Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2028-H2034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 1890) to amend chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code, to
provide Federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

S. 1890

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Defend Trade Secrets Act of
2016''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS.

(a) In General.--Section 1836 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Private Civil Actions.--
``(1) In general.--An owner of a trade secret that is
misappropriated may bring a civil action under this
subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or
service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or
foreign commerce.
``(2) Civil seizure.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Application.--Based on an affidavit or verified
complaint satisfying the requirements of this paragraph, the
court may, upon ex parte application but only in
extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the
seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or
dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the
action.
``(ii) Requirements for issuing order.--The court may not
grant an application under clause (i) unless the court finds
that it clearly appears from specific facts that--

``(I) an order issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or another form of equitable relief
would be inadequate to achieve the purpose of this paragraph
because the party to which the order would be issued would
evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such an order;
``(II) an immediate and irreparable injury will occur if
such seizure is not ordered;
``(III) the harm to the applicant of denying the
application outweighs the harm to the legitimate interests of
the person against whom seizure would be ordered of granting
the application and substantially outweighs the harm to any
third parties who may be harmed by such seizure;
``(IV) the applicant is likely to succeed in showing that--

``(aa) the information is a trade secret; and
``(bb) the person against whom seizure would be ordered--
``(AA) misappropriated the trade secret of the applicant by
improper means; or
``(BB) conspired to use improper means to misappropriate
the trade secret of the applicant;

``(V) the person against whom seizure would be ordered has
actual possession of--

``(aa) the trade secret; and
``(bb) any property to be seized;

``(VI) the application describes with reasonable
particularity the matter to be seized and, to the extent
reasonable under the circumstances, identifies the location
where the matter is to be seized;
``(VII) the person against whom seizure would be ordered,
or persons acting in concert with such person, would destroy,
move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the
court, if the applicant were to proceed on notice to such
person; and
``(VIII) the applicant has not publicized the requested
seizure.

``(B) Elements of order.--If an order is issued under
subparagraph (A), it shall--
``(i) set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law
required for the order;
``(ii) provide for the narrowest seizure of property
necessary to achieve the purpose of this paragraph and direct
that the seizure be conducted in a manner that minimizes any
interruption of the business operations of third parties and,
to the extent possible, does not interrupt the legitimate
business operations of the person accused of misappropriating
the trade secret;
``(iii)(I) be accompanied by an order protecting the seized
property from disclosure by prohibiting access by the
applicant or the person against whom the order is directed,
and prohibiting any copies, in whole or in part, of the
seized property, to prevent undue damage to the party against
whom the order has issued or others, until such parties have
an opportunity to be heard in court; and
``(II) provide that if access is granted by the court to
the applicant or the person against whom the order is
directed, the access shall be consistent with subparagraph
(D);
``(iv) provide guidance to the law enforcement officials
executing the seizure that clearly delineates the scope of
the authority of the officials, including--

``(I) the hours during which the seizure may be executed;
and
``(II) whether force may be used to access locked areas;

``(v) set a date for a hearing described in subparagraph
(F) at the earliest possible time, and not later than 7 days
after the order has issued, unless the party against whom the
order is directed and others harmed by the order consent to
another date for the hearing, except that a party against
whom the order has issued or any person harmed by the order
may move the court at any time to dissolve or modify the
order after giving notice to the applicant who obtained the
order; and
``(vi) require the person obtaining the order to provide
the security determined adequate by the court for the payment
of the damages that any person may be entitled to recover as
a result of a wrongful or excessive seizure or wrongful or
excessive attempted seizure under this paragraph.
``(C) Protection from publicity.--The court shall take
appropriate action to protect the person against whom an
order under this paragraph is directed from publicity, by or
at the behest of the person obtaining the order, about such
order and any seizure under such order.
``(D) Materials in custody of court.--
``(i) In general.--Any materials seized under this
paragraph shall be taken into the custody of the court. The
court shall secure the seized material from physical and
electronic access during the seizure and while in the custody
of the court.
``(ii) Storage medium.--If the seized material includes a
storage medium, or if the seized material is stored on a
storage medium, the court shall prohibit the medium from
being connected to a network or the Internet without the
consent of both parties, until the hearing required under
subparagraph (B)(v) and described in subparagraph (F).
``(iii) Protection of confidentiality.--The court shall
take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of
seized materials that are unrelated to the trade secret
information ordered seized pursuant to this paragraph unless
the person against whom the order is entered consents to
disclosure of the material.
``(iv) Appointment of special master.--The court may
appoint a special master to locate and isolate all
misappropriated trade secret information and to facilitate
the return of unrelated property and data to the person from
whom the property was seized. The special master appointed by
the court shall agree to be bound by a non-disclosure
agreement approved by the court.
``(E) Service of order.--The court shall order that service
of a copy of the order under this paragraph, and the
submissions of the applicant to obtain the order, shall be
made by a Federal law enforcement officer who, upon making
service, shall carry out the seizure under the order. The
court may allow State or local law enforcement officials to
participate, but may not permit the applicant or any agent of
the applicant to participate in the seizure. At the request
of law enforcement officials, the court may

