Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to the amendment. I wanted to point out that in every year when patents are granted the very small number of lawsuits that are generated as a result of that. For example, in the year 2006, there were 183,000 patents granted; 1.47 percent actually ended up in some type of lawsuit, and most of those lawsuits were settled before trial. The current system is working very well for the majority of inventors as lawsuits have represented that smaller percentage going back as far as the eye can see. I would like to place on the Record those facts that, in fact, lawsuits are a minuscule percent of all patents reviewed and granted. And I would also like to place on the Record from the United States Court of Appeals the following letter from the chief judge who states that the present bill creates a new type of macroeconomic analysis that would be extremely costly and time consuming, far more so than current application of the well-settled apportionment law.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to place on the record opposition to Mr. Issa's amendment to try to politicize decision making that is done by professionals over at the Patent Office. But in doing so, also to place on the record who's financing the expensive lobbying campaign on behalf of the bill that is before us today. They are a coalition of companies including transnational corporations: Adobe, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, eBay, Lenovo, Dell and Oracle. During the period of 1993-2005, four of them alone paid out more than $3.5 billion in patent settlements. And in the same period, their combined revenues were over $1.4 trillion, making their patent settlements only about one-quarter of 1 percent of those revenues. Now they wish to reduce even those costs, not by changing their obviously unfair and often illegal business practices, but by persuading Congress and also the Supreme Court to weaken U.S. patent protections. We ought to stand up for American inventors. We should not allow this bill to go forward. It should have sunlight. I know my colleagues are doing the best they can, but they can surely do better than this.

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to defend your labor credentials. You voted against NAFTA on this floor. You were a leader on your side of the aisle. That vote was proven to be right. What this is going to do, this is going to ``NAFTAtize'' the patent system and allow China to infringe on more of our inventions. We should not permit this to happen. We should be allowed to fully debate this for the people of this country. Two-thirds of the value of companies, up to 80 percent of our industrial companies value, relate to their patents, and we should be given more respect. We should give our constituents more respect than compressing this debate into such a narrow time slot.

Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman kindly for yielding me this time. On the manager's amendment, you know what's really sad about this bill is that it is very complicated, and it's a work in progress as we sit here on the floor. It's too important for America and for the future of our industrial and economic base to be treated this way, and I know that the Chair of the subcommittee and the full committee are listening as I speak today. We shouldn't be drafting this in a manager's amendment on the floor. There's been some inference that the AFL-CIO supports this bill. The AFL-CIO does not support this bill. They support the fact that it is being improved but they do not support the bill. In addition to that, there's something very important I was not able to address earlier, and that is that this bill prematurely reveals inventors' secrets. In 1999, the Patent Act required the Patent Office to publish on the Internet a patent application 18 months from the date of filing, but the act also allowed inventors to opt out from that if they agreed not to file for patent in another nation. That's the so- called opt-out provision. Now, between 20 and 33 percent of U.S.-origin patents opt out of the system. They're small people. They're trying to get the venture capital to start up their company and so forth, and the average time the Patent Office takes to process a patent is 31 months. Thus, all the secrets in all patent applications will be made available to every pirate in the world for more than a year before a small inventor, any inventor has a chance for patent protection. Now, we're going to be told, well, Mr. Issa's amendment will fix this. No, it will not, and we will argue against that a little bit more down the road. Several speakers this morning, Mr. Welch of Vermont and Mr. Johnson of Georgia, said, well, we need this reform because we haven't had patent reform since 1952. That's not true. There have been 17 amendments in major bills before this Congress that deal with patent reform in the last 15 years. The problem with this bill is that it tries to harmonize to lower standards in the world rather than cause other countries to harmonize up to our standards. It takes away the right of first to invent, and it transfers it to first to file. That means an inventor who come here to the Patent Office here in the United States, no matter how small, and file a patent and got the right as an inventor first to invent could be superseded in the international market by someone who happened to catch that invention on the Internet or elsewhere and file it in China first. So it changes it from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. This is a substantial change from the system that has been in place in this country since the early 1700s. You know what I said earlier what's going on here is the big proponents of this, the semiconductor companies, and Mr. Emanuel read some of their names, have been fined substantially for patent infringement over the last several years, about $3.5 billion, and they're trying to get the law changed to make it easier for them. You know what, they have a right to exist. They have a right to function. The problem is they have been taken to court, and there are 15 standards the courts use to ascertain damages. They want to reduce it to one and make the 14 optional. You know what, the Federal judges are saying don't do that; we like the current system. It gives the courts the flexibility that they use. Why should a few transnational corporations, sort of the big tech companies, have this much power in this Congress? Why don't we have the right of others to be heard here fully rather than having to condense such a serious debate into a few seconds here on the floor? Why am I opposed to this bill? I'm opposed to this bill because it gives too much power to the big tech transnationals, and it takes away power from the universities that are opposed to this; although, some in California, where so many of these big tech companies are located, are happy. But come to Ohio, come to Wisconsin, come to New York. There are lots of universities that are opposed to this. So it's giving too much advantage to a few companies. In addition to that, it totally turns upside down the first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system, and it would permit lots of infringements internationally. It does eliminate the opt-out provision where, if a small inventor doesn't want their invention put up on the Internet, it takes away the opt-out provision from them. Mr. Issa's amendment does not fix it. We want an opportunity to fix that, because we want to protect the third of inventors that do not file internationally, that do not want their patents put out there like that, and they are not the big companies. They're the smaller companies. And why force them to go into court? They don't have the money to defend themselves anyway. There's broad-based opposition to this bill. There are lots of organizations, including the Institute of Electronic Engineers, Medical College of Wisconsin. There are many, many others, Cornell University, all opposed to this. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and allowing me to broaden the record here in the very few short seconds we have been allowed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time this evening, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the patent bill coming up on Friday. Don't weaken U.S. patent protections that are based on our Constitution. Give our inventors and their creativity a chance to flourish for the next generation.

