to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chr: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. and i rise in strong support of h.r. 1249. for the better partf the past decade, congress has been working to update our patent laws, to ensure that the incentives are framers envisioned when they wrote article 1, section 8 of our constitution remain meaningful and effective. the u.s. patent system must work efficiently if america is to remain the world leader in innovation. it is only right that as more and more inventions with increasing complexity emerge we examine our nation's patent laws to ensurehat they still work efficiently and that they still encourage and not discourage innovation. the core principles that have guided our efforts have been to ensure that quality patents are issued by the p.t.o. in the first place and to ensure that our patent enforcementaws and procedures do not create

incentives for opportunists with invalid claims to exploit while maintaining strong laws that allow legitimate patent owners to enforce their patents effectively. h.r. 1249 addresses these principles with regard to ensuring the issuance of quality patents, this legislation allows third parties to submit evidence of prior art during the examination process which will help ensure examiners have the full record before them when making decisions. in addition after the p.t.o. issues a patent this legislation creates a new post grant opposition system in which third parties can raise objections to a patent immediately after its issuance which will both help screen out bad patents while bolstering value -- valid ones. furthermore, the bill contains a provision on fee diversion where any fees that are collected but not appropriated to the p.t.o. will be placed in a special fund to be used oy by the p.t.o. for operations.

this solves the fee diversion issue and it assures that the problem that we have had in the past will not take place in the future, but at the same time it also assures that the congress will continue its oversight authority because the patent office will have to come to the congress, to the appropriations committee to justify those expenditures. they can't be spent on anything else, but they have to be justified to the congress before the funds are appropriated these funds will still be subject to appropriation but will be set aside to only fund the p.t.o. ith a backlog of almost a million patents applications and many waiting three years to get initial office action on their patent applications, this agreement could not come at a more crucial time. we have been trying for 10 years by the way and this is the closest we have ever come. in addition to these patent quality improvements, h.r. 1249 also includes provisions to

ensure that patent litigation benefits those with valid claims, but not those opportunists who seek to abuse the litigation process. many innovative companies, including those in the technology and other sectors, have been forced to defend against patent infringement lawsuits of questionable legitimacy. when such a defendant company truly believes that the patent being asserted is invalid, it is important it have an avenue to request the p.t.o. to have another look at e patent in order to better inform the district court of the patent's validity. this legislation retains a re-examine process which allows innovators to exaling the validity of a patent when they are sued for patent infringement. in addition, the bill allows the patent and trademark office to re-examine some of the most questionable business method pat ebts which opportunists have used for years to extort money from legitimate businesses. by allowing the p.t.o. to take another look at these patents, we help ensure that invalid

patents will not be used by aggressive trial lawyers to game the system the bill also ensures that abuve false markings litigation is put to an end. current law allows privat individuals to sue companies on half of the government to recover statutory damages in false markings cases. after a court decision two years ago that liberalized false marking damages ard, a cottage industry has sprung up and false markings claims have risen exponentially. h.r. 1249 maintains the government's ability to bring these actions but limits priority lawsuits to those who have actually suffered competitive harm. this will discourage opportunistic lawyers from pursuing these cases. the bill also restricts joinder rules for patent litigation, specifically it restricts joinder of defendants to cases arising out of the same facts and transactions which ends the abusive practice of treating as co-defendant parties who make

completely different products and have no relation to each other. furthermore, the bill addresses the problem of tax strategy patents. unbelievably tax strategy patents grant monopolies on particular ways an individual taxpayer comply with the tax code. can the gentleman yield an additional 30 seconds? mr. smith: i yield 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: over 140 tax strategy patents have been issued and more applications are pending. tax strategy patents have the potential to affect tens of millions of everyday taxpayers, many who don't realize that these patents exist. the tax code is already complicated enough without also expecting taxpayers and their advisors to become ongoing experts in patent law. hundreds of orlingsings in -- organizations in fact support these reforms. it is important th this house support the manager's amendment and by the way the united states chamber of commerce supports the maner's amendment and the bill.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentlewoman from california has 20 minutes remaining. ms. lofgren: thank you. the chair: and the gentleman from texas has 17 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: at this point i would be honored to recognize the gentlelady from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. sheila jackson lee, for three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished member from california and to my colleagues on the floor, this has to be or could have been or hopefully can be one of the greatest opportunities for bipartisanship that we have seen in any number of years. that was the process that was proceeded under in the judiciary committee, though obviously there are always disagreements.

