Dana Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I have submitted to Congress legislation which will restore to the American people the patent rights that have been protected by law in our country since the ratification of our Constitution. Now, I say restore to the American people because unbeknownst to our population, and I might say unbeknownst to many Members of Congress, over these last few years our patent rights have been under attack and that attack has already greatly diminished the patent protection, the rights that our people have had in the area of intellectual property rights for their inventions, to control their products and their genius, the protection they have had since the founding of our country. This has been, already, as I say, let me repeat, greatly diminished. To be specific, we as a people have already lost our right to a guaranteed patent term. Now, that may sound a bit innocuous, because most Americans do not know what I am talking about. A guaranteed patent term? Yes, Americans, from the founding of our country until just 2 years ago, had a right to a guaranteed term where they would control and own their inventions. Every generation of Americans has been confident that no matter how long after filing for a patent, no matter how long it took the patent to be issued, the owner of the patent, once it was issued, would have a guaranteed term of 17 years of ownership from which to benefit from his or her invention. Now, this may seem a bit obscure, it may seem a bit innocuous in terms of why would someone be so concerned about this little part of the law? Well, American investors and American inventors have had, since our country's founding, the strongest protection of any people of the world. That counts for something. And it does not just count for the well-being of inventors and investors. Now, some people believe the American miracle is a result of the vast resources of the United States of America. They look at our oil and our gold and our minerals and our lakes and our streams, and they look at the trees, and they look at all of the vast expanses of territory and say that must be the basis of America's well-being, of its economic strength. Well, that is not the basis of our strength. What has given us a higher standard of living and produced a country where opportunity has been unlimited compared to other countries of the world is that we produced more wealth than other societies. Thus, the wealth that we produced pushed up the standard of living of the average person and opened doors of opportunity never seen or even dreamed of before in other countries. We produced more wealth not because we worked harder. It is almost a cliche to say that Americans work very hard. Well, I know many people around the world who work very hard, and I know many nations around the world who worked very hard throughout history and that got nowhere. Their people did not benefit or profit. It was not an uplifting of the human experience for them to work hard. Our people worked hard but it was coupled with two things: It was coupled with freedom, which was vitally important, but it was also coupled with the fact that the United States was always on the cutting edge of technology. The work of our people was magnified over and over again by the fact that our people were using the best and the latest equipment and technology to get their job done, which made our people more productive and more competitive than the vast numbers of people and the huge multitude of populations throughout the world who worked just as hard and had just as much muscle and got up in the morning perhaps even earlier than Americans. But that their labor was not magnified by the technology that produced much more wealth per hour worked. Our Founding Fathers believed in this. They understood it. In fact, they made sure that it was written into our Constitution. And the laws that we passed concerning the ownership of technology was based on the idea that if we encourage people to own the things that they developed, that more things would be invented here and that the lifestyle of our people would be improved by the genius of our people because people would seek to create new inventions that would build the wealth and raise the standard of living. We know that. We are very proud of that as Americans. In fact, one of the things Americans are most proud of is the fact that we were the people who invented some of the most important inventions in the history of mankind. Samuel Morris, who invented the telegraph; Robert Fulton. These were not rich people who just managed to buy their way into some invention. They were common ordinary people that invented things that changed the world forever. Thomas Edison. Here I sit under electric lights and I wonder what this body must have done before there was electricity; how we were able to function without electricity. Certainly how can we have a democracy when we do not have the radio technology or the television technology or the printing technology that permits the huge number of citizens to participate in their open government? Alexander Graham Bell; another person who came from great adversity in order to invent something that changed the face of the planet and has magnified the amount of wealth available to the common man beyond anything that was ever believed before. The Wright brothers. The Wrights' first flight down in North Carolina, which I recently visited. These two young men who worked in a bicycle shop, whose education was limited but whose imagination and tenacity and intelligence was superior. They pushed and they pushed, and they knew that if they had their invention, if they could conquer the secrets that would lead mankind to flight, they would own that technology for 17 years. They knew it would be their property. That is the same with all the inventors I just mentioned. Our technology laws brought us through cold wars and hot wars, it brought us through times of great peril and it brought us through times of great development in our Nation. We were the most undeveloped nation of the world and we became an industrial power, and also a power in which economic activity was so diversified and spread throughout the population that all people of all backgrounds were able to have opportunities that were never dreamed of, as I say, in other countries. This was a result of our laws. It did not just happen. It did not just happen. It happened because we had the strongest patent protection of any country of the world and, thus, we benefited more than any country of the world from the development of new technology and new inventions. Well, 3 years ago, I sadly say, a plan was put into motion to change that fundamental protection that Americans enjoyed for so long. The American inventor and the American investor, who before were certain that they would have a guaranteed patent term no matter how long it took them once they had applied for the patent, no matter how long it took them to get that through the patent process after they had filed, and Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison fought for decades at times to try to get their patents through, they knew at the end of that time there would be 17 years in which they would own their technology and be able to benefit from it. Thus, the investors were able to come through with the money that was necessary to do the work and the research necessary to change the condition of mankind. In its little way the electric light, what a little way, it changed mankind. Just that little electric light changed all of humankind forever. That did not just happen. It took people to invest in research facilities and to pay salaries and to make sure the job got done. But they knew if they invested they would have 17 years of guaranteed patent protection to get that money back. Already, as I have stated, that right has been eliminated and, actually, the patent protection offered by the law has been significantly diminished. The American people do not even know that. The guaranteed patent term, was quietly, almost secretly replaced by an uncertain patent term. Now, what is this uncertain patent term? It looks very innocuous. What it says is 20 years from filing, when you file, 20 years later you have no more patent protection. What that means is if it takes you 10 or 15 years to get your patent, which has been the case with major breakthrough technologies, well, you just do not have any time left. You do not benefit at all. That was a tremendous change in our fundamental patent law, our fundamental law of ownership of technology. As we enter an era of technology and ideas and global competition, we have changed that fundamental law that guided us through. Why did we do that? How did they do that? That law was changed by putting in a small provision into the GATT implementation legislation that most of the Members of this Congress did not know was in that legislation. This fundamental change in our law that is so important to the development of technology that will keep America strong, so our people can have a higher standard of living and can beat the foreign competition, that was just changed. It was put in there in the GATT implementation legislation. This Congressman struggled to find out if it would be included and was not told, it was kept secret from me until the last minutes before the GATT was sent to this body as to whether or not they were going to include this provision. Interestingly enough, the provision I am talking about was not required by GATT. To let someone know what GATT is, GATT is called the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. What it was was an agreement negotiated over a number of years between the countries of the world in which they generally agreed to what the rules of the game of trading would be. Our Congress decided that we would give what we call fast track authority to our Federal Government, to the President, to negotiate with these other countries and fast track means that he can come back and present us one piece of legislation that encompassed all the understandings that they reached with the GATT implementation, or with the GATT agreement. So this General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs could be presented to us in one package and we would vote up or we would vote down on that one package. We gave away our rights to amend and to question this bill in parts in exchange for an agreement that we would have 50 days to look at the bill and that the only thing that would be put into this implementation legislation would be that which was required by GATT itself. So if the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff did not include the provision, it was not to be put in. That was part of our agreement with the administration. Well, I am here to say today that this body, this Congress, was betrayed by the executive branch and this provision, which was not required by the GATT agreements, by the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, it did not require this provision. This provision was quietly put into place in hopes that it would just flow right on by and the American inventor and investor and, in the long run, the American people would never know what hit them. Furthermore, of course, if you remember, the GATT implementation legislation was given us just like a few days before we were to adjourn. We would not even have the 50 days that were required of us, and we raised such a stink that a special session was called for us to vote on GATT. It was a lame duck session. But even then it was admitted to me that this provision was not required, but that if I agreed to just go along with it, if our people would vote for it, that they would have a chance to correct it later on. So our right of a guaranteed patent term has already been eliminated. It has been eliminated. It is gone. It is replaced by this 20 years from filing, which means you have no guaranteed term and if it takes you 10 years to get your patent or 15 years, so what. And basically it is gone. It has happened. Why am I bringing it up, then, if it has already happened? We are bringing it up because we are trying to restore that right to the American people and that is part of the legislation I have introduced today. But one might ask themselves, why is it that that law was changed in the first place? Who was behind this? What motivated people to want to change this guaranteed patent or eliminate it when it had done so much to benefit the American people? When as the greatest innovators and inventors in the world, we had so much to be proud of and that has to have something to do with our patent laws, who would want to change the law then? Who the heck would make this effort to sort of maneuver this thing through the system like that? I am submitting for the Record a copy of an agreement that I have in my hands. It is a copy of an agreement between Bruce Lehman, who was the head of the American Patent Office, and his Japanese counterpart, in which Bruce Lehman agrees to, quote, harmonize, end of quote, American law with that of Japan. This is dated 3 years ago. He is going to harmonize American law with Japan. Well, let us look at what harmonize means. If we have the strongest patent protection of the world, which is what gave us the strength to outcompete our opposition, and Japan had a weaker system, do you think that I would be up here today if the agreement was being implemented by bringing the Japanese system and making it stronger protection for their citizens, so that Japan now had stronger protection for their own citizens? I would not be complaining about that. Why I am here today is because Bruce Lehman, the head of our Patent Office, and those people he has mobilized in the American Government and those people who are lobbying this bill, this issue, through the United States Congress have decided that harmonization of patent law means that the strongest patent protection of the world, of the United States of America, will be harmonized by bringing it down to the level of Japan. Does that not make everyone feel nice and comfy, that our rights now are going to be diminished in order to make them the same as the Japanese? The Japanese of course are well-known for their creativity. They are well-known for all of their inventions. They are well-known for the innovations that have made their country the leader, in which everyone wants to copy. What? What? No way. The Japanese are known, yes, as hard-working people. The Japanese are known basically as honest people. But they are not innovators. They are not inventors. They are not creative thinkers. In fact, they are just the opposite. They are people who do not invent things. They are people who copy things. One of the reasons why they copy things and they do not invent things in Japan is because they have had a patent system which is like the one that we now have had foisted upon us. They have had the 20 years. What it is, they have a system that the inventor files and after 20 years the inventor no longer has any more property rights. No matter if it takes 15 or 18 years to get something through the system, the inventor, he or she, could lose all of their patent rights, but after 20 years they have got no more rights, in total contradiction and contrary to the American system which has been a guaranteed patent term of 17 years. So in Japan, how has it served their people? If someone comes up with a new idea, they file for a patent, and within a short period of time they are surrounded by powerful economic interests who beat them into submission and destroy their incentive to invent and take away what they have created and use it for their own benefit. These economic thugs in Japan will not countenance any type of threat by some creative inventor. In the United States we herald our creative thinkers. We think they are wonderful. We understand the value they are to our society. Now, we have changed our system to replicate that of Japan. What is going on here? And especially you must think about what is going on here when you realize by changing our law, we are permitting those same economic thugs in Japan to do the same thing to American inventors that they have been doing to their own people. This is an absolute outrage. Yet it has happened very quietly. Not many people have noticed. You might say it is a Pearl Harbor in slow motion. Years from now, people will not even know why the United States seems to be lagging behind when we were always up front. No, that is not what we are going to let happen. The bill I dropped today will, first and foremost, restore to the United States and to the people of the United States a guaranteed patent term. A guaranteed patent term. I would hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring and voting for and supporting vocally and otherwise my legislation. Thirty-eight of my colleagues have already joined me in cosponsoring this bill, to restore to the American people this right that was given up as part of a promise made to the head of the Japanese patent office, for Pete's sake. And what else is going on? What else was in this agreement? I think it is fascinating for us to look at the agreement. The first part of the agreement is for us to change our patent law so that we no longer have a guaranteed patent term. That is gone, and now I am trying to restore it. But the second part of this is they want us to agree, and the head of our Patent Office has agreed to do this, to publish every detail of American patent applications so the whole world can see every one of our technological secrets and new ideas 18 months after the application has been filed, whether or not the patent has been issued. What does that mean? That means that every one of our inventors who files, even if he has not had the patent issued to him, every thief and copycat on the entire planet will know every detail. Now if you think that is too outrageous to believe, no one would be dumb enough, no one would ever be dumb enough to do this, maybe some official would be dumb enough to do that. You know, some official, they might just sign away and try never to implement this. It is like the Japanese. They make an agreement, then they wait for you to do everything you have agreed to and then they may or may not follow through on what they have agreed to. No, we would not be that stupid. Well, there is a bill now before Congress, H.R. 400, which will be going through the Intellectual Property Rights Committee of Judiciary tomorrow. That bill, surprise, surprise, is the second shoe falling on this agreement. They have eliminated the guaranteed patent term. Now they want to, what? Publish all the inventors' applications in 18 months whether or not the patent has been issued. There is a piece of legislation, I call it the Steal American Technologies Act. They have submitted the bill, and it is being pushed through the process right now, right now as we speak. Tomorrow there is going to be a hearing, and I will be speaking about it at the hearing. I believe, and I do not think it takes anyone with a superior intelligence to realize, this is a giveaway of America's standard of living to the people who would cheat and steal and lie and copy all of our ideas. There was a man involved in the solar energy industry last year when a similar bill was being pushed through the system, and when I told him about this provision, his face reddened, he clenched his fists and he said, Congressman, let me tell you what will happen if this becomes law. When I apply for a patent, my Japanese and Chinese competitors will have the information about my inventions even before I have my patent issued. They will be in production, they will be making money, and they will use that money that they have made on my inventions to destroy me economically. There will be nothing I can do to fight it. They will use money made from my invention to hire their lawyers to prevent me from having those property rights. This is what we are condemning our own business to by passing the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400. The bill that I submitted today, in direct contrast to H.R. 