F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which is common-sense legislation that will bring our fiscal house back in order, and will finally get our government off its spending binge. We can no longer operate on a business as usual mentality, and the time to rein in our deficit spending is now. Families sit down and make budgets--then they spend within their means. It is imperative, now more than ever, that Congress abide by those same principles. Instead of applying for new credit cards, we need to cut up the ones we already have. I have long argued that our spending practices in Washington are unsustainable, and have routinely voted against spending measures in Democratic and Republican-led Congresses that have contributed to the crisis we face today. Since Republicans retook control of the House in January, we have changed the discussion in Washington from how much more are we going to spend, to how much are we going to cut. There are some who feel that our problem is not our spending; rather, it is we are not bringing in enough revenue. I find this thought process misguided. It is not viable to increase taxes drastically enough to bridge the $1.58 trillion gap between our spending and revenues, without destroying jobs and damaging our already struggling economy. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act is a plan to bring long-term change to the Washington spending machine. First, this legislation would cut spending by $111 billion in fiscal year 2012, reducing non-defense discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which was called for in the House-passed budget plan. Second, this legislation would place a cap on total spending as a share of GDP. Without caps on spending, future Congresses will ultimately resort back to the spending practices that have led to the situation we are currently facing. Third, this legislation will only provide for an increase in the debt limit if Congress sends a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment to the states for ratification. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would legally force our government to live within its means. It's interesting to see that while many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including our President, have argued that a constitutional amendment is not necessary, 49 states currently abide by some form of a balanced budget requirement. We cannot pass the financial burdens of our country on to our children and grandchildren. It is important to note, that while I am not proud of the spending habits of Republicans when we were in charge, the unprecedented spending increase since 2009 when President Obama took office needs to be noted. Under his leadership, our national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion. Once again, that is $3.7 trillion in only two and a half years. It took the U.S. from 1776 until 1992 to accumulate the same amount of debt that President Obama accumulated in two and a half years. Given our fiscal challenges that lay ahead, the time to act is now. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act is an important step to bring fiscal sanity back to Washington. We can no longer continue to kick the can down the road hoping that someone else will make the tough choices. I strongly support passage of this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, this expansion of prior-user rights is a step in the wrong direction. It goes against what this House determined 4 years ago when we last debated this issue, and also it is different than what the Senate has done in March of this year. The fundamental principle of patent law is disclosure, and the provision in this bill that the amendment seeks to strike goes directly against disclosure and instead encourages people who may invent not to even file for a patent, and that will slow down research and expanding the knowledge of humans. The gentleman from Texas talks about manufacturing. I am all for manufacturing. I think we all are all for manufacturing. But what this does is it helps old manufacturing, which we need to help, but it also puts new manufacturing in the deep freeze because they use the disclosures that are required as a part of a patent application. You vote for the amendment if you want disclosure and advancement of human knowledge. You vote against the amendment if you want secrecy in this process.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Madam Chair, section 3 of this bill creates a first-to-file patent system. The sponsors believe that the United States should harmonize with other countries' first-to-file systems. There's no reason to do that. Our patent system is the strongest in the world, and it's based upon the first recognition of the Constitution in any country that inventors should be protected. I think that the Constitution empowers Congress to give patents only to inventors. We had a significant constitutional argument on this issue yesterday. If the amendment is not adopted, the issue will be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court. The current first-to-invent system has been key in encouraging entrepreneurial innovation and evens the playing field for individual inventors who are not represented by a major industry. The first- inventor-to-file system violates the Constitution because it would award a patent to the winner of the race to the PTO and not the actual inventor who makes the first discovery. If we change to a first-to-file system, inventors who believe they do not have sufficient resources to win the race to the PTO will not have any motivation at all to continue developing the new invention. This will stifle innovation, and given the current state of our economy, that's the last thing we need.