[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 94 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6699-H6706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOST-FAVORED-NATION STATUS WITH CHINA, AND INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO 
                        PROTECT AMERICAN PATENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Funderburk). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.


               Tribute to the Late Honorable Bill Emerson

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in remembering the 
gentleman from Missouri, Bill Emerson, a decent, hardworking man who 
made great contributions not only to this body, not only to our 
country, but to the cause of a humane and decent world. We will 
remember him. He made major contributions to this legislative body.
  Mr. Speaker, today I will be discussing something that goes to the 
heart and soul of a moral society, a decision that we will soon make 
about most-favored-nation status with China. Then, after a brief 
discussion on most-favored-nation status with China, in which the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] will participate, I will give a 
longer presentation on a bill that will be introduced shortly on the 
floor of the House dealing with the American patent system and major 
changes that are being made in our patent system.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that as we move forward to the day 
when Congress will be considering most-favored-nation status for China, 
we must recall that this happens every year. Every year we are told 
that we must grant most-favored-nation status for the Communist Chinese 
because it will help them evolve.
  The justification for not treating the Communist dictatorship like 
any other democratic nation, for example, like

[[Page H6700]]

Canada, the evidence for not doing this is overwhelming. Unfortunately, 
it is not strong enough to overwhelm the dreams of prophets, the 
glimmer in the eyes of American capitalists and international corporate 
elites. Up until now they have been able to win the day by claiming 
that our economic interaction with this brutal, genocidal dictatorship 
on the mainland of China will help it evolve into a freer, less 
repressive society. But by now it should be clear to everyone that 
China is not becoming a freer, less repressive society.
  We keep granting most-favored-nation status, we keep having more 
international and economic interaction. Yet the Red Chinese regime, the 
last major Communist regime in the world, is becoming more belligerent, 
more repressive, and more contrary. It is becoming more contrary to the 
economic and moral interests of our people to continue this trading 
relationship that we have developed that is, as I say, the same as a 
trading relationship we would have with Canada or a democratic country.
  The gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, said something that I have 
heard him say many times, and there really is some truth in it. I like 
to steal phrases from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], which he 
knows. Plagiarism in this case is a form of flattery. Mr. Armey said 
insanity is doing more of the same but expecting to get different 
results.
  Mr. Speaker, if we use this as our guide to our relations to most-
favored-nation status relations with China, our policy is insane, 
because we continue to have the same policy of granting favorable 
economic status, as favorable as any other country in the world, but 
yet the situation continues to get worse. Economically, just 
economically, if we just judge it on that basis alone, they are the 
most protectionist regime of any that we are trading with.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are permitted to flood our markets with their 
goods, putting millions upon millions of U.S. citizens out of work, 
while they protect their own domestic markets with huge tariffs, 
tariffs that can be 40 percent and 50 percent tariffs.
  What does that do? That means that in traditional economic terms, and 
those of us who do believe in free trade, and I happen to believe in 
free trade between free people, but when we take the equation the way 
the Chinese are having trade, they fought flood our market, and when 
economics would mandate, then those people laid off in our country 
would go to work for those factories that are now producing goods to 
sell in China, and what do we find out? We cannot sell our goods in 
China because they will not let our people go over and sell the washing 
machines and appliances because they have a protective tariff. They are 
protecting their own domestic industry.
  If America wants to invest in creating new factories over there so 
that our laid-off workers or unemployed citizens continue to be laid 
off and continue to be unemployed, that is okay with them. In other 
words, the Red Chinese are manupulating the system, and we have 
permitted them to do so, knowingly permitted them to do so, and that 
puts millions of our own people out of work, and benefits them to the 
tune of tens of billions of dollars of hard currency every year.
  There are a few companies here that benefit from the trading 
relationship. Do not get me wrong. Aerospace, which is a very big 
industry in my own area, in my own congressional district, does 
benefit. So do those who are selling raw materials and food. It is just 
that everybody else except those in aerospace or those selling raw 
materials and food, not everybody else but large numbers of people in 
our society, are actually being hurt dramatically and losing jobs. I 
happen to believe there are more jobs being lost in our economic 
relationship with China than there are being created.
  Who is losing? Regular working people. Who are really the main people 
who gain? A lot o people in the international financial community and 
the corporate elite. Basically, the Chinese continue economically in 
this relationship to basically serve themselves, but our government is 
not protecting the interests of our people while they potect the 
interests of theirs.
  The Chinese blatantly steal American technology, and over and over 
again what do we do? We accept their word. They sign a little piece of 
paper with a bunch of scribbling on it, and then we accept their word, 
OK, we will not bring down sanctions on you this year because you have 
signed this piece of paper. Then we act surprised again as it becomes 
close to the time to debate most-favored-nation status to find that 
there has been a wholesale violation of all the agreements they have 
made.
  We have had negotiating in the interests of the American people by 
people who are not committed to the welfare and best interests of the 
American people. Instead, we have had people who seem to be interested 
in a global concept of trade and commerce, and China has to be part of 
this. With that excuse we find Americans being thrown out of work, and 
our standard of living is slowly but surely edging down. At the same 
time, they steal our technology, they steal our intellectual property 
rights and use it against us.
  Of course, what are they doing with these tens of billions of dollars 
in hard currency that we permit them to make every year? That is a 
conscious decision that we are making, to permit them to make every 
year? That is a conscious decision that we are making, to permit the 
rules of the game to be that they are going to have all of these extra 
tens of billions of dollars. What are they doing? They are building up 
a powerful military that is currently being used to threaten their 
neighbors. And someday, if the United States gets in the way, those 
weapons will kill American citizens, America's defenders. What will 
they be killed with? With technology they have stolen from us, and 
billions of dollars of hard currency that we have permitted them to 
make as profit in an unfair trading relationship between our two 
countires.
  One last economic issue. Why do people want to have most-favored-
nation status? Why do big businesses want to have most-favored-nation 
status? They could still officially sell their products over in China 
and other countries that do not have most-favored-nation status. The 
real reason behind this, the underlying reason, if you have most-
favored-nation status with China, companies can get, how about it, 
government guarantees of their investments in this dictatorship. You 
can have the Export-Import Bank and OPIC and the World Bank and all of 
these financial institutions, which actually get their money from good 
old U.S. tazpayers, those taxpayers end up subsidizing, let us say 
guaranteeing, the loan for somebody who is going to do business in 
China.
  I will give Members one big example. This is mind-boggling. There is 
a $30 billion public works program that they want to build in China to 
provide electricity, called the Three Gorges Dam project. We have 
people in here who said we have to support the Three Gorges Dam project 
because that means jobs in the United States. The Chinese want us, the 
Western bankers and American taxpayers, to guarantee these loans to 
provide the $30 billion to build this big dam project.
  What are they going to do with their own $30 billion? The Chinese 
want to use their own $30 billion to build weapons so that someday, if 
the United States ever gets in their way, they can take care of our 
military. They want to spend their money on weapons to destroy people 
and to bully their neighbors, but they want us to provide the loans and 
the guarantees for those loans so they can build their great public 
works project. And what are we getting in return? Caterpillar is going 
to be able to sell their bulldozers, rather than having Japanese 
bulldozers down there.
  Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker. For those people who think that is 
a good way to create jobs, would it not be better for us to spend $30 
billion and rebuild our own infrastructure and use those bulldozers, 
those caterpillars, here across the United States to rebuild our 
drainage systems and our sewer systems that are going kaput, the 
bridges that are about to fall down? That makes a lot more sense than 
spending $30 billion to bolster a Communist regime in hopes that they 
may evolve into more liberal, wonderful, beautiful people, just like 
the elite that runs our country.
  No, we should be thinking about the interests of the American people. 
That should be the basis of our negotiations. One of our problems is we 
have been sending the likes of Peewee Herman

