Sponsor

#

Description

Debate Time

1. Speier (CA)

#2

Would strike section 2 of H.R. 2021.

(10 minutes)

2. Hastings, Alcee (FL)

#6

Would direct emission sources from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to title I of the Clean Air Act, ensuring that the vessels often responsible for the majority of the OCS’s emission sources are not left unregulated.

(10 minutes)

3. Welch (VT)

#17

Would require all permit applications to include data on federal oil subsidies received by the company applying for the permit.

(10 minutes)

4. Keating (MA)

#20

(LATE) Would require that all completed applications include data on bonuses provided to the executives of the applicant from the most recent quarter.

(10 minutes)

5. Rush (IL)

#21

(LATE) Would allow the Administrator to provide additional 30-day extensions if the Administrator determines that such time is necessary to meet the requirements of this section, to provide adequate time for public participation, or to ensure sufficient involvement by one or more affected States.

(10 minutes)

6. Quigley (IL)

#9

Would strike underlying text that eliminates the ability of the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to remand or deny the issuance of Clean Air Act permits for offshore energy exploration and extraction.

(10 minutes)

7. Eshoo (CA)

#10

Would preserve access to local courts by striking a provision which requires permit decisions to be litigated in the DC Circuit in Washington D.C.

(10 minutes)

8. Capps (CA), Carney (DE), Castor (FL)

#4

Would seek to preserve state authority over OCS sources where states have been delegated authority to issue air permits for offshore drilling activities.

(10 minutes)

9. Hochul, Kathy (NY)

#8

Would require a report that details how the amendments made by this Act are projected to increase oil and gas production and lower energy prices for consumers.

(10 minutes)

10. Schrader (OR), DeFazio (OR), Wu (OR)

#22

(LATE) Would prohibit any permits issued under the Clean Air Act for oil or natural gas drilling on the Counter Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of Oregon

(10 minutes)

Sponsor

#

Description

Debate Time

1. Smith, Lamar (TX)

#15

(REVISED) Manager's Amendment- Would make technical edits and a few necessary changes to more substantive issues, such as prior user rights and an additional oversight requirement for the PTO.

(10 minutes)

2. Conyers (MI), Rohrabacher (CA)

#21

Would insert language to move the United States to a first to file system only upon a Presidential finding that other major patent authorities have adopted a similar one-year grace period.

(10 minutes)

3. Baldwin (WI), Sensenbrenner (WI), Kind (WI)

#5

(REVISED) Would strike Section 5, the “prior user rights” language, and conform H.R. 1249 to H.R. 1908, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 7, 2007, and S. 23, as passed by the U.S. Senate on March 8, 2011.

(10 minutes)

4. Moore, Gwen (WI)

#2

Would direct the USPTO to develop methods for studying the diversity of patent applicants, including those applicants who are minorities, women, or veterans. Any results of the study shall not be used for preferential treatment in the patent process.

(10 minutes)

5. Jackson Lee (TX)

#27

Would add a sense of Congress that it is important to protect the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off innovation and may provide an undue advantage to large financial institutions and high-tech firms.

(10 minutes)

6. Luján (NM)

#12

Would add requirements to the satellite office location selection process to ensure that 1) the purposes, as described in the bill, of establishing satellite offices are achieved, 2) recruitment costs are minimized by considering the availability of knowledgeable personnel in the region, and 3) the economic impact to the region is considered. It would also require that the Director in the required report to Congress on the rationale in selecting the location of any satellite office include an explanation of how the selected location will achieve the purposes of satellite offices and how the required considerations were met.

(10 minutes)

7. Peters (MI), Renacci (OH)

#4

(REVISED) Would mandate a USPTO-led study on what USPTO, SBA, and other agencies can do to help small businesses obtain, maintain, and enforce foreign patents. This study is to be conducted using existing resources.

(10 minutes)

8. Polis (CO)

#10

Would clarify that the new legislation would apply only to new tax planning patents, not already filed patents which would disclose patent information leaving the applicants vulnerable.

(10 minutes)

9. Conyers (MI), Markey, Edward (MA), Neal (MA), Pompeo (KS), Garrett (NJ), Lance (NJ), Gallegly (CA)

#39

(LATE) (REVISED) Would restore language for calculation of 60-day period for application of patent term extension that the managers amendment strikes.

(10 minutes)

10. Speier (CA)

#16

Would direct the PTO to prescribe a requirement that parties provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation.

(10 minutes)

11. Waters (CA)

#6

Would add a severability clause protecting the remainder of the bill if the Supreme Court determines that certain sections or provisions are unconstitutional.

(10 minutes)

12. Sensenbrenner (WI)

#14

(REVISED) Would strike Section 3 of the legislation, which would convert the U.S patent system from “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file.”

(10 minutes)

13. Manzullo (IL)

#1

(REVISED) Would eliminate the ability of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to set fees, retaining that authority for Congress.

(10 minutes)

14. Rohrabacher (CA), Kaptur (OH)

#11

Would eliminate the burden of post-grant reviews and reexaminations on individual inventors and small businesses with 100 or fewer employees.

(10 minutes)

15. Schock (IL), Boren (OK), Waters (CA), Sensenbrenner (WI), Franks (AZ), Kaptur (OH)

#37

Would strike section 18 of H.R. 1249, the Transitional program for covered business method patents.

(10 minutes)