[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4378-H4392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2021, JOBS AND ENERGY PERMITTING 
  ACT OF 2011, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1249, AMERICA 
                              INVENTS ACT

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 316

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2021) to amend the Clean Air Act regarding air 
     pollution from Outer Continental Shelf activities. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1249) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide 
     for patent reform. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An initial period of general debate 
     shall be confined to the question of the constitutionality of 
     the bill and shall not exceed 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative Smith of Texas and 
     Representative Kaptur of Ohio or their respective designees. 
     A subsequent period of general debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original

[[Page H4379]]

     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting H.R. 1249 with a Senate amendment or amendments 
     thereto, it shall be in order to consider in the House 
     without intervention of any point of order a single motion 
     offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his 
     designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendment or 
     amendments and request or agree to a conference with the 
     Senate thereon. The motion shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.

                              {time}  1200


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House 
Resolution 316 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all 
points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a 
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the 
gentleman from California and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not 
necessarily out of concern for the unmet, unfunded mandates, although 
there are many in H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 
2011; I raise the point of order because it is one of the very few 
vehicles we have, given the House rule, by which we can actually talk 
about what is in this bill, and there are plenty of problems in this 
bill. I also note that the resolution includes H.R. 1249, which talks 
about patents, because that also violates the House's CutGo rule.
  Let me speak to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 
2011, which is actually better noted as the ``bad lung, emphysema and 
cancer act of 2011.''
  This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting 
the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to 
vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from 
offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the 
wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in 
California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the 
offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed 
because of this is a serious problem for California.
  It poses a health risk. Smoke, fumes, dust, ash, black carbon--all of 
these things--blow onto the shore in southern California where we 
already have quite enough air pollution without this additional amount.
  Local communities do have a right--and should--even though this bill 
would tend to limit it, to go to the EPA. It cuts the review time in 
half, thereby denying local communities the full opportunity to express 
their concerns about the additional pollution.
  It eliminates third-party expert decision-making by the Environmental 
Appeals Board--finally, 20 years of the Environmental Appeals Board, 
created under the George W. Bush EPA, and it eliminates that.
  There are many, many problems here, and I would like to raise them 
all by including the patents in this.
  I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California 
(Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, the base bill is 
estimated to have a discretionary cost of $446 million over the next 5 
years, $1.1 billion over the next 10 years. The manager's amendment 
violates the new CutGo rules by undoing the anti-fee diversion 
language, which eliminates a procedure that would have decreased the 
budget deficit by $717 million over 5 years. This violates the CutGo 
rules that the majority put in place.
  I would note also that the rule and the manager's amendment have many 
other problems. I am very disappointed that having worked on the patent 
reform measure since 1997 that we are yanking defeat from the jaws of 
victory here today. The rule does not permit the consideration of Mr. 
Conyers' amendment, which was focused on this fee matter that corrects 
the violation of the rule. It also does not permit the consideration of 
the grace period preservation and prior art clarification that is 
essential to small inventors. If we are going to go to the first-to-
file system, we need to make sure that we protect prior user rights and 
that we protect the grace period that has been with our system for so 
long or else we are going to disempower small innovators. That is 
simply wrong.
  This is a bill that had in the past gained nearly unanimous support 
when Mr. Sensenbrenner was chair and when Mr. Conyers was chair. I am 
distressed to report today that I cannot support this measure after 
working on it since 1997. Not only does it violate the rules, but it 
costs the Treasury, and it will disempower small innovative inventors. 
So this is wrong, and the amendments that could have been put in order 
to correct them were not permitted. I think this is really quite a 
shame, and I would urge that the measure not be brought up and, as Mr. 
Sensenbrenner has suggested, that it be sent back to the Judiciary 
Committee for further work.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. GARAMENDI. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the move by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) to delay consideration of 
this rule, and I want to talk about the patent bill specifically.
  The Rules Committee granted a waiver of CutGo rules to this bill so 
that it would not be subject to a point of order. I believe in the 
CutGo rules, and I'm told by the supporters of this bill that this 
waiver is just technical because the committee violated the rules in 
turning discretionary spending into mandatory spending.
  As we have just heard, this technical waiver involves $717 million. 
It is hardly technical; and in fact, at the end of the Rules 
Committee's consideration of this resolution last night, the chairman 
of the Rules Committee admonished the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), that he should not be 
reporting out legislation that violates House rules.
  Now, rather than giving the Judiciary Committee a get-out-of-jail-
free card with a $717 million technical waiver, we should send this 
bill back to the Judiciary Committee so that they can fix up their own 
mess rather than having the House or the Rules Committee do it.
  Now, making a motion to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee

[[Page H4380]]

