Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We pleaded and pleaded. Give us anything that will satisfy you that we have put the submarine patent issue to bed. We begged them, please give us that language. But, no, they would not. They would not touch it with a 10-foot pole because their purpose was not ending the submarine patent issue. We instead, I went to the gentleman from California [Tom Campbell], distinguished professor, man respected throughout this body for his legal knowledge, and he finally came up with the strongest patent, antisubmarine patent language that he could come up with. That is what was in the bill. We did that because we did not want people to destroy the fundamental patent system or protections that was a guaranteed 17- year patent system or patent in the name of getting at submarine patents. That is like cutting a leg off to get to a hangnail or destroying freedom of speech for everybody because there is some pornographer out there printing a pornographic magazine. No, we have taken care of the submarine patent issue. We have included that language.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, on this particular point, the antisubmarine patent language in our bill was the strongest language that we could possibly put into the bill. For 2 years I pleaded with the other side of this issue, to everyone on the other side, please give me the strongest language you can possibly give me, I will include it in the bill just so long as it does not eliminate and end the guaranteed patent term.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my office has been in contact with Clayton Yeutter about these changes that were mandated. I am sorry to say to the gentleman that the Reagan administration did not support the changes that are being sought in H.R. 400. What the gentleman is mistaking is the heads of the Patent Office, who were probably working for the Reagan administration and other administrations, those former heads of the Patent Office are now living on consulting fees and retired from the Government, and they can take whatever stand that they need to take.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, one other correction to the statement made by the gentleman from Virginia. He stated the Reagan administration sought these changes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, just a question of the gentleman. He mentioned patent flooding, a practice that happens in Japan, where the big guys surround the little guys and beat them down trying to steal their intellectual property rights. If we change our laws exactly like Japan's, to make it just like Japan's, which is harmonizing our law, which is the secret agreement, and I say secret agreement because I did not know anything about it as a Member of Congress. I was a Member of Congress at this time. Probably 1 out of 100 Members of Congress knew anything about this agreement with Japan. But if we harmonize our law with Japan, will that not mean that these same Japanese companies can come here and do in the United States to our little guys what they are doing to their people in Japan?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would challenge Members on the other side of this debate to spend their time and their 5 minutes explaining to the American people why what they are proposing directly parallels a secret agreement that we have made with Japan. They will have time on their side to answer that. The fact is that the driving force behind this, whether or not the members of the committee are themselves committed to this agreement, the driving force behind this has been to fulfill this agreement. How can you tell? Because there were two avenues to this agreement in harmonizing our law with Japan. There were two major factors that made American law different than the Japanese law. No. 1 was we had a guaranteed patent term, a guaranteed patent term which meant no matter how long it takes you to get your patent issued, at the end of that time period, would be guaranteed 17 years of patent protection and, No. 2, the other aspect of American patent law, since the founding of our country, was that there was a right of confidentiality. The inventor had a right, when he applied for a patent, that that would be kept secret and, yes, secret really meant something to those people and has meant a lot to our technological edge throughout the years. They had a right to that until the patent was issued. This legislation goes in exactly the opposite direction, changes the fundamental rules of the game to correspond with this agreement to harmonize our law with Japan. This is absolutely, the American people should understand that what we are doing is trading a strong system of protection that gave us the leverage on all our competitors in the world, gave us our own national security because we had the edge technologically on our adversaries, we are now changing that to a weak system. And where will that weak system take America? I would beg to disagree with my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I believe there are people who are out to destroy us economically. I believe there are other countries in the world and other forces at play in the world that would like very much to destroy America's economic prosperity and to put all of those billions of dollars in their pocket. I am assuming that they are adversaries. I am assuming that our Government should be doing everything we can to strengthen the rights of the American people to thwart those adversaries overseas that would steal their technology. This bill, H.R. 400, I implore my colleagues, please vote against this monstrous threat to American security and prosperity. Please remember that all the inventors organizations, research departments at our major universities, all the Nobel laureates that have been cited on this floor are begging us not to pass this bill. It will