Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, almost no one in Washington is talking about jobs. For 2 months now, both Chambers of the Congress have been locked down in talking about the debt ceiling. Meanwhile, if you look back at the Bush years, America lost over 8 million jobs while the largest recession since the Great Depression, was precipitated by the Bush Wall Street bailout. America has only gotten back about 2 million jobs. Yes, only 2 million; still jobs are being created at about 120,000 per month. That is far from where we need to head to achieve economic recovery for all. But rather than this Congress engaging in intelligent dialogue on how to create jobs, we keep going down these side roads to nowhere. Meanwhile, unemployment just went up another 10,000 jobs. 10,000 more workers filed for unemployment. Every Member in both Chambers will be judged on not doing the work that the people want us to do. Instead Congress must focus on how to use the power of the Federal Government to create jobs. If you take a look at what the Republican majority in the House wants to do, they want to cut unemployment benefits. That's not even understandable to any rational person. They want to cut food. I invite any one of them, come to my district. Come and stand in the food lines. See how it feels. Better yet, help us pack some of the food bags, and then distribute them and give them to veterans who are coming home from the wars who don't have jobs. And then ask yourself what are you really doing here. What are you doing here? America needs jobs. What about health benefits for people who've fallen out of work, and don't have any more health benefits for their family? Why should we cut there? You know, there are some who like to proudly proclaim they're pro- life. Pro-life doesn't only involve the period before a child is born. It involves the entire life of a person, of a human being until natural death. I think there are some philosophical questions our Members ought to be asking themselves about helping the American people at this critical point in our history. Now, all of us want to produce balanced budgets. When you have full employment, you get balanced budgets and you even can get extra funds. Full employment means you can pay down your long-term debt. But you don't hear anything up here being talked about jobs. If it were happening, we'd have more job creation. But we have less job creation. More people are going on unemployment benefits. So the current conversation and discussions are totally off base. Let's just look at one sector where America and the Federal Government could save a lot of money. America, as a country, spends over $250 billion a year on prescription drugs. And nearly a third of that amount is paid for by the Federal Government, which actually means our people paying their fair share of taxes, when they work, to the Federal Government and then the Federal Government meeting its obligations to our citizenry for their security and our Nation's future. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying, cut Social Security, cut Medicare. Hurt the American people. Hurt the people who have worked for a living. They don't talk about trimming the excess profits of the pharmaceutical companies. So, let's look at that pharmaceutical industry. You know what? They're not paying their fair share into the Federal till. Let's just look at one bag of heparin in a hospital for which Medicare ends up paying over $600, and in total, millions and millions of dollars a year for a product, a blood thinner that's been off patent for years. It's made in China. The ingredients are made in China. They're not even made here. Do you realize how much money a couple of companies are making off of selling just that one product? My Republican friends aren't trying to get fair prices for the American people. Celebrex, for treating arthritis, Medicare pays for an average patient $148 a month. For Lipitor, for those trying to lower cholesterol, $122 a month. Now if you take a look at the profits of Pfizer, Pfizer made $8.3 billion in profits, and its CEO made $25 million last year, just in what he's willing to admit. Johnson and Johnson made $13.3 billion in profits, while their CEO walked away with $29 million. Other big drugmakers like Abbott Labs, $4.6 billion. These are with Bs--billions. These aren't with Ms--millions. These aren't millions; these are billions. And Eli Lilly, $5 billion in profits our Federal Government is just forking over billions all the time. Yes, the Federal Government is the pharmaceutical industry's biggest customer, and the industry surely knows it. Why doesn't the Federal Government use its purchasing power to get better bids on these drugs and have competitive bidding in order to purchase more fairly-priced pharmaceuticals? We did that back in the 1990s. We haven't done it since. There's plenty of ways to get the funds to try to balance the budget. But the most important way to balance the budget is to help Americans get back to work. Then Congress must not forget the places in our budget where the American people are being gouged because some very powerful companies aren't doing their fair share to help our Nation recover. Proper management of the Federal pursestrings in long overdue.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire as to my remaining time?