is not in order because I looked into that. The only way we can get 
this legislation fixed up, without a $717 million technical waiver of 
CutGo rules, is to support the motion that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi) is making, and I go across the aisle by 
agreeing that he is on the right track on this, and I hope that he is 
supported.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order 
and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I think he tossed it back to me, Mr. Speaker; so 
let me go ahead and finish this up.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner accurately talked about the way in which this 
particular resolution and the underlying bill on the patent bill 
violates the House rule that was written not more than 5\1/2\ months 
ago. Why would we want to violate the rules that we put in place to 
prevent excessive Federal spending? Doesn't make sense to me. So I 
agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner: send this thing back. It's a violation of 
the rule, and I would ask for a ruling on that from the Chair.
  The other point that I'd like to make is a similar point with regard 
to the offshore oil drilling bill which really does present a very 
serious problem for California. All of the offshore drilling in 
California--and it's very extensive. It's the second largest year for 
offshore drilling in the United States--is immediately off the southern 
California coast where we have very serious air pollution problems, 
some of the worst in the Nation.
  All of those offshore drilling platforms pollute, air pollution of 
many different kinds causing potential harm to the citizens of southern 
California. Those onshore winds bring those pollutants onto the shore 
and cause additional air pollution problems which then require, under 
this bill, that the local communities take additional action to reduce 
the pollutants that are generated onshore, creating a very serious 
economic problem.
  In addition, the bill requires that any legal issue raised has to be 
taken up in the district court here in Washington, D.C. By my 
calculation, that's nearly 3,000 miles away from where the problem 
exists, that is, southern California, placing an incredible burden upon 
them and an unfunded mandate that they have to then come out of their 
own budgets to come to Washington, D.C., to take up any legal issue 
that is raised, an unfunded mandate clearly in violation of the Rules 
of the House.
  And, therefore, a point of order is in order, and I would hope that 
the Speaker would so rule.
  There are many, many problems beyond that with regard to air 
pollution and the like. I will let those go.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is, Should the 
House now consider H. Res. 316? While the resolution waives all points 
of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware 
of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.
  The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 1249 would impose 
both intergovernmental and private sector mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on certain patent applications and other 
entities and would also be preempted from the authority of State courts 
to hear certain patent cases.
  However, based upon information from the Patent and Trademark Office, 
the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the costs of complying 
with those mandates to State, local, and tribal governments would fall 
far below the annual threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. Because the costs of complying with the mandates fall below 
the annual threshold, the waiver is prophylactic in nature.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of the 
day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of 
the resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I will ask for a vote, but I now yield the balance of 
my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, a $717 million CutGo waiver is not 
prophylactic in nature. It's whether we are going to abide by our CutGo 
rules or whether we won't; and the way we enforce the CutGo rules is by 
delaying consideration of this legislation, sending the patent bill 
back to committee, and letting the committee spend some time complying 
with the rules of the House of Representatives. This is a terrible 
precedent to set. Don't set it now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, what's amazing about this is that we're 
going to stop the debate on the House floor about very important 
legislation that needs to move forward, both of those pieces of 
legislation. And so we need to have open debate on the House floor with 
opposing viewpoints, with the ability to have amendments added on the 
floor, which we have allowed in this rule.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that we obviously are dealing with an 
irregular development that took place in the Judiciary Committee, that 
being the notion of believing somehow that they could appropriate 
dollars.
  We know full well that the Judiciary Committee cannot engage in the 
appropriations process itself, and so all that this provision that we 
are pursuing does is allows us to take from mandatory back to 
discretionary spending without any cost whatsoever. The power will fall 
with this institution, with the first branch of government, which is 
exactly where it should be.
  And everyone, Mr. Speaker, talks about the concerns that we have over 
mandatory spending. Both Democrats and Republicans alike have made it 
clear that if we don't deal with the issue of mandatory spending we're 
not going to successfully address the economic and budget challenges 
that we face.
  So all this provision does is it allows us to deal with what was an 
irregular development that took place in the Judiciary Committee, and 
it is for that reason that I support my friend from Florida's effort.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Can the gentleman from California please explain 
to the House how we're going to cut spending by violating our CutGo 
rules with a $717 million waiver when the gentleman from California has 
already chastised the Judiciary Committee for violating the rules?

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say that this has absolutely no effect 
whatsoever on the actual spending level. By the way, the Congressional 
Budget Office is not able to take in the mix the details of this 
extraordinary development that took place in the Judiciary Committee. 
And so there is not going to be any cost.
  This is a provision which clearly will allow us, as my friend from 
Florida has said, to proceed with a very important debate and to 
rectify a mistake that was made there.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 189, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:

[[Page H4381]]

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               YEAS--215

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--189

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Johnson (IL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Alexander
     Bachus
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Duffy
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     King (NY)
     Lummis
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Perlmutter
     Rangel
     Rokita
     Schock
     Scott, David
     Shimkus
     Stivers
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Walsh (IL)
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1249

  Messrs. TERRY, WELCH, and CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. LANDRY, RYAN of Wisconsin, MICA, HALL, and CULBERSON changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the 
following vote. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: 
Rollcall vote 463, On Question of Consideration of the Resolution--H. 
Res. 316, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2021) to amend 
the Clean Air Act regarding air pollution from Outer Continental Shelf 
activities, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1249) to 
amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform--I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. House Resolution 316 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of both H.R. 1249 and H.R. 2021. The rule provides for 
ample debate on both of these bills and gives Members of both the 
minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 316. As I said 
before, this rule provides for consideration of two different bills: 
H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, and H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy 
Permitting Act of 2011. Although these bills share one rule, the House 
will have opportunity to consider these pieces of legislation 
separately, and the rule ensures that we'll have full, transparent 
debate on both of these bills.
  Article I, section 8 of the Constitution delegates Congress the 
exclusive authority over U.S. patent law. However, Congress has not 
enacted a comprehensive patent reform for nearly 60 years, since the 
Patent Act of 1952.
  The America Invents Act makes significant substantive, procedural, 
and technical changes to current U.S. patent law that is designed to 
put American inventors on a level playing field with their global 
competitors.
  I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about 
concerns they have with the America Invents Act. In fact, I have some 
of those same concerns myself. As colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, and some on this side of the aisle, are going to point out, this 
rule waives CutGo.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I hate that we have to waive CutGo to 
bring this legislation to the House floor. However, I need to stress to 
Members on both sides of the aisle that even though this rule may waive 
CutGo, it does not increase the budget or its deficit.
  The Judiciary Committee wrote a bill that violated the House rule by 
appropriating when it moved patent fees from discretionary spending to 
mandatory spending. The manager's amendment fixes the Judiciary 
Committee's violation of those House rules. The manager's amendment 
does this at the insistence of the Rules Committee and the leadership.
  This is the right thing to do. The Constitution makes it clear that 
the power of the purse must stay in Congress, and I believe abdicating 
agency funding to PTO would have clearly violated the Constitution.

[[Page H4382]]