400, reconfirms the right of Americans, which has been another right American inventors have had, the right of confidentiality; that when an inventor steps forward and files for a patent, that that inventor has been guaranteed, by law, that his information will be kept secret and, if it is revealed, criminal penalties can be filed against those people who reveal that information. That has been the right of the American inventor, until now. Those advocates of H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, those advocates of this incredible agreement with the Japanese, would have us eliminate the guaranteed patent term and, number two, eliminate the right of confidentiality. What will happen is those powerful interest groups overseas will know exactly who is trying to get a patent for what. They will be here with their lawyers pressuring people just like they do in their own country. What makes anybody think our people will be able to stand up to this type of beating and this type of coercion any more than the people of those countries have been able to stand up to their economic oppressors? We are talking about countries that do not have the same idea of fair play that we have in the United States of America, but what we are trying to do now is give us the same legal protections, minor legal protections that they have had, rather than the strong legal protections we have had traditionally. My bill, in contrast to H.R. 400, guarantees the patent term, restores confidentiality. And finally, this bill, H.R. 400, which will be discussed tomorrow in the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, that bill does something else. I just thought I would drop this idea in on everybody. How about the idea of obliterating the entire patent system of the United States of America? I mean people say, this Congressman is just way off base. What is he talking about? Obliterating the patent system? Right. He is just fooling us now. No, H.R. 400 would eliminate the patent office as we know it and as it has been in place in our country since the founding of our country. Since the U.S. Constitution, we have had a patent office. Since the U.S. Constitution, there have been patent rights for our people. And do you know what? H.R. 400 would eliminate the patent office, and turn it into what? Turn it into a corporatized entity. Corporatized? What does it mean? Who is going to be in control of this corporation? Are foreigners going to be allowed to be on the board of directors? What are the rights of the people who work for the patent office, this new corporatized entity? Who knows? Who knows? Now if you have a bill that contains such nonsense as publishing our secrets so that our adversaries are going to have every detail of our new technology secrets, and that is in the bill, you got to wonder if they have much more sense when they are talking about recorporatizing this patent office. Now, by the way, I happen to be a conservative Republican. I believe in free enterprise, and I believe in limited government, and I believe basically in privatization. People come up with privatization ideas, and I am always all ears for that. But I would not think about privatizing the court system, for Pete's sake. There are certain core functions of government which our Founding Fathers wanted. We would not want our judicial rights to be just put forth into some corporation that we did not know who was going to run it. You know part of this corporate power that they have got in H.R. 400 grants this new corporate entity the right to borrow money in which, by the way, we taxpayers would be responsible to borrow money from the Federal Treasury in order to build buildings and anything else they want. We do not have the right to prevent that from happening. I mean who is going to be in power and, by the way, what we have done then is what? The patent examiners make decisions. We have had patent examiners for 200 years in our country's history. The patent examiners have to make the judicial-like decisions as to who owns what. Well, instead of being government employees with a protection of government employees to prevent them from being influenced by the outside, under the new corporate entity they will not have the same protections, they will not have the patent, the patent examiners will not have the same protections as they have had, so how do we know that they are going to have the same diligence? How do we know that there would not be pressure on them from the outside? H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, puts America in jeopardy. It puts the life-styles of our children in jeopardy because our children 50 years from now, or the next generation or the generation after that, can wake up and say: My goodness, did not America used to be the technological leader? Something has happened. Yes, something will have happened. It will have gone through in the GATT implementation legislation. There will be, you know, little known agreements made with the Japanese to make our system like theirs, and all of a sudden we will be different, things will change. Let me ask you this. If the Wright brothers would not have had the protection that they had, and all of a sudden Mitsubishi showed up on their doorstep and said, our lawyers are suing you for $10 million because we have a patent that looks a little bit like yours, that in fact we--certainly we filed it, and we got it before you were issued yours, and we find out, of course, the Japanese got all the blueprints because it was published 18 months after they filed, and that was actually before they were issued the patent. So we have a huge company, a foreign company on the doorstep of the Wright brothers. Now, what difference does that make? Well, I will tell you if anybody has any aerospace workers in their district, I will tell you what difference it makes. It makes the difference of hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the United States of America today versus those jobs in Japan. That is the difference it makes. It means a standard of living for those people having decent lives, taking care of their families, building the churches and the schools in our communities versus not having those jobs because that technology now belongs to Japan and we have to buy our technology from them. These are the choices we are making now. It is economic surrender in slow motion, and it is done by people who are very well-meaning, and let me say that those people who are advocating this in Congress basically are people who believe that the United States has to do its part to form a global economy, and that is one of the driving forces that we are talking about here today, the creation of a global economy. These people believe that it is all right to diminish the rights of the American people in order to achieve a global marketplace that will benefit all of mankind, including the American people. Well, that is something, that is a motivating force that moves people along; and I strongly, strongly disagree with those who promote that concept. Many times they will not come right out and tell you, but that is what it is all about, the globalization. They call it harmonization with Japan, and really it is globalization. Now, there is all kinds of things that we will be told, that actually our motive is to solve this or that problem. No. After a year and a half of hard work last year, I happened to be on the floor when Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was on the floor, and I gave a speech similar to this speech about patent rights, and she was aghast because I was saying how bad it would be and what bad results it will have, and after a year of having the people advocating this bill claiming that the real purpose was to correct this or that problem; they call it submarine patenting, is a problem they claim to want to solve which in fact is nothing but a front, nothing but a front in order to basically advocate something that is going to have some very strong results in another area and submarine patent problem can easily be solved, and it is a minor problem that can easily be solved, but they were saying that was the real purpose why we have to destroy the whole system. Well, in fact Mrs. Schroeder, who was not ready for a debate, just came right out and said what her real intent was. That bill, H.R. 3460, the Moorhead-Schroeder bill, which is their H.R. 400 last year, is about making our patent office uniform with both the one in Europe and the one in Japan. She came right out and said it. That is the first time anyone did come out and say it because that had not been the party line up until that point. But no matter what people give you as their reasoning, there are very detrimental things that are going to result from changing the fundamental patent rights of the American people. The multinational corporations whose loyalty is I do not know where, are solidly behind H.R. 400 because they want to create the global marketplace, even if it means that American people are going to suffer. My bill, which I turned in today, the legislation I turned in today, puts the rights of the American people first. We should not think about harmonizing our law with other countries by diminishing the rights of our people. I do not care if it is freedom of speech or freedom of religion or whatever it is. This will be a hard-fought issue in Congress. Basically major universities, capital--and basically people who invest in new inventions, the venture capitalists and the small inventors are working with me on legislation, on my legislation, to make sure the rights of the American people are restored and protected and that the patent office remains an efficient and well run part of the U.S. Government and that those people, those patent examiners, are protected from outside influences and are guaranteed their civil service protections. On the other hand, you have people in the electronics industry who basically do not believe--they think that things are moving so fast anymore, the patent system has just become a big pain, and they do not really like it anymore, and they are stealing from each other right and left, and the American electronics industry is doing everything they can to eliminate the guaranteed patent term, and those are the major big companies that are supporting H.R. 400. There are also some major biotech companies that are supporting my legislation, like Amgem and some biotech companies on the other side that have felt the pressure from international corporations in other countries. We have some people on the other side who honestly believe, as I say, in globalization. These major corporations basically believe that if we have a global economy, they will be able to do business. Our universities, our inventors and our venture capitalists are on the other side of this battle. It will be fought and it will be fierce. The factor that will make the difference is whether or not the American people get involved themselves. If it is left up to the lobbyists who are hired by the international corporations and by other countries, the lobbyists that flood through these halls in order to try to push Congress in one direction or the other, the American people will see this right diminished, and they will see other rights in the near future and in the time ahead will also be jeopardized if they do not get involved. But Congress is still listening to the American people. The American people need to have their opinion on a strong patent system. They need to know, the Congressmen need to know, that they should support the Rohrabacher patent bill, the Patent Restoration Act, and oppose the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400. If the American people speak up, their voice will be heard louder and more clearly than those of the paid lobbyists. But if people do not contact their Congressmen, this issue will be lost, and future generations will never know what hit them. They will never know that for 200 years America had the strongest patent protection in the world and we were the technological leaders of the world and then somebody sort of changed the rules of the game, a change that we did not even notice was going on, and slowly but surely we were no longer the technological leaders of the world and America was not No. 1, but America began to decline. Is that not what happened? I can hear people saying it right now. I can hear our grandchildren and their children saying: Did we not used to invent everything? Did not that give America the leverage we needed? Why is it that our standard of living was going down when it was always going up before? Changing these laws will have dramatic consequences. We cannot expect this Congress just to come to this decision on its own because the lobbyists will be pushing in the wrong direction. The American people must--their voice must be heard. H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, must be eliminated, it must be defeated, and the Patent Term Restoration Act, my bill, Congressman Rohrabacher's bill, should pass, and if we do, we can sit and have faith in the future again because we can sit back and know we did our part to ensure that the legal structure which served our country so well for 200 years was maintained and that when there was a brutal attack on that legal structure, we stepped forward to beat back the assault and to protect future generations from loss. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sponsoring my piece of legislation, the Patent Term Restoration Act, and to defeat H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act. Mutual Understanding Between the Japanese Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office Actions to be taken by Japan: 1. By July 1, 1995, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) will permit foreign nationals to fine patent applications in the English language, with a translation into Japanese to follow within two months. 2. Prior to the grant of a patent, the JPO will permit the correction of translation errors up to the time allowed for the reply to the first substantive communication from the

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, Congress this year will pass legislation that will determine the technological status of the United States of America in the 21st century. Let us put this in perspective. America has had the most productive work force and provided a higher standard of living for the average person and met every challenge to our national security and our economic prosperity. Why? Because we were technologically superior. That is what gave us the edge; we were technologically superior. Why were we technologically superior? We were technologically superior because we have the strongest patent system in the world. It did not just happen that we had this American miracle, that our standard of living here increased, that the average person had opportunities never dreamed of in other countries. It happened because we were producing the wealth because we had the technology, because written into our law, into the very Constitution of the United States, is patent protection as a right of the American people. We traditionally have had the strongest patent protection of any country of the world. Well, now, unbeknownst to most Americans, our patent system, the one that has kept our country No. 1, is being destroyed, and the patent rights of the American people are being greatly diminished, this in a very low-key effort that very few Americans know about. In fact most Members of Congress know nothing about this. I have documents detailing why this has happened, because you may say why would anyone want to destroy the very basic patent system that has been so important to the United States of America? I have a document that I will put into the Congressional Record detailing an agreement between Mr. Bruce Lehman, the head of our Patent Office, and his counterpart in Japan to harmonize American patent law with that of Japan's; and I hate to tell you, but we are not bringing up their weak patent system to become strong like the patent protection in America. Their harmonization process is weakening the rights of the American people, so it will be the same as the Japanese. This is an absolute catastrophe in the making, a slow-motion Pearl Harbor on America's well-being. This agreement to harmonize patent law between the United States and Japan by making our patent law weaker will do nothing but destroy America's leadership in the years ahead, and again at a very slow pace, so that future Americans will never know what hit them. H.R. 400 is the legislation aimed at implementing this hoard agreement with the Japanese. I call it the Steal American Technologies Act. Among other things, it reconfirms that the guaranteed patent term, which we have always had, no matter how long it took you to get your patent issued, you knew you were guaranteed 17 years of patent protection. That is out the window; that is gone. It reconfirms that. It also mandates--now get this--all American patents, if you make an application, even before those patent applications are issued--so someone does not have a patent yet, it is going to be published for the whole world to see after 18 months. So inventors will have every secret that they have got, all the work they put into building new technologies will be given to America's competitors to beat us economically. And of course the third part of H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, would be eliminating the Patent Office, just obliterating it. That is right; we are going to obliterate the patent system, as we have got it, and we have had it since the founding of our country, and we are going to restructure it as a corporatized entity. A corporatized entity? Who is in charge? These people at the Patent Office, these diligent patent examiners trying their best to do a diligent job because they know their decision means billions of dollars in jobs for America, they are going to be turned over. They are now going to be employees of a corporatized structure and who is going to be in charge of that? Lord only knows. H.R. 400 is an abomination. It has to be defeated. But the American people know little about it. Yet the lobbyists and the power structure in this town are pushing this bill through. There will be a hearing tomorrow on it in the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, will be defeated or it will destroy the well-being of the American people. I am dropping legislation today which will take us in exactly the opposite direction. It guarantees the patent term that has been part of our rights since our country was founded. It brings back the right of confidentiality. We are not going to give up and publish everything after 18 months so the thieves in the world will steal all of our new ideas No, it remains confidential, the way it has always been confidential since our country's founding. We have a right of confidentiality, if you have a new idea, until you are granted that patent. And No. 3, my bill will bolster and strengthen and make more efficient the current patent system. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my legislation, and I ask that they oppose the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400. The document I referred to is as follows: Mutual Understanding Between the Japanese Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, January 20, 1994 Actions to be taken by Japan: 1. By July 1, 1995, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) will permit foreign nationals to file patent applications in the English language, with a translation into Japanese to follow within two months. 2. Prior to the grant of a patent, the JPO will permit the correction of translation errors up to the time allowed for the reply to the first substantive communication from the