[[Page H6701]]

over to do our negotiations when we should be using Arnold 
Schwarzenegger.
  One last area in terms of most-favored-nation status. That is the 
following. It is not just an economic decision. It is not just a 
strategic decision for the United States in terms of the military. It 
is also a moral decision that goes to the heart of the United States of 
America: What do we stand for?
  Next week we will recess in order to celebrate the Fourth of July, 
when our Founding Fathers proclaimed that every individual has certain 
rights and those rights are granted by God. The Declaration of 
Independence was not just a declaration that we were no longer going to 
be under British tyranny, and it was not just a declaration that we 
would have democracy here. It was a declaration of the rights of the 
individual, and that no government has legitimate rights unless they 
receive them from the consent of the governed. It was a proclamation 
saying America will be a different kind of land, a different kind of 
country, and we would be a shining beacon of hope to the world and to 
the oppressed. Wherever they are, they can see there will be hope as 
long as the United States stands true to its principles.
  In this case, that is what we will be discussing, most-favored-nation 
status, right after we celebrate the Fourth of July. But the human 
rights violations and the tyranny on mainland China would tell us our 
Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they thought that we 
would have the same type of relations with this type of vicious 
dictatorship as we do with other democracies in the world.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has been stalwart in the 
battle for human rights, has cataloged many of the abuses that the 
people of China have had to endure. I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia so he can share with us some of the things that are going in 
China today.

  Mr. WOLF. I will, and I appreciate the gentleman taking out this 
special order, Mr. Speaker. I think he is absolutely right. This is, 
whether we like it or not, a fundamental moral issue, perhaps the 
overriding one internationally that this Congress will have to address.
  As the gentleman said with regard to human rights, as we vote on this 
issue, we should think of several things: There are more slave labor 
camps in China today than there were in the Soviet Union, and we all 
remember Solzhenitzen's book, Gulag Archipelago. I was in one of those 
camps, Perm Camp 35, with the gentleman from New Jersey, Chris Smith. 
They are very grim places. And yet Members should know, the world and 
the body should know, that there are more slave labor camps in China 
than there were in the Soviet Union during the heyday of the Soviet 
Union.
  Second, there are more individuals in those gulags, slave labor 
camps, logi camps, than there were in the Soviet Union. Also, they make 
goods, they make supplies, they make socks; they make different items 
like that for export to the United States, in competition with American 
workers. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said 
many times, we lose more jobs than we gain.
  The gentleman from New Jersey and I were in Beijing Prison No. 1, 
where we saw a number of Tiananmen Square demonstrators working on 
socks and plastic jelly shoes for export to the United States. They had 
little golfer insignias on the side of the socks. What the gentleman 
from California said is true. This is driving American jobs, and it is 
also, I think, fundamentally a major moral issue: Do we want to 
purchase the goods made with slave labor out of a gulag camp so we can 
get a better buy? I think the American people are saying no.
  Second, I think there is major fundamental religious persecution 
going on in China, perhaps more than any other place in the world.

                              {time}  1515

  Everyone should know, no one should say I did not know, that is why I 
voted for MFN. Today, there are Catholic priests and Catholic bishops 
in jail for worshipping and practicing their religious faith. Some have 
been in jail for years, not 6 months, not 9 months, but for years. 
There are also evangelicals who are in jail.
  Almost every week Protestant house churches are raided and many times 
the people are picked up, arrested and sent into the logais and the 
slave labor camps and the gulags or in prison. so we have numerous, 
both Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, and Protestant pastors 
arrested and sent to jail.
  We also know, and the gentleman I think mentioned it and knows as 
well as anyone, Tibet has been plundered by the Communists in China. 
They have abused and imprisoned and tortured Buddhist monks. They have 
also done horrendous, horrible things to Buddhist nuns. They have 
plundered Tibet, so we know what they have done. They are also now in 
the process of persecuting those of the Moslem faith in certain 
provinces in China.
  So they have gone after the Catholic priests and bishops, they have 
gone after the Protestant pastors, they have gone after the Buddhist 
nuns and priests, and now they are going after the Moslems. So from a 
religious persecution issue, this country is number one in persecuting 
people.

