Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I go into my prepared remarks, I would like to point out that I personally have opposed all of the bailouts and the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Obama administration has channeled to different financial wheeler-dealers and cronies, like Goldman Sachs and the others that have received so much money as directed to them from this administration, just to put it on the record.

Many of these so-called corporations that my colleague just pointed out, if

we take a look, when we say if we're going to increase taxes on them, these corporations' biggest stockholders happen to be pension funds. What we're really talking about by trying to say we're going to just tax these big corporations, what we're really doing is taxing the pension funds and are taxing the entities that provide the money for the pension funds for the rest of the citizens of this country. But that is another issue that I will discuss some other day.

Today, Mr. Speaker, as a strong advocate of human progress through advancing mankind's understanding of science and engineering, I rise to discuss the blatant abuse and misuse of science. A few nights ago, I watched a video of President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address. Unfortunately, his much-heralded warnings about the military industrial complex, which were right on target, I might add, that warning has unfortunately obscured another warning in that farewell address that is just as significant.

Eisenhower pointed to the danger ``of domination of the Nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.''

In my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat, which Eisenhower warned us about, than the insidious coalition of research science and political largesse--a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American people that their health and their safety and--yes--their very survival on this planet is at risk due to manmade global warming. The purpose of this greatest-of- all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just the acquiescence to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a mandated change to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and to our prosperity as a people.

Ironically, as the crusade against manmade global warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. The general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with phony science, altered numbers, and outright fraud. This is the ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world; and like all fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors.

Prominent scientists who have been skeptical of the claims of manmade global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and have been obstructed when trying to publish peer-reviewed dissenting opinions. How the mainstream media or publications like the National Journal, for example, have ignored the systematic oppression that I speak about is beyond me.

If you've heard the words ``case closed,'' it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the purpose of such a proclamation is to limit and repress debate. Well, the case isn't closed, so let's start with some facts about manmade global warming and the theory of manmade global warming.

First and foremost, the Earth has experienced cooling and warming climate cycles for millions of years, which a significant number of prominent scientists believe is tied to solar activity--just like similar temperature trends have been identified on Mars and other bodies in the solar system--and that is the Sun.

So how about those icecaps on Mars that seem to expand and recede, mirroring our own polar icecaps? Doesn't that point to the Sun rather than to human activity? After all, there are very few, if any, human beings around on Mars, and certainly millions of years ago, when we had other cycles in the world, there weren't very many human beings, if any, around. So where do the climate cycles come from? What causes climate cycles?

Right off the bat, let's acknowledge that manmade global warming advocates, who I suggest are alarmists, do not believe the Sun has no impact on climate cycles. They just believe that the Sun has a minimal impact as compared to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, they believe that the Sun does have some impact but nothing compared to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Today, they believe this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has become very frightening because mankind is using fossil fuels, which they believe is causing this dramatic increase in

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the people of Thailand in celebrating the seventh cycle birthday anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej on December 5th. During his reign of over 65 years, Thailand continues to be the United States' long-term military ally, trade and economic partner, and friend in southeast Asia.

King Bhumibol holds a special relationship with our country beginning with his birth in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father was attending Harvard University. As part of his continuing efforts to strengthen the ties between the United States and Thailand, the King visited America in 1960 and 1967. Under King Bhumibol's stewardship, Thailand has become a model of democracy and economic development in the region. Thailand's role as a regional democratic leader is a critical factor in the development of a stable Bangkok-Washington relationship.

I had the distinct honor and privilege of visiting King Bhumibol on my past visits. His continued efforts to provide guidance to improve the lives of his people were evident. Fittingly, he was awarded the United Nations Development Programme's first Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my best and warmest wishes on his 84th birthday and for a long life of good health. I am pleased to join our Thai friends in recognizing this special day.

Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 593, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment which would require that the amount provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill for loan guarantees for advanced nuclear energy facilities be equal to or exceed that for loan guarantees targeted for carbon capture and sequestration projects.

In laymen's terms, my amendment would specify that we cannot use more funds in this act for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration projects than we make available for projects using nuclear technologies such as small modular gas-cooled reactors.

The purpose for this is simple. These new technologies hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective, proliferation-resistant noncarbon-producing American-built nuclear reactors.

As a member of the Science Committee, I, along with my colleagues, have studied this technology over the past 7 years. And let me note, the bureaucracy has studied this technology almost to death. Well, the time has

come for that study to be left behind. It's time for the study to be over, and it's time for us to act. There are commercial companies out there right now trying to bring these technologies to market, and this amendment will help make this a reality.

I would like to also note that the GAO and the committee have stated that there is a lack of transparency in this loan guarantee program. We cannot expect to perform proper oversight without knowing where and how these funds are being used, and it is critical that we become more specific in stating how we intend the funds to be used. And that's what this amendment would do.

It would also be important that we require the administration to report back to Congress with a full explanation of how these funds are being used. Thus I ask for support for this amendment.

I believe that it is Congress' job to make decisions. We are the ones who should be actually designating exactly where money is going. I'm a senior member of the Science and Technology Committee. We have studied this issue directly, and this is my recommendation. And I think that what we're supposed to do here is make sure that rather than having money, saying we can just spend all we want in sequestration and accepting that alternative, that we must designate what we think is the best use and most efficient use of the taxpayer money. That sounds within the rules to me.

I have another amendment at the desk.

I rise in support of my amendment which would require that none of the funds provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill be used for the purposes of providing loan guarantees for ``carbon capture and sequestration projects.'' If you think that carbon capture and sequestration is an important goal--and I'm sure there are some people who believe it is. Let me just note that I do not believe that, and I think that having heard the debates that have been going on about this particular issue over the years, that there are large numbers of my colleagues who do not believe that as well.

