Patent Reform Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote against the managers' amendment to S. 23, the America Invents Act.
I agree wholeheartedly with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that we must enable our inventors to out innovate and produce the products and jobs of the future.
However, a provision in the managers' amendment would take the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, off-budget. I cannot support this provision for three reasons.
First, the provision is unnecessary. Proponents argue that it will prevent the diversion of PTO's fees. However, since fiscal year 2005, the Appropriations Committee has rejected the practice of diverting PTO fees for other purposes and instead has consistently recommended that PTO retain every dollar it collects from inventors. In fact, the Appropriations Committee has on several occasions approved bills to allow PTO to spend up to $100 million in excess of PTO's appropriation if fee revenue is higher than the appropriations level.
Second, the amendment would reduce oversight. Rather than being subject to the annual appropriations process, this agency--with a budget of more than $2 billion--would be on autopilot. The underlying bill seeks to reduce the backlog of pending patent applications. Currently, it takes PTO nearly 3 years to process a patent application. The backlog of applications stands at over 700,000. Some progress has been made in this area, thanks to the annual oversight provided in appropriations bills which has succeeded in forcing management reforms that have slowed the growth of PTO's backlog.
The amendment requires PTO to submit annual budget requests and spending plans to Congress. However, this approach eliminates the requirement for an annual legislative vehicle to closely examine and approve expenditures of taxpayer dollars and fee revenue. Instead the amendment would restrict accountability for an agency that struggles to keep up. While our inventors are standing in line for patents, their ideas can be stolen to fuel another country's economy. I am very encouraged by Director Kappos' new leadership at PTO, but much more progress and greater management oversight are still necessary to give American inventors the protections they deserve.
Finally, the amendment may hamper PTO operations in the future. PTO has adequate fee revenue now, but that has not always been the case. As recently as fiscal year 2009, PTO experienced a revenue shortfall due to lower than expected fee collections. To keep PTO's operations whole and to help tackle the patent backlog, we gave PTO a direct appropriation to bridge their financial gap when fees weren't enough. In fact, PTO fee collections have fallen short of appropriations levels by more than $250 million since fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, should such a gap occur in future years, the Appropriations Committee would not be poised to step in if PTO's fee collections are not adequate to cover operations.
Again, I applaud the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Leahy's leadership, for pushing PTO to continue its progress as part of our Nation's innovation engine. Unfortunately, this amendment will only send PTO drifting on autopilot with little congressional accountability.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source