Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues that I have just heard. The struggle for freedom is a continuing struggle that started back with our Founding Fathers and will not end with us. Every generation has to pick up the torch or the light of liberty and justice will be extinguished and it will never be returned. Reagan always told us, it just takes one generation not to do their job, and we will have lost our freedom forever. Tonight I would like to talk about a very significant part of our freedom and liberty, and it deals specifically with patents and intellectual property rights. I know sometimes over the years when they hear somebody is going to talk about patent law, there is a big yawn, but this has been a significant part of the success of the United States. Our Founding Fathers believed that with technology and freedom and, yes, with profit motive, that this was the formula that would uplift humankind and that would make America a great country in which all of our people benefited from this greatness and the prosperity we would have here. They believed it so strongly that they wrote into our Constitution a guarantee of the ownership rights of inventors and authors. It is the only place in the body of the Constitution where the word ``right'' is used. The rest of the rights that we have just been talking about were part of the Bill of Rights. But in the Constitution itself, article 1, section 8, clause 8, it states: Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. This provision has served America well, leading to a general prosperity that has been the envy of the world. It has led to national security and it has led to, yes, average people living decent lives. It is an integral part of the individual freedom based on rights that were granted by God that are at the heart of American society. It is the reason we have emerged among all the nations of the world with our people living free and living well. It is not just something that is tangential. It is at the heart of our system. The right to own one's technology that they invent has catapulted our people, who started out to be very poor people on the east coast, into one of the world's greatest powers. This provision has served America well, leading to prosperity, national security, and, yes, this average life of our people that we can be proud of. Some people think it is just hard work that has caused this great success of our country. Yes, Americans work hard, but so do other people. Technology has made the difference. Technology multiplies the results of our work and the hard work of our people into prosperity. That is the secret of America's success. It is technology and freedom, and, yes, it was our strong patent system that made this difference. We have had a strong patent system since the founding of our country, as I just pointed out. Yet, today, multinational corporations, run by Americans, want to diminish the patent protection that our country has had traditionally. Over the years, we have fought--and I say we fought, meaning since I have been in Congress for 25 years, we have fought time and again and fought back--sometimes defeating, sometimes having to compromise--but these have been attempts to weaken our patent system, which is the basis of American prosperity. What has been happening over the years? For example, we have had a strong patent system in the United States, but a weak patent system in the rest of the world. That is why they are not prospering. Their patent systems were set up so that big guys could rob from the little guys. Our patent system was set up as a recognition that the ownership of one's discoveries and creations is a gift from God and can't be stolen by a power-grabbing big company. Overseas in Japan and Europe, that just isn't true. They have tried over these last 25 years to harmonize our law with the European law and the Japanese law. They call it ``harmonizing with the rest of the world.'' The trouble is they want our law to be weakened, rather than bringing up the other laws from around the world to our standards. For example, up until recently--there has been a little change in this; I managed to fight it back--they were trying to propose that we have a publishing law for a patent application that they have overseas. What do they have overseas? In Japan and in Europe, someone files for a patent, and if the patent hasn't been issued within 18 months, the patent is published. Our system in the United States has been the opposite. You file for a patent, and it has been against the law for anyone to even indicate what is in that patent application until the patent is issued. If it takes 1 year, 2 years, 10 years because it is such a complicated issue, however long it takes, traditionally our inventors knew that no one was going to get a hold of their patent information until the patent was granted. Again, in Europe, what they wanted to do and tried to do here in this body--but we fought them back--was have that same system. I called it the ``Steal American Technologies Act'' because after 18 months all of our secrets would have been published even before the patent was issued. Also, we have had a tradition in the United States that you do get a certain time of protection. That is what our Constitution says. Traditionally, it has been 17 years, but that 17 years starts from when you are issued the patent. In Europe, after 20 months, no matter if you got that patent or not, that clock starts ticking, and by the time you would end up with a patent, if it was a very complicated, high-tech patent, sometimes you have lost all but a year, maybe even all of your time in which to enjoy the rights and the rewards of having invented something. Under our system, once that clock starts--but it only starts after you have been issued your patent, and then you get 17 years of guaranteed time. These people in these major corporations were trying to change that. They were trying to emasculate the rights of American inventors, saying we need to harmonize with the rest of the world. Who would be doing such a thing, and why would they be doing it? The reason they were doing it is they want to steal from the American inventor the same way these big boys have been stealing from people in Europe and in Japan and inventors throughout the world. Well, let me once again note that for 25 years I have been finding myself fighting for the small inventors, struggling to defend the patent rights for these young, and maybe not young, maybe just people who are middle-aged and old, as well, but people who are not people who have means, but people who have ideas, people who are creative, people who come up with the breakthroughs that have changed our way of life. Philo Farnsworth has a statue here. He is a man in Utah who invented the picture tube. RCA didn't invent it. RCA tried to steal it from him. This is one man who fought this all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court sided with this one lower-income individual who, I might add, had to enlist people to invest in his court case against RCA in order to fight that case to the Supreme Court. There is a statue in our Congress to Philo Farnsworth, the inventor. There is no statue to Mr. Sarnoff, who headed RCA and tried to steal that from him, knowing that he was stealing somebody else's invention so he wouldn't have to give credit to this hick from Utah. Supposedly there has always been some excuse that has been used by these corporations, these multinational--not just national corporations--people who have businesses all over the world. Some of them are headed by Americans; some of them not. Even Americans no longer think they have to watch out for the United States. They are watching out for the global interests of their company. They have to have some reason or excuse of why to take away or diminish the patent rights of our own people and to harmonize it with somebody else. In the past, they have used the excuse of the ``submarine patentor.'' This is just one of the derogatory terms they came up with in order to justify the fact that they were diminishing the property rights of our intellectual inventors and those people who are coming up with our new technology, and they come up with these derogatory terms, and it sounds good. These big companies have big PR firms in order to come up with a term that can then be used as sort of an excuse, a cliche to say ``yes'' to diminishing America's patent protection for the little guys. After all, who would support these big multinational corporations, they said. We just want to take anything these people invent and give them whatever we want to give them, or not give them anything. We want to have a right to steal from them, and that is why we are trying to change the rules. They would never get anywhere. Instead, oh, business is being treated unfairly by submarine patentors. That is what they have used before, and now they have a new term. In this wave, this onslaught--as I said, we have been facing this wave after wave for 20 years. They keep coming back, trying to diminish our patent structure. Now they insist that we need patent change because of the threat of the so-called ``patent troll,'' not to be mistaken with a submarine patentor. That was the last one. There will always be some, as I say, pejorative word that their PR firm, which they pay a lot of money to, can come up with that seems to be sinister enough to scare the American people into emasculating our patent system and letting the big guy steal the ideas from the little guys. These so-called ``patent trolls'' are actually patent holders or companies who represent patent holders. They are either people who themselves invented patents or they represent the companies who actually have bought in to patents, who represent the patent holders themselves. They are engaged basically in defending the patent rights against the infringement of those rights of the patents they own. Their patents are no different than anybody else's patents. They call them ``patent trolls,'' but what we have got here are just people who are engaged in the business of enforcing patents that are not being enforced. They basically are seeking to protect some little guys who don't have the money, or to see that they can join in partnership with people in order to maximize their benefit from the patents which these people hold. They are valid patents. There is all this innuendo and sinister thoughts and phrases coming out to make it sound like we are not talking about real, legitimate patents. I am talking about people who have invented legitimate patents that have been granted by the Patent Office. We are also talking about huge corporate infringers that would have us believe that those patents are unfair and evil because patent trolls are involved. So what makes the difference between the good patents owned by large corporations themselves--these corporations we are talking about do own patents, and, quite frankly, quite often go and try to enforce other patents that they have accumulated and bought. What