Well, if you do not believe in carbon sequestration and capture as an important goal, then I would suggest that the best sequestration--if you really believe that we must sequester carbon and that that is an important goal, then let me suggest this, and that's what my amendment is all about: it's better to leave the oil and coal in the ground if that's what you really want to do is capture this carbon and sequester the carbon and capture it.

And I would suggest that the best way to do that is by promoting new nuclear technologies such as the new, inherently safe, small, modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not use water as a coolant. We can provide all the clean, safe electricity that we need. And I would hope that any funds that the Secretary might have, in terms of his opinion, determined to use in carbon capture and sequestration, instead that the Secretary will use that limited amount of money that he has available to him on a positive program that will permit us an alternative to oil and gas. I personally, however, do not believe that oil and gas necessarily and the capture of carbon sequestration is an important goal; but if you do, you should be supporting--instead of basically using that as an expensive tool that will hurt the economy, we should be using the funds that are available instead to promote this positive alternative of nuclear energy, especially the high- temperature, gas-cooled reactor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that, again, we should be taking responsibility, especially when we see something as important to the American people as the issue of energy, especially clean energy, and how we are going to make sure that it is supplied to the people of the United States.

Specifically designating that these funds won't be used for sequestration and carbon capture, I mean, that seems to me that is what we should do. We should determine whether or not we believe this is an appropriate use of government funds. I suggest that it is not, especially when we have alternatives that are available to us, like these new technologies in the nuclear field, that can give us what we need in terms of not producing carbon and making sure that you don't even need sequestration then. If you have those alternatives, then we shouldn't be spending the money on this other approach, on the carbon capture and sequestration approach. That makes sense to me.

We need, as Members of Congress, to set these type of parameters on the spending of our limited dollars in a way that will have the most positive impact, and the carbon capture and sequestration concept is not the best way to spend our money when we have these other alternatives.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which would support advanced nuclear reactors, particularly those reactors that do not use a light water coolant, which happens to be technology used for decades and seems to be what certain members of the business world are trying to foist off on the American people. No, it is time to upgrade, to update, and innovate.

Since I understand that a point of order has been raised against this amendment, I intend to withdraw it. But before I do so, I would like to make some remarks as to why it is important for these new reactors to come forward.

As I stated earlier, these new technologies, such as the high- temperature, gas-cooled reactors hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost- effective, noncarbon-producing, proliferation-resistant, American-built nuclear power plants. A number of our commercial companies out there right now are ready to bring forth this cutting-edge nuclear technology and put it on the market and create new, high-tech private sector jobs for the American people. Their success should be our goal.

There is some mention of these technologies in the committee report. I am very grateful for that, but I would like to draw attention to why these are so vitally important for our country.

First of all, the small modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not rely on decades-old light water coolant systems, exemplify the next wave of nuclear power, and we should pursue it far more aggressively than we are today. Specifically, we should be more aggressively pursuing the next generation nuclear plant and make the best use of the technologies that have been developed which include inherently safe reactors that don't require extraneous engineered safety devices to protect the public. We have a new level of safety that is almost unimaginable in these new reactors. We should understand that we need the high fuel burn-up rates that will greatly reduce the proliferation concerns. So we have reactors now that will be available that will not leave the residue and the leftover material that can be turned into nuclear weapons.

We also have reactors that are modular, scalable, and can be delivered on the back of a truck. This would make them far more economical and far more feasible for various communities throughout the world. Read that, we can manufacture these somewhere in America and transport them around the country or around the planet.

The Department of Energy should encourage and partner with industry to build working reactor prototypes using these technologies to provide the data required for commercial licensing.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should encourage applications from private companies for the purpose of building working commercial reactors incorporating these new technologies. The NRC should also consider these applications immediately upon receiving them and expedite the processing.

Ideally, the NRC should be able to complete the process within 2 years of the receipt of the initial application. That should be more than a goal. That should be a commitment.

I hope I've made it clear how vital these technologies are to our energy future. We are either going to lead the world in the nuclear arena or we are going to be left behind as a country.

Now, I understand that there is a technical problem with this amendment, but I would like to make sure that my colleagues understand the significance of this new technology.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, a fellow southern Californian recently was featured in the LA Times with respect to an issue involving one of his patents (``Defending patents takes financial toll on inventor,'' LA Times, June 14, 2011). In addition, this week, a letter to the editor from former Senator Birch Bayh appeared in the Congress Blog from Hill.com and referenced a letter that the former Senator recently received from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) about the very same issue.

While I am not weighing in on the merits of this particular case, the underlying issue involved should be of great concern. Therefore, I am submitting the aforementioned PTO letter.

United States Patent

and Trademark Office,

Alexandria, VA, June 3, 2011.

Hon. Birch Bayh,

Venable LLP,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Bayh: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf

of Lawrence Lockwood. The letter indicates that Mr. Lockwood

filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States

Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit's

decision affirming the trial court's holding that state tort

claims by patent holders against persons who file sham

reexamination requests are preempted by Federal patent law.

The letter asks the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) to confirm that there are no procedures permitting a

damages remedy for patent owners subjected to sham

reexamination requests, and to state whether it sees a

problem with patent owners pursuing state tort claims for

such damages.

The USPTO can confirm that it does not have a procedure

that offers a damages remedy for patent owners in Mr.

Lockwood's position. As to your request for the USPTO's

support of Mr. Lockwood's case, please understand that the

USPTO cannot participate in the case without the Solicitor

General, who rarely files uninvited amicus briefs at the cert

stage. Moreover, any amicus brief would be due very shortly

at this point, given that Mr. Lockwood has already filed his

petition.

Please know that the USPTO is sympathetic to the concerns

of patent owners. The agency is particularly concerned

whenever a patent owner is subjected to a fraudulent

reexamination or some other form of harassment. Thus, the

USPTO will be monitoring Mr. Lockwood's certiorari petition

closely. At the same time, we note that the USPTO has the

power to police misconduct through its Office of Enrollment

and Discipline (OED). Anyone with knowledge of unethical

conduct can report it to OED for investigation.

