independent inventor out of three million patent applications has proved an earlier date of invention over the inventor who filed first. one out of three million. in fact, the current patent system, costly and complex legal environment, is what truly disadvantaged independent inventors who often lose their patent rights because they can't afford the legal battle other ownership. the america invents act reduces frivolous litigation over weak or over-broad patents by establishing a pilot program to review paltepts that never should have been awarded in the

first place. it deals with a new class of patents invented in the late 1990's. they were ill-equipped to handle the business manner patents. they issued weak patents that led to frive louse lawsuits. the pilot program allowed the p.t.o. to examine a limited group of questionable business method practices -- patents. a former federal appeals court judge sent me a constitutional analysis of the re-examination proceedings he said there is nothing novel or unprecedented, much less unconstitutional about the procedures proposed in sections six and 18. the application of -- application of these new procedures to existing pat tents is not a taking or --

patents is not a violation of the constitution. end quote. supporters of the bill understand that if america's inventors are forced to waste time with frivolous litigation they won't have time for innovation. that's why the american bar association, small business and entrepreneurship council, independent community bankers of america, credit union national association, financial services round table, american insurance association, the securities industry and financial markets association, the american institute of c.p.a.'s, coalition for 21st century patent reform, coalition for patent fairness, independent inventors and all six major university associations all support h.r. 1249. to quote the chamber of commerce, quote, this legislation is crucial for american economic growth, jobs, and the future of u.s. competitiveness, end quote. we can no longer allow our

economy and job creators to be held hostage to legal maneuvers in the judicial lottery. american inventors have led the world for centuries in new inknow vagues from benjamin franklin and thomas edison to the wright brothers and henry ford. if we want to continue as leaders in the global economy, we must encourage the innovators of today to develop the technologies of tomorrow this bill holds true to the constitution, our founders, and our promise to future generations that america will continue to lead the world as a fountain for discovery, innovation and economic growth. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman if this bill is passed into law, it will violate the first right explicitly named in our constitution, the intellectual

property clause. this bill makes a toyal -- total mockery of article 1, section 8, clause 8 which requires congress to secure for inventors to -- their exclusive rights. supporters say it's an attempt to modernize the patent system. what they mean is that this bill europeanizes our patent system by granting the right to an invention to whoever wins the race to the patent office. the supreme court has been consistent on this issue. throughout our history. first first inventors have the exclusive constitutional right to their inventions. this right extends to every citizen. not just those with deep pockets and large legal teams. a politically -- a politicized patent system will further entrench those very powerful interests with deep pockets and lots of lobbying offices over on k street claiming to be an inventor is not the same thing

as being that inventor. the person who actually made the discovery. a patent should be challenged in court, not in the u.s. patent office. since the first congress, which included 55 delegates to the constitutional convention, our nation has recognized that you are the owner of your own ideas and innovations this bill throws that out the window and replaces it with a system that legalizes a rather clever form of intellectual property theft. i assure you of one thing. if this bill mistakenly passes this debate will not be over. we will see it head straight to the courts with extended litigation for years to come, along with complete uncertainty to our markets, killing jobs and killing innovation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1249 and i would like to yield three minutes to the former chairman of the judiciary committee, our esteemed colleague from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: mr. chairman, on the first day of this session, we all took an oath to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the united states. -- against all enemies foreign and domestic. and a day or two later, for the first time in history, we read the constitution on the floor from beginning to end. we changed the rules to have a constitutional debate when the constitutionality of legislation before us was in question. and this is the first time in the history of the united states house of representatives when a question serious enough to have a constitutional debate is being debated on the floor for 20 minutes. unlike what my friend from texas, mr. smith, has said, this bill is unconstitutional. and voting for this bill will violate one's oath of office.

