Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Gohmert from Texas.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, Ph.D., a man who holds 20 patents, a man who is greatly respected for his scientific knowledge and who has been deeply appreciated for the advice he has given us in that endeavor in the last 15 years in Congress. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just note I think it is really much more important to talk about provisions of the bill rather than trying to point out things about each other, and that is one of the reasons we needed more time in this debate so that we could actually get into the provisions of this bill. The fact that no matter what happens with Mr. Issa's first amendment, that still there will be patent applications that will be published for the world to see even before the patent is issued; that our overseas competitors will then have information that they will be able to use to outcompete us even before our patents are issued to those inventors who have applied for patents. Those are the issues we need to talk about. We need to talk about why the assessment of damages has been changed in a way that helps these big guys, these big companies that Ms. Kaptur has just outlined, as well as the foreign corporations, I might add, at the expense of the small inventor. The inventor is just trying to prevent theft of his lifetime of work. We have to know why we have had different ways of determining the validity of a patent and opening up challenges in the front of the patent as well as afterwards so that we add cost after cost after cost to the little guy. We need to discuss these things in detail. Instead we have 1 hour in which the opposition, I think, had 12 minutes in order to discuss these issues. This should raise a flag to everyone listening to this debate. Why is Congress trying to stampede the rest of the Members of Congress into voting for an act that could be so damaging to the American people?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And the time on the other side?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time do I have left?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield myself 3 minutes. Let's just note when we are talking, Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Manzullo talk about one of the horrible provisions of the bill, which changes the whole concept of how damages are assessed, and who has benefited by this. We have to ask ourselves, we talk about the Wright brothers, the little guys who actually made all the difference in whether or not America has a high standard of living, the damages that these inventors have when people violate their rights and how those damages are assessed. That's right in this legislation. Yes, they are changing it to the benefit of the infringers. They are beating down the little guys, making it more difficult for the Wright brothers and for all the other little guys who have come up with these ideas in order to help the big corporations. By the way, let me just add this thought: we are not just talking about American corporations here. We are not talking about making inventors just vulnerable to the big American corporations. We are talking about multinational corporations, and we are talking about foreign corporations. Our little guys, with just this change, are going to be dramatically damaged. Their ability, in order to protect their rights, will be dramatically reduced. This is just one example of the type of diminishing of the rights of the inventor in this bill. Yet, we aren't able to discuss it fully. One hour of debate for a bill that's being described here as one of the most important pieces of legislation in the century? One hour of debate in which the opposition was not given a chance to control any time in opposition? This is a disgrace. What's going on? This alone should raise the red flag to all of our Members saying something is going on here; there is a power play people in our legislation aren't being able to control their time. What's happening here? We have a manager's amendment now that was permitted to be changed after it left committee. There wasn't even a proper debate on this bill then and this manager's amendment in the committee, much less the subcommittee. So what we have here is a power play by somebody. The rules don't count when it comes to the bill, because somebody out there really wants it really bad in order to not give us a chance to give the other side, not give the full committee a chance even to discuss these details that are changed in the manager's amendment, not to let the subcommittee play its role. Now, all I am suggesting is this should raise a red flag for all of our Members. All of us should be aware that when these types of shenanigans are being played, something is going on, that the legislation that's being pushed through probably is not good legislation, but, instead, helps a small group of powerful people.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, let us note that over and over again we hear, well, they are not opposing the bill. Well, the labor unions and others, many of them are opposing the bill. But the ones you're describing, you're just saying they aren't necessarily supporting the bill. What we are saying, they are not supporting the bill. This has been reconfirmed by what my colleagues have said in the last 10 minutes. Also, let us note, over and over again we hear, we're going to work this out. We're going to work all these things out in the bill as it moves through the process, which means to all of us there are major flaws in this bill, huge flaws in this bill, and we have to take it just on faith that they're going to work out all these flaws as it goes through the process. I would suggest that we take this, we vote ``no'' on this bill, and then let's correct those flaws and come back to the floor when you've got a bill that isn't flawed. Let's go back to the floor when you can support a bill with an honest debate and not be so afraid of a debate that you'll neuter the chances and mute our opposition voices by giving us almost no time to discuss the issues. I would yield to my friend, Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank my friend from Texas. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1908. The proponents suggest that it is the most fundamental and comprehensive change of American patent law in over a half century. Well, that's true, and that's why it should be defeated, because the changes are almost all aimed at undermining the technological creators and strengthening the hand of foreign and domestic thieves and scavengers who would exploit America's most creative minds and use our technology against us. It would be a disaster for individual inventors, with an impressive coalition strongly opposing this legislation: universities, labor unions, biotech industries, pharmaceuticals, nanotech, small business, traditional manufacturers, electronics and computer engineers, as well, of course, the patent examiners themselves who are telling us this will have a horrible impact on our patent system. They are all begging us to vote ``no.'' This so-called reform will make them vulnerable to theft by foreign and domestic technology thieves. Our most cutting-edge technology will be available to our enemies and our competitors. That is why I call this the Steal American Technologies Act. The billionaires in the electronics industry and the financial industries who are supporting H.R. 1908, many of them already have built their factories in China, would do away with the patent system altogether if they could. They are so powerful and arrogant that they have set out to fundamentally alter our traditional technology protection laws, laws that have served America well for over 200 years. Yes, this is an issue vital to the well-being of the American people, to our standard of living; yet we find ourselves with a severely limited debate. There is only 1 hour of debate. Those of us who are opposing this legislation haven't even been given the right, which is traditional in this body, to control our own time. Yes, the way we are handling this debate is a disgrace. There will be 12 minutes available for those of us who oppose a bill that they claim is so important for the future of our country. What do we know about this bill? It is a horror story for American inventors and a windfall for foreign and domestic thieves. We don't even know what is in the bill. The manager's amendment has been changed even after the committee did its business. So it wasn't even fully debated in the committee and much less fully debated at the subcommittee level. No, what we are doing is a power play here. That is what we are witnessing. The opposition doesn't even get the chance to argue our case adequately before this body or before the American people. Our inventors and our innovators are begging us not to pass this legislation. Foreign and domestic technology thieves are licking their chops. Let's not let the big guys beat down and smash the little guys, which is what the purpose of this legislation is. There are problems in the Patent Office, that is true, that can be fixed without having to fundamentally alter the principles that are the basis of our patent system, which is what this legislation does. This legislation, in the name of reform, is being used as a cover to basically destroy the patent system that has served us so well. In the long term, it will destroy American competitiveness and the standard of living of our working people. That is what is at stake here. Overseas, the people in India, China, Japan and Korea are waiting. We have quotes from newspapers suggesting that as soon as this bill passes, they will have a greater ability to take American technology even before a patent is granted and put it into commercial use against us. This is a shameful, shameful proposal. The American people have a right to know. We are watching out for their interests. I don't care what the billionaires in the electronics industry and the financial industry say. We should have more debate on this. We should have had 2 or 3 hours of debate on this if it is as important as they say. Instead, we have been muzzled, and it is a power grab. Vote against H.R. 1908.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield myself the right to close, and this is the final, I guess, arguments in this debate. We can correct the flaws at the Patent Office. We do not need to destroy the American patent system as it has functioned for 200 years. We do not need to make all of our inventors vulnerable to foreign theft so foreigners and large corporations can steal their creative genius and use it against us. That is what this bill does. It is being foisted off on us. The process has been flawed. As we can see, we have had limited debate. They brought this to the floor admitting there are flaws in the bill. We need to defeat the Steal American Technologies Act and go back and work on it so we can make real reform rather than a bill that is going to help America's economic adversaries. I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the little guy against the big guy and demonstrating that that is the rules of the game here.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my requests for recorded votes on the amendments numbered 2, 3 and 4, to the end that each such amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote thereon.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much more time is left in this debate?