[[Page H2029]]

allow a technical expert who is unaffiliated with the
applicant and who is bound by a court-approved non-disclosure
agreement to participate in the seizure if the court
determines that the participation of the expert will aid the
efficient execution of and minimize the burden of the
seizure.
``(F) Seizure hearing.--
``(i) Date.--A court that issues a seizure order shall hold
a hearing on the date set by the court under subparagraph
(B)(v).
``(ii) Burden of proof.--At a hearing held under this
subparagraph, the party who obtained the order under
subparagraph (A) shall have the burden to prove the facts
supporting the findings of fact and conclusions of law
necessary to support the order. If the party fails to meet
that burden, the seizure order shall be dissolved or modified
appropriately.
``(iii) Dissolution or modification of order.--A party
against whom the order has been issued or any person harmed
by the order may move the court at any time to dissolve or
modify the order after giving notice to the party who
obtained the order.
``(iv) Discovery time limits.--The court may make such
orders modifying the time limits for discovery under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as may be necessary to
prevent the frustration of the purposes of a hearing under
this subparagraph.
``(G) Action for damage caused by wrongful seizure.--A
person who suffers damage by reason of a wrongful or
excessive seizure under this paragraph has a cause of action
against the applicant for the order under which such seizure
was made, and shall be entitled to the same relief as is
provided under section 34(d)(11) of the Trademark Act of 1946
(15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(11)). The security posted with the court
under subparagraph (B)(vi) shall not limit the recovery of
third parties for damages.
``(H) Motion for encryption.--A party or a person who
claims to have an interest in the subject matter seized may
make a motion at any time, which may be heard ex parte, to
encrypt any material seized or to be seized under this
paragraph that is stored on a storage medium. The motion
shall include, when possible, the desired encryption method.
``(3) Remedies.--In a civil action brought under this
subsection with respect to the misappropriation of a trade
secret, a court may--
``(A) grant an injunction--
``(i) to prevent any actual or threatened misappropriation
described in paragraph (1) on such terms as the court deems
reasonable, provided the order does not--

``(I) prevent a person from entering into an employment
relationship, and that conditions placed on such employment
shall be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and
not merely on the information the person knows; or
``(II) otherwise conflict with an applicable State law
prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful
profession, trade, or business;

``(ii) if determined appropriate by the court, requiring
affirmative actions to be taken to protect the trade secret;
and
``(iii) in exceptional circumstances that render an
injunction inequitable, that conditions future use of the
trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no
longer than the period of time for which such use could have
been prohibited;
``(B) award--
``(i)(I) damages for actual loss caused by the
misappropriation of the trade secret; and
``(II) damages for any unjust enrichment caused by the
misappropriation of the trade secret that is not addressed in
computing damages for actual loss; or
``(ii) in lieu of damages measured by any other methods,
the damages caused by the misappropriation measured by
imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for the
misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of the trade
secret;
``(C) if the trade secret is willfully and maliciously
misappropriated, award exemplary damages in an amount not
more than 2 times the amount of the damages awarded under
subparagraph (B); and
``(D) if a claim of the misappropriation is made in bad
faith, which may be established by circumstantial evidence, a
motion to terminate an injunction is made or opposed in bad
faith, or the trade secret was willfully and maliciously
misappropriated, award reasonable attorney's fees to the
prevailing party.
``(c) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United
States shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions
brought under this section.
``(d) Period of Limitations.--A civil action under
subsection (b) may not be commenced later than 3 years after
the date on which the misappropriation with respect to which
the action would relate is discovered or by the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For
purposes of this subsection, a continuing misappropriation
constitutes a single claim of misappropriation.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 1839 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the public'' and
inserting ``another person who can obtain economic value from
the disclosure or use of the information''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the term `misappropriation' means--
``(A) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person
who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was
acquired by improper means; or
``(B) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another
without express or implied consent by a person who--
``(i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade
secret;
``(ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason
to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was--

``(I) derived from or through a person who had used
improper means to acquire the trade secret;
``(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty
to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use
of the trade secret; or
``(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to
the person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the
trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or

``(iii) before a material change of the position of the
person, knew or had reason to know that--

``(I) the trade secret was a trade secret; and
``(II) knowledge of the trade secret had been acquired by
accident or mistake;

``(6) the term `improper means'--
``(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or
inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or
espionage through electronic or other means; and
``(B) does not include reverse engineering, independent
derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition; and
``(7) the term `Trademark Act of 1946' means the Act
entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and
protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the
provisions of certain international conventions, and for
other purposes, approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et
seq.) (commonly referred to as the ``Trademark Act of 1946''
or the ``Lanham Act'')'.''.
(c) Exceptions to Prohibition.--Section 1833 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding
paragraph (1), by inserting ``or create a private right of
action for'' after ``prohibit''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The section heading for section 1836 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 1836. Civil proceedings''.

