Darrell Issa: “Both of my amendments are intended to improve this bill. I don't stand before the Committee of the Whole to say that…”

“Both of my amendments are intended to improve this bill. I don't stand before the Committee of the Whole to say that this bill will become perfect. As a matter of fact, in the general debate, I named companies like BIOCOM and GenProbe and Invitrogen, who are part of UCSD CONNECT, who have specific areas we are including in the material that they want continued work done on. They are, in fact, dissatisfied with the bill because it hasn't done everything it could do. But this amendment on rulemaking which would stop an arbitrary decision by the Patent Office on something it may want to do such as eliminate continuations, et cetera, is there for a reason. And I would hope that people who are going to perhaps oppose the bill as not yet good enough would recognize that it is crucial for this amendment to get into it if we are going to protect against arbitrary action by the Patent and Trademark Office. And last but not least, Ms. Kaptur was kind enough to ask one more question during the previous amendment that couldn't be answered, and I just want to make it clear on the previous amendment, you will be able to keep your secret through an unlimited period of debate back and forth with the Patent Office up to two full rejections and then 90 days in which to close. And I would hope the gentlewoman would recognize that that is an improvement even if nothing is perfect.”