but the whole idea of our debate and the support of the present underlying legislation without the manager's amendment was to in fact create jobs. in the committee, a number of my amendments were accepted but in particular the focus of converting from a first inventor to use system to a first inventor to file was promote t progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the ex cluesive rights for their discoveries and to provide inventors with greater certainty concerning the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights. further, this new system was to be or should be able to harmonize the united states patent rebling administration system with similar -- registration system with simar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the united states conducts trade. this was to shine the light and open the door on american genius. in addition, so many of us have waited so long to be able to give the resources to the p.t.

in order for it to do its job. we were aghast in hear togs hear that there is a 7,000-application backlog and so i rise as well to express enormous concern with the manager's amendment which as the p.t.o. director has indicat every time we do not process a p.t.o. or a patent for some genius here in the united states, some hardworking inventor, every patent that sits on the shelf athe p.t.o. office is taking away an american job and that job is not being created. and as well it is denying a product from going to the market and it is someone's life that is not being saved and ourountry ceases to grow. we need jobs in this country. we need a patent office that is going to expedite and move forward. we don't need discussions about lawyers fighting lawyers or trial lawyers. this is not a case of an

antilawyer legislation. we hope that some of the small businesses and large companies have their lawyers fighting to preserve and protect their patents. this bill will give them the opportunity to have that protection. but i am disappointed that all of a sudden the manager's amendment changed around and took an enormous amount of those fees and invested them elsewhere instead of helping out small businesses. i'm also disappointed that we don't recognize that a bill that helps big businesses can help small businesses as well. and so i'd offered an amendment that would extend the grace period while the small business is working to funds its patent, the period is now a year. i indicated 18 months because -- can i get an additional 15 seconds? ms. lofgren: the gentlelady has an additional 15 seconds as requested. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. jackson lee: because a small business has to reach to others to help fund their invention and they let the secret out of the bag. 18 months protects their

disclosures for a period of time for them to be able to move forward. lastly, i have a sunset provision that would lp small bitses -- businesses as well as relates to the -- sunset of business method patent review. this could be a go bill. i hope we can correct it and i ask my colleagues to consider correcting this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas voiced. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. shadegg,ho is a senior member of the constitution subcommittee and a senior member of the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the cha: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. shadegg: thank you. i first want to ank chairman smith and chairman goodlatte for their leadership in getting us to the point that we are in this important legislation here this evening. section 8, clause 8 of the constitution states that the congress shall have power to, quote, promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the

exclusive right to their respective rightings and discoveri, unquote. the constitution clearly grants congress the authority to grant patent rights to inventors and it defers to the discretion of congress how best procedurally to award these rights to the inventor. i rise in support of h.r. 1249, the american -- the america invents act. the first inventor to file provisions shift us to a system used by all modern industrial nations. this system would end the need for expensive discovery and litigation over priority issues and would put an end to expensive interference proceedings that small entities overwhelmingly lose. this provision also ensures that inventors can establish priority dates by filing simple and inexpensive provisional appcations. this is a much-needed change which former u.s. attorney general indicated would be both constitutional and wise. congress has the right, in fact, the duty to protect those who

invent or discover. through in depth studies conducted by the uspto commissioners, the first to file system has been found to be faster and cheaper in resolving disputes among inventors. the current system creates an environment for exorbitantly expensive litigation. it is also -- it has also become cost prohibitive for small businesses and independent inventers to fight the claims filed by larger corporations which can cost over a half million dollars just to litigation. in the past seven years only one independent inventor out of three million patent applications filed have successfully proved an earlier date of invention over the inventor who filed first. however, with the new first inventor to file system, a bold timeline of filing dates will allow these small businesses d independent inventors to more easily defend and settle their disputes over the rightful patent holder. . supreme court has never

said first to file is unconstitutional. we are going to what our founders established. it is a procedure that will spur new jobs and stimulate the economy and i think as we all know if we need to get this economy moving and get america back to work we are in that time right now. i yield requested. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. manzullo: madam chair, in my office, there are two photographs, one with me and edwards demming and the inventor of the m.r.i.

the doctor visited our office and i said what's wrong with this bill and he said everything. he said if this bill were law, today, we would not have the m.r.i. there are a lot of problems with this bill. this is my fourth patent site but we agree but we have two persons who disagree on policy. back in 2004 when i chaired the small business committee, i was instrumental inputting in a fee structure for small businesses. and to do that, i had stricken from the bill, the authority of the p.t.o. director to set fees. this new bill gives the ability to set fees even though the initial filing fees for small businesses had been lowered. the problem is that the p.t.o.