Sincerely,

David J. Kappos,

Under Secretary and Director.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to Pakistan.

Pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of dollars. We've given them $18 billion just since 9/11--not to mention the many billions of dollars we gave to them during the Cold War. What has all that spending achieved for the people of the United States? Pakistan is now the best friend to America's worst enemies: radical Islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent China. Wake up, America.

Was anyone really surprised to find Osama bin Laden was living in a luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated Pakistani city? Let me admit that even I was surprised that the Pakistani Government was so bold, so open in its contempt of the people of the United States, as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to justice Osama bin Laden, that terrorist radical fiend whose leadership led to the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

The Pakistan Intelligence Service, the ISI, is today, as it always has been, a friend of radical Islam and an enemy of Western democracy. With American acquiescence and Saudi financing, the Pakistani Government--read that the ISI--the Pakistani Government created the Taliban as Islamabad's vanguard for the conquest of Afghanistan. In the process, they set in place a fundamentalist anti-Western radical Islamic terrorist state.

Let's note that even after 9/11, after 3,000 of our citizens had been slaughtered, the ISI continued to covertly support radical Islamic terrorists, and they are still engaged in such hostile

acts, even as American lives are being lost even today.

In 2010, the London School of Economics published a report that found agents of the ISI--this is 2010, long after 9/11--were ``funding and training the Afghan Taliban.'' And to top things off, there is substantial reporting that has been done that suggests that Pakistani diplomats are lobbying the Afghan Government leaders, suggesting that they dump the United States and turn to China for a partnership and reconstruction.

This isn't shame on them; this is shame on us. Washington may be able to coerce and bribe Islamabad into doing us a favor now and then, but it is time to face reality. The goals and values of the United States and Pakistan are fundamentally at odds. Wake up, America. This bill would provide for another $1 billion to Pakistan. The Pakistani Government and Pakistan, they are not our friends. Why are we borrowing money from China to give to a government that has betrayed us time and time again?

Therefore, I urge adoption of my amendment to eliminate any funding in this appropriations bill from going to Pakistan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is any of the money that we have in this bill going to end up financing the ISI? Will any of that money end up in the hands of the ISI?

Is there any language in the bill that would prevent the money in this bill from going to the ISI?

All right. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Let's just note that Ms. Lofgren last night presented a case to this body which I felt demonstrated the danger that we have in this law. A move to first-to-file system, which is what this bill would do, without a corresponding 1-year grace period in other countries dramatically undermines the patent protection of American inventors. Some of us believe that's the purpose of this bill because they want to harmonize American law with the weak systems overseas.

Well, without this amendment that we are talking about right now, without the Conyers-Rohrabacher amendment, if an inventor discloses his discoveries, perhaps to potential investors, his right to patent protection is essentially gone. It's not gone from just Americans. Yes, he would be protected under American law; but from all those people in foreign countries without a similar grace period to what we have here in our system, these people are not restricted. Thus, they could, once an American inventor discloses it, at any time they can go and file a patent and steal our inventors' discoveries.

The only way for American inventors to benefit from a grace period here, which this bill is all about, is to ensure that foreign countries adopt the same grace period. And that's what this amendment would do. It would say our bill, which will make our inventors vulnerable to foreign theft, will not go into place until those foreign countries have put in place a similar grace period, which then would prevent them and their citizens from coming in and stealing our technology. Ms. Lofgren detailed last night in great detail how that would work.

I call this bill basically the Unilateral Disclosure Act, if not the Patent Rip-Off Act, because we are disclosing to the world what we've got. And our people can't follow up on it because there's a grace period here, but overseas they don't have that same grace period. So what we're saying is, to prevent foreigners from stealing American technology, this will not go into effect until the President has issued a statement verifying that the other countries of the world have a similar grace period so they can't just at will rip off America's greatest entrepreneurs and inventors.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

In this debate, Madam Chairman, we have heard over and over and over again about the gridlock at the Patent Office, which is supposedly what we're trying to correct with this legislation, H.R. 1249, which I have been contending is not designed to help the Patent Office, but to harmonize American law with the rest of the world and make it weaker patent protection for our people.

But what does it do about the backlog, if that's really what people are concerned about? H.R. 1249 would actually tremendously add to the PTO backlog by requiring further post-grant review proceedings at the Patent Office, proceedings which would consume even more limited personnel and money. Added procedures add to the gridlock at the PTO, at the Patent Office, and it will also do what? It will break the back of small inventors and startup companies who are trying to get a new product on the market.

It will empower the multinational and foreign corporations who can grind down the little guy, because what we are doing in this bill is adding even further procedures they have to go through, even after they have got their patent issued to them.

This is the big guy versus little guy legislation. That was even pointed out by the Hoover Institution, which did an analysis of this bill and said, ``The American Invents Act will protect large entrenched companies at the expense of market challenging competitors.''

``A patent should be challenged in court, not in the U.S. Patent Office.''

``A politicized patent system will further entrench those companies with the largest lobbying shops on K Street.''

``The bill wreaks havoc on property rights, and predictable property rights are essential for economic growth.''

``If America weakens its patent enforcement at home, it will set a dangerous precedent overseas.''

``The America Invents Act would inject massive uncertainty into the patent system.''

This is a travesty. It is an attack on American well-being, because we depend on our small inventors to come up with the ideas. The Kaptur- Rohrabacher amendment limits this new burden. If we can't get rid of it, at least we can limit this new burden of all these post-grant reviews they are going to add to companies that have more than 100 employees. It frees up the Patent Office personnel to do their job, helps with that gridlock, and protects the small business man and small inventors at the same time.

