Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In this debate, Madam Chairman, we have heard over and over and over again about the gridlock at the Patent Office, which is supposedly what we're trying to correct with this legislation, H.R. 1249, which I have been contending is not designed to help the Patent Office, but to harmonize American law with the rest of the world and make it weaker patent protection for our people. But what does it do about the backlog, if that's really what people are concerned about? H.R. 1249 would actually tremendously add to the PTO backlog by requiring further post-grant review proceedings at the Patent Office, proceedings which would consume even more limited personnel and money. Added procedures add to the gridlock at the PTO, at the Patent Office, and it will also do what? It will break the back of small inventors and startup companies who are trying to get a new product on the market. It will empower the multinational and foreign corporations who can grind down the little guy, because what we are doing in this bill is adding even further procedures they have to go through, even after they have got their patent issued to them. This is the big guy versus little guy legislation. That was even pointed out by the Hoover Institution, which did an analysis of this bill and said, ``The American Invents Act will protect large entrenched companies at the expense of market challenging competitors.'' ``A patent should be challenged in court, not in the U.S. Patent Office.'' ``A politicized patent system will further entrench those companies with the largest lobbying shops on K Street.'' ``The bill wreaks havoc on property rights, and predictable property rights are essential for economic growth.'' ``If America weakens its patent enforcement at home, it will set a dangerous precedent overseas.'' ``The America Invents Act would inject massive uncertainty into the patent system.'' This is a travesty. It is an attack on American well-being, because we depend on our small inventors to come up with the ideas. The Kaptur- Rohrabacher amendment limits this new burden. If we can't get rid of it, at least we can limit this new burden of all these post-grant reviews they are going to add to companies that have more than 100 employees. It frees up the Patent Office personnel to do their job, helps with that gridlock, and protects the small business man and small inventors at the same time. I would ask my colleagues to support the Kaptur-Rohrabacher amendment. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, our amendment empowers the Director of the Patent Office to extend this 100-employee standard to other small businesses and individual inventors overseas if this is required by a treaty; yes, small businesses and individual inventors overseas. So our amendment does nothing to violate any treaty obligations by giving our own people special rights over foreign individuals. What it does do, however, is prevent foreign corporations from grinding down our inventors here, like they grind down their inventors overseas. This is what we are doing to prevent a harmonization of our laws, because we don't want weaker patent protection for our people. They already got it overseas against their foreign corporations that grind them down. We want to protect our own people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let's just note that Ms. Lofgren last night presented a case to this body which I felt demonstrated the danger that we have in this law. A move to first-to-file system, which is what this bill would do, without a corresponding 1-year grace period in other countries dramatically undermines the patent protection of American inventors. Some of us believe that's the purpose of this bill because they want to harmonize American law with the weak systems overseas. Well, without this amendment that we are talking about right now, without the Conyers-Rohrabacher amendment, if an inventor discloses his discoveries, perhaps to potential investors, his right to patent protection is essentially gone. It's not gone from just Americans. Yes, he would be protected under American law; but from all those people in foreign countries without a similar grace period to what we have here in our system, these people are not restricted. Thus, they could, once an American inventor discloses it, at any time they can go and file a patent and steal our inventors' discoveries. The only way for American inventors to benefit from a grace period here, which this bill is all about, is to ensure that foreign countries adopt the same grace period. And that's what this amendment would do. It would say our bill, which will make our inventors vulnerable to foreign theft, will not go into place until those foreign countries have put in place a similar grace period, which then would prevent them and their citizens from coming in and stealing our technology. Ms. Lofgren detailed last night in great detail how that would work. I call this bill basically the Unilateral Disclosure Act, if not the Patent Rip-Off Act, because we are disclosing to the world what we've got. And our people can't follow up on it because there's a grace period here, but overseas they don't have that same grace period. So what we're saying is, to prevent foreigners from stealing American technology, this will not go into effect until the President has issued a statement verifying that the other countries of the world have a similar grace period so they can't just at will rip off America's greatest entrepreneurs and inventors.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, our Constitution was designed and written to protect inventors, not filers. The words are very clear. ``Inventor'' is in the Constitution, ``filers'' is not in the Constitution. So why are we having this dispute about the constitutionality of this provision which is very clearly in the Constitution? Are there all sorts of problems that we have people fighting as to who really invented something? No, we don't have a lot of problems. The reason why we have to change this is to harmonize our law, American patent law, with Europe. There are opponents that stated this over and over again in the early part of this debate, that the purpose was harmonizing American law with the rest of the world. Well, American law has always been stronger; we've had the strongest patent protection in the world. So what does harmonize mean? It means weakening our constitutionally protected patent rights. The purpose of the bill is to weaken a constitutionally protected right that has been in place since the founding of our country. It should be rejected.