tv House Session CSPAN February 10, 2015 6:30pm-9:01pm EST
will -- the real thing is will we support those who deserve to be supported? the rourke -- the ukrainians trying to preserve their democracy and freedom? >> bob is our first phone call a republican. go ahead. you're on the air. go ahead. >> he s. thank you, c-span. i wanted to say crap. host: i guess he lost his train of thought. don in texas, independent caller. caller: how are you this morning? how much would it cost a taxpayer to do this? you see how much it cost tax payers to lose the money. to borrow the money to fight overseas.
that should be put in front of american citizens -- host: ok. guest: there is no question we have limited resources. in many of these count -- these challenges, in dealing with isil or frankly russian aggression in eastern europe, the question is what is the cost of not acting? often, by sitting back and not acting, we encourage further aggression. both our allies and enemies are watching. there are times, of course, out of moral authority and doing what is right, america steps i -- steps up. but the on that, it is important to understand the world has never been smaller. >> "washington journal" airs live every morning. we're going live to the house now for votes on measures debated earlier.
erk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 99, resolved, that the house has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the representative nunnelee a representative from the state of mississippi, resolved that the clerk communicate these resolutions to the senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased. resolved when the house adjourns today it adjourn to the memory of the deceased. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 719 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 720 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute
vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from new york, mr. katko to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 719 on which yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 719, a bill to require the transportation security agency to conform to existing federal law and regular layings regarding federal investigator positions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representative any usef ocaptioned covera of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly pribited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 414, the nays are zero. the speaker: 2/3 being in the 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. members will please take their seats.
for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i request unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on friday, we lost our colleague, allen nunnelee who represented the first congressional district of mississippi. mr. thompson: yesterday congressman nunnelee he was memorialized. the entire mississippi delegation and 40 other members of congress attended. i ask that the house pause for a moment of silence in remembrance of congressman nunnelee. the speaker: members will rise and observe a moment of silence.
the speaker: without objection five-minute voting will continue. the speaker: weather, the voting will continued. the clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: a bill to improve intergovernmental planning for and security incidents at domestic airports and for other purposes. the speaker: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 411, the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 100, resolution providing for
consideration of the bill, senate 1, to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and providing for proceedings during the period from february 16, 2015, through february 23 2015. report to accompany house resolution 101, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 644 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to permanently extend and expand the char tarble deduction for contribution -- charitable du deduction for contribution of food eneventtory and h.r. 636, to amend the internal revenue cofede 1986 to permanently extend and increasing spending limitations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to thes who call -- referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the additional motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered.
or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded vote on the postponed question will be taken later. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspended rules and pass house resolution 710. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 710, a bill to require the secretary of homeland security to prepare a comprehensive security
assessment of the transportation security card program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous con -- mr. carter: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 710, the essential transportation worker identification credential assessment act. first i would like to thank the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for reintroducing this thoughtful legislation and the gentlelady from michigan mrs. miller, for her leadership in moving it through her subcommittee last congress. mr. speaker, this legislation
calls for a security assessment to determine the efficacy of the transportation worker identification credential, commonly known as the twic program. this bill will help congress better determine the value of the twic program and simultaneously allow the department to proceed with finalizing the long-awaited card reader rule. i support this bill and the contribution on the floor today because it responds to a key recommendation of the government accountability office that the twic program should have a baseline security assessment before the program moves forward. i have several thriving ports in my district, such as savannah, brunswick and kings bay. as many of my colleagues who also have ports in their districts know, twic is a port security program that has been wrought with constant delays and questions about its overall security value. last congress the border and maritime subcommittee had held a hearing with the coast guard
t.s.a. and g.a.o. on the twic program and the ongoing concerns therein. and this legislation is a result of that strong oversight. it may be hard to believe, but more than a decade after the legislation that required twic was first enacted, there's been no security or effectiveness assessment of the program to assess the underlying assumptions of the security and control concerns the card was intended to mitigate. this bill seeks to answer the simple question how if at all, does twic improve maritime security? this should have been one of the first things the department did when it began toimplement this program and this bill ensures -- to implement this program and this bill ensures it is done. the twic card was designed to prevent terrorists from gaining access to sensitive parts of our nation's ports through the use of biometric-enabled credentials. however, with no biometric regulations in place, the twic card is currently used as a
flash pass. since most facilities and vessels are neither currently required to nor voluntarily utilized by a met -- by biometric readers. the lack of biometric readers, therefore, limits the effectiveness of this program. for several years members of the homeland security committee have been calling on the department to release the card reader rule, to provide some certainty to workers and industry. the final rule to require twic readers to be used at the riskiest 5% of all twic-regulated vessels and facilities has not been issued. the notice of proposed rulemaking was posted almost two years ago, which was nearly six years after workers were first required to pay for and obtain a twic card. the delays are so significant that workers have already had to renew their biometric credentials in the time it has taken to issue regulations on
credential readers to actually utilize the biometric-enabled technology. this is absurd. while we all agree there is much room for improvement with the twic program, putting it on hold for several more years would do more harm than good. the business community has been preparing for this twic rule for several years. this bill will give them certainty about the requirements of the twic program. it also allows the coast guard and t.s.a. to continue their efforts to deliver the port security program congress expected years ago. . finally, h.r. 710 requires the g.a.o. to perform consistent reviews of the twic program and follow the changes the department makes as a result of the assessment. this added level of review will provide congress with progress updates for future legislative action. the proposed role and open g.a.o. recommendations lead to some basic questions about
mitigating threat, risk, and vulnerability at our nation's ports and how the twic program should be used effectively to prevent a potential terrorist attack. we have an obligation, mr. speaker, to get this right. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 710 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman suspends. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i rise in strong support of h.r. 710, the essential transportation worker identification act. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from georgia for his commitment and for his service on the homeland security committee. i want to acknowledge our chairman and ranking member of the full committee and mrs. miller who now serves as chairwoman of the border security committee of which -- and maritime security, which i
served as ranking member of the last congress. the bill passed the house unanimously in the 113th congress and i'm pleased it is being considered by the house again today. so mr. speaker, might i add my appreciation to the house leadership, in particular, the speaker and majority leader, and of course our leader and minority whip. the safe port act of 2006 directed the secretary of homeland security to implement a biometric credential program now known as the twic program to ensure that individuals and unescort -- with unescorted access to secure areas of port and vessels were vetted an carrying proper credentials. mr. speaker, i had a twic card. i remember being there as the twic card was being implemented and watching various employees come to the center and sign up for the twic card. we had great hope and inspiration on the twic card.