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as I ran back and forth today trying to cast my votes on this very important issue of term limits, I was visited by four individuals who have trekked halfway around the world in order to visit this capital of the United States of America in an attempt to bring peace to their own country. Those individuals represent one of the factions that continue to struggle in Afghanistan. Those individuals 10 years ago were engaged in a struggle to defeat the most powerful enemy and the most powerful dictatorship in the world, the Soviet Union. The people of Afghanistan rose up against their invaders and it was their courage and their determination that helped bring an end to the cold war. Yes, it was the little Mujahedin 110- pound man with a turban on his head and a beard who jumped from behind a rock and faced a Soviet tank and said: You shall not impose your will on Afghanistan. You will not destroy our faith in God. You will stop here. You will not control my country. I will die before you succeed. It was that bravery and that courage of that perhaps uneducated man from Afghanistan who was willing to give everything that eventually brought the expansion of the Soviet empire to an end and reversed the course of the cold war. The United States has a lot to be grateful and all the people of the free world have a lot to be grateful for to the people of Afghanistan. Yet the struggle goes on. For the last 3 hours, I have been speaking with these gentlemen who have trekked halfway around the world in order to find peace for their country, in order to find a peace for Afghanistan. The American people owe a great debt of gratitude to Afghanistan. We would still be in a cold war today. There would still be nuclear missiles aimed at the United States of America by a belligerent power from the Soviet Union had not the people of Afghanistan risked everything in order to defeat the Soviet empire and to defeat the Communist thrust into their country. For this, the entire world and the people of the United States owe the people of Afghanistan a great debt. Yet right after the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States ran at a quick pace away from Afghanistan and never looked back. And every day, even to this day, young people in Afghanistan, children, are blown apart by land mines, some of which were provided by the United States of America. We have not done our best to try to bring peace to a country and to a people to whom we owe so much. It is my hope that, in Afghanistan, the leaders of the Taliban movement who now control much of that country and the leaders of other factions who control the northernmost regions of that country can come to an understanding that will bring peace and will bring free elections to that strife-torn country and will provide for the people of that country, those brave people of Afghanistan, who stood against Soviet tyranny and Soviet armor, will bring them at last to a time when they can rebuild their water ducts, they can rebuild their villages and mosques, they can rebuild their schools and they can begin again to have a country devoted to Islam, their religion, devoted to their families and to their honor. The United States owes it to the people of Afghanistan to do what we can to help bring peace to that country. Tonight, as I say, I have spoken to these leaders who have trekked halfway around the world trying to seek help from the United States in bringing peace to their country. I personally believe that the King of Afghanistan represents an option that could unify all of the people of Afghanistan because they know that he will soon die, he is over 80 years old, and will pass away and thus is not a threat in the long run to any one faction. The King of Afghanistan would like to bring democracy to his country. What we have learned, if we have learned anything in these last 50 years, is that free elections bring peace. It is democracy that will bring peace to the world. When Ronald Reagan confronted the Soviet empire, he stressed our belief in freedom and the support for those who struggle for freedom around the world, and that is what changed the world and has made this a more peaceful world. Let us hope that in the years ahead, there will be a more peaceful Afghanistan and the people there can live in dignity and honor and prosperity that they have earned with their blood and their honor.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues today to join me in cosponsoring the Patent Term Restoration Act. This piece of legislation is basically the same bill that I offered last year as H.R. 359. H.R. 359 had over 200 cosponsors; 81 of them were Democrats. H.R. 359 had the support of major universities, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, energy innovators, biotech companies, venture capitalists, and, most importantly, it had the support of every small inventors organization in the country. Last year H.R. 359, my piece of legislation, never made it to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. This year, we have every indication that it should get to the floor and have a vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives by the August break. Last year there was another patent bill, as well as my own, that was introduced. This was a far different bill. It was introduced by Congressman Carlos Moorhead and Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, who are now, of course, retired from this institution. This bill had a dozen or so cosponsors, but it had the tremendous support, the enormous support, of multinational corporations and those people in the political and economic establishment that are struggling to create what they are calling a global economy. You see, the Patent Term Restoration Act, H.R. 359, which I will be submitting and asking Members to join me in cosponsoring, takes a totally different approach than what last year's bill by Mr. Moorhead and Mrs. Schroeder was taking. In fact, their bill now, H.R. 3460, has been reintroduced as H.R. 400, which will also come to the floor by the August break. So we have two different approaches, and I thought that today I would discuss this major decision that Congress will make that seems like it is such an obscure issue and a complicated issue that many Americans will probably not even understand that there is an important decision about to be made that will impact so directly on their lives and the lives of their children. First of all, let us note that patent protection in the United States of America is something that has reaped tremendous rewards for our people. We have had, in the United States of America, the strongest patent protection of any country in the world. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others of our Founding Fathers insisted that the concept of patent protection be written into the Constitution of the United States. We in fact had the strongest patent protection because our Founding Fathers believed it, it was written into our Constitution, and throughout our history the idea of the ownership of one's creative genius was always supported by the American Government. Thus, over the years, as people came here from every part of the world, people who wanted to work hard and people who had the creative spirit and a revolutionary spirit about them, these people brought with them new ideas, and they were confronted with a society that protected their ideas and gave them the right to own those ideas, just as we gave people the right to own property. Many of the countries from which our Founding Fathers and Mothers came from, the right of property ownership for the average person did not exist. In fact, people were repressed, and the right of ownership, just like other rights, the right of religion and speech, were not things that were granted to the common man. These were things that were meant for the aristocracy. That is why people came to the United States of America, because they read Thomas Jefferson and they read Benjamin Franklin and they read Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry and John Adams and George Washington, and they read our Declaration of Independence and they knew something was going on in the United States of America. It was a place where the common man could come, he could raise his family, and a family could expect that their children would have opportunities beyond anything that was accessible anywhere else in the world. Part of this opportunity came from the fact that we recognized property rights. The property rights to own land, as I say, was also protected by the Constitution. The right of contract, and other economic liberties that were only thought of as rights for the elite in these other countries, were turned over to every person who was an American, and every person who came here who wished to become a citizen was given freedom. They were not given any subsidies or any type of welfare, but they were given freedom, and they were given the promise that their rights would be protected. As I say, interestingly enough, one of these rights that is so often ignored and often overlooked was the right to own one's own creative genius, the product of one's own creative genius, the patent right. Traditionally, this is how the patent system worked in America. As I say, it was the strongest of any place in the world. Someone who had a new idea, whether it was Eli Whitney with the cotton gin or whether it was Samuel Morse with the telegraph or Alexander Graham Bell with his many inventions, the light bulb and others, these people would work on their idea and they would then develop their idea into a patent and take it in the proper form and would submit this idea, submit it to the Patent Office and the Patent Office would consider their idea. Traditionally, no matter how long it took our Government to act in granting the right of ownership to that piece of property, that intellectual property, the applicant always knew that after the patent was granted that he would have a guaranteed patent term. Well, that was part of the guaranteed rights that we had. You have a right to freedom of speech, you have a right of freedom of religion, you have a right of freedom of assembly. You have a right to own your property. Well, you also had a right to a guaranteed patent term. In the early part of our country's history, the patent term was, no matter how long it took you to get it issued by the Government, if it took 10 years, you would still have 14 years of patent protection. They would give you a guaranteed patent term of 14 years once it was issued. Later on, as America began to realize how important the development of technology was to our well-being, our Government wisely extended the patent term to be 17 years. So for the last 150 years, American inventors would work on their patent and develop new systems and new ideas and concepts and technologies. They would go to the Patent Office knowing, and their investors would see them through, knowing that no matter how long it took for that patent to be issued, they would have 17 years to recoup and benefit from that. From that time that they had put in personally or the venture capitalist who put in the investment, they knew they would have a chance to get a return. This has served America so well. Technology and the fact that we have been on the cutting edge of technology has made all the difference in our country. It did not make just all the difference for the aristocracy. The fact is they did not have this freedom in other countries. They did not have the freedom of speech, the freedom to own property, the economic freedoms we have, and they also did not have the patent freedom that we had in America in these other lands, but the aristocracy did not care because they had the rights. The aristocracy kept the power and the rights to themselves in other societies. That is why in the United States of America that we made the blessings of liberty to every person here, was available to every person here. That is the reason why we became a beacon of hope to the world, but also we became a leader in the world in the standard of living of our people, of the average person. Our people were able to outcompete every potential competitor in the world because Americans had, yes, low taxes, which was important, and yes, we had people who were willing to work. But there are other countries with low taxes and other countries that basically had many people willing to work. But what we did was we put our working people in the position of being able to outcompete anyone in the world because they were using superior technology, cutting-edge technology, and it was the American people that were coming up with the ideas to lift the burden of labor from their fellow Americans in a way that would increase the production of their fellow Americans, making us more productive but making us a wealthier society. This was the vision that Thomas Jefferson had. This was the vision when he retired to Monticello and he was tinkering with his various devices, and if you visit that place today, you will see that Thomas Jefferson believed in that. If you visit Philadelphia and visit the home of Benjamin Franklin and the places where he lived, you will see that Benjamin Franklin was the inventor of the potbellied stove. Now that does not mean much to us today, but it certainly meant an incredible amount to people who lived in cold homes and all they had were fireplaces before this. It permitted the average person to be warm in the wintertime. It was a piece of technology. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin invented the bifocal. He experimented with electricity, and how many of us read about that in our childhood when we went to school about Benjamin Franklin flying the kite and experimenting with electricity? Thomas Jefferson experimenting with balloons in Paris when he represented the United States there, as well as Benjamin Franklin experimenting with flight; they had vision. In fact, when Benjamin Franklin in his waning years thought about the future--there is a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin saying that he is sorry that he is going to die, not because he is sorry for leaving the planet, just for not being alive, but he is sorry to die because he knows that the American people will be inventing so many new things and there will be so many changes in the human condition brought on by devices and technologies that are undreamed of in that day when he was alive, and that he just yearned to be able to see those inventions. Well, he had faith in the American people, and he ensured that the American people's rights were protected. And during the century after his death, the American people did not let him down. We were the center not only of freedom but of innovation. The Fulton steam engine on the steamboats; we all think of Robert Fulton as being the inventor of the steam engine. He was not the inventor of the steam engine. The steam engine was built many, many years before, but it was the American genius that put that steam engine onto a boat in order to use it rather than having people having to paddle or use the sail in order to propel a boat. We had inventions, whether it was the initial inventions that permitted us to have mass manufacturing, or whether it was the initial inventions of the telegraph or these other things that help us with communication, or whether it was the great surge of inventions that happened after we actually increased the length of the patent term. Alexander Graham Bell and others came forth with these new types of processes that propelled mankind into an era when the common man was not just trying to keep warm in the winter, but where average families lived decent lives. A black American who invented a process of how to bring down the cost of building shoes was issued a patent back in the, I think it was 1870, and this patent man, here he was in a country that basically discriminated against black American citizens, but they so believed in the patent right that they protected his right to that patent, and in doing so that black American was able to contribute knowledge and technology that within a few years reduced the price of shoes for the average American by 50 percent. And what that meant: that Americans were able to have shoes. Americans had clothing, they had shoes, they had full stomachs. They in fact were not slaves to their labor because there were labor-saving devices that were being developed every day by other Americans. This is what made us. This freedom and this technology is what made us the most prosperous country in the world. It also protected us during those times of conflict when America's safety was in the balance during World War II and during the cold war. It was American technology, not raw manpower that saved America. You know, if we tried to match, if Americans tried to match the world man for man, economically, we never would have succeeded; we will not succeed in that today. There are many people who think that just, oh, basically we cannot compete against cheap labor around the world. Well, there was always cheap labor around the world, and our people always outcompeted them; and in terms of warfare, we could not have competed against adversaries man to man, we could not put raw muscle power or the numbers of people in the field that adversaries, tyrannical adversaries, could. What saved us economically and saved us militarily was the fact that our people were superior in the equipment that they had to use to produce goods and services, but they were also superior in the technology that was in the weapon systems they used to protect our country. Our adversaries understand this. During the cold war, more than anything else it was the concept that the United States of America had technology that was well beyond anything that could have been produced in Communist countries. That unnerved the Communist bosses and led to a disintegration, a disintegration of the Communist empire that threatened us for four decades after World War II. We can thank our rocket scientists, we can thank our people who went forth to develop a missile defense system, but we could also thank the aerospace engineers who over those 40 years built airplanes that would take our people out to battle and make sure that they were superior to any aircraft in the world. We can also thank our scientists and our other technologists who produced the radar, produced the electronics, produced the other equipment that enabled us to with confidence tell the Soviet Union, as Ronald Reagan did, that it would be left in the dust bin of history unless it joined the free nations of the world and put away its aggressive aims on the West and its aims at destroying democracy. So instead, we have ended the cold war without firing a shot at the Soviet Union. Instead of massive destruction, we ended the cold war by insuring that we were ahead technologically and by being strong advocates of human freedom. Unfortunately, what helped us end the cold war, what has preserved the American way of life and given us a standard of living, given a standard of living to the American people as no one has ever dreamed before, is under attack. It is under attack because a global economic war has replaced a cold war. That is something we cannot get rid of. We cannot escape that. We cannot escape the fact that now we will have global competition because technology has improved communication and transportation beyond anything that could have been believed only 100 years ago. So we have a global economy, we have a global war economically going on, but our adversaries have launched a sneak attack on the United States of America. This will surprise many of the American people, but there has in the last 4 years been a concerted effort to diminish the patent protections that we have considered to be a right of Americans over the history of our country. There has been an underhanded effort to change patent law and to undo this great economic prosperity that we have for the common man by coupling, decoupling that is, America from its greatest asset, and that is our technological superiority over our competitors and our adversaries. Let me say this so that it will be very plain for everyone to understand. The fundamental patent law of our country, which is the reason why Americans from all parts of the world were able to come here and produce these great new technologies, it did not just happen