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would, first of all, submit for the Record a list of several hundred organizations, including unions and universities, et cetera, all of whom have raised objections to the patent legislation, H.R. 1908, not necessarily that they're all opposed to it, but they have strong objections. Organizations and Companies Which Have Raised Objections to Patent Legislation (H.R. 1908) Organizations and Companies Raising Objections to H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007: 3M, Abbott, Accelerated Technologies, Inc., Acorn Cardiovascular Inc., Adams Capital Management, Adroit Medical Systems, Inc., AdvaMed, Advanced Diamond Technologies, Inc., Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., Aero-Marine Company, AFL-CIO, African American Republican Leadership Council. Air Liquide, Air Products, ALD NanoSolutions, Inc., ALIO Industries, Allergan, Inc., Almyra, Inc., AmberWave Systems Corporation, American Conservative Union, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), American Seed Trade, Americans for Sovereignty. Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, AngioDynamics, Inc., Applied Medical, Applied Nanotech, Inc., Argentis Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Arizona BioIndustry Association, ARYx Therapeutics, Ascenta Therapeutics, Inc., Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). Asthmatx, Inc., AstraZeneca, Aware, Inc., Baxa Corporation, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, BayBio, Beckman Coulter, BIO-- Biotechnology Industry Organization, BioCardia, Inc., BIOCOM, Biogen Idec, Biomedical Association, BioOhio, Bioscience Institute, Biotechnology Council of New Jersey. Blacks for Economic Security Trust Fund, BlazeTech Corporation, Boston Scientific, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, BuzzLogic, California Healthcare Institute, Canopy Ventures, Carbide Derivative Technologies, Cardiac Concepts, Inc., CardioDynamics, Cargill, Inc., Cassie-Shipherd Group, Caterpillar, Celgene Corporation, Cell Genesys, Inc., Center 7, Inc., Center for Small Business and the Environment, Centre for Security Policy, Cephalon, CheckFree, Christian Coalition of America. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, Coalitions for America, CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., Colorado Bioscience Association, Conceptus, Inc., CONNECT, Connecticut United for Research Excellence, Cornell University, Corning, Coronis Medical Ventures, Council for America, CropLife America, Cryptography Research, Cummins Inc., Cummins-Allison Corporation. CVRx Inc., Dais Analytic Corporation, Dartmouth Regional Technology Center, Inc., Declaration Alliance, Deltanoid Pharmaceuticals, Digimarc Corporation, DirectPointe, Dow Chemical Company, Dupont, Dura-Line Corporation, Dynatronics Co., Eagle Forum, Eastman Chemical Company, Economic Development Center, Edwards Lifesciences, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Electronics for Imaging, Eli Lilly and Company, Ellman Innovations LLC, Enterprise Partners Venture Capital, Evalve, Inc. Exxon Mobile Corporation, Fallbrook Technologies Inc., FarSounder, Inc. Footnote.com. Gambro BCT, General Electric, Genomic Health, Inc., Gen- Probe Incorporated, Genzyme, Georgia Biomedical Partnership, Glacier Cross, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Glenview State Bank, Hawaii Science & Technology Council, HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, HeartWare, Inc., Helius, Inc., Henkel Corporation, Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. iBIO, Imago Scientific Instruments, Impulse Dynamics (USA), Inc., Indiana Health Industry Forum, Indiana University, Innovation Alliance, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-USA, InterDigital Communications Corporation, Intermolecular, Inc., International Association of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Invitrogen Corporation, Iowa Biotechnology Association, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, KansasBio, Leadership Institute, Let Freedom Ring, Life Science Alley, LITMUS, LLC. LSI Corporation, Lux Capital Management, Luxul Corporation, Maryland Taxpayers' Association. Masimo Corporation, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC), Maxygen Inc., MDMA--Medical Device Manufacturer's Association, Medical College of Wisconsin, MedImmune, Inc., Medtronic, Merck, Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc., Metabolex, Inc., Metacure (USA), Inc., MGI Pharma Inc., MichBio, Michigan Small Tech Association, Michigan State University, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Milliken & Company, Mohr, Davidow Ventures, Monsanto Company. NAM--National Association of Manufacturers, NanoBioMagnetics, Inc. (NBMI), NanoBusiness Alliance, NanoInk, Inc., NanoIntegris, Inc., Nanomix, Inc., Nanophase Technologies, NanoProducts Corporation, Nanosys, Inc., Nantero, Inc., National Center for Public Policy Research, Nektar Therapeutics, Neoconix, Inc., Neuro Resource Group (NRG), Neuronetics, Inc., NeuroPace, New England Innovation Alliance, New Hampshire Biotechnology Council, New Hampshire Department of Economic Development, New Mexico Biotechnical and Biomedical Association, New York Biotechnology Association. Norseman Group, North Carolina Biosciences Organization, North Carolina State University, North Dakota State University, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Northwestern University, Novartis, Novartis Corporation, Novasys Medical Inc., NovoNordisk, NUCRYST Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NuVasive, Inc., Nuvelo, Inc., Ohio State University, OpenCEL, LLC. Palmetto Biotechnology Alliance, Patent Cafe.com, Inc., Patent Office Professional Association, Pennsylvania Bio, Pennsylvania State University, PepsiCo, Inc., Pfizer, PhRMA-- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Physical Sciences Inc., PointeCast Corporation, Power Innovations International, PowerMetal Technologies, Inc., Preformed Line Products, Procter & Gamble, Professional Inventors' Alliance, ProRhythm, Inc., Purdue University, Pure Plushy Inc., QUALCOMM Inc. QuantumSphere, Inc., QuesTek Innovations LLC, Radiant Medical, Inc., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, Retractable Technologies, Inc., RightMarch.com, S & C Electric Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SanDisk