Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. If a Member is referred to by name on the floor and a question is asked, is it out of order for the Member then to ask if the person wants an answer to the point?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, no. I would say the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] have not in any way met my concerns and, in fact, have raised more concerns the more I look into the legislation. In fact, if the gentleman will notice from the universities that are in his district, none of them, none of them support H.R. 400. Had the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] actually gone and moved forward, trying to take those concerns that we all had last year into consideration, they would be here. Instead, the central issue, and the central issue which remains, as everyone can see, is whether or not our information that we have developed during a research and development process, so important to our colleges and universities, whether or not that information is going to be forcibly published so that everyone else in the world will be able to steal it.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is, after all, the ultimate bipartisan issue that we have been discussing today, and who supports the little guy. That is what we are trying to do with the Rohrabacher substitute. Most people know there are a lot of conservative Republicans who have spoken today, and the gentlewoman has been here as well. Are there not many people on the gentlewoman's side of the aisle who are very concerned about this? Perhaps the gentlewoman would like to talk about some of the others who are supporting the Rohrabacher substitute, because I am proud to have many, many, liberal Democrats on our side protecting the little guy.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the debate on submarine patenting has calmed down a bit, seeing the fact that we have stated over and over and over again, and used the Congressional Research Service finding, to prove beyond anyone's reasonable doubt that we have taken care of any potential submarine patenting problem. I have with me the Congressional Research Service report that says that our alternative, basically the Rohrabacher substitute, will end the practice of submarine patenting. So that is the only substantial argument that the other side has to say that we should fundamentally change our patent system. They are proposing, in the name of stopping submarine patenting, because it is the only way to stop it is to change the fundamental law that has protected American technology for 225 years. No, I have an alternative. The alternative was found by an independent reading by the Congressional Research Service to end submarine patenting. So what do we have? We have a proposal here to gut fundamental protections for American inventors, giving our technology away in order to end the submarine patenting problem, which we say we found another way to solve. No, we do not have to cut our leg off in order to cure a hangnail or an infected toe. We do not have to destroy all freedom of speech because someone wants to publish Hustler magazine. In this particular case, people are moving forward to change the fundamentals, the fundamentals in our system that have served our country well, that have made us the leader in technology and ensured our people the highest standard of living, ensured our country the security we have because we have had the technological edge. We have had the technological edge because the fundamentals have been right. This bill would change those fundamentals. One fundamental is a guaranteed patent term of 17 years. Their bill would go along with the elimination of that which took place 3 years ago when someone, in an underhanded maneuver, snuck that change into the GATT implementation legislation, although it was not required by GATT; the most underhanded move that I have seen since I have been here in Congress. Our bill would restore that guaranteed 17-year patent term that has served America well for 225 years. The second element that my substitute restores and guarantees, the confidentiality; the right of our citizens, that when they apply for a patent, that until that patent is issued it is going to be secret. We are not going to give away all the secrets to foreign multinational corporations to steal until the patent is issued. What do we hear here? We have effectively exempted small business. We can put that argument to rest, too. What does ``effectively'' mean? We know what that means. That is a weasel word. The public knows what it means, too. It means that someone is trying to project that a change has happened and the change has not happened. That is what effectively means. No, small business has not been exempt, individuals have not been exempt. As the gentleman from California, Mr. Tom Campbell, brought out with his colloquy, no; they are not. They are still going to be published. The whole world will see every one of our secrets. Please do not tell us that the Chinese Liberation Army is going to be deterred from using our secrets, going into manufacturing, making profit from those secrets, using those secrets in their technology against us, and then 5 years later or 10 years later, when the inventor is finally issued the patent, he gets to sue the Peoples Liberation Army? They have taken care of the problem? That is a joke, and it is a sick joke that opens up all of our people to the worst kind of theft. Yes, the Chinese Army, I can hear them now, or Mitsubishi Corp: ``I am using your technology? So, sue me.'' Yes, great. That is going to really protect our people and protect our country. This is an escalator down for our leadership in American technology. By the way, something else I have heard today, yes, we have heard today that they have taken the provision out that permits this new corporatized Patent Office, where the Patent Office is part of the Government, making it a corporate entity; but they did manage to take out that part that says this corporate organization can accept gifts. Why? Because the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] has explained, because they were permitted to accept gifts anyway. But what was not explained was that yes, they are able to accept gifts like anybody else, but this bill waives restrictions, because now it is a corporate entity, and they will not have the same restrictions that other Government agencies have when they accept gifts. The GSA, the Commerce Department are no longer going to be in control of how those gifts are used. So what we have got is a Patent Office that can accept foreign gifts, and the controls over how those gifts are used are being taken away.