establishment of the program was viewed as critical to ensuring security of our ports. however, in the years since it was established, the department of homeland security struggled to realize the security benefits that congress envisioned. i know that the transportation security administration, the former director was very concerned and made their efforts, and it should be noted it is an important part of their work along with others. in fact, the government accountability office had examined the program and identified serious shortcomings that may undermine the program's intented purpose and make it difficult to justify program costs. and particularly the cost to workers. i saw that firsthand. i also saw the challenges of workers who had many unique scheduling for their work hours to be able to get a twic card. in response i introduced h.r. 710 and its predecessor last congress with the support of subcommittee chairman miller as
an original co-sponsor to ensure that congress received an independent, scientific assessment of the program and to require the secretary to issue a corrective action plan responding to the assessment. ranking member thompson is also a co-sponsor but this is bipartisan legislation. the required assessment should give congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the twic program. the bill has been refined over time to ensure that the long overdue rule making for twic card readers would not be affected by the bill and to refine the scope of the assessment we are seeking. there is great interest in that final rule, particularly there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards. if the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels and biometric readers as has been previously proposed by the department, we will still certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately two
million truckers longshoremen and port workers who today carry twics as part of their job. for those of us who live around and near our ports, such as the houston port, we know this will have a great impact. with that mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i have no more speakers network gentlewoman has no more speakers, i am prepared to close once the gentlelady does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i would like to offer in -- i would like to, in close, again, thank my colleague for his work on the floor today on this legislation. i want to make the point that this bill was generated by the g.a.o. report which found a number of concerns that i just want to mention one or two. the reliability of data
collection retention was done in an incomplete and inconsistent manner. this report wanted to inform us of. this was the g.a.o. twic report. and it commented on some of the illnesses or ailments of this process. the reported transaction data did not match underlying documentation. install twic readers and access control systems to not collect data on twic reader use and they did not employ effective compensating data collection measures. also participants did not have instances of deny access. finally t.s.a. and the agents did not collect complete data on malfunctions twic cards. this legislation, the underlying education h.r. 710 is to be a helper. it is to help correct our path to make the document, the twic card that all of us are quite familiar with, the best
effective data collecting document and system it could possibly be. i'm grateful that again my colleagues on the homeland security committee supported this legislation and i ask my colleagues to join us in making what is good much better and best. to be able to secure the nation and provide for the homeland. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> mr. speaker first of all, i want to thank the gentlewoman from texas for her leadership in this very important issue and once again i want to urge all my colleagues to support this strong, bipartisan piece of legislation. mr. carter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 710. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without
objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on behalf of h.r. 644 which promotes charitable giving. think about this one in eight iowans struggle to find food. one in five iowa children don't have enough to eat. iowa and our country face a very real challenge here that we cannot ignore this week
we'll be considering h.r. 644, fighting hunger incentive act. h.r. 644 is good for families who give and it's good for the families they serve. it is commonsense solution that all my colleagues should support. mr. young: this bill would permanently update the tax code to provide for enhanced deductions for food inventory donations. we have great food banks across the hawkeye state but they are always in need of food inventory. let's pass h.r. 644 and make giving less expensive, and makes businesses -- more businesses and families eligible for the credit so we can empower those who make a difference. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, the planned upcoming speech before congress by israeli prime
minister benjamin netanyahu has been mishandled from the start. it is being brought forward in a manner that is against protocols that exist to protect america's strategic interest this speech was agreed to unilaterally by the republican speaker of the house he provided no courtesy or prior notification with to -- to the executive branch. this is a fundamental violation of our national unity on foreign policy and our constitution assigns the president the right to negotiate with other governments. this does harm to our national interests and our standing throughout the world. at this time, while our executive branch is pursuing sensitive and promising nuclear negotiations with iran, why would our speaker behave so cavalierly? shouldn't our nation's executive and legislative branches be unified in matters
of foreign policy with such grave ramifications beyond our shores? as this pending visit comes two weeks before the israeli elections, it appear ours corning will be used as a campaign backdrop for israeli election politics. how unfortunate. how wantonly crass and insulting to this congress and the constitution we are all swarn to uphold. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ta chi: it is with special -- mr. takai: it is with special interest i say that the
-- that a musical about the japanese internment has been -- has made it to broadway. all the actors and supporters deserve our thanks. they are getting this still too little known story out to the public. it is based on mr. takei's experiences when he and his family were interned in world war ii. it is about the families subject to force red location and incarceration. i urge everyone to see and support "allegiance." it will raise awareness of the injustices at that time and shows how much work remains to ensure equal treatment for all.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i rise today to urge the president to send defensive weapons to the beleaguered people of ukraine. i just came back from a meeting in europe with president of ukraine who pleaded with us that he needs help. the world cannot stand idly by and allow putin's russian aggression to continue without giving the ukrainians a chance to defend themselves. i know that there are meetings and negotiations going on this week in minsk. i know that the leaders of france and germany want to see if they can again put together
some kind of agreement before any weapons are given. but there was a minsk agreement several months ago, only to be broken by mr. putin and the ukrainians need help now. as mr. poroschenko said when addressing the joint session of congress, he said, thank you for the blankets but blankets don't allow us to defend ourselves. they're asking for armored humvee, artillery, radars drones an additional advanced radios. we just are giving them -- would give them the ability to defend themselves. it doesn't involve the u.s. military. it doesn't involve u.s. troops. how much longer can we watch the beleaguered people of ukraine have these people in siege? how long can we watch them in siege? the united states should take moves and should take moves now. send ukraine these defensive weapons. thank you, mr. speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: just yesterday mr. speaker, i joined my public school system, my director of the city health department and a number of health professionals again to remind parents and others around the nation and really to remind now as i speak to my colleagues of vaccines and to be able to emphasize in the backdrop of this outbreak of measles starting first with seven states and 114 cases, coming out of the case in disney and then now 17 states with 121 cases, to recognize the importance of research and responding to infectious diseases. we understand measles. we understand the science of
it. we know that we can protect people against it. we know when they should get a booster and what age a child should begin their first shots. certainly after 1 year old. we understand that an 8-month-old is in jeopardy if he or she is exposed or someone with low immunity. we know the measles vaccine has worked and been effective. but i think what's important is that we work with the centers for disease control, and i want to thank them. in a conference call they indicated they're going to make new efforts to work with various health facilities and health entities across the nation to establish protocols to talk to parents about vack -- vaccines. we can save lives and we must do so together. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. cartwright of pennsylvania for today and the balance of the week and mr. ruiz of california for today and the balance of the week.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the speaker on february 9, 2015 appointed the follow -- 2015, appointed the following members of the house of the committee to attend the funeral of the late alan nunnelee. the clerk: the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner, the members of the mississippi delegation, mr. harper, mr. palazzo, other members in attendance, mr. mccarthy of california mrs. mcmorris rogers, mr. aderholt, mr. neugebauer, mr. conaway, mr. mchenry, mr. fleming, mr. thompson of pennsylvania, mr. walberg, mrs. black, mr. denham, mr. flores mr. hultgren, mr. mckinley, mr.
womack, mr. hudson, mr. messer and mrs. radewagen. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you very much. alzheimer's. alzheimer's. a word that brings fear and trauma to families all across america and indeed around the world. tonight we're going to spend our time talking about this dreaded disease, for which there is no known cure and which always ends in death. i'd like now to turn to my colleagues, this being a bipartisan special order hour unusual, to be sure, but absolutely appropriate, given the fact that this illness
affects virtually every american family. i'd like now to turn to mr. goodlatte, our colleague from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from california for organizing this special order for one hour to talk about the blight that we face here in america and i'm sure in many other countries around the world, known as alzheimer's. and i note the flier that the gentleman sent around, a beautiful picture of he and his wife, patty garamendi, and some other family members, one of whom i'm sure has had this difficulty themselves. so, again, from the bottom of my heart and my constituents, i thank you for take the time to organize this -- for taking the time to organize this. alzheimer's disease robs an individual of the most valued possession, their memory.