can come in and simply raise fees to sokol manage their operations. in fact, two reports filed in june of 2002 by the u.s. p.t.o. said fees, based upon a highly progressive system based on limited applicions contain very high number of claims and also the same thing in 2007. their idea of decreasing claims in the patent office is to raise fees. obviously, who's that going to hurt? it's going to be the little guy. and that's why it's one of many reasons i oppose this bill, but we should not delegate e authority that congress has to sefees and one of the constitutional function that is we have in this body to somebody in this body who already state state the he is going to raise fees. guess who gets hurt?

the little inventors, the people who invent things in this country, the true creators of jobs. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new hampshire for purposes of a colloquy. mr. bass: i want to discuss legislative history and how two sections will wk together. i think we can set down a definitive clarity. mr. smith: one can issue for clarity and actions und the two sections and intend there to be an identity if it is such that it attributes and inherently has the grace period. mr. bass: the legislation has

action between 102 a and b and will not stumble into a bar. such inventors will have to be diligent and le within the grace period if they trigger 102 a and if an inventor striggers that, they have trigred the grace period under 102 b. mr. smith: i yield myself an additional 0 seconds. contrary to current precedent, inorder to trigger it, it mismake the subject matter before the filing date. section 102 b is designed to make a strong grace period for those who have made a disclosures and are protecte during the combrace period not only from the disclosure but

from any art. this is an important protection and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserveand the gentlewoman from califoia is recognized. ms. lofgren: i recognize my colleague from california, mr. rohrabacher, for two minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i hope everyone is paying attention to what this is all about tonight. first of all, we have dan lungren, one of our muslims, who is a former -- one of our members who is a chairman of the judiciary committees, all of them add mant that this bill is unconstitutional and we have a lot of people talking about backlogs and what is wrong with the efficiency of the patent office as if that is what this

is all about. this is not what this is all about. this is a patent fight going on for 0 years. you have some very large corporations who are trying to harmonize patent law with the rest of the world even thousand patent law has been stronger throughout the rest of the world. you weaken the patent procks of the american people and weakening it. is that what we want to do? i don't think so. that will have dramatic impact on our country. one of the most highly respected think tanks in the united states have four of their scholars go after this bill and three of the points they have made, thumbs down on this american invents act, patent rip-off bill.

here's what hoover institution says, it will protect large companies at the expense of market challenging competitors. we have overseas multi-national corporations and wreaks havoc on property rights and they are essential for economic growth. this bill is a job killer. and the jobs that will be killed are the united stes of america. now the multi-national corporation -- i ask for 30 seconds. ms. lofgren: i yield. mr. rohrabacher: these multi-national corporations, they are creating jo overseas. they don'tare if the jobs are lost over here. and the american invents act would inject massive uncertainty into the patent system. we have had -- we have had the strongest patent system in the world and yielded us prosperity

and security as a people. we do not need to change the fundamentals of this system and harmonize with weaker systems throughout the world. and vote against this patent relationship-off bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from ars. mr. quayle: i thank the gentleman. i rise in sport of this bill. it reduces costly litigation within our patent system. innovation is the key to our mediate and future economic growth. innovators are being held by a backlog patent system. in order to unleash the potential, we must reform this syste which has president been

reformed in 60 years. this creates a business-method pilot program and will review the validity and showing that that a patent is invalid. and the resulted in frivolous lawsuits which cost between $5 million to $10 million. they cover a method of cunthing business, which includes -- including business or getting a tax. the tort abuse created by these patents has become legged area. section 18 has broad bipartisan support in the senate and is an alternative to costly litigation that will save 90% of the cost insurd in civil litigation.