Ms. KAPTUR. The gentleman was talking about the cheating that is done by many companies globally, and one of the reasons I don't care for the bill that is going to be brought before us is right now there are at least 15 different factors that a court can weigh in assessing fines on companies that cheat, that infringe on someone else's patent. What happens under this bill is these 15 factors that the courts like because it helps them make a judgment in whatever the particulars of the case might be, are reduced to one and the other 14 factors don't really have to be weighed. So there is a significant change in this legislation that would heavily impact on what the courts can do and how they look at a given case. I will submit this article for the Record that talks about Bose's port tube technology being infringed on by JBL as an example of what is happening. [From Manufacturing & Technology News, June 29, 2007] Covering Innovation, Globalization and Industrial Competitiveness Patent ``Reform'' Is Anything But (By Pat Choate) Ironically, Congress is now threatening China with harsh remedies if it does not quickly stiffen its patent protections, even as Congress marks up legislation that will dramatically weaken U.S. patent protections. This bill is the Patent Reform Act of 2007. This schizophrenic policy is being driven by a group of ``Big Tech'' transnational corporations that repeatedly infringe the patents of others, get sued, lose in court and are then forced to pay billions of dollars in penalties. Now, in response, they are financing an expensive lobbying, propaganda and legal campaign to weaken U.S. patent laws by passing this Patent ``Reform'' Act. They cleverly call themselves The Coalition for Patent Fairness (CPF); included are large transnational corporations such as Adobe, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, eBay, Lenovo, Dell and Oracle. During the period 1993-2005, four of the CPF companies paid out more than $3.5 billion in patent settlements. In the same period, their combined revenues were $1.4 trillion, making their patent settlements only about one-quarter of one percent of their revenues. Now, they wish to reduce even those costs, not by changing their obviously unfair, and often illegal, business practices, but by persuading Congress, and also the Supreme Court, to weaken U.S. patent protections. These corporations have convinced many members of Congress and many editorial writers that the U.S. patent system is badly broken and that it requires a major legislative overhaul. Supposedly, they say, the U.S. is in the midst of a ``litigation crisis'' where responsible corporations (CPF members) are being penalized by unworthy lawsuits. And, also supposedly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is issuing massive numbers of unworthy patents that are being used in lawsuits against innovative companies (again, CPF members). The ``litigation crisis'' and ``unworthy patents'' allegations simply do not hold up under examination. The real facts of the so-called litigation crisis are that for the past two decades the number of patent lawsuits commenced annually has been about 1.5 percent of all patents granted. In 2006, it was 1.47 percent. This is business as usual. Most patent lawsuits, moreover, settle before trial. In 1979, some 79 percent of patent cases settled before trial, while in 2004 almost 86 percent did. Matters are actually improving. Also, the U.S. has few patent trials: For instance, in 2001 only 76 patent lawsuits were tried and only 102 went to trial in 2006. By no measure can 102 patent trials be considered a national litigation crisis. The annual report of Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, which is on the Internet, provides the factual antidote to false claims of a litigation crisis (www.uscourts.gov/caseload2006/contents .html). As to the massive numbers of ``unworthy patents'' argument, the real-world test is how many patents are challenged and the outcome of those challenges. Between 1981 and 2006 the USPTO issued more than 3.1 million patents. In that period, 8,600 were challenged at the Patent Office through inter partes and ex parte reexaminations. The number challenged amounts to less than three-tenths of one percent. Of those challenged, about 74 percent resulted in claims narrowed or cancelled. In addition, almost 60 percent of the relatively few patents challenged in a court trial are sustained. My point is that the USPTO's work is certainly not perfect, but the Patent Office is also not pouring out a stream of bad patents. If there are no patent ``litigation crisis'' and no patent ``quality crisis,'' what is the real purpose of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 legislation before Congress? A main goal is to legislate changes that will reduce penalties paid by infringers. Under existing law, a patent holder who is infringed upon is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. The courts now consider a list of 15 factors in that calculation, including apportioning the part of the realizable profit created by the infringed invention versus other factors such as the manufacturing process, promotion, sales or other patents owned by the infringer. Under this bill, however, Congress mandates that the court ``ensure that a reasonable royalty is applied only to the economic value properly attributable to the patent's special contribution over the prior art'' while only allowing the consideration of the other 14 factors. The bill goes on to require that the court subtract from the analysis ``the economic value properly attributable to the prior art, and other features or improvements, whether or not patented that contribute economic value to the infringing product or service.'' Think of this as a big finger on the scales of justice that favors the infringer. Often, the infringed component is only one of dozens of parts and contributions that make up the product, but that component may be the very thing that makes the product sell. JBL infringed Bose's patented port tube technology, for instance, which gives Bose speakers their distinctive clarity. Bose's technology vastly improved the sound of the JBL speakers and drove JBL's sales. Bose sued and won. JBL wanted the royalty determination based on the small value of a cheaply made, plastic port tube. The federal court, however, determined that Bose's technology is what drove JBL's sales and set the damages on the value of the entire speaker system. If the damages were apportioned only to the cost of making the port tube, Bose would have received a tiny fraction of what its invention was worth. If JBL were allowed to subtract the value of all prior art in the damage calculation, which this legislation would allow, Bose would likely have gotten almost zero. Cutting the damages paid by infringers is the goal of the many serial infringers supporting this provision. Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit advised Congress in a letter dated June 7, 2007, that the current law on apportionment is stable, works well and is understood by litigators and judges, and that the new proposal would be a radical change that would cause great chaos in the legal system. He noted that this change would require a massive damage trial in every case and a new kind of costly macroeconomic analysis. ``Resulting additional court delays would be severe,'' he wrote, ``as would additional attorneys' fees and costs.'' I think that we can mark him down as opposed. One other pernicious result is this ``primary factor'' apportionment provision would actually encourage more infringement. Rather than negotiate with a patent owner and pay for use of an innovation, many infringers would simply go ahead and use it, pay nothing and, if caught and proceeded against, then pay a small royalty payment eventually set by a federal judge. If Congress enacts this provision, it is sanctioning the ``taking'' of a patent owner's property and drastically reducing the price, if anything, an infringer must pay. Think of it as ``self-licensing'' someone else's patent. During the life of a patent, copyright or trademark, there is no difference between real property and intellectual property. A patent belongs to someone. Often it has great value. The owners should decide how it is used and the terms of that use, not the infringers. A second goal of the proposed legislation is to force the USPTO to publish on the Internet all patent applications 18 months after the date they are filed. Since most patent applications now take an average 31 months to process, the Big Tech corporations that are sponsoring this legislation would get an advanced peek at an applicant's secrets more than a year before the inventor has patent protection, that is, if the patent is even granted, which for half of all applications, it is not. If an infringer took those secrets to China or India or anywhere where patent protection is lax, as many would, the inventor's only recourse would be to go to those countries and file a lawsuit. Few small companies, universities and inventors can afford this. Foreign pirates find this mandatory publication provision particularly useful. For China, South Korea and many other nations, the USPTO's computer in Arlington, Va., is their primary source of R&D. Many foreign corporations and governments fill a room with computers, engineers and fast Internet connections and then task them with finding new technologies in unprotected U.S. patent applications. The U.S. isn't the only country with this problem; the Japanese Patent Office reports their computers get 17,000 hits per day from China and 55,000 hits per day from South Korea. When Congress first enacted this 18-month publication requirement in 1999 it also created a loophole. Inventors can opt-out of having their applications published if they agree not to file for any foreign patents. About half of all applications from small businesses, universities and independent inventors select to opt-out. The proposed bill would eliminate this opt-out choice. The Big Tech corporations also want Congress to change the long-standing practice of the U.S. Patent Office of granting a patent to the first-person-to-invent to the practice used in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere where the patent goes to the first-person-to-file the patent application. A firt-to-file system strongly favors big corporations, who have the resources to track every aspect of an invention and file boxes and boxes of materials to support their claims, over small businesses, independent inventors and universities, who do not. Equally important, this change of systems would create chaos at the USPTO and greatly contribute to the slowing of U.S. innovation. The USPTO would have to create numerous new forms and procedures and retrain its thousands of patent examiners and administrative people, even as it works down a backlog of 750,000 applications. All inventors, companies, patent lawyers and federal judges in the U.S. would be forced to learn this new system, its procedures and rules. The turmoil created by this shift in the already beleaguered USPTO would guarantee a logjam there--one far greater than the passport backlog fiasco now underway at the State Department. Incongruously, this legislation also proposes to solve America's supposed patent ``litigation crisis'' by creating a new forum for more litigation. This proposed ``post grant'' opposition process provides an infringer a lowcost means to challenge the very patent it is infringing and allows it to do so over the entire 20 year life of the patent at a lower burden of proof than required in a federal court. Europe has the very system that Congress is being asked to copy. It is a litigation heaven for the patent bar. The annual European Patent Office (EPO) challenge rate was 5.4 percent of granted patents in 2005. The combination of all USPTO ex parte and inter partes challenges, all interference cases, plus all patent lawsuits commenced calculated as per the number of patents granted produces a comparable U.S. challenge rate of 1.8 percent. The EOP challenge rate is three times that of the United States and that does not count any patent lawsuits in Europe. Japan dropped this system in 2004 because it created too many lawsuits. Of the many bad ideas in this legislation, this post grant litigation process is probably the worst. The principal victims of these and other Patent Reform Act of 2007 proposals will be small entity inventors--small businesses, individual inventors, universities and non-profit research organizations. Their patents are often the greatest, if not only, assets they hold. Most often, they need ownership of an unchallenged patent in order to get financing to actually develop it. And, when their patent secrets are stolen and used by larger infringers, they are generally unable to finance a lawsuit, particularly if the infringer operates outside the United States. Yet, it is small entity inventors who file almost 30 percent of all U.S.-origin patent applications and receive 31 percent of all patents granted. Unlike the Big Tech companies, most of these innovators keep their R&D and production in the U.S. They are vital to America's future. But they are fragile. Special consideration of their situation and needs is in the nation's best interest. Fortunately, many U.S. groups and organizations oppose the Patent Reform Act of 2007. Included are the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Business and Industrial Council, more than 450 venture capital firms, the Big Ten universities, plus dozens of other organizations. The Department of Commerce and the USPTO have written Congress that they do not support eliminating the 18-month opt-out rule, changing to a first-to-file system, altering the apportionment provision or creating a new litigation forum. Unfortunately, all this opposition has mattered little so far and this dangerous legislation is still moving forth in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Each Member of Congress needs to closely examine the Patent Reform Act of 2007 for it will deeply affect every state, every community and every congressional district. We face a historic economic challenge in the global economy. Now is the time for Congress to strengthen U.S. patent protections rather than weaken them.