  However, by moving money back to discretionary spending, Chairman 
Smith's manager's amendment does, through a technicality, violate 
CutGo. Again, let me remind my colleagues that while the manager's 
amendment does require a technical waiver of CutGo, this does not 
increase the deficit. Let me say it again. This does not increase the 
deficit.
  In fact, Budget Committee Chairman Ryan supports this solution 
because, one, the manager's amendment ensures that the funding for PTO 
stays on the discretionary side where it is subject to appropriation, 
budget enforcement, and oversight. Two, this is the only technical 
waiver of the CutGo rule because the provisions of the manager's 
amendment were not included in the reported bill.
  As I said before, I don't like it that we need to waive CutGo. 
However, it is the right thing to do so we can ensure, institutionally, 
that the power of the purse continues to lie with Congress, where our 
Founding Fathers intended it to be.
  Additionally, I'm proud to say this is the first time ever, the first 
time ever this rule actually specifically designates 20 minutes for 
debate devoted exclusively to the constitutionality concerning H.R. 
1249.
  We opened the 112th Congress by reading the U.S. Constitution. As a 
member of the Constitution Caucus, I believe we can't let the 
conversation end there. Therefore, I'm proud of this rule, which 
continues to reflect Congress' commitment to our Nation's foundation, 
the Constitution.
  But this rule isn't just for H.R. 1249; it's also for H.R. 2021, the 
Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. The U.S. Geological 
Survey estimates that Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas contain 27.9 
billion--that's with a ``b''--barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas. These resources, if developed, could produce up to 
1 million barrels of oil per day for domestic energy consumption.
  However, while companies may have drilling leases to these lands, 
they continue to be mired in redtape and bureaucratic delays related to 
the Clean Air Act. This bill helps cut through these delays.
  H.R. 2021 eliminates the permitting back-and-forth that occurs 
between the Environmental Protection Agency and its Environmental 
Appeals Board. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly 
approved and then rescinded by the EPA and its review board, under H.R. 
2021, the EPA will be required to take final action, either granting or 
denying the permit, within 6 months.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the EPA keeping us from 
taking advantage of our own natural resources. We're the only country 
in the world that does that.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has put their green agenda 
and EPA bureaucracy over American jobs and the ability for our energy 
security. H.R. 2021 helps bring an end to those irresponsible policies.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, patents are one of the most critical components that 
drive American innovation, drive our economy, drive invention and 
innovation. Regrettably, for a variety of reasons, the bill that this 
rule makes in order fails to ensure that the Patent Office has the 
resources it needs to process patent applications in a timely manner.
  Now, I am grateful that this rule allows discussion of a number of 
important amendments, including my amendment, but there are a number of 
underlying flaws in the manager's amendment to this bill.
  Inventors, innovators, and job creation should not be on hold due to 
delays in patent approval. I'm an inventor of several patents, and I 
can tell you that the quickest one that I received took over 5 years 
until it was granted. By the time it was granted, I had actually sold 
the company and was no longer involved in the sector.
  The Internet and the information economy move at a speed and a 
different timeframe than our current patent review process operates 
under. Yet, this legislation, in its current form, with the manager's 
amendment, might actually serve to ensure that those delays continue 
because of a squabble between factions on the majority side.
  Rather than resolve these differences to the benefit of American 
inventors, instead, the baby has been split, a decision that would 
cause King Solomon great reticence. The bad news for any American 
innovator pursuing a patent, as well as for the employees that new 
businesses might support, is that we fail to resolve some of the most 
pressing issues within the patent and trademark administration through 
this law.
  The issue is that H.R. 1249 changes what I would consider one of the 
most important aspects of patent reform. And while there are very 
legitimate and important policy discussions on the aspect of patent 
reform, an equally, if not more important issue is adequate funding for 
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to ensure the speedy approval of 
applications so that they're relevant and reviewed and granted in a 
timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector.
  The PTO needs to be able to charge fees sufficient to recover the 
cost of its services and use those fees to pay for providing those 
services.

                              {time}  1300

  Now the PTO has a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications, 
and it takes on average--well, my wonderful documentation from my staff 
says 2 to 3 years for a patent to get to be approved or rejected. I 
have never had one reviewed in anything close to that time. Maybe they 
just see my name on it and they put it under a pile of notes and they 
take 5 or 6 years. But if we don't increase the resources of the PTO, 
there is no way the PTO could expand the number of highly qualified 
examiners to actually reduce patent review time and put it on a 
timeframe consistent with the needs of the private sector, protecting 
innovation.
  It's crucial that the fees generated are made available to the PTO so 
they can run in an efficient manner and protect American innovation 
here and abroad. The fees should not be held hostage to political 
squabbling here in this body every year on appropriations bills, every 
year on the budget debate. The price to American innovation is one that 
is too steep to pay to make that beholden to our very important 
political discussions that we have every year, but one that inventors 
need predictability and companies need predictability when deciding how 
much to invest in R&D and deciding how to pursue patents with their 
invention.
  I understand that some on the other side might be satisfied with the 
current manager's amendment language, but the worry is that the Patent 
and Trademark Office cannot actually use the patent fees to search, 
examine, and grant patents where warranted. So I would ask: What's the 
point?
  Patent reform is not traditionally--nor is it today, nor should it 
be--a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a nonpartisan issue. High-
quality patents, as mentioned in the United States Constitution, are 
crucial to our economy getting back on track and moving forward.
  President Obama issued a challenge in the State of the Union address 
to outinnovate, outbuild, and outeducate the world. And having a patent 
and trademark system that we can be proud of is an important part of 
American competitiveness and a mark that we fail to reach with this 
bill and the manager's amendment.
  Contrary to the belief of some, America still does invent, build, and 
sell our goods and services throughout the world. In fact, one of 
America's main competitive advantages is in the information economy, 
the intellectual economy, the creative economy, the very types of 
economic innovations that we rely on patent trademark and copyright to 
protect. And yet, if we fail to improve the quality of our patent 
application system, including rapid and high-quality review, we risk 
losing our leadership in innovation.
  I think this Congress needs to rise beyond the petty squabbling over 
committee jurisdiction, over trying to bind future Congresses, over 
budget and appropriations debates. We really need to rise beyond that 
and come up with a patent bill that we can all be proud of that leaves 
American innovation in good stead.