i support chairman smith's work in creating an alternative to abusive litigation and oppose any effort to strike section 18. as part of the republican conferences to spur economic growth, i urge passage of this important legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself as i may consume. i want to talk about the manager's amendment under this general debate time because there is a constrained amount of time for that discussion. i want to touch on two things in particular. first is the fee issue. i know there has been discussion that somehow the fees won't be diverted under the manager's amendment and i think that is not a credible argument. i remember back in the year 2000

when we were promised that the fees would not be diverted by the prapetors, but subsequent to that there was diversion and so long as this is part of the appropriations process, the fees can and i predict will, be diverted as they were during the adoption of the c.l. this year. there is a prediction of the $100 million. that is a special tax on innovators. you raise the fees and you divert it for general purposes, that is a special tax on them and that is wrong and i cannot support it. i want to talk about msh -- my colleague talked about we could relve the issues. and there are two issues i want to address and they are closely

related and they are complicated but they are important. under our laws, an idea must be new, useful and non-obvious in order to receive patent protection and and this this is the prior knowledge that exists. if an idea exists in the prior art, you can't get a patent. under current law, a variety of things create prior art, such as prescriptions of a prior idea, printed publications, as well as public uses or sales, but current law has what is known as the are grace period which provides one year to file ivities that would otherwise prior art. if there was a new invention, he or she would have a year to file

a patent application. and this is anmportant provision and this is unique to the united states. the p.t.o. director referred to this grace period as the gold standard of best practices. now as we move into the first to file syem as is propped in this bill, it is essential that the revisedds everything that is prior art under today's rules. and unfortunately, that is not the case in the manager's amendment. the grace period would protect, and this is a direct quote,only disclosures. what would that not protect? trade secrets? offers for sale that are not public? you could have entrepreneurs who start an invention and start a small business who won't be able

to get a patent for their invention under the grace period and entrepreneurs might then be ford to delay brage their products to market, which could slow growth. this needs to be addressed, not in a colloquy, but in language. and we agreed in the committee, when we stripped out language that didn't fix this, that we would fix the 102-a and b problem in legislation. there was a colloquy on the senate floor, similar to one that has taken place, but we know that the language in the bill needs to reflect the intent. judges look to the statutes first to determine its meaning and the legislative history is not always included. so thembiguity that is in the measure is troublesome. and although we prepared an amendment to delineate it, it

has not been put in order and therefore, thi remedy cannot be brought forth and small inventors -- and even big once, may have a problem. . i got an email from the general councils of technology company and i won't read the whole thing but here's what this general council said. the prior use rights clause as written will be a direct giveaway to foreign competitors, especially those from countries where trade secret test rampant. what we're saying to american companies is that if you have a trade secret that you want to protect under the grace period prior our rules, you're out of luck, you're quite potentially out of luck. you'll either have to disclose that trade secret and we know

that there are serious concerns in doing that, we don't want to get into maligning countries around the world but there are some that do not have the respect for intellectual property that we have. or else we will say to that inventor or company that you can't use your own intention, that you have devised, without being held up for licensing fees, from someone who got to the office before you did. so this is a big problem that is not resolved even if the manager's amendment is defeated. this problem will remain in the bill. and it is an impediment to innovation and an impediment to makg first to file work. if we're going to have first to file and i can accept that it must have robust, broad, rigorous protection under the grace period with a broad definition of the prior art that is protected. that is just efficient in this

bill -- deficient in this bill. i would urge this -- i know down in the weeds, it's a little bit nerdy, we've spent many years talking about this in the judiciary committee, i'm just so regretful that this bill, after so many years, has gone sideways in the last two days and is something that we cannot embrace and -- embrace and lebrate. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, who is also a member of the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rose today in strong support of h.r. 1249, the america invents act, and i urning my colleagues to support it. make no mistake, the america invents act is a jobs bill. at no cot to taxpayers, this

legislation builds on what we as americans do best. we innovate. bolstering american innovation will create jobs at a time when we need it most. the american invents act ends speed diversion and switches the u.s. to a first inventor to file system. these changes will streamline the patent application process to help american innovators bring their intentions so market. each new commercialized intention has the potential to cate american jobs. this is a jobs bill. a provision that i worked on included in the bill would make permanent the patent trademark office's ombudsman program for small businesses concerns. this program will provide support and services for independent inventors who may not have the resources to obtain legal council f guidance on obtaining a patent. this provision ensures the small guys willlways have a champion the p.t.o. to help them navigate the process. in addition, the american in-- america invents act puts an end to fee diversion, a process what has siphoned almost a million

dollars in knees from the p.t. ofment. too many applications have sat untouched because the p.t.o. does not have the resources it needs to review them in a timely manner. ending fee diversion will expedite the preview andunleash the potential to create american jobs. this bill is endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers and the small usiness and entrepreneurship council. i urge my colleagues to support this jobs bill. i thank the chairman for the time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam chairman, i ask how much time remains on each side. the chair: the gentleman from