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee very much, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for allowing me this time. I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment, but I am hoping that as this moves towards the Senate and final consideration that, as to some of those who just happened to get to the microphone earlier, we might find a way to move some of those dollars around to support an industry that truly is a cutting-edge industry for our country, which deserves the kind of support that this Congress should give to new technology to try to create good jobs in this country and help us wean ourselves off our chief strategic vulnerability--imported energy. I ask my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment on solar. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to help promote a dynamic energy market in America through continued development of our budding solar industry. My amendment conservatively would transfer $10 million from administrative costs within the Department of Energy and shift those to solar energy research and development within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. Certainly I understand the difficulty in drafting this bill, given the large allocation cuts for the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and I appreciate the chairman's work and the ranking member's work in helping America meet the energy and water challenges of our Nation, which are huge. Yet this bill cuts research in solar energy by more than one- third from last year and over 60 percent from the President's request, providing $166 million--$97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291 million below the request. The $10 million transfer I propose from administration to implementation represents less than 5 percent of the funds in the administrative budget of the Department of Energy. I want to make clear that this amendment does not target other programs that are critical to our Nation's energy needs. Rather than cut fossil fuels and nuclear power, this amendment asks the Department of Energy to tighten its administrative belt a little bit more to prioritize the administration's core mission, the promotion of a viable energy future for America, and to do it in a sector that is growing jobs in our country despite what we face in terms of international global competition. While this amendment proposes a modest 5 percent cut from the Department's administrative accounts, these dollars will go far in supporting additional energy options for American consumers and companies. Solar energy production has nearly tripled in the last 5 years. In 2006, we generated 508,000 megawatt hours. Today, we produce 1.4 million megawatt hours annually. And I can't wait until it is 100 million. Ernst & Young predicts the cost of solar will decrease by as much as half next year. And while the U.S. economy is anticipated to increase jobs by just 2 percent over the next year, in the solar industry that number is 26 percent, according to Cornell University. As costs go down and production capacity grows, solar energy becomes a viable alternative to imported energy sources. And this is exactly what our country needs right now: a vibrant energy market that gives Americans choices and encourages economic growth here at home. Now, some would argue that with numbers like these, solar energy doesn't need anything, any additional funding, but I disagree. It is precisely because of our investment in this fledgling, cutting-edge industry that is high tech that such successes are possible. We cannot allow America to be complacent. Right now we are in competition to be the energy leader of the future in this sector. For years, we were the leader in developing new technology, but we have been falling behind. And guess who has been right at our heels the whole time: China. China knows that our technology will power the future, and they are setting themselves up to be the new global leaders in solar. I can verify that. As we sat back and patted ourselves here, China exponentially increased their funding for solar and other clean energy technology. In addition, they are providing 15-year tax holidays for firms that locate production there. So as we develop this very fledgling industry here, they are more than willing to outsource it there. So we must redouble our efforts and continue our investment in research and bring this market to scale in America. Right now, we are powering homes and some bases with solar. We should be powering neighborhoods and entire communities. That's what it means to have the real thriving, new energy market that Americans are demanding, and the jobs that go with them. This amendment will create increased efficiency within the Department of Energy and promote American industry and energy independence. I ask my colleagues to think about it and help me by supporting this amendment which merely takes less than 5 percent of the administrative budget of the Department of Energy, $10 million--we are not talking about billions here--and shifts it to the Solar Energy account. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kaptur amendment for solar. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, America's so-called ``spending problem'' directly relates to unemployment. Revenues just aren't growing fast enough because of unemployment. Yet Washington, D.C., is tied in knots over raising the debt limit and over how much more America has to borrow because our economy isn't growing fast enough to put millions of Americans back to work. But you can't balance a budget unless people are working, because unemployment equals a loss of revenues with rising deficits. People know this. When they're out of work, they have deficits in their own family budgets, and they have to cut back. Our local school systems have to cut back because we know revenues aren't there, and certainly our Nation has to cut back when the revenues aren't coming in. Yet many inside Washington, D.C., have their eyes on the effect, not on the cause, of our predicament. The principal cause of deficits is unemployment. Triggered by what? Triggered first by Wall Street corruption and greed. As well, deficits are triggered by growing trade deficits, which I will talk about in a second, due to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, and rising deficits are