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I hope everyone is paying attention to what this is all about tonight. First of all, we have Dan Lungren, one of our Members who is a former Attorney General of California, along with Jim Sensenbrenner and John Conyers both the former chairmen of the Judiciary Committees, all of them adamant that this bill is unconstitutional. And now we have a discussion and we have a lot of people talking about backlogs and what's wrong with the efficiency of the patent system or the patent office as if that's what this is all about. It is not what this is all about. This, again, has been designed, this is a patent fight that's been going on 20 years. Basically, you have some very large multinational corporations who are trying to harmonize American patent law with the rest of the world, even though American patent law has been stronger than the rest of the world throughout our Republic's history. You weaken the patent protection of the American people; you are weakening their constitutional protections in the name of harmonizing it with Europe. Is that what we want to do? I don't think so. That will have dramatic impact on our country. Hoover Institution, one of the most highly respected think-tanks in the United States, had four of their scholars go after this bill; and here's three of the points they've made, through the many points, that said thumbs down on this America Invents Act. It is better called the patent rip-off bill. Here's what Hoover Institution said: the America Invents Act will protect large, entrenched companies at the expense of market challenging competitors. Read that: overseas multinational corporations. They also said, The bill wreaks havoc on property rights, and predictable property rights are essential for economic growth. This bill is a job killer, and the jobs that will be killed are in the United States of America, not the multinational corporation.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. These multinational corporations, they're creating jobs overseas. They don't care if the jobs are lost here. The America Invents Act--here's Hoover Institution again--the America Invents Act would inject massive uncertainty into the patent system. We have had the strongest patent system in the world, and it has yielded us prosperity and security as a people. We do not need to change the fundamentals of this system and to harmonize with weaker systems throughout the world. I call for the people to vote against this patent rip-off bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to the rule. The CBO says the manager's amendment to this bill, H.R. 1249, would significantly increase direct spending. According to the CBO, over a 10-year period, H.R. 1249 would incur significant new deficit spending. For example, switching to first-to-file would increase costs by $18 million; the new post-grant review in this bill would cost $140 million; amending the inter partes reexamination would increase direct spending by $250 million. This is all annually. The new supplemental review would increase direct spending by $758 billion. That's a $1.1 billion increase in spending. Yet we as Republicans promised that if there would be this increase in spending, we would cut spending in a proportionate share. We made that the rule of how we're going to do business. This rule supersedes that promise. We should not be going back on our promise to the American people to act responsibly. This bill will lay the foundation not only for weaker patent protection for American inventors but it will also knock the legs out from us finally being responsible in our spending patterns. This bill is not about making the Patent Office more efficient. That's what we keep hearing. It is about harmonizing American patent laws with those of Europe. And in Europe and Asia they do not have strong patent protection for their people. What that means is weaker patent protection for Americans. That is what they're trying to achieve. And who's going to be strengthened by this? Multinational corporations who don't care about the United States. The Hoover Institution just did a major study showing that the patent bill demonstrably is a plus for large corporations who have created no jobs and hurts all the little guys and the small guys and the startups who have created all the jobs. This is an anti-jobs bill. It should be defeated.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment focuses on an issue that reflects a concern not only for our national security, but also for the prosperity of our country. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to discuss this important issue with me tonight as part of my time. And I do intend at the end of this discussion, which should be considered a colloquy, my intent is to withdraw my amendment. What we are talking about is an important issue. We are talking about the President's authority to move satellites and related components from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. And this may sound rather bureaucratic, but it means whether or not there is going to be the transfer and sale of technology that we have developed with billions of dollars of Federal investment that is very important to our technology and the jobs in California, but also very important to our national security if these technologies would be put into the wrong hands. We have heard expert witness testimony that current regulations are harmful to national security, cost American jobs, and encourage other nations to develop competing technologies. Since Congress placed these items on the U.S. Munitions List--meaning satellites and these other technologies that we're referring to today--our worldwide market share for the manufacture of satellites