not in any way improve a situation that could not be improved with smaller type improvements and reforms. We do not need to destroy the fundamentals of the system to reform and make our system better. This is the equivalent, this bill, of cutting off our leg in order to cure a hangnail. If your doctor says, I am sorry, we have to change the fundamental makeup of your body in order to cure that hangnail and we are going to cut your leg off, go to another doctor. Please, let us not harmonize our law with Japan. God bless the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. Yes, it has worked maybe one way in Europe, but how this system has worked, 18 months with publication, how has it worked in Japan? The economic shoguns, the people, the elite of Japan have beaten down their people in submission every time they have raised their head. The Japanese do not invent anything because when an inventor applies for a patent in Japan, he is beaten down and his invention is stolen. They will do that to us, too.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's points were right on target. I hope my colleagues who are following this debate in their offices and those people following on C-SPAN and those people reading the Congressional Record will note that throughout the debate we have made reference to a subterranean agreement with Japan and have indicated that what we see here today we believe is nothing more than an attempt to implement this agreement, subterranean, hushed-up agreement with the Japanese to harmonize our law, make our law like theirs. And you will notice that that has never been addressed, nothing has been addressed by the other side of this debate to that charge. We make it over and over and over again. And I would like the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] to come forward now if he would like to have a colloquy and deny that this has something to do with implementing this secret agreement with Japan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But I have nothing but respect for the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. As I say, if one would examine our voting records, one would find that we vote together 90 percent of the time. Again, however, in this particular instance, I am in strong disagreement with my two colleagues. And I am happy that we are discussing publication, because I believe publication is the essential ingredient of H.R. 400. How one might determine this, whoever is listening from the outside or reading the Congressional Record or our colleagues listening from their offices, is that this bill was actually submitted to Congress during the last session. The bill was virtually the same bill, but it had a different title on the bill. The title of the bill in the last Congress was the Patent Publication Act. The reason it was called the Patent Publication Act is because the purpose of the bill, and the essential purpose, the essential thing that it accomplishes that could not be accomplished with other minor reforms, or actually things that could happen, reforms within the Patent Office itself, the publication is the thing that by necessity takes some congressional action. Why is publication bad? It is common sense. Those people who are listening, those people who are reading the Congressional Record, our colleagues who are listening at home, if one cannot understand the argument that was just presented to us of why publishing our secret information, information that by American tradition was kept absolutely confidential until the issuance of a patent, from the time our Constitution was adopted until after this bill passes and is signed into law, the law has been that an American has a right of confidentiality. If he has an invention and applies for a patent, no one will have the right to know about it until that patent is issued. This is a major divergence of American law in a fundamental area. We are talking about the law that has governed technological development in our country. It has served us well. America's competitors did not know what American inventors, innovators, and universities were doing until the patent was issued. This bill would mandate after 18 months that all of the information of an applicant would be made public even before the patent is issued. Sometimes patents take 5 and 10 years to issue. In that case, America's worst adversaries, people who want to destroy this country economically and bring us down, will have all of our technological secrets to use against us. The bill takes care of that, we are told, because it grants then, the innovator, the inventor, the right to sue these huge foreign and multinational corporations who might infringe upon us. That will not work. It does not fool the inventors. It is a formula for a catastrophe and the stealing of our technology to be used against us. I ask for people to vote no on H.R. 400.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. First of all, I would like to say that this has been a heated debate and it has been a bipartisan debate; and no one can really chart who is going to fall down on what side of this debate in terms of their party or whether they are conservative or liberal or what have you. I think that is healthy for this body. And I certainly never believed that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] would have personalized it the way the newspaper said it was. After all, it was a comment not about me but about my mother I seem to think. And I am sure that comment would not really have been something that would be characteristic of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who has always kept debates on a very high plain, even though sometimes being called Mr. Periscope is not always the nicest thing in the world, but I did not take offense at that either.