on its own, it did not happen because of our race or religion or anything else, it happened because we were a people that had a Government that was set up to protect intellectual property rights, especially patent rights, and those laws protecting patent rights have been fundamentally changed and there is a move in this country to basically greatly diminish the patent protection enjoyed by our people. In order to what? Why would someone do that? Why would any American do that? It is being done by many people with a straight face, who come forward thinking they are trying to create a better world in the name of creating a global market. Lord save us from benevolent souls who would restructure our lives and remake the entire world in order to make it a better place by their understanding of what a better place means. Lord help us from people who think that they are going to make a perfect world because what we are facing when you face someone who is going to make a perfect world, you are facing an individual who has all the good intentions in his heart but is willing to destroy your rights in order to achieve his or her objectives. That is what we saw with all the past reformers who were going to make this a global world which was a perfect world. Well, that is what we are facing here. We have groups of people, powerful individuals who think they are going to build a perfect world, and they are going to guide us into this new era of a global economy, and they are going to regulate the global economy. Well, they cannot even regulate the American economy. Even that does not work. And now they are going to try to create the global economy. Now I happen to believe in free trade. I am a free trader. I believe commerce between people is a good thing. But I would tell you one thing: I do not believe in free trade with dictatorships because it is only free on one end. What I believe in is free trade between free people, and between free people we will prevail. But one of the things that will make us prevail is the fact that we will continue to protect our own citizens. We live in a world where there are many countries that are not free, and if in order to create a global marketplace that includes these unfree societies, these dictatorial societies like Communist China, and like I would say probably a quarter of the other countries across this planet where people live in despotism, where they live in deprivation, where they have no rights, where the working people are basically slaves that have no right to organize unions, they have no right to have contracts enforced; they are the pawns of vicious and ugly rulers who side with the elites in their society. If we tried to basically lower the standards of the American protection, our protections that we have had, the protection of our rights as U.S. citizens, in order to create a global economy in which we will be dealing on an equal basis with those kinds of societies, the American people are bound to lose. And what is happening, and the patent fight is just the first step in this global economy battle that we will see popping up here in Congress over and over again, what we will see, more and more, is that in order to be in a global economy we have to eliminate this, we have to eliminate that, we have to change this, our law, and we have to diminish the rights of Americans. What we are talking about is that there is an elite at work in the world and in the United States that in order to create a global economy are willing to cast away and diminish the rights that have been protected by the American people, rights of the American people. They are willing to diminish those rights in order to achieve their objective because, once they achieve a global marketplace, their theory is, oh, the dictatorships like that in China and elsewhere, they will disappear because if they just have more contact with the West, well, those dictatorships, those ruthless regimes, will liberalize, they will become more benevolent, and they can become part, in fact, of the benevolent new global order. I guess George Bush called it the New World Order. Well, this type of nonsense is going to lead to nothing but misery for the American people. This type of logic will lead the American people with the same status as the multitude of people who live in countries throughout the world that were the homelands of our forefathers and mothers. We left those societies to come and live in America to be free. We came here because we knew our rights as human beings would be protected and that America was a special place. But now we see that those protections are going to be diminished. In the beginning, they hoped to diminish these rights. Just basically, they do not want to talk about it, and in this first battle, I might say, of the global economy, they tried to do this in a very underhanded way. Let me describe how the patent rights of the American people have already been diminished. What was our basic right to begin with? Our basic right was, the American inventor could apply for a patent and no matter how long it took the bureaucracy to prove that patent, he or she would still own that patent and have a right to benefit from it for 17 years. That was called the right of a guaranteed patent term. Well, in order to harmonize our law and to have a global economy, it was determined that the United States should end the guaranteed patent term, that that should no longer be a guaranteed right for the American people. As I say, in a very underhanded fashion the change in the patent law was snuck in, and I say snuck in because I asked repeatedly for any language that would be in the GATT implementation legislation about patents, and was denied the right to know what was in there until the very last minute. I am a Member of Congress asking what language will be in a piece of legislation, and the administration was denying me that right to know what was in it. They put this change in patent law into the GATT implementation legislation. Let me explain what GATT implementation legislation means. The GATT implementation legislation is the legislation that we passed in Congress in order to fulfill our obligations by agreements that we reached with other countries to establish the general policies on trade and tariffs for around the world. Basically, GATT means General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. When this administration and other administrations were negotiating GATT, they were given the right to negotiate GATT by the Members of Congress, and I voted for this, by the way. They were given what they called fast track authority, because there is nobody to negotiate an agreement like this if you are going to have every little thing that is agreed upon have to be voted up and down by Congress. Fast track simply means that the Congress will be kept informed of what is involved in the GATT agreement, and then the Congress would be given 50 days to examine the agreement and everything that is in the legislation that implements the agreement, and then we would only have an up or down vote on the GATT implementation legislation. So we gave up our rights here; to look at every little section of the GATT implementation legislation, we gave up that right with the promise that we would have 50 days to examine it and know everything that was in it; and that there would be nothing, and here is the catch, there would be nothing in that legislation that was not required by the GATT agreement itself, and the agreement that we made with all of these other countries. Well, there was no agreement made as part of GATT that required us to cast aside and to eliminate this traditional guarantee that we had of patent protection important to the American people. There was nothing in there that mandated we had to do that. Yet, the administration snuck this into the GATT implementation legislation, would not even tell me as a Member of Congress until the last minute that it was in there, and then gave us just a few days to pass GATT. Luckily, we beat them back and we were able to postpone that vote on the GATT implementation legislation. That is really when I became active on this issue of the GATT implementation legislation. What it was was an amendment, a small amendment, obscure, hard to see the importance of it; and in fact, if you read the language it looked like they were actually increasing the time of patent protection for the American people. The change is, and traditionally, remember, if you applied for a patent, no matter how long it took you to get it, once you got it, it was yours for 17 years, 17 years of a guaranteed patent protection. Now, under the new law which is now in law, they totally betrayed us, they put it in there without it being required by GATT, I was not able to defeat it, now what does the law say? The law says that someone who comes up with a new idea, new invention, can submit that, but the clock starts ticking immediately. And the clock is ticking not against the government, not against the bureaucracy, not against those people on the outside who would try to interfere, try to interfere with a man's right to have his patent issued as soon as possible; no, the clock is ticking against the inventor. If it takes him 15 or 20 years to get his patent, his or her patent issued, that inventor will have seen three-quarters of his or her patent term eliminated, because the time is ticking, the clock is ticking against the inventor, and he or she only has 20 years. And if it takes 15 years, and many of the breakthrough technologies that we have had, especially in this last two and three decades, many of them take 5 and 10 years for a patent owner to get the patent issued, because if it is a breakthrough technology--by the way, most of the patents, 90 percent of all patents are very simple, just readjustments of new technology. The breakthrough technologies take a very long time to get through the patent system. Many of them have taken 10 and 20 years themselves. That means that we are dramatically reducing the amount of time that our inventors have to reap the rewards of their own innovation, and in fact we have eliminated the guaranteed patent term. There is no guaranteed patent term. That was done. That was done basically in a very surreptitious way, and I have been fighting that battle. That is what the Patent Restoration Act is going to be all about, is restoring the guaranteed patent term. But those people who eliminated that guaranteed patent term, why did they do that? They did it, as I say, as part of this harmonization effort. But who really started the ball rolling? The American people will be surprised to hear, the real reason we have been trying to eliminate the guaranteed patent term by some people here in this body who have been trying to eliminate the guaranteed patent term is because it will harmonize our law with Japan. Bruce Lehman, the head of our patent office, went to Japan, had a meeting with his counterpart in which he signed an agreement to basically harmonize our law, not to bring up the level of protection in Japan to that of the United States, but to bring down the level of protection in the United States to that of the level of Japan. That system, where there is no guaranteed term and the clock is ticking against the inventor, has been the Japanese system. That is why they never invented anything. That is why they use our technology, because they have a system where the inventor, once he applies, the clock is ticking against the inventor. The huge corporations come in and they beat down the inventors and they force them to give up their rights, and the creative people in that society are steamrollered by powerful interests who want to have control of the wealth-producing ideas and technology that will determine who has the power in the future. That is the system they are imposing on us, ladies and gentlemen. That is the system that these planners want to put on the United States. There is, by the way, another bill, as I say, that is being introduced by the same people who snuck this into the GATT implementation legislation. It is H.R. 400. It is the second shoe that is falling. The first shoe was eliminating the guaranteed patent term for the American people. That helped harmonize law with Japan, except in Japan they also have something else. H.R. 400, and I call this the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400, the main purpose of that bill is to do what? The bill, by the way, when it was first introduced was called the Patent Publication Act. That is what it was originally titled when they first introduced it in the last session of Congress. But they changed that right away, because they figured out, oh, my gosh, everybody realizes what it is all about. No; H.R. 400 is almost the same piece of legislation, it has the same purpose. It is to harmonize our law with Japan on the last element that we are not the same with Japan on. In Japan it has been far different than the United States. In the United States, someone comes up with a new piece of technology, patents it, goes to the patent office and applies for a patent. That man is not only guaranteed, no matter how long that man or woman, no matter how long it took them to get their patent through the process, they would have that 17 guaranteed years of protection, but they were also guaranteed that during the time before that patent was issued, that information, all of the creative genius, all of the investigatory work, all of the materials and details about the new technology would be kept secret and confidential. No one would know about it, and in fact, it was a felony for Members of the Government to disclose that information because we protected the rights of that inventor. Well, guess what H.R. 400 does? It says that after 18 months, whether or not the patent has been issued to the American patent applicant, it will be published for the entire world to see. Do you get what I am saying here? Understand the magnitude of this. Every new idea that Americans come up with technologically will be published for every copycat brigand and everyone who would set up factories in order to destroy us economically. They will have every piece of information about America's new innovative ideas, even before the patents are issued. And do you know why? Because that is the way it is in Japan. That is also Japanese law. It is Japanese law that you do not have a guaranteed patent term, the clock is ticking against the inventor, and as soon as the inventor puts this patent in, after 18 months it is published so everybody in Japan can see it. That is why no one invents anything in Japan, and that is why the special interests, the powerful lords of Japan, the great shoguns of their economy beat the life out of their own people in order to steal the new technological ideas, and why people just do not invent anything. But here is the problem: If we change our laws so that we do not have a guaranteed patent term, and that after 18 months these very same shoguns in Japan, and monsters in China who murder their own people, who do not care one bit about human rights, these people in different parts of the world who wish to steal everything that is America's, copycats, these people will now know all of our secrets. They will be able to come here and do to the American people, through people that they have hired, lawyers and lobbyists who they have hired here in Washington, DC, to do to our people what they have been doing to their own people. We are making the American people vulnerable to the same sort of corrupt power plays that have been going on for centuries in these other societies. We are making our own people vulnerable to it here, and we are doing it in an area that makes America the most vulnerable of all. It is our future ability to compete with the world technologically. It is our achilles' heel. It did not take our economic adversaries too long to realize, ``How do we bring America down? These guys are always one step ahead of us. They are one step ahead of us because they have a system that protects these new inventors, these individuals who come up with all of the ideas.'' The major force behind this move for harmonization is coming from multinational corporations. It is coming from some people who are very wellintended, who have become convinced that there is a problem in our current system. They call it a submarine patent problem. Submarine patents, by the way, are a minor problem that have affected certain industries in a very bad way. The electronics industry, there are some problems in which submarine patents have played a part and have hurt some people. Some people have been unfairly treated economically and businesswise because of submarine patents. To let my colleagues know what a submarine patent is, it is when it is alleged that inventors try to stall the issuance of their own patent. They manipulate the system at the patent office so that their patent will not be issued until 5 years later or 10 years later, because they want it to be issued later, so then they will be able to have more money coming in because their technology will be a little bit better used in the long term rather than short term. Of course, this happens maybe in one-tenth of 1 percent, perhaps, at most, of all patents, and it has minimal impact on the overall economy. Minimal impact. What they are telling us is this problem, they believe it will be solved. And how will it be solved? It will be solved by publishing all the information on every patent in America so everybody will know what that inventor is hiding, and to eliminate the guaranteed patent term so that the inventor, all the time will be put against the inventor. Yes, there is a small problem called the submarine patent problem. By the way, in the piece of legislation I am proposing, the Patent Term Restoration Act, we deal with that. The only thing to solve this problem, it only takes some remedial discipline or basically some remedial reforms within the Patent Office structure itself. We do not even need legislation on that. The Patent Office, because if you have someone manipulating the process at the Patent Office, the Patent Office can simply change their procedures to prevent manipulation. It is the Patent Office that has to make the decision to grant someone a continuance in their application or whatever. The Patent Office can change this. But no, no, we cannot do that. We have been told instead, in order to solve this problem we have to destroy the whole patent system. We have to take the system that has served America so well and eliminate the basics of that system in order to get to the submarine patent problem. I used this example before and I will use it tonight, as well. This is very similar to someone who has a hangnail problem and his doctor says, you have a hangnail; in fact, your hangnail is infected. Every time you go to the doctor, the doctor is saying, oh my gosh, this hangnail; in fact, you are even beginning to limp a little bit because your hangnail is bothering your foot. The doctor says, look at the hangnail; and all the doctor ever talks to you about is how bad the hangnail is. That is what is happening with the submarine patent. Any time you talk about patent law, the people who are trying to destroy the patent system talk about the submarine patents. It is like that hangnail. They have huge pictures of the hangnail, how ugly it looks; please focus on the hangnail. Then you find out what the doctor really wants to do is amputate your leg. And you say, amputate my leg for a hangnail? You are out of your mind. No, look how bad hangnails are. I would say that if someone's doctor is suggesting that they amputate the leg because you have a hangnail, that you had better question either the sanity or the motives of your doctor. Something is wrong there. And the doctor says, we have to get the hangnail corrected; otherwise you are going to limp for the rest of your life or as long as that hangnail is there. But you say, wait a minute; if I cut my leg off, I will not even be able to walk. Forget it, hangnails are terrible. That is what is happening with the submarine patent issue. There is a