and components has dropped dramatically. It has been widely reported that while U.S. firms accounted for 73 percent of the world market for commercial satellites in 1998, that figure has since dropped below 30 percent. Global satellite manufacturers often pursue alternate ITAR-free sources, especially for commodity components and related items, simply to eliminate any risks associated with licensing delays, even if the export license is likely to be approved by U.S. regulators. The U.S. regulatory environment has particularly affected small U.S. satellite suppliers, which lack the organizational structure, staff, and marketing resources to offset the added burden of export control barriers in such a close, competitive climate in this high-tech business. Current U.S. satellite export controls are not slowing foreign space capabilities, but encouraging them. Foreign manufacturers now market ITAR-free satellites, and we are encouraging non-U.S. satellite research and development with the controls that are in place. But the national security concerns that led Congress to create the current regulatory wall are still in place, and yet there are significant concerns existing regarding China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and other terrorist-supporting states. We must continue to prohibit the transfer of these technologies to these nations, and we must prohibit U.S. satellite sales, I believe, to China. We especially must not permit U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets. Last year, the House endorsed the removal of satellites and components from the Munitions List, but it was clearly stated that there was an exception barring any transfers to generous nations and allowing no launches of American satellites on Chinese rockets. That should remain our position. At this time, I would yield several minutes to Mr. McKeon, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I agree with the gentleman's assessment. Out of respect for the judgment of the chairman and his desire to make sure that the full interim report that the Congress has on this issue is studied and that the Defense Department finishes that report, I am willing to withdraw my amendment, but I agree with the points that you've made. I have great respect for the chairman and his care and concern about the safety of our country. I would, at this point, ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You're someone who says ``billions of dollars'' and ``Afghanistan'' both. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in support of our military personnel who are putting their lives in jeopardy in Afghanistan. They are doing their duty for us, for which every American should be eternally grateful. Now we must do our duty to them. If our military is engaged in a dangerous mission that we believe cannot be successful and but for face-saving we are keeping them there, we are doing a disservice to our defenders and to our Nation. The people of Afghanistan are as courageous and independent as any on Earth. They are indomitable and unconquerable--a lesson invaders have learned the hard way for centuries. The liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban was accomplished, not by a massive influx of American troops, but instead by fighters of the Northern Alliance militia and the air support that we provided them. It was a tremendous success. When they were doing the fighting, it was a success. When we try to do the fighting all over the world, we lose. We cannot be a Nation that occupies the rest of the world. We cannot be a country that sends its troops all over the world to handle every problem. After the great success of eliminating the Taliban from Afghanistan, our foreign policy bureaucracy, not our troops, set in place a government structure totally inconsistent with the village and tribal culture of the Afghan people. That information is no surprise to anybody. Most of us understand that. They have a tribal culture there in Afghanistan and a village system. That is what works for them. Our State Department has tried to foist upon them a centralized system in which they don't even elect their provincial governors. After being liberated from the Taliban by Afghans, our troops are now there to force the Afghan people to accept an overly centralized and corrupt system which was put in place by our State Department bureaucracy. I'm sorry, it won't work. It will not work. Any attempt to subjugate these people and to force them to acquiesce to our vision of Afghanistan will fail. We all understand that. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that that tactic won't succeed. To keep our troops over there any longer is sinful. It is a disservice to our country, and it is also sinful to those young men who are willing to give their legs and their lives for us.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of the resolution, and again with great respect and concern for those great people who we are sending overseas to defend us. If we don't think they can succeed, it is incumbent upon us to bring them home as soon as possible. I was not in the United States military in Afghanistan, but I did participate in a battle in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. I went in with the Mujahideen unit and fought in the Battle of Jalalabad in 1988. I got to know these people of Afghanistan. Foreign troops will never conquer the people of Afghanistan. And, yes, radicalized Islams did murder Americans on 9/11. By the way, most of them were Saudis. Most all of them who hijacked the planes were Saudis. And Saudi Arabia still has the radical Islamic tenets that we are talking about that supposedly brought us into this battle. We will not succeed if we are planning to force the Afghan people to accept the centralized government that our State Department has foisted upon them. All we are going to do is lose more people. All we are going to do is have more wounded people and more of our military sent over there, because that is what they are telling us is the method of getting out. To get out, we have to have Karzai accepted. We have foisted on them the most centralized system of government that would never have even worked here, because we believe that local people should run the police and should elect their own local officials. If we don't believe that that system will work, and that is our plan, we should get our people out of there before more of them are killed and maimed. Yes, we do respect Duncan Hunter and all those people who have served. That is the reason, that is what motivates me. Here we have Walter Jones, who represents the Marine Corps down at Camp Lejeune. If they thought that they were defending our country and were going to save our lives, all of them would give their lives for us. But they are not on that mission. They are on that mission to get the Afghan people and coerce them into accepting a corrupt central government, and that won't work. It didn't work when I was there fighting the Russians. It won't work now.