makes them so different from the patent trolls? The patent troll has been identified as someone who is out for profit from technology that he or she did not invent. Oh, my goodness. You have got somebody who didn't invent something and they want to make some money out of it by investing and/ or joining a partnership with somebody who did invent it. That is not something as sinister as patent troll sounds. We know that lawyers can file illegitimate lawsuits and try to get people to settle just because they don't want to go through the procedures. That doesn't mean we should destroy the right of people to sue when they have a legitimate claim because some lawyers go out and misuse the system. That should be up to a judge or a jury, not a restriction on the right of people to file suit in order to protect the rights and to gain compensation if their rights have been violated. If the small inventor doesn't have the resources to enforce his or her patent, an individual or a company can buy those rights, and they can actually buy them just like you would buy a piece of property. That is what it is, intellectual property. They can buy these, or they can create a partnership with the inventor, and that means that they can then try to seek a suit or some sort of compensation from those who are infringing on those patents. I have consulted with a number of outside individual inventors and groups, and they have reaffirmed to me that the legislation that is being now proposed by the Judiciary Committee further disadvantages the little guy against the deep-pocketed, multinational corporations that are behind the changes that are now being proposed in the United States Congress, which I will detail in a few moments. Yes, they are using the guise of targeting these patent trolls. They hope to achieve a legislation that will prevent little guys from actually selling their product to these big guys, or have a dramatic impact on the ability--it would probably be more accurate to say will have a dramatic impact on the ability of people who own patents to actually file suit against those big infringers, and they do this in the name of controlling the patent trolls. Again, I say, what does that mean? That is someone who necessarily hasn't invented something but is working with the inventor to see that those rights are respected. How horrible it is to make a business helping small inventors or partnering with people in order to see that they have the resources to enforce their patent rights against large corporations, mainly, or even if they are medium-sized corporations who are infringing on a patent, meaning they are using this invention, and the inventor comes in and says, You are infringing on my patent. Pay me for the rights of using this while I still own it. The answer is ``sue me'' because the big corporations know full well that they have deep pockets, and they can handle anything, and the little guy, especially if they get this law passed, the little guy is not going to be able to seek help, and it is going to be much more complicated for him. Tonight I draw the attention of the American people to H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act they call it this time, introduced by Chairman Goodlatte with 14 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill is scheduled to be marked up in the House Judiciary Committee next week, even though the committee has only held one hearing since this bill was introduced, and it was only introduced 8 legislative days ago. So something is being rammed through the process here big time. People need to see that. And what are they trying to do? Why are they ramming it through? Because this is the multinational corporations who want to diminish the rights of the little guy; and only, we, the American people, can stop that with our sense of fairness and our commitment to making sure America remains the technological leader of the world, and that that isn't in the hands of these multinational corporations who aren't necessarily in allegiance with the United States. The witnesses from these hearings on this legislation have included former Patent Office Director Kappos, and he made it clear that we should move slowly and with great care in making the many changes to the patent law that are part of this legislation, especially in light of the fact that no one yet understands the implications of the last patent bill that was passed through Congress during the last Congress. They passed a patent bill called the America Invents Act, which is in the process of being implemented and interpreted by the Patent Office and by the courts. So we haven't digested that last bite the Congress took out of the patent law apple, and now they want us to gobble down a few more. In and of itself, this legislation is too broad, its implications are too unclear, and its impact and effects are unknowable. That is what witnesses and other experts have indicated; and the conclusion is move forward with caution, not ram something through in just a few days. But that is not what is happening. Congress is being railroaded into passing this legislation on top of the last legislation which we haven't even figured out how it works yet; and now, of course, they have got the patent trolls which they are telling us to be afraid of. So we don't have to worry about any of that. Don't think. Just remember patent trolls are sinister, and we have got to stop them and pass this bill. That is what most of these people are hearing here in Congress. Congress needs to hear from their own constituents about bills like this. So what is going on? This congressional ramrodding exemplifies the battle to diminish America's patent system, and it has been going on for 25 years, wave after wave of attack on America's patent system. We fought them back most of the time, but this time we could lose. And you lose one, that system is changed forever. According to the cosponsors of H.R. 3309, it is an attempt to combat this problem of patent trolls--and here it is--even though the study mandated by Congress in the last patent bill--they mandated this study by Congress, and that study that was mandated by the last law--shows that this whole much-heralded patent troll problem is not the major driver of lawsuits that we are being told, and has not created, N-O-T created a surge of new lawsuits. Most of the provisions of the legislation they will pass through committee next week will make it much more complicated, much more costly, much more challenging to bring a lawsuit for patent infringement. That is what it is all about. They want to make it more difficult to challenge them. Instead, if what we are really talking about are people abusing the patent system in order to abuse these businessmen, we should be, instead, making it cheaper and simpler and easier to defend against baseless accusations of infringement. We are being asked to raise the bar for an inventor to bring a lawsuit to defend his or her rights, rather than lowering the bar to allow a small business to defend itself against frivolous lawsuits. In addition, the claim of technical correction, under that claim, this legislation proposes to remove the patent system's only independent judicial review process, section 145 of title 35. If this passes, inventors who are not satisfied with the Patent Office administrative process will have no recourse, no recourse, although this safeguard of judicial recourse has been in American law since 1836. This isn't some antiquated process. It is an independent judicial review; and last year the Supreme Court, in Kappos v. Hyatt, reaffirmed the importance of having judicial review when you have people in the Patent Office who are defining the property rights of American inventors, something so important to our country. Now, the Patent Office has requested that judicial review be done away with because it is burdensome for them to defend their actions in court on the rare occasion that this happens. So, oh, it is burdensome. Well, the Patent Office wants to strip away the rights of Americans because it is inconvenient to the bureaucracy. Boy, here is where we have got the bureaucracy and multinational corporations working hand- in-glove. This legislation going before the Judiciary Committee here in the House next week is consistent with the decades-long war being waged on America's independent inventors. Here are some of the sections of that bill I have been talking about, H.R. 3309, which will be going through the Judiciary Committee next week, and how it undermines America's patent system and patent rights of the little guy and opens up power grabs by the multinational corporations, which is something we have been experiencing for the last 25 years and have had to beat back every time. Well, here we go. Here are some provisions of this bill: H.R. 3309 creates additional information requirements, which means when you are filing a legal case for infringement it is going to cost you a lot more. There is more paperwork and thus more potential for a dismissal of the case just on a technicality. More paperwork means higher costs, more likely to have the case thrown out on a technicality, which then increases, not decreases, the chances of small patent holders being infringed. This bill also switches to ``loser pays.'' And of course, ``loser pays'' sounds like a good idea; but when you talk about this in terms of patent rights, what we have got is these huge corporations who have got deep pockets, and if you end up having ``loser pays,'' the little guy knows for him to actually try to have the loser pay means that this big corporation can put massive expenses on to their defense, where you have only a smaller amount that is available, so you are then put in great disadvantage. We are, again, making the little guy, putting them at the disadvantage of these big, multinational corporations. H.R. 3309 adds a new dimension to this ``loser pays.'' It allows the Court to bring others into the case involuntarily, as a plaintiff, if they have an interest in the patent they make them liable for the cost. So if you have somebody, like Milo Farnsworth, whose patent was stolen, whose idea was stolen, anybody who would invest in his lawsuit, which is what he had to do in order to take it all the way to the Supreme Court--and God bless the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States of the America, that we have a court that sided with this little guy. But now they want to change that so the Milo Farnsworths can't get people to invest in their suit because at that point they, then, are liable for the court costs of the big corporation that is being taken on. This is so broad that people can be made part of an infringement case, even if their interest in the patent is just legal or innocent, such as those who have licensed the patent. This, combined with the ``loser pay'' provision, means that if the patent holder loses the infringement suit, anyone who has done business with him may lose or be held financially liable. What a disincentive for people to support the