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is fascinating that in H.R. 400, which we will vote on as an up-and-down vote at the end of this long debate and after our amendments are through, that all of the Nobel Laureates that have been cited on the floor have been in favor of a substitute to H.R. 400 and have opposed H.R. 400; the research departments of our major universities and colleges are opposed to H.R. 400; every inventors' organization in the country is opposed to H.R. 400; small businesses throughout our country are opposed to H.R. 400. They do not want to give huge, multinational, and foreign corporations every secret that they have been developing with their research and their efforts over the years, even before patents are granted to those who have applied for patents. This would make vulnerable small businessmen. It would make vulnerable our inventors. It would cut into what America has had as our edge against every one of our foreign adversaries both in terms of national security and in terms of our prosperity. I am asking my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.R. 400 but supporting the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] which would, hopefully, improve it one little bit.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] brought up Bruce Lehman, the head of our Patent Office. He is the one who actually made an agreement that has brought us all together today. It was his agreement with the Japanese, which I put into the Congressional Record on numerous occasions which the other side of this debate has yet to comment on, that has brought us together, because Mr. Lehman signed an agreement to harmonize American patent law with that of the Japanese. That is the reason we are here today. America had the strongest patent law in the world. That is the reason we had our great innovations that mankind has enjoyed over these last 200 years coming from the United States of America. This is an attempt, what is happening today, H.R. 400, to destroy the fundamental legal protections that have been part of our legal system since the adoption of our Constitution and in the name of harmonizing our law with that of Japan. Last week, when we had this discussion as to basically our substitute amendment, all of this, quote, reform was being done to stop submarine patenting, supposedly. Well, those who were listening realized that argument did not wash. Well, what was the real reason we have the bill here? Why is there a portion of this bill that demands that every American inventor will have to have his invention published for everybody in the world to see and to steal before that patent is issued? That is part of the bill because that is the way the Japanese system works. That is what we have agreed to in a subterranean agreement with the Japanese. This bill will gut America's patent system. It is horrendous. It will make us technologically inferior one generation from now. I ask my colleagues to defeat it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the reason I demonstrably stated and repeatedly stated at the end of the debate on the last amendment, that I had begged the other side for language to end the submarine patent problem, if Members remember, I said over and over again, I for 2 years pleaded with the other side of this issue, give me language that will end the submarine patent problem and I will put it into my bill, just so long as we do not use this problem as an excuse to destroy the fundamental protection of our patent system which has been the guaranteed patent term. I got nothing in return. I got no answer. To everyone I met I said, please give me the language. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] negotiated, hopefully in good faith, for over a year trying to find language that was acceptable. There was nothing acceptable to the other side except elimination of the guaranteed patent term. Finally the gentleman from California, Tom Campbell came forward and said, let us work together and find some really tough language on the submarine patent problem and we will put it into your bill, and no one will be able to complain. In fact, the Congressional Research Service looked at it and said, yes, the language you put in there is likely to end the submarine patent practice forever, just like H.R. 400 will. The difference between our approaches is, of course, we are not amputating the patient's leg in order to get to the hangnail. We are not destroying freedom of speech in the name of stopping a few pornographers. If someone was up here today arguing that we have to end the first amendment to the Constitution, we have to change the Bill of Rights, because there are going to be some people that take advantage of freedom of speech, and our bill is going to have the government check all the newspapers and everything that is published beforehand to take care of these submarine free speechers, the fact is, you would say, you are crazy. You are not going to touch the Constitution in order to get the bad guys. We can find out ways of regulating them and controlling the problem. No; instead, the other side has demanded we obliterate the protections that we have had in place since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in order to get at the submarine patent problem. I contend that this is a fig leaf that is being used to cover the implementation of an agreement that we made with Japan 4 years ago to harmonize our law with the Japanese law. That is why there was no compromise language. That is why there was nothing they could come back to me and say that, no, we do not have to have publication to solve the submarine patent problem, we can do something else here. I was open to all those other alternatives. No, because the purpose of the act is to put publication in our law, and the purpose of putting publication in our law is to implement a secret agreement, it was secret to me, and I was a Member of Congress, with the Japanese to harmonize our system. Why