due to endless wars. America needs to address these causes, but Washington is addressing only effects. Again today, we have news that one of the principal causes of chronic unemployment and deficits is headed in the wrong direction. The United States trade deficit, our balance of goods and services accounts with other countries, is seriously hemorrhaging. In May, the U.S. trade deficit grew again--more in the red--by over $50.2 billion. More lost jobs. Yes, the imports of higher priced oil keep pushing all of America deeper into the red. People know it because they're paying over $4 a gallon when they fill up their cars with gas. I did that last night again. America has a jobs problem, and that triggers the red ink. America has a jobs problem. That triggers the red ink. Wake up, Washington. America has a jobs problem. In 1993, some Members here in Congress argued, Oh, pass NAFTA, over my strong objections, because it's going to create millions of jobs, and we will have this terrific trade balance with Mexico and Canada. Exactly the reverse happened. We have over $1 trillion of trade deficit post-NAFTA, and there hasn't been a single year in which it has been balanced. Millions of U.S. jobs have been lost. And each year more red ink due to NAFTA stacks up--over a trillion dollars and counting. Then in the late 1990s, the same Members said, Oh, let's sign the same kind of deal with China, and we did, over my strong objections again. Guess what happened? Millions more lost jobs in this country. In fact, the Manufacturing Policy Project estimates that there have been over 14 million jobs lost just in terms of NAFTA and PNTR. We can no longer afford to add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to our trade deficit, because it throttles economic growth. It literally crushes it. It creates more unemployment in this country. Today, we are facing unsustainable levels of unemployment for the third year since the recklessness of Wall Street brought the economy crushing down after gas prices went up to over $4 a gallon in 2007. The official unemployment rates today are over 9 percent, and this causes red ink at every level; but rather than focusing on job creation, Washington wants to give us more of these trade agreements, this time they say with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, using the same failed trade model that has resulted in huge trade deficits and more lost jobs. Congress needs to address causes. We need to get our deficits under control by balancing our trade accounts and stopping job outsourcing. We need to get our deficits under control by putting people back to work. We need to get our deficits under control by ending endless wars, and we need to balance our accounts by making sure that Wall Street and the greedy who are getting a free ride pay their fair share. America needs a results-oriented trade policy that creates jobs here in our country, with more exports going out than imports coming in, and a trade policy that holds our trade partners accountable. We don't need more NAFTA trade model-type agreements, which is what they're going to try to push through again. Madam Speaker, America's deficit problem relates directly to a lack of jobs--to vast pools of unemployed people, to Americans who want to work but who are losing hope. Unemployment translates into red ink and a lack of revenue. Until this Congress addresses unemployment, it won't solve the deficit problem. America needs to address the causes, not the effects of America's economic predicament. When will this Congress address those causes?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I made a statement a little bit earlier regarding this amendment which aims to help restore the energy security, economic security, and environmental security of our Nation by focusing on the future. It essentially shifts a very modest amount of funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the Department of Energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and development within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. Sadly, the bill overall moves backward in terms of helping America invent its new energy future because it cuts research in solar development by more than one-third from last year and over 60 percent from the President's request. The base bill provides $166 million for solar research, which is a $97 million reduction below this year's level and a $291 million reduction below the President's request. What sense does that make when we're importing petroleum at this level, we continue to use more and more, and prices are going up? It is pretty clear America needs new answers. So my effort is to merely reprogram about 5 percent of the funds in the administrative budget of the Department of Energy and shift those to the energy efficiency and renewable energy program itself. I believe that the Department of Energy, which took years to even get their solar array up at the national headquarters here, could save the money that we need to put into research if they'd merely be more energy efficient about their own buildings. And that comes out of their administrative funds. So this merely is a 5 percent shift. It's $10 million from the administrative budget, and put it into hard research that really helps to create jobs. We know that America has to invent her future. We can't depend on the energy sources of the past alone. Technology is critical to that. And in the solar field, the competition globally for patents and for the cutting edge research that is part of this sector is just growing so fast globally, America simply can't slip backward. We just have to keep up our edge. It's very difficult with China and with Germany having the kind of incentives they do in their own country. For example, China even offers companies 15-year tax holidays, and they have so many more engineers