Ms. KAPTUR. I share the gentleman's value of free trade among free people, and I also believe it should be a two-way street. So when the United States has a trade imbalance with any country of over $10 billion each of three consecutive years, I think we should go back and see what is wrong with that agreement. I think it ought to be assessed by the administration. I think we should find out what is going wrong. We are not doing that anywhere on the globe. Whether it is China or whether it is Mexico, we are falling into deeper and deeper debt. I think the measure is a real measure, not just political, but also the bottom line. Are we winning or losing in that trade relationship? If we are losing in that trade relationship, we ought to fix it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Absolutely. I don't think the average American understands how hard it is to get the money to start up your company. Once you have filed and gotten the patent itself, it is not easy if you are a small inventor. Why would you want to reveal that abroad?

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. And you know at this time in this country, where it is hard to find a good paying job, it is really very hard, some of these companies that are trying to weaken our patent system actually pay their staffs less than companies that are in communities like I represent, where people earn a living wage. These companies also outsource a lot of jobs related to component manufacture and so forth. I find it interesting that they have so much power and they have so much influence that now they are trying to, in a way, take away the potential for districts like mine to reinvent themselves by protecting those who are creating new ideas. In fact, they want to get rid of this opt-out provision, where if you are a small inventor and you file as first-to-invent at the Patent Office, you have a choice whether you want foreign entities to be able to see that invention now. They have this opt-out provision, where you protect yourself before you are able to get the approval and try to get the money to manufacture or provide the service that you want to provide. This will make it very difficult. About half of the inventions that we have come from small businesses, universities and independent inventors who select that opt-out provision.

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would be kind enough to yield to me again, it would force our inventors to defend themselves in a way that they don't have to today to go through all these additional bureaucratic hurdles, because under the current system we protect your idea, we protect your right as an inventor, no matter how small you are. In fact, if you look at the patents filed every day, which I look at as the seed capital of the future of this economy, a third of those patent applications are from very small inventors. They are from universities. We see every day major counterfeiters around the world taking our ideas and doing knockoffs. They actually come to your district, Congressman Rohrabacher, before they come to mine, because you have got that port down there in Southern California. But we know how counterfeiting occurs and what the potential is in other places to cheat, and we have protections for our people against that.

Ms. KAPTUR. You have a right to your idea.