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the patent examiners who work so hard in this country, these are people who make decisions that are worth billions and billions of dollars and whether our country will enjoy them, who will benefit from them, these patent examiners work hard and they have been totally insulated from outside influences because they have been part of the U.S. Government. They are opposed to H.R. 400. They are pleading with us, do not do this to us, because they have no idea what outside influences will come to play. No one knows. We change something so fundamentally as making it a corporate structure rather than part of our Government, who knows what pressures will be put on these stalwart Government employees who are trying to do their job. Finally let me say, my substitute has taken everything that has been done that is of benefit, that is a good thing for America out of the work of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and out of H.R. 400, and we have incorporated it into the substitute. What we do not have is the publication that will make available to everyone to steal our technology after 18 months. We do not have the corporatization that will open up our patent examiners to outside influences, and what we do is we protect the fundamental system of American patent law that has made America the greatest country in the world. That is why we have so many Nobel laureates and all the Nobel laureates are on our side. Do not be fooled with the idea that you to have cut your leg off to cure the hangnail of submarine patenting. We need to protect this American system that has done so much wonder for our people and created such a wondrous land. Those people in the small businesses, those Nobel laureates, those inventors, they are on our side. The big corporations are on the other side, and they put a lot of pressure on the universities and a lot of pressure on other people. But we still have a democracy. The people still rule here. This bill protects the fundamental rights of Americans. That is why we do not want to harmonize with Japan. We do not want to harmonize with Europe. We want to have a better system where the individual rights of our citizens are protected.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, these are my concluding remarks. I would like first of all to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the other Members who have put up with me for the last months in my opposition, and I happen to have very strong beliefs about this. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for putting up with me. The bottom line is, when you have strong disagreements in this democratic body, sometimes people get mad at one another, but the fact is we are all friends. We will be working on other issues and working together, and we are all people of integrity. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], and of course, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], who has been so articulate as well. A lot of Members have put a lot of time and effort into this because this is a really important issue. It is something that will make the difference in the future of our country. We all believe that. Twenty years from now America will be a different kind of place because of the decision we are making today. We are trying today to make a decision as to whether or not we will fundamentally veer from the system that has protected the technological development of the United States of America for 225 years, a system that has assured the American people of the highest standard of living, the greatest degree of freedom and security for our country of any system in the world. We do not want to be like the Japanese. We do not want to harmonize our law to a Japanese model. We do not want the European model. People came here because this is where people's individual rights were protected. Again, what has been our rights, our rights have been we can invent and it will be kept confidential, our patent application, until that patent is issued and we own that technology. It has protected us. That has been such an important part of the development of technology in our country. Now it is just being cast away saying, we will exchange it for a system where you can sue somebody if they steel it from you. That somebody may be a huge corporation in Japan or China, but then that will replace it with that system. That is no protection at all. I ask my colleagues to support my substitute. We have included the good stuff and left out the bad stuff.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, one of the only inventors in the U.S. Congress, who is also a professor, a technologist, who shares the Committee on Science with me.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Just so my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, will understand, if I could quote from the report here, the Congressional Research Service, it says, yes, it does, as he stated, both bills seek, and it did, said seek to curtail, but you did not finish the sentence, and would likely end the practice. So I mean this is very similar to what we have heard in other parts of the debate where something will effectively permit small business and the little guy to be exempted, but ``effectively'' is not really an accurate description. The Congressional Research Service, which is an independent body, and people who do not have an ax to grind, have determined, and I have gone out of my way, and my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] has gone out of his way, to put the strongest language we could in, and an independent body is agreeing with us, that we would likely end the practice. We have done our very best. This fig leaf could not be used to justify radical changes in our system. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, I am sorry I was not.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thought the gentleman from Michigan was asking me a question. I am sorry.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] who represents the Silicon Valley area. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the day has finally come, and I rise in support of the rule and in opposition to H.R. 400. I know a lot of people may vote in favor of my substitute to H.R. 400 just to shut me up and to keep me from giving all these special orders all the time, but the day has finally come when we will have a head-to-head discussion on the issue of what the patent law of the United States of America should be, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions over the last few months, that the bill that was being crafted and, yes, the bill that finally went through the system is taking America in exactly the wrong direction. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has had essentially the same patent protections, the strongest patent system in the world up until this date, and if this vote passes today on H.R. 400, America's patent system will be gutted, that is gutted, and we will hear during this debate that they are doing it simply to get out a thing called the submarine patent. Let me note this: That is very similar by saying the only way we are going to be able to handle Hustler magazine is to destroy all freedom of speech in the United States or the equivalent of saying, ``You have a hangnail that might be infected, and the only way to cure it is to cut off your leg,'' and that is not the case. The Congressional Research Service states that my substitute bill to H.R. 400 will eliminate the practice of submarine patenting. It never was necessary to cut one's leg off to handle the hangnail. What we have here is an attempt to use a small problem which can be cured in other ways, the submarine patent problem, as an excuse to gut the strongest patent system in the world. The essential ingredient, we have offered to compromise time and time again with those people who are supporting H.R. 400, but they came back and were unwilling to compromise on the essential point, which was our country believes that, until a patent is issued, that the patent applicant has a right of confidentiality. This bill as it is written, and it has not changed, they have not exempted any of the small business they claim to have exempted; this bill would mandate that all of our secrets, every one of our secrets that would be held confidential under the current system under what they are proposing is a system that will publish them after 18 months for the world to see. Everyone can understand that. Mr. Speaker, that is why the American people have risen up and called their Member of Congress to say we do not want to make America's technology vulnerable to foreign theft and the theft from huge corporations domestically. This, after asking for compromise for 2 years, we have not been able to compromise on this point because that is what the purpose of this bill is. H.R. 400, when it was introduced last session, was called the Patent Publication Act. So all of the other wonderful things that we hear about this bill we have accepted in the substitute. I will be offering in the substitute almost all the wonderful things that we will hear, but the disagreement, the fundamental disagreement, is, No. 1, should we basically gut the patent system by corporatizing the Patent Office and taking it out of the U.S. Government, making it a corporate entity, taking our patent examiners, making them vulnerable to outside influences, No. 1; and No. 2, should we publish the information about our inventors' patent applications even before the patent is granted? If we succeed today or if the other side succeeds today, foreign corporations, whether in China or Japan or elsewhere, will be able to steal this information, use it, go into production, but those proponents say: But we give them the right to sue once the patent is issued. Mr. and Mrs. America has to decide on that. Is this really an option if the People's Liberation Army is manufacturing some technology developed here and 4 or 5 years later the patent is issued giving the person who owns the patent the right to sue the People's Liberation Army 5 years later? Is that really recourse? This is setting up, this is a set up for the biggest ripoff of technology in the history of the United States. Our most important ideas will be stolen from us by our worst adversaries and used against us; and when the court action comes up, what is going to happen? When the court action comes up, they will be using the money for manufacturing with stolen technology to defeat our people in court. I ask my colleagues to support the rule, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, and to support the Rohrabacher substitute.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] very much for the courtesy of being able to participate in this debate as it goes along. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, it should be apparent by now that there are some fundamental issues at play here between two people over a disagreement, an honest disagreement. Let me note this: that everything that has been said that is good about H.R. 400 has been included in my alternative bill which will be offered as a substitute on the floor. What we have now are several issues that differentiate us, and one is, of course, after 18 months all of our technological information will be made public to the world. Why is this? Why are they insisting on publication? They say it is to handle the submarine patent issue, although we have already solved that according to the Congressional Research Service. It is because there has been an agreement made with Japan that I have put in the Congressional Record, time and time again, to harmonize our law; in other words, make American law like Japan's. Mr. Chairman, if our colleagues listen very carefully to the arguments we have heard today that is what is being said. We have got to have a law like they have in Japan and in Europe. How has it worked in Japan? The little guy gets kicked and smothered and beaten down. We do not want a system like that here.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1 minute. So we have heard the submarine patent, that is the reason why we have to change the fundamental patent law of the United States that has been in place, the protections have been in place since the founding of our country. This is the equivalent of saying that because Hustler magazine is out, we have got to eliminate freedom of speech and totally restructure the civil liberties concerning freedom of speech in our country. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is like saying, you got a hang nail, thus you got to amputate your whole leg in order to solve that problem. No, the submarine patent issue is not the issue here. I put it into my substitute, I have been willing to end this problem all along. Congressional Research Service has found, has a finding, that my substitute ends the practice of submarine patenting. This is being used as a fig leaf to cover one of the most grotesque power grabs in the history of this country. Little Roscoe Bartlett, the Roscoe Bartlett's out there who discovered the wonderful things that change our lives, are being put at risk. It was very simple. We heard him say they are going to publish everything that he does so that everybody in the world can steal it and then say, ``Sue them,'' to get it back.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Rosco Bartlett], one Member of Congress who has 20 patents to his name and who can speak with expertise on the issue of patents.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission from the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] if I can claim the 7\1/2\ minutes and yield it to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] if she does show up here for the debate.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] was probably not informed of the agreement.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, or point of information. Mr. Chairman, when someone yields a 7\1/2\-minute segment during a debate like this, it is possible for us to have an interchange so that the whole 7\1/2\ minutes is not used up at one moment, is it not, so that we can actually have an exchange of ideas rather than just having one person express their point of view and having the rest of the time being used to refute those arguments?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Point of information, Mr. Speaker.