and scientists than we do working on this. So I think cutting solar research is not a good option for this country. This bill makes many other cuts. Surely, we know that research investments in solar technology have helped create numerous companies already and thousands and thousands of new jobs. In fact, solar companies employ over 90,000 American workers now, and they expect both growth in sales and jobs, but that depends fundamentally on cutting-edge breakthroughs in technology. And that is a fight that is occuring every day, not just in this country, but in research platforms around the world. I mentioned earlier that Isofoton, a Spanish solar manufacturer in my region, had announced 300 new jobs this past week. So global firms are coming to places like northern Ohio where they know that the energy systems of the future are being built. But the number of jobs being created in this sector far exceed what is being created in just the general job creation sector in our country. Cornell University's 2010 solar job census shows that in solar energy, the number of new jobs is increasing by 26 percent; and those are good jobs building a new future for our country and for our people. We know that many of these entrepreneurial companies are too small to do their own in-house research, they still need Federal research and basic research to help us use new materials and to help us develop the new transmission technologies to make them truly competitive, to compete against the Chinas and the Germanys of the world that are taking market share as I stand here even today. So the race is a serious one in the solar energy field. Basic research is the critical ingredient. My amendment essentially moves 5 percent of the funds out of the administrative accounts into the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts at the Department. I would ask for my colleagues' support on that. Hopefully, we can help take a small step for humankind, for solar energy development in our country. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. KAPTUR. Could I ask the gentleman the nature of the opposition, please?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Members and Madam Chairman, I am having help from the pager placing this chart up here. It shows how much petroleum America imports--the red line--and overall how much petroleum we use. Energy- wise, America is a totally dependent Nation. I offer this amendment to help restore the energy security, economic security, and environmental security of our Nation. Nothing could be more vital. My amendment takes a small step by shifting a very small amount of funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the Department of Energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and development within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. Sadly, the base bill jeopardizes America's new energy future. It cuts research in solar energy by more than one-third from last year, and over 60 percent from the President's request, providing $166 million for 2012, but that's $97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291 million below the President's request. The $10 million in reprogramming represents less than 5 percent of the $220 million administrative budget of the Department of Energy. If the Department of Energy made their buildings more energy efficient, we could shift the funds into research on new technologies. For months I have been hearing from constituents outraged about the high price of gas and energy in our country. And once again the recent job statistics from the Department of Labor tell us very clearly that every time you have an oil price hike, you have rising unemployment. You can go back 40 years. Every time it goes over $4 a gallon, we get a spike in unemployment. It's not rocket science. As it stands, this bill reinforces our dependence on foreign oil. By contrast, my amendment focuses on a new energy future for America by shifting a modest amount of funds for solar energy to provide American consumers with the new energy choices that they want. Our priorities in this bill must be aligned with the needs of our Nation for tomorrow, not yesterday. America shouldn't be held hostage by future energy price spikes. We must promote sustainable environmental stewardship while creating jobs right here in our country. We need to address budgetary realities, and this bill does it. And there are accounts we have cut. But investments in new energy sources to displace imported oil are not the place to cut, not when America is this dependent. Research investments in solar technology have helped create numerous new companies, creating thousands of high quality jobs already with domestically produced energy. We are at the dawn of a new energy age, and we can't lose edge now. Solar companies already employ over 90,000 American workers and are expected to grow in both sales and jobs. But that depends on new research. And many of the fledgling companies can't afford to do that. Last week, Isofoton, a Spanish solar panel manufacturer, announced plans to open a new plant in Napoleon, Ohio, that will create more than 300 jobs. Global firms know that particularly northern Ohio has made renewable energy a priority, and the investment is following. Congress simply must focus on a new energy future for our Nation and not let inertia and the habits of the past thwart progress. Overall, the U.S. economy is anticipated to increase jobs by 2 percent next year. But guess what? In the solar industry, the number of new jobs is expected to increase 26 percent, according to Cornell University's 2010 solar job census. Those are the kind of jobs that America wants. And a recent Ernst and Young report predicts the cost of solar to decrease by as much as half, creating a strong solar option for American consumers and providing solar companies with the