efforts of small inventors. This is absurd. But yet this is what is going to be going through the Judiciary Committee next week, just like they have tried to push this on us for 25 years. And the players behind this are big, multinational corporations trying to steal the technology that has been invented by America's small inventors. H.R. 3309 allows the courts to limit discovery until clarifying the patent and infringement claim. What does that mean? The case will take longer and thus cost more. The transparency of patent ownership, once filing a claim for infringement, a patent holder must, according to the provisions of this proposed legislation, provide information about all parties with an interest in the patent to the Patent Office and to the accused infringer. As a result, we have an elimination of privacy in these business dealings. The little guy is totally exposed, as are his friends. Here again we are trying to do everything we can, and this legislation is trying to do everything that it can to try to get people not to support the little inventor. Don't get on his side. Don't give him any strength to enforce his rights because he invented something that now some multinational corporation has stolen and wants to manufacture in China. Once this requirement has been invoked, the patent holder must maintain--here it comes--the patent holder will also have to maintain a current record of information on file in the Patent Office. Thus we have, again, bureaucratic reporting requirements for these little inventors. That, to a big corporation, means nothing. To a small inventor, it means all of his time, all of his resources. And if, indeed, they do not report--let's put it this way, if he doesn't report it right, he could lose the intellectual property rights he is trying to protect. In addition, the patent holder would be forced to pay recordkeeping fees to maintain a current record at the Patent Office. There we have bureaucratic fees all aimed at the little guy, because the big guys can afford this. They have got people on the payroll. They have got lawyers on the payroll. Then we have the customer suit exemption. This section appears to remove all of the current section 296 of title 35, which specifically allows--here it goes, this is really significant--this allows inventors to sue governments who infringe on their patents. What we are talking about here is, if a government steals a person's intellectual property, it permits them to get away with it. This emasculates the right of the American inventor, American people, to hold their government accountable if the government steals their technology. This is totally contrary to American tradition. Limits of discovery in a court case, unless the judgment determines necessary and appropriate, again, an infringer, and this is section 6 of H.R. 3309, an infringer, especially big ones like large multinational corporations, may make an infringement paper trail. This requires a paper trail, what we are saying here, this section, that is so broad and so diverse that a plaintiff will have to ask repeatedly for discovery.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding to me to finish my remarks. Section 6 of H.R. 3309 calls for a limit on discovery when we are talking about patents. Just so you will know again, one of the results of these innocuous things is hard to understand. What it means is that if you limit the discovery when someone says, ``I invented this, and I am trying to have discovery with a huge corporation to find out how they infringed on my patent,'' if you limit that discovery and that little guy has to have more motions, it costs a lot more money and, thus, the little guys can't afford to bring a suit against the big guys. So basically what we have got is a list of things in this bill that make it extremely more difficult for the little guy to afford to support and defend his own patents. And on top of that, then we have this attack on patent trolls who are there to try to assist anybody that can't afford to enforce his or her own patent. This is a boon to the huge corporations, the multinational corporations, and perhaps foreign corporations who also get involved in this. Let us note that section 7, Small Business Education, Outreach, and Information Access, says that the Director of the Patent Office will create a database on ``patent trolls,'' thus creating a strategy to teach businesses how to defend themselves against patent trolls. You know what we have got here? We have got the creation of an enemies list. That is what we have here. Justification for people to be put on an enemies list if they are out trying to help small inventors enforce their patents. And finally, let me just note here, section 9, Improvement and Technical Corrections to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, states it eliminates section 145 of title 35. Again, this is one of the most important things they are trying to slip through this process. This would, again--and I am repeating this because it is so important-- eliminates the independent judicial review of patent applications, which has been the law of the land since 1836. A huge emasculation, a cut in the rights of people who are seeking patents, inventors, the creative people in our country. This would eliminate their right-- if the Patent Office is not treating them fairly or has made a mistake--for a judicial review that has been a right of the Americans since 1836. This is horrendous. This bill that is being considered next week by the House Judiciary Committee is not reform. It is an antipatent bill consistent with decades-long antipatent attacks by multinational corporations who want to emasculate America's patent system. And these multinational corporations may or may not be headed by Americans, but they are not watching out for the interests of our country; and especially, they aren't watching out for the innovators and inventors of our country. I ask the American people, the patriots, to call their Members of Congress and oppose H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act. And I would add one last element, as my colleague was just talking about the ObamaCare issue that we have been discussing here. One of the things that I have found most objectionable about the Affordable Care Act, they have a provision in that bill that gives a 2.5 percent tax on the gross receipts of anyone who invents a medical device. Our inventors have helped increase the standard of living of our people, have improved the chances for survival, survival of people's families by inventing new technologies that have enabled us to fight diseases, that have taken millions of people throughout the history of the planet, taken them away in horrible agony. We have our innovators and our inventors now creating these new things. I have a personal situation where a loved one is suffering from cancer, and that loved one has had implanted in her a little--it is a portal, they call it. It is under the skin, and it permits this person to have chemotherapy and blood transfusions without having to go through the vessels, the blood vessels. This invention has saved this person's life, because 20 years ago, that young girl would probably have had collapsed blood vessels or died of some type of situation from infection from putting the needles in one's arm. This is what happened 20 years ago and why the survival rate now of such cancer patients has gone up. I feel like hugging the person who invented that device. That person deserves our love and gratitude. This administration has seen fit to punish this person for this creativity and this innovation. This administration put a 2.5 percent tax not on the net, not after all the expenses that this inventor went through to invent this, all the expenses to go into producing it, all the expenses that go into distributing it, making sure people knew how to use this new device. No, no. This is a 2.5 percent tax on the gross income. It is a horrendous penalty on the person who has saved the lives of all these people. That is what this Affordable Care Act is all about. That is what ObamaCare is all about. In some misguided idea that we are going to redistribute the wealth and take care of everybody through government, we are now doing things that are of great harm to the people in this country, not just to the infrastructure, the financial infrastructure of our health care which is collapsing under the incompetence of this law that is foisted upon them with lies, no, but also we are now facing a situation where the very heart and soul of human progress, medical technology, is being punished through this law. I join with my colleagues and say that this is something we should all join together, repeal, and start again and try to do a better job next time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the American people have fully understood what has been going on here for the last 6 weeks. The Republicans offered what? The Republicans offered to delay ObamaCare as a compromise position in order to have the continuing resolution to keep our government going. That compromise was rejected. We were called all kinds of names, and then we were told we were the ones that closed down government. Take a look at what has happened. ObamaCare, this disaster that is taking place, the glitches, all of the problems, we know now ObamaCare wasn't even ready. The President and the country needed the extra time in order to perfect ObamaCare, but he would rather have closed it down--our government--rather than reach a compromise with the House of Representatives. That is what this is all about. We had arrogance on the part of our Chief Executive unwilling to negotiate with the House. What was the House offering? Time to delay ObamaCare so it could work. Now the American people have not only suffered a closure, but now are suffering from an ObamaCare that is not ready to be launched.