[[Page H4383]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule also calls for the consideration of H.R. 
2021, that is called the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act. The proponents 
of this bill continue to push a false narrative sprinkled with outrage 
based not on facts but on sound bites. They somehow want to convince 
the American people that President Obama is single-handedly shutting 
down oil drilling when, in fact, he has granted more permits than his 
predecessor. We've heard this broken record from my colleagues over and 
over again. And as simplistic and dramatic as the story is, the fact is 
that it's simply not true.
  The American people know that prices at the pump--and that has caused 
difficulty for a lot of American families--have nothing to do with 
drilling here or now. Not only is there a lag effect in the 5- to 10-
year timeframe, but, in fact, the domestic part of that equation in 
terms of reflecting gas prices is di minimus. The U.S. simply doesn't 
have enough oil to feed our addiction to oil, and gas prices are 
controlled by international markets and international supply and 
demand.
  Despite the close relationship between the oil industry and the Bush 
administration, the Obama administration is allowing more drilling than 
the Bush administration did--much to the chagrin of some Members of the 
Democratic Caucus. The Obama administration approved more leases in 
2010 than the Bush administration did in 7 out of 8 years of its 
Presidency.
  In addition to more drilling, we are producing more oil, yet gasoline 
prices continue to go up--again, gasoline prices, international 
markets, supply and demand, separate from the long-term issues of 
drilling in this country.
  The United States produces 9.7 million barrels of oil per day, and 
that's the most oil that we've produced in 20 years. We are just behind 
Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top producer. We have been 
raising production steadily since 2005--and that's a trend that I think 
we will be able to continue--and yet over this same period, oil hit a 
record high of $147 a barrel in 2008 during our period of production 
rise.
  We need a real solution, not simply a solution that is focused on a 
2012 election, on policy decrying President Obama's policies. We need a 
real solution to help end our Nation's reliance on fossil fuels and 
reduce our demand as well as supplement the energy supply with 
renewable energy sources.
  Again and again, Republicans are proving that their energy platform 
isn't ``all of the above'' that common sense would dictate but, rather, 
``oil above all,'' ``drill, baby, drill.''
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying bills are bad policy. I 
think we need an open discussion of these issues rather than trying to 
split the baby in half, pleasing no one; and on the energy issue, 
rather than giving a sound bite approach, to really require a 
comprehensive national energy strategy, including ``all of the above.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate the comments of my good friend from 
Colorado. We want to make sure that innovators like him don't have to 
wait 5 years to get something to market.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
  I rise in support of this rule to bring more American energy online.
  This is a bipartisan bill, H.R. 2021, and it deserves debate on the 
floor today. Everybody in this Chamber ought to vote for this rule if 
they care about our gas prices, about our national security, about our 
energy security, and about job creation.
  This bill has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs 
annually, over $100 billion in payroll over the next 50 years, and 1 
million barrels of oil a day. That's nearly enough oil to replace our 
imports from Saudi Arabia.
  This bill would reduce our dependence on Middle East oil 
significantly, and that ought to be our goal. Foreign nations--some of 
which have serious animosity towards the United States--are in control 
of the vast majority of oil that we use day in and day out. Is 
dependency on these foreign countries not one of the biggest threats 
that our country faces today? It's a scary reality that this bill 
directly addresses.
  The energy security bill will streamline the process of offshore 
permitting. Current impediments have delayed development of the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for over 5 years. These are areas that have 
already been approved for drilling. The revenues for the leases have 
already been collected by the Federal Government, and yet over 5 years 
drilling is yet to occur.
  The bill will make a number of minor changes. First, it will clarify 
that a drilling vessel is stationary when drilling begins and, 
therefore, should only be regulated as a stationary source at that 
point. It clarifies that service ships are not stationary sources by 
the simple virtue of the fact that they do not stop to drill. They are 
mobile sources regulated, as such, under title II of the Clean Air Act.
  Third, the bill clarifies that emission impacts are measured onshore, 
where the public resides.
  Lastly, the bill eliminates the needless delays, the constant ping-
pong between the EPA and the Environmental Appeals Board when it comes 
to exploration clean air permits. And it requires final agency action 
to take place in 6 months, to give them an up-or-down approval--denial 
of proof within 6 months.
  Alaska holds tremendous potential, and this bipartisan bill achieves 
great things by allowing a responsible and efficient process to take 
place.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank Jared Polis, who is a brilliant former member of 
the Judiciary Committee, and we miss him very much.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the reason these two bills are put together is 
very easy to fathom, that is that we have started off by, for the first 
time in the 112th Congress, violating the CutGo rule, formerly known as 
the pay-as-you-go rule, and we're trying to mask it by talking about 
how wonderful the second bill, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, H.R. 
2021, is. But it's not going to work, friends, because we know why 
we're trying to play down the patent bill that the rule is originally 
committed to.

                              {time}  1310

  It is because there are growing numbers of Members that are not only 
going to vote ``no'' on the rule, but they are going to vote ``no'' on 
the bill since for the first time since January that this CutGo rule 
was instituted, which prohibits consideration of a bill that has the 
net effect of increasing spending within a 5-year window, it is waived. 
In other words, you can't pass a bill that will increase spending 
without providing an offset.
  There is no offset. That is understood. But here is what the 
Congressional Budget Office said, that this bill will increase direct 
spending by $1.1 billion over the 2012-2021 period. It will increase it 
by $140 million by establishing a new procedure post-grant review. It 
will increase it by $750 million, because they establish a procedure 
that would allow patent holders to request the PTO to review an 
existing patent. It will increase it by $251 million by allowing inter 
partes reexamination, that is, to make it tougher and longer for a 
small inventor to be able to get his patent secured.
  So please vote ``no'' on this rule for the reason that it violates 
the pay-as-you-go, now known as the cut-and-go rule.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing when you hear the arguments in 
regards to CutGo that our friends are raising today; but in the 111th 
Congress, PAYGO was the flavor of the week, and that was violated eight 
times. And of those eight times, it actually increased, increased 
spending, and added to our deficit, each and every one of those.
  This waiver of CutGo does neither. It merely is a technical ability 
for us to hear those two underlying pieces of legislation so we can 
have open debate on the House floor and have the amendment process be 
intact.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  I say to the gentleman, Mr. Nugent, the Congressional Budget Office 
sent us and you a letter saying it would increase direct spending by a 
total of $1.1

[[Page H4384]]