texas has nine minutes remaining . and the gentlewoman from california has 5 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. smith: madam chair, i am preparing to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, as i mentioned a while ago, the chairman of the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. and it was mentioned earlier by one of those speaking in opposition to the bill that the national association of realtors was opposed to this legislation and we will make available for

the record a letter that we received dated two days ago from the national association of ealtors on behalf of the 1.1 million members of the national association of realtors, we are pleased to support h.r. 1249, the america invents act. it goes on to explain in great detail why they, along with literally hundreds of other organizations, support this legislation. that includes the united states chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the retail federation of america, there is a whole host of organizations and individual companies, both large and small, who support the legislation because they know that this is what is vital for job creation in this country. we need to have reform of our patent laws because unfortunately in recent years countries like china have

overtaken us in the productivity of their patent office and the fact of the matter is unless we change our patent laws we are going to continue to be at a disadvantage. the advantages that we've had in the past are no longer available to us because quite frankly the complexity of inventions have increased and more and more we find ourselves in a situation where the laws that we operate under today, which were written in -- were last updated in 1952, need to be updated to address a lot of the abuses that you've heard describ here this evening. we also need to pass this legislation, to make sure that the fee diversion that, as has been noted, has kept nearly a billion dollars from going to the operation of the patent office, to work down the three-year, $1 -- one-million patent backlog, also can be

addressed. and we also need to recognize that this legislation, in addition to being a jobs bill, has recognized by all of these many, many, many companies and associations of various trade groups, it is also major litigation reform. it cuts out the abuses with tax strategy patents and other business method types of patents, where individuals do not produce anything other than lay and wait for somebody else to come up with a similar idea and then comforward and say, hey, that was my idea and now you pay me a lot of money. they ar't creating jobs, they in fact are causing jobs to leave this country. so, there are many reasons to pport this legislation and i would urge my colleagues to do so. we have not yet come to the manager's amendment but it provides a critical component to making sure that fee diversion does not occur. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i want to get back to the original reason why we've orked so hard on this bill only to be here at the end of this process with a bill that we can't support. you know, we started with hearings in the 1990's, with the federal trade commission and the national academy of science and one of the thingthey poind out was that there are more patents than there are inventions and we started focusing in on the abuse of litigation that occurred as well as the needs of the office. my colleague is correct, the patent officeas a tremendous backlog and that is a serious concern for inventors and really for the country. the examiners have such an

enormous back load they can't spend sufficient time reviewing the applicants, this has led to a flood of poor quality patents that was issued over the last decade and a half that i think and most believe should have been denied by the office. these dube rouse patents do significant damage -- dubious patent does significant damage to particular industries like the information technology industry as they can be used by nonpracticing entities to demand rents from legitimate businesses and to sbench with the development of legitime products. now, i don't blame the examiners at the p.t.o., ty're working hard. but they don't have enough time to give each application the consideration it deserves. the bill as approved by the judiciary committee would have helped remedy this pblem. by making sure -- a lot of people don't realize that the patent office doesn't get any taxpayer money. the patent office is entirely supported by fees submitted by

inventors and so to keep all of those fees that the inventors are paying in the office so that the patents can properly be dealt with in a timely faion, was a key component of this measure. unfortunately under the manager's amendment, that strong protection is simply gone. and i know as i said in the past we've had unanimous votes of the judiciary committee, we've had promises never to do it again, but the diversions have continued and it is clear that they will continue under the manager's amendment provision because it allows a regular process to continue as it has in the past. i have not submitted lists of tters of who's in favor, who's opposed to this bill, it's my understanding that the realtors association is in fact opposed to the manager's amendment, but

we're not going to vote on these amendments tonight, we're rolling these votes until tomorrow. so we will research that and we will find the truth of where they are and make that information available to the members because certainly realtors are a very valuable part of our nation's economy. i want to talk a little bit as well about whether we can fix the defect on prior art by an amendment that would be offered later in the week by mr. conyers and mr. rohrabacher -- mr. rohrabacher. they propose that the first to file patent system that is being promoted to harmonize our system with other countries would not go into effect until the grace period which is the critical part of theatent system actually is fixed and harmonized and i think, i don't know whether we can -- if the