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is now up to us in Congress to stand up for those Americans in uniform who will be needlessly giving their lives to accomplish a mission that cannot be accomplished. If it can't be done, we should not be sending them over there. The most responsible course of action is to, as quickly as possible, get our people out of this predicament, not to dig us in deeper and not to wait until this bloody quagmire kills even more Americans and we have to leave without success. If we can't win, we should pull out now.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, 2011 marks the 50th Anniversary of the Founding of Congregation Ner Tamid of South Bay in my congressional district. People of all faiths from throughout the South Bay area of Los Angeles are conveying heartfelt congratulations to all the members and friends of Congregation Ner Tamid on this most auspicious occasion. For five decades Congregation Ner Tamid has upheld a faith-inspired tradition of service in both the South Bay region and beyond. The Congregation's programs for youth, families and seniors cast a bright light of human dignity and compassion across our community. I also offer a special expression of our esteem to those being honored for their unique and sustaining contributions to Ner Tamid's work in our communities. The people of the South Bay are indebted to the distinguished 50th Anniversary honorees; Ruth & Leo David, Sheil Poucher, Mark Simon and Norm Lefkowich. Each of them deservedly receives the profoundly meaningful recognition of a grateful synagogue family and the community of which Congregation Ner Tamid is such an important part. The dedicated social responsibility these honorees exemplify is replicated in a hundred programs and projects the rest of the temple members pursue. That is why Congregation Ner Tamid enjoys a valued and respected place in the life and culture of the South Bay region we are fortunate enough to call home. So, it is with our best wishes that Congregation Ner Tamid of South Bay celebrates their 50th anniversary on March 12, 2011. I am sure the great legacy they have created in these first 50 years will only be stronger and more enduring on the occasion of the Congregation's 100th anniversary!

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11, we mandated sunsets on the provisions that dramatically expanded Federal investigative and enforcement powers, especially those that could infringe on the freedom of American citizens. Sunsets meant that Congress would have to specifically extend the time on those powers or they would expire. Five years ago, the last time around, the Bush administration attempted to make permanent this crisis-related expansion of authority by removing the sunsets. Let me congratulate my friend from California who spent so much time trying to make sure the sunsets were in, and Dan, we know that you worked really hard to make sure those sunsets were put in, but not all of them were. This power grab on the part of the Bush administration was thwarted by good Members like Dan Lungren who are with us today in this debate. Today, a few controversial sections are still scheduled to periodically sunset. The congressional action to extend these provisions deserves hearings, adequate debate, and the right to amend, thus ensuring accountability and transparency on such a significant issue. We have not met this standard this time around. The Republican leadership has committed to a more acceptable process by December, when the extension of this bill comes up for a vote again. I hope I will be able to vote ``yes'' at that time. Until then, it is ``no.'' And let us note about the accusations of politics in this. I believe the American people have a legitimate fear of out-of-control government. They have a legitimate fear of out-of-control spending and out-of-control bureaucracy, and yes, they have a legitimate fear of out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks. Let's make sure we stand for freedom here. That's not political.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Everyone knows Ronald Reagan the politician. We can go on with all these lists of speeches and the bills and things, but I think the day I remember the most about Ronald Reagan was in North Carolina. In 1976, Reagan was running and I was the assistant press secretary. And here he had probably 5,000, 10,000 people in this parking lot for a rally, and this lady comes up to me and says, You're with Governor Reagan? And I said, Yes, I am. She said, I have seven blind children here, and they can't get through the crowd. And I wonder if maybe after the speech we can bring them over here and Governor Reagan could shake hands with them. And I said, Let me clear it. Let me find out. So I went behind the podium there with Mike Deaver. I said, Mike, there's a lady here; she's got these blind children and they can't get through the crowd. They would really like to shake hands with Governor Reagan. And Reagan was two steps behind us. He hears me and he jumps right in between us and he says, Of course we're going to say hello to those children. But, Dana, we don't want this to be a press event. And you get all the reporters in the buses, and I'll come right over here and spend a couple minutes with those children. So, sure enough, the reporters head to the