opportunity to expand. Investors know where to put their dollars, and our Nation knows--or we should know--that this is an emerging industry, and cutting edge research is fundamental to progress. The race to be the energy provider of the future is this generation's space race. And basic research is critical. It is fundamental. It is the fundamental ingredient to build that new future for our people. America has never shirked a major challenge. And we have a real finish line to go across as competitors are fierce, from China, from Germany, from Japan. New technology will provide a new power future for us, and we must position ourselves not to be second, not to be third, but to be the global leader and to create those good jobs here at home. So my amendment sets a course to keep the keel more steady as we advance energy security, economic security, and the environmental security of our Nation while promoting jobs here at home through new energy independence and innovation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Kaptur amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would offer this amendment as a new amendment that would perform essentially the same function. That is, it satisfies any concerns the gentleman might have about where we are moving funds from in the Dept. of Energy Administrative Programs and moving them to in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. I offer this revised amendment that I hope would satisfy the gentleman's concern on his point of order. This is a new amendment. It essentially moves dollars from the administrative accounts at the Department of Energy to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy block grant. Does the gentleman have concerns, and I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. KAPTUR. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much. I know that the choices are difficult. I guess I would put my marbles on getting the Department to be more efficient in its administrative operations on its nuclear side and on its civil side, and put more of those dollars into research and development for the future of new energy systems, including solar. I regret the gentleman's objection, but I have the highest respect for him. Maybe we can work this out down the road.

Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I have a revised amendment at the desk.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would thank the gentleman very much for his thoughtful point of order and would ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. I have a revised amendment at the desk that I think will satisfy his concern.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. An article I am submitting for the Record reports that ``Seif al-Island Qadhafi, the son of Colonel Qadhafi, warned that in the event of a civil war, Libya's oil wealth would be burned.'' One can see why the global powers took note. In fact, China lifted 55,000 of its oil workers out of Libya. History will judge whether these resource wars and selective dictator deposals are justifiable. But the answer for America is to invest here at home and to restore America's energy independence and to extricate ourselves from all these foreign oil involvements. March 22, 2011. President Barack Obama, The White House, Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC. Dear President Obama: According to information available from public sources, the United States participated, and perhaps has led, military operations against the government of Libya. Press reports indicate U.S. military engagement began at 16:53 GMT March 19, 2011 bombing commenced on targets including surface to air systems and other air defense infrastructure. It appears four days of U.S. air and naval strikes inside Libya have destroyed strategic communications facilities, the military intelligence headquarters, and air defense systems. It is unclear how many lives, civilian and military, have been lost, or saved, in these Libyan operations. Please provide a detailed description of the coalition of forces involved in these operations in which the U. S. has participated, its command and decision-making structure, and from the planning stage to execution. Further, under which accounts of the U.S. Departments of Defense and State are these operations being funded? What level of funding does the United States expect to use in the operations in Libya? Thank you for your reply. Sincerely, Marcy Kaptur, Member of Congress.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Smith for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill as well as the prior resolution, as it's better late than never. Here again, with Libya, Congress follows in the wake of a major executive branch military action absent congressional authorization. I sent a letter to President Obama on March 22 regarding what was then called Operation Odyssey Dawn and have never gotten an answer. When one looks at the duration of U.S. military engagements in the Middle East, north Africa, and central Asia and what the future might bring, these are the longest wars and military actions in U.S. history. Our Nation has fallen into deep debt directly connected to our expenditures of over $1 trillion in the past decade on wars that have not been paid for. Moreover, creeping defense commitments in that region and globally now consume over half of the U.S. discretionary budget annually. It is an astounding predicament 20 years after the end of the Cold War, as jobless Americans question whether our Federal Government even sees their plight. We all know freedom is not free, but it is largely the American people that are bearing this military burden more and more each year. What is most striking is that other nations in the region in which we are fighting are simply not carrying anywhere near their fair share of the load of boots on the