I would ask my colleagues to support the Kaptur-Rohrabacher amendment.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Let me just note, our amendment empowers the Director of the Patent Office to extend this 100-employee standard to other small businesses and individual inventors overseas if this is required by a treaty; yes, small businesses and individual inventors overseas. So our amendment does nothing to violate any treaty obligations by giving our own people special rights over foreign individuals.

What it does do, however, is prevent foreign corporations from grinding down our inventors here, like they grind down their inventors overseas. This is what we are doing to prevent a harmonization of our laws, because we don't want weaker patent protection for our people. They already got it overseas against their foreign corporations that grind them down. We want to protect our own people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the rule.

The CBO says the manager's amendment to this bill, H.R. 1249, would significantly increase direct spending. According to the CBO, over a 10-year period, H.R. 1249 would incur significant new deficit spending. For example, switching to first-to-file would increase costs by $18 million; the new post-grant review in this bill would cost $140 million; amending the inter partes reexamination would increase direct spending by $250 million. This is all annually. The new supplemental review would increase direct spending by $758 billion. That's a $1.1 billion increase in spending. Yet we as Republicans promised that if there would be this increase in spending, we would cut spending in a proportionate share. We made that the rule of how we're going to do business. This rule supersedes that promise. We should not be going back on our promise to the American people to act responsibly.

This bill will lay the foundation not only for weaker patent protection for American inventors but it will also knock the legs out from us finally being responsible in our spending patterns. This bill is not about making the Patent Office more efficient. That's what we keep hearing. It is about harmonizing American patent laws with those of Europe. And in Europe and Asia they do not have strong patent protection for their people. What that means is weaker patent protection for Americans. That is what they're trying to achieve. And who's going to be strengthened by this? Multinational corporations who don't care about the United States.

The Hoover Institution just did a major study showing that the patent bill demonstrably is a plus for large corporations who have created no jobs and hurts all the little guys and the small guys and the startups who have created all the jobs. This is an anti-jobs bill. It should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, our Constitution was designed and written to protect inventors, not filers. The words are very clear. ``Inventor'' is in the Constitution, ``filers'' is not in the Constitution. So why are we having this dispute about the constitutionality of this provision which is very clearly in the Constitution?

Are there all sorts of problems that we have people fighting as to who really invented something? No, we don't have a lot of problems. The reason why we have to change this is to harmonize our law, American patent law, with Europe. There are opponents that stated this over and over again in the early part of this debate, that the purpose was harmonizing American law with the rest of the world. Well, American law has always been stronger; we've had the strongest patent protection in the world. So what does harmonize mean? It means weakening our constitutionally protected patent rights.

The purpose of the bill is to weaken a constitutionally protected right that has been in place since the founding of our country. It should be rejected.

Thank you very much, and I hope everyone is paying attention to what this is all about tonight.

First of all, we have Dan Lungren, one of our Members who is a former Attorney General of California, along with Jim Sensenbrenner and John Conyers both the former chairmen of the Judiciary Committees, all of them adamant that this bill is unconstitutional. And now we have a discussion and we have a lot of people talking about backlogs and what's wrong with the efficiency of the patent system or the patent office as if that's what this is all about.

It is not what this is all about. This, again, has been designed, this is a patent fight that's been going on 20 years. Basically, you have some very large multinational corporations who are trying to harmonize American patent law with the rest of the world, even though American patent law has been stronger than the rest of the world throughout our Republic's history. You weaken the patent protection of the American people; you are weakening their constitutional protections in the name of harmonizing it with Europe. Is that what we want to do? I don't think so. That will have dramatic impact on our country.

Hoover Institution, one of the most highly respected think-tanks in the United States, had four of their scholars go after this bill; and here's three of the points they've made, through the many points, that said thumbs down on this America Invents Act. It is better called the patent rip-off bill. Here's what Hoover Institution said: the America Invents Act will protect large, entrenched companies at the expense of market challenging competitors. Read that: overseas multinational corporations. They also said, The bill wreaks havoc on property rights, and predictable property rights are essential for economic growth.

This bill is a job killer, and the jobs that will be killed are in the United States of America, not the multinational corporation.

These multinational corporations, they're creating jobs overseas. They don't care if the jobs are lost here. The America Invents Act--here's Hoover Institution again--the America Invents Act would inject massive uncertainty into the patent system.

We have had the strongest patent system in the world, and it has yielded us prosperity and security as a people. We do not need to change the fundamentals of this system and to harmonize with weaker systems throughout the world.

I call for the people to vote against this patent rip-off bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment focuses on an issue that reflects a concern not only for our national security, but also for the prosperity of our country. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to discuss this important issue with me tonight as part of my time. And I do intend at the end of this discussion, which should be considered a colloquy, my intent is to withdraw my amendment.

What we are talking about is an important issue. We are talking about the President's authority to move satellites and related components from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. And this may sound rather bureaucratic, but it means whether or not there is going to be the transfer and sale of technology that we have developed with billions of dollars of Federal investment that is very important to our technology and the jobs in California, but also very important to our national security if these technologies would be put into the wrong hands.

We have heard expert witness testimony that current regulations are harmful to national security, cost American jobs, and encourage other nations to develop competing technologies. Since Congress placed these items on the U.S. Munitions List--meaning satellites and these other technologies that we're referring to today--our worldwide market share for the manufacture of satellites and components has dropped dramatically.

It has been widely reported that while U.S. firms accounted for 73 percent of the world market for commercial satellites in 1998, that figure has since dropped below 30 percent. Global satellite manufacturers often pursue alternate ITAR-free sources, especially for commodity components and related items, simply to eliminate any risks associated with licensing delays, even if the export license is likely to be approved by U.S. regulators.

The U.S. regulatory environment has particularly affected small U.S. satellite suppliers, which lack the organizational structure, staff, and marketing resources to offset the added burden of export control barriers in such a close, competitive climate in this high-tech business.