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, in the words of my former boss, President Reagan, Well, here we go again. Over the last 25 years, I and a small band of ``just refuse to go along and get along'' types here in Congress have engaged in a constant fight to maintain the intellectual property of American inventors. The intellectual property rights of our inventors is something that has been a great treasure to our country. Our Founding Fathers felt so strongly about technology and freedom--and, yes, with the profit motive--that that was the formula that would uplift human kind, and they believed in it so much that they wrote that into our Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. I might add that this is the only place in the body of the Constitution in which the word ``right'' is used. The Bill of Rights comes in during the amendment process of the Constitution, but our Founding Fathers thought so highly of technology and technology advancement that the right of inventors was included in the body of the Constitution. This provision has served America well. It has led to general prosperity that we would not have had otherwise. It has led to national security where we have faced foes that have outnumbered us so heavily, but what were heavily relied upon were the technologies that were developed to help our Armed Forces defend themselves and, thus, defend the country. Of course, this has served us well because the technology and the freedom we have has created a society in which ordinary people--decent people--can live very fruitful lives and can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Americans work hard, but this wasn't just created by hard work. That is the important thing to remember. Without hardworking Americans, it wouldn't have worked; but it was the technology that they used that made the difference. People work hard all over the world. They work long hours, and they live in poverty and deprivation, but we coupled the hard work of our people with technology; and, thus, what we have had is a success that has uplifted the common man and has served as a light of hope for all human beings in that we can produce the wealth needed for regular people to lead decent lives. So that is the secret of America's success--technology and freedom--and, yes, perhaps we could include the right values. It was our strong patent system and a respect for law that made the difference in that technology and freedom. Yet, today, multinational corporations run by Americans want to diminish patent protection in the United States. We have had the strongest patent protection of any country in the world; yet we have had for these last 25 years major, major efforts to diminish the patent protection that we have and to harmonize it with the rest of the world. It just happens that the European and Japanese patent systems are much weaker and offer less protection for the inventors. Over the years, we have had to fight back and have had to turn back efforts to weaken the patent system a number of times, and I have been part of that effort and part of that struggle. I remember when, for example, they had a bill--it was so blatant that we defeated it--called the Patent Publication Act. They said, after 18 months, if someone hasn't filed for a patent, even if he were not going to get his patent, they were going to publish his patent application, meaning all the secrets would be out in the world. They tried to push that over on us. We just barely defeated that, but we defeated it in a bipartisan effort that was led by Marcy Kaptur and me, Chris Cox, Tom Campbell, and others at that time. Then there was the effort, of course, to say that, as soon as one files for a patent application, after 20 months, the ticking of the clock starts, and you could end up then with maybe 5 years of patent protection by the time it was issued. Here we had always said 17 years after you are given the patent you then lose control, but you have 17 years where you own your patent. They tried to change that and could have changed it in a way that somebody, if it took the Patent Office 15 years or 10 years to develop a concept of a new idea and to figure out how to patent it, well, then that person would only have 2 years left. These were the ways that they were trying to destroy the patent rights that our people have enjoyed. Sometimes we turned those efforts back, other times we had to compromise, and other times, like last time around, we lost. For example, over our objection this body changed the fundamental principle that patents were to be given to the first to invent. If someone has invented it, they should be given the patent. That has been the fundamental guiding post ever since our country was founded. We changed that last year. We changed that to say, not first to invent, but the first person who files for the patent. Of course, at an age when you have people who are able to sneak in on your computers and there are hackers around, that could turn out to be a catastrophe. Already we could hear rumblings of that from China where patents are being churned out and patent applications are being put in. And, yes, if they can prove they were the first one, and even if they found out about it some other way and can't explain it, no, they get the patent over the people who have done the work. Well, once again I find myself fighting for the small inventors and struggling to defend the patent rights of these people to own and control their own invention. What we have got now is a bill that has been introduced and that is just making its way. There will be a hearing on it tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee. There has always been an excuse to change the fundamentals of the way our system works, because we have had the strongest patent system in the world and they have always tried to find some excuse of changing it and there is some sinister force at play that demands that we change the fundamentals of our patent system. Well, we have heard it before. For example, they claimed there were ``submarine patents.'' That is a derogatory term. A submarine patent, that must be undercover or something suspicious about that. They used that as an excuse to try to limit the time people owned their patent. They used that as an excuse to publish everybody's patent application even before it was issued. This time, the new word, the new bugaboo that they are talking about and the scary word for the day is ``patent troll.'' ``Patent troll'' is being used as a word--and they probably hired a very sophisticated public relations company to come up with that ``patent troll'' term-- they have been used to fundamentally change our patent system, again, in order to diminish and damage the rights of small inventors. They can't say that that is their purpose, so they have to come up with a scary word like ``patent troll.'' These so-called patent trolls are patent holders or they are companies which represent patent holders, meaning people who own patents. They are engaged in defending the rights of those patents that they own. They purchased these patents or their companies purchased these patents basically from small inventors who didn't have the resources to defend and to enforce their own patent rights. These small inventors are now the partners of some of these companies or some of these individual investors. But it comes down to this: the inventor or the investor owns those patents. If you buy a piece of land or a patent from someone, you have that right. These patents that they own are just like any other patent granted by the Patent Office. But huge corporate infringers would have us believe that these patents are in some way unfair or evil. So what makes these patents different than the good patents that these very same corporations own? There are no differences. They are the same patents, the same kind of patents. Some of these multinational corporations have bought patents from small inventors. They own that and they enforce them through a type of legal action when they are infringed upon. The multinational corporations have coined the scare terms ``patent assertion entity,'' or PAE; they have coined ``nonpracticing entity,'' NPE; and, of course, all of that means ``patent troll.'' The PR blitz, as I say, which was obviously created by a public relations company who made a lot of money coming up with that boogeyman, is used to change the basic legal protection of American inventors and, yes, change the legal protection of people who have bought the legal rights and own the intellectual property rights that they bought from the inventor. I suppose Halloween is the proper time to talk about scary trolls. How frightening. The so-called patent troll has been identified as being out for a profit from technology that he did not invent. My, my, someone who is trying to receive a profit by making an investment into something that they didn't build themselves. Huh? Doesn't that describe banks and insurance companies and everybody else who puts investments down and hopes that they are going to have a return from those investments? But they, themselves, aren't making anything. They are using money and paper and contracts and helping people who need help. I have consulted with a number of outside individual inventors and groups, and they have reaffirmed that the legislation being proposed by the Judiciary Committee further disadvantages the little guy against the deep-pocketed, multinational corporations. This is achieved in the guise of targeting the so-called patent trolls. Pay attention to the patent trolls, but don't pay attention to how this weakens the small inventor. This means that persons or companies who have contracted with inventors who really need the help to see that his or her patent rights are respected are going to be undercut. How horrible it is of making business out of helping small inventors see to it that their patent rights are enforced. Proponents of this legislation are covering up the fact that they have stolen someone else's patent rights and now want to change the system so they can get away with it so that someone whose patent rights they don't own, that they have blatantly just arrogantly grabbed and put into their own technology projects, that they don't have to pay for it. When they are challenged in court, they complain, Oh, this is a patent troll. No. What we have here is large companies who are willing to take from the little guy which will in the end, yes, maybe be of short-term help to those companies, but it will undermine the progress of the United States of America, undermine our ability to create a wealth in our society that will make sure that our people can out- compete foreigners. Most of the corporations who are complaining about this are multinational corporations run, of course, by Americans, sometimes not. Often the only way that a small business inventor can enforce his patent rights is by hiring a patent assertion entity as an advocate, meaning a patent troll. Sometimes the big guys want to simply steal the idea and say, sue me, because these little guys, these small inventors, the mainspring of so many ideas, they don't have the money to fight the big corporations. Now the big corporations want to make it impossible for them by changing the very law that protects them and protects what they have created in their invention. One of the biggest alleged crimes of these nonpracticing entities is that they don't actually make anything, but just shift money around. Like I say, how horrible that is that some people make money in our society although you can't really see what they actually make with their hands. Banks, lawyers, investment companies, insurance companies, well, they make money, but they don't necessarily make things, but they are important to our economy. Even more important to our economy are those inventors. If we change the rules so that big companies can steal from them, those inventors will not be there in the next generation to come with the creations that uplift our people and defend our country and permit us to have security and prosperity. We are told that trolls are different. Well, let's put it this way: the trolls are