Ms. KAPTUR. We know how much they have been taking in other ways, taking health benefits away from our people, taking good wages away from our people, literally taking jobs and transporting them someplace else. And our patent system has been at the basis of the creativity of this country. It is a great, great system By the way, I will say for the record, there is a website one can go to, www.uscourts.gov/caseload2006. contents.html. And on that site, you can look at these various cases to see that the courts aren't overloaded. The courts aren't saying they are overloaded in terms of suits relating to patents. But one of the parts of the bill that truly, truly concerns me, and why I shall vote against it, is that these very large transnational corporations want to change the longstanding practice of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of granting a patent to the person who actually invented it. We call it ``first to invent.'' They want to change it to ``first to file.'' In other words, if they get the system they want, which means that an inventor takes their brilliant idea to the Patent and Trademark Office, even before it is approved, it has to be posted on a Web site, and somebody in China or somebody in Tokyo can take that, file it in their country, and they say, ``grant the patent to the first to file.'' Not the first to invent. We protect individuals in this country. We protect that intellectual capital. To even suggest that we should go to a system that the gentleman has said that exists in Europe, for example, that is not the American system. Before the American system of economics got captured by these globalists who are controlling Wall Street and some of these big decisions that are hollowing out communities across this country, we had a country that respected the Constitution and the right of the inventor. You. The person who actually created the idea, whether you are a musician, whether you are an electronics expert, whether you are an automotive expert, whether you make a decent paper towel hanger for your kitchen, if you have a better idea, our legal system protects you against the large companies and the small.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would thank the fine gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for securing the special order time this evening and join him in his special order concerning the patent bill that will be coming up later in the week. I share his concern that this bill is not reform, and with what is happening across our country with the outsourcing of jobs, now is not the time to weaken U.S. patent protection, which is a constitutional protection going back to the founding of our Republic. Congressman Rohrabacher has gone through a lot of the technicalities of what is involved in this bill that is coming before us. Let me just say that there was a magazine article published back in June by Manufacturing and Technology News in their June 29, 2007 issue. Viewers can go to www.manufacturingnews.com and pick it up. It was written by Dr. Pat Choate. What I find particularly compelling about this article is it gets into who actually is driving this bill and why is this bill coming at us, a bill that will weaken protections for U.S. inventors, or those that file in our country, at a time when we were hemorrhaging jobs, certainly in the manufacturing sector, but not just that sector, and at a time when our trade deficit is now close to $1 trillion a year, a time when our budget deficit and our trade deficit is so high that the Federal Reserve a week ago had to resort to creating money, printing money and shoving it into our financial system to try to prop it up. What is happening? Why would this bill be coming up now? We know that the forces that are driving this bill are very large corporations, transnational corporations, the very ones that are moving our jobs offshore. And what they are about is that sometimes those very big companies get sued because they infringe on other people's patents. They then go to court and lose, and they are forced to pay fines. In response, because they don't like that, they are financing an expensive lobbying propaganda and legal campaign to weaken our patent laws. They are using the wrong measure. What they should do is stop infringing on other people's patents and not try to change the whole patent system as a solution to their predicament. Let me just place a number on the record that is quoted in this article. And I don't know that the gentleman has done this yet this evening, but between 1993 and 2005, four of these big companies paid out more than $3.5 billion in patent settlements. But in the same period, their earnings were more than $1.4 trillion, making their patent settlements only about one- quarter of 1 percent of their revenues. Now they wish to reduce even those costs, not by changing their obviously unfair and often illegal business practices, but by persuading Congress and also the Supreme Court to weaken U.S. patent protections which have been guaranteed since the founding of the Republic. They have tried to convince Congress that there is some type of litigation crisis. As the gentleman has just properly outlined, there is no litigation crisis in the courts relating to patents.

Ms. KAPTUR. As a member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman might be surprised to learn that today I spent part of my day learning that the U.S. Department of Defense main contract for procurement of tires for our vehicles, defense vehicles, is from a foreign company. And we have very few tire manufacturers left in the United States of America. I couldn't believe it. The company that is favored, Michelin, is building a facility in China to manufacture tires. I thought, wait a minute. What about Akron, Ohio? What about North Carolina? What about Kansas? What about other places where we make tires in this country? How is it possible that the Department of Defense signs a contract for tires with a foreign company? I have got nothing against Michelin, but what about American jobs and technology?

Ms. KAPTUR. It would seem to me that at this point in our country we would be wanting to encourage innovation here in the United States. We want to be rewarding those people who are creating the future, whether it is in agriculture, whether it is in transportation, whether it is in medical care. We have all seen the companies in our district where jobs are growing, and they begin with invention, they begin with creativity guaranteed by our Constitution. Why would we make it more difficult for them in the courts? Why would we make it easier for those who want to take their idea or get a sneak preview of their idea before their patent is granted? Why would we want to give them greater advantage in this struggle for jobs in America? It is beyond me. But I understand power and I understand the power of these companies.