Current U.S. satellite export controls are not slowing foreign space capabilities, but encouraging them. Foreign manufacturers now market ITAR-free satellites, and we are encouraging non-U.S. satellite research and development with the controls that are in place. But the national security concerns that led Congress to create the

current regulatory wall are still in place, and yet there are significant concerns existing regarding China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and other terrorist-supporting states. We must continue to prohibit the transfer of these technologies to these nations, and we must prohibit U.S. satellite sales, I believe, to China. We especially must not permit U.S. satellites to be launched on Chinese rockets.

Last year, the House endorsed the removal of satellites and components from the Munitions List, but it was clearly stated that there was an exception barring any transfers to generous nations and allowing no launches of American satellites on Chinese rockets. That should remain our position.

At this time, I would yield several minutes to Mr. McKeon, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman's assessment.

Out of respect for the judgment of the chairman and his desire to make sure that the full interim report that the Congress has on this issue is studied and that the Defense Department finishes that report, I am willing to withdraw my amendment, but I agree with the points that you've made. I have great respect for the chairman and his care and concern about the safety of our country.

I would, at this point, ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

You're someone who says ``billions of dollars'' and ``Afghanistan'' both.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in support of our military personnel who are putting their lives in jeopardy in Afghanistan. They are doing their duty for us, for which every American should be eternally grateful. Now we must do our duty to them. If our military is engaged in a dangerous mission that we believe cannot be successful and but for face-saving we are keeping them there, we are doing a disservice to our defenders and to our Nation.

The people of Afghanistan are as courageous and independent as any on Earth. They are indomitable and unconquerable--a lesson invaders have learned the hard way for centuries. The liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban was accomplished, not by a massive influx of American troops, but instead by fighters of the Northern Alliance militia and the air support that we provided them. It was a tremendous success.

When they were doing the fighting, it was a success. When we try to do the fighting all over the world, we lose. We cannot be a Nation that occupies the rest of the world. We cannot be a country that sends its troops all over the world to handle every problem.

After the great success of eliminating the Taliban from Afghanistan, our foreign policy bureaucracy, not our troops, set in place a government structure totally inconsistent with the village and tribal culture of the Afghan people. That information is no surprise to anybody. Most of us understand that.

They have a tribal culture there in Afghanistan and a village system. That is what works for them. Our State Department has tried to foist upon them a centralized system in which they don't even elect their provincial governors. After being liberated from the Taliban by Afghans, our troops are now there to force the Afghan people to accept an overly centralized and corrupt system which was put in place by our State Department bureaucracy.

I'm sorry, it won't work. It will not work. Any attempt to subjugate these people and to force them to acquiesce to our vision of Afghanistan will fail. We all understand that. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that that tactic won't succeed. To keep our troops over there any longer is sinful. It is a disservice to our country, and it is also sinful to those young men who are willing to give their legs and their lives for us.

It is now up to us in Congress to stand up for those Americans in uniform who will be needlessly giving their lives to accomplish a mission that cannot be accomplished. If it can't be done, we should not be sending them over there.

The most responsible course of action is to, as quickly as possible, get our people out of this predicament, not to dig us in deeper and not to wait until this bloody quagmire kills even more Americans and we have to leave without success. If we can't win, we should pull out now.

I rise in support of the resolution, and again with great respect and concern for those great people who we are sending overseas to defend us. If we don't think they can succeed, it is incumbent upon us to bring them home as soon as possible.

I was not in the United States military in Afghanistan, but I did participate in a battle in Afghanistan when the Russians were there. I went in with the Mujahideen unit and fought in the Battle of Jalalabad in 1988. I got to know these people of Afghanistan. Foreign troops will never conquer the people of Afghanistan.

And, yes, radicalized Islams did murder Americans on 9/11. By the way, most of them were Saudis. Most all of them who hijacked the planes were Saudis. And Saudi Arabia still has the radical Islamic tenets that we are talking about that supposedly brought us into this battle.

We will not succeed if we are planning to force the Afghan people to accept the centralized government that our State Department has foisted upon them. All we are going to do is lose more people. All we are going to do is have more wounded people and more of our military sent over there, because that is what they are telling us is the method of getting out. To get out, we have to have Karzai accepted.

We have foisted on them the most centralized system of government that would never have even worked here, because we believe that local people should run the police and should elect their own local officials. If we don't believe that that system will work, and that is our plan, we should get our people out of there before more of them are killed and maimed.

Yes, we do respect Duncan Hunter and all those people who have served. That is the reason, that is what motivates me.

Here we have Walter Jones, who represents the Marine Corps down at Camp Lejeune. If they thought that they were defending our country and were going to save our lives, all of them would give their lives for us. But they are not on that mission. They are on that mission to get the Afghan people and coerce them into accepting a corrupt central government, and that won't work. It didn't work when I was there fighting the Russians. It won't work now.

Mr. Speaker, 2011 marks the 50th Anniversary of the Founding of Congregation Ner Tamid of South Bay in my congressional district. People of all faiths from throughout the South Bay area of Los Angeles are conveying heartfelt congratulations to all the members and friends of Congregation Ner Tamid on this most auspicious occasion. For five decades Congregation Ner Tamid has upheld a faith-inspired tradition of service in both the South Bay region and beyond. The Congregation's programs for youth, families and seniors cast a bright light of human dignity and compassion across our community.

I also offer a special expression of our esteem to those being honored for their unique and sustaining contributions to Ner Tamid's work in our communities. The people of the South Bay are indebted to the distinguished 50th Anniversary honorees; Ruth & Leo David, Sheil Poucher, Mark Simon and Norm Lefkowich. Each of them deservedly receives the profoundly meaningful recognition of a grateful synagogue family and the community of which Congregation Ner Tamid is such an important part.