  Third, we know that they sell body parts. When they kill people in 
their prisons, they line them up, and we have this on film if any 
Member wants to see it, they line them up, they invite crowds to come 
in to watch, they put pistols at the back of their heads, and they 
shoot them, they fall to the ground.
  Trucks and ambulances come and take them away. They take them to 
hospitals and they take their kidneys out and their corneas out for 
transplantation, for sale to people in the West, $35,000 per kidney. So 
they have a major business of executing people, taking their corneas 
out, taking their kidneys out for transplantation.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, are any of 
these people who are being shot, is there any evidence that they could 
be just people who are advocating democracy?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I do not know if they are or 
not. We have pictures of them. It is hard to say why.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we do know that people have been executed in 
China only for opposing the regime?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, we do know that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we know that the Chinese dictatorship is willing 
to execute someone simply for exercising what we consider to be our 
rights as citizens and the rights of free people; we know that, and we 
also know that they are engaged in a ghoulish enterprise of after 
executing some prisoners, or executing prisoners in general, taking 
from them their body parts and selling them on the world market?
  Mr. WOLF. We know that for a fact, and we have pictures of it, taking 
place as late as February of this year.
  Last, before I get to the last one I would mention, we also know that 
they were so barbaric that they were trying to sell AK-47's and 
shoulder missiles to street gangs in L.A., near your area, which would 
have been used to kill innocent people, and we also know that the 
People's Liberation Army was behind this and the top leadership of 
those companies are people who are connected to the leaders in Beijing. 
I mean they were selling AK-47 weapons, assault weapons and also 
shoulder missiles that could take a 747 aircraft down coming in at any 
airport.
  Last, let me cover something with regard to human rights. In the 
1980's, and I know the gentleman was in the Reagan White House in those 
days, writing speeches for President Reagan. In the 1980's, the 
gentleman knows that no Member of Congress would have ever come to the 
floor of the House, no person in the Reagan administration would have 
ever gotten up and said that we should have granted MFN to the Soviet 
Union when Sakharov was under house arrest in Gorky and Scharansky was 
in perm camp 35. No member of the administration, no Member of Congress 
on either side would have ever been in support of granting MFN for 
Russia, and now we see the granting of it for China.
  My closing comment is, I would like to read to you a statement by 
Elena Bonner, who was the wife of Sakharov on the MFN status in China. 
Her marriage to Sakharov changed Elena's life. She took early 
retirement as a disabled war veteran to devote herself to Sakharov. She 
was Sakharov's ambassador to the world at large. She represented him at 
the 1975 Nobel Peace

[[Page H6702]]

ceremony in Oslo. She reported on her visits into Italy and America, 
was exiled in January 1980. She served as a sole link with Moscow and 
the West until 1984, when she too was barred from leaving Gorky. In 
August of 1994 she was tried by a Gorky court, found guilty of anti-
Soviet agitation and sentenced to exile. So I will submit her entire 
bio for the Record at this point.

                        Elena Bonner--Biography

       Elena Bonner was born on February 15, 1923, in Merv, 
     Tadjikistan. She grew up in the restless, cosmopolitan 
     atmosphere of the Hotel Luxe on Gorky Street, which lodged 
     important foreign Communists working in Moscow. Her father, 
     Gevork Alikhanov, was a prominent Armenian Communist and a 
     secretary of the Comintern, the ``general staff of the world 
     revolution.'' Her mother, Ruth Bonner, was born in Siberia in 
     1900, joined the Communist Party in 1924, and was dedicated 
     to bringing culture to the masses. Elena's childhood 
     sweetheart, Vsevolod Bagritsky, lived only a couple of blocks 
     away. (He was killed at the front in 1942, shortly before his 
     twentieth birthday.)
       Elena's life as a Moscow schoolgirl ended abruptly when her 
     father was arrested in May 1937. Ruth moved with her two 
     children to her mother's apartment in Leningrad but did not 
     escape her fate. She was arrested later that year and 
     sentenced to hard labor as the wife of a traitor.
       Elena became a proficient survivor. She finished high 
     school in Leningrad, volunteered as a nurse when war broke 
     out, was wounded twice, and was honorably discharged in 1945 
     as a lieutenant and a disabled veteran. After two years of 
     intensive treatment, the loss of vision caused by her wartime 
     injury was brought under control, and she enrolled in the 
     First Leningrad Medical Institute. After graduation, she 
     worked as a pediatrician, a district doctor, and a free-lance 
     author and editor. She married Ivan Semyonov, a classmate 
     from the medical school, and, ignoring warnings that 
     childbearing could endanger her life, gave birth to a 
     daughter, Tatiana, in 1950, and a son, Alexei, in 1956. 
     (Elena and Ivan separated in 1965).
       She succeeded in reestablishing contact with her mother as 
     the war was drawing to a close. It was only in 1954, however, 
     that Ruth was exonerated, granted a special pension, and 
     informed that her husband died in confinement sometime in 
     1939. (It took another 52 years for the truth to be 
     revealed--four years after Ruth passed away, Elena gained 
     access to the KGB files and learned that her father was 
     executed in 1938.) Ruth was also assigned an apartment on 
     Chkalov Street, comfortable by Soviet standards. This 
     apartment became Elena's home and in 1971 it was here that 
     Andrei Sakharov moved in.
       Elena paid her respect to the memory of Vsevolod Bagritsky 
     by putting together a book of his diaries, letters, and 
     poems, which was published in 1964. She mingled with the 
     generation of writers and artists who has been inspired by 
     the post-Stalin thaw, but she also helped prisoners and their 
     families. Elena met Andrei Sakharov in October 1970 when both 
     were attending the trial of human rights activities in 
     Kaluga. They got to know each other better in December while 
     defending Jews sentenced to death for attempting an escape 
     from the USSR in a hijacked plane. By August 1971 friendship 
     turned into love, and in January 1972 they formally 
     registered their marriage. The unlikely match between a 
     reserved Russian physicist and a scrappy, streetwise 
     Armenian-Jewish physician endured.
       Her marriage to Sakharov changed Elena's life. She took 
     early retirement as a disabled war veteran and devoted 
     herself to Sakharov, serving as his chief of staff and 
     secretary as well as cook and bottle washer. She also became 
     Sakharov's ambassador to the world at large. She 
     represented him at the 1975 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in 
     Oslo; reported on her visits to Italy, France, and 
     America; and after his January 1980 exile, served as his 
     sole link with Moscow and the West until May 1984, when 
     she too was barred from leaving Gorky. In August 1984, she 
     was tried by a Gorky court, found guilty of ``anti-soviet 
     agitation'' and sentenced to exile. By then she already 
     had a serious heart condition and was in urgent need of 
     surgery.
       In 1981 Elena and Andrei went on a successful hungerstrike 
     to secure the right for their daughter-in-law to join her 
     husband, their son Alexei, in the United States. But it took 
     three hungerstrikes by Sakharov, totalling almost 200 days, 
     for Elena to gain permission to travel to US in December 1985 
     for open heart surgery. She returned to Gorky in June 1986 
     with six bypasses, to Andrei and to indefinite exile. But a 
     love story deserves a happy ending--on December 15, 1986, a 
     telephone was installed in their Gorky apartment. The next 
     day it rang for the first time, and Mikhail Gorbachev 
     personally asked the Sakharovs to return to Moscow. They 
     arrived at the Chkalov Street apartment on December 23, 1986. 
     The curtain was raised for the next act.
       Since Andrei Sakharov's death in December 1989, Elena 
     Bonner has continued the campaign for democracy and human 
     rights in Russia. She joined the defenders of the Russian 
     parliament during the attempted coup of August 1991, and lent 
     her support to Yeltsin during the constitutional crisis of 
     1993. She writes frequently for the Russian and American 
     press. She has campaigned tirelessly in defense of self-
     determination for the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and 
     for all the peoples of the former Soviet Union.
       Dr. Bonner has published a number of books in the United 
     States and in Russia.
       Dr. Bonner has two children and five grandchildren, all of 
     whom live in the United States and whom she comes to visit 
     from Moscow.