problem. It can be corrected easily. But it is being used as an excuse to destroy the patent rights that have been part of the American system since the founding of our country. We had a right to a guaranteed patent term. They are using the submarine patent issue, which I think is a bogus issue, or in fact, a minuscule part of our system, they are using that as an excuse to publish every secret that we have developed technologically to people all over the world who will steal that technology and will use it against us. This is how terrible it is. Our genius will be used to destroy our standard of living. Our genius will be used not to make the lives of the American people better, not to enable us to compete with the rest of the world, against people with low-priced labor. Our genius will not be used to secure us from foreign adversaries. Our genius will be exposed to the rest of the world, giving it to them on a platter, and they will use it against us. This is a sin against the American people. People say, how can this possibly happen? How can it happen? We are dealing with powerful interest groups. These multinational corporations, many of them who control American corporations now, these people are the ones who hire lobbyists. They determine the policy of these big companies. Is it any wonder that these big companies perhaps do not have the best interests of the American people at heart, when they are owned and controlled by groups of who knows who; somewhere, people who perhaps have absolutely no, they have absolutely no commitment to the ideals that we think of as Americans? I have been told over and over again in the debate, Most Favored Nation debate about China, that if we just deal with China for so long that this rotten Communist regime is going to liberalize and it is going to become more mellow, and actually we are teaching the Chinese how to respect human rights. That is not what it is all about. We know that. These businessmen are out to make money and they do not care if it is blood money or not, and they do not care if they have to put out of work all their American workers; they are going to go over there and make a 10-percent or 15- percent profit, rather than a profit here with 5 or 6 percent, in which the American people would be able to have jobs, to have decent families. These same people get involved in economic relationships. They have no ideals. They never go to the Communist bosses in China and say, by the way, now that I am here doing business, I would like to tell you that, you know, you should respect people's right to have their own religion. You should not be enclosing those Christians in jail or those Buddhists over here in prison camps, or you should not be wiping out villages in Tibet. We should live with respect towards human rights. They do not do that in China. These very same people now are trying to change our law so that the inventions we come up with as American people, within 18 months they will have every detail, and it will be faxed to their companies in China, and they will be producing it over there. I was in the office here in the Rayburn Building when last year's bill, which I call the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400, the equivalent of that was going through committee last year. There was a man from a solar energy company. He said, Mr. Congressman, if this passes and they publish all the information about my patent applications after 18 months, I will tell you what will happen. The Japanese will have all that information, and they will have it in production, with my new technology, before I am even issued my patent. They will take that profit that they have used from my technology and they will use it to destroy me. They will hire lawyers in the United States and elsewhere to destroy me and take away my rights to what I have developed with millions of dollars. That is what will happen. This will be a catastrophe for my company. It is not hard to understand. They are going to publish everything for every brigand in the world to see. Yet they say it with a straight face; we have to do that because you have a hangnail. There is a little submarine patent problem here. We can solve the submarine patent problem. Do not let anybody talk about amputating your leg for a hangnail. Do not let anybody talk about destroying your rights as Americans because there are some problems in our country. We have had problems with people who abuse their free speech. We have had problems with people who abuse the freedom of religion. We have had problems with our freedom in this country because some people misuse it. But that is no excuse to diminish the protection of these freedoms that are enjoyed by the American people. That is what we are being told we have to accept now, economically. They will win, unless the American people rise up and talk to their Members of Congress. This is what will surprise everyone. Most Members of Congress have no idea this is going on. I would say 75 percent of the Members of Congress have no idea about this battle. If they do, they just heard a little bit about it, and it is only one thing they have heard in passing, and they have no idea of the magnitude of the decision that is going to be made. But they are being visited by lobbyists, and they are being visited and pressured by huge corporations that have connections to this international, global dream of a global marketplace, by multinational corporations who they emulate or are in economic relationships with. These Members of Congress might go along with the pressure. But one thing I can tell you, in America, when the American people talk to their Members of Congress, when the American people watch how their Congressmen vote and let their Congressmen know that, let their Members of Congress know how important it is to you and to the future of our country about certain issues, this Congress responds. Lobbyists and paid adversaries can be overcome when people who live throughout our country contact their Congressman and say, you have to defeat H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act; you have to defeat that. It is going to hurt our country, it is going to hurt the standard of living of normal people. You have to support this restoration of America's patent rights. You have to restore the patent term to the American people, as we have had in our country's past, because this will give us what we need to maintain the standard of living of regular people, not just the elite. The elite has lost touch. I will tell Members something. If we had to depend on the elite of the business community to save American freedom, we would all be in chains right now. Most of the business elite of this country are looking for that extra 5-percent profit at the expense of every value and expense of the freedom of other people in the world. They do not care, because they want that extra 10-percent profit. We are not talking about the entrepreneurs who built American industry 100 years ago, people who knew what it was like to come from humble beginnings. We are talking about people who have been educated at Harvard and educated at all these elitist schools who really do not identify with the American people. They identify more with the elite of other societies. They would rather hobnob with these people in other societies in their guarded, gated communities. The American people need to express themselves, that they will not see their rights diminished in order to establish a global marketplace, or anything else. Yes, we will correct any abuses that exist. We are not a perfect country. But we will not see our freedoms diminished because some people abuse them. We will enter this global marketplace with the protections we have had. We will win the competition, just the way we have beaten the competition before. We have beaten them because we had freedom and we had technology on our side. That is what our Founding Fathers saw so long ago, that people would come to this country, and that is why our country would prosper, that is why our people would be safe. Here we are, with a little obscure issue like patent law, a little issue like that, that has been discovered as very pivotal to the well-being of our country in the future. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will pay attention, and I know they will, pay attention to calls from home when people call to say, for goodness sakes, do not support this H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, and please, cosponsor Dana Rohrabacher's bill that will restore patent protection for the American people, and protect us. By the way, one other part of H.R. 400 I need to tell you about. That is something that is going to shock you more than anything I have said. It eliminates the Patent Office from the U.S. Government. It takes our patent examiners and turns it into a quasi-private corporation. It is like they are proposing in the Steal American Technologies Act to basically make the judges who determine who owns the technology, take them away from their civil service status and Government status now, which means they have to answer to us, and they are going to make it a quasi-independent organization. They are going to publish all our secrets to the world. They are going to take away the guaranteed patent term. Now they are just going to obliterate the Patent Office as part of the U.S. Government. Does that not tell us something? We have to act. We would not let our courts be privatized by somebody who we did not know, who was going to run the show. We would not let that happen. These hardworking patent examiners, these people are making decisions that affect not only the course of our country's future, but affect billions of dollars of wealth. They should be part of the Government. I believe in privatization, but you do not privatize something like that. I would hope that people gather together and say we will not stand for this diminishing of our rights. I know we will come through, and America will not only survive, but America will prevail and America will be free, because that is the way God intended America to be.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 6, the Orlando-based Florida Today newspaper printed an interesting article about the growing competition within the United States to launch commercial satellites into space. In particular, the article reports on the new Long Beach, CA-based Sea Launch Co. This new Boeing-led consortium will transport rockets out to a floating launch platform in the Pacific southeast of Hawaii, where they can be launched more efficiently from the equator. Last year I attended the groundbreaking of Sea Launch's facilities in Long Beach along with several other colleagues, and can report that their initiative is most impressive. But the focus of the article is on how the Sea Launch effort poses a competitive threat to the older Cape Canaveral Air Station, where the Air Force's 45th Space Wing operates the eastern range and several part-Government, part-commercial launch facilities. In particular, the question of why Boeing would create a project to launch satellites elsewhere than Florida--or the new California and planned Alaska commercial spaceports--is raised. And the not-too-surprising answer comes from the House's own Dave Weldon, the distinguished Representative of Florida's space coast region: Since many observers agree that Government-managed launches have too much redtape and extra expense, the Air Force needs to step back from the day-to-day operations. My colleague was exactly on point, and courageous for saying so, albeit politely. Let me be more blunt. The fact is that we've been launching satellites on expendable rockets for nearly 40 years. The high costs of space lift today are a result of throwing away the rocket as we launch it, and the huge bureaucracy we've put in place to run the launches. We're already making significant investments in new technology with the NASA X-33 program to move toward fully reusable, single-stage-to- orbit rockets. But it's just as important that we bring the efficiencies of competitive free enterprise to bear on such well- understood activities as space launch. Which means we have to decrease the Government's involvement. Besides, the Air Force should be investing its limited resources in applying technologies such as those resulting from X-33 and the prior DC-X program to realize new capabilities like military spaceplanes, which could revolutionize warfighting and force structure requirements. In other words, if the Air Force can transfer the mundane function of space cargo transportation to the private sector, the Air Force can on space warfighting, becoming the ``Space and Air Force'' described in its new vision statement, Global Engagement. In summary, I strongly support the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, in his statements, and commend the entire article to my colleagues. [From Florida Today, Jan. 6, 1997] Space Coast Has New Challenger as Launches Head Out to Sea (By Robyn Suriano) Cape Canaveral.--Far away, in the cold shipyards of Scotland and Norway, work is under way on a project that gives local space advocates the shivers. The object of their worry is a floating launch platform longer than a football field that will be used to send rockets and their satellites into space from sea. The Boeing Co.-led international venture, called the Sea Launch Co., is the first of its kind and more than a novel way to get payloads into orbit. It could be a serious threat to Cape Canaveral Air Station, where U.S. companies are fighting to keep their share of the world's commercial launch business. ``What worries me is Boeing finding it more attractive to go through all the complexities of a sea launch operation as opposed to using the existing launch pads that we have here at Cape Canaveral,'' said Ed O'Connor, executive director of Florida Spaceport Authority, the Cocoa Beach-based organization trying to increase the state's commercial space business. ``There is a message in that, and that message concerns me more than anything.'' The new company was formed in April 1995 when Boeing, the Russian space agency and private companies in Norway and the Ukraine joined hands. Although military rockets have been launched from ships since the late 1940s, Sea Launch is the first attempt to move commercial space missions off land. What makes the venture potentially attractive to companies)--and such a threat to the Cape--is that it will be the only launch site to be directly on the equator. That's critical because most communication satellites must be placed into equatorial orbits to do their jobs. By launching from that spot, satellite manufacturers could get an added benefit not found at the Cape, where rockets take off 30 degrees north of the equator. A trajectory from the Cape requires the rockets to use more fuel to get their payload into the right orbit. Because they have to carry extra fuel to get in place, the rockets can't carry larger satellites. Officials hope the sea launch plan will allow rockets to carry larger satellites into orbit at less cost, making more money for the companies involved. ``The shortest distance to that orbit (for communications satellites) is from the equator because it's straight up,'' Sea Launch President Ron Olson said. ``Therefore, at that shortest distance you can put a bigger satellite into space.'' If all goes according to plan, the first rocket should take off from the sea platform in June 1998 carrying a Hughes Communications satellite. Another 14 launches--all using Ukrainian-made Zenit rockets--follow. Ten of those also will carry Hughes Communications satellites. Sea Launch plans to run the operation from corporate offices in Long Beach, Calif. From the California coast, the company's ship will set sail carrying the Zenit rockets in its hull while its upper decks serve as luxurious quarters for business executives. The ship, currently under construction in Scotland, will need eight to 10 days to sail to a point southeast of Hawaii--smack on the equator. There, it will meet a floating launch pad that has its own engines and can move under its own power. The mobile pad is a former oil drilling platform undergoing renovation at a Norwegian shipyard. For the first few launches, the rockets will be transferred from the ship to the floating pad while the two are docked together in port, then set sail simultaneously for the equator. But Sea Launch eventually wants to leave the launch pad at sea for several months, using the ship to carry satellite- laden rockets to the site, where they will be transferred to the platform by cranes. The Zenit rockets then would be launched from the pad using an automated system that will reduce the number of people needed to get the rockets ready, said Olson. ``The infrastructure that's required for launching at sea is about half of what you see at the Cape,'' Olson said. ``We just won't have a lot of people running around like they do at the base. ``So therefore, the operating costs are considerably less than what other people have to offer.'' Olson declined to discuss Sea Launch prices, saying only the company follows trade agreements made by the U.S. government. In doing so, Sea Launch cannot cut its prices any more than 15 percent below launches by other U.S. companies from the Cape. A Hughes official, Barry Fagan, said the Sea Launch concept is attractive for many reasons--including price--but mainly because the demand for launches is growing fast. Seventeen Lockheed Martin Atlas and McDonnell Douglas Delta rockets were launched from the Cape in 1996, keeping Space Coast pads full for the year. Fagan said the site simply can't support all the launches in upcoming years as more satellites are put into orbit to supply mobile phones, direct-to-home television and other communications services. ``The biggest (factor) is the overall need for more capacity,'' said Fagan, launch services acquisition manager for Hughes. ``If you look at Atlas and Delta and the Cape in general, there's just more demand than they can satisfy.'' However, with the advantages of Sea Launch also comes risks, including the company's use of an untested three-stage Zenit rocket. Although a two-stage Zenit rocket has been used for years, the three-stage design that Boeing will use for Sea Launch never has flown. The new rocket will not have any test flights before its first liftoff. Nonetheless, officials from Hughes and Sea Launch say the rocket is not that big a risk. ``There are no real stretches technologically,'' Fagan said. ``We're talking about all proven pieces. The real challenge is just fitting all the pieces together and making sure the system works as a whole.'' ``It's one of the latest developed rockets available, and we think it's the best,'' Olson added. Fagan and other Hughes officials are so confident Sea Launch will work that they are calling on U.S. companies to consider building their own mobile launch platform for equatorial liftoffs. ``It may be something that's too new and too different, but if Sea Launch proves the concept, and I think they will, then the government and U.S. space industry might want to take a look at this,'' Fagan said. One Cape customer--McDonnell Douglas--already is considering taking its business south and launching its rockets from a site 5 degrees north of the equator run by the European Space Agency in South America. Such a move would be devastating to the Brevard County economy, space officials say. Each launch of a Delta and Atlas mission infuses about $10 million into the local economy from salaries and money spent on services needed to get the rocket ready, according to Florida Spaceport Authority. But rather than focusing on an elaborate sea operation, it may be more realistic for Space Coast officials to look for ways to make the Cape more attractive to commercial customers. For example, the Air Force may need to step back from its day-to-day role in overseeing the Cape's launch pads, said U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay. The Air Force runs the Eastern Range, the tracking system that monitors all rocket and shuttle launches from the Cape. Some observers say the government-run launches are encumbered by too much red tape and extra expense. While the military is taking steps to make the Cape more competitive, more must be done, Weldon said. ``We're probably going to have to pick up the pace in the next few years as the competition gets more intense,'' Weldon said. ``Especially as it relates to updating the range and redefining Air Force involvement as the operations become increasingly commercial. ``We need to bring the Air Force more and more out of daily operations if we're going to bring down the costs.'' No matter what happens at the Cape, however, Sea Launch officials say the Florida launch site is not going to be hurt by their mobile platform--at least not now. ``There's enough business for everyone, there's just not enough launchers right now to take care of it all,'' Olson said. Said Fagan: ``The good news is that there's room for everybody. If the Cape were to modernize and streamline, I think they're going to maintain a significant portion of the market.'' Sea Launch Co. at a glance: Companies: Joint venture between Boening, Russian space agency, and private companies in Norway and the Ukraine. Launch site: Floating launch pad longer than a football field that will stationed along the equator near Hawaii. Rockets: Ukranian Zenit rockets will be used to launch satellites in orbit. First launch: Scheduled for June 1998. Fourteen other launches also are booked.