but we will not forget them. i've met with many families across the sixth district of virginia who have been impacted by alzheimer's and it's been my honor to represent them by being a member of the bipartisan congressional alzheimer's task force. tonight i would like to take a moment to thank the men and women who care for those suffering from alzheimer's. the spouses children, grandchildren, friends, doctors and nurses who assure them who they are, where they are and affirm for them their dignity as an individual. though their memories and clarity may fade, who they are is not truly gone. and we will not forget those suffering from alzheimer's. i look forward to working with my colleagues to promote bipartisan policies that will benefit the fight against this dreaded disease of alzheimer's. i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to participate. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman from virginia for joining us in his commitment to
this very serious issue. there are about 5.1 million americans that have alzheimer's today. and it's expected to substantially grow. as the baby boomers come on into their latter years, we would expect to see maybe as many as 13 million americans with this disease in the years ahead. an incredible challenge for this nation. i'd like to now turn to my colleague, mr. higgins, if you would join with us and share thoughts on this issue. mr. higgins: i thank the gentleman from california for bringing this issue to the house floor. and underscoring the urgency of investing through the national institutes of health proper funding to find a cause and thus a cure for alzheimer's. as the gentleman said, five million americans are living with alzheimer's. it's the sixth leading cause of death in the united states. death from alzheimer's increased 68% between the year
2000 and 2010. while deaths from other major diseases decreased. the cost to the united states is over $200 billion a year, without a breakthrough treatment will cost $1 trillion by the year 2050. we are still seeking the adequate level of funding for every -- funding. for every $100 that the national institutes of health spends on alzheimer's research medicare and medicaid spend $ 26,000 for caring for those who have the disease. in congress we have two pieces of legislation. the alzheimer's accountability act, which would ensure the federal priorities and goals for alzheimer's research actually reflects what scientists believe is needed. and the hope for alzheimer's act would provide medicare coverage for the clinical diagnosis of alzheimer's disease and for care planning
of newly diagnosed diseases. but all of this, as the gentleman from california had pointed out, becomes localized and becomes very personal. the origins of alzheimer's run known. but the end is absolutely certain. and it ends in losing your cognitive ability, your dignity and ultimately your life. in western new york, we have approximately 130,000 people who are impacted by alzheimer's. 32,000 people who are afflicted . and 96,000 who love and provide care for the afflicted. and that number is expected to triple by 2015. the alzheimer's association of western new york works year-round to highlight the effect of alzheimer's disease and help people and caregivers touched by this disease. one of the people who is touched by this disease is nancy, a constituent who lost
her mom, grace, who bravely fought the disease for 10 long years. today nancy volunteers with the alzheimer's association of western new york to be a voice for the suffering from the disease and the families who care for those with alzheimer's. nancy's story is one of too many families across the nation. we share but we commit to fighting with her to to raise awareness in fund -- to raise awareness in finding a cure. i yield back to the gentleman from california and thank him again for committing us to this important issue. mr. garamendi: mr. higgins, thank you so very much for sharing with us your thoughts on this dreaded disease. one for which there is no known cure. and there is actually no way to diagnose it until it is present. you cannot get ahead of this illness. but there are ways we can make progress on this. you pointed out what's happened over the last decade with extraordinary research efforts. and this chart really lays it
out there. where we are. for breast cancer we've actually seen a decline of 2% in breast cancer deaths. prostate cancer, an 8% decline. heart disease, a 16% decline. stroke 23% decline. and then one of the great victories hiv-aids, a 42% decline in the number of deaths. this is a result of research. extraordinary amount of research going in, not only in the united states but around the world resulting in significant drops in the death rates for those diseases. on the other hand alzheimer's, where we have just over $500 million of research we've seen a 6% increase in the death rates -- 68% increase in the death rates. this is the story of alzheimer's. this is the challenge that we face. this is the challenge that every american family faces. and our communities. we'll talk more about this a
little later. the co-chair of the alts -- alzheimer's task force here in the congress of the united states is my colleague from california, maxine waters, who has joined us this evening to talk about the work that the task force is doing and her own commitment to this profoundly important issue. maxine, thank you so very much. you and i have had the pleasure of working together for, well 40 years. so it's all good. ms. waters. ms. waters: thank you so very much. john garamendi i'd like to thank you not only for allotting me this time this evening, but i'd like to thank you for your commitment to educating on this issue and to helping our colleagues to understand that we must focus on this issue and that we must do more to support research. you are indeed a leader. and this certainly is not the
first time that you have organized one of these evening meetings on this. and i thank you for the work that you are doing. mr. garamendi: thank you. ms. waters: as co-chair of the congressional task force on alzheimer's disease i know how devastating this disease can be for patients, families and caregivers. the task force works on a bipartisan basis to increase awareness of alzheimer's, strengthen the federal response to the disease, and provide assistance to alzheimer's patients and their caregivers. i am proud to lead the task force along with my returning co-chair congressman chris smith, and incoming co-chairs michael burgess and shaka fattah. alzheimer's is a tragic disease affecting millions of americans and has reached crisis proportions. there is no effective treatment, no means of prevention, nor even a method for slowing the progression of the disease. according to the centers for
disease control and prevention, five million americans are living with alzheimer's disease as of 2013. this number is expected to almost triple to 14 million by the year 2050. the costs associated with alzheimer's disease and other forms dementia are also growing at unsustainable rates. a recent rand study of adults ages 70 and older found that the total economic cost of dementia and 2010 was estimated to be $109 billion for direct care alone. that is higher than the cost of both heart disease and cancer. furthermore, when the cost of informal care is included the total cost rises to between $150 billion and $215 billion. we must act now. to change the trajectory of this disease. the bipartisan supported national plan to address
alzheimer's disease calls for a cure or an effective treatment for alzheimer's by the year 2025. reaching this goal will require a significant increase in federal funding for alzheimer's research. last december i joined together with task force co-chair congressman chris smith to call for a $200 million increase in funding for alzheimer's research in the president's budget for if -- for fiscal year 2016. however while the president's budget did recognize the importance of alzheimer's research, it only increased funding by $51 million. this year i plan to work with my colleagues on the task force to make certain congress approaches robust funding -- appropriates, rather, robust funding for alzheimer's research to meet the urgent need. i also plan to reintroduce three bills to expand the available resources for
alzheimer's research and assist patients, families and caregivers. first, i will introduce the alzheimer's caregivers support act. this bill will authorize grants to public and nonprofit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of alzheimer's patients, with the majority of alzheimer's patients living at home, under the care of family and friends it is important that we ensure these caregivers have access to the training and resources needed to provide proper care. . second i will reintroduce legislation to improve the miss alzheimer's alert program a small but effective program that helps local communities and law enforcement agencies quickly identify persons with alzheimer's disease who wander away from their homes and safely reunite them with their family. this program is very valuable.