different. They are trying to make money off something they didn't actually make themselves. They aren't trying, as our multinational corporations are trying to do, to infringe on other people's property rights. Look who is pointing the fingers. The arrogance of these megacompanies warning us against small investors having the help of some investor is nauseating. These attacks on the rights of patent holders are seen as valid and virtuous, but if they happened against any other rights, they would be identified as the problem they are. Remember the big groups that are angry because they used patented technology without paying the owners, justifying it on the idea of the lack of the owner's enforcement. These companies say, Well, the patent wasn't being enforced, so we can use it. Now they are really upset when someone wants to enforce that patent. Now the rights for the patent are being enforced by someone who paid the inventor to sell him that property right. A landowner who chooses not to develop a farm or land could be described as a nonpracticing entity. Should we make it simpler and easier for others to take or steal the land because that owner isn't using it? Should we make it harder for him to continue to own his land simply because he doesn't use it or isn't using it like others would want him to? How about a music lover who purchases the rights to a song or an entire catalog of an artist's songs, should we make it hard for him to defend his ownership rights because he wasn't the musician, he didn't make the music himself? This campaign by multinational corporations and some of the world's richest men is an attack on the little guy's right to sell his intellectual property or to partner with someone else who can help him defend what is rightfully his. While I don't have time to go through all of the problems of this legislation point by point, I will refer to several problems brought up in this bill. The claim that this legislation is designed to go after patent trolls, to make these patent trolls more accountable, that is what they claim, but how are they doing it? They are doing it by making it harder for every patent holder to defend his patent rights, every ordinary American. They claim they are making it easier and less costly to defend baseless claims of patent infringement. Well, they claim these are bad patents that should never have been issued. They claim many things. Section 3 of this bill, for example, makes it easier to defend against false charges of patent infringement, but it also adds significant new burdens onto a patent holder who seeks to defend, rightfully seeks to defend, his patent rights. In addition, this section increases the potential downside risk of suing to defend one's own patent rights. We should be doing everything we can to make the system quick, cheap, and simple to defend, both to defend patent rights and to defend against baseless charges of infringement. But this legislation is primarily geared toward making it harder, more costly, and more time intensive to file claims of infringement. That is exactly the wrong direction to take. The added pleading requirements will also require a very thorough and expensive prefiling discovery processes, again, discouraging underfunded patent holders from defending their patents. While there are limitations on a fishing trip type of discovery that may hold costs down and also protect patent holders from discovery IP, those protections don't overcome the provisions which make it more difficult to defend perfectly respectable patents. In addition, by moving to what is essentially a ``loser pays'' system, which is what this legislation is attempting, the little guy is once again put at great risk when suing a big corporation for infringement. So now the inventor who is being victimized may have to risk everything that he owns to pay the legal fees of his much better financed corporate infringers. This concept of fee shifting is alien to this country's history but very common in Europe. It has been demonstrated to have a chilling effect on litigation at the expense of the rights of those who can't afford to sue because they can't afford to lose. The corporations, they can afford to lose. They are not personally having to pay anything; but the small inventor, he will lose everything in his life if he loses. He will owe them that much money. The big corporations, of course, are very capable of handling their own legal fees. Section 4 requires a patent holder who believes they are being infringed upon to disclose all of his partners, assignees, and other information to court and to the Patent Office as well, and to the accused infringers. Well, what we have then, if you sue somebody because they are stealing your intellectual property, you have to give up all of your privacy rights and from that point on, you are an open book to anyone who is your competition, anyone who is your adversary, and they will probably, as we see happen with large corporations, you now are wide open to victimization by the corporates. Section 5 seems to repeal a current provision that guarantees a patent holder's right to sue a State, for example. If a State or the government infringes on your patent, there seems to be a provision in the bill that could say that you can't sue to get paid for what the government has stolen from you. That, of course, has to be looked at, and looked at by the court. Section 9 claims to make technical corrections to the bill, but they make sweeping, wholesale changes to the way patent applicants and patent holders are allowed to pursue their rights. One of these so-called minor corrections entirely removes section 145 from the law, which allows patent applicants to bring suit in civil court if they are not getting due consideration at the Patent Office. In other words, if the government employees at the Patent Office are blatantly not doing their job for some reason, whether it is corruption or incompetency, the patent applicant now by this rule, by this bill, will not be able to seek justice in the court system. This is totally inconsistent with what our national tradition is all about. Removing section 145 concentrates all decisional power within the Patent Office, with the exception of an appeal to the circuit, which is required to give deference to the Patent Office through that process. That is exactly the opposite of what we want to do. We want to make sure that people have a legal right, if our government is off base, to appeal it to another branch of government. That's why we have the judicial and the legislative and the executive branches of government. Here again, part of the bill is going in exactly the wrong direction. A review of this legislation titled ``A Small Business and Startup Perspective on the Goodlatte Patent Bill,'' this is an analysis of the patent bill that we are talking about: would gratuitously repeal 35 U.S.C. section 145, which has long protected patent applicants' fundamental right of de novo judicial review of adverse patentability determinations by the Patent Office. They note here that since 1836, anybody could repeal a decision within the Patent Office, but now they want to take that away, diminish the rights of our inventors, which will mean that we will not have the same type of innovation and creativity that we have enjoyed in this country. All of this is being done on the notion that these evil trolls are driving up the number of patent litigations. An independent report from the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well as a study from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, says that is not true. So- called trolls may be backing up the little guys, but that is not a major cause of litigation. So we have the experts telling us that their excuse is wrong, and the GAO suggests that there are many things we can do, but what is being suggested in this bill and others is going exactly the wrong way. The bottom line is these provisions make it more difficult for the patent holder to defend his rights and raises the stakes so that the downside of pursuing an infringement in cases becomes more costly. We are hurting the little guy. We are making it difficult for the mainspring of human progress. The ideas, the creativity of our country and our countrymen can be brought to play to uplift the lives of our people, to create more energy, to create higher quality goods, to make sure that we compete with the hordes of people in Africa and China and India. Instead, if we are going to do that, we have to have the best technology, and we are taking our great national asset of a Patent Office that has helped our country over the years, has helped us keep our country safe by producing the best defense technology, to keep ourselves competitive so that the average American can outproduce their counterparts overseas--we are now going to take what has given us that ability, which is the genius of our inventors, and we are going to squash it by giving in to corporate interests of multinational corporations that are not owing their allegiance to us, but instead owe their allegiance to their company, which they see now as an international company, not even an American company. I ask my colleagues to pay close attention to this legislation and to join me in rejecting this attempt to diminish the fundamental property rights, intellectual property rights of the American people in the name of some troll or some scary title that would get us away from the basic fundamentals of what is being proposed. I would ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and we are not coming to grips with what the central issue is. The bottom line is we understand that on this side we have people who believe the ObamaCare legislation will be very detrimental to the people of the United States. We have people on this side of the aisle who believe it will be very good for the people of the United States. How do we work this out in a democratic process? We try to find a compromise. This bill is not about whether ObamaCare is going to come in or not. What we are voting on is whether or not you will accept the compromise which we have reached out to offer to say, look, there's apprehension in the private sector and the government people tell us they aren't even ready to enforce ObamaCare; let's postpone it for a year. That's what this vote is all about: Will you accept the compromise? If this government shuts down, it's because you have not accepted the compromise that Republicans have reached out to you and offered. We have to understand, in this democratic process it's not like the President says: There will be no negotiations, no negotiations. He will negotiate with foreign dictators before he will negotiate with us. We have reached out with a compromise. Please accept the compromise and keep the government open.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 428, I inadvertently voted ``yes,'' when my intention was to vote ``no.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I will consume. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment, which would eliminate all American military aid to Pakistan. Since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan over $25 billion, with over $17 billion going to their security forces. These funds have been, and continue to be, used to fight an internal war of suppression against the Sindi, the Baluch, and others who reject their corrupt and brutal domination by Pakistan. Sadly, Pakistan also uses billions of American military aid to support terrorist attacks on its neighbors, including Afghanistan. And in this last decade, our generous gifts to Pakistan have been used to finance the killing of Americans, both military and diplomatic personnel. We've been acting like suckers. No shame on Pakistan for being two- faced and murderous. Shame on us for being so stupid in financing a regime that obviously despises us and considers us its enemy. It is a charade to believe that our aid is buying Pakistan's cooperation and hunting down terrorists when the Pakistani establishment not only gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden for 10 years, but jailed Dr. Afridi, the courageous man who pinpointed bin Laden and was instrumental in bringing justice to him for the mass murder of our fellow Americans on 9/11. Dr. Afridi is an American hero; yet we have left Dr. Afridi to rot in a Pakistani dungeon. Shame on us for letting Dr. Afridi languish in misery and pain for helping us bring justice to Osama bin Laden and those he murdered on 9/11. Pakistan is not a government to which we should be giving billions of dollars of aid. My amendment would cut off all aid because Pakistan has betrayed our friendship time and again. Any money we send them only strengthens their ability to act against us, to murder Baluch and Sindi and Sikhs, and to undermine moderate Muslims in Afghanistan, even as we withdraw in 2014. At a time of tight budgets, we should reserve our aid for our friends and our allies and end assistance to a government that targets and kills Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman noted that this is a gray world. It is not a gray world in so many cases. This is not a gray world when people are killing Americans. This is not a gray world when someone organizes the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and then is given safe haven by someone who's claiming to be our friend. No, that's not gray at all. The Pakistanis decided a long time ago that they consider us their enemy. When they took Osama bin Laden and gave him safe haven from us and took our money while they were doing it and used it to finance terrorist groups that have murdered American soldiers in Afghanistan, no, that's not a gray world. That's black and white. And we should stand up for the principle that people who are killing Americans will not receive American military aid, and we can proclaim this tonight in this resolution. I ask my colleagues to join me in standing up to make sure that the world knows that when they kill Americans, they're not going to be treated like they're our friends. We're not that stupid. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good friend from Texas. The Chinese Communist Party is a gangster regime that rules over a billion subjects. It is the world's worst human rights abuser and does not deserve the recognition nor the legitimacy that comes with participating in military exercises with the Armed Forces of the United States. As the greatest threat to world peace and stability, the last thing we should be doing is helping them fine-tune their military and their familiarization with the strengths and weaknesses of America's Armed Forces. The Chinese military is the armed wing of the Communist Party in that country. For decades, China has occupied Tibet, East Turkistan, and threatened the democratic nation of Taiwan with total annihilation. The Communist Party uses force to control its population. Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners who do nothing more than promote yoga and meditation have had their organs ghoulishly ripped from their bodies before they were executed so that those organs could be sold. The moral depravity of the Chinese Communist Party cannot be overstated. China is aggressively using military expansion to back up territorial claims against India, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries. The Chinese military is guilty of even more aggression in cyberspace, as we have just heard from my colleague from Texas. They have stolen dozens of our defense systems. They have vast amounts of intellectual property they've stolen, as well as the business records for many of our companies. The damage has been estimated in the trillions of dollars. Any cooperation with the Chinese military only weakens our own moral credibility and discourages our allies in the face of threats from Communist China. We should be drawing a clear distinction between us and the Chinese military, not helping them train to become even more efficient. I call on my colleagues to vote for Congressman Stockman's terrific amendment, again, making sure that we stand up and are counted when there is a threat to the freedom and stability of the world.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, included in this en bloc package is an amendment I offered that relates to Pakistan. It adds, as a condition of aid to Pakistan, that Islamabad must not use the funding we provide to its security forces for purposes of domestic repression of ethnic and religious minority groups as it has in the past. The State Department's 2012 Country Report on Human Rights in Pakistan states, ``The most serious human rights problems were extrajudicial and targeted killings, forced disappearances, and torture, which affected thousands of citizens in nearly all parts of the country.'' Members of the Pakistani military as well as police are involved in these lethal abuses of human rights. Repression of minority groups is systemic. Human rights organizations have reported that many Sindhi and Baloch nationalists were among those missing. Non-Sunni religious practitioners, Christians, Ahmadis, and Shia Muslims, are attacked with impunity. There are already four conditions in the core bill and my amendment simply adds a fifth requirement to prevent the misuse of our aid. Thank you, Madam Chair, for accepting my amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Albania was struggling to leave behind its years of repression, dependence, and deprivation, a period when it was a North Korea clone. Now, Albania is a democracy with elected representatives who engage in open debates within a vigorous civil society. Albania is a member of NATO that continues to contribute troops to the International Security Force in Afghanistan and participated in the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, and it now aspires to have membership in the European Union. In contrast to the atheist dictatorship it left behind, today, Albanian churches and mosques are full. Similarly, Marxist economics has been replaced with an expanding market economy. America needs to be especially grateful to the Government of Albania and to the Albanian Prime Minister, Sali Berisha, who has been a steadfast and courageous ally of the United States. Recently, when the U.S. needed countries willing to provide asylum to members of the MEK now stranded in Iraq, Prime Minister Berisha agreed to accept 210 members of that group--far more than any other country. That was a sign of good faith and friendship for America. It will not soon be forgotten, and it took real courage on the part of President Berisha to make this generous offer. We will not forget his friendship.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Keeping our troops in Afghanistan any longer than they have to absolutely be there is a disservice to those people who are protecting our country. They are now doing what we said they would do once we have announced that we were leaving: they're picking our people off. How do we explain to those parents who are losing their children in the next few months? Let's not send any more over there, and if we do, let's make sure that it's a decision made by the House of the people rather than just by a clique someplace in the Pentagon or elsewhere. We need to make sure that we're watching out for our troops, and I think that this is the best amendment that would do just that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank Lamar Smith and Congressmen McCaul and Lipinski for the leadership that they've provided on this very significant issue. First of all, I would like to say that I am completely supportive of this bill. This legislation will continue America's path toward greater capabilities on cybersecurity. This is critical to our national security and our future. And while we are increasing the authorization levels in this legislation for these critical activities, we are aware that every new dollar that we spend is a dollar that we borrowed, probably from China. The Communist Chinese regime, of course, is the greatest human rights abuser in the world and potential adversary of the United States. Furthermore, there has been unequivocal evidence that the Chinese Government is a source of significant cyber attacks on targets within the United States, which leads me to the main point, being, we must take note that there are many students from China and students from other known cyber attack countries attending our universities, participating in our programs, and learning exactly how we are setting up our system and defenses. We need to apply a little common sense here, which is so often missing from our government, of course; and we need to make certain that we are not funding, enabling, and training our potential enemies. Section 106 of this legislation clearly limits the Scholarships for Service program to citizens or permanent residents of the United States. But that limitation is not extended to the Graduate Traineeships Program, which is also authorized; nor does it extend that limitation to the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship program, which has previously been expanded to include computer and network security specializations. Other cybersecurity programs give funding to and rely upon universities that are now training both sides in a future cyber war.