manager's amendment is passed, the fatal defect of defining the prior art is disclosures, i don't believe can be fully remedied by this amendment, although i think the amendment is a good one and i intend to support it. so i think it's very important that the manager's amendment be defeated. i would hope that if that happens that we might have a chance to step back and to fully examine where we are in terms of the prior user rights and the grace period. because as the patent commissioner had said, this is the gold standard, the united states has had the gold standard in patents with this grace period. it would be a shame, not just for the congress but for our country and our future as innovators to lose this genius part of our patent system. and i would reserve the balance

of my time. the chair: the ntlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentlen from georgia voiced for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam cirman. the gentlewoman has expressed concern about the fee diversion in the manager's amendment. i think it's a good provision and will for the first time end fee diversion at the patent and trademark office by statute. it accomplishes both our overarching policy goals and maintains congressional oversight. for the first time, we're establishing a reserve fund that will collect all p.t.o. fees. it's been expressed on the other side of the the aisle that maybe with the authority to set fees there'll be an abuse in the patent office but it can't be abused very much

becse the fees will be bject to appropriations here in the congress th can't spend them on other things, can't divert them put they can put them in escrow and require the p.t.o. to come in and justify those frees. there'll be no incentive to have excess fees if there can't be excess expenditures because of congressional oversight. with the inclusion of this provision, we have ahoured that all funds coected by the p.t.o. will remain available to them and not be diverted to any other use. ending fee diversion has been an important goal for all of us and as we crafted legislation our ultimate policy goal was to ensure that perform t.o. funds were not diverted for other uses such as earmarks or other agencies. working with learship and other agenes we accomplished a provision that accomplishes our goal through a p.t.o. reserve fund. this was carefully brokered by

leadership to ensure it aligned with house rules and did not include mandatory spending that would have resulted in a score. just a few months ao, including a provision like this one would have been unheard of and nothing like this has been considered by previous congresses. all fees collected will be deposited into the p.t.o. fund and the funds shall be made available until expended only for obligation and expenditure by the office this ensures that the appropriations and judiciary committees will continue to have oversight over the p.t.o. though p.t.o. remains within the appropriations process, the appropriators no longer have an incentive to divert fees. in other words, because excess fees are made available to the p.t.o. there will be no scoring advantage to the committee to decrease the appropriations and this will not impact their 302b allocation for

blackberry users, you can now get audio streams of our public affairs all commercial free, you can also listen to our signature programs every week all available around the comblock or wherever you are. download it from blackberry app world. >> president obama with 20,000 more troops leigh by next summer, from the white house east room, this is 15 minutes. >> good evening. nearly 0 years ago america suffered the worst attack on

our shorse since pearl harbor. this mass murderer was planned by osama bin laden and his al qaeda network in afghanistan and threatened a new war on our security. innocent men, women and children going about their daly lives in the days that followed our nation was united as we struck at al qaeda and routed the taliban in afghanistan. then a second war was launched on iraq and we spent mood and by the time i took office the war in afghanistan had entered its seventh year. while the taliban reground and gone on the offensive. without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned we could face

a resurgent al qaeda and a taliban taking over large parts of afghanistan. for this reason in one of the most difficult decisions i've made as president, i ordered an additional 30,000 troops into afghanistan. when i announced the surge at west point we set points to train afghan security forces to defend their own country and made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended and that we would begin to draw down our force this july. tonight i can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. thanks to our extraordinary men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. as a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 0,000 of our troops from afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a

total of 30,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge i announced at west point. after this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a sted pace as afghan security forces move into the lead. our mission will move from combat to support. by 2014 this transition will be complete and the afghan people will be responsible for their own security. we are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. al qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11, and together with the pakistanis we have taken out more than half of al qaeda's leadership. thanks to our intelligence and special forces, we killed osama bin laden, the only leader al qaeda had ever known. this was a victory to all who had served since 9/11. one soldiers summed it up well. the message, he said, is we

don't forget. you will be held accountable no matter how long it takes. the information we recovered from the compound showed enormous pressure and lack of strength and that al qaeda has failed in its effort to pore stray america as a nation at war with islam. al qaeda remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant lent against the task. when we put al qaeda on its feet, we will not relent until the job is done in afghanistan we inflicted pain on the taliban and along with our surge the allies also increased -- helped save lives in the country. in some provinces and municipalities, we have already begun to transition