it's a valuable resource for first responders. more importantly, it protects vulnerable alzheimer's patients and brings peace of mind to their families. several years ago, i offered an amendment to continue funding for this program which cost only $1 million for the year. the following year, i called for and received a doubling of the funding of this important program. since then, i have made sure this program gets funding every year. i am not happy with the amount of the funding, we need to do more, and we have to fight more beyond 2015 into the 2016 budget to make sure that we get more money because it is desperately needed. finally i will reintroduce the legislation to require the u.s. postal service to issue and sell a semipostal stamp with the proceeds helping to fund alzheimer's research at the
national institutes of health. this would encourage concerned individuals to get involved and contribute to alzheimer's research efforts just as many have done in the case of the popular and successful breast cancer research semipostal stamp. our nation is at a critical crossroads. the situation requires decisive action to search for a cure and protect millions of americans currently living with alzheimer's disease. together we must take every possible action to improve treatments for alzheimer's patients, support care givers and invest in research to find a cure for this dreadful disease. once again i want to thank john garamendi, my colleague, whom i have worked with for many, many years, from california, for again organizing yet another special order. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. garamendi: congressman waters, thank you for your leadership of the alzheimer's task force here in congress. obviously it's leading to some
good pieces of legislation. last year then you into deuced the -- introduced the legislation, i had the pleasure and privilege of being a co-sponsor and i bet we can get all 194 member os they have task force on board. that would give us, we need 18 plus six, 24 more members and we can get it past the house of house of representatives -- past the house of representatives. ms. waters: let's do it. mr. garamendi: yes, we can. i know this is a special issue for you with family having been impacted by it. i know you're going to have to take off and head to another meeting but alzheimer's is very, very much a personal thing. this is my wife patty with her mother as her mother was entering the last year of her 15-year struggle with alzheimer's. we had the good fortune of
patty's mom, mural, living with -- murle living with us muriel in our home. we had a careworker come in during the day but patty and i took care of her in the evening. it was a good experience, the family pulled together, the grandchildren and great grandchildren all coming together. i think our situation was perhaps unyourble in that my mother-in-law was always kind always gentle, even though in the last couple of years she could not speak and was unable to move very much. but nonetheless, it was a period of time where the grandchildren came to know her in a very different way. i remember one incident that took place about a year, maybe 14 months, before she died. her speech was garbled and not really clear. we couldn't understand. but our little 2-year-old granddaughter climbed up on
grandma's -- on great grandma's bed and was listening to the grandmother talk. the rest of us adults were gathered around, we were talking about whatever it was and our little 3-year-old began to translate what great grandma was saying. and we were suddenly caught up in the awareness that while the mind was not functioning fully, it was nonetheless functioning in a way in which this woman, who was then 90 years old, was able to understand what we were saying but because of this disease was unable to articulate, at least to us, her involvement in the conversation. it was one of those moments when we realized that this illness destroys the mind a piece at a time. it doesn't just wipe out as a stroke might, but it takes away the cognitive ability of the
mind in a slow progression through time. this progression was about 15 years, but other progressions might be very, very rapid. i know earlier today my -- our colleague from missouri, vicki hartzler had intended to join us but was called away late this evening. her mother tied just three weeks ago of this ill -- died just three weeks ago of this illness. she ex-plins some of the way in which it happened when we come back in -- she'll explain -- she explains some of the way in which it happened when we come back in a month, i'll ask her to share her storyism suspect of the 435 of us here, i suspect that more than 50% of us have families who have been personally affected, and then neighbors like mr. goodlatte was sharing. if you want to join us, i'll put up some charts and we can
chat on if -- for a few minutes. ms. waters: thank you very, very much, mr. garamendi, for your leadership and for affording our members to have the opportunity to share their experiences so that all of what we learn to share with relatives and friends that information is going to be valuable to our researchers and because of you we'll be able to get those stories out. thank you so much. mr. garamendi: you mentioned research in your opening remarks. thank you so much. i know you have another appointment. your leadership on this has been absolutely extraordinary. the bills you have introduced and the encouragement you've given to others to introduce legislation, push it forward. i think this is where we're going to spend our time fighting for research. i'm going to go through this, ms. waters, i know you must leave, thank you for joining us. thank you.
this poster shows how we're spending our national institute of health research dollars and we can be thankful for each piece of this research that's going on. first on the cancer research, ongoing, with considerable success and i'll come back and show an earlier poster that i had, we're spending $5,418,000,000, this is in fiscal year 2014. $5,418,000,000. what does that result in? well, over the years, between 2000 and 2010 we've seen breast cancer deaths decline by 2% prostate cancer decline by 8%, and that's what research will do. it is successful.
with h.i.v. -- with hiv-aids, just under $3 billion spent annually in 2013 and we're seeing hiv-aids an incredible success story. still with us, but nonetheless we've seen death from hiv-aids decline by 42% as we have invested $3 billion over the years in 2014, $3 billion, a little less in previous years. similarly, cardiovascular illnesses, heart disease, stroke and heart attacks, we're spending around $2 billion of your taxpayer money on this particular disease. what is the result? the result is that heart disease, deaths from heart disease, 2000 to 2010 deaths from heart disease are down by 16% and stroke down by 23%. what does this mean?
this means that research really works. research really works. where are we with alzheimer's research? alzheimer's research is in 2014 was $566,000,000. just over half a billion dollars for alzheimer's research. and where are we with alzheimer's? well, that same period of time we've seen alzheimer's deaths increase by 68%. in part because there is no cure. except death. and that's what's happened. as the baby boomers age, as that co-heart of the -- cohort of the population moves through into advanced age, alzheimer's is taking a grip on the -- on those people. so this is the stories.
our goal this year along with the research that ms. waters has already discussed and some other bills that will be discussed in the days ahead, our goal this year is to ramp up this research. a project as a result of the legislation that was passed in 2011 here gave us information from the national institute of health and other scientists that the appropriate level of funding to understand alzheimer's, to find a cure or at least a way of prolonging health and delaying the onset of the illness should be about $2 billion a year. something similar to what we're spending on cardiovascular research. fortunately, in last year's budget that's the 2015 budget that's the current budget, we increase the fund big about $25 million. good. we're not getting very close to
$2 billion, which is the goal to really get an understand -- to get and understand this disease, but nonetheless we put $25 million more into it last year. i hope that all of us that are concerned about this make a full court press this year to try to get that number up to a much more substantial number so we can really get at this research. the president recognizing this problem, as was discussed earlier by one of our colleagues here, that the president has proposed an additional $50 million. good. but once again, not what the scientists tell us we need to really adequately fund this illness. so we're going to work on this. i notice that my colleague from california, would you like to join us? this is a bipartisan special order hour. unusual, to be sure. usually we talk both sides, one side talk about the other side, the other side talk about the
side, this time we're talking about a common problem that affects all of us, democrat, republican, independent left, right center, up and down all americans. my colleague from california, welcome. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: mr. rohrabacher, i would be happy to. mr. rohrabacher: let me note that i've been here 26 years and i have tried to vote for encreases in the level of funding for the national institutes of health which of course oversees much of this health research we're talking today. i know we have people coming in all the time talking, they want us to sign on to a bill to increase this particular disease or that particular disease. but i think the approach that we have to have is basically let's provide as much money as we can to this type of research and programs by people who are the experts, let them determine where the best money is, where is the best money, use of our limited research money.
so i have been very much supportive of your efforts and the other efforts of many bipartisan people in this congress. i would like to add that we can't just rely on the government the next speech i'll be giving in a few moments deals with the patent issue. we need to make sure that people in the private sector will be encouraged to invest in new types of technology and new types of approaches to cure these problems like medical -- medical equipment and things that will really help save people. i know al mann for example, has a new inhalant so 60% of the people now use needles for diabetes won't have to do it, won't have to use them. just a little inhale before every meal. took im10 -- took him 10 years to get that through the f.d.a. with eneed to make sure the f.d.a. is doing -- we need to make sure the f.d.a. is doing its job. we need to make sure people in the private sector have a way to recoup their money.
at the same time, like you're focusing tonight we have to make sure the government is doing its part. both in patents f.d.a. and especially for the national institute of health. so thank you very much for what you're leading. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. rohrabacher. i note in your district, the orange county area there's major medical research going on at the university of california-irvine and ucla there. and out of those, out of that research do come new technologies, new drugs, new kinds of equipment, all of which are -- some of which are patentable and the licensing of the new drugs through the f.d.a. is always a challenge. so we do have a multiple task here. we have to deal with the patent laws and availability of patent. the research dollars. and then the -- to make sure that the drug actually is made available to address the illness. i thank you so very much for
joining us. mr. rohrabacher: thank you. mr. garamendi: i want to go back to what we were talking about earlier on the are erge -- research side. our goal is to ramp up this research to try to get to the level that's suggested. now we always look at cost-benefit. is this research going to pay off? i think it will. . i came across an email from the university of california, davis near sacramento, at their california national prim arch te research center and using stem cell research to address the issue of alzheimer's and they are able to use this stem cell therapy in primates, similar to
the human brain, and actually have some success. they have now taken it to the next step further. and here's where we are into the f.d.a. they have taken it the next step further and doing clinical human trials with this drug. and it seems to restore the human brain. that's a long way before we get to the end of this story, but this is what happens when we have research developing a new therapy, in this case, a stem cell therapy with primates and transferring over to the human in a clinical trial. how exciting it, the possibilities. not just in slowing down the progress of the disease, which has been the short-term goal, but maybe being able to restore the human brain.