  But this is what Dr. Bonner said in a letter to me the other day. She 
said:

                                                    June 17, 1996.
       I believe it is dangerous to grant the most favored nation 
     status to China, while mass-scale violations of human rights 
     are taking place there, confirmed by many authoritative 
     international human rights organizations.
       The United States possesses only one real mechanism for 
     protection of human rights in other countries--granting or 
     not granting such status. There should be no double standards 
     in this issue and there should be no double standards for 
     protection of human rights no matter in which part of the 
     world.
       More than 20 years ago Andrei Sakharov has addressed the 
     U.S. Congress with appeal to introduce the Jackson-Vanik 
     amendment and by doing this to confirm commitment of your 
     country to the human rights cause. Today, I dare to warn 
     American legislators against hasty refusal from the Jackson-
     Vanik amendment. By giving up this amendment, the U.S. 
     Congress, in my mind, is going to lose completely its 
     influence on human rights situations in any part of the world 
     and will practically admit that protection of human rights is 
     no longer a matter of priority and a long-term goal of the 
     Congress and the U.S. people.
                                                     Elena Bonner.

  So I think Doctor Elena Bonner has said it and said it well. I will 
tell the gentleman too, if he looks at the surveys, the American people 
are overwhelmingly against granting MFN to China. So while it may be a 
close issue in the Congress and certainly gone, lost in the 
administration, the American people agree with the position of the 
gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. When the American people see their Congressmen over 
the Fourth of July holiday, it would be actually a good moment to 
remind the Member of Congress that we should be standing up for what 
our forefathers believed in, these principles of freedom and individual 
rights, that this country was going to be better than just some 
conglomeration of people seeking profit and seeking monetary reward, 
that we do indeed stand for freedom.
  Before the gentleman leaves, I would like to mention one last story 
on this particular issue. I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says 
that no one could ever have gotten away during the cold war with 
suggesting we will make Russia better, this dictatorship in Russia 
better, by granting most-favored-nation status and transferring all of 
our technology to Russia. No one would have ever dreamed of that.
  Instead, we were strong and we were tough and when Ronald Reagan came 
in, his tough stand helped end the cold war and bring a greater 
potential for freedom and peace in the world than anyone had ever 
dreamed. Well, during that time period, there was a hero of freedom 
named Natan Scharansky. He was a Jewish man, a dissident in Russia who 
was a champion of liberty, and he was arrested and thrown into the 
gulag, and when we say the gulag, we are talking about the harshest of 
prison conditions that Americans cannot even imagine. There he was, 
struggling to survive in the gulag and his Communist captors said, all 
he needed to do is sign this document admitting that you were lying 
about the repression in the Soviet Union and admitting that you are 
some kind of a spy or something, and we will let you go, and he refused 
to do it. All he had to do was sign a piece of paper.
  Eventually, his fame spread throughout the world. Here was indeed a 
man, a lone individual, a champion of freedom standing up against a 
totalitarian power, and all he had to do to end his suffering was to 
sign his signature.
  Well, eventually we traded him for a Russian spy. We actually sent a 
Russian spy across a bridge and he went back another way, and when 
Natan Scharansky came to the United States, he made his way to 
Washington and to the White House where he met with President Reagan.
  As a speech writer for President Reagan, I will never forget that day 
because when he left the Oval Office, he met with the press corps and 
the reporters asked him, ``What did you tell President Reagan?'' And 
Natan Scharansky, this heroic individual,

[[Page H6703]]

said, ``I told him not to tone down his speeches,'' not to tone down 
his speeches. He said, they were the only things. He said, I described 
for them in the gulag, and he was describing for these reporters how in 
the gulag, somebody smuggled in little pieces of paper that had Ronald 
Reagan's words of one of his speeches on it, and he said, as long as I 
knew that the President of the United States believed in these 
principles, there was hope, and it gave me the hope to struggle on.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is such an 
important point. Congressman Chris Smith and I visited the gulag that 
Natan Scharansky was in. The fact is we hollered out that we were 
Congressmen from the United States and we met with 21 of the men. In 
fact, we interviewed, on camera, an interview with Natan Scharansky's 
cell mate and that night, late into the night in the Ural Mountains in 
this gulag, the men said, and I had forgotten it, but you triggered it, 
the men said precisely what you said.