Corporation, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., Semprius, Inc., Small Business Association of Michigan--Economic Development Center, Small Business Exporters Association of the United States. Small Business Technology Council, Smart Bomb Interactive, Smile Reminder, SmoothShapes, Inc., Solera Networks, South Dakota Biotech Association, Southern California Biomedical Council, Spiration, Inc., Standup Bed Company, State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Stella Group, Ltd., StemCells, SurgiQuest, Inc. Symyx Technologies, Inc., Tech Council of Maryland/MdBio, Technology Patents & Licensing, Tennessee Biotechnology Association, Tessera, Inc., Texas A&M, Texas Healthcare, Texas Instruments, Three Arch Partners. United Technologies, University of California System, University of Illinois, University of Iowa, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of New Hampshire, University of North Carolina System, University of Rochester, University of Utah, University of Wisconsin-Madison, US Business and Industry Council, US Council for International Business. USGI Medical, USW--United Steelworkers, Vanderbilt University and Medical Center, Virent Energy Systems, Inc., Virginia Biotechnology Association, Visidyne, Inc., VisionCare Opthamalogic Technologies, Inc., Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association, Washington University, WaveRx, Inc. Wayne State University, Wescor, Inc., Weyerhaeuser, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), Wisconsin Biotechnology and Medical Device Association, Wyeth. And we know there are many, many people who have strong reservations, even by the wording of what we have heard from the other side of this debate, that there are people who have serious questions, even though they may not officially be in opposition. Well, if there are so many serious questions around that we have amendments like that of Mr. Pence and the other amendments that we've heard, we shouldn't be having this bill on this floor at this time, much less muzzling the opposition so we have only an hour to debate on the central issues of the bill. Instead, we have had to argue our case hamper-scamper here as opposition to the amendment to the bill only to get time to offer a few objections. That's not the way this system is supposed to work. And it's not supposed to work that we bring bills to the floor and ask Members to vote on it so that we can fix it later on. That should raise flags for everybody that there is something to fix in this bill. And the fact that this bill has been brought to the floor very quickly and that debate has been limited, that alone should cause people to want to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1908 and send it back to committee and see if we can have a bill that doesn't require Mr. Pence to be up here. And also this, before I yield to Ms. Kaptur: Yes, there are problems with the Patent Office, as has been described. Bad patents are being issued. This bill does nothing to cure that. What this bill does is use that as a cover to fundamentally change the rules of the game that are going to help those huge corporations that Ms. Kaptur talked about, as well as the overseas people who are waiting to steal our technology. We can correct those problems, and I would support that. You bring a bill to the floor that gives more money to the patent examiners, more training to the patent examiners, keeps the money that goes into the Patent Office there to improve the system, you're going to have lots of support. But don't use the imperfections of the Patent Office as an excuse to change the fundamental protections for American inventors. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is yet another example of why this overall bill should be defeated. The fact is that we shouldn't be changing the provision and permitting outside agencies and taking authority away from us from setting the basic ground rules about patents in the first place. This idea that, well, let me put it this way. This bill is so filled with this type of imperfection, and as we have had our guarantee from those people who brought this bill to the floor so precipitously, they will work really hard to make sure all the flaws are out. I would suggest that that statement alone should have all these red flags going up for all of us. And then the muting of the opposition and not permitting us an adequate amount of time to actually discuss the provisions of the bill and not giving us time to control our own opposition, again, should be the red flags for all of us who's listening to this debate. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Ms. Kaptur has made a really important observation here, and that is, at the end of the day, yeah, the Issa amendment does make some changes, but at the end of the day, there will be American patent applications in which the inventor would like to keep secret until he gets the patent issued to him, which will be published for all of the thieves in China and India and Japan and Korea and elsewhere who would like to have all of that information before the patent is issued. There will still be a significant number of patent applications published for the whole world to see, and the patent applicant doesn't want that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's note that there are several amendments that were not permitted by the Rules Committee. I did not submit amendments because those of us who have been following this bill realize it is fundamentally flawed. The purpose of the bill is to support those large corporations that Ms. Kaptur noted who are dramatically supporting the legislation. And it is being opposed, I might add, by a large number of universities, unions, pharmaceutical industries, biotech industries, et cetera, et cetera. So we have everybody except the electronics industry and the financial industry, who are already over in China making their profit at our expense, are opposed to the bill. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.