wow. wow. i think of my mother in law and those who have come down with this illness and i think, what if, what if it had been available. well, it could be. and i know, mr. rohrabacher, you are in international work and you are involved with other countries and their research this isn't just a united states' issue but an international issue. earlier in june, the new co-chair of the aleds i'mer's task force here in washington conducted a bipartisan international conference in new york at the united nations pulling together researchers from around the world. we have another piece of this puzzle available to us in the united states. international research n.i.h. research, research at the
universities, research at the various institutes, all of that. and as a result of the war in afghanistan and iraq, with improve iced explosive devices and the extraordinary impact that those have had on our military the soldiers, marines and others, that have suffered from those explosives we are now in the military budget appropriating a significant amount of money for research into traumatic brain injury as well as in the post-traumatic stress syndrome trying to understand the human mind, what happens when you get that blow against the head what causes the brain to react and to be -- and to deteriorate. that research also informs us
about alzheimer's. one of the goals that i will be pursuing this year is to try to bring together all of these research programs that are under way even the national football league is engaging in research having to do with traumatic brain injury to the football players in the professional football leagues, trying to understand what it's all about. if we could pull together all of that research and pool the information make it available perhaps what's going on at u.c. davis and other research institutions, i think we can jump-start the solution. fortunately, i won't be doing this alone. our former colleague, patrick kennedy heads up the one mind organization and that is their goal. to get all these international, military, national institutes of
health and national football league trying to understand the human mind what the injuries are and how we can deal with alzheimer's as a result of all of that. i'm going to put up a couple more pieces of this puzzle and the trauma that it brings. we discussed this briefly early on and i want to come back to this. the already high cost of alzheimer's' will skyrocket as the baby boomers age. this is driven by three things. one the cost of treating alzheimer's, which is very expensive and ongoing. and secondly, there is no known cure. and thirdly, the demographic growth of the population. today, you are looking at somewhere around $225 billion
spent by the government and private and individuals and families on alzheimer's and it's expected to grow to close to $1 trillion by 2050. this is an extraordinary growth rate. a lot of this money is going to be taxpayer money spent on the medicare and medicaid. and so this one shows the costs -- cost increases to medicare and medicaid. 2010. medicare was -- medicare and medicaid spending $122 million. 2020, going to go up to almost $200 billion expected to go up to nearly $200 billion in 2020 and then continue to escalate. this many think, this is the
way medicare and medicaid will be bankrupted, just with alzheimer's alone. this is the government spending. the private spending, private insurance and families, will probably be spending somewhere around a third of this amount in the years ahead. if we are able -- and i believe we can -- look at what's going on at u.c., davis. what is happening is that the research is coming on. the first goal is to delay the onset. it is anticipated that if we were able to ramp up the $2 billion of research, we would within the next four to five years, would find a way, perhaps with the drug therapy, to delay the onset of alzheimer's by five
years. what does that mean? that means that the $2 billion that's spent on research leading to the delay, not the cure, but just the delay of the onset would, in the next three years after that delay goes into place, would save the taxpayers the $2 billion that were spent on research and then those savings would continue on into the future. if you are a financial analyst on wall street and able to get a payback within three years that's a pretty good investment. we ought to look at this, in terms of cost benefit, in terms of investment, the financial side of it that's appropriate. but on the human side. think what could be done. think what could be done to those families, to my grandmother -- excuse me to my wife's mother, my mother in law,
if her illness was delayed five years. she would have had five more years of healthy life. she didn't die of heart disease or cancer, but she died of alzheimer's. she could have had an additional five years if we were able at that moment to have been able to delay the onset of the disease. as we understand how to delay the onset, we will also learn how to cure the disease. so this is where we're headed. this is our goal. this is what we want to try to accomplish. i'm going to put this one up, because it's so dramatic. here's the cost of treatment today for the federal government. this is 2014. $150 billion from the centers
for medicaid and medicare $150 billion. this is actually 2012 expenditures. and this is where we're spending the money, on $560 million on research. it's lopsided. my final point before i turn back my time today is to take this chart, two charts actually, this one, research works. research saves lives. research improves the quality of life for americans. cancer research, we decreased the cancer rate for cancer. cancer research, decreased by
8% prostate cancer. hiv-aids, research 42% decrease in the death rate. heart disease and stroke 23% and 16%. alzheimer's we're not there yet. we're researching, but not there yet. and wind up with the death rate rapidly increasing. and ultimately it's about this. it's about my family, and it's about your family. it's about the american families. it's about the american families that are enduring their loved one their parent, their grand parent, slowly slowly dying of alzheimer's, using their mental
capabilities. it affected our family and i suspect it affected your family. doesn't have to be. we can deal with this. yes, we can. we can do this. and your congress, democrat and republican, is working on this issue. we're going to beat alzheimer's. it's our task, it's our challenge. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: i ask permission to address the house for one hour. i would like to commend my colleague, who has just presented a heartfelt case for
scientific and health-related research by the national institutes of health. i concur with him that this is a very important part of what we do here and we have budgets that we have to meet, but this should be a significant part of our budget. i would like to also note as i did when you recognized me that yes, the government needs to play a significant part in the national institutes of health in trying to find cures and trying to find ways of improving the health of the american people. but it is not just up to the national institutes of health, not just up to the government employees, but my approach and which i will be talking about tonight is something vital, that the private sector needs to be involved, not only in this type of health innovation, but in all sorts of innovation and technological jums-forward that people think only government can do, but it's the private sector
and the small independent inventors that have played such a significant role in furthering human progress uplifting humankind. while i agree with government's role and especially in these health-related issues, i think we should dedicate ourselves to make sure that private money is going into this. my university of california irvine, is doing ex policemen area work and so are many private companies that have invested money. some of them, i might add, have been taxed to death, by a 2.5% tax on their gross simply for being the inventors of health-related technologies and this medical device tax, which makes the manufacturer of devices, the most heavily taxed people in this country, is a deterrent to having people in the private sector investing in
exactly what my colleague was trying to suggest into new approaches into these various diseases. but that is true of medical technologies and technologies across the board that really impact on the well-being, on the standard of living of ordinary people throughout our country. . i rise to address this threat to the well being of the american people. we have dodged a bullet in this last session of congress on this very same issue. alerted by our aggressive but unsuccessful attempt to stop that effort that rancorous legislation in the house which passed by a large majority last time around, we had to -- we raised such a ruckus that the senate was inundated with a wide spectrum of opposition to this supposed reform that had
passed the house. there was so much opposition that the senate refused to bring up the bill for consideration. what is the issue being rammed through the house right now and was once exposed and once we exposed it the last time around, it caused the senate to turn back and to not let it go through? well what it -- there's been an ongoing fight here in washington, most of the public are totally unaware of, and worse than that, most of my colleagues are totally unaware of that for the last 20 years, there has been a classic case of crony capitalism that plagues our country at play here on a specific issue. the big guys, the big crony capitalists, are trying to diminish the rights of the little guy in order to make more money. surprise surprise. and in this case, it will be --
it will basically undermine america's prosperity and secure -- and security in the long run while hurting the little buys -- little guys while the big guys get their way. i'm certainly not opposed to the profit motive. but first and foremost, we need to ensure that powerful forces don't change the economic rules in order to enrich themselves unjustly. unseen by most americans has been the attempt by mega multinational corporations to undermine and, yes, destroy, a constitutional right of our citizens. this in order to fill their pockets at the expense of american citizens who don't have the means to defeat such a power play. i am referring to an attack on the fundamental constitutional right of americans to own what they have created. this right, written into our
law, written into the law at the constitutional convention itself, which wrote our constitution, is now under attack. a clandestine legal maneuver that would neuter our inventors' protections and permit powerful and i say multinational corporations to steal what now rightfully belongs to american inventors and thus ordinary americans will be hurt and of course the big corporations will benefit. it is not just dispossessing individual inventors but this is a power grab that will undermine the prosperity we all have enjoyed as americans. the less than forthright attack on our patent system will undermine the economic well being of our working people who depend on the united states for being technologically superior to the working people of other
societies. people in all societies work very hard. it's not hard work. it's hard work coupled with technology and we have ensured through a patent system that we would be developing the technology that would give americans the edge. our founding fathers believed that technology and freedom, and, yes, profit motive, was the formula that would uplift humankind. as i say they wrote it into our constitution. a guarantee of he property rights of inventors and authors. it is the only place in the body of our constitution that the word right is actually used. the bill of rights was added after the body of the constitution. but an article 1, section 8 clause 8 of our constitution, it states, the congress shall have the power to promote the progress and science of useful arts by securing for limbed times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, end of quote.