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to discuss with the Members here assembled and those listening on C-SPAN and those who will be reading the Congressional Record an issue that will be determined very early on in this session. It is an issue that is somewhat obscure. It is an issue that is very difficult to understand in that it is complicated and deals with a complicated part of the law. It is an issue that will probably be ignored by much of the public and will probably not even be understood by most of the Members of the House of Representatives. Yet how Congress resolves this issue will determine the future well-being of our people and the security of our country. This Congress will determine early on the fundamental patent law that will take precedence in this country probably for the next 50 years and perhaps longer. We will be making a determination of what the patent law of the United States of America will be for this generation and future generations of Americans. Now some people say oh, my gosh, he was saying this is so important, and now all of a sudden he is talking about patent law. Well, that is exactly what I am talking about. Patent law is a part of the American legal system that has been taken for granted by the American people. However, every time we turn around we can see that it is America's technological edge that has permitted the American people to have the highest standard of living in the world and permitted our country to sail safely through the troubled waters of world wars and international threats. It is American technology that has made all the difference, and it is American patent law that has determined what technology and what level of technological development that America has had. This is not an obscure issue. This is an issue of vital importance to every American, and it will determine in the future the standard of living of our people and the safety of our country. We Americans came to this continent as poor immigrants, by and large, millions of us. We fared very well for a people and, comparing what we did as Americans to other countries, we faced the most undeveloped land imaginable. There was no land that was more undeveloped than the United States of America when our forefathers and mothers came here. And, yes, we had space and we had resources. But more importantly than that, the secret of America's success is not found in our wide expanses and our deposits of minerals. Instead, the secret of our success can be found in the fact that our people had freedom and they had guaranteed rights, and also, of course, we had a dream. We had a dream of a country where average people, even people who are below average, people who came here from every part of the world, of every race, of every religion, of every creed, could come and they could live in dignity, they could live free from fear, they could live with the understanding that their children would have opportunity to improve themselves because there was a rising standard of living. We believed in rights, and we believe that these rights are God given rights and not just government rights. Patent rights are one of those rights that are written into the U.S. Constitution, and there is another fact for those of you who may be listening to a discussion of patents for the first time. Do you know that the United States of America is one of the only countries of the world to have written into its founding document, the Constitution, a section dealing with patent rights? In fact, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and others of our Founding Fathers were not only people who believed in freedom, but they believed in technology. Visit Monticello and see what Thomas Jefferson did with his time after he penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, after he served as President of the United States. He went back to Monticello, and he spent his time inventing things that would lift the burden from the shoulders of labor. Benjamin Franklin, the inventor of the bifocal and the stove; these were our Founding Fathers because they knew that with freedom and with technology we could increase the standard of living of our people. Our people were not just the Americans who were here, but the tens of millions of Americans who would come from other lands, who we would have to produce the wealth that was necessary to support them. We have the strongest patent protection in the world, and that is why in the history of mankind there has never been a more innovative and creative people. Everyone has heard about Thomas Fulton and the steamboat. They assume that we invented, meaning Thomas Fulton invented, the steam engine. Thomas Fulton did not invent the steam engine. Mr. Fulton put the steam engine onto a boat and put it to work. Cyrus McCormick invented the reaper; Samuel Morris, the telegraph; Thomas Edison, the light bulb and so many other inventions. We are proud of our history of technologies because we know as Americans, and we have always known through our country's history, that these inventions produced more wealth with less labor and increased the standard of living of all people and the opportunity of all people who were part of our American brotherhood and sisterhood. And then of course the Wright brothers. We remember the Wright brothers: Men with little education who worked in a bicycle shop and ended up inventing something less than 100 years ago they were told was absolutely impossible by the experts. Yet they went ahead and moved ahead, received a patent, and they changed the future of mankind forever as they took mankind's feet off of the ground and put us on the road to the heavens. Innovation and our great creative genius is the miracle that produced our wealth, not just our muscle. It was the genius and tenacity of the Wright brothers and of Cyrus McCormick and others that produced the wealth that has changed all of humankind and especially all the lives of all Americans. It was not raw muscle of every American, it was our ingenuity, our intelligence and, yes, the legal system that was established to protect that ingenuity and creativity. We treated intellectual property rights, the creation of new technologies, as we treated the property rights that someone had to a piece of land. It was his property or her property. And that is what America is all about, in that every person had a right to own a piece of property, and today as we enter the intellectual and innovative era of the electronic age and the age where ideas and creativity will mean even more, it is vital that we maintain this traditional support. In World War II and then in the cold war, it was our genius and our commitment to freedom that carried the day. It was not our willingness to throw man for man against the Germans and the Japanese or face the Chinese Communists and the Russian Communists person for person in the cold war. If that was the case we would have been destroyed. We could never have matched them for pure muscle power. Instead, our aerospace workers, our scientists, our inventors, our computer specialists, our missile technicians, our rocket builders and, yes, those scientists who came up and started developing the SDI, the strategic defense system that would have created a missile defense system for the United States; these technological workers in our society made the difference in the cold war. Yes, we won the cold war without having to fire a shot because we relied, yes, on courage, yes, on faith and freedom, but also in superior technology, and we had that superior technology because our lands protected American inventors and our creative citizens as no other in the world. Today it is my sad duty to inform my fellow colleagues and the American people who are reading this Record and who are listening tonight that we face a great historic challenge, and this challenge comes at exactly the time when our country is moving into a global economy, which means that there is global competition, global warfare on an economic level that we must win or our country and our people will lose. If we lose this battle, our people will suffer. Future generations will see their economic situation, their standard of living decline, as well as the safety and strength of our country, if we do not remain technologically superior in this new challenge that we face as part of the global economy. Our adversaries, by the way, have identified this as our strong point. They did this long ago. It did not take the Japanese too long before they realized what it is that always gives Americans the edge. How come that they always are able even though we are working so hard and we are able to maintain unity among our people like the Americans can never have, how come we are always falling one step behind as compared to the Americans as a new day approaches? They saw it right away. Americans are innovative, Americans have the ideas. We have to depend on them to get our ideas. Well, they identified that as our strong point, but it is also our weak point in that the American people have no idea what legal structure has been established to protect that technological lead. What I am talking about is the fundamental patent law of this country. In short, let me explain that our economic adversaries and their allies, who are multinational corporations who are based here in the United States, whose allegiance, who knows where, in what country their allegiance is to are engaged in a systematic attack on the patent rights of the American people. Those people and those of our fellow citizens not engaged in the development of new technology, those people who are not inventors have no idea what fear is spreading throughout the community of innovative thinkers and creative technologists in our society. In an age of information technology innovation America's adversaries are hitting us hard and our people do not know it, and 20 years from now our citizens will wonder what hit them, whether it is-- they might think it was another Pearl Harbor and happened in one moment. They know exactly what it was, but if it is happening slowly and their rights are being eroded and they do not know that laws are changing, they will have a decreasing standard of living and attack on their well-being and not know what hit them. This attack is being conducted not by bombers in Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, but is being done by lobbyists in the Nation's capital who are out to destroy our patent system, lobbyists who have been hired by well-heeled multinational corporations and by companies who no longer have any desire to pay for the use of technology that has been developed by other American citizens. They are out, so-called, but when you ask them, they are not saying, well, we are out to destroy the patent system. No, instead what is being said is there is a measure out now to correct a so-called flaw in the system. When you read the defense of the changes that are being proposed, you will hear about a minuscule flaw that has been used in less than 1 percent of all patents, actually probably one-tenth of 1 percent of all patents, that they are using as an excuse to fundamentally change the entire patent structure, the entire patent rights that have been guaranteed to Americans since the founding of our country. In reality, if you look very closely, it is not this flaw that they will talk about, however. In reality, this flaw, which is called the submarine patent issue, is not what will be admitted to by those who are pushing the hardest on this particular issue, this reform of the patent system, so-called reform. In fact, last year, Congresswoman Schroeder was in the well, and when I asked her about it, offhandedly she said, oh, well this is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize our patent law with the rest of the world. Well, that is the real motivating force for many of those who are pushing so-called patent reform in the U.S. Congress, to harmonize, harmonize American patent law with the rest of the world. What does that mean? Well, we have had the strongest patent protection of any country on this planet, just as we have had the strongest protection for our rights of speech and freedom of religion and the other rights that we hold sacred. Now, tell me this: If Americans were out to harmonize patent law, that is one thing, certainly. But what would happen if they said, in order to harmonize freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we are going to reduce the amount of protection of these freedoms that are now enjoyed by the American people so that those freedoms will be exactly the same as, let us say, the people of Singapore have? What would be the reaction? There would be an immediate revolution throughout America, people saying, you are not going to diminish our rights in order to harmonize law internationally; forget it. However, the move to harmonize patent law is going much more smoothly, because it is being done very low-key, not many people understand it, while the freedom and the well-being of future generations is being frittered away. The fact is, we have had the strongest protection, patent right protection, and that is why we have had more innovation and a higher standard of living than any other people in the world. The common man here has opportunity that common people in other parts of the world do not have, because America has had technological superiority, and if our rights to patent protection are diminished in order to harmonize them with the rest of the world, is it not great that we will end up with the same type of opportunity and the same type of rights that they have in Third World countries? Is that what we want? That is an abomination that is being carried out in an underhanded way here in Washington, DC, and the American people have got to know about it, and they have to unite, and they have to fight, or they will lose what our forefathers fought for and put into our Constitution. But the argument you hear about submarine patents, every time we will hear from the other side, they will stress something called submarine patents. Submarine patents, by the way, are this: An inventor invents something and then intentionally tries to stall the Patent Office from its own internal procedures so that the patent, instead of being issued quickly, takes 5 years, maybe even longer, to issue, because the patent applicant is doing everything he can to manipulate the system. Of course, what the people do not really explain is the fact that every decision as to whether or not that person will be granted a continuance or a continuation of his application is made by the Patent Office itself. Any type of manipulation of the patent system can be corrected by internal reforms within the Patent Office. And I might add that the submarine patent problem is a problem for some people, but it is a minuscule problem. For people to suggest that a very small problem that can be corrected by administrative mandates within the system, that we must eliminate the guaranteed patent term, which is what they are doing, in order to correct this problem, this is a very similar type suggestion to that if you have a hangnail. Think about it. You have a hangnail, and you are talking about how terrible that hangnail is; in fact, your toe has become infected. And you go to your doctor, and the doctor goes into great detail about the ugliness and how horrible hangnails are. And you will hear hours of talk about the horrors of hangnails, being submarine patents. Only what the doctor is leading up to is that he is going to amputate your leg. If you go along with a doctor who wants to amputate your leg because you have a hangnail, you have got problems. And what is going to happen to the U.S. patent system unless the American people rise up and contact their elected representative and tell their representative not to permit this to happen is, in the name of correcting a hangnail called submarine patenting, they are going to amputate the leg and destroy the whole system. Basically, most inventors, the vast majority of inventors, maybe 95 to 99 percent of all inventors, struggle as hard as they possibly can to have their patent granted as soon as possible. They are afraid, No. 1, if they wait, that innovation will overtake their invention and they will not be able to make any money on it because there will be something else that is out. No. 2, every second that they do not have the patent issued to them, they are restricted in the amount of money that they can get, because people will not invest and will not give money for something that has not already been issued as a patent. So they are struggling, and they are struggling. We are told by those people who want to totally change the patent system that these evil inventors, you know, evil people like Thomas Edison and Cyrus McCormick, evil inventors like people who invented the drugs that have cured polio, evil inventors, that these people are stringing out the process. They are not stringing out the process, they are struggling to get their patents through, and the one or two exceptions are not reason to destroy the rights of these inventors who have changed the landscape of the United States of America and improved the lives of our people. Patent rights, unfortunately, have already been diminished, and most Americans do not even know it. Three years ago, 3 years ago, there was a change that was snuck into the GATT implementation legislation that changed the fundamental basic law of the land dealing with patents, a law that had been in place, a system that had been in place, since the founding of our country. Let me explain it. Since the founding of our country, if an inventor applied for a patent, that inventor would be granted a patent. Once his patent was granted, he would have 17 years of a guaranteed patent term to reap the benefits of his invention, his or her invention. That applicant would be able to know that, no matter how long it took, if the Patent Office and the bureaucracy and those other people who were trying to stop him from getting the patent issued, no matter what happens, if it took 10 years or 20 years, the inventor knew that after that patent was actually granted, he or she would have 17 years of a guaranteed patent term. That was the term. Americans had a right to a guaranteed patent term. Well, they just changed that a little bit. They just changed the wording a little bit. They changed the wording in the GATT implementation legislation. It now says that the patent applicant has 20 years of patent protection from the date of filing. Now, let me describe what that really means. That means there is no guaranteed patent term, because if a patent applicant now, an inventor, files