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would very much like to thank the dean of the Republican delegation from Ohio, Congressman Ralph Regula, a dear friend, for helping to organize this very special moment tonight in honor of our friend and colleague from Ohio, Representative Paul Gillmor, who last evening succumbed to a call that will greet us all. We never know the time nor the hour. I understand that Paul flew back to Washington yesterday with several of his colleagues. And sometimes we wonder why things happen the way they do, but he was able to speak with several of them upon his return to Washington after having spent most of August with his family in Ohio. That itself is a gift. It is with shock and sadness that we on this side of the aisle extend heartfelt sympathy to the Gillmor family. To his wife, Karen, I can't tell you how many White House Christmas parties I recall sharing with her, our travels to Mexico long before the passage of NAFTA as we evaluated the situation on the ground. Those are memories that I will hold forever. To the five Gillmor children, Paul was a very, very dedicated father. I recall one time I was going into Channel 11, our CBS affiliate, I'll probably get in trouble for saying this, the other affiliates won't be mentioned, even though it didn't happen in their stations, and Paul had one of his sons with him that day, and he was so polite. And we were talking about where he was going to school. Paul tried to be with his family, especially with his younger children, as much as he could. He suffered great tragedy in his own life, serving in Vietnam as a Captain in the Air Force in that very troubled conflict. I'm sure that he carried memories and wounds from that. And then having lost his first wife in a tragic automobile accident, having to survive that and continue to serve. He dedicated his life to public service. Many people I don't think realize what a wealthy man he was. He didn't have to be here in the Congress. He could have checked out long ago. But in the tradition of service that his family represented and very deep, deep roots in Buckeye land in Ohio, he served his country not just in the Air Force, but in the Ohio Senate where he was the majority leader, and finally, the people of the Fifth Congressional District in this House since 1989, a decade and a half. There are many pieces of legislation for which he exhibited leadership. One of those dealt with brownfields, a problem well known in a State like Ohio, and trying to move legislation in order to convert those over for reuse. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Subcommittee Chair during a portion of his career, he made a real national contribution there. Together, we worked on saving the 180th Tactical Fighter Squadron of the Army Air National Guard in our districts. When gerrymandering occurred a few years ago and the districts were redrawn, literally, he ended up with one half of the airport and I ended up with the other half. And I thought, oh, this is interesting. So we were very successful in our efforts there. And without question, that particular unit, which will be returning to Ohio this week, is returning to a facility that he helped to save. One of my memories is that before their departure about four months ago, Paul and I were there together wishing every single one of the members of that unit Godspeed and a quick return to our country. There were many times that we spent together in our region of the State. Just last week, Paul and I appeared in Findlay, Ohio as a result of the tragic 1,000-year flooding that occurred up in our area. Congressman Jim Jordan was there as well from Urbana, Ohio. And then Paul and I met with Secretary Chertoff. We were planning meetings here upon our return here this week. And we talked about the need for FEMA to be more responsive to the needs of this region. And we then took an Apache helicopter with General Wayt from the Ohio National Guard and we flew over to Bucyrus, just the two of us together in that helicopter. And we were pointing out different reservoirs and different dams and different things that had to be done in order to prevent this type of tragedy again. And we met with the mayor of Bucyrus and with the county commissioners there and the emergency management officials. We had quite a visit. And then Paul and I got back on the Apache helicopter and we flew back to Findlay, Ohio where his sister was waiting for him at the airport. And they were on to the next stop. I think he was headed over to Ottawa, Ohio in his district, which had also been very, very badly flooded. I see Congressman Jordan over there. I never knew that when we were in Findlay, Ohio together, we kind of grabbed hands and tried to deal with the flooding in your district as well, that that would be the last time that we would do that together. So we had many memories that we share of Paul's service. And I offer the consolation and the condolences of the people from the Ninth Congressional District, which literally wraps its arms around the northern part of Paul's district, to his family, to his friends, to his colleagues, and to say we are there in dutiful service to do what is necessary to transition in these very difficult days and months ahead. I want to say personally to Karen, his wife, that I value our friendship. And many of us who have reached the age we are know what a loss this is, and we are praying for you, we are praying for your children, we are praying for your family. I wanted to extend the opportunity for our dear colleague from Tennessee, Congressman John Tanner, who is down here on the floor, who wanted to offer words on behalf of Paul Gillmor whatever time he wishes to consume. I yield him such time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman. We will never forget his good humor. I would just ask for 10 seconds to say to my colleagues in terms of my neighbor, Paul Gillmor, with whom I served over 20 years in this body, we just happened to be flying over Ohio this past week to assess the flood damage in his district. My last memory of him is actually climbing out of the Apache helicopter we were both in. There were just the two of us with the Ohio National Guard, and he extended his hand to me to help me get out of the helicopter after a very long day in many communities, including Bucyrus and Findlay. I have many memories, but I shall never forget that. He was a gentleman of this House. I thank my colleagues very much.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House that in addition to the loss of Ohio's beloved colleague Paul Gillmor today and former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, we have lost a beloved friend and indefatigable colleague when Ohio Congressman Charles Vanik passed away last week at the age of 94. I know that Congressman Regula and I, along with all of our delegation, feel this loss as deeply as we feel the others. I wanted to just mention to our colleagues that Congressman Vanik served from 1955 until 1981 and was affectionately known as Ohio's third Senator. He is probably most remembered for his landmark legislation, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that continues to connect U.S. trade policy to human rights. We in Ohio will always remember him as a true champion and leader on Medicare, Social Security and the plight of the poorest Americans. I would like to yield to my colleague, my beloved friend, Ralph Regula, now for some words.