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So here we might end up, if we're not careful on how we approach this battle that we're having for the security of our country, we could end up financing both sides of a potential cyber conflict. We don't need to do that. The Chinese graduate students that head home, after being trained by the American taxpayers, and they're supposed to head home, by the way, after they go through education here, if they go home, they could end up becoming soldiers in China's cyber war against us. We need to consider the fundamental questions of how we got ourselves into this predicament, and that was through our policies of technology transfer, trade, and investment that benefited and actually were structured in a way to transfer wealth to China. We need solutions to get ourselves out of this problem and not be in jeopardy from this Communist Chinese dictatorship that still exists in Beijing. Well, turning off the funding spigot to those who threaten us and potentially could do us harm is the first step. So I would hope that as this legislation works its way through the Senate and elsewhere, that we make sure that there are limitations placed on it so that no students from countries that are possible enemies of the United States, but are currently engaged in cyber attacks, should be able to be funded by this program. But with that said, the purpose of the program is terrific. We need to do it, and we need to do it right. And I congratulate my friends and my colleagues for the good job they've done.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to make sure that those people who are reading the Congressional Record or those people who are watching this presentation on C-SPAN, or our colleagues who are in their offices, watching from their offices, should take note of the courage and the hard work that Congressman King has put into this issue. And it is not because Congressman King or those of us who have worked with him on this issue have any animosity towards anyone else. Congressman King is a strong Christian and knows that hatred and animosity is not a positive virtue. But to the same degree, what is, then, Congressman King's motive? Why does he put up with this? Why does he work so hard? Because he loves the people of the United States of America. That's our job. We were elected by the people of the United States to watch out for them and to watch out for their families. That doesn't mean that we don't like people in other countries. That doesn't mean that we don't like or have some animosity towards someone who has come here from another country, and even those who come here illegally. But our first loyalty and our first consideration and our heart-felt support has to be for those people who are Americans, whether they were born here or whether they came here as legal immigrants and are now part of our American family. There is nothing wrong with supporting your family. That doesn't mean you're being selfish by not selling your car or giving away your children's birthright to some other person down the block. No, you should be taking care of your family. And we Americans are a family that's made up of every race, every religion, and every ethnic group. The people who are the real racists in this whole debate are the ones who want to, first of all, tie illegal immigration with legal immigration. The fact is that they say, well, look, the immigrants, this and that. The fact is, when you want to put those same groups together, that is not what this debate is all about. Mr. King and I know full well that what's happening here today is an effort to take, not people who have come to our country legally, not to change their status legally, that's not my effort, that's not Mr. King's effort, but the effort that's going on is to take 11 million to 20 million people who are in our country illegally, whose presence oftentimes is a threat to the well-being of people that have elected us to watch out for their interests, meaning the American people in our country, that the only issue is what are we going to do with those 11 to 20 million people. If we continue to take away from those American citizens, those seniors or those kids in school, with our very limited dollars right now, and we have 22 million people who are out of work, and we continue to take away from them and give benefits and jobs to people who come here illegally, who are not part of our family, we can expect even more and more and more people to come here until it is a disaster, which it already has been a disaster for many middle-income and lower-income Americans. It will be a disaster to them. What we are trying to do is help secure the well-being of our people. As I say, I think that's done out of love. It's done out of the idea that you don't basically give away everything to somebody who is down the street when your own family needs some food. That's not being selfish. I recently have been through some hardship in my family, in terms of medical hardship. I've been able to visit and see what our hospitals are like. Our hospital system in the United States and our health care system is stretched to the breaking point. We're stretched to the breaking point. We cannot afford, if we try, to take care of all of the people in the world who can come here, whether they come here illegally or not. If someone has come here illegally, we cannot afford to take care of all of their health needs without actually hurting our own people. That's what this whole debate is about. I was down in El Salvador. Ask Congressman King. I was in El Salvador about 3 years ago. And I'll never forget, my wife and I were sitting there at the airport, and in about 20 minutes there's a direct flight between LAX, Los Angeles, and El Salvador and back. We were there in El Salvador waiting to go back to LAX. Twenty minutes before the flight took off, out come the wheelchairs, and about 20 infirm seniors are wheeled into that plane. None of them were Americans. They were, obviously, all El Salvadorans. Now, no one can tell me today that those people, if they're still alive, are not consuming enormous amounts of health care dollars that should be going to take care of our own people. That doesn't mean that I have any animosity towards them. I wish the people of El Salvador well. We need to make sure that we are watching out. The fundamental issue today is whose side are you on, or who's watching out for the people of the United States? And I would ask all of us to join Congressman King in making sure that the American people are not damaged by this irresponsibility that we have towards people from another country who have come here illegally.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Mr. James D. Ruth upon his retirement from the Orange County Sanitation District and from over 50 years of public service. Jim was appointed Interim General Manager of the Orange County Sanitation District, OCSD, in December 2005 for what was supposed to be a six-month role. But instead of serving a short term, his steady management and skill in delivering public services resulted in his six- month assignment turning into a seven-year term of service. Mr. Ruth stayed to steer OCSD through difficult times, accumulated a number of significant accomplishments, and gained national and international acclaim for the management of the third largest wastewater treatment plant west of the Mississippi River. During his tenure, Jim Ruth streamlined the agency by eliminating waste and duplication and trimming costs without sacrificing service to the 2.5 million Orange County residents that rely on OCSD every day. He negotiated a two-tier pension system and was a leader in implementing reduced employee costs across the board. Of special interest to me, Jim Ruth oversaw OCSD's participation in the completion of the Groundwater Replenishment System. He also presided over the dedication of OCSD's secondary treatment upgrade. Both of these projects provide for a reliable and safe clean water supply while protecting Orange County's beautiful beaches. I applaud Jim's service to our community over the years, and most recently, his service to OCSD. While I wish Jim a long and happy retirement, he should know that his accomplishments throughout his career will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 667 as a way for us to honor the memories of Neil Armstrong and Dr. Hugh Dryden. These two men, these two 20th century frontiersmen, technologists, and, yes, visionaries, these two men who led us and, thus, led our country into a new era of human history, the era of aerospace when the technology of mankind uplifted mankind into the air and then into the heavens, this is an era that we are just now seeing the very first steps, and these were the men who pushed the frontier and made those first steps. Neil Armstrong's name will be one of the few iconic names from our era that are found in history books 1,000 years from now. Most people know him as a brave astronaut who commanded Apollo 11; but before those days, Neil Armstrong was an outstanding aeronautical engineer and a great pilot for the U.S. Navy and for the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the NACA, a precursor to NASA. Neil flew over 900 missions at the NACA High-Speed Air Station, and that very center is what we seek to name in his honor today. At the same time, we wish to continue to recognize the major and significant contributions of Dr. Hugh Dryden, one of the world's greatest aeronautical scientists who provided critical leadership to the NACA and is reported to be the man who gave President Kennedy the idea that a Moon landing was the right benchmark for America to set as we worked to catch up with the Soviet Union in space. Today we honor these great men, and by supporting this legislation, we will continue to support them in every way and continue to support NASA in its test-flight mission. Let us not forget so many people just associate NASA with space, and Neil Armstrong is one of those people. But as I've just pointed out, their work in developing new technology for aerospace and for jet engines and the design of airplanes has had a tremendous impact on our way of life and made America the great aerospace power in the world. So as we honor them today, we reconfirm our commitment to being the number one space power and the number one aerospace power on the planet.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, we join the people of Thailand in commemorating the 85th birthday of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand on December 5, 2012. During King Bhumibol's 66 year reign, he has continued to foster a strong partnership with the United States. As a great source of tranquility in the country, he has helped Thailand strengthen its friendship with the United States while becoming an example of democracy and economic development in Southeast Asia. Next year, we look forward to celebrating the 180th anniversary of America's bilateral relationship with Thailand since the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. King Bhumibol's life work has been dedication to the fulfillment of his coronation oath: ``We shall reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people.'' Today we applaud his righteousness and his many accomplishments that have brought peace, stability, and prosperity to the people of Thailand. It is known that His Majesty is a talented musician, and today we recognize he has replaced discord with harmony throughout his life. It is my pleasure to join our Thai friends in celebrating this important occasion, and extend my best regards to His Majesty for his good health and a happy birthday.