ground, nor have they measured up either in terms of putting their treasuries at risk. Unless an alliance of nations in that region fight for freedom themselves, they won't own it, and we can't transfuse it. Sadly, compared to the moral justification for World War II, which historians termed ``America's most just foreign war,'' our Nation in the current period has drawn into resource wars in farflung places that history is likely to judge as morally indefensible. The world is full of bad dictators, but it always seems the dictators America is most interested in are those that sit atop huge oil reserves. Libya has the world's ninth largest oil reserves and exports 1.5 million barrels a day. I will be placing several articles in the Record that document Western Europe's dependence, as well as Canada's reliance, on Libya's oil investments and the Libyan President's threats to nationalize those investments, which even has affected China. The West's utter and growing reliance on imported petroleum has twisted our foreign policy and crippled our domestic economy time and again. As we import half of what we consume, until Americans clearly see our predicament, our Nation will keep repeating these same mistakes. Let us be clear on the nature of the Libyan economy: 95 percent of its exports are oil; 80 percent of its government revenue derives from oil sales. Oil represents 25 percent of Libya's GDP and its most important industry. And Libya is Africa's third largest oil producer. The major powers involved in this military operation have vast pecuniary interests at stake through the multinational oil corporations that operate in Libya, whether it is Italy, from which operations are being staged, and which gets 22 percent of its oil from Libyan operations through firms like Eni and Repsol, or Canada, whose NATO General is leading operations, while Canada's second largest corporation, Suncor Energy, has major oil operations in Libya.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to refute Mr. Smith's argument. In fact, he has manufactured an argument against our amendment that says it will violate WTO obligations, specifically citing TRIPS. He seems to object to the use of references to American citizens and U.S. companies, but obviously failed to read the entire amendment which allows the Patent Office to issue relevant regulations for properly implementing this amendment. And if he was so concerned about WTO compliance, he should strike section 18 of his own bill which is clearly WTO noncompliant because it creates a special class for only one industry, the banking industry. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and for the Rohrabacher-Kaptur amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge my colleagues to support the Rohrabacher-Kaptur amendment, which ensures fairness for small and independent inventors. Without it, this bill will destroy American job creation and innovation since it throws out 220 years of patent protections for individual inventors. Our amendment addresses a major shortcoming of the bill by eliminating the burden of post-grant reviews and reexaminations on individual inventors and small businesses with 100 or fewer employees. The new procedures and regulations in this bill will make it extremely difficult for the average citizen to ever get a patent or defend one without our amendment. Our amendment clearly gives the Patent Office the authority to issue appropriate regulations that ensure that the new regulatory burdens in this bill do not disproportionately impact individual inventors. This amendment is about ensuring fairness for small inventors. We urge our colleagues to support the Kaptur-Rohrabacher amendment so all inventors in America have a chance to realize their dreams, and, in realizing their dreams, assuring that we will have robust innovation and job creation in our country.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to my remaining time, please.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if this bill is passed into law, it will violate the first right explicitly named in our Constitution, the intellectual property clause. This bill makes a total mockery of article 1, section 8, clause 8, which requires Congress to secure for inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discovery. Supporters of this bill say it is an attempt to modernize our patent system. What they really mean is that this bill Europeanizes our patent system by granting the rights to an invention to whoever wins the race to the Patent Office. The Supreme Court has been consistent on this issue throughout our history. First inventors have the exclusive constitutional right to their inventions. This right extends to every citizen, not just those with deep pockets and large legal teams. A politicized patent system will further entrench those very powerful interests with deep pockets and lots of lobbying offices over on K Street. Claiming to be an inventor is not the same thing as being that inventor, the person who actually made the discovery. A patent should be challenged in court, not in the U.S. Patent Office. Since the first Congress, which included 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, our nation has recognized that you are the owner of your own ideas and innovations. This bill throws that out the window and replaces it with a system that legalizes a rather clever form of intellectual property theft. I assure you of one thing: If this bill mistakenly passes, this debate will not be over. We will see it head straight to the courts with extended litigation for years to come, along with complete uncertainty to our markets, killing jobs and killing innovation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1249. I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, our esteemed colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).