buses, and the kids are brought back there behind the podium. And there's Reagan and he is talking to them. They are about 7, 8 years old. And this is the sense of this man. He says, You know, I know that you can't see me. But maybe you would like to touch my face so you can get a sense about who I am and what I look like. And of course they did. Now, imagine this: there's Ronald Reagan, a candidate for President, with seven of these little kids, beautiful little kids touching his face. There is not a politician in the world that would not give millions of dollars to have a picture of that. They would be on the cover of all the magazines, and Reagan knew that. But he didn't want anyone, he didn't want those kids or anyone to think that he was exploiting blind children. And it's like us today. We've got to get a sense or feel about this man and who he really was. And I hope that the Reagan Library and what they are doing with the Young America's Foundation up at the ranch will help future generations get a good feel for this wonderful person.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I think that that kindness and his personality is what was dictating how he would act. So I went on after that, and I was a freshman in college when he was running in '66. By the time his administration was over, I was a journalist. I was actually a reporter in Los Angeles. I'd graduated from college. And anyway, I was someone who was well known as going to the heart of the matter and asking the toughest question at all the press conferences, and he was now Governor, finishing up his last couple of years as Governor of the State. And I remember a press conference that I covered with Ronald Reagan. Dan Lungren would appreciate this because it was his commission on crime, and he was going to make this big announcement as to what his commission on crime was recommending. And I got up and of course wanted to ask the toughest question, and the question was: Governor, you suggested, and many times have suggested in your speeches, that you are a Christian and that this is an important value to you; you base many of your judgments on your faith. How can you justify in Christian theology that you are taking someone, as the commission is suggesting that we expand the use of the death penalty, and that we take someone who is not at that moment a threat to another human being and is in custody and take that person's life? Isn't that contradictory to your Christian beliefs? And Reagan, you could see that he really took it so seriously, and he just said, I've prayed about that so many times. I cannot tell you how much thought and prayer has gone into that very issue, and I sought religious help from people and guidance from various spiritual leaders, and I came to the conclusion, well, Dana, I came to the conclusion that if you're killing someone for vengeance, that is not consistent with what Jesus Christ has taught us. But if you realize you're taking that life to save the life of another because other murderers will be deterred from killing innocent victims, well, that's totally consistent. And I tell you, my view of Ronald Reagan and my admiration for that man went right through the roof. Well, what happened then, Evelle Younger, who was Attorney General of the State, grabs the microphone and says, Morality and religion have nothing to do with this. The people voted for the death penalty and they're going to get it. Yeah, my opinion of Reagan was that high. And I would just note Evelle Younger ran for Governor and lost. Well, this was the type of Ronald Reagan that I got to know, very principled person. In '76, a year after that press conference, he ran for President. And I was about the only Republican that he could find in the press corps to hire as Lynn Nofsinger's Assistant Press Secretary, and I traveled with him, as I say, through '76 and '80 and then went to the White House with him after that. And let me just note that when Ronald Reagan went to the White House, it has been again described so many times that our country was in such jeopardy. Freedom was in retreat. The Soviet Union was in the ascendancy. Tyranny, many of us felt in the late '70s that our country would lose the Cold War and that the world would be dominated by this Marxist, Leninist, totalitarian ideology. And of course our economy was near collapse and heading towards disaster. Ronald Reagan, when he was a young person, was a lifeguard. He saved 77 lives. That was such a part of a self-image of being someone who was going to save the day. And I saw that at work. I saw that at work in the tough decisions. And by the way, let me just note, I disagree with Jim Baker. I didn't see the bipartisanship that Jim Baker talked about. Maybe he did. But when I worked in the White House with Ronald Reagan, because I went with him there after he won the 1980 campaign, and I was one of his five principal speech writers for 7 years. All I noticed was at that stand right over there the Democrats, over and over again, from this body and from the Senate would do everything they could to defile and to make it sound like Ronald Reagan was a warmonger because he wanted to make sure that the Soviets were not encouraged to go on further and expand their weapons by us freezing them into a position of superiority.