(2) The table of sections for chapter 90 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating
to section 1836 and inserting the following:

``1836. Civil proceedings.''.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to any misappropriation of a trade
secret (as defined in section 1839 of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by this section) for which any act occurs on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in the amendments made
by this section shall be construed to modify the rule of
construction under section 1838 of title 18, United States
Code, or to preempt any other provision of law.
(g) Applicability to Other Laws.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall not be construed to be
a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any
other Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. TRADE SECRET THEFT ENFORCEMENT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 90 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in section 1832(b), by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``the greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of
the stolen trade secret to the organization, including
expenses for research and design and other costs of
reproducing the trade secret that the organization has
thereby avoided''; and
(2) in section 1835--
(A) by striking ``In any prosecution'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--In any prosecution''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Rights of Trade Secret Owners.--The court may not
authorize or direct the disclosure of any information the
owner asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows
the owner the opportunity to file a submission under seal
that describes the interest of the owner in keeping the
information confidential. No submission under seal made under
this subsection may be used in a prosecution under this
chapter for any purpose other than those set forth in this
section, or otherwise required by law. The provision of
information relating to a trade secret to the United States
or the court in connection with a prosecution under this
chapter shall not constitute a waiver of trade secret
protection, and the disclosure of information relating to a
trade secret in connection with a prosecution under this
chapter shall not constitute a waiver of trade secret
protection unless the trade secret owner expressly consents
to such waiver.''.
(b) RICO Predicate Offenses.--Section 1961(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``sections 1831
and 1832 (relating to economic espionage and theft of trade
secrets),'' before ``section 1951''.

SEC. 4. REPORT ON THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS OCCURRING ABROAD.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director
of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(2) Foreign instrumentality, etc.--The terms ``foreign
instrumentality'', ``foreign

[[Page H2030]]

agent'', and ``trade secret'' have the meanings given those
terms in section 1839 of title 18, United States Code.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.
(4) United states company.--The term ``United States
company'' means an organization organized under the laws of
the United States or a State or political subdivision
thereof.
(b) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and biannually thereafter, the
Attorney General, in consultation with the Intellectual
Property Enforcement Coordinator, the Director, and the heads
of other appropriate agencies, shall submit to the Committees
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, and make publicly available on the Web site of the
Department of Justice and disseminate to the public through
such other means as the Attorney General may identify, a
report on the following:
(1) The scope and breadth of the theft of the trade secrets
of United States companies occurring outside of the United
States.
(2) The extent to which theft of trade secrets occurring
outside of the United States is sponsored by foreign
governments, foreign instrumentalities, or foreign agents.
(3) The threat posed by theft of trade secrets occurring
outside of the United States.
(4) The ability and limitations of trade secret owners to
prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets outside of the
United States, to enforce any judgment against foreign
entities for theft of trade secrets, and to prevent imports
based on theft of trade secrets overseas.
(5) A breakdown of the trade secret protections afforded
United States companies by each country that is a trading
partner of the United States and enforcement efforts
available and undertaken in each such country, including a
list identifying specific countries where trade secret theft,
laws, or enforcement is a significant problem for United
States companies.
(6) Instances of the Federal Government working with
foreign countries to investigate, arrest, and prosecute
entities and individuals involved in the theft of trade
secrets outside of the United States.
(7) Specific progress made under trade agreements and
treaties, including any new remedies enacted by foreign
countries, to protect against theft of trade secrets of
United States companies outside of the United States.
(8) Recommendations of legislative and executive branch
actions that may be undertaken to--
(A) reduce the threat of and economic impact caused by the
theft of the trade secrets of United States companies
occurring outside of the United States;
(B) educate United States companies regarding the threats
to their trade secrets when taken outside of the United
States;
(C) provide assistance to United States companies to reduce
the risk of loss of their trade secrets when taken outside of
the United States; and
(D) provide a mechanism for United States companies to
confidentially or anonymously report the theft of trade
secrets occurring outside of the United States.

SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) trade secret theft occurs in the United States and
around the world;
(2) trade secret theft, wherever it occurs, harms the
companies that own the trade secrets and the employees of the
companies;
(3) chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Economic Espionage Act of 1996''), applies
broadly to protect trade secrets from theft; and
(4) it is important when seizing information to balance the
need to prevent or remedy misappropriation with the need to
avoid interrupting the--
(A) business of third parties; and
(B) legitimate interests of the party accused of
wrongdoing.

SEC. 6. BEST PRACTICES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Judicial Center, using
existing resources, shall develop recommended best practices
for--
(1) the seizure of information and media storing the
information; and
(2) the securing of the information and media once seized.
(b) Updates.--The Federal Judicial Center shall update the
recommended best practices developed under subsection (a)
from time to time.
(c) Congressional Submissions.--The Federal Judicial Center
shall provide a copy of the recommendations developed under
subsection (a), and any updates made under subsection (b), to
the--
(1) Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(2) Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 7. IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE
OF A TRADE SECRET TO THE GOVERNMENT OR IN A
COURT FILING.