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for crafting a bipartisan measure that carefully balances support for or troops and their families and fiscal responsibility. It maintains and enhances our Nation's commitment to a defense second to none and our abiding responsibility to protect and defend our Nation from all enemies at home and abroad. As a member of this distinguished subcommittee, I am pleased with the body of work that we produced under the strong leadership of Chairman Murtha. The Defense subcommittee held over 30 hearings this year, nearly double that of the previous Congress. We received testimony from dozens of witnesses--from both inside and outside the Department of Defense--in order to allow the Members and our extraordinary staff to fashion this well balanced bill. Mr. Chairman, this has been a difficult year for our Nation. The economy is in fragile shape, the public is losing faith in this body and the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on the morale and well being of U.S. soldiers. As this conflict extends well into its 5th year, I must soberly remind each and every Member of this body that 3,651 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 27,104 injured. Those are staggering numbers. Thankfully, this bill seeks to provide robust funding for those programs most important to the soldiers and to their families. The Committee fully-funded a 3.5 percent military pay raise without charging higher health care fees for military retirees, as the Administration proposed to do. Included in this bill is just under three billion dollars for family advocacy programs, childcare centers and dependent's education programs. I am also very supportive of strong language and related funding in this bill providing for increased oversight and accountability of contractors and contracting out services. We have been calling on the Department of Defense to get its fiscal house in order for years. They chose to ignore Congress. This bill provides much needed guidance on the steps they must take to increase transparency on how they spend the public's money. Corruption and fiscal irresponsibility cannot stand. I agree with my Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, who maintains: ``The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, officials, and programs that have performed poorly. Moreover, wasted resources and procedural abuses ultimately come at the expense of our military men and women.'' As a result, we provide increased funds for the Contract Audit Agency, the Contract Management Agency, and the Department of Defense Inspector General. We also provide authority for the DoD to hire up to 500 GSA and GAG efficiency experts for assistance. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to draw each Member's attention to language in this bill that notes the Department of Defense has been slow ``to establish aggressive goals and timelines to achieve increased energy efficiency.'' The utter dependence of the United States on imported petroleum creates the major strategic vulnerability for our Nation, coupled with nearly half of the energy supply of the United States dependent on foreign sources. From the economically damaging Arab oil embargoes of 1973-74 and 1979 to the current recession precipitated by rising oil prices, which began in 1999, economic forces outside our borders have too often shaken the economic stability of the United States. We must shift America's dependence away from foreign petroleum as an energy source toward alternative, renewable, domestic sources. We must aim to balance the current petroleum trade deficit by replacing foreign sources of supply with steady increases of domestically-produced fuels and power system. The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of fuel in the United States. It maintains the largest energy footprint in our Govemment. I believe the Department of Defense can and must lead all other agencies in making the United States energy independent again. I encourage every Member to vote in favor of this bill.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this excellent bill to support food, fiber, fuel and forest production across this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairwoman Ms. DeLauro, a longstanding colleague, for the excellent bill she has assembled. As the former ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, it has been a pleasure to see my colleague bring together our subcommittee through a form of collegiality unrivaled in this day of partisanship. This year's agriculture appropriations bill has been many years in coming, investing in the critical resources necessary to move agriculture and much of rural America fully into the 21st Century. Ms. DeLauro has been a true leader and has produced a bill that should make all members of the Subcommittee proud. This bill invests in energy independence, secures our Nation's food supply, provides nutritional assistance for those living on the edge and link production from local small farmers with our urban consumers. The bill helps to grow America's economy through investing in rural America's potential for food, fiber, fuel and forest production. Along with breakthrough investments in energy that will result from the recent farm bill, this measure moves America forward with a plan to use agriculture to solve our energy crisis. This legislation provides $350 million for biomass and renewable energy projects and $500 million to electrify America with wind power. This bill also provides $46 million for an innovative USDA grant program to help America transition to renewable energy sources, a program that has a long record of investing in the technologies of tomorrow. Agriculture holds the key if we are going to wean our Country from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This bill provides important incentive to transition us into the economy of tomorrow. The Department of Agriculture dedicates almost \2/3\ of its budget to nutrition, yet, there have been scarce few attempts to link local producers with urban consumers. This bill confronts those challenges and directs the Department of Agriculture to connect local farmers with procurement from USDA major nutrition programs. In addition, this bill also provides $20 million for the senior farmers market nutrition program, an approach so wildly successful with the elderly and with farmers that it regularly has more requests than funds available. For our Nation's farmers markets, this bill also provides $1,000,000 for the Farmers' Market Promotion Program to establish, expand, and promote farmers' markets to connect local production to the local marketplace. I am also pleased to rise in support of the $150 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program that this legislation provides. This bill provides enough money to expand CSFP in 5 new states, providing a food supplement for those who cannot make ends meet. These agriculture nutrition programs bridge the gap between urban and rural, linking consumers with local producers--helping to provide fresh produce, vegetables and commodities to those with little access to nutritious foods. On food safety, this bill confronts critical challenges to the integrity of our food system. This bill blocks implementation of a rule which would allow poultry importation from China and provides funds to implement the long awaited process of labeling the country of origin for food in our marketplace. It has taken many years to bring this issue to the forefront. But now it appears that Congress is finally giving consumers the tools for making effective decisions on what they choose to eat. Before I close, I would like to advise the administration of language which clearly expresses the intent of Congress on the failed policy of Farm Service Agency closures. In both the Agriculture Appropriations bill and in the recently passed Farm Bill, the House of Representatives expressed its discontent with efforts to move forward with these closures. As there seems to be significant confusion on the intent of Congress on Farm Service Agency office closures, I respectfully refer the FSA Administration to two sections in recent legislation passed in the House of Representatives which clearly provide the intent of Congress on this issue. In