this provision has served america well. it has led to a general prosperity where we have technological advances that uplift our own people. give our own people the chance to out-compete those people who work their hearts out overseas but are not -- don't have the same technological support system in their economic endeavors. well, this provision in america has led to prosperity. it's helped our national security. the fact is, we could never dream of trying to defeat the enemies of freedom throughout the world on a man-to-man basis. it's only our ability to be able to bring technology and our genius to play that has given us a leverage over countries that have tens of millions of people and by the way don't really value human life. no we need to make sure we are technologically superior and it has been our patent system that has given our inventors the
chance to invent things that will protect all of us from aggression, and prevent evil forces anti-democratic forces throughout the world, fanatic forces, from overwhelming us and overwhelming our defenses. and of course this has -- this house -- this has, having been the country where we encourage people to be innovate i we have uplifted the life of average people. average people here now are able to live decent lives as compared to the average people in so many countries of the world. yes americans work hard as i said, so do other people. it's the technology that makes the difference. our technology has multiplied the results of hardwork of our people. that's the secret of america's success. technology and freedom and our strong patent system is right there at the foundation of that
principle. it is what has made the difference in this vital area to our security and our well being. yet today we have multinational corporations, the same ones who run overseas to do business with communist china and with america's eni -- enemies and the people who treat their populations with total disregard. yes, these multinational corporations want to diminish the patent protection of the american people. because they don't want to pay americans for their creative new technologies. they don't want to give them their share when they create something that will uplift our people. other the years, we fought and turned -- over the year well fought and turned back many efforts to weaken our patent system. i doubt whether half the new members of this congress are fully aware of the aggressive and brutal fights we have been in over patents and the patent system over the last 20 years. a little over 20 years ago,
they were saying we need to change the patent system in order to ar monoize it with the rest of the world. our patent system was out of sink with the rest of the world. -- out of zing with the rest of the world -- out of sync with the rest of the world. but our constitution is out of sync with the rest of the world. we protect people's rights to go to church. we protect people's right to speak and crit sides their government. or to assemble or try to join unions or other activities in the economic area. no, we actually are out of sync with a lot of areas. but they decided to say we need to harr monoize our law with -- on patents, with the rest of the world which have weak patent systems. which their laws have been determined by basically what's going to help the big guy and what's going to get new ideas out into the hands of the big
industrialists. well, we have beat back major efforts, the first ones, as i said, were on harr nonizing the law. they've got two big issues. one was, to harr monoize our law with the rest of the world, our system has been, if someone submits their patent no matter how long it takes for that pat event to get issue -- that patent to get issued, it is secret. in fact it's a felony, i believe, for someone to disclose at the patent office a patent application. so -- but -- and then, when you get your patent it's published to the world but you are granted 17 years of ownership. their goal was, what? their goal was to do it the european and japanese way, which is, after 18 months you applied for your patent it's published if you don't have it, even if it take five or 10 years to get it it's
published. i called it the steal american patents -- ideas act. after that onslaught, we have a guaranteed protection in the constitution, as i just read for a specific period of time, we are granted 17-year patent protection. and that starts at a time when you are issued your patent. overseas that's not what it's all about. we're out of sync with them because they say after 18 months, or, yeah what happens, is the minute that you file, the clock starts ticking and 20 years later, you have no patent protection at all. but that's from filing. it may take you 10 years to get your patent or 15 years system of they're dramatically reducing the viability, the ownership rights of a patent of a person who has applied for a patent. all@benefit of course, of these big guys who are say, we can speed these up maybe with our contacts.
and the little guys overseas, over and over again get beaten up and their material stolen from them by these powerful forces. we don't want that to happen here. we protect the rights of the little guy here. we won those fights, what i was just talking about. we won those fights with standing tall and tough on the issue and yes, there were some compromises over the years. where we beat those first two issues that i talked about, we won that case, but over the years, there's been several other hard-fought patent battles where we compromised and were able to come up with something acceptable to both sides. well now, after a few years of preparing the political battleground in washington name that now after google has provided more campaign contributions than any other corporation in the world, on various issues, and that we have other big corporations providing big campaign contributions, and i'm not
saying they're buying votes but what they're buying is attention. people don't even know about the issue but now google has been able to explain their case. but they don't hear the other side. and that's why it's up to us to make sure every member of congress knows what the issue is when it comes to the patent fight instead of walking down to the floor unaware of how significant this is. there's only one group of people that's going to be able to make sure their congressman is focused on just how significant this issue is and that is the american people have to notify their congressman in order to let them know we should not be weakening our patent system. there is no excuse to undermine the independent inventor when he's trying to protect his rights to a patent or we won't have independent inventors and we won't have -- be on the cutting edge of change as we have been. after a few years of preparing, as i said, a new onslaught has
been prepared and already been attacked. now, as i say, they claimed in the beginning that they wanted to harr monoize our system. but of course we don't want to harr monoize and make our system weaker in order to be the same with other countries system of that fight went back, well, it went back over 20 years. but now what they've laid the groundwork for and are bringing up and in the last three years we've seen this fight, for the second round three and a half years ago, the house passed the american in-- the america invents act which fundamentally diminished our patent system, weakening its protection for ordinary citizens. even without weakening it was better than what you had in europe tissue with that weakening it is better than europe and japan. but the negative impacts are just now being felt. they're just now moving through the patent system and being
implemented by the patent office. we're going to find out what happens when you undermine the little guys to help the big guys. after a few more years, where is the innovation coming from? from the big multinational corporate bureaucracies? from the government bure -- bureaucracy? no. we've undermined the individual inventor taken the profit motive out of this, and put roadblocks in the way of america moving forward. the next wave began in this patent battle a little more than a year ago. last year, as i said, the onslaught aimed at neutering the rights of the small inventor was barely turned back and we -- that bill came forward and we got it through, actually it passed the house with a substantial margin but when citizens and universities and small businesses across america understood because of the great debate that we had here what was at stake, they
inundated their senators with calls and visits and their message was don't undermine our rights don't undermine the rights of the small inventor, don't undermine this constitutional right, it's just as precious to us as the rights of speech and press and religion. let's not undermine that in the name of helping some multinational corporation squash an opposition to a guy who has invented something and wants to get his rightful payment for the work he's done. . they don't claim the investors are bad and did he prifed of long-standing rights. they don't argue that.