(a) Amendment.--Section 1833 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``This chapter'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--This chapter'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2), as designated by paragraph (1),
by striking ``the reporting of a suspected violation of law
to any governmental entity of the United States, a State, or
a political subdivision of a State, if such entity has lawful
authority with respect to that violation'' and inserting
``the disclosure of a trade secret in accordance with
subsection (b)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Immunity From Liability for Confidential Disclosure
of a Trade Secret to the Government or in a Court Filing.--
``(1) Immunity.--An individual shall not be held criminally
or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law
for the disclosure of a trade secret that--
``(A) is made--
``(i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local
government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an
attorney; and
``(ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating
a suspected violation of law; or
``(B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a
lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under
seal.
``(2) Use of trade secret information in anti-retaliation
lawsuit.--An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation
by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may
disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual
and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding,
if the individual--
``(A) files any document containing the trade secret under
seal; and
``(B) does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant
to court order.
``(3) Notice.--
``(A) In general.--An employer shall provide notice of the
immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract or
agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade
secret or other confidential information.
``(B) Policy document.--An employer shall be considered to
be in compliance with the notice requirement in subparagraph
(A) if the employer provides a cross-reference to a policy
document provided to the employee that sets forth the
employer's reporting policy for a suspected violation of law.
``(C) Non-compliance.--If an employer does not comply with
the notice requirement in subparagraph (A), the employer may
not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under
subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 1836(b)(3) in an action
against an employee to whom notice was not provided.
``(D) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply to
contracts and agreements that are entered into or updated
after the date of enactment of this subsection.
``(4) Employee defined.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `employee' includes any individual performing work
as a contractor or consultant for an employer.
``(5) Rule of construction.--Except as expressly provided
for under this subsection, nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to authorize, or limit liability for, an act
that is otherwise prohibited by law, such as the unlawful
access of material by unauthorized means.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 1838 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``This
chapter'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section
1833(b), this chapter''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

{time} 1445

general leave

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 1890, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today we are here to consider S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act
of 2016. This bill puts forward enhancements to our Federal trade
secrets law, creating a Federal civil remedy for trade secrets
misappropriation that will help American innovators protect their
intellectual property from criminal theft by foreign agents and those
engaging in economic espionage. This bill will help U.S.
competitiveness, job creation, and our Nation's future economic
security.
Our intellectual property laws cover everything from patents,
copyrights and trademarks, and include trade secrets.
But what are trade secrets?
Trade secrets law is used to protect some of the most iconic
inventions in America. For example, a trade secret can include recipes
like Colonel Sanders' secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices, and the
125-year-old formula for Coca-Cola housed in a vault at the World of
Coca-Cola in Atlanta, Georgia.
However, trade secrets are not simply isolated to the realm of food
and

[[Page H2031]]

beverages. They can include confidential formulas like the formula for
WD-40, manufacturing techniques, customer lists, and algorithms like
Google's search engine.
Trade secrets occupy a unique place in the IP portfolios of our most
innovative companies, but because they are unregistered and not
formally reviewed like patents, there are no limitations on discovering
a trade secret by fair, lawful methods, such as reverse engineering or
independent development. In innovative industries, that is simply the
free market at work.
Though trade secrets are not formally reviewed, they are protected
from misappropriation, which includes obtaining the trade secret
through improper or unlawful means. Misappropriation can take many
forms, whether it is an employee selling blueprints to a competitor or
a foreign agent hacking into a server. In addition, one could argue
that even a foreign government's policies to require forced technology
transfer is a form of misappropriation.
Though most States base their trade secrets laws on the Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, the Federal Government protects trade secrets through the
Economic Espionage Act. In the 112th Congress, the Committee on the
Judiciary helped enact two pieces of legislation to help improve the
protection of trade secrets, and in the 113th Congress, we introduced
and passed out of committee the first version of this trade secrets
bill unanimously.
Today we build on our efforts over these past 2 years and are taking
a significant and positive step toward improving our Nation's trade
secrets laws and continuing to build on our important work in this area
of intellectual property. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Information Technology

Industry Council,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Hon. Doug Collins,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, Democratic Leader Pelosi,
Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Representative
Collins, and Representative Nadler: On behalf of the members
of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), I write
to express our support for S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets
Act of 2016 (DTSA), and commend your efforts to bring it to
the House floor for debate and vote. Given the importance of
trade secrets protection to the high-tech industry, we will
consider scoring votes in support of DTSA in our 114th
Congressional Voting Guide.
ITI companies are at the forefront of innovation and have
some of the largest trade secret and patent portfolios in the
world tied to numerous goods and services offered to
governments, commercial enterprises and consumers around the
globe. In fact, patent portfolios often grow as a result of
the ideas and products originating as trade secrets. Customer
lists, manufacturing processes, and source code are just a
few examples of important assets considered to be trade
secrets by many companies.
Our companies pour billions of dollars into research and
development to create products and services that ultimately
become the backbone of their businesses. Trade secrets
produced through this research and development increasingly
have become attractive to competitors in other countries. In
addition, advances in technology now make it easy to copy
trade secret materials onto a jump drive or lap top computer
that once would have taken reams of paper to reproduce. As a
result, the threat posed to American trade secrets has
increased and theft of these secrets robs our economy of
growth and innovation.
It is long overdue for our trade secrets law to be
modernized to keep pace with the rapid developments of our
companies and the technologies and methods used by the
criminals who target them. The patchwork of state trade
secrets laws, while effective for local theft, fail to meet
the demands of the global nature of today's trade secret
misappropriation. In addition, trade secrets do not enjoy the
same federal protections as other types of intellectual
property. While it is a federal crime to steal a trade
secret, unlike patents, copyrights and trademarks, there is
no federal civil remedy.
DTSA provides a solution to these problematic gaps by
making federal law more comprehensive and providing trade
secrets owners with remedies all forms of intellectual
property should be afforded. With both a federal criminal and
a federal civil cause of action, large and small companies
alike will have access to more tools they need to effectively
combat trade secret theft and help to ensure future
innovation continues to occur in the United States.
While trade secret protection is important domestically, as
American companies expand in the global marketplace, this
protection is also needed worldwide. As we operate in other
countries and work with them to encourage strong intellectual
property protection within their own borders, the Defend
Trade Secrets Act will serve as a model for effective
protection.
We thank the House Judiciary Committee for quickly
approving this legislation, and we look forward to seeing the
bill pass in the House of Representatives and move to the
president's desk to become law.
On behalf of ITI's member companies, I thank you for your
leadership on intellectual property protection and urge you
and your colleagues to support S. 1890.
Sincerely,
Dean C. Garfield,
President & CEO.
____