  We gave the men Bibles and we started to ask them questions. All of 
the men said they knew of the statements that Ronald Reagan had made, 
and I do not understand how they got it in there, and it gave them hope 
and encouragement and by us speaking out, by Ronald Reagan speaking 
out, they were bold and solid.
  The gentleman said to Natan Scharansky, when Natan Scharansky was 
exchanged, Natan Scharansky was to walk across the Glienicke Bridge in 
Berlin and the Communists told Natan Scharansky to walk straight. What 
Scharansky did is he walked zigzag. He walked this way on the bridge 
and that way on the bridge and that way on the bridge and that way on 
the bridge, and he denied the Communists for the very reason that you 
said, because we gave Scharansky and we gave his cell mate and we gave 
those people hope.
  The gentleman is exactly right. If we had the same type of rhetoric 
coming out of the White House, the language that Ronald Reagan used, we 
would solve this problem. The Chinese would stop persecuting 
Christians, stop persecuting priests and ministers and Buddhist monks, 
and you are exactly right.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman would probably be interested in 
knowing that the day after Scharansky met with Ronald Reagan, I was in 
the Israeli Embassy at a reception honoring Scharansky, and through the 
crowed, he was the honored guest, he walked straight toward me and he 
came up to me and he said, I understand that you write Ronald Reagan's 
speeches and I said yes, that is true, and he said, I have often 
wondered who you are.
  Well, he knew that some people were behind Ronald Reagan and working 
with him to try to make sure that we took these bold stands and beat 
back the bureaucracy and the elitists in every country that would say, 
oh, do not make moral stands, do not make a stand of morality and a 
stand for freedom because it will rock the boat. But he knew, ever as a 
prisoner in the gulag, that I was there and other people were there.
  Today it is the same thing. Although they do not know us by name, 
they know that there are American people everywhere throughout our 
country who believe in the cause that George Washington talked about on 
the 4th of July, believe in what Thomas Jefferson was talking about and 
James Madison and our Founding Fathers when they started a country on a 
Declaration of Independence and a declaration that talked about the 
individual rights that are a gift of God to all people.
  Mr. WOLF. Can the gentleman imagine the feeling that would roll 
through China if they found out that the United States House of 
Representatives, the people's body, voted to deny them MFN? Can you 
imagine how the dissidents would feel? Can you imagine how the 
prisoners in the gulags in China would feel?
  The gentleman is exactly right. I hope that we defeat MFN when it 
comes here. I know they are going to get MFN because President Clinton 
is going to give it to them, but if we defeat it, the gentleman is 
right, the message that we will send through China to the dissidents 
will be the same message of the 1980s.
  Do you remember the rally that was held on the lawn from the Capitol 
down to the Washington Monument on that Sunday for those of the Jewish 
faith who had been persecuted? Do you remember the hundreds of 
thousands that came? If we could not that for those who are suffering 
in China, can you imagine the difference that it would make?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we had made that stand a few years ago instead of 
heeding those naysayers who said, do not let the moral stand, we are 
going to evolve China away, rather than making a tough stand, we would 
probably right now be voting to grant most-favored-nation status to a 
new and more democratic China.
  Mr. WOLF. And I would be voting for it and the gentleman would be 
voting for it and we would be pushing trade.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. I thank the gentleman very much, 
and I appreciate his jointing me.
  The second issue that I would like to discuss today is also an issue 
that deals with trade, interestingly enough, and the well-being of the 
American people and the relationship with others, because I believe 
what is pushing our most-favored-nation status with China at the 
expense of the American people is the same thing that is motivating us 
to destroy the American patent system.
  I would like to ask a question. What was one of the first things that 
Bill Clinton did after becoming elected President? The answer is, he 
appointed Bruce Lehman as Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark 
Office.

                              {time}  1530

  What was one of the first things that Bruce Lehman did when he became 
head of that office? He hightailed it to Japan and met and reached an 
agreement with--this is an agreement that almost nobody knows about 
outside a few people in Congress--Mr. Wataru Asou, the commissioner of 
the Japanese patent office. They had a meeting with Mr. Lehman.
  That is right. These two unelected officials entered into an 
agreement which, if it holds, could change the face of the American 
economy as we know it. It could effectively remove America, and I 
predict will effectively remove America, from our economic predominance 
in the world.
  What is the intent of this agreement that I am talking about? Who 
knows about this hushed-up agreement between the head of the patent 
office in Japan and the Patent Office in the United States?
  The purpose of this agreement is to harmonize the American patent 
system to the Japanese system. Their intent is to take the best patent 
system in the world, that of the United States of America, the patent 
system that has offered the strongest patent protection of any country 
in the world, and in the name of global and Japanese harmonization of 
law, convert it into a mirror image of a system in Japan that has 
stifled innovation and creativity and kept the Japanese people under 
the heel of their economic elite.
  The Japanese system benefits large conglomerates. They crush any 
creative attempts by individual inventors. The Japanese system, which 
they are now trying--and, remember this, they want our law to be 
exactly like the Japanese law, and they are moving to change it, to 
superimpose that law on us--the Japanese system is so slow that it 
takes many years to grant a patent at great expense of the applicant.
  Turning abuse into injury, the Japanese publish every patent 
application in 18 months. By the time the patent is issued, years 
later, a phenomenon known as patent flooding has already occurred.
  What is patent flooding? We are going to know all about that, because 
we are changing our law to be exactly like their law. That is when 
patents very similar to the original idea flood the patent office, 
slowing the whole process and rendering the original application almost 
valueless, unless of course it is a huge corporation or a fabulously 
wealthy inventor who can defend himself. Even then it makes the process 
much more expensive.
  Where did the patent flooders get the information, in Japan to flood 
the patent office? The information, by the way, was just in the 
inventor's original patent application that had to be published after 
18 months.
  By the way, under our system traditionally when you file for a 
patent, until you are granted that patent, it is

[[Page H6704]]