and here is why. the intellectual property clause of the constitution gives the protection to the first to invent and what happens later in the patent office only protects that right. it doesn't denigrate the right and the right is given to the person who is first to invent. if someone who is first to invent loses the race to the patent office this bill takes away a property right and that violates the fifth amendment. now inventor means first inventor in the constitution. and earlier this month, in stanford university vs. roach, the chief justice has said, since 1790, the patent law operated on the premise that in an invention the rights belong to the inventor. since the founding of our republic, that has been the law. even in the beginning of our

republic, the 1793 act created an interference provision and set up an administrative procedure to resolve competing claims to the same invention. the patent board rejected the proposal that the patent should be rewarded to the first person to file an application. thomas johnson served on the patent board that rejected first to file. secondly, early supreme court decisions confirms that patents must be granted to inventor, not when they file, but when they invent it. that began in 1813 with chief justice marshall, reaffirmed in 1829, and last month in stanford vs. roach in the supreme court of the united states. i think it is clear from all of the precedents that a first to invent and a first to file provision is unconstitutional

because it adds a layer of compliance in winning the race to the patent office for someone who already has that right. let's vote no to uphold our oaths of office under the constitution of the united states. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. ms. kaptur: yes. i would like to inquire as to remaining time on both sides, please. the chair: the gentlelady from has five minutes. the gentleman from texas has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas voiced. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes, i'd like to yield a minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. thank you. mr. terry: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. terry: mr. chairman, since the founding of the republic, our patent system has been based on the premise that an inventor is entitled to a patent for

their work and not simply the first person to file a patent application. indeed article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the constitution specifically states that to promote the progress of science and useful arts, congress shall have the power to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. nowhere does it say filers have that right. under no rule of construction or interpretation can this clause mean anything other than what it says. and, mr. chairman, i find it comforting to know that certainly i'm not alone in my concern over the constitutionality over first to file. none other than chief justice of the united states supreme court john roberts recently wrote in an opinion joined by six of his fellow supreme court justices that, quote, since 1790, the patent has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for his statement. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve? ms. kaptur: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, it's nice to be able to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, who is the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, some have argued that the first to file provision in this bill violates the constitutional provision giving congress the power to promote the science and useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their prospective writings and discoveries. the text is not defined inventor. under h.r. 1249 one still has to be an inventor to be awarded the patent as the constitution requires. indeed former bush administration attorney general noted in a may, 2011, letter to patent office director that,

quote, the second inventor is no less the inventor for having invented second and the attorney general points out that the constitution grants congress the power to, quote, promote the privacy of the arts and sciences but does not say how it can do so or how it should do so. congress deciding to award patents to inventors who are first to file is consist went that constitutional power. the patent act of 1793 make noes mention of needing to be the first to invent. as long as the invention was not already in the public domain has a right to another person. it was not until 1870 that there was a specific process put in place to determine who the first to invent was. this bill is a clear exercise of congress' constitutional power to secure patent rights for inventors. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: yes. i could inquire as to our remaining time, please. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio has four minutes. ms. kaptur: i'd like to yield a minute to the gentleman from new

jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, as founder and chairman of the constitution caucus, i applaud the opportunity to debate the constitutionality of this bill. this is a first of what i hope will be many more instances to discuss the constitutionality of legislation considered on this floor. what this bill does is change the u.s. patent system from one which allows a moment of invention to determine who is entitled to a patent to one which confers this power to a government agency. such a change would violate the intellectual property clause of the constitution. why is that? because the founders rejected the idea that rights are bestowed to the people by the government. in favor of the revolutionary principle that men are born with natural rights. our constitution instituted government that secures only these natural and pre-existing rights. so inventions created by the fruits of intellectual labor are the property of the inventor. these and only these first and true inventors then are entitled to public protection of their

rightful property. are to remain true to the principles of liberty, we must preserve a system that protects the true and first inventor. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlelady reserve? ms. kaptur: i reserve, sir, yes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognizesed. mr. smith: how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes. 2 1/2. mr. smith: and -- the chair: the gentlelady from ohio has three minutes. mr. smith: ok. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, who is the chairman of the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman and i very much also appreciate this debate on the constitutionality of this issue and i had the honor of leading the reading of the constitution on the second day of this new congress. and i want to make it very clear because there's a lot of confusion on the part of a lot of people who think this is a first to file, even if you're not the inventor, gets the patent.