National Association of

Manufacturers,

April 26, 2016.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in
the United States representing manufacturers in every
industrial sector and in all 50 states urges you to support
S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. S. 1890 passed
the Senate by a vote of 87-0, and represents a bipartisan and
amended version of H.R. 3326, introduced by Representatives
Doug Collins (R-GA) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
The NAM supports further safeguarding of confidential
business information and trade secrets through the expansion
of federal jurisdiction to enable faster, nationwide
enforcement of all intellectual property (IP) rights. IP is
one of the most valued business assets for manufacturers of
all sizes. The impact of its theft has increased
exponentially in today's digitally-driven environment. Mass
amounts of this critical business information can now be
illegally transferred to a small data storage device and
removed easily and quickly from a manufacturers' facility.
The value of this business information creates an inseparable
link between the need for protection of intellectual property
rights and innovation, competitiveness, and sound economic
growth.
The NAM supports S. 1890 because it would strengthen the
ability of manufacturers to protect their IP by creating a
federal civil right of action to help prevent and prosecute
trade secret theft, an important tool that does not exist
today. Such a tool eliminates the difficult, time-consuming,
and costly process imposed on manufacturers as they currently
must work with multiple state jurisdictions in order to
apprehend perpetrators of trade secret theft. A federal
process that cuts across state lines would also increase the
likelihood of preventing this valuable data from leaving the
country permanently.
Manufacturers deploy the latest technology and controls to
protect the critical information guarded by trade secrets. In
the unfortunate instances when this data is compromised,
manufacturers need to act quickly before it is disclosed and
its value is lost forever. S. 1890 would modernize our
current system, providing owners of trade secrets the same
legal options as owners of other forms of IP, and give them
the ability to pursue trade secret theft aggressively and
efficiently.
The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that
votes on S. 1890, including procedural motions, may be
considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the
114th Congress. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Aric Newhouse.
____

Chamber of Commerce,

United States of America,

[[Page H2032]]