no. these powerful interests, these corporations, well-healed in washington, they have to have a bogey man to draw aattention from what they are trying to do. preventing the small inventor from trying to steal it from corporations, they don't say that. there is always an excuse, something that has to sound sinister, trying to hurt these innocent businessmen unfairly at that. we heard it before. about 15 years ago we heard it was submarine patents that was the derogatory term. that was why we needed to change the amount of time that someone is able to actually have as a
guarantee for their patent rights. they used to say, so what if after 20 years and hadn't have had your your patent for 15 years, they are trying to get at it, forget it and the submarine patenters said we have to restrict those guys. that was a fraud. submarine patent issue was a fraud. and we fixed it with a small compromise without having to have the rights of the little guy by saying if the little guy can be shown that he prevented theishance of his patent, trying to along ate that then that clock will be ticking. if it's not him, the bureaucracy
that is holding off the actual ishance of the patent, we shouldn't be doing things to hurt the little guy. we got that covered. now the big guys have come up with another sinister label. we found a way to solve it without hurting the little guy. the big guys have come up with this other label which is aimed at who gets hurt by the reforms that are being shoved by congress. they are insisting that the need for patent change, basic changes in our patent system are because of the patent controls. over and over again you will hear this word. there is a guy who was a top executive at one of the electronic companies who is now
on our side, dieded on the little guy of this issue but he was very high up in a big company and they got together with their people to decide what tactic they should use to get the changes done and pass through congress. they knew they couldn't attack the small inventor or the innovators in our society. so what are they going to do? we have to make it sound like it's somebody else who is going to get hurt. the patent controls. this -- controls. this gentleman was in the room when that was patented in the industry. what is the nassiest sounding term toville if i that to draw people's attention away from
this issue and he suggested patent pirate and patent tro lmp l sounds more cynical. the patent tr omplmplmp is a creation. they misuzbekistan our system and frivolous lawsuits and it is not just in the patent issue. there are lawyers that have frivolous lawsuits. they are trying to claim that patent tmp r omplmp l smp with people who don't have legal patents and they will get paid off. they are called frivolous lawsuits. there is no need to hurt our small investors and phase back their rights as rights to enforce their enforce their patent in order to get a lawyer who is engaged in a lawsuit.
these patent trolls are patent holders. someone who owns a patent. unless it's the inventor themselves. anyone who owns a patent who is not the inventor. they are companies who represent patent holders are people who get in their infringement cases but these are people who did not invent it themselves but called trolls. they are engaged in defending their rights against the infringement of large companies. there are a few companies where small guys and that again is a front to try to protect the big guys from the little guys. but there has been infringement on the patents they own. regular people -- and patents
are intellectual property. patents should be looked at. it is your right to give a period of time your invention or your writing and you own it. and if someone is infringing and if you want to buy it from someone, someone who has invented it you have a right to do that, that doesn't make you an evil troll and by the way after a number of years 10, 1, 14 years, that will no longer be your property because the patent protection lasts only a given period of time. these owners are just as valid as any other patents that are granted by the patent office. we aren't talking about phony patents. these are real patents and real pieces of paper that shows you have rights to own this
particular technology. but infringers would have us believe that these big companies have used knowing, that think are probably someone who owns that and developed this new technology, well these big corporate infringers they're not. almost all of the infringement cases happen by people who legitimately own a legitimate patent. and if not, it should be decided in court. there is nothing wrong with bringing this court if it a legitimate patent. if it is i will legitimate ok, are you violating someone's property rights and built a road across it? no, that should go to court and it's not a frivolous lawsuit for someone who owns a piece of
property and someone who owns a minor something over here and just builds a road across and does president ask you about it you have a right for compensation. that's what we are talking about, except in this case, you have an inventor who has something new that the big company doesn't want to give him royalties for building this new technology. in the past, big corporations would try to do patent searches to make sure they weren't stepping on the little guy and try to cut deals to try to make sure that they didn't face a lawsuit and would be able to chart out what their expenses were. but then they decided don't do it, don't even look don't check to see if we are stealing this new idea. you know why? they did that because, what you have now and what they have tried to eliminate, if a big
company intentionally knows that it is violating the patent rights of someone who owns that new technology and infringes upon it and knowingly does it, there are treble damages that the inventor can get it against the big companies. the big companies say we won't even look. so they captain prove that they knew. they don't look anymore. that's how arrogant they are and worried when a small guy comes up and sues them for infrankment. and why did they want to eliminate treble damages? because little guys don't have the money to pay for these lawsuits. and the little guys' ability to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis, if you take away treble damages, you have eliminated the right of small inare inventors
to have the protection in court. we turned that back, thank god and but, it keeps going. they keep going, because this is the way to enrich these powerful multinational corporations in a way that is just -- the public isn't seeing it and change in the rules and the little guy -- should be going to them as extracted and put into the pockets of these big corporate entities. they have the power and basically -- and they are going to use it and have the power in the economy and they have the power in getting their case across to the members of congress, because they have the ability to hire lobbyists and to give campaign contributions. when you are here and have so much time, if you have lobbyists that are working to get the attention of member of congress
on the issue, you have succeeded and these companies can do it and the little guy can't. they don't have the attention here and these big corporations and especially google, have hired the best representatives in town and spent the most money in town getting the people's attention. we have to offset that by making sure the american people call their member of congress and tell them don't diminish the patent protection for regular americans. don't let this happen. they have won the last couple of fights. by the time it got over to the senate, some people were paying attention but we lost it in the house. the patents are not frivolous lawsuits but patents issued by the united states patent office. and huge infringers would have us believe that don't worry the
congress is up there trying to protect people and just have priff louis lawsuits. we are talking about tangible items that these people have used without paying the royalty to the man or woman who invented that particular item, that particular technology. what makes these patents different than the good patents? these same large corporations own thousands of patents and by the way, most of these corporations are the mega electronic companies. so they own lots of patents. what makes the little guy a patent troll for being willing to try and get some help to fight these big guys, what makes that little guy's patent or the quote troll's patent, any less
real or any legal valuable and official as these big companies? they have their patents too. if the small invent tore doesn't have the resources to enforce their patent in their time. remember, when you have a patent you own it for 17 years and then it's done. in the limited time they are granted for ownership, if they don't have the resources to enforce the rights, an individual or company can buy their rights or create a partnership with a small inventor and see to it by that -- see there isn't a theft of this little guy's property and call it an infringement. nothing wrong with someone coming in and saying listen, if you can't enforce this, we think it's a good idea and have 10 more years, we will have that patent right and speculate that
that land is going to go up, there is no difference at all. it's a piece of property. it's a property right. it's intellectual property. and this effort and to change our patent law is an attack on the very nature of intellectual property. . so the small inventor can't do it what's wrong with someone offering to buy that patent from him for 0 years or offering to go into partnership with him? i have talked to a bunch of inventor groups and they have reaffirmed that this proposed legislation disadvantaged the little guy against multinational corporations. it has been achieved in the guise of targeting patent trolls. you're now vilifying this guy who quits his job because he's
got an idea, sells his home to build a new idea, new technology. no i'm sorry, that's not -- that guy is a hero. and under the guise of getting patent trolls, whatever that is, they are going to smash these little -- the little guy i just descreened. they are going to prevent anybody from helping him because that person who is helping him is a patent troll. this person and company who has contracted with the inventors to see that his or her rights are respected, i consider them to be a positive economic and also a more or less force within the concept of determining ownership in our society. how horrible, making a business with some of -- which some of these companies have done, of helping a business out of helping small inventors see to it that their patent rights are enforced. oh how horrible. or how horrible it is for them to be buying patent rights from
them. oh, my goodness. a -- a guy with money says you can't afford to enforce your rights, i think it's a great idea, i'll pay you for this. that -- the fact that that happens and is able to happen in our society means that that little guy now has something of value and if we take that away and say, these people buying them are all trolls, sounds sinister, oh, when you do that, the value of our patents for all of our inventors goes down. we are undercutting the wealth that is available to our independent inventors because we are devaluing what they have. if they can't enforce it themselves, can't sell it to somebody who is not going to commercialize it, thus you've got a situation where the patent value, we are taking wealth out of the pocks of the least able people in our society in the technology arena, the least able to weather that and we are putting that money and that power into
the pockets of the big mega multinational, not just american companies, multinational companies. it's sinful. the proponents of this legislation are covering the fact that they have stolen someone -- that someone has stolen someone else's patent rights. someone else's intellectual property. and now they want to change the system so they can get away with this theft. that's what it's all about. the big companies have been steal, they want to get away wit they need to change the rules of the game so they can get away with it and the little guy will give up because he can't go through all the steps now. they would have us believe that all the lawsuits against these companies are frive rouse -- frivolous. as i say, that's not the case. the vast majority of them are not. they definitely -- the vast majority of patent infringement cases have very legitimate areas of concern and they need to be decided by the court, not
to have congress step in and make it more difficult for someone to take someone to court who has stolen his intellectual property. and yes there are frivolous lawsuits throughout our system. why are these guys just focusing on patents? they are doning that because that's what these mega corporations will benefit from. tonight i draw the attention of the american people to h.r. 9. the innovation act. introduced by chairman goodlatte with 19 bipartisan co-sponsors. the last congress, the house judiciary committee held a hearing on this sim bill, same bill that came in last time this bill that's being proposed now, h.r. 9, is exactly the same bill except maybe with one provision that's taken out which is a provision that i was able to get out of the bill on the floor in debate and amendment process.