for a patent, if the system--by the way, if we are talking about innovative, innovative and breakthrough technology, sometimes it takes years, even a decade, for the Patent Office to issue that patent and say, you are the inventor, this is what you say it is. What happens with this new system that they snuck into the law is that the clock is ticking against the inventor. Instead of having a guaranteed patent term of 17 years, the inventor now has an uncertain term, and if it takes the bureaucracy 10 years or 15 years, the patent applicant may end up with 5 years in return. Now, what does that mean? That means that venture capitalists who usually go into partnership with inventors, they provide the money that the inventor needs, they sustain them while they are exploring new ideas and trying to develop new models and working innovations, and the venture capitalists also have known, hey, I am going to have 17 years to earn my investment back. That investor and that inventor now know that they may have no time to earn their investment back, because there is no longer a patent term certain. We eliminated the right of Americans to a guaranteed patent term. And it did not just happen. It was done, as I say, it was snuck into the GATT implementation legislation. And let me mention this as well. We were told when we voted for fast track for GATT, and I voted for fast track for GATT, that the only thing in the implementing legislation would be those things required by GATT. That is this General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. This provision that I am talking about today was not required by GATT, yet it was put into the implementation legislation as an underhanded attempt to put us into a situation where we had to vote for that agreement, vote for that change, or vote against the entire world trading system. Those of us who voted for fast track were totally betrayed. We were betrayed, because we had made an agreement that the only thing in there would be those that were required by GATT. Well, the change was made, and 2 years ago I moved forward to try to reinstate the guaranteed patent term, because the more I studied it, the more I found out how this situation smelled to high heaven. It was just something that had been put over through the GATT implementation legislation. Later on, I found that this was not required by GATT, but what it was required by was a personal agreement between the head of our Patent Office, Bruce Lehman, and his Japanese counterpart to harmonize American law with Japanese law. You heard me. There was a personal agreement from someone who had absolutely no right to make that agreement and expect that it would be just put into law without debate, that he could just sneak it into another piece of legislation. That was an agreement between that Government official, Bruce Lehman, and his Japanese counterpart. This is incredible. So, we have the agreement that we are going to harmonize our law. Now, what happens in Japan? Yes, we are trying to harmonize our law with the Japanese law. What happens in Japan? We already discussed the fact that the Japanese never come up with any new innovations, they take them from the United States. One of the reasons is because their patent law has this system, and when an inventor applies for a patent in Japan, he knows, or she knows, that the clock is ticking against the inventor and that all of a sudden, when the word gets out in Japan that this new invention has been requested, a patent has been requested for this new invention, what happens? The new inventor is confronted by corporate special interests who beat down that inventor until the inventor concedes ownership rights to the special interests. So when you have huge corporations running roughshod over the people of Japan, of course the people of Japan do not invent very many things, because the creative people feel, why should they? And they put their energies into other things, like families and other things that are important to all individuals. Do we want to have a system, do we want our system to be like the Japanese system? Is that what we want? Do we want to eliminate the guaranteed patent term because the Japanese did not have a guaranteed patent term? That is what happened in the GATT implementation legislation. Step two of the attack, by the way, happened 2 years ago as well. Actually, last year we saw this. It was a comprehensive bill, H.R. 3460, which was submitted, a comprehensive patent reform bill. It was submitted and it almost got to the floor. I was fighting it all year round. All year round. It almost got to the floor, but we managed to prevent it from getting to the floor. What about H.R. 3460? That bill has now been reintroduced in Congress. Here we are in our first weeks of the session and H.R. 3460 has already been introduced. It is now called H.R. 400. This is the bill. I call it the Steal American Technology Act, H.R. 400. What does H.R. 400 do? First of all it reconfirms the end, the demise of America's right to a guaranteed patent term. It basically reaffirms that. No longer will we ever have a dream, if this bill passes, of the right of a guaranteed patent term. Now it is an uncertain patent term, and I might add, it will put us in the same position as the Japanese, that the Japanese have with their major corporations. This bill not only does that, but it drastically changes other patent rights. Up until now in the United States of America, throughout our 200-year history, a patent applicant would apply for a patent with the full understanding that everything that he was applying for with the Government would be confidential. In fact, people could be put in jail for disclosing the contents of a patent applicant. This is something we have held sacrosanct, that it is information that belongs to the patent applicant, the right of confidentiality, the right to be kept secret. H.R. 400, that is the bill people are trying to push through this House, and they will be trying as the weeks go on, with ever-increasing intensity and every Japanese paid lobbyist that they can get down here. This bill, what does it do also? This bill mandates that every patent application made in the United States of America will be published after 18 months. Published. We have gone from a right of a guaranteed patent term, that has been eliminated; then we have a right of confidentiality to our inventions, and now they are trying to eliminate that. What does it mean? It means that every copycat in the world, every brigand, technological thief in the world will have every detail of every American patent application after 18 months. Many of our patent applicants will see their inventions manufactured overseas by copycat thieves before the U.S. Patent Office has had time to grant them a patent. I sat in my office as the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary passed through that bill last year. There was a man who was a president of a small solar company and he was listening to it. He was enraged. His face reddened and his fists clenched. He said, Congressman, if this bill passes, my Japanese competitors will be taking my patent applications, they will be manufacturing my new ideas that I have spent millions of dollars developing. They will be taking the profit from the sale of my innovations to fight me in court to destroy my own patent rights. Is this a formula for catastrophe? Is this a formula for disaster? It is an invitation to thieves around the world to steal American technology. H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, it will not protect American inventors. You will hear hoopla, hoopla, hoopla. It is a 90-page bill filled with platitudes trying to get people away from the central point that they are giving away America's technological secrets to the Chinese, the Japanese, and everybody else who could get themselves someone in Washington, DC to fax those materials to them around the world. In fact, there will be a whole new industry outside the Patent Office. There will be people going from the Patent Office to the fax machines as rapidly as possible to get the information about new American ideas out, and who can go into manufacturing them the quickest before the Americans are even able to issue the patent. This is something that the American people should be able to understand. Patent law is confusing. It is difficult to understand. But every American should understand that if we give our secrets away, if we publish them for the world, people who do not like us, who are our economic adversaries, will use our ideas against us. What a catastrophe if the Wright Brothers, in building their airplane, were faced with a Mitsubishi Corp. who came down upon them and had every secret of their devices and said, no, this is our plane, this is our plane. You Americans did not invent this, we invented this. You would have two Americans in a bicycle shop facing massive Japanese corporations. That is exactly what is going to happen if those people who are pushing H.R. 400 have their way. America's standard of living, we do not need the aerospace workers out in California, we do not need the aerospace industry, do we? That is what the Wright Brothers gave to America. They gave hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of Americans great jobs and standards of living because we protected their invention. We gave them property rights to what they invented. We kept it secret until they were issued the patent. We do not give away our secrets and expect our enemies not to use them. H.R. 400 also by the way obliterates the Patent Office; just by the way, it also eliminates the Patent Office from the U.S. Government. Just thought I would throw that in as well. It is like saying, oh, yes, we have decided to make the court system a quasi-independent corporation. That is right. They are going to take the Patent Office in H.R. 400 and they are going to turn it into a quasi-independent corporation. Our patent examiners, who have a history of integrity and honesty, they have been protected by their civil service protection, they have a quasi-judicial function. They are making legal determinations, legal judgments that will mean who owns billions of dollars of wealth in our society. Those people are now going to work for a quasi-independent corporation, and what influences will be on that corporation we do not know. We do not know. It would be like saying, now we are going to rely on a private corporation to set up a judicial system before we know all the details on how it is going to function, as if patent rights--of course, they do not mean a thing. The American people would know what was going to happen if we were going to give corporations the right to run all the judges and all the courts in our country. They would know that. They would know we had better have every detail mapped out. We do not have every detail mapped out. H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, would not only disclose all of our secrets, but our own people who are there to protect us, the patent examiners who are there to protect the rights of our citizens, will be put into an entirely different arrangement. They are no longer our representatives, no longer people who are working for the United States, working for the American people, they are working for some quasi-independent corporation. I believe, I personally believe, in privatization. Any time we can have privatization, boy, Dana Rohrabacher, is there. The National Taxpayers Union and all these other people know I am there when it comes to privatization. I think it is a good idea. But I would not support privatizing all the courts. I would not support privatizing the Army. There are certain functions in Government. One of those functions happen to be the protection of our rights, and property rights, as I say, the intellectual property rights of our people, are going to be ever more important. So we are going to take that function away from employees at the Patent Office and turn it into a quasi-independent corporation? Who is going to control it? Who is going to be on the board of directors? Are they going to be corporate representatives on the board of directors, maybe foreign corporations might be able to be on the board of directors? I do not know. We will have to find out those answers. Basically, H.R. 400 will permit, the Steal American Technologies Act will permit foreign and multinational corporations to run roughshod over the American people in the same way they have been running roughshod over their own people. That is predictable. They are going to give them all the information. They are going to strip away the rights that have protected American inventors. You do not expect that these huge powerful corporate interests that have had such incredible impact on their people in their own countries are not going to come over here and try to do the same thing to our people. In a few days I will be introducing a bill which will counteract H.R. 400. My bill, like a similar bill that I had last year, will be entitled ``the Patent Term Restoration Act.'' This bill offers us a chance to restore to the American people the guaranteed patent term which has been our right since our country's founding. I am asking my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors. The other side has already had their multinational corporate interests putting pressure on our colleagues here. This is a free society. They have a right to speak. They have a right to talk to their representatives. But it is important that the American people have their influence as well. Every American needs to talk to his or her Member of Congress, his or her Member of the House of Representatives, and ask that that representative cosponsor the Patent Term Restoration Act, and oppose, please, and oppose the Steal American Technologies Act, H.R. 400. Last year my bill, which is basically similar to the bill that will be reintroduced in the next few days, last year we had the support of biotech companies, we had the support of those who are under attack from all over the world, we had the support of labor unions, we had the support of venture capitalists, the pharmaceutical companies, major universities like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But more importantly, we had support from every individual inventors' organization in the country. In short, we had the support of the little guys versus the big guys. This is the ultimate fight of the little guys versus the big guys. In America's history, in America's history, the average person, the little guy, has always come through because our Government is designed not for the protection of people who can hire stables of lawyers to do their bidding, and that is what H.R. 400 would do, the Steal American Technologies Act will do. It will mean that the big corporations who can hire the lawyers will have Government protection of their rights, but the rest of us will be left out. But we are not going to permit that to happen, because we can mobilize support in Congress if the American people will speak to their Congressmen, if they will call their Representative in the House of Representatives and say, ``We want you to support H.R.,'' whatever the bill will be, which is basically the Patent Restoration Act, the Patent Restoration Act, and to oppose H.R. 400, which is the Steal American Technologies Act. Japanese corporations, as I say, and Chinese, and all these people, when you hear people talking about the global economy, by the way, I believe in a global economy. No matter what we do, we are going to have a global economy. We are going to have a more global system, because communications and transportation are better than ever, thanks to the Wright Brothers and thanks to Thomas Edison and a lot of other people. But the fact is that we cannot use that concept as an excuse to diminish the rights of our people. If we are going to harmonize our law with Japan or anyone else, we must bring their standard of protection up to that of the American people. That is what this debate will be all about, of whether or not we can--the big shots, of course, they can just have their lawyers do the work for them, but the rest of us depend on these things being written into law, these protections to be written into law. We need to restore the American guaranteed patent rights. We need to restore them, and when we face these issues of global economy in the future, we must face them with the understanding that we will not be entering the global economy by basically diminishing the rights of our people. The American people can understand that. The American people, if they speak to their elected Representatives, their will, their will will take precedence over the powerful special interests. Today we join the battle. Today we will begin a fight that will be decided before August, and before August, through this body, will come through either a bill that is aimed at restoring the guaranteed patent term to the American people, or H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act. This will determine the future of our country. People will not fight for the American people unless the American people fight for themselves. We must all participate. I am confident that just as in the past, the American people will be the winners and that in the future of our country, when we evermore in the years ahead look to technology, we will be the technological leaders. We will not, our people will not go out to do battle, to do battle with enemies and adversaries around the world in equipment and weapons that are inferior technologically. Think about having to disclose every new patent idea after 18 months, whether or not the patent has been issued. That means our adversaries, who might want to destroy us, will have technology that can actually target America for destruction. Certainly they will have information that can target American jobs and the standard of living of our people for destruction. But we will win this battle and we will win the battles in the future because we will be strong and the American people will speak loudly and rise up and prevent this abomination of H.R. 400, the Steal American Technologies Act, from passing and will demand their rights be restored, patent rights and their rights to decency and their rights to opportunity as American citizens.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am concerned that we in fact are extending the stay in this country of probably thousands of nurses who come from another country, at a time when we do not necessarily have a nursing shortage in America. However, I am informed by one of my colleagues, who spent an enormous amount of time and effort, from North Carolina, that in his area and in several areas of the United States they have a nursing shortage that would be exacerbated tremendously if we did not pass this legislation. My concern, and I do intend to withdraw my objection, is that these nurses are put on notice and those hospitals and nursing homes that are using these services are put on notice that this is a one-time extension; that we are not granting these nurses that are in question in this legislation something that is going to be extended to them again and again; and next year when this comes up, it is going to be more difficult, because the time when they are legally supposed to leave this country will be all at the same day, because this bill suggests that their visas are then going to expire, every one of these nurses will expire on the same day. But, for the record, I am stating that we will make sure and we should ensure that is not the intent of this legislation, to extend in perpetuity their right to stay in this country. Again, I will be withdrawing my reservation, but with the understanding that we are not going to just do this every year, and their employers and the nurses are on notice that they should use this time to start preparing themselves, No. 1, to go back to their home country, and, No. 2, to find Americans who can work as nurses in these areas in rural North Carolina, as well as in Chicago and elsewhere where there are, as I say, spot shortages of nurses.