companies that depend on intellectual property to spur
innovation, create jobs, and bring new products to market
that benefit consumers. By creating a federal civil remedy
for trade secrets theft, this bill would help ensure the
trade secrets of U.S. companies are given similar protections
afforded to other forms of intellectual property including
patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
The Chamber urges you to support S. 1890 and may consider
votes on, or in relation to, this bill in our annual How They
Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act. This
measure amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a Federal
civil cause of action and to facilitate expedited ex parte seizure of
property when necessary to preserve evidence or prevent dissemination.
The House counterpart to this bill, H.R. 3326, which was introduced
by our committee colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins)
and the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), now has 164
bipartisan cosponsors, including myself.
Likewise, S. 1890 enjoys broad bipartisan and bicameral support, as
evidenced by the fact that the Senate passed this bill by a vote of 87-
0 earlier this month. The House Committee on the Judiciary reported
this bill favorably by a unanimous voice vote only last week.
There are several reasons that I support the legislation. To begin
with, S. 1890 will enhance the protection of trade secrets, which is
integral to the success of any business. It is estimated that the value
of trade secrets owned by United States companies as of 2009 was
approximately $5 trillion.
Although trade secrets are fundamental to the success of any
business, United States companies have struggled to protect these
valuable assets, especially in the digital age of smartphones and the
Internet. It is estimated that the loss of trade secrets as a result of
cyber espionage costs these businesses between $200 billion and $300
billion annually.
Thieves take advantage of ever-evolving, innovative technologies to
access sensitive trade secrets information and to distribute it
immediately.
While Federal law protects other forms of intellectual property by
providing access to Federal courts for aggrieved parties to seek
redress, there is no Federal civil cause of action for enforcement of
trade secrets protection.
S. 1890 addresses this need by establishing a Federal cause of action
for trade secrets owners to obtain injunctive and monetary relief,
which will be a powerful new tool to protect their intellectual
property.
Now, another reason I support the bill is that it would foster
uniformity among the States. Although States provide civil remedies for
trade secrets theft, these laws often fall short when trade secrets are
taken across State lines. As a result, businesses that have nationwide
operations must deal with various differing State laws, which can be
too costly for some businesses, particularly smaller ones. This also
prevents businesses from taking full advantage of the rights that they
might have under the law.
S. 1890 would provide trade secrets owners access to uniform national
law and the ability to make their case in Federal court.
Lastly, I support the bill because it reflects constructive feedback
from various stakeholders.
We have been working on this legislation for almost 2 years. It
reflects the input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and the bill
is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is
bipartisan collaboration.
I close by urging my colleagues to support this important legislation
so that we can send it to the President's desk for signature.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the chief sponsor of the
House version of this bill and a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act. I introduced the House companion,
and I am proud to see this bill moving forward. This legislation is
sorely needed to protect the United States from the billions of dollars
it faces in losses each year due to trade secrets theft.
However, the legislation could not have reached this point without
the hard work and dedication of several people. First, I would like to
thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for their efforts to move this
bill through the Committee on the Judiciary and bring it to the floor.
This has been, as the ranking member said, a several-year process. We
are glad to see it here.
I also wanted to thank those who introduced the House legislation
with me, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Jeffries, both from New York, and their
staff, for their commitment to the issue and their willingness to work
across the aisle to implement meaningful reform.
On the Senate side, Senators Hatch and Coons were instrumental in
getting us to this point. Their leadership, along with the leadership
of Chairman Grassley and Senator Leahy, helped ensure the strong Senate
vote of 87-0 and ensured this product was able to come to the House.
I would finally like to take just a moment to thank Jennifer
Choudhry, my former legislative director, for her hand in introducing
and shepherding this bill through the legislative process. Her
contributions were invaluable, and she should be proud of her part in
getting this legislation to the House floor today. I also thank Sally
Rose Larson, who has taken up the mantle in my office and helped to get
us here to the finish line.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act enjoys support from a broad coalition of
groups and industries, from Americans for Tax Reform, the American Bar
Association Intellectual Property Law Section, the Information
Technology Industry Council, the chamber of commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and many more. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this
bill has more than 160 bipartisan cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, estimates show that as much as 80 percent of companies'
assets are intangible, many in the form of trade secrets. Couple that
with the fact that trade secrets theft is costing America billions of
dollars each year. In fact, one study indicates that trade secrets
theft costs America approximately $300 billion annually. That price tag
will continue to grow as technology and thieves become more
sophisticated. Trade secrets theft jeopardizes our economic security
and threatens jobs, which is why it is so important that we take steps
to address it.
Trade secrets include everything from business information to
designs, prototypes, and formulas. Coming from Georgia, one good
example is the recipe for Coca-Cola. Trade secrets are commercially
valuable information subject to secrecy protection. They are a critical
form of intellectual property, yet they do not enjoy the same
protections that apply to other forms of intellectual property, such as
copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
Additionally, trade secrets derive economic value from not being
publicly known, and this confidential business information can be
protected for an unlimited time. However, once trade secrets are
disclosed, they instantly lose their value, making it even more
important to have the mechanisms in place to protect them.
Currently, Federal law is insufficient to address many of the
challenges related to trade secrets theft in today's economy. The only
Federal mechanism for trade secrets protection under current law is the
1996 Economic Espionage Act, which made trade secrets theft by foreign
nationals a criminal offense.
However, this only addresses part of the problem, and criminalizes
only a portion of trade secrets theft, whereas a civil remedy for
misuse and misappropriation would allow companies to more broadly
protect their property.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act will address that, and it will
strengthen the ability of companies to protect valuable trade secrets,
which, in turn, allows them to protect American jobs and innovation.
The bill will empower companies to protect their trade secrets in
Federal court by creating a Federal private right of action.
The bill streamlines access to relief, and, in extraordinary
circumstances, allows victims of trade secrets theft to obtain a
seizure to ensure trade secrets

[[Page H2033]]

are not abused while cases are pending. The Defend Trade Secrets Act
also provides for an injunction and damages.
Protecting the trade secrets of American businesses is crucial to
keeping our country a leader in the world economy. Providing a Federal
civil remedy will create certainty for companies throughout the Nation,
including my home State of Georgia.
Congress has the responsibility to give industries the tools they
need to protect their intellectual property and, in turn, encourage job
creation and economic growth. This bill takes a step forward in better
protecting American innovation.
Again, I want to thank the tireless work of my House and Senate
colleagues in advancing this critical legislation. I am proud to see
this bill, which provides critical intellectual property protections
and protects American businesses, move forward. I would encourage all
my colleagues to join me today in supporting the Defend Trade Secrets
Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary
and author of this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1890, the
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This long overdue legislation would
protect businesses across the country from the growing threat of trade
secrets theft by creating a uniform Federal civil cause of action for
misappropriation of trade secrets.
Trade secrets are proprietary business information that derive their
value from being and remaining secret. This includes secret recipes,
software codes, and manufacturing processes--information that, if
disclosed, could prove ruinous to a company. As the United States
economy becomes more and more knowledge- and service-based, trade
secrets are increasingly becoming the foundation of businesses across
the country, with one estimate placing the value of trade secrets in
the United States at $5 trillion.