that provision was it was going to prevent inventors if they believed they were treated unfairly by the patent office, that provision would deny them the right to take it to court. they would have to settle the issue with an only bulledsman from the patent office -- with an ombudsman from the patent office. the right to use court would be denied. and they let it drip off like water off a duck's back. it is just a huge violation for us to try to diminish their ability to enforce the rights of their own property. so i draw attention to h.r. 9. last congress, the house judiciary committee held a hearing on almost this same bill. the witnesses at that hearing, including former patent office director campos, made it clear we should move slowly and with great care in making any changes to the papt patent law especially in light of the fact
that no one yet understands the implication of a similar patent law that was passed two years ago. the american invent -- the america invents act. the process is just now from that act, is just now being implemented. i think it's going to have a very negative impact. we need to know that that's what's going to happen. we need to work that into our calculus of whether we should pass even more restrictions like our first -- like are in that first bill. everybody says, take it easy. go slow. well, make sure you're right before you go ahead. well, we haven't even digested the last bite congress has taken out of the patent law. we haven't even digested that at all. and now they want taos gobble down a few more apples. that's -- we need to make sure that we know what we've already gotten ourselves into by biting into this apple. but no we've got to now commit to even having more and more change before we even know
whether that apple is going to turn sour in our stomach and cause us to be sick. in and of itself, this legislation is too broad. h.r. 9. same thing they tried to pass through here last year, rammed it through, too broad, its implications too unclear. its effects unknowable. that's what witnesses and other experts have indicated. the conclusion, as they say, has moved forward with these fundamental changes in our patent system and if you do so you might be undermining that system. we need not to move forward quickly on this. see what the impact of the past law changes are. that's what now has been indicated. but that is not what's happened. that's not what we've seen happen here on capitol hill. the house was railroaded into passing this new proposal on top of the previous legislation before we have a chance to see whether it's going to have a negative or positive effect. it's not even being fully implemented yet.
but yet we were pushed, it was rammed down our throats. seems like some multinational corporations really want action now. do it now. well, what's going on here? this congressional ramrodding exempli -- exemplifies the damage to the patent system that's been going on for 25 years. this isn't something new. it's just one more hit, one more attempt by people to ar monoize american law with the rest of the world. we need to be more like the rest of the world. we have a strong protection of intellectual property rights. we should be more like the rest of the world. baloney. the fact is america should stand fall and say we want harmony with the rest of the world. they should ar monoize with our stronger protection for the individual, for our caring for ordinary people. this law and changes are going to change the way we do business with america, all right. we're not going to have the creative cutting edge as the same mega multinational
corporations go to china in order to get cheap labor to accomplish their mission rather than using the technology of americans, giving them the royalty for it, throes, in order to make sure our country and our countrymen are safe, our countrymen are secure and the well being of our people economically. they have good jobs producing competitive products they can sell oversea. no. these companies just want that power for themselves. they want to harr monoize with the rest of the world so they can run roughshod over all of us. according to the sponsors of h.r. 9 it is an attempt to combat the problem of patent trolls. look at their arguments. it's all patent trolls, patent trolls. even though the study mandated by congress shows that this much-heralded problem is not a dreyer of lawsuits. it has not caused, as they claim, a surge of new lawsuits. in fact, the most recent data
shows that patent lawsuits dropped dramatically in 2014 compared to previous years. the provisions of this legislation are designed to make it much more complicated. this is what it is. h.r. 9 is designed to make it much more complicated costly and challenging to bring a lawsuit for patent infringement. thus, hurting the little guy, the infringement is taking place that means the victim is the little guy, we are helping the big guy. the guy who is committing the crime. they want to impactfish by the way if these people wanted to impact frivolous lawsuit if they say there's too many frivolous out lawsuits for patents, they should make it simpler and cheaper to defend against baseless infringement cases. somebody accused of infringement and it's baseless, make it easier for companies to defend themselves against that
charge in court. but no, making that, make it more easey to defend themselves, no. they -- we are being asked to raise the bar for the inventors to bring lawsuits to defend his or her rights rather than lowering the bar to allow small businesses and others to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits. when we weaken the a little guy, this is what we're doing, they want us to weaken the little guy to protect the big guy from frivolous lawsuits. who gets hurt and who is helped? in the name of, they have a sinister cover up there, the trolls and who is getting helped by that? these big mega corporations and who is getting hurt? the little guys who can't go through all the extra steps, can't afford to protect themselves, and we're going to decide whether the big guys, big guys again who take their work to china without plushing --ing, this legislation is consistent with the decades of h.r. 9, the decades-lock war being waged on america's --
against america's independent inventors. here are a few provisions of this quote, innovation act. it would create new requirements for a patent holder, when a patent holder must, once filing a claim for infringement, provide information about all the parties to -- who are involved with this and thus you basically have the accused infringer is going to know everybody who is involved an thus be able to basically attack his -- all of his -- all of the people, not just the guy who has lost his intellectual property rights but somebody who backed him up now will become a target of big corporations. this means the elimination of privacy for major business dealings. the little guy no longer has the right of privacy. the little guy is tote pli exposed -- exposed as his
friends and suppliers will be. the patent holder will be forced to provide a list of potential bank accounts to raid and those bank accounts and all that information will be made available to the bad guys, the people who are infringing, the big companies who are beating them down will now have all this information to use against them, in addition once the requirement has been invoked, the patent holder must maintain a current record of the information on file at the patent office or forfeit the rights. what that means is the patent holder now has huge new bureaucratic reporting requirements, dramatically increasing cost and vulnerability. now you do that to a small investor or small inventor, what does that do? you are increasing their cost dramatically. this is because they want -- why are we increasing their requirement for bureaucratic reporting? because they have actually
reported an infringement of their intellectual rights. thus they've got to pay the price. they've got to have the burden on them. we're going to put the burden on them. for saying somebody just stole my property. we're increasing the burden on them. if they do that from then on they have a whole new obligation, a bureaucratic obligation. in addition the patent holder gains a new bureaucratic fee, not just bureaucratic requirements but a fee and forced to pay recordkeeping fees to maintain current records at the patent office. more fees, more bureaucratic requirements. these are minor inconveniences to multinational corporations. these people with hundreds if not thousands of employees, it's not going to cost them anything. in fact, when they go to court, they have a whole stable of attorneys, won't take them much money there either. so these multinational corporations are -- this isn't