The dedicated social responsibility these honorees exemplify is replicated in a hundred programs and projects the rest of the temple members pursue. That is why Congregation Ner Tamid enjoys a valued and respected place in the life and culture of the South Bay region we are fortunate enough to call home.

So, it is with our best wishes that Congregation Ner Tamid of South Bay celebrates their 50th anniversary on March 12, 2011. I am sure the great legacy they have created in these first 50 years will only be stronger and more enduring on the occasion of the Congregation's 100th anniversary!

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11, we mandated sunsets on the provisions that dramatically expanded Federal investigative and enforcement powers, especially those that could infringe on the freedom of American citizens. Sunsets meant that Congress would have to specifically extend the time on those powers or they

would expire. Five years ago, the last time around, the Bush administration attempted to make permanent this crisis-related expansion of authority by removing the sunsets.

Let me congratulate my friend from California who spent so much time trying to make sure the sunsets were in, and Dan, we know that you worked really hard to make sure those sunsets were put in, but not all of them were.

This power grab on the part of the Bush administration was thwarted by good Members like Dan Lungren who are with us today in this debate. Today, a few controversial sections are still scheduled to periodically sunset. The congressional action to extend these provisions deserves hearings, adequate debate, and the right to amend, thus ensuring accountability and transparency on such a significant issue. We have not met this standard this time around.

The Republican leadership has committed to a more acceptable process by December, when the extension of this bill comes up for a vote again. I hope I will be able to vote ``yes'' at that time. Until then, it is ``no.''

And let us note about the accusations of politics in this. I believe the American people have a legitimate fear of out-of-control government. They have a legitimate fear of out-of-control spending and out-of-control bureaucracy, and yes, they have a legitimate fear of out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks. Let's make sure we stand for freedom here. That's not political.

Thank you very much, David. Just to expand a little bit on the last point you made, when we were writing for Ronald Reagan, he would insist that we don't talk about people as being--he wouldn't say Irish Americans or Mexican Americans or German Americans. He always insisted that we say ``Americans of Irish descent,'' ``Americans of Mexican descent,'' ``Americans of German descent.'' Americans together, up front. So that's a little bit of wisdom. Just that little expression showed the wisdom of that man.

It was my honor to join with my two colleagues at the 100th celebration. Dan and Dave and I, we have a special place in our lives for this man, Ronald Reagan. And I think that that birthday and that gathering that we had at the Reagan Library is one of the most memorable times that I will have, and I am just so grateful that I was able to share that with you.

I think the Reagan Library is doing a terrific job, and they will then be able to carry what we are talking about tonight so that younger people, people 100 years from now, will get a good picture of this man who saved America

and saved the world from tyranny. Also, the Young America's Foundation is doing a great job at restoring the Reagan ranch where Reagan spent so much of his time and got his inspiration, and is implementing some great educational activities up there.

I, of course, met Ronald Reagan so many years ago when I volunteered as a youth organizer for his first campaign for Governor. And I was in Youth for Reagan. I was the L.A. County High School chairman of Youth for Reagan, although I was a freshman at a junior college at the time.

There had been so much infighting going on--the Republicans almost enjoy fighting each other as much as they do fighting Democrats and everybody else. Well, it was true back then as well. And there was so much infighting going on in the Youth for Reagan, they were going to eliminate it. I got wind of this, and I had hundreds of kids out walking precincts. I thought this would be horrible for them. So I decided I had to talk to Ronald Reagan personally about this.

And I found out what his address was, and at 2 o'clock in the morning I hiked up this long driveway in Pacific Palisades up to his house. They didn't have a guard. Here's the guy, the candidate for Governor, and nobody is there guarding the gate. And so I camped out on his back lawn, and the next morning, about 6:30, 7:00, Nancy sticks her head out there, What are you doing? Who are you?

And I had a little sign that said, ``Mr. Reagan, please speak to me.'' And I told her I was in the Youth for Reagan and I just needed 2 minutes, just 2 minutes with him, 120 seconds. And she said, Listen, if he comes out here, he's going to spend 20 minutes with you. He's either going to miss his breakfast or be late for the rest of the day. I can't permit that to happen. If you leave right now, I'll get you an appointment with the campaign manager.

Well, you know, that's the best I was going to get. So I was walking real slow down that long driveway dragging my sleeping bag. And behind me I hear, Wait a minute; wait a minute.

And there was Ronald Reagan chasing after me with shaving cream on his face; his shirt's wide open.

If you can spend the night on my back lawn, I can certainly spend a few moments with you. Now what's the problem, young man?

And, you know, he never let me down. I knew him for 40 years after that. He never let me down. He was the same caring, wonderful person.

And as my life went on and I was active in his campaigns, I was with him for 8 months from in the morning he got up till the time he went to bed during the '76 campaign, so I knew everything that was going on in his life. I never heard him say the ``F'' word. I never heard him say, as the door slammed behind after someone who had been saying bad things about him, I never heard him say, ``That SOB,'' or anything like that.

Ronald Reagan was centered. He was confident in himself, and he didn't feel threatened by people who disliked him. His way of doing things was always, be very strong for the things you believe, very principled. Be as strong an advocate as you can, but be very nice to people. Be very nice to people even if they're on the other side of the table arguing another case.

And I think that that kindness and his personality is what was dictating how he would act.

So I went on after that, and I was a freshman in college when he was running in '66. By the time his administration was over, I was a journalist. I was actually a reporter in Los Angeles. I'd graduated from college.

And anyway, I was someone who was well known as going to the heart of the matter and asking the toughest question at all the press conferences, and he was now Governor, finishing up his last couple of years as Governor of the State. And I remember a press conference that I covered with Ronald Reagan. Dan Lungren would appreciate this because it was his commission on crime, and he was going to make this big announcement as to what his commission on crime was recommending.