a secret. Nobody knows. Thus an inventor has the incentive to invent 
things and to make an application for a patent and it is protected.
  Americans have always been the innovators of the world because we 
have had this system. Our patent system supports innovation. The 
Japanese, however, have been copiers and their patent system supports 
copying. The proof of this, and it is glaring, the United States has 
175 of the world's Nobel laureates in science and technology. Japan has 
just five.
  Why would we want to change our system to make it more like their 
system? Global harmonization is the answer. That is what we are being 
told, although there are other excuses, but that is the main one, that 
we need to globalize all the rules of the game so we can have a global 
economy, and gutting the American patent system is the first step 
towards globalizing us with the rest of the world.
  Does it makes sense to everyone that we should just globalize our 
economy, even if it means gutting rights that have been inbred into our 
system for 200 years, that our Founding Fathers thought were 
sacrosanct? First let us recognize that the strongest advocates of a 
global market are not the advocates of free markets at home. Once the 
authority to regulate a global market is empowered, it will be too 
late.
  We do not appreciate most of the important things in our lives until 
we are on the verge of losing them. Americans will find that freedom in 
the economic arena has everything to do with controlling one's own 
destiny and determining one's own life. But the regulators of this 
global market on a worldwide scale will have little or no regard for 
the desires of ordinary Americans.
  The global market will be regulated by a new set of managers. It will 
be the arrogance of officialdom times 10. Huge multinational 
corporations may be able to thrive in such an environment, but 
individual citizens and small business will not. They will see what 
they have considered their rights as an American evaporate.
  There are those who believe that globalizing is good for America, and 
we understand that participation in the world trading system is 
essential for our economic well-being. I certainly believe in trade. As 
I say, I believe in free trade between free people. But we cannot 
sacrifice the rights of our people or especially destroy our innovative 
process to achieve this goal.
  What has been the factor that has given America the strength in the 
economic marketplace to maintain a high standard of living for our 
people even though many people overseas receive much less money in pay? 
It has been our technological genius and our innovation. That is what 
has permitted us to succeed and our people to prosper. What is being 
proposed is the sacrifice of the rights of Americans, the sacrifice of 
our future, of the standard of living of our people, all in the name of 
globalism and harmonization.
  Megabusiness, however, has a different approach. The cartels have no 
loyalty to the American people, and that is us. We are talking about us 
here. Those huge multinational conglomerates are profitmotivated and 
that is it. They now have a dream that they can maximize profits 
throughout the world and help trade flow through a global economy. The 
first step, however, in achieving that is putting the American people 
in their place. That means a lower standard of living, that means fewer 
rights, that means the individual no longer has the protections that 
the individual has had in the past. Phase one of this assault on 
America is the assault on America's technological rights because that 
is what has given us as Americans our leverage, our ability to ensure 
our freedom and to build a high standard of living for our people. The 
first step in this organized strategy to destroy our patent system was 
snuck into the GATT implementation legislation we passed about a year 
and a half ago. We accepted a fast-track system to pass the GATT 
implementation legislation because we were promised that nothing would 
be put into this legislation except that which was mandated by the GATT 
agreement itself. However, dramatic changes in the patent term were 
snuck into that legislation even though the position on patents in GATT 
just simply suggested that the patent term should be no less than 20 
years from date of filing, which means, if one reads that, that we need 
not change America's current patent system. But they put the massive 
change--that may seem hard to understand but it will have incredible 
results--into the GATT implementation legislation. What did it do? 
Basically it eliminated the 17-year guaranteed patent term.
  A patent term, let me note, has been a right. A guaranteed number of 
years as a patent term has been the right of Americans since 1790, 
since the establishment of our Constitution. A patent office is 
actually in our Constitution. The implementing legislation created an 
uncertain patent term. We then took a guaranteed patent term and 
exchanged it in that implementation legislation for an uncertain patent 
term which dates 20 years from the date of application. That means, in 
the new system, and, by the way, the new system is nothing more than 
the Japanese system superimposed on us. It is much different than our 
past system and it is hard to understand but under the new code, the 
day the inventor files for a patent, 20 years later, his time is up. He 
has no more rights, he or she has no more rights to ownership of that 
patent. If it took 10 years for a patent to be issued in the past, the 
inventor still had a guaranteed term of 17 years. Under the new system, 
however, if it takes 10 years for a patent to issue, half of the 
inventor's patent term has been eaten up, it is gone, he or she will 
never get it back, and the clock continues to tick against the 
inventor, not against the bureaucracy. Every second that ticks is 
against the inventor. Anyone who has studied the process knows that it 
is not unusual for a breakthrough technology, and these are the 
innovations that changed the world, innovations like the airplane and 
the microprocessor and many others. I will explain a couple of those in 
a moment.

  Polyurethane plastic, by the way, which has changed our life, it took 
33 years for the inventor to receive his patent. It took 17 years for 
the microprocessor and 21 years for the laser to receive their patent. 
These patents will determine the flow of tens of billions, if not 
hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of wealth. By making sure that 
they now receive almost no protection, because the new system would 
offer them almost no protection, it has changed the flow of wealth in 
the world.
  What does it mean when the clock is ticking against the inventor? It 
means the bureaucracy and special interests have leverage on the 
inventor, because he wants some reward for his creative invention.
  During the negotiations which are part of the patent granting 
process, the inventor, just like in Japan, will end up being ground 
down because now he or she is vulnerable. If a patent can be delayed, 
what does it mean? If they can delay the patent or shorten the time 
when the patent is actually in effect because he now only has half of 
his patent term because the rest has been eaten away, it means that 
those royalties that were once going into the bank accounts of American 
inventors, royalties from basically technologies that were created by 
Americans, those royalties will now be in the bank accounts of huge 
domestic and multinational corporations. These people will not be able 
to control their technology. To claim stolen royalties or to reclaim 
control over one's technology after these huge corporate and 
multinational interests have taken the technology, the individual 
American will have to pay lawyers and legal specialists to go to court.
  Have you got that? That is the little inventor in the United States 
versus Toshiba. Where do you think we are going to get on that? The 
little guy gets ground down, just like the Japanese people have been 
ground down over the years, now those same corporate interests will be 
here in our country grinding down our people. The Wright Brothers will 
be smashed by the Toshibas and the Sonys of the world and the aerospace 
workers that should be producing the aerospace technologies of the 
future may well not be American aerospace workers. Our people will be 
impoverished.
  This system, which our Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman wants 
American law to emulate, has ill-served the Japanese people. Little, if 
any, innovation is born in Japan and few, if any, inventions start 
there. The Japanese, as I say, are rightfully known as copiers and 
improvers, and that is fine,

[[Page H6705]]

they do a good job at that, but they are not innovators and inventors. 
Their laws, which Bruce Lehman wants America to emulate, have permitted 
powerful business conglomerates to run roughshod over their people. 
Their people have been beaten down. Anyone who raises their head gets 
beaten down over there. Now those same interests will have that same 
kind of leverage over American inventors. After successfully beginning 
this harmonization through the legislative maneuver which, as I said, 
went through the GATT implementation legislation, basically they got 
step No. 1, which is eliminating the guaranteed patent term for 
American inventors.
  But, now, we see step No. 2. Step No. 2 happens to be authored, it is 
H.R. 3460, the Moorhead-Schroeder Patent Act which I call the Steal 
American Technologies Act. What this legislation does is finish the job 
of harmonizing our law like that of Japan's. In our country, the rights 
of the individual are paramount and these patent laws were meant to 
protect individual property rights. Basically, these individual 
property rights would be respected by our Government just as other 
property rights, of small farmers and businessmen and others who own 
property in our country, and this system of private property for the 
individual has worked well. We believe it is through individual 
endeavor and personal responsibility that someone prospers and when 
individuals as a whole population act in that way, the whole society 
prospers. Lehman's approach treats individuals as secondary, sort of as 
ants in a collective hole who, if they insist on rights for themselves, 
will be crushed.