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will have to admit, even some of the people who were most guilty of not being bipartisan have suggested that it was bipartisanship that ended the Cold War. But your examples that you have given with the Social Security, for example, people don't know that had we not been working together and had Ronald Reagan not been there to provide the leadership, Social Security would have been bankrupt by now easily. But I saw these majors events from inside the White House and watched him. One note: I was there probably at the low point of the White House. That day was the day that 240 marines were blown to hell in Beirut. I remember my brother's best friend was the first name on that list of people who were killed. Ronald Reagan felt that it was his worst mistake that he ever made, was sending those marines in there. When his advisers suggested to him that now is the time we've got to prove we're tough. Send in a whole marine division to make sure we kick those guys' butts who killed our people to prove they can't do this and get away with it. Ronald Reagan was wise enough not to go for vengeance, but instead to use his head and to do what was the right policy that would not put us in jeopardy and put us in a quagmire. Ronald Reagan said, ``No. We are going to get our butts out of there'' and had he not done that and sent in 20,000 American troops, we would have been on the defensive for the rest of his administration. Instead, he reached out and found elements around the world who were fighting communist dictatorship, they called it the Reagan Doctrine, and he let the enemy of our enemies do the fighting. That was the Reagan Doctrine. That's what succeeded in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It drained the budget of the Soviet Union, and it collapsed. One last story that I would like to tell, and that is, so many people who have tried to belittle President Reagan have tried to make him look--how many times have I heard this, Well, he's just an actor and he's just reading scripts. You guys are great script writers. First of all, let me note, I never wrote a speech for anybody until Ronald Reagan taught me how to write a speech. We had a saying at the White House: If this guy wasn't President, he's a good enough writer to be the President's speechwriter. That's number one. But Ronald Reagan was not just reading lines and not just reading scripts, number one. It was his vision of the world we had to capture. But, more importantly, he was making very tough policy statements that would not have been made by other Presidents, and the best example of this is the Berlin Wall speech. As we noted at the 100th birthday, there is a chunk of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union has disintegrated. And now in Russia, by the way, the churches are filled with people in Russia today. Back in those days, Christians and other people who believed in God were being repressed with all the other freedoms. But Ronald Reagan was going to go to Berlin, and the speechwriters knew that the senior staff would do everything they could not to permit Ronald Reagan to say what he needed to say, which is, Tear down the wall. So we had to plan on it, and actually we underhandedly got the speech to Ronald Reagan. I won't describe the great details it went through, but it was an avenue that we knew once we used it once would be closed up to us. Once Reagan saw the speech, it was, Oh, yes. This is exactly what I want to say. And then it wasn't the five speechwriters against all these senior advisers to the President. It was the speechwriters and the President. And George Schulz came in; and he was with us the other day, but during that time he was yelling at Ronald Reagan that he was trying to reignite the Cold War by saying, Tear down the wall. All of these people who now are very happy with Ronald Reagan and suggest that, Oh, I was in on it. In this particular case, and many others, they were telling Reagan not to do these things, especially, Don't say, Tear down the wall. I cannot tell you how far it went. Colin Powell actually gave him a speech and said, All your advisers except for speechwriters want this speech. And it was the same speech, except ``tear down the wall,'' that page had been left out. And Reagan was, No. I think I'll use the one I've got, thank you. Well, what happens is this: Reagan gets up, and he is courageous. He is being told not to do this, that this would create new Cold War animosities on the other side. He knew that this was a message to their leadership and to the people behind the Iron Curtain that we were serious about our advocacy of democracy and freedom and peace. He knew that. And he knew if he didn't say it, it would demoralize all of those people. It would change history for the worse if he didn't say it. And he got up there, and he made that strong statement. The next day, of course, we were all watching to find out exactly what was going to be the reaction. And I don't know how, but somebody from the National Security Council had a copy of a verbatim transcript of Gorbachev's conversation with the senior staff. Now, I have no idea how we happened to get that into our possession, but Gorbachev was saying, This guy Reagan, once he gets his teeth into you, he's like a dog. He'll never let go. And we have got to find a way to bring down that wall and maintain our dignity. And sure enough, then all those other guys that we were talking about who fought this speech, and they did everything they could to get him not to say it, then they started claiming they had written the speech and they were for it all along of course. Well, the one great thing about Ronald Reagan, he had it right on his desk, and it was, There is no limit to what a person can achieve if he doesn't care who gets the credit. Reagan wasn't looking for credit for the end of the war. He was looking to do great things for America. And I will tell you, he inspired all of us. Do I have time for one more Reagan story?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, David. Just to expand a little bit on the last point you made, when we were writing for Ronald Reagan, he would insist that we don't talk about people as being--he wouldn't say Irish Americans or Mexican Americans or German Americans. He always insisted that we say ``Americans of Irish descent,'' ``Americans of Mexican descent,'' ``Americans of German descent.'' Americans together, up front. So that's a little bit of wisdom. Just that little expression showed the wisdom of that man. It was my honor to join with my two colleagues at the 100th celebration. Dan and Dave and I, we have a special place in our lives for this man, Ronald Reagan. And I think that that birthday and that gathering that we had at the Reagan Library is one of the most memorable times that I will have, and I am just so grateful that I was able to share that with you. I think the Reagan Library is doing a terrific job, and they will then be able to carry what we are talking about tonight so that younger people, people 100 years from now, will