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. First-to-file also invites excessive filing and will add to the burden of the USPTO by increasing the examiner's workload. We already have financing problems there. If this amendment is not adopted, it will be worse. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Chair, the reason that first-to-invent is important is that it allows an inventor to talk to investors, conduct trial and error innovation and deal with leaks, because commercially important patent rights are determined by ordinary, nonburdensome business activities. Where this hurts the ordinary inventor by going to first-to-file is that he needs to get his venture capital together, and then go ahead and file for a patent. With first-to-file, he has to put all of the money up front to file in order to protect himself; and what that will do is have a chilling effect on the small inventor who needs to get capital in order to perfect a patent and in order to market it. That's why this amendment should be adopted. I urge the Members to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of one of my longest-serving staff, Thomas B. Schreibel. Tom has been by my side for the past 27 years, serving in several roles, including my Chief of Staff for the past 10 years. While Tom's work ethic and guidance have earned him the title Chief of Staff, his loyalty, sense of humor and dedication have earned him the additional titles--friend, family and my peer. Tom is a natural leader who has demonstrated his capabilities by setting examples and providing sound guidance and mentorship. For the past 27 years, Tom has worked with scores of interns, staffers and Members of Congress. No matter the person, he would treat everyone the same. He would avail himself to his colleagues to work through challenges when they needed his astute judgment or spend precious time with aspiring young staffers who knew that Tom's unique characteristics and insight would aid them in their own lives. Tom has also provided guidance to my colleagues in the House of Representatives who recognized that his expertise and experience in many areas have no equivalent. Throughout his career, Tom has turned many such working relationships into lasting friendships. Tom's commitment to public service and Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District has served our country well. As the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I relied on Tom's depth of knowledge, counsel and political sense as I shepherded numerous bills through the House of Representatives. Tom was with me when the USA PATRIOT Act, Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act and the REAL ID Act were passed by Congress and presented to the President for his signature. These, and many other laws I worked on, have made America safer, guaranteed the rights of the disabled, and protected the right to vote. Upon leaving this institution, Tom should know that he played a significant role in these important pieces of legislation. Tom's departure from the U.S. House of Representatives will leave a void. He has been a rock that I have relied on throughout much of my tenure in Congress. Tom leaves behind a legacy of leadership and dedication that will be a saving grace to my staff, and indeed this institution, long into the future. His example will serve as a beacon of light to all those on Capitol Hill who wish to serve this nation and her people. I hope that future leaders in Congress will be as blessed as I have been. Please join me in wishing Tom, his wife Dana, and son Brent, all of the best as Tom leaves Congress for new challenges and opportunities. On behalf of my family, the House of Representatives and my staff, I thank Tom for his service to this nation and her people, and congratulate him on a job well done.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, shortly, the House will begin its consideration of the so-called ``patent reform'' bill. At last night's meeting of the Rules Committee, when the debate on the rule within the committee wrapped up, the chairman chastised the Judiciary Committee for voting out a bill in violation of House rules, and specifically the House CutGo rules. However, the Rules Committee also voted a waiver that allows the CutGo rules to be ignored. That waiver is described by its supporters as a technical correction. This technical correction involves $700 million, hardly something that is technical. It seems to me that the best thing that should have been done was that the Rules Committee ordered the bill re-referred to the Judiciary Committee so the Judiciary Committee could do it right in conformity with the House rules, like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did when he was the chair and which I did when I was the chair. We ought to know this when we're debating it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the move by the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) to delay consideration of this rule, and I want to talk about the patent bill specifically. The Rules Committee granted a waiver of CutGo rules to this bill so that it would not be subject to a point of order. I believe in the CutGo rules, and I'm told by the supporters of this bill that this waiver is just technical because the committee violated the rules in turning discretionary spending into mandatory spending. As we have just heard, this technical waiver involves $717 million. It is hardly technical; and in fact, at the end of the Rules Committee's consideration of this resolution last night, the chairman of the Rules Committee admonished the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), that he should not be reporting out legislation that violates House rules. Now, rather than giving the Judiciary Committee a get-out-of-jail- free card with a $717 million technical waiver, we should send this bill back to the Judiciary Committee so that they can fix up their own mess rather than having the House or the Rules Committee do it. Now, making a motion to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee is not in order because I looked into that. The only way we can get this legislation fixed up, without a $717 million technical waiver of CutGo rules, is to support the motion that the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is making, and I go across the aisle by agreeing that he is on the right track on this, and I hope that he is supported.