do we want to harmonize our law with Japanese law? In Japan, which we were talking about here before, they have flooded, and that means if the little guy invents something the big guys just make little changes in what his patent is all about, because now they know all the details because it has been published, and they surround the little guy and they beat the little guy into submission and take away his rights. That is why nobody ever invents anything in Japan. We are inviting these very same economic gangsters, economic shoguns, economic godfathers, you name them, whatever they are, the economic elite of Japan and China and all the rest of the countries who brutalize their own people because their people do not have legal protections, we are inviting those same elitists to come over here and brutalize our people because we are stripping away their protection in the name of submarine patents. Let me note that all the examples we have heard about submarine patents today have been examples from the 1960's and 1970's. The Patent Office in the early 1970's put in place, or late 1970's, excuse me, a system called the PALMS system. It has already taken care of the submarine patent problem. None of the examples they have given have taken place since the PALMS system was put into place. Furthermore, our legislation, which we have been trying to offer, rather than destroying the rights of the American people, will, according to the Congressional Research Service, end the practice of submarine patenting. Please, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, the little guy, the Roscoe Bartletts of this country, the small businessmen, our universities and research departments are begging us, please, do not publish the secret information that they have been developing before they get their patent. They know it is going to be stolen. They know they will not have the wherewithal to sue Mitsubishi Corp. or the People's Liberation Army in China that would steal their technologies. Please oppose H.R. 400 and support the Kaptur amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today, H.R. 400 comes before the House of Representatives for amendment and for an up and down vote. I call H.R. 400 the Steal American Technologies Act, so it is a good thing that we have discussed this bill on Science and Technology Week. The fact is H.R. 400 would change the fundamental protections that have been in place guarding America's technological secrets and our innovation since the founding of our Republic. It changes these fundamental protections. It guts the patent system. H.R. 400 would mandate that all of our technological secrets be published so our worst enemies will be able to use our innovations and technologies against us even before our patents are issued. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating H.R. 400, which is a Pearl Harbor attack on America's technological lead. Future generations of Americans will suffer if we let this dismal, this terrible bill through. I would ask my colleagues to join me in defeating H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control the time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. We knew we would hear a lot of talk about submarine patenting because there has to be some excuse that people would use in order to justify gutting the American patent system that has been in place for 225 years, there has to be some excuse for these fundamental changes. What we got is what is called in debate school as the scarecrow argument. We just create a scarecrow there and we fill it full of hay and we claim that that is a real big threat. Submarine patents, there is some problem. It is a minor problem I believe. The opposition claims it is a major problem. In fact, however, my colleagues have not used one example of any submarine patent since the late 1970's. And I might add, in the 1970's, there was a system established in the Patent Office called the palm system; and it was established specifically to prevent people from delaying their patent intentionally, in other words, to deal with the submarine patent system issue. Since that time there has not been any example, and that has been instituted already, there has not been one example of any submarine patent since the palm system was instituted in the Patent Office. Now we are being told submarine patents are so bad that we have to destroy the current patent system, we have got to corporatize our patent office, taking patent examiners that are basically insulated from outside influences, and we got to corporatize that office, and who knows what type of outside influences are going to be brought to bear in this new system? We do not know. All we have got is the word of our friends. It does not say in our bill that they are going to be able to be any outside influences. Well, thanks. There are a lot of unintended consequences when one makes such radical changes as this. But, of course, the radical change is really necessary. It is the only way to deal with a submarine patent issue. Well that is just not the case, my colleagues. The only way to deal with a hangnail is not to amputate the leg. The way to deal with magazines, obscene magazines, is not to destroy freedom of speech or freedom to publish and freedom of the press for everybody in the country. There are ways we deal with it legally that can bring the law to bear. My bill did that, and for 2 years I have been begging all of my colleagues and begging every organization that came to see me about patent law, give me the language of how we can stop submarine patenting and I will put it in my bill as long as it does not destroy the guaranteed patent term. And do my colleagues know what? We put the very strongest language we could. Now we can read portions of anything and try to make it sound like it does not cover it, but the fact is we put in the strongest language we could. I in fact had