billion. That is not even a small increase. And, by the way, the fact 
that somebody else waived the pay-as-you-go rule doesn't give you the 
right to waive cut-as-you-go. This is outrageous that this would be 
allowed in the first 6 months of the year, and it has never been waived 
before in the 112th Congress. And he says it is not going to cost us 
very much, or nothing.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that their remarks 
should be directed to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, just as a response, the letter that we have 
from the Congressional Budget Office of May 26 talks about ``CBO 
estimates enacting the bill would reduce net direct spending by $725 
million.'' So I am not sure if we have the same letter. But this is the 
letter that I referred to, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest those on the 
other side of the aisle may look at the same letter.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. To be clear, the gentleman from Florida refers to a letter 
that was regarding the initial bill. The manager's amendment actually 
changes the equation the gentleman indicated and renders that side 
letter inaccurate relating to the manager's amendment, which, if 
adopted under this rule, will then be part of the bill.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on this historic day 
in the 112th Congress.
  Six months. That's it. Six months. It took less than 6 months for the 
Republican majority to come to the floor of this House and break their 
most treasured promise to the American people, a promise made in 
writing to the rules of the House of Representatives. Today, by waiving 
the House CutGo rule, my colleagues across the aisle are giving up on 
their foundational principle of deficit reduction--no new spending 
without offsets.
  Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office clearly 
states that the manager's amendment, as we just heard, to the base 
bill, H.R. 1249, breaks the rules of the House. So the majority has 
written a new one-time rule that breaks their most fundamental promise 
to America, that this Congress will not enact a dime of new spending 
without cutting spending from another area of our Federal budget.
  This bill is going to increase discretionary spending by nearly half 
a billion dollars with no offset to cover that new spending. From my 
seat on the Budget Committee, I have watched how fiercely they have 
clung to this promise; and though I disagree with many of their choices 
and cuts, this is truly a new low. It is a historic breakdown that only 
took 6 months to arrive.
  Though America is watching and waiting for a solution, a jobs bill, 
for instance, to our Nation's fiscal and economic crisis, Republicans 
began the year by saying that half the budget question was off the 
table. For instance, questions like $800 billion were spent on tax 
breaks for the wealthy, or like tens of billions in subsidies and 
deliberate loopholes for some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth.
  CutGo doesn't lay down any rules about tax expenditures. We could 
entirely stop collecting taxes and let the budget and the economy 
collapse tomorrow, and that would abide by CutGo.
  Again, this rule only deals with spending without finding the roughly 
half a billion dollars' worth of offsets to pay for the bill. Not 
surprisingly, this rule has lasted us only 6 months. I would ask my 
Republican colleagues, what will the next 6 months bring and the next 6 
months after that?
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment fixes a rules 
violation. It requires a technical waiver of CutGo to move the patent 
fees back to the discretionary side. Those fees were going to be put 
into mandatory spending. Now it is back to discretionary.
  Of course the discretionary spending went up, but think about this: 
the fees that are utilized to pay for this come from those that 
actually apply for patents. The money is going to be utilized to make 
sure that folks like Mr. Polis don't have to wait 5 years. These are 
dollars collected for specific reasons. The reason is to allow us to 
become innovators again, to allow us to compete with China.
  We need to do things in America to make us stronger; and while people 
might rail against the CutGo waiver, let's talk about the real issues 
that face America, and that is energy, in regards to finding more 
energy, bringing it to market, whether it is oil or natural gas. Those 
are the issues that are up. And it is about invention. It is about 
allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to actually get back to work 
and do the right things and have some ability to look forward in 
regards to what they can do in regards to moving forward the process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do appreciate my friend from Colorado for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, with this rule today, the Republicans waive their so-
called CutGo rule to protect a Republican manager's amendment to the 
patent reform bill. Nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget 
Office said, ``We estimate that amendment,'' No. 15, Smith, the 
manager's amendment, ``would significantly increase direct spending, 
would not affect revenues.''
  I think, if I understand correctly, it adds about $140 million in 
spending.

                              {time}  1320

  By reclassifying the fees and spending by the PTO as discretionary, 
amendment 15 would eliminate $712 million in savings that are scored in 
the original bill.
  Republicans have repeatedly characterized this waiver as 
``technical.'' They may think the waiver is technical, but for $712 
million to be tossed around does not sound technical to me or to most 
Americans, I'd wager. We think it's real money.
  It was our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, who complained that the previous 
Democratic majority frequently waived pay-as-you-go to meet its needs. 
When the Republicans eliminated the PAYGO rule and replaced it with 
their CutGo rule, Boehner complained that, ``We routinely waive the 
Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes.'' Today, it is the 
internal squabbling of the House Republican Conference whose purposes 
are being served by a waiver of CutGo.
  They go on to say the manager's amendment is important enough to 
waive CutGo because it preserves congressional oversight of the Patent 
Office.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman 45 additional seconds.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. This is simply not accurate. The CutGo violation in 
the manager's amendment--the provision that increases direct spending 
by $712 million--would simply remove from the bill a provision that was 
going to ensure the Patent Office was fully funded.
  If I didn't already have enough complaints against this manager's 
amendment, I want to call attention to the House that after 13 years of 
work we finally got genetic nondiscrimination passed in this Congress 
so that people could feel free to have genetic tests. This manager's 
amendment for the first time talks about the patenting of human genes. 
That must never, ever happen.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for 
yielding, and rise against this rule and the underlying bill.
  The bill is unconstitutional. It will stifle American job creation; 
cripple American innovation; it throws out 220 years of patent 
protections for individual inventors; and it violates the CutGo rules, 
increasing our deficit by over $1 billion. This bill should never have 
been brought to the floor. Not only is it chock full of special 
interest legislation for large banks and a handful of corporate 
interests, what we are voting on today makes a mockery of the openness 
that the Republican leadership promised in legislative procedures. The 
bill has gone through a lot

[[Page H4385]]