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a $717 million CutGo waiver is not prophylactic in nature. It's whether we are going to abide by our CutGo rules or whether we won't; and the way we enforce the CutGo rules is by delaying consideration of this legislation, sending the patent bill back to committee, and letting the committee spend some time complying with the rules of the House of Representatives. This is a terrible precedent to set. Don't set it now.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Can the gentleman from California please explain to the House how we're going to cut spending by violating our CutGo rules with a $717 million waiver when the gentleman from California has already chastised the Judiciary Committee for violating the rules?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, in the first day of this session we all took an oath to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And a day or two later, for the first time in history, we read the Constitution on the floor from beginning to end. We changed the rules to have a constitutional debate when the constitutionality of legislation before us was in question. And this is the first time in the history of the United States House of Representatives when a question serious enough to have a constitutional debate is being debated on the floor for 20 minutes. Unlike what my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) has said, this bill is unconstitutional, and voting for this bill will violate one's oath of office. And here is why. The intellectual property clause of the Constitution gives the protection to the first-to-invent, and what happens later in the Patent Office only protects that right. It doesn't denigrate the right, and the right is given to the person who is first-to-invent. If someone who was the first-to-invent ends up losing the race to the Patent Office, this bill takes away a property right, and that violates the Fifth Amendment. Now, inventor means first inventor in the Constitution. And earlier this month, in Stanford University v. Roche, the Chief Justice has said, since 1790 the patent law has operated on the premise that in an invention, the rights belong to the inventor. And since the founding of our Republic, that has been the law. Even in the beginning of our Republic, the 1793 act created an interference provision and set up an administrative procedure to resolve competing claims for the same invention. The Patent Board rejected the proposal that the patent should be awarded to the first person to file an application. And Thomas Jefferson served on that Patent Board that rejected first-to-file. Secondly, early Supreme Court decisions confirm that patents must be granted to inventors, not when they file, but when they invent it. And that began in 1813 with Chief Justice Marshall, reaffirmed in 1829, and last month in Stanford v. Roche in the Supreme Court of the United States. I think it is clear from all of the precedents that a first-to-invent and a first-to-file provision is unconstitutional because it adds a layer of compliance in winning the race to the Patent Office for someone who already has that right. Let's vote ``no'' to uphold our oaths of office under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, this manager's amendment is substantive. It contains provisions that should not be buried in a manager's amendment, and it should be defeated. First of all, it does maintain the fee diversion. It maintains the fee diversion because of an alleged lock box. We've heard about this before, and I have in my hand the Congressional Record of June 23, 2000, where the chairman, at the time, of the State, Justice, Commerce Subcommittee stated that the fees that are generated by the Patent Office are not to be used by any other agency or any other purpose. They remain in that account to be used in succeeding years. We are not siphoning off Patent Office fees for other expenditures. Well, guess what? It happened. And it's happened in the last 10 to 12 years to the tune of $1 billion. And this is exactly the same promise that they're making now. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. Now, this change relative to the reported bill to what is in the manager's amendment is the thing that is subject to the waiver of CutGo to the tune of $717 million over the next 5 years. The proponents of this amendment say this is a mere technical waiver of CutGo. $717 million is no mere technical waiver of CutGo. If you believe in CutGo, you've got to vote down the manager's amendment where this change was protected by the waiver granted for the Rules Committee. The amendment is substantive, it ought to be defeated.