mr. dana rohrabacher, to this amendment a co-sponsor. the chair: i want to make the gentleman aware the amendment cannot have co-sponsors. mr. conyers: i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen, this bipartisan amendment adds an important provision to house resolution 1249. it would permit the conversion of the united states to a first to file system only upon a presidential finding that other nations have adopted a similar one-year grace period. this one-year grace period protects the ability of an inventer to discuss or write about his or her ideas for a patent up to a year before he or she actually files for patent protection. and without this period, an inventor could lose his or her own patent. this grace period provision within h.r. 1249 would grant an inventor a one-year period between the time he first publishes his invention to the time when he's required to file a patent. during this time, this would prohibit anyone else from seeing this publica

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 innovator

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 the patent 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 innovat

mr. rohrabacher, has his amendment made in order. and so the idea of somehow criticizing the rules committee and the action that we have taken is just way off base. we have, mr. speaker, 15 amendments made in order under this bill, 10 amendments have been made in order for the energy and commerce legislation that's come before us. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. conyers: thank you. my friend, we are not criticizing the rules committee. the cut-go violation which you have not even seen the c.b.o. letter that described the $1.1 billion -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. let me just say i asked my staff about this and they were unaware of exactly where this $1.1 billion figure came from. and so in light of that it seems to me that we are in a position where we need to proceed with this very important work and we are trying our doggonest to make it happen. we are going to allow proposals from messrs. rohrabacher, conyers, and polis, and others to be considered and that's why it's important that we pass this rule. if we don't pass thi

mr. rohrabacher 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 will be a two-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 81 and the nays are 342. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 112-111 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 112-111 offere

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 found

mr. rohrabacher? guest: yes?ler: i found it a little offensive of how you directed your statements to a country that we're trying to work with. why don't you leave that to the diplomats? you're supposed to investigate our country's problems. to me, you should leave the work to people that know how to handle these people. guest: well, i am the chairman of the oversight investigation subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee of the house. unless you believe that all foreign affairs has to be handled by the executive branch, it is my job to go there and ask questions and find out the facts and ask whether or not this country was willing to pay back -- to pay back some of the huge expenditure that we've had in the last eight years. i elected to oversee spending money. that's what congress is all about. we approve the spending. i think that was a totally legitimate question. let me add, i did not do so in an accusatory way. instead, i have always learned that you try to be respectful and you can make the points th