And I got up and of course wanted to ask the toughest question, and the question was: Governor, you suggested, and many times have suggested in your speeches, that you are a Christian and that this is an important value to you; you base many of your judgments on your faith. How can you justify in Christian theology that you are taking someone, as the commission is suggesting that we expand the use of the death penalty, and that we take someone who is not at that moment a threat to another human being and is in custody and take that person's life? Isn't that contradictory to your Christian beliefs?

And Reagan, you could see that he really took it so seriously, and he just said, I've prayed about that so many times. I cannot tell you how much thought and prayer has gone into that very issue, and I sought religious help from people and guidance from various spiritual leaders, and I came to the conclusion, well, Dana, I came to the conclusion that if you're killing someone for vengeance, that is not consistent with what Jesus Christ has taught us. But if you realize you're taking that life to save the life of another because other murderers will be deterred from killing innocent victims, well, that's totally consistent.

And I tell you, my view of Ronald Reagan and my admiration for that man went right through the roof.

Well, what happened then, Evelle Younger, who was Attorney General of the State, grabs the microphone and says, Morality and religion have nothing to do with this. The people voted for the death penalty and they're going to get it.

Yeah, my opinion of Reagan was that high. And I would just note Evelle Younger ran for Governor and lost.

Well, this was the type of Ronald Reagan that I got to know, very principled person.

In '76, a year after that press conference, he ran for President. And I was about the only Republican that he could find in the press corps to hire as Lynn Nofsinger's Assistant Press Secretary, and I traveled with him, as I say, through '76 and '80 and then went to the White House with him after that.

And let me just note that when Ronald Reagan went to the White House, it has been again described so many times that our country was in such jeopardy. Freedom was in retreat. The Soviet Union was in the ascendancy. Tyranny, many of us felt in the late '70s that our country would lose the Cold War and that the world would be dominated by this Marxist, Leninist, totalitarian ideology. And of course our economy was near collapse and heading towards disaster.

Ronald Reagan, when he was a young person, was a lifeguard. He saved 77 lives. That was such a part of a self-image of being someone who was going to save the day. And I saw that at work. I saw that at work in the tough decisions.

And by the way, let me just note, I disagree with Jim Baker. I didn't see the bipartisanship that Jim Baker talked about. Maybe he did. But when I worked in the White House with Ronald Reagan, because I went with him there after he won the 1980 campaign, and I was one of his five principal speech writers for 7 years. All I noticed was at that stand right over there the Democrats, over and over again, from this body and from the Senate would do everything they could to defile and

to make it sound like Ronald Reagan was a warmonger because he wanted to make sure that the Soviets were not encouraged to go on further and expand their weapons by us freezing them into a position of superiority.

I will have to admit, even some of the people who were most guilty of not being bipartisan have suggested that it was bipartisanship that ended the Cold War. But your examples that you have given with the Social Security, for example, people don't know that had we not been working together and had Ronald Reagan not been there to provide the leadership, Social Security would have been bankrupt by now easily. But I saw these majors events from inside the White House and watched him.

One note: I was there probably at the low point of the White House. That day was the day that 240 marines were blown to hell in Beirut. I remember my brother's best friend was the first name on that list of people who were killed.

Ronald Reagan felt that it was his worst mistake that he ever made, was sending those marines in there. When his advisers suggested to him that now is the time we've got to prove we're tough. Send in a whole marine division to make sure we kick those guys' butts who killed our people to prove they can't do this and get away with it. Ronald Reagan was wise enough not to go for vengeance, but instead to use his head and to do what was the right policy that would not put us in jeopardy and put us in a quagmire.

Ronald Reagan said, ``No. We are going to get our butts out of there'' and had he not done that and sent in 20,000 American troops, we would have been on the defensive for the rest of his administration. Instead, he reached out and found elements around the world who were fighting communist dictatorship, they called it the Reagan Doctrine, and he let the enemy of our enemies do the fighting. That was the Reagan Doctrine. That's what succeeded in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It drained the budget of the Soviet Union, and it collapsed.

One last story that I would like to tell, and that is, so many people who have tried to belittle President Reagan have tried to make him look--how many times have I heard this, Well, he's just an actor and he's just reading scripts. You guys are great script writers. First of all, let me note, I never wrote a speech for anybody until Ronald Reagan taught me how to write a speech.

We had a saying at the White House: If this guy wasn't President, he's a good enough writer to be the President's speechwriter. That's number one. But Ronald Reagan was not just reading lines and not just reading scripts, number one. It was his vision of the world we had to capture. But, more importantly, he was making very tough policy statements that would not have been made by other Presidents, and the best example of this is the Berlin Wall speech. As we noted at the 100th birthday, there is a chunk of the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union has disintegrated. And now in Russia, by the way, the churches are filled with people in Russia today. Back in those days, Christians and other people who believed in God were being repressed with all the other freedoms.

But Ronald Reagan was going to go to Berlin, and the speechwriters knew that the senior staff would do everything they could not to permit Ronald Reagan to say what he needed to say, which is, Tear down the wall. So we had to plan on it, and actually we underhandedly got the speech to Ronald Reagan. I won't describe the great details it went through, but it was an avenue that we knew once we used it once would be closed up to us.

Once Reagan saw the speech, it was, Oh, yes. This is exactly what I want to say. And then it wasn't the five speechwriters against all these senior advisers to the President. It was the speechwriters and the President. And George Schulz came in; and he was with us the other day, but during that time he was yelling at Ronald Reagan that he was trying to reignite the Cold War by saying, Tear down the wall. All of these people who now are very happy with Ronald Reagan and suggest that, Oh, I was in on it. In this particular case, and many others, they were telling Reagan not to do these things, especially, Don't say, Tear down the wall.

I cannot tell you how far it went. Colin Powell actually gave him a speech and said, All your advisers except for speechwriters want this speech. And it was the same speech, except ``tear down the wall,'' that page had been left out. And Reagan was, No. I think I'll use the one I've got, thank you.