responsibility for security to the afghan people. in the face of violence and intimidation, afghans are fighting and dying for their country. establishing local police forces. opening markets and schools and creating new opportunities for women and girls and trying to turn the page on decades of war. of course, huge challenges remain. this is the beginning, not the end of our effort to wind down this war. we will have to do the hard work of keeping the gains we've made while we draw down our forces and transition responsibility for security to the afghan government. the next -- next may in chicago we will host a summit with our nato allies and partners to shape the next phase of this transition. we do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. so as we strengthen the afghan government and security forces, america will join initiatives that reconcile the afghan

people, including the taliban. our position is clear, they must be led by the afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful afghanistan must break from al qaeda, abandoned violence and abide by the constitution. but in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made. the goal that we seek is achieveible. and it can be expressed simply. no safe haven from which al qaeda or its affiliates can launch an attack against our homeland or our allies. we won't try to make afghanistan a perfect place. we will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitelyly. that's the responsibility of the afghan government which must step up the ability to protect its own people and move from an economy that is shaped by war to one that will be

shaped by a lasting peace. what we can do and will do is build a partnership with an afghan people who support a sovereign afghan government. of course, our efforts must also address safe havens in pakistan. no country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists which is why we will try to get pakistan to expanned its -- we will insist it keeps its commitments. for there should be no doubt for so long as i am president the united states will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us. they cannot allude us nor escape the justice they deserve. my fellow americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country. we have learned the profound

costs of war. a cost that's been paid by the nearly 4500 americans that have given their lives in iraq and 15 -- men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended. thousands more have been wounded. some have lost limbs on the battlefield and others still battle the demons that followed them home. yet tonight we take comfort knowing the tide of war is reseeding. fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. we ended our mission in iraq with 100,000 troops already out of that country. and even as there will be dark days ahead in afghanistan, the light of the secure peace can be seen in the distance. these long wars will come to a responsible end. as they do, we must recognize learn their lessons. already this decade of war has caused many to question

america's engagement around the world. some would have america retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security and embrace the isolation that ignores the very real threat that we face. others would have america overextend it confronting every evil that can be found abroad. we must chart a more centered course. like generations before we must embrace the singler role in the course of events. but we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate and strategic as we are resolution. when threatened, we must respond with force, but when that force can be targeted, we need not de ploy large armies overseas. when innocents are being slauthered and the globe endangered, we do not have to choose to stand idolly by, we must rally world participation.

we do not have a single soldier on the ground in libya but our support is giving them a chance. in all we do, we must remember that what sets america apart is not solely our power but our principals upon which our union was founded. we're a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law and respecting the rights of all our citizens. we protect our own freedom by extending it to others. we stand not for empire but for self-determination. that's why we have a stake in the democratic as operations now launching across the arab world. we must -- with the power of our examples. with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity. above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our

citizens here at home. over the last decade we have spent $1 trillion on war. at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. now we must invest in america's greatest resource, our people. we must unleash innovation that releases new jobs and industries while living within our means and build al new infrastructure with renewable energy, and most of all after a decade of debate, we must recapture a common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this war, for our nation draws strength from our differences. when our nation is strong, no horizon is beyond our reach. america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. in this effort we draw inspiration if our fellow americans who have sacrificed

so much on our behalf. to our troops, our veterans and their families, i speak for all americans when i say that we will keep our sacred trust with you and provide you with care and benefits and opportunity that you deserve. i met some of these patriotic americans at fort campbell. a while back i spoke to the 101st airborne that's fought to turn the tide in afghanistan and to the team that took out osama bin laden. standing in front of a model of bin laden's compound, the navy seals who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost. brothers and sisters in arms whose name are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas and on head stones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten. this officer, like so many other i've met on bases, baghdad and bog rom and walter reed, spoke with humility about

how his unit worked together as one, depending on each other and trusting one another. as a family might do in a time of peril. that's a lesson worth remembering. that we are all a part of one american family. though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the united states of america is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to establish. now, let us finish the work at hand. let us responsibly end these wars and reclaim the american dream that is at the center of our story. with confidence in our cause and faith in our fellow citizens and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of america for this general ration and the next. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] captioned by the national captioning institute -- www.ncicap.org -- >> we'll learn more about the administration's thoughts on afghanistan when hillary clinton testifies at the senate foreign relations committee. talents summit for intelligence committee questions general david petraeus. he's been nominated as director of the c.i.a. that begins at 2:30 eastern time. still ahead on c-span, "washington journal" is live with your phone calls. and that's followed by live coverage of today's house session. they are scheduled to work on changes to the patent changes to the patent application process and