of iterations, without sunlight, since it was first reported out of 
committee. The Congressional Budget Office's score on this latest 
version of the bill that just came out last night shows that it 
violates the CutGo rules. That's right. It increases the deficit every 
year between now and 2021.
  Just last week, we couldn't find enough money to provide hungry 
American children with food. But for some reason, the Republican 
leadership believes it's appropriate to add hundreds of millions of 
dollars in costs to the taxpayers and more regulations at the Patent 
Office. That's the non-partisan CBO's number, by the way. Meanwhile, 
the bill takes away patent and intellectual property rights of 
individual inventors.
  This is not the bill passed by the Senate. This is not the bill that 
passed out of the Judiciary Committee. As the details of what we are 
actually being asked to vote on leaks out, more people, including now 
those who actually work in the Patent Office, oppose the bill. 
Importantly, the bill removes the requirement that only first inventors 
may receive a patent and it creates the monopoly nightmare that the 
Founders of our Constitution intended to prevent.
  The first-to-file patent system will lead the Federal Government to 
create commercial monopolies and more regulations--exactly what 
Jefferson, Madison, and other Founders opposed. As opposed to securing 
to first inventors their property rights, the bill will merely secure 
unreserved rights to the first to file a patent. The first one to run 
over to the Patent Office might get the patent. That is not what is 
enshrined in our Constitution. The authentic, first inventor must not 
be stripped of their rights.
  The very first right in our Constitution, even before the Bill of 
Rights, is the right to your intellectual property.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a champion of individual inventors.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to the rule.
  The CBO says the manager's amendment to this bill, H.R. 1249, would 
significantly increase direct spending. According to the CBO, over a 
10-year period, H.R. 1249 would incur significant new deficit spending. 
For example, switching to first-to-file would increase costs by $18 
million; the new post-grant review in this bill would cost $140 
million; amending the inter partes reexamination would increase direct 
spending by $250 million. This is all annually. The new supplemental 
review would increase direct spending by $758 billion. That's a $1.1 
billion increase in spending. Yet we as Republicans promised that if 
there would be this increase in spending, we would cut spending in a 
proportionate share. We made that the rule of how we're going to do 
business. This rule supersedes that promise. We should not be going 
back on our promise to the American people to act responsibly.
  This bill will lay the foundation not only for weaker patent 
protection for American inventors but it will also knock the legs out 
from us finally being responsible in our spending patterns. This bill 
is not about making the Patent Office more efficient. That's what we 
keep hearing. It is about harmonizing American patent laws with those 
of Europe. And in Europe and Asia they do not have strong patent 
protection for their people. What that means is weaker patent 
protection for Americans. That is what they're trying to achieve. And 
who's going to be strengthened by this? Multinational corporations who 
don't care about the United States.
  The Hoover Institution just did a major study showing that the patent 
bill demonstrably is a plus for large corporations who have created no 
jobs and hurts all the little guys and the small guys and the startups 
who have created all the jobs. This is an anti-jobs bill. It should be 
defeated.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments. The key to this 
is allowing this bill to go forward. The key to this is allowing 
amendments to come to the floor and have open debate. Even Mr. 
Rohrabacher has some amendments that are going to be coming to this 
floor to have debate in regards to the merits; debate in regards to 
what is the will of the House. That's the reason we have the time set 
aside on each of these bills, so those that are opposed to it can be 
heard and those that have amendments that want to modify what the 
underlying legislation is can be heard. And issues about 
constitutionality. That's why this rule sets aside specific time to 
talk about the constitutionality of the America Invents Act. That's the 
beauty of this building that we're in and the organization and the 
institution that we represent, is the ability to have open debate, both 
sides of the aisle. It doesn't matter. It's about open debate and about 
changing and allowing us to hear differing opinions and different 
views.
  So I respect those on the other side of the aisle. I respect those 
Members within the Republican side of the aisle. I respect the 
difference of opinion. That's what families are all about, so we can 
have an open discussion and exchange. That's what this rule does. It 
allows us to hear on both of these bills an open and frank discussion 
about the merits of each, the merits of any amendments as to how we 
want to change or modify.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. When the Republicans last 
fall traveled around the country asking the American people to return 
this House to their control, they promised two things. One, they were 
going to create jobs. Secondly, they were going to promote fiscal 
responsibility and try to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. Well, 
on the first score, it's been 6 months and we haven't seen the first 
item of job-creating legislation. On the second item, we should have 
known better. We should have known better than to trust them to 
actually try and rein in the deficit.
  Today, with the rule under consideration, the Republican majority is 
proposing to waive the very rules they wrote to supposedly cut 
spending.

                              {time}  1330

  The GOP proposed the CutGo rule last year, saying it was part of 
their plan to rein in spending; and now, just a few short months later, 
they're violating their own rules. We heard the gentleman from Florida 
actually concede that they're violating their own rules. That is award-
winning hypocrisy, but it's not surprising because, as has been 
mentioned, the Speaker of the House said last year, We routinely waive 
the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes.
  Maybe we could excuse that if they were, say, proposing legislation 
to create jobs, but we know that isn't happening. In fact, the 
underlying bill does exactly the opposite.
  It stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. The surplus fees that are 
collected by the Patent and Trademark Office could be used to protect 
patents and to process new ones so that there are new inventions, new 
innovations coming to market, creating jobs; but the Republican 
majority wants to take those funds and put them into the general kitty 
where they can spend it on other things like--who knows?--more tax 
breaks for the rich or maybe Big Oil companies.
  Only time will tell that.
  But now, for today, it is best advised to reject this rule and to not 
allow the Republicans to get away with violating their own CutGo rules 
and then to pass this legislation that would stifle innovation in 
America.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I rise today as a proud member of the Rules Committee. I 
appreciate my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding to me.
  It's not lightly that I come down to the floor today, because I've 
only been on the job here 5 months. Mr. Speaker, you know that I'm one 
of the new guys here in Congress, and I came down to the House floor 
because I thought this is where deliberation went on. I thought this is 
where folks had candid conversations about how to improve a bill. I see 
my colleague Mr. Polis there at the table. We've made a lot of 
amendments available, not just on the patent bill, but on the EPA bill 
as well.

[[Page H4386]]