H.R. 2419 Section 11306 and Page 56 of the House Appropriations Report from H.R. 3161 clearly express the intent of Congress. As FSA moves forward with office closures in Ohio and across the Country, I strongly urge the administration to recognize the clear intent of the House Appropriations Committee, the House Agriculture Committee and the full House of Representatives. In sum, this bill takes a major step forward for our Nation in opening new markets for farmers, makes major strides in conservation of our natural resources, attends to the food needs of all of America's needy families and children, moves rural America into renewable energy production, addresses challenges posed by serious environmental invasive species, and expands our food safety efforts. America must dedicate itself to food self sufficiency here at home and displace the rising levels of food imports. This bill invests in our Nation and our producers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment and to allow the importation of safe prescription drugs into our country. You know, the pharmaceutical companies are making record profits. I represent a district along the Canadian border. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of sick people from our district have to drive up over that bridge, the Windsor Bridge, up into Canada in order to take care of their mentally ill kids. The senior citizens that can't afford drugs, or they've been thrown out of a job, to try to keep house and home together as they have to purchase various pharmaceutical products. What do we have an FDA for if it isn't for certification? That's what we want them to do. These drugs are being bought from certified pharmacies. You know, the seniors that come through the supermarket aisle in the place where I shop back home, they're choosing between food and medicine. What kind of a choice is that, really? You don't have to buy unsafe drugs. You can buy safe drugs. We want the FDA to regulate. I'd prefer to see drug prices reach an affordable level in our Nation and to make sure that all of our people have full prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and that's the direction we ought to move, including drug coverage under our insurance programs. But there's absolutely no reason to buy the red herring that if you buy pharmaceuticals in Canada they're not safe. There isn't a single person in my district that has ever gotten sick, because they go to certified pharmacies. The tragedy is they cannot afford those drugs in this country. And I want to compliment Congresswoman DeLauro, who has fought on this, Congresswoman Emerson, who has fought on this. It seems like we keep fighting this because the pharmaceutical companies keep fighting us to do what's right for this country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the fine gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) in a colloquy on unfair practices in the poultry and meat packing industries, and want to commend him for this incredibly visionary piece of legislation. It is a real credit to him, to his dogged work and expertise over so many years in this Congress as well as in the private sector. The current contracted system of meat and poultry production often maneuvers farmers who do the actual work of raising and feeding billions of animals into subservient positions in today's marketplace and legal system. Poultry has become one of the most vertically integrated industries in our country, with four firms controlling nearly 60 percent of the broilers raised and sold. Poultry, despite the worrisome rise of camphylobacter and salmonella through safety recalls, remains outside the normal oversight by USDA, even though GIPSA has oversight over beef and pork. The Department of Agriculture has no real power to stop unfair practices in this industry. It surely has no mediation authority. Poultry contracts often are presented to farmers as take-it-or-leave-it contracts. In many cases farmers do not even see the actual contract until after they have gone to the bank. Farmers are not encouraged to negotiate contract terms that protect their interests, such as hedging against animal deaths and environmental cleanup costs, assuring accurate weights and measures and fair feed and input pricing, or gaining a fair share of the value of the nitrogen-rich manure produced by the animals themselves. As the gentleman from Minnesota moves forward on the farm bill conference, I would urge him to give the USDA the full authority to protect against unfair practices in the poultry industry and to protect farmers' legal rights. Please give farmers legal standing in court. Provide them with transparency in pricing, as well as technical assistance with fair contracts. Assure weights and measures. Help them hedge against animal deaths and environmental cleanups. Provide for legal and safe working conditions for chicken catchers who are their primary workforce. Bring honor to this industry with contracting fairness to farmers and their workers.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Michigan and say that my district borders Canada too, across Lake Erie. The planes fly over our border, and we go up to Michigan and we take the Ambassador Bridge and so forth up into Canada. So we share those concerns. But what we don't share is our dismay at the lack of transparency that characterizes the Bush administration. What exactly are they discussing with the Government of Canada, with the Government of Mexico and other governments in the Americas? We have a right to know. We have a right to participate. We want transparency and disclosure on the SPP. Their secretiveness about what is going on is a deep concern. Vote for the Hunter-Kaptur amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and in support of the Hunter-Kaptur amendment. It is a simple limitation amendment. And frankly, one of the chief reasons I'm supporting it, in addition to all the excellent reasons Mr. Hunter has given, is that the administration refuses to report back to Congress its negotiation on this Security and Prosperity Partnership and its impact in a number of areas, including transportation. They have been intransigent, they have been unresponsive and, frankly, they've been secretive. And this is going to have an enormous impact on public welfare across this continent, particularly in our country. The gentleman talks about security. I support him in that. Right now we've got a situation under NAFTA where so many of our jobs and production platforms have been outsourced to Mexico. We've got all these illegal trucks coming in. They're even making their way all the way to Ohio, up into Detroit, causing us all kinds of difficulty. We need transparency and we need disclosure about what the Security and Prosperity Partnership is all about. The Administration, even on our request, refuses to answer inquiries about the SPP. Due to NAFTA, we just have tremendous problems with additional illegal drugs in our area coming in transported in a lot of these vehicles that are coming from the border, and in many ways we already have an unregulated flow across our continent. So I really support the gentleman's efforts here. We need transparency. We need disclosure. We don't need to expand the difficulties we're already having as a result of what has transpired with NAFTA. And with the size of the roadways that are being talked about, and the possibility they will be privatized tollways, we need to have reporting back from this administration. So I support the gentleman's amendment very strongly.