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2011, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the thirty-two preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. These three provisions have stopped countless potential attacks and play a critical role in helping ensure law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep our country safe. The death of Osama bin Laden proves that American intelligence gathering is vital to our national security. The fight against terrorism, however, did not die with bin Laden, and neither did the need for the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 990, to reauthorize the three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act for 4 years. This legislation provides much-needed certainty to our intelligence officials, who rely on these tools to prevent terrorist attacks, monitor foreign spies, and prevent espionage. Unfortunately, this bill does not go as far as legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. H.R. 1800, the bill I sponsored along with Judiciary Chairman Smith, Intelligence Chairman Rogers, and House Administration Chairman Lungren, permanently reauthorizes the lone wolf definition and extends section 206 roving authority and section 215 business records authority for 6 years. The PATRIOT Act has been plagued by myths and misinformation for 10 years. We've heard some of those tonight, and we'll probably hear more. In the last 3 months, myths have become even more outlandish--claims of warrantless wiretapping, monitoring entire neighborhoods, and blatant constitutional violations. Make no mistake: Each and every one of these claims are patently false, and if Congress fails to reauthorize these laws before they expire, America's national security and that of its citizens will be the most vulnerable in a decade. The lone wolf definition closes a gap in FISA by allowing the government to track a foreign national, not a U.S. person, who engages in acts to prepare for a terrorist act against the United States but is not affiliated, or cannot immediately be shown to be affiliated, with a foreign terrorist organization. The lone wolf definition is in fact quite narrow. It cannot be used to investigate U.S. persons and only applies in cases of suspected international terrorism. The government cannot use this provision to investigate domestic terrorism. Although the lone wolf provision has yet to be used, it is an important provision that recognizes the growing threat of individuals who may subscribe to radical and violent beliefs, but do not clearly belong to a specific terrorist group. The recent death of Osama bin Laden only strengthens its importance, as the fear of individual retaliatory acts increases. Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes the use of ``roving'' or multipoint wiretaps for national security and intelligence investigations. This allows the government to use a single wiretap order to cover any communications device that the target is using or is about to use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators must seek a new court order each time a terrorist or spy changes cell phones or computers. In today's world of disposable cell phones, free e-mail accounts, and prominent social media, roving authority is a crucial tool. Section 215 allows the FISA Court to issue orders granting the government access to business records in foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and clandestine intelligence cases. This authority is similar to the widely accepted grand jury subpoena in criminal investigations. There are numerous protections written into the law to ensure that the authority is not misused. Under section 215, only an article III FISA judge can issue an order for business records; an investigation of a U.S. person cannot be based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment; the records must be for a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must be utilized. In addition, requests for records of library circulation, book sales, firearms sales, and the like must first be approved by the FBI director, his deputy, or head of the FBI's national security division. By contrast, a grand jury subpoena can obtain all of these records in a criminal investigation with simply the signature of a line prosecutor. Finally, business records, which by definition reside in the hands of a third party, do not--and I repeat, do not--implicate the Fourth Amendment. Since this law was first enacted over 10 years ago, these provisions have been scrutinized to the fullest extent of the law and have been either unchallenged or found constitutional. The lone wolf definition has never been challenged. Section 206 roving wiretaps have never been challenged. But four appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have upheld criminal roving wiretap authority under the Fourth Amendment. Section 215 business records were challenged, but after Congress made changes to that provision in the 2006 reauthorization, which many people who are complaining about this bill voted against, the lawsuit was withdrawn.