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6621. The bill being considered is being promoted as a technical corrections piece of legislation, and by and large that's exactly what it is. But also, there is one provision in this bill that raises significant concerns and needs to be addressed. I would ask my friend from Michigan perhaps to consider this and perhaps reconsider his position on the bill, because I'm sure he does not know about this. Our country's patent system has long been one of the strongest in the world. One of its basic tenets has been the steadfast adherence to the principle of total confidentiality of a patent application until the patent is granted. Congress has repeatedly stood by that principle even though there have been many powerful forces in this country trying to eliminate that concept, but we've stood by this principle that these applicants should have confidentiality as their application works its way through the patent system. It prevents the big guys with money and power from attacking and neutralizing the little guys with genius but few resources. H.R. 6621 threatens to disrupt this longstanding practice and principle by requiring the United States Patent and Trademark Office to submit a report to Congress on certain patent application sections. This report, as mandated by this bill, will include information about the applications that have been traditionally kept confidential, including the name of the inventor, which has always been confidential to prevent these inventors from attack by very powerful interests who would steal their invention. While the technical contents of the applications would be most likely not included in the report, this legislation requires the PTO, in their report to Congress, to report the names of the applicants.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is a requirement to report the names, so this bill requires in this report to have the names of the applicants and other identifying information that could be used by powerful outside groups--yes, read that foreign and multinational corporations--to make these applicants potential targets even before their patent is granted. Anonymity could easily be accomplished by a simple change to one section of this bill. Perhaps the PTO could create a unique identifier for each applicant so that they could easily be tracked but without giving risk that the public would know about this and be able to identify the inventor. We can make this a good bill. We just need to take a couple words out of it or one small section out of it, because as the ranking member suggested, it does a lot of good, but it does a lot of harm, much more harm, unless we take this out of the bill. So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation until it is perfected so we are not going to hurt the little inventors and hurt our country's ability on the technology front by trying to make a few technical corrections to the way the Patent Office does its job.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 825, a resolution providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2012, with an amendment. For many years I have directed my district staff in Huntington Beach, California, to organize regular briefings for me as well as public informational meetings about homeland and border security, particularly security of the coastline I have the honor to represent in Congress. On April 4 of this year, I had one such briefing in the American Legion Post in Newport Beach that featured presentations by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Border Patrol. The briefings were attended by police, sheriff, fire and marine safety personnel from San Diego to Los Angeles. These briefings are always foremost in my mind when I urge my colleagues in Congress to summon the political will to stop giving our country away by failing to enforce our borders. The southern California shoreline is the destination for a brazen invasion of contraband and illegal labor smugglers by sea. The brazenness is exceeded only by the shocking multiplier effect of violent crime to persons and property that emanates from the ``stash'' (safe) houses and sweat shops that proliferate along a clandestine network extending north from San Diego. The stakes have been rising in recent years as hundreds of ``panga'' boats ply the waters of Orange County's most treasured beachfront locations, looking for scouts and convoys forward positioned to make a pick-up of exploited workers or drugs shipments. Some panga boats are small, seating 6 to 8 passengers, and sometimes the boats are huge and hold up to 40 people. To suggest it is a sophisticated operation would be an understatement. That is why we enlist the public as well as our protective law enforcement services to spread the word of warning and alert the citizenry to the threat we face as individuals and as a society. On December 2, 2012, we were tragically reminded of what is at stake when news from the U.S. Coast Guard reached my desk that a brave member of the United States Coast Guard, Chief Petty Officer Terrell Horne III, was killed in action while defending our coastline from the wave of unlawful foreign incursions. As I did in my letter to Admiral Papp, Commandant of the USCG, I want to convey here the most heartfelt condolences from my family and me, as well as millions of Americans living on this coastline, to Chief Petty Officer Home's family, to the crew of the Cutter Halibut on which Petty Officer Horne served, and to the larger USCG community. Reports indicate that Chief Petty Officer Horne was in a chase boat pursuing a panga when it turned and rammed his craft, killing him and injuring other USCG members doing their jobs for us. This violence against our coastal defenders is yet another wake up call to America, sounding anew a warning that we must as a nation summon courage to defend our border equal to the devotion to duty Chief Petty Officer Horne exemplified. There was no price he was unwilling to pay to protect our nation, and we must honor him by rising in the same degree to the cause for which he died. Every day courageous men and women of the USCG are on the front line of the struggle to restore the rule of law in the navigable waters of our nation. As the daily assault on our coastal communities escalates, the USCG stands between us and lawlessness on the open seas and along the shorelines where our very civil order now is under siege. This tragic loss of one of American's finest is the terrible price we pay to turn back those emboldened to violate our border security and threaten our homeland in desperate criminal enterprises, profiting from trafficking in drugs and human beings. Unyielding in our vigilance against these modern day pirates and slave traders, we pause to mourn the loss of a fellow American whose service to our nation humbles us and deepens our resolve to prevail against the perpetrators of violence and crime making landfall on our coast from the sea. That can and must be done to honor Chief Petty Officer Horne and all those who have sacrificed all so we may remain a sovereign nation and free people. We owe it to Terrell Horne and each and every one of our fallen heroes. I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 825 in honor of Terrell and all those who sacrifice so much for all of us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would say that I have big shoes to fill, but I don't think I will ever be able to fill Congressman Lewis' shoes. He has a list of accomplishments that I just don't know anybody else in this body who has more to be proud of and more over the years who's meant as much to me as Jerry Lewis. When he talked about the dam, I happen to represent an area in California, Orange County, California, in which that man, because of what he did, with Mr. Calvert at his side, has built the Santa Ana River project that protects tens of thousands of homes from flood damage, and it was due to their hard work. I was supporting them, but they were providing the leadership that got that through the Congress. So today we are saluting Jerry Lewis, but also saluting the other Members who are not going to be with us next year: Wally Herger, who was here earlier, a man who fought so long and hard for the timber industry and the economic well-being of Northern California; Dan Lungren, who is a highly principled person who we all look to, a man with strong religious and principled positions, you can't help but admire him, and a man who was the attorney general of the State of California as well as then running for Congress twice. I might add that I took Dan Lungren's seat when he decided not to run for Congress and run for higher office in the State of California; Dave Dreier, who is one of the best liked people here in the United States Congress--besides Jerry Lewis. I will have to say, Dave Dreier is one of the nicest guys. And he has had such authority in his hands, and it is very hard to be as nice as Dave Dreier is and to hold the authority he has as chairman of the Rules Committee; Brian Bilbray, he is leaving us as well. Brian, from San Diego, I have had a lot of problems with Brian because before he was elected, I was the best surfer in the United States Congress. Of course, there were no other surfers at that time, so that accolade really wasn't as important. But then Brian comes along and spoils that little braggadocio that I was able to do. Brian has been so active on science issues. I have worked closely with him on small modular reactors and on water quality for our coastline; Mary Bono Mack is perhaps one of the most lovely Members of Congress that I can imagine. She has been hardworking. She came here with her husband. Her husband, as we know, had an accident. She was elected in his seat and has done a terrific job ever since she took office in this very tragic way, but she made the most of it. She has done wonderful things for the Inland Empire in California; And finally, Elton Gallegly, who represents the area of southern California up in the area where you have the Reagan Library, which is located in his district. Elton Gallegly was a mayor before he came to the House of Representatives. He represents more than just about anybody else here of that promotion, that natural evolution of someone who has been active in their community, was elected to local office, and then came to serve his time in Washington to put those skills to use for his country. So all of these people have made huge contributions. It's been my honor. Before I came to work here, for 7 years I worked in the Reagan White House. I worked for President Ronald Reagan. I thought that was going to be the greatest honor of my life, and it was. But I can tell you, right up there alongside that, it's been an honor working with these people I have just described, and Mr. Calvert as well. But my colleagues like Wally Herger, Dan Lungren, Dave Dreier, Jerry Lewis, Brian Bilbray, Mary Bono Mack, and Elton Gallegly, it has been my honor and the joy of my life to have worked alongside wonderful people like this trying to make our country and our world a better place.