{time} 1500

Unfortunately, with such fortunes resting on trade secrets, theft of
this property is inevitable. And in today's digital environment, it has
never been easier to transfer stolen property across the globe with the
click of a button. By one estimate, the American economy loses annually
as much as $300 billion or more due to misappropriation of trade
secrets, leading to loss of up to 2.1 billion jobs each year.
With so much at stake, it is absolutely vital that the law include
strong protections against theft of trade secrets. However, our current
patchwork of Federal and State laws has proven inadequate to the job.
While the Federal Government may bring criminal prosecutions and may
move for civil injunctions, this power is rarely exercised and often
fails to adequately compensate the victims.
The States provide civil causes of action for victims of theft, with
money damages available, but this system has not proven efficient or
effective for incidents that cross State and, sometimes, international
borders.
Once upon a time, trade secrets might have been kept in a file
cabinet somewhere, and would-be thieves would have to spirit away a
physical copy, making it likely that they would be caught before
crossing State lines. But today, trade secrets can be loaded onto a
thumb drive and mailed out of State or even sent electronically
anywhere across the globe in an instant.
Pursuing a defendant and the evidence in dispute across State lines
present a host of challenges for victims of trade secret theft,
particularly when time is of the essence. The need for a Federal
solution is, therefore, clear.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act fills this gap by creating a uniform
Federal civil cause of action for theft of trade secrets. It also
provides for expedited ex parte seizure of property, but only in
extraordinary circumstances where necessary to preserve evidence or
prevent dissemination.
As the lead Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 3326, the House companion to
this legislation, I am very pleased that this bill is on the floor
today, and I want to thank everyone who worked hard to bring us to this
point. In particular, I want to thank the sponsor of H.R. 3326, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), as well as Ranking Member
Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Jeffries). I also appreciate the sponsors of the Senate bill, S. 1890,
Senators Hatch and Coons, for all of their work on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. NADLER. The bill we are considering today represents the
culmination of over 2 years of negotiations with various stakeholders
and has strong bipartisan support, with 164 cosponsors in the House and
65 in the Senate.
This is good legislation that carefully balances the rights of
defendants and the needs of American businesses to protect their most
valuable assets. The Senate passed the bill 87-0. With passage here
today, we can send it straight to the President's desk.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding,
as well as for his tremendous leadership, and Chairman Goodlatte,
Congressman Collins, Congressman Nadler, as well as the Protect Trade
Secrets Coalition, for their tremendous work in getting us to this
point where we are on the verge of passing this very important piece of
legislation.
Whether it is the original recipe created by Colonel Sanders in
connection with Kentucky Fried Chicken or whether it is the special
sauce made famous by the iconic Big Mac of McDonald's or whether it is
Corning's glass that is so frequently used and found in many of our
smartphones all across the country, trade secrets are as American as
baseball and apple pie. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves, over
the last few years, in a situation where trade secret theft has become
a significant problem, by some accounts costing us in excess of $300
billion per year and more than 2 million jobs annually.
Traditionally, trade secret theft has been dealt with on the civil
side as a matter of State law. But because of the increasing nature of
the problem and the fact that it is both multistate and multinational
in nature, the State law domain has become inadequate, which brings us
to this piece of legislation that would create a Federal civil cause of
action for trade secret misappropriation, giving our companies and
stakeholders access to a uniform body of law that can deal with trade
secret theft in a more appropriate fashion.
That is why this piece of legislation is so significant in this
climate and why I am so thankful for the leadership of all those who
have brought us to this point. I urge everyone to support this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow Judiciary
Committee colleagues and their staffs who have devoted much time and
energy and intellect to this project. We have worked together for the
common goal of improving our Nation's trade secret laws for the past 2
years.
I want to particularly thank Representatives Doug Collins, Jerrold
Nadler, and the over 150 Members of Congress who joined as cosponsors
of this legislation in the House. In the Senate, we have worked closely
with Senators Hatch, Grassley, Leahy, Coons, and others, and I want to
thank them and their staffs for their contributions to this effort.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the White House and the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office for working collaboratively with us, as
well as the Protect Trade Secrets Coalition for its work on this
effort. I also want to thank my staff for all their hard work on this
important legislation.
This bill is the product of years of bipartisan, bicameral work, and
it will have a positive impact on U.S. competitiveness, job creation,
and our Nation's future economic security. I urge my colleagues to
support S. 1890.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1890,
the ``Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016''.

[[Page H2034]]