  So when I come to the floor and hear folks talking about CutGo, I 
wonder what happened to the serious conversations that we were going to 
have here on the floor. I wonder where the seriousness about improving 
the bills that are coming to the floor went because, as you know, Mr. 
Speaker, this CutGo issue is one that was created solely because the 
way the bill was reported out of committee and the way the manager's 
amendment impacted it created a technical CutGo violation.
  A technical CutGo violation. Ask the freshman Member of Congress, and 
I'll tell you that there is a technical CutGo violation in the 
manager's amendment.
  Does it spend $1? Does it spend $1 that the Federal Government wasn't 
going to spend anyway? No. Does it cost the American taxpayer $1? The 
answer is ``no.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. This would spend $1.1 billion. That's not technical, my 
friend. It would spend $1.1 billion.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reclaim my time.
  That's what troubles me as a freshman because I know, Mr. Speaker, 
that the distinguished Member knows that had the committee reported 
this bill out the way the manager's amendment crafts this bill there 
would be no CutGo violation whatsoever. Hear that. Had the committee 
reported this bill out the way we're bringing this bill to the floor, 
there would have been no CutGo violation whatsoever. Yet we are raising 
this issue on the floor of the House as if there is some big backroom 
deal going on.
  That's frustrating to me as a freshman Member, Mr. Speaker, because 
there is no backroom deal. This is the most open House of 
Representatives that I've seen in my lifetime. This is the most open 
Rules Committee that I've seen in my lifetime. This is the most open 
process in the people's House that I have seen in my lifetime. Yet, for 
reasons that I cannot suppose, folks make this case as if there are 
nefarious things going on in the background.
  I say to my colleagues and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the 
American people have a distrust of Washington, D.C., and I will tell 
you that that distrust is well earned. That distrust is well earned, 
and that's why there are 96 new people here this time around. Folks, 
let's not suggest that there is something going on when there's not. 
Let's be honest when there are problems, and let's be honest when we're 
doing it right; and Mr. Speaker, we're doing it right today.
  Mr. POLIS. I've been advised by some of our advisers on our side 
that, in fact, this would have been a CutGo violation even if this had 
been an amendment in committee.
  This is a serious discussion. When we're talking about CutGo, it's a 
serious issue. I think this Congress on both sides of the aisle have 
come here to balance the budget, to restore fiscal discipline to our 
country; and setting the precedent of a CutGo violation so early in the 
term really calls into question what a ``rule of the House'' even means 
if it is to be so casually disregarded.
  I yield 45 seconds to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just wanted my dear friend--and I recognize he has only been here 5 
months--to realize that this is not a technical CutGo violation. This 
is a $1.1 billion violation. That's real money that we're going to have 
to get from somewhere else, and we're waiving CutGo for the first time 
in the 112th Congress.
  I am appealing to Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, to join 
with us against this outrageous and costly and blatant violation of the 
House rules that they wrote.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  I realize that we are dealing with a somewhat unprecedented situation 
here; but I've got to say that, as I listen to the characterization 
being put forward by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to 
this so-called CutGo waiver, they appear to be way off base.
  I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, what this $1.1 billion figure is. I've 
been asking my staff members since I heard the distinguished former 
chair of the committee, the ranking member, throw this figure out, and 
they said, We have no idea where this $1.1 billion figure has come 
from.
  If he wants to explain that to me, I am happy to yield to my friend, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes. The letter to the distinguished chair of the Rules 
Committee came from the Congressional Budget Office, and I would be 
pleased to quote it to you. The $1.1 billion is an accumulation of 
several other costs that they reported.
  Mr. DREIER. I reclaim my time.
  Let me say, I asked my staff where this $1.1 billion figure came 
from. My staff members are right here on the floor, and they said they 
don't know where the basis of this $1.1 billion figure comes from. Mr. 
Speaker, what happened in the Judiciary Committee was unfortunate. It 
was an unfortunate development that took place because the Judiciary 
Committee proceeded to do something that they should not do, which is 
they began appropriating.
  All we are doing with this provision that we have in place is simply 
saying that the power should, in fact, lie with the House 
Appropriations Committee and that it should not be mandatory spending 
that does not provide the first branch of government, the legislative 
branch, with the adequate oversight.
  Now, as I walked into the Chamber, my friend from Kentucky was saying 
that this bill is not focused on job creation and economic growth when, 
in fact, we know that encouraging creativity and innovation is about 
our creating good jobs right here in the United States of America. Mr. 
Speaker, the American people get it. They realize that if we were to 
take our time and energy and focus on job creation and economic growth 
we would be able to improve the standard of living and quality of life 
for the American people. Unfortunately, we've not been vigorously 
pursuing those.
  I think that one of the most important things that we can do is to 
open up new markets around the world for U.S. goods and services and 
for our kind of innovation that is developing. We at this moment are 
waiting for three trade agreements that have been languishing over the 
past 4 years. Unfortunately, this House in the last 4 years has failed 
to consider them. They would create good union and nonunion jobs for 
the American worker.

                              {time}  1340

  Good jobs for union and nonunion members would be created if we were 
to pursue that kind of policy.
  Now, those agreements are pending. We've gotten a positive indication 
that the administration is going to be sending those to us. We need to 
move on those as quickly as possible. As we look at those market-
opening opportunities, having the kind of innovative ideas that will be 
able to take place, creating new products is going to be wonderful 
because we'll have new markets for those products around the world.
  And so that's why, again, Mr. Speaker, here we are under a process 
that allowed an amendment by my friend from Michigan, the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to be made in order; 
my friend from Colorado from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), I'm very 
happy that we were able to make his amendment in order. Ms. Jackson Lee 
was here just a few minutes ago. She withdrew an amendment that she 
offered before the Rules Committee, and a similar amendment was offered 
by my colleague from California (Ms. Eshoo). We chose to make that 
amendment in order, which is virtually identical to the one that my 
friend from Houston offered.
  And so as my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia, my Rules Committee 
colleague, said, Mr. Speaker, here we are. We've made 15 amendments in 
order for considering allowing virtually every idea to be considered.

[[Page H4387]]

My friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has his amendment made in 
order. And so the idea of somehow criticizing the Rules Committee and 
the action that we've taken is just way off base.
  There were 15 amendments that are made in order under this bill; 10 
amendments have been made in order for the Energy and Commerce 
legislation that's come before us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank you, my friend.
  We are not criticizing the Rules Committee. The CutGo violation, 
which you have not even seen the CBO letter that described the $1.1 
billion----
  Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say 
that I asked my staff about this, and they were unaware of exactly 
where this $1.1 billion figure came from. And so in light of that, it 
seems to me that we are in a position where we need to proceed with 
this very important work, and we're trying our doggonedest to make it 
happen.
  We're going to allow proposals from Messrs. Rohrabacher, Conyers, and 
Polis and others to be considered, and that's why it's important that 
we pass this rule. If we don't pass this rule, we won't have the 
opportunity for the Rohrabacher, Conyers, and Polis ideas to be 
considered here on the House floor.
  And so let me thank my friend for yielding. I know he has other 
speakers. And with that, I'm going to urge support of the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. I think some of the frustration here, Mr. Speaker, is that 
the work product of the committee is being disregarded in favor of a 
rule that provides for a manager's amendment that fundamentally alters 
the character of the bill in a way that many Members of both parties 
have quite a few problems with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson Lee
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Speaker and thank the 
gentleman, and I appreciate the generosity of the Rules chairman on the 
number of occasions that I have sought to both represent my 
constituents at the Rules Committee and to represent issues that are of 
concern to America.
  Let me just say that I believe in efficiency of time, but I am struck 
by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the 
deliberation and the thoughtfulness of Members of Congress. I believe 
the rule is not necessarily a place to express one's opposition or 
support, but I do believe it's important procedurally to discuss a 
number of issues.
  The legislation that deals with the EPA, H.R. 2021, in and of itself 
would warrant an opportunity for full discussion, and I offered a 
number of amendments that I thought were quite productive, and those 
amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the EAB. 
It would have provided a review period, and one in particular that the 
gentleman mentioned was the opportunity to file your cases in local 
courts.
  I'm glad that we'll have the general discussion on the floor. Far be 
it from me to suggest that is not a good thing, but I do want to say 
that I had a very strong amendment that was not included in the Rule; 
the Amendment was originally withdrawn but resubmitted so we did have 
an opportunity to correct a letter that we had sent, but I'm glad for 
the debate in the form of another amendment just like mine regarding 
local federal courts being allowed to hear these matters.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONYERS. The reason that both these bills were combined is that 
they're trying to mask all the defects in the patent bill, and that's 
why they put this great new jobs, supposedly, creating bill together.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, reclaiming my time, whatever the 
reason was, we both agree we needed to have more time for the rules 
debate.
  And I will now move to the patent bill. And as I said, I will not 
discuss the pros and cons of this legislation, but I will say to you--
and I see the gentleman rising over here maybe trying to correct 
something that was said. There's no reason to correct anything other 
than the fact that we had a number of amendments that we offered and we 
would hope that we would have had an open rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much.
  On the patent bill in particular, two amendments that would have been 
vital were to announce that this was not an undue taking of property, 
to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue, because I 
think the bill does have the ability to create jobs, and lastly is the 
point of being able to give small businesses an 18-month period for 
disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other 
places and the secret of their invention is exposed.
  This Amendment would have added protection to small businesses and 
improved the debate, nevertheless I look forward to the debate, but I 
hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, before I discuss Amendments I offered, I would like to 
note my support for the first to file system in H.R. 1249. I believe it 
to be a positive step toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness 
of our IP system. However, I am not deaf to some of the criticisms that 
it has received from various interests, and I believe it is imperative 
that this bill be a real jobs creator for small and large inventors and 
businesses.
  The amendments I am offering today are not controversial. They simply 
tighten up the language of the existing provisions of the bill, and add 
checks to ensure that the bill, if it becomes law, is fulfilling its 
intended purposes.