Well, what happens is this: Reagan gets up, and he is courageous. He is being told not to do this, that this would create new Cold War animosities on the other side. He knew that this was a message to their leadership and to the people behind the Iron Curtain that we were serious about our advocacy of democracy and freedom and peace. He knew that. And he knew if he didn't say it, it would demoralize all of those people. It would change history for the worse if he didn't say it. And he got up there, and he made that strong statement.

The next day, of course, we were all watching to find out exactly what was going to be the reaction. And I don't know how, but somebody from the National Security Council had a copy of a verbatim transcript of Gorbachev's conversation with the senior staff. Now, I have no idea how we happened to get that into our possession, but Gorbachev was saying, This guy Reagan, once he gets his teeth into you, he's like a dog. He'll never let go. And we have got to find a way to bring down that wall and maintain our dignity. And sure enough, then all those other guys that we were talking about who fought this speech, and they did everything they could to get him not to say it, then they started claiming they had written the speech and they were for it all along of course.

Well, the one great thing about Ronald Reagan, he had it right on his desk, and it was, There is no limit to what a person can achieve if he doesn't care who gets the credit. Reagan wasn't looking for credit for the end of the war. He was looking to do great things for America. And I will tell you, he inspired all of us.

Do I have time for one more Reagan story?

Everyone knows Ronald Reagan the politician. We can go on with all these lists of speeches and the bills and things, but I think the day I remember the most about Ronald Reagan was in North Carolina.

In 1976, Reagan was running and I was the assistant press secretary. And here he had probably 5,000, 10,000 people in this parking lot for a rally, and this lady comes up to me and says, You're with Governor Reagan? And I said, Yes, I am. She said, I have seven blind children here, and they can't get through the crowd. And I wonder if maybe after the speech we can bring them over here and Governor Reagan could shake hands with them. And I said, Let me clear it. Let me find out.

So I went behind the podium there with Mike Deaver. I said, Mike, there's

a lady here; she's got these blind children and they can't get through the crowd. They would really like to shake hands with Governor Reagan. And Reagan was two steps behind us. He hears me and he jumps right in between us and he says, Of course we're going to say hello to those children. But, Dana, we don't want this to be a press event. And you get all the reporters in the buses, and I'll come right over here and spend a couple minutes with those children.

So, sure enough, the reporters head to the buses, and the kids are brought back there behind the podium. And there's Reagan and he is talking to them. They are about 7, 8 years old. And this is the sense of this man. He says, You know, I know that you can't see me. But maybe you would like to touch my face so you can get a sense about who I am and what I look like. And of course they did.

Now, imagine this: there's Ronald Reagan, a candidate for President, with seven of these little kids, beautiful little kids touching his face. There is not a politician in the world that would not give millions of dollars to have a picture of that. They would be on the cover of all the magazines, and Reagan knew that. But he didn't want anyone, he didn't want those kids or anyone to think that he was exploiting blind children. And it's like us today. We've got to get a sense or feel about this man and who he really was. And I hope that the Reagan Library and what they are doing with the Young America's Foundation up at the ranch will help future generations get a good feel for this wonderful person.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.

The tragedy we discuss today is of enormous consequence to the families of those who were killed and wounded and, of course, our hearts go out to them, especially to the member of our own family, congressional family, to the Giffords, but all those who were killed or wounded in this senseless violence that took place in Arizona. This, of course, is not just of great consequence to them but of great consequence to all of us.

There are things that we must learn, and there are events like this that happen that will help us shape what we will do in the future. One thing we must not let this do is to reduce the actual contact between the American people and their elected representatives.

We will not let the acts of a demented individual reduce the right of the American people to have direct contact with their Member of the House of Representatives, and we will not let this senseless act of violence diminish or in some way stampede us into in some way diminishing the freedom and reducing the freedom of the American people themselves.

Finally, let me just say there is a positive lesson to be learned from this tragic event, and that is we must make sure that we treat each other better here in Congress, and those of us who are active in the political arena need to understand we need to be kinder to each other. Even as we disagree with each other fervently on policy, there is no reason for us to have insinuations about negative values of the person on the other side of the argument.

We need to make sure that we exemplify for the American people that people can disagree on fundamental issues, even have basic differences in value systems and what their goal is for our government, but still respect the other person's opinion and treat the other person with kindness and dignity. That's one lesson that we need to learn and to make sure the American people see us as an example of that.

Ronald Reagan used to say, be really tough when it comes to policy but, Dana, be really nice to people. Well, that's how Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. He was really tough on communism, but he was very kind to those people who worked in the Soviet Union, which later led to that disintegration.

Today we need to be kinder to each other. We need to be respectful of the fact that people on the other side of issues are as intelligent as we are and as moral as we are, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use tough language about those issues. Let's be kinder to each other and let's send that as a present, a get-well message to Gabby, because there is no one else that exemplified that better than her. We know that.

Congresswoman Giffords and I were on separate sides of a major issue, an issue of great concern to me. I have been on the Science Committee for 22 years, and she was for a totally different approach to the American space program than I have been on. We had some very serious debate on that issue.

I will tell you not only was she kind and articulate, but she was brilliant--which of course I didn't necessarily want her to show that brilliance in her arguments against my arguments. But I remember right here on this floor, after a major debate that we had, I walked over to her when the gavel went down and people were leaving, and I said, you know, you did a great job for your position today. I really respect you more than some of the people on my side of the issue, because you were articulate, you took your responsibility seriously, you have presented your arguments. I just want you to know how much I admire that in you. Keep it up and I know you will be Speaker someday--and I shouldn't say that to my colleagues over here. I don't say that often to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

But that's the type of spirit that she had, and I would hope that we send that message to Gabby and to the rest of the American people today.