the No. 1, one of the No. 1, legal minds in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from California [Tom Campbell] who represents Silicon Valley, to consult with me and say, come up with the language that we can once and for all end submarine patenting but does not destroy the guaranteed patent term. We put that into my substitute, and guess what? It is not a sham. It may be a sham to the opposition who wants to destroy the patent system as we know it today, but it is not a sham to people who have an independent look at what we put in the substitute, the people independently who have no axe to grind who looked at my bill said that my bill and their bill would effectively end submarine patenting, say that Congressional Research Service has basically decided that that day they did their very best job to analyze it. They do not have an axe to grind. We are going to end submarine patenting. Oh, no. Now we cannot accept that. That is just a sham. It is a sham when somebody who is independent makes that analysis. Why is that a sham? Because that is the only excuse people have for the radical changes that they are proposing for the Patent Office. They are proposing that we make fundamental changes in the technological legal system that protected technological development in the United States of America. In the past that system provided the United States of America with the highest standard of living, with a technological edge that kept us prosperous, kept us free, kept us secure, and of course these multinational corporations which they have lists of many, and many of them have been active out in hither and yon, trying to support proposition--H.R. 400 I should say--that these corporations do have an axe to grind as well. They are going to make a big profit if they can get all the secrets from the little guy after 18 months. My job was to try to put together a bill that ended submarine patenting because I knew it would come up as an issue. We did our very best. Tom Campbell and I did our very, very best. The Congressional Research Service said we succeeded. So that issue should be out of the way. So what excuse do my colleagues have of having this radical reform? What excuse do my colleagues have? Mr. Chairman, what other excuse is there for exposing? As my colleagues know, it is very easy for the American people to understand what is happening here. As my colleagues know, the fog that comes off the Potomac may blind some of the Members who come here to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives but it certainly does not blind the people back at home. The fundamental issue we are deciding today, I put all of the good stuff that is in H.R. 400, all the real reforms into my substitute, we have ended submarine patenting. The real issue is what? There are two fundamenatal issues-- publication, publication--and that issue is very easy for people to understand. The American people know that before--throughout our country's history, if someone applied for a patent, that Goddard from the Goddard Rocket Center who developed rocket fuel, that was secret, and the Germans then could not get ahold of it, see, because it was secret and our competitors cannot get ahold of things. People who hate America cannot get that information because it has been secret. They want to change that. They want our worst enemies to have all of our secrets and to be able to use them against us. They say, ``Ah, but we have taken care so that if somebody does steal that, we'll show you a way to deal with that. We're going to let you sue them.'' My colleagues, 10 years later or 5 years later when the patent is issued, they now are given the right by this H.R. 400 to sue the People's Liberation Army in China if they decide to manufacture things and use them against us that violate our patent laws. Mitsubishi Corp., Sony, name it, all these huge corporations overseas, even our own corporations, do my colleagues think that really is going to deter anybody from stealing--any of these gangsters from stealing--our technology and using it against us? This is an invitation, it is an invitation to steal American technology. I have heard nothing in this debate, nothing in this debate that has changed my mind, nor have I heard nothing in this debate that has convinced me that my rhetoric has been out of line, and I think the American people are listening really hard, and when they see these maneuvers like saying it virtually exempts small business, and then during colloquies understand that, well, no they really are not exempt, people understand that there is a power play going on in Washington, DC. It is a power play that will not work to the benefit of the people of the United States. It changes the fundamental rules and rights and freedoms that we have had for 225 years that have served us well. The patent owners, the people who have--the inventors, the Nobel laureates, the great creators of our society, are against H.R. 400 and for the Rohrabacher substitute. There is a reason for that. The big corporations, the multinational corporations that use technology and also have all sorts of connections overseas, I might add; yes, they are opposed to the Rohrabacher substitute and support H.R. 400. There is a reason for that too. So it comes down to corporatization; do we want to change the fundamental system that has been set up that makes these decisions as to who owns what, making our patent examiners, as my colleagues know, open to who knows what kind of pressures? And do we want to publish all of our secrets in exchange for the right of our citizens to sue some huge multinational corporation years later, years later once they get their patent? No, that is not a good deal. I do not think the American people think it is a good deal, and I do not think the American people are fooled by the argument that we got to cut our leg off in order to cure the submarine patent infected toe. They are not buying that, they are not buying that at all, and I would suggest that we have a system that served us well, we should not rush into these dramatic changes to harmonize our law with Japan. What is pushing this all along is an agreement that was made with Japan, and I have held it up several times right here, to harmonize American patent law with Japan. We do not want to be like them. We want to have rights that are protected.