get a good picture of this man who saved America and saved the world from tyranny. Also, the Young America's Foundation is doing a great job at restoring the Reagan ranch where Reagan spent so much of his time and got his inspiration, and is implementing some great educational activities up there. I, of course, met Ronald Reagan so many years ago when I volunteered as a youth organizer for his first campaign for Governor. And I was in Youth for Reagan. I was the L.A. County High School chairman of Youth for Reagan, although I was a freshman at a junior college at the time. There had been so much infighting going on--the Republicans almost enjoy fighting each other as much as they do fighting Democrats and everybody else. Well, it was true back then as well. And there was so much infighting going on in the Youth for Reagan, they were going to eliminate it. I got wind of this, and I had hundreds of kids out walking precincts. I thought this would be horrible for them. So I decided I had to talk to Ronald Reagan personally about this. And I found out what his address was, and at 2 o'clock in the morning I hiked up this long driveway in Pacific Palisades up to his house. They didn't have a guard. Here's the guy, the candidate for Governor, and nobody is there guarding the gate. And so I camped out on his back lawn, and the next morning, about 6:30, 7:00, Nancy sticks her head out there, What are you doing? Who are you? And I had a little sign that said, ``Mr. Reagan, please speak to me.'' And I told her I was in the Youth for Reagan and I just needed 2 minutes, just 2 minutes with him, 120 seconds. And she said, Listen, if he comes out here, he's going to spend 20 minutes with you. He's either going to miss his breakfast or be late for the rest of the day. I can't permit that to happen. If you leave right now, I'll get you an appointment with the campaign manager. Well, you know, that's the best I was going to get. So I was walking real slow down that long driveway dragging my sleeping bag. And behind me I hear, Wait a minute; wait a minute. And there was Ronald Reagan chasing after me with shaving cream on his face; his shirt's wide open. If you can spend the night on my back lawn, I can certainly spend a few moments with you. Now what's the problem, young man? And, you know, he never let me down. I knew him for 40 years after that. He never let me down. He was the same caring, wonderful person. And as my life went on and I was active in his campaigns, I was with him for 8 months from in the morning he got up till the time he went to bed during the '76 campaign, so I knew everything that was going on in his life. I never heard him say the ``F'' word. I never heard him say, as the door slammed behind after someone who had been saying bad things about him, I never heard him say, ``That SOB,'' or anything like that. Ronald Reagan was centered. He was confident in himself, and he didn't feel threatened by people who disliked him. His way of doing things was always, be very strong for the things you believe, very principled. Be as strong an advocate as you can, but be very nice to people. Be very nice to people even if they're on the other side of the table arguing another case.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. The tragedy we discuss today is of enormous consequence to the families of those who were killed and wounded and, of course, our hearts go out to them, especially to the member of our own family, congressional family, to the Giffords, but all those who were killed or wounded in this senseless violence that took place in Arizona. This, of course, is not just of great consequence to them but of great consequence to all of us. There are things that we must learn, and there are events like this that happen that will help us shape what we will do in the future. One thing we must not let this do is to reduce the actual contact between the American people and their elected representatives. We will not let the acts of a demented individual reduce the right of the American people to have direct contact with their Member of the House of Representatives, and we will not let this senseless act of violence diminish or in some way stampede us into in some way diminishing the freedom and reducing the freedom of the American people themselves. Finally, let me just say there is a positive lesson to be learned from this tragic event, and that is we must make sure that we treat each other better here in Congress, and those of us who are active in the political arena need to understand we need to be kinder to each other. Even as we disagree with each other fervently on policy, there is no reason for us to have insinuations about negative values of the person on the other side of the argument. We need to make sure that we exemplify for the American people that people can disagree on fundamental issues, even have basic differences in value systems and what their goal is for our government, but still respect the other person's opinion and treat the other person with kindness and dignity. That's one lesson that we need to learn and to make sure the American people see us as an example of that. Ronald Reagan used to say, be really tough when it comes to policy but, Dana, be really nice to people. Well, that's how Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. He was really tough on communism, but he was very kind to those people who worked in the Soviet Union, which later led to that disintegration. Today we need to be kinder to each other. We need to be respectful of the fact that people on the other side of issues are as intelligent as we are and as moral as we are, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use tough language about those issues. Let's be kinder to each other and let's send that as a present, a get-well message to Gabby, because there is no one else that exemplified that better than her. We know that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Congresswoman Giffords and I were on separate sides of a major issue, an issue of great concern to me. I have been on the Science Committee for 22 years, and she was for a totally different approach to the American space program than I have been on. We