                              {time}  1545

  Of course, those trying to challenge our system will never admit 
this. The change is coming not as part of a major debate in our 
democratic process, but I believe these changes are coming, they are 
trying to sneak these changes through, hoping that none of us will 
never understand the complexities of patent law. Well, when one can 
force the advocates of these patent changes to engage, they claim their 
goal is not destroying the American traditional patent system, but 
instead they are going to solve a problem which they call, well, it is 
called the submarine patent problem. What is that? They believe some 
inventors, certainly a few self-serving inventors, may have been able 
to elongate the process in which their patent application was being 
considered; thus, if they put off the issuing date of their patent, 
they will have a guaranteed 17 years of patent. That means that some 
inventors will enjoy some royalty benefits in the outyears when, you 
know, if they had not gamed the system, they would have been receiving 
those royalties in the outyears. They would be receiving them in the 
in-years and perhaps after a length of time, certain technologies are 
more valuable.
  Well, making things worse, according to the other side, let us say 
someone games the system for 10 years. Some other companies may have 
decided to use that technology, which they have discovered 
independently, in some of their own products and then when the 
submariner finally allows his patent to be issued, well, then those 
other companies have to pay that submarine patenter a certain royalty.
  Now, this is all very confusing. But the fact is we are talking about 
less than 1 percent of all patents where people are actually able just 
to prevent their patent, through gaming the process, from being issued 
right away. And I agree, that is not something we should tolerate, but 
it is not something that will in any way justify, basically, the 
elimination of the guaranteed patent term and the obliteration of the 
patent system in the United States and replacing it with a Japanese 
system.
  The vast majority of all patent applicants, more than 99 percent, are 
doing everything in their power to get their patent issued. They are 
not submariners. They beg, they plead, please issue my patent, because 
that is when they know they can start earning their rewards. And if 
they delay, what is going to happen? They know if they delay their 
patent being issued, new technologies might come up and make their 
patent worthless. But there are a few submarine patenters, and they are 
a minuscule part of the system, and this problem can and will be dealt 
with and should be dealt with by patent examiners and by using the 
patent system as it is today, rather than eliminating the patent system 
and eliminating the guaranteed rights of Americans.
  My bill, in fact, includes a provision that we publish the 
application of any inventor who uses a continuance to intentionally 
delay the process. Over and over again in the year and a half that I 
have pushed this issue, I have offered to put many changes into law 
that will curb submarine patents as long as those changes did not 
eliminate the guaranteed patent term. But the other side never would 
come up with a suggestion except, oh, I am sorry, this is the problem, 
so we have to eliminate the guaranteed patent term. I was willing to 
compromise in any way just so long as you get those submarine 
patenters. There are a few of them out there.
  You know, sometimes when someone is unwilling to compromise and make 
a change like that, you maybe get the feeling that perhaps his real 
target was eliminating the guaranteed patent term and not correcting 
some minor problem, the submarine patent. Well, interestingly enough, 
there is a system in place in the Patent Office called the patent 
application and monitoring system, the P-A-L-M, the PALM system, which 
can and does print out the status of all pending applications in the 
Patent Office monthly, and if a patent has an unusual term of waiting, 
if an application is judged to be special by the Commissioner, he has 
the right to publish the application at any time. And this is in 
existing law. Thus it is already possible to solve the submarine 
patent. It is already solved. But this is being used as an excuse to 
destroy the guaranteed patent term in the United States of America.

  Well, history will judge their motives, but those claiming to end the 
submarine patent as their goal have refused every other method except 
eliminating the guaranteed patent term.
  By the way, this move to harmonize our laws with Japan happened long 
before anyone had ever heard of the word ``submarine'' patent and this 
whole idea of eliminating the guaranteed patent was part of that 
harmonization process.
  During the debate, Mr. Lehman has used the bogeyman of the submarine 
patents, and when we have checked his figures, we have found that many 
of the patents he claimed to be submarine patents, again, this is the 
excuse they are using to destroy our patent system, when we checked out 
the submarine patents, we found many of them had not been issued 
because the Defense Department had said this is a security risk, we 
have to keep these particular technologies secret.
  You can imagine what secrets will be made available to America's 
enemies if we just publish all of our patent applications after 18 
months.
  My bill, H.R. 359, would restore the guaranteed patent term of 17 
years and facilitate the action against those who are trying to 
manipulate the system and delay the issuance of their patent. I am 
offering this as a substitute to H.R. 3460, a bill which, as I say, is 
the next step in totally harmonizing our law with Japan. H.R. 3460, 
which I call the Steal American Technologies Act, better than anything 
else demonstrates what really is going on because it is understandable 
and its goals are easy for regular working people to understant what is 
happening.
  One of the provisions was introduced last year under a bill entitled 
the ``Patent Application Publication Act.'' This bill is now part of 
H.R. 3460 and is titled ``Early Publication of Patent Applications.'' 
The title is self-explanatory. That provision in this bill--hold on to 
your hats--mandates that after 18 months every American patent 
application, just like in Japan, whether it has been issued or not, 
will be published for the entire world to see. Every thief, every 
brigand, every pirate, every multinational corporation, every Asian 
copycat will be handed the details of every patent application. Our 
newest and most creative ideas will be outlined for them, for the 
thieves of the world, even before the patent has been issued to the 
American citizen.
  It is an invitation for every thief in the world to steal American 
technology. Lines will form at the copy machines and the fax machines 
to get this information out to America's worst enemies and our fiercest 
competitors.