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask my good friend and colleague from New Jersey to explain to me the provisions in this bill concerning abortion and what protections we would have against, let us say, in China, for example, where there are forced abortions?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, some people were concerned that anyone who wanted to immigrate from China would just get pregnant and come back over here. The second thing is, what groups are protected by this act? I understand this gives certain immigration treatment to certain groups.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman, is there a cap on this?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How many people would be affected by this?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it possible we are talking about more than 100,000 people?

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 hour.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I just thought that it would be apropos for us to take a look at what the accomplishments of this particular Congress and the changes in the world are bringing to the American people. Today I hope that those people who are reading these remarks in the Congressional Record and those people who are watching on C-SPAN recognize that over the past 2 years we have indeed seen a revolution in Washington, DC. The word ``revolution'' really means a turnaround. It means not necessarily that great strides have taken place going in one direction or the other but, instead, that the direction has changed. Over these last 2 years, we have changed the direction of Government in the United States of America. I am very proud to have been part of Newt Gingrich's team, the new team in the House of Representatives, and what we have done to try to bring control to the uncontrolled increase in taxation and spending that threatened the very well-being of the American people. We have also come to grips with other issues that in the past have been unattended when the other party controlled the House of Representatives. One of the issues that is of most concern to me, Mr. Speaker, and of most concern to Californians is the flood of immigration, especially illegal immigration, that is flowing into California that is destroying some of our basic institutions and our social infrastructure. Today in California, many Americans who have spent their entire life paying their taxes, living honestly, trying to raise their family, trying to be good citizens in their community, are finding that the social infrastructure that they have come to rely upon is being destroyed because people from other countries are coming to our State illegally and flooding into the schools, into our hospitals, they are crowding our jails and preventing the judicial system from functioning and the other social services systems from functioning as they were set up. For the first time Congress has come to grips with this problem. I am very proud that although the President of the United States, who claimed that he was going to try to do everything he could to help us with this flood of immigration, that the President of the United States instead did everything he could to drag his feet and to prevent us from passing a meaningful immigration bill, but despite this, we were able to pass an immigration bill that turned the country around. There is still very much to do, and next year we will accomplish more on the issue of immigration reform. But we can be proud that instead of aiming at policies that made the situation worse, we have now turned this Government toward solving the problem and confronting the challenge to the American people. One area of concern to me, and I believe that our people should be alerted to this, is that this year this administration decided to speed up the process of naturalization of people who are in this country legally. However, many of those people who have been sworn in and become citizens of the United States were people who entered the United States illegally and were granted amnesty back in 1986. What we have had in the last year is a speedup of the naturalization process so that 1.3 million legal immigrants now have basically become citizens. That is three times the number that were normalized just 2 years ago. Of that 1.3 million, this administration was in such a rush to grant them citizenship that thousands upon thousands of individuals who should have been screened out because they were convicted felons have been granted U.S. citizenship and turned loose among us. This cannot be tolerated. I would hope that the American people note who is trying to solve the problem and who is not trying to solve the problem, who is trying to come to grips with the ever increasing load of taxation and spending that we have seen from Washington, who is trying could to come to grips with this threat of a massive flood of illegal immigration. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have served in this Congress, a Congress that has at last come to grips with some of these problems and challenges to our country's well-being.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand that this is designed to help a lot of people who come here to provide employment, to be here as nurses, but I would like to understand a little bit more about this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime is once again cracking down on Aung San Suu Kyi and her democratic movement. The large scale repression and violence by Burma's tyrants we have witnessed over the past week justifies a tougher approach toward the Rangoon regime. I introduced legislation this year to impose economic sanctions on Burma. Although that legislation did not become law, the American people are becoming more familiar with the tragic situation in Burma. I intend to reintroduce similar legislation concerning Burma in the 105th Congress if I am reelected. Last month, the Burmese regime held a long press conference during which various officials criticized Aung San Suu Kyi and the United States. Specifically, the Burmese criticized the International Republican Institute, and its program officer, Mr. Michael Mitchell, for working with the democratic forces inside Burma. That kind of criticism is a badge of honor. Although the international spotlight rarely shines on Burma, I am watching closely what is happening in that tortured land. The escalating reign of terror against democracy activists and hilltribe people belies Rangoon callous disregard for the infinite value of human life. Mr. Speaker, the American people stand behind Aung San Suu Kyi and I am proud the International Republican Institute is doing what it can to support democracy in Burma.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, General Vang Pao, the Vietnam war hero and Colonel Wangyee Vang, the National President of the Lao Veterans of America, organized a major event earlier this year to commemorate the sacrifices of the Hmong and Lao combat veterans. Tragically, Ambassador William Colby, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], who was slated to speak at this special event, passed away just prior to it. In honor of Ambassador Colby, and the Hmong and Lao veterans who staunchly fought as allies of the United States to defend freedom from Southeast Asia, I request to include the following article from the Washington Times in the Congressional Record. [From the Washington Times, May 8, 1996] Refugees From Laos Mourn a Friend, Colby (By Gary Scheets) Chia Kue was born on the CIA base of Long Chieng 24 years ago. She remembers eluding Laotian communist insurgents with her family as they followed a trail of refugees out of Laos and into Thailand, where squalid camps harbored them until, and if, they were lucky enough to get to the United States. At that same base, William Colby, who would later direct the Central Intelligence Agency, staged operations using recruited Hmong soldiers to guard America installations and fight the North Vietnamese along the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the Vietnam War. Miss Kue's father was a Hmong soldier fighting under Maj. Gen. Vang Pao, commander of the Royal Lao Army Region Two, who took his direction from Mr. Colby. This Saturday and Sunday, thousands of Hmong combat veterans and refugee families will gather in Fresno, Calif., to pay tribute to Mr. Colby. At the event, originally designed as a ceremony to honor the actions of Hmong soldiers, Mr. Colby was scheduled to attend and present commendations and citations. Instead, Hmong tribal and military honors will be staged in remembrance of Mr. Colby, whose body was found Monday along the banks of the Wicomico River. Authorities believe Mr. Colby drowned after his canoe capsized nine days earlier. The Maryland State Medical Examiner's Office won't have autopsy results until the end of the week. Miss Kue, of Arlington, is a first-grade teacher at the Fairfax Brewster School, a private school in Baileys Crossroads. She and her family spent four years in Nong Chai, a refugee camp in Thailand that was closed when the Thai government began repatriation of the Laotion refugees. She first met Mr. Colby in April 1994 at congressional hearings on the plight of Hmong refugees in the camps and their forced repatriation to Laos to face persecution and possible death for their collaboration with the CIA. Miss Kue and Mr. Colby kept in contact on the refugee issue, meeting and talking several times. Miss Kue said the death of Mr. Colby will be a significant loss to the Hmong community because he was one of the few in official Washington openly championing their cause. ``He was so important to the Hmong because he knew so much of what they did,'' Miss Kue said. ``He was one of their greatest allies.'' The Hmong most likely will never have someone of Mr. Colby's stature advocating their cause again, she said. Miss Kue said Mr. Colby struck her as an honorable man who was not afraid to fight for what he believed in. ``He was someone who was willing to stand up for the truth, for what he knows and what he believes in,'' Miss Kue said. Gen. Pao, who worked side-by-side with Mr. Colby in Laos during the Vietnam War, called him ``a good friend to the Hmong people.'' Speaking in a telephone interview from Fresno, where he is preparing for this weekend's program, Gen. Pao said Mr. Colby will be sorely missed by the people he fought for: ``Bill Colby's death is a great loss not only for all freedom-loving people,'' Gen. Pao said. ``We are hoping that someone will step forward and fill his shoes.'' During the war, the two men got to know each other quite well. ``I told him in great respect,'' Gen. Pao said. Philip Smith, a Washington representative for the Lao Veterans of American, said Mr. Colby was an integral part of the effort to have the wartime work of the Hmong recognized. ``Because Laos is such an obscure country, Bill Colby was so important and why no one will be able to replace him,'' Mr. Smith said. Mr. Smith said Mr. Colby understood the contribution of the Hmong and how it fitted into the geostrategic picture of the Cold War. Mr. Smith, who will attend the Fresno ceremonies this weekend, had planned to fly to California with Mr. Colby. Now, he said, the seat next to him on the plane will be empty.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. My dad was also a transport pilot. He had three fighter squadrons, but also two transport squadrons. He flew these fellows back, and there was one general, I remember him telling me about this conversation with this general, but that was something worth going into.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have to go now, because there is a radio interviewer waiting for me. If I could say this, my father, when I was young, who was a career military officer, told me many times of how he flew the generals and officers and enlisted men from the Chosin Reservoir back in his plane, across the Pacific, in order to bring them back to the United States after that incredible military action.

Mr. ROHRABACHER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has been in California probably more often than Ronald Reagan. The fact is that he is out there visiting his billionaire buddies from Hollywood and, of course, these billionaire buddies, along with the millionaires, are the ones who bankroll the liberal left activists who control the Democratic party. But being out in California so often, he has spoken to the people of California and made the promise that he would try to help us come to grips with the problem that threatens the social infrastructure of our State and, that is, the flood of illegal immigration that is basically destroying the education, health care and social service infrastructure of the State of California. He has made this promise on several occasions. The fact is that this is the same President who people have learned to sort of when he promises something, to take it with a grain of salt. After all, he is the same one who, as soon as he became President, started referring to taxes as contributions and Federal spending as investment which seems a little crass in the use of words. He is not putting anything over on anybody. He is the one who promised us a middle-class tax cut, then raised taxes on gasoline and, of course, raised taxes dramatically on senior citizens; and also promised to end welfare as we know it, but then vetoed welfare reform bills that made their way through Congress. But he did promise California, to help us with this flood of immigration. The people of the State of California, and I think the people of the rest of this country, should understand what is happening in Washington today. Today the President of the United States is in negotiations with the Republican leadership. What is he demanding of us? What is he demanding of the Republicans who now control both Houses of Congress? The President who promised to help us stem this flood of illegal immigration that is destroying our schools and our health care, that same President is now threatening to close down the United States Government if the Republicans do not agree to gut the immigration reform bill that was recently passed in the House of Representatives with a substantial majority. Yes, we were told that we had to remove that provision that said illegal alien children cannot get free education, or the States, we had a provision that said the States should not be forced to provide education benefits for illegal alien children. The cry went up, ``Oh, the poor children.'' Well, the fact is we should be caring more about our own children rather than millions of children coming from overseas. We took that provision out, however. We took it out of the immigration bill and they moved the goal post. Now the administration says we have got to take out a whole section, the guts, the real meaning, the heart and soul of our immigration reform bill in order for him to move, to agree with us and to cooperate with us to see that there is an omnibus spending bill that will keep government going. He is willing to cut off widows and veterans benefits, checks that go to the destitute in our country, the checks that are going to these programs that our people depend upon, he is willing to close all of that down to ensure that illegal aliens and immigrants who are getting benefits that they do not deserve, to make sure that they continue to drain away these resources. Whose side is he on? He is not on the side of the American people. This is not just a broken promise. Mr. Speaker, this is a betrayal. Not only of the people of California but for people across the United States of America who are picking up the bill. In SSI and Medicaid benefits alone, the legal immigrants who come into this country are expected to sign a pledge that they will not be draining these resources away. But $20 billion of our tax dollars are going now to pay for these benefits for legal immigrants who are basically going straight for the office, filled out the forms and immediately start collecting these benefits. The fact is they should not be collecting the benefits at all because in order to come here they have agreed not to become wards of the government. But the President, in order to keep spending this $20 billion on foreigners who have come here on the understanding that they will not collect these benefits, the President is threatening to close down the government. He is threatening to end the checks to our veterans, to our widows and our orphans, because he is insisting that we do this. This is an attack on every taxpayer in the country, and what it is is an invitation to people throughout the world to come here in even greater numbers. Again, the people of this country should understand the travesty that is happening and the betrayal that of their interests by President Clinton.