had some very serious debate on that issue. I will tell you not only was she kind and articulate, but she was brilliant--which of course I didn't necessarily want her to show that brilliance in her arguments against my arguments. But I remember right here on this floor, after a major debate that we had, I walked over to her when the gavel went down and people were leaving, and I said, you know, you did a great job for your position today. I really respect you more than some of the people on my side of the issue, because you were articulate, you took your responsibility seriously, you have presented your arguments. I just want you to know how much I admire that in you. Keep it up and I know you will be Speaker someday--and I shouldn't say that to my colleagues over here. I don't say that often to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But that's the type of spirit that she had, and I would hope that we send that message to Gabby and to the rest of the American people today.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to both the rule and the so-called DREAM Act. Madam Speaker, the American people are adamantly opposed to the DREAM Act because they understand that it is nothing more than mass amnesty that will undoubtedly encourage millions more to illegally immigrate into our country. Yes, we are being told by those on the other side of the aisle that this is not amnesty. But if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. And this may be a lame duck, Madam Speaker, but it is amnesty. The DREAM Act specifically focuses on promising young foreigners a bright future if their parents choose to break the law. This will unquestionably encourage desperate parents to bring their children, perhaps millions of them, across our borders illegally. And once the children gain citizenship, their parents and other immediate family members will be put on the fast track to citizenship through family unification and then will be eligible for all the rights and services currently enjoyed by American citizens. Moreover, if an illegal immigrant happens to be a racial or ethnic minority--the vast majority, of course, of illegals are of an ethnic or racial minority--then that individual will be entitled to all the education, employment, and other preferences for minorities that are written into our Federal and State laws as soon as, of course, their legal status is granted. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put illegal immigrants on par with American citizens but, in many cases, would put them ahead of most American citizens who are not minorities and ahead of legal immigrants as well. It is not being coldhearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on an illegal immigrant is $1 less for our own children, for our own seniors, and for all those in our society who have played by the rules, paid taxes, and expected that their government was going to watch out for them and for their needs before bestowing privileges and scarce resources on illegals who have not played by the rules. Yes, this is the DREAM Act, all right. It is the dream of millions living outside our borders to come to our country by whatever means and partake of the health, education, and other benefits that we can scarcely afford for our own citizens. For us, the citizens and legal immigrants, who have played by the rules, worked hard to build a better home and a better life for our families, this is not the DREAM Act. This is the nightmare act. I am well aware and appreciate our Nation's immigrant heritage. We have more legal immigration into our country annually than all the other nations of the world combined. And we should be proud of this, proud that we are so generous and open. But we must be honest about how many we can absorb without hurting the lives of our citizens and, yes, those legal immigrants who came here within the boundaries of the law.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the affirmative action amnesty act, otherwise known as the DREAM Act, which we are now debating. Mr. Speaker, if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, government contracts, and other minority preferences that are written into our Federal and State laws. As a result, the DREAM Act would not only put illegal immigrants on par with American citizens, but would in many cases put them ahead of most American citizens and legal immigrants. So those voting for this so-called DREAM Act are voting to relegate the position of nonminority American citizens to behind those who are now in this country illegally. This doesn't just give young illegal immigrants in-State tuition; it provides them preference in admission. This is a betrayal of our law- abiding citizens and their families in order to help people who have come here illegally. I urge my colleagues to oppose this affirmative action amnesty. I urge my colleagues to oppose this horrible example of misplaced loyalties and concerns that will help illegals at the expense of our citizens and legal immigrants. It is not being coldhearted to acknowledge that every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is $1 less that's spent on our own children, our own senior citizens, and for all those in our society who have played by the rules, who have paid their taxes and expect their government to watch out for their needs before it bestows privileges and scarce resources on illegals who have not played by the rules. This legislation not only increases the burden on our hard-pressed government programs and services, but will give foreigners who are here illegally preference over nonminority citizens, U.S. citizens. It doesn't get much worse than that. We oppose policies like the DREAM Act, and we must oppose those policies because they will serve as a magnet to those who would flock here illegally. I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to rob our children of their dream and to vote ``no'' on this divisive and irresponsible legislation which will do nothing more than bring millions of more people across our borders illegally, only now they will bring their kids, all of them. Wake up, America. This is no dream. It is an affirmative action amnesty nightmare.