that is most assuredly not the case. this is first inventor to file. you must be a bona fide inventor to qualify for this. our constitution grants exclusive rights to inventors. now, in point of fact, when our constitution was first adopted and our patent office was established, there was no interference provisions and it was 80 years later before that took place. and in fact in at least one case patents were granted to more than one inventor. so, the issue here i think is not at all well founded. this is clearly constitutional. we have submitted and we will make a part of the record writings by 20 constitutional law professors, attorney general mckasey who has noted this as well. the constitution grants congress the authority to award inventors

the exclusive rights of their intentions over the constitution leads the congress how to settle disputes between two individuals who claim to have invented a certain idea. article 1, section 8 of the constitution declares that patent rights are to be granted in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts, a first inventer to file system ensures this by awarding patent protections to the first actual inventor to disclose and make productive use of its patent. our nation has adopted different standards for settling these issues in the past, currently we have a first to invent standard. the reality is that a first to invent standard subjects small businesses and individual inventors who have filed for patent protection to surprise and costly litigation in what are called interference actions to determine who invented the idea first. this is a better idea and this is a constitutional idea. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: yes, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute to my

distinguished colleague and co-sponsor in opposition to this bill, congressman rohrabacher of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, our constitution was designed and written to protect inventors, not filers. the words are very clear. inventor is in the constitution, filers is not in the constitution. so why are we having this dedispute about the constitutionality of this provision which is very clearly in the constitution? is there all sorts of problems that we have people fighting as to who really invented something? no. we don't have a lot of problems. the reason why we have to change this is to harmonize our law, american patent law, with europe. our opponents have stated this over and over again in the early part of this debate, that the purpose was harmonizing american law with the rest of the world.

well, american law has always been stronger, we've had the strongest patent protection in the world. so what does harmonize mean? it means weakening our constitutionally protected patent rights. the purpose of the bill is to weaken a constitutionally protected right that has been in place since the founding of our country. it should be rejected. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: yes, i'd like to inquire as to the remaining time on both sides, please. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio has two minutes. the gentleman from texas has 30 seconds. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: all right. mr. chairman, this bill is unconstitutional, it will stifle american job creation, cripple american innovation, throws out over 220 years of patent protections for individual inventors and violates the cut-go rules, increasing our deficit by over $1 billion by

2021. the proponents claim that the bill is constitutional because it contains the word inventor and leaves in place the existing statutory language awarding patents to those who invent or discover, but adding a word to the title of a bill cannot paper over its constitutional flaws. the bill denies a patent to the actual inventor simply because he or she files second and therefore it is unconstitutional. earlier this month in a decision issued on june 6, the supreme court reaffirmed that since 1790 the patent law has operated on the premise that the rights in an invention belong to the inventor. chief justice john marshall explained in 1813 that the constitution and law taken together give to the inventor from the moment of invention and in current property theren which is completed by suing out a patent. and in 1829 the supreme court

held that under the constitution the right is created by the invention and not by the patent. and in new york, a district judge stated in 1826 that it is very true that the right to a patent belongs to him who is the first inventor. if this very flawed bill passes, i guarantee you it is going to be tied up in litigation for years to come. with the job situation being what it is, with our need for innovation in this economy, the last thing we should do is try to undermine a system that works. more patents are filed in this country than anyplace else in the world. it is dependable and it is the first right, the first right even before the bill of rights contained in our constitution. we should stand for what is in the constitution and not try to undermine it for any interest that comes before the members of this congress. i yield back the balance of my time. and i ask my colleagues to vote

against this bill. support our own constitution and the very successful record we've had of american innovation. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairman, i know my colleagues know a lot about this subject but i don't think they know more than the founders themselves. the founders, including those who wrote the constitution, operated and you first to register patent system starting in the 1790's. this is the very similar system, first inventor to file provision in the bill. so if the founders liked the con department and thought it was constitutional, so should members of congress. i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on the question of the constitutionality of the bill has expired. a subsequent period of general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary.

the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may dume. the chair: the gentleman may continue. mr. smith: mr. chairman, the foresight of the founders in creating an intellectual property system in the constitution demonstrates their understanding of how patent rights benefit the american people. technological innovation from our intellectual property is linked to three quarters of america's economic growth and american i.p. industries account for over 1 1/2 of all of our exports. these industries also provide millions of americans with well-paying jobs. our patent laws which provide a time-limited monopoly to inventors in exchange for their talent help create this prosperity. the last major patent reform was nearly 60 years ago. during this time we've seen tremendous technological advancements in