S. 1890, amends the, ``Economic Espionage Act of 1996,'' to create a
federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation, and expedite ex
parte seizure of trade secrets to preserve evidence or prevent
dissemination, without preempting state law.
``Trade secrets'' are the form of intellectual property that protect
confidential information, including: marketing data and strategies,
manufacturing processes or techniques, confidential and chemical
formulae, product design, customer lists, business leads, pricing
schedules, and sales techniques.
Trade secret law offers protection from trade secret
``misappropriation,'' which is the unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disclosure of such secrets obtained by some improper means.
Under U.S. law, trade secrets consist of three parts: (i) information
that is non-public; (2) the reasonable measures taken to protect that
information; and (3) the fact that the information derives independent
economic value from not being publicly known.
American companies are at the forefront of innovation and have some
of the largest trade secret and patent portfolios in the world tied to
numerous goods and services offered to governments, commercial
enterprises, and consumers around the globe.
In fact, patent portfolios often grow as a result of the ideas and
products that originated as trade secrets.
President Obama's Administration identified the importance of this
legislation and, ``strongly supports the Defend Trade Secrets Act,''
because he recognizes that as the United States continues to shift from
a manufacturing, to a knowledge- and service-based economy, businesses
increasingly depend on trade secrets to protect their confidential
know-how.
A 2009 estimate placed the value of trade secrets owned by U.S.
companies at five trillion dollars, demonstrating that trade secrets
have become an increasingly important part of most companies' overall
assets.
But, the global economy creates a competitive environment in which
companies struggle to safeguard this information in light of innovative
technologies, such as cell phones, which allow nearly anyone to
photograph or otherwise record data and send information nearly
instantaneously.
A 2013 report, by the Commission on the Theft of American
Intellectual Property, estimated that the American economy loses more
than $300 billion annually as a result of theft of intellectual
property, largely trade secrets, leading to a loss of up to 2.1 million
jobs each year.
The same theft is slowing U.S. economic growth and diminishing the
incentive to innovate that we celebrate today.
Our companies pour billions of dollars into research and development,
creating products and services that ultimately become the backbone of
their businesses.
And rightly so, those trade secrets produced through research and
development increasingly have become the attractive envy of competitors
in other countries.
In addition, advances in technology now make it easy to copy trade
secret materials onto a jump drive or laptop computer that in a world
of less advanced technology would have taken reams of paper to
reproduce.
Modernization of trade secrets law is long overdue if our legislation
is to keep pace with the rapid developments of premier American
companies and the technologies and methodologies used by the criminals
who target them.
The patchwork of state trade secrets laws, while effective for local
theft, fail to meet the demands of the global nature of today's trade
secret misappropriations.
In addition, trade secrets do not enjoy the same federal protections
as other types of intellectual property. While it is a federal crime to
steal a trade secret, unlike patents, copyrights and trademarks, there
is no current federal civil remedy.
This confidential business information can be protected for an
unlimited time, unlike patents, and requires no formal registration
process.
But unlike patents, once this information is disclosed it instantly
loses its value and the property right itself ceases to exist,
demonstrating a stark difference in the potential consequences of
securing patent protections versus keeping an innovation as a trade
secret.
When an inventor seeks patent protection, he or she agrees to
disclose to the world their invention and how it works, furthering
innovation and research, as well as securing a 20-year exclusive term
of protection, and the right to prevent others from making, using,
selling, importing, or distributing a patented invention without
permission.
However, in contrast by maintaining it as a trade secret, an inventor
could theoretically keep their invention secret indefinitely (ex:
formula for Coca-Cola; the KFC Colonel's Secret Recipe); but, the
downside is there is no protection if the trade secret is uncovered by
others through reverse engineering or independent development.
Trade secrets must be valiantly guarded because discovery of a trade
secret by fair, lawful methods, such as reverse engineering or
independent development, is permitted.
As a result, the threat posed to American trade secrets has increased
and theft of these secrets robs our economy of growth and innovation.
S. 1890, provides a solution to these problematic gaps by making
federal law more comprehensive and providing trade secrets owners with
remedies that all forms of intellectual property should be afforded.
With both a federal criminal and a federal civil cause of action,
large and small companies alike will have access to more of the tools
that they need to effectively combat trade secret theft and help to
ensure future innovation continues to occur within the United States.
While trade secret protection is important domestically, as American
companies expand in the global marketplace, this protection is also
paramount worldwide.
As we operate in other countries and work with them to encourage
strong intellectual property protection within their own borders, the
``Defend Trade Secrets Act'' will serve as a model for effective
protection.
S. 1890 will prevent the occurrence of (1) trade secret theft
occurring in the United States and around the world; and (2) trade
secret theft harming owner companies and their employees; while
allowing the ``Economic Espionage Act of 1996'' to continue to apply
broadly to protect trade secrets from theft.
I thank the House Judiciary Committee for quickly approving this
legislation, and look forward to seeing this bill pass in the House to
move to the President's desk to become law.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our Leadership for its prowess on intellectual
property protection and urge you and your colleagues to support S.
1890.

Chamber of Commerce,

United States of America,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than three
million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as
well as state and local chambers and industry associations,
and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending
America's free enterprise system, strongly supports S. 1890,
the ``Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016,'' and urges the House
to expeditiously pass this bill.
Intellectual property sector industries generate 35% of all
U.S. Gross Domestic Product and are responsible for two-
thirds of all exports and over forty million good-paying
jobs. The threat of trade secrets theft is of increasing
concern to U.S. economic security and domestic jobs, and S.
1890 would provide companies with an effective tool to combat
this growing problem. Creating a federal civil cause of
action to complement existing criminal remedies and providing
a uniform system and legal framework would enable companies
to better mitigate the commercial injury and loss of
employment that often occur when trade secrets are stolen.
The Chamber appreciates the House's attention to this
important issue that impacts companies that depend on
intellectual property to spur innovation, create jobs, and
bring new products to market that benefit consumers. By
creating a federal civil remedy for trade secrets theft, this
bill would help ensure the trade secrets of U.S. companies
are given similar protections afforded to other forms of
intellectual property including patents, trademarks, and
copyrights.
The Chamber urges you to support S. 1890 and may consider
votes on, or in relation to, this bill in our annual How They
Voted scorecard.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 1890.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________