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Silicon Valley area of California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what the House is now considering is the Rohrabacher substitute. The Rohrabacher substitute has taken on many shapes and designs over these last few weeks, because we have tried our best to incorporate the very best aspects of H.R. 400 into our substitute. All of the good reforms that have been worked out by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and others on the committee have been incorporated into my substitute. In fact, where we keep the fees of the Patent Office right there at the Patent Office so that people can make that Office more effective, we have done that. And we have made sure that all the hard work of this committee has not gone for naught. In fact, I would like to compliment Mr. Coble and I would like to say at this time that I have nothing but respect for the opposition here. Mr. Coble and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others who, right now, we have such a heated debate going on, we have a great deal of mutual respect for one another. I have no doubt that their motives are good. It is just that we have a really fundamental disagreement on this piece of legislation, and we will likely be the best of allies 1 week from now on another piece of legislation. So with that said, let me go into the fundamentals of how we differ on this. It comes down to three or four basic points. Unfortunately, those basic points are right at the heart of what America's patent system is all about. What has differentiated us from other patent systems of the world, why we have had some economic progress here, why has our military been secure and actually one step ahead of our adversaries when we went into conflicts? Because we have a strong patent system that nurtured the creative genius of our people. The two elements of that patent system that differentiated us from the Japanese and from the Europeans was a guaranteed 17-year patent term, which means no matter how long it takes you to get your patent issued, you are going to have that 17 years of a guaranteed protection time to earn that money back and to make a profit from it. That is why we have so many people willing to invest here in the United States in the creation of new technology. Otherwise, the Government would have to do it because there would be no guaranteed time that we could have a return on our investment. The second end of it, the second part of our system was that when someone applied for a patent, it was absolutely confidential, the right of confidentiality until that patent was issued. What that did is it prevented the big guys from stealing from the little guys. In Japan, where they have the system that I am afraid H.R. 400 is trying to impose on us, that system has worked to create a class of economic shoguns that beat down the average person, that over in Japan, where it may be a democracy but it is not a free country like ours in the sense that people have a right to challenge the economic elite, the economic elite in those countries can beat down any inventor who wants to create something. In Japan that system permits, where you have, after 18 months, you have publication, the reason why the economic powers that be have sufficient leverage, they come immediately into the process when they find out that someone is developing a new technology, something that will create new wealth, and they have what they call patent flooding. They will form a circle around the little inventor and the little guy, the small businessman, and beat him down until he has agreed to give up all of his rights. That is what will happen right here if we change our law. They can come right over to our system and do exactly the same thing. What makes us think they will not do that? That is what has happened there. In fact, that is one of probably the worst flaws of H.R. 400, because now we are publishing. What are the consequences of that publishing? Very wealthy and powerful interests will get involved in the process where they have not done it before to try to thwart the issuance of that person's patent until he would agree to give up certain rights. This is not the formula for a strong America. This is an escalator clause for America going downhill. Twenty years from now Americans will not know what hit them. It is Pearl Harbor in slow motion. I will say, I have a copy and I have held it up several times. The reason why we are pushing on this, and you have heard it in the debate, we have to be like those other countries, we should not be like other countries, but yet we signed an agreement, a subterranean agreement 5 years ago to harmonize our law with Japan. Now they are seeking to try to push it through the system like when they tried to sneak that change through in the GATT implementation legislation. We are going to thwart this power grab. We are going to thwart it, and we are going to make sure in doing so we protect America's future. If we lose our technological edge, if the individual inventor loses his rights and becomes vulnerable to these outside influences, if our patent examiners become vulnerable to all sorts of interferences and outside influences, America will cease to be a great country in decades ahead, and they will never know what hit them. It will be Pearl Harbor in slow motion, and we are going to stop that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].