[[Page H6706]]

  H.R. 3460 is entitled as I say, the ``Moorhead-Schroeder Patent 
Act.'' The author of the bill suggests that we need not worry about an 
abrupt early publication of patent applications if domestic or foreign 
or multinational corporations steal the ideas; the patent applicants, 
once he or she gets the patent issued, can sue the pirates. Like I say, 
it is Toshiba versus John Q. American citizen. The price tag on this 
simple infringement suit, by the way, is a quarter of a million 
dollars, a quarter of a million dollars for just an uncomplicated suit. 
Our citizens who will be up against Toshiba, Sony, and even the Chinese 
People's Liberation Army, which is engaged in stealing our technology.

  As this bill was being passed through subcommittee, I was in my 
office with the president of a medium-sized solar energy corporation. 
When I asked what would happen if this provision became law, he 
clenched his fist and angrily predicted his Asian competitors would be 
manufacturing his new technology before his patent was issued, and they 
would use the profit from selling his new technology to defeat any 
court challenge that they had and destroy his company. On top of that, 
his overseas competitors would have a further advantage in the fact 
that they would never have had to invest in research and development to 
get the new technology they were benefiting from.
  This is a nightmare that faces every small- and medium-sized company. 
Anyone who cannot afford a stable of expensive lawyers is at the mercy 
of the worst thieves of the world. The big guys have the contacts 
overseas and the money to divert and deter such thievery, but it is 
open season on the little guys, on the average Americans. Of course, we 
will do everything we can to prevent this bill, but what is their goal?
  They say we have to do everything, we have to go, we have to destroy 
the American patent system, we have to make all of our technological 
secrets known to the world in order to protect us from submarine 
patents. Because a few people want to elongate the system on their 
patent and they will get 5 or 10 years more protection here, a few 
Americans, so we have to open up our system to this type of massive 
theft. I would suggest that maybe we should think about the arguments 
about the submarine patent argument.
  What they are telling us, it is sort of like you are going in to your 
doctor and saying, doctor, I got a hang nail here on this toe and it is 
really hurting me. The doctor says, I really am opposed to hang nails. 
Those hang nails are terrible and we are going to solve your problem. 
We are going to cut your leg off, we are going to amputate your leg.
  No, no, doctor, please. I just got this little hang nail down here. 
He says, I bleed for you, and he goes into a big lecture on hang nails, 
and at the end of it he says, well, we are going to cut your leg off. 
Well, if your doctor is telling you that to cure a hang nail, that he 
is going to amputate your leg, I think you better question your 
doctor's motives or maybe your doctor's sanity if he is trying to do 
that on you.
  Another major provision in H.R. 3460, it is the abolition of the 
Patent Office. That is right, H.R. 3460, the Steal American 
Technologies Act, will abolish America's Patent Office. Now, it is in 
our Constitution. Ben Franklin saw to that. Thomas Jefferson saw to 
that. It has played a vital role in protecting our property rights ever 
since then, yet now H.R. 3460 will separate the Patent Office from our 
Government, limiting congressional oversight. That means those of us 
who have been elected to represent the interest of the people will not 
have the same oversight after the Moorhead-Schroeder Act passes. It 
will remake the Patent Office into sort of a corporate-like private 
corporation-government corporation, sort of like the post office.
  Now, I am in favor of privatizing services when government does not 
have to do that, but this is a core function of our Federal Government. 
Protecting the rights of our people as we head into an era of 
technology, that is even more important. But we need the government to 
make sure of that. Who is there to determine and protect the 
intellectual property rights of our people? That is their core function 
all the way back since 1784.
  Well, along with corporatizing and taking away our congressional 
oversight, the civil service protection for our patent examiners will 
be stripped from them. It is like stripping the judge's robes off of 
him, and basically the patent examiners make judicial decisions that 
will affect billions of dollars worth of ownership in our society. It 
is the quasi-judicial decisions, and under this bill, they are not 
going to have any more civil service protection. It opens up our system 
to outside influences and to corruption that we have never had before. 
Taking away the civil service protection is a travesty, and these 
people who work at the Patent Office try their best, and even when they 
are protected, it is a hard job.
  If our Patent Office is corporatized, the head of the Patent Office, 
Bruce Lehman, Mr. Harmonize Our Laws With Japan, can make the changes 
he and his board of directors want with limited congressional scrutiny 
and recourse. Thus, in the coming era of technology and creativity, we 
basically will be decoupling the protection of patent rights from our 
Government, cutting off this congressional oversight, and leaving it in 
the hands of an autonomous board of unelected officials.
   Mr. Speaker, who is going to be on that board? Whose special 
interests will be represented on that board overseeing the decisions as 
to who owns what technology in the future? Maybe they won't even be 
people who have allegiance to the United States, who knows. But they 
will be making the decisions, and we do not know who they are.
  H.R. 3460, the Steal American Technologies Act, must be defeated. My 
bill, H.R. 359, the Patent Rights Restoration Act, can be substituted 
in its place when it comes to the floor of Congress for a vote. The 
choice is our choice as the American people, as Members of Congress. It 
is H.R. 3460, the Moorhead-Schroeder Patent Act or the Rohrabacher 
substitute. One might ask why has a bill that is so obviously 
detrimental to America's interests, why has it gone this far? First and 
foremost, and this is a problem we talked about earlier, our big 
businesses have bought off on the idea of a world economy, and if 
harmonizing our patent rights is part of that deal with a global 
economy and even if our foreign competitors renege later, we must 
change our laws now as a sign of good faith to get everybody working 
together. This mindset is a great threat to the well-being of the 
American people.
  Second, let me say these huge corporations have enormous influence on 
Members of Congress. Your biggest corporation in your district comes to 
see you, the president of that corporation, you listen to that head of 
that corporation. But these corporate leaders are not representing the 
interests of their own working people, much less the greater 
constituency of the people of the United States. These corporate 
leaders may have good hearts and may be well intended, but they are 
wrong headed when it comes to globalization. Their loyalty should be in 
the long term with the people of the United States. Instead, what we 
find here are people who basically bought into an idea, we are going to 
create a whole new world, and it is going to be a more perfect world 
where commerce is flowing.
  Watch out, Mr. and Mrs. America, when you run into somebody who is 
going to change the whole world and make it so much better, even at the 
expense of the American people and our rights. That is the threat we 
face today, and right after the Fourth of July when this bill comes to 
the floor, H.R. 3460, the Steal American Technologies Act, has to be 
defeated and the Rohrabacher substitute should take its place.

                          ____________________