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, today we are presented with an opportunity to take a giant step toward protecting the unborn. For almost 35 years, restrictions on the use of Federal funds for abortion have been enacted separately and have been contained in annually renewed congressional temporary funding restrictions, regulations and Executive orders. Such policies have sought to ensure that the American taxpayer does not fund the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. The legislation on the floor today will end the need for numerous separate abortion funding policies, and will finally put into place a permanent ban on any U.S. Government financial support for abortion. Each year, the abortion industry is allocated millions of tax dollars to advance its agenda. Last year alone, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America collected more than 360 million taxpayer-funded dollars. Because all money is fungible, when taxpayers pay an organization like Planned Parenthood millions of dollars, we cannot help but empower and promote all of that organization's activities. Taxpaying Americans are fed up. They are tired of their hard-earned money being spent on supporting and promoting the abortion industry. Under H.R. 3, Federal funds will be prohibited for elective abortion coverage through any program in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The legislation prevents the funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas. It prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees, and it prevents taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C. Importantly, H.R. 3 would also protect the conscience-driven health care providers from being forced by the government to participate in abortions. The conscience clause is critically needed in order to protect health care providers who do not want to take part in the abortion business. Without it, people could be forced to participate in something they strongly believe to be morally wrong. Faith-based hospitals could lose funding and be forced to close. It is time to end taxpayer-funded abortions. I strongly support this important and needed approach to preserve and promote the sanctity of life in our country.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone in this Chamber that America is the greatest country the world has ever known. America has the most innovative people and continues to be a lure to others seeking greater opportunities and a better and brighter life in the largest and most spectacular economy in the world. I'm sure many of us know the story of something else that was considered to be the largest and most spectacular thing the world has ever seen. It was considered to be UNSINKABLE. While there has been a lot of talk about America's ``Sputnik moment,'' I think we should be as focused on the possibility of facing America's TITANIC moment, today being the 99th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. It may be a coincidence that we are debating America's future on this anniversary However, we must keep this disaster in mind as we debate America's fiscal future, Mr. Chair, because unsinkable ships do sink! If we do not pass Chairman Ryan's budget then America will continue down a path that will sink the most vibrant economy that has served as a beacon for people looking for a brighter future.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which is common-sense legislation that will help economic recovery efforts and reduce energy prices. It is troubling to see the Obama Administration continue to advocate for policies that will inhibit job creation in this country, and also raise prices of goods and services for every American. We should not move forward with imposing regulations that will slow the current economic recovery. Over the last few months, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have borrowed the Republican mantra from the past couple of years when the Democrats had control and asked, ``Where are the jobs?'' I have found this quite humorous considering that since Republicans have taken over leadership of the House, we have been actively working to rein in excess government waste and pass legislation to make it more affordable to do business in this country. But, setting that aside, we should all be able to agree that without passage of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, the answer to their question will be: not in the U.S. We must not continue to allow the EPA to move forward in regulating all sectors of our economy. It is a simple fact that by imposing costly regulations on American businesses, it will ultimately force these companies to reduce jobs, or in the worst case scenario, move operations overseas. Additionally, while some may feel that industries can afford to pay more to comply with the slew of EPA regulations that have already been implemented, or will soon be implemented, these extra costs will ultimately be passed onto the American consumer. The EPA's reliance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports should be cause for alarm. Given the climategate e-mail scandal, and other information that has come to light, there are many serious questions as to the legitimacy of the process used by the IPCC to base their conclusions. It would seem to me that since the EPA relied heavily on questionable conclusions by the IPCC, it is essential for Congress to pass H.R. 910 so we may go back and reexamine our greenhouse gas policy. Like most Americans, I believe that there can and should be a proper balance between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Everyone wants clean air and clean water, and no one wants sky-high electric and tax bills. I have long argued that the key to our energy independence is through technological innovation. The best way for the federal government to support technological innovation is to incentivize it through research and development grants and tax credits. Excessive regulations cannot assure technological breakthroughs, especially expensive and onerous mandates like the cap-and-tax proposals in the previous Congress. With the recent spike in gas prices, we need to do all we can to decrease the cost of doing business. H.R. 910 is the first in a series of legislative proposals that Republicans are planning on putting forward to cut energy prices and reduce the regulatory burdens that businesses and consumers face. I strongly support passage of this important legislation, and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.