   Amendments Concerning Small Businesses, Minority-and Woman-Owned 
                        Businesses, and, HBCU'S


Amendment #26 and #22--Inclusion of minority-and woman-owned businesses

  H.R. 1249, the ``American Invents Act,'' addresses one of the 
concerns with the current patent system--the high fees associated with 
filing patent applications and the burden they impose on small 
businesses and not-for-profit entities wishing to secure patent 
protection.
  It addresses this concern by giving a 50 percent discount on all 
USPTO fees to ``small entities'' and ``micro entities.''
  My first amendment (Amendment #26) amends the definition of ``small 
entities'' for the purposes of receiving the fee discount to include 
language that ensures that minority-owned and woman-owned businesses 
are included.
  My second amendment (Amendment #22), much like my first amendment, 
includes minority-owned and woman-owned businesses in the definition of 
``micro entity'' for purposes of receiving the fee discounts afforded 
to these types of entities.
  While I am sure it was the intent behind this section to extend 
protection for all small businesses, my amendments simply reassure 
inclusion of minority-owned and woman-owned businesses.
  The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as a 
business which employs less than 500 employees. According to the 
Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers--
representing around 99.7 percent of the nation's employers and 50.2 
percent of its private-sector employment. The proposed patent reform 
will ensure that small businesses are not treated at a disadvantage. It 
has great potential to create job growth, and in turn spur economic 
development for our country.
  There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 
98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private-
sector employment. Since small businesses make up such a large portion 
of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be 
impacted as a result of patent reform.
  Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and 
employ millions of people.
  There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, 
representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority 
owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 
trillion dollars in economic output.
  Women owned businesses have increased 20 percent since 2002, and 
currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more 
than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

[[Page H4388]]

  My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women 
owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned 
businesses.


        Amendment #29--HBCU's and Hispanic Serving Institutions

  One of the positive attributes of this bill is that it extends fee 
discounts to colleges and universities that engage in research and seek 
patent protection of their work.
  H.R. 1249 does this by giving fee discounts to ``public institutions 
of higher education.''
  For purposes of this section, my amendment includes in the definition 
of ``small entities'' Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
HBCU's.
  Generally speaking, HBCU's should be considered ``public institutions 
of higher education,'' however, in a few instances where schools 
receive alternative means of funding, there is a risk that minority 
serving institutions could be overlooked.
  My amendment simply ensures that the intended goal of the language in 
this bill is actually achieved--that ALL colleges and universities, 
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic 
Serving Institutions, receive fee discounts to keep the patent system 
accessible.
  Our Nation's colleges and universities are responsible for a vast 
amount of valuable research.
  HBCUs are a source of accomplishment and great pride for the African 
American community as well as the entire Nation. The Higher Education 
Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: ``. . . any historically 
black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose 
principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and 
that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or 
association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable 
authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to 
such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward 
accreditation.'' HBCUs offer all students, regardless of race, an 
opportunity to develop their skills and talents.

  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, ``HBCUs play an essential 
role in helping our Nation boost college completion rates and achieve 
the President's goal for America to again have the highest percentage 
of college graduates in the world by 2020.''
  At present, HBCUs award just over 36,000 undergraduate degrees a 
year. More than 80 percent of those degrees, about 31,500 degrees, are 
baccalaureate degrees.
  HBCUs currently award about 15 percent of all undergraduate degrees 
nationwide for African-American students.
  The completion gap in high-demand fields in science, technology, 
engineering and math is particularly troubling. Nationwide, nearly 70 
percent of white students in STEM fields complete their degrees, 
compared with just 42 percent of African-American students.


Amendment #27--Sense of Congress protecting rights of small businesses 
                             and inventors

  We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small 
companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their 
inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their 
valuable intellectual property.
  Therefore, I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of 
Congress that the patent system should promote industries to continue 
to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the 
country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and 
inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off 
of innovation.
  The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, 
as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms 
and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to 
the patent laws are not done at the expense of innovators and to 
innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a 
surprisingly good job at striking the right balance.
  Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences 
and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent 
system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents 
are currently issued.
  The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as 
businesses which employ less than 500 employees.
  According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million 
small employers representing around 99.7 percent of the Nation's 
employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment.
  In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28 
percent while black owned was around 5 percent. Between 2007 and 2008 
the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 
2.5 percent while the number for men went down 1.5 percent.
  Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There 
were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 
percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private-sector 
employment.
  In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses 
compared to over 1 million owned by men.
  88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are 
Hispanic, 16,000 are Native Americans.
  Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer 
network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a 
result of patent reform.


 Amendment #23--Extension of the disclosure period for small businesses

  My amendment addresses the section of this bill which deals with the 
disclosure period, also known as the grace period. In its current 
state, H.R. 1249 includes a one-year grace period for inventors who 
make disclosures about their inventions before they apply for an actual 
patent.
  My amendment extends that grace period for small business from one 
year to eighteen months.
  When small businesses are attempting to develop an invention, 
oftentimes it is necessary for them to make disclosures to outside 
entities because, due to a lack of resources, they need to outsource 
the effort needed to bring an invention to market.
  For small businesses outsourcing their development, the one-year 
grace period may not be an adequate amount of time.
  Whenever an inventor makes the first public disclosure of an 
invention, then--as to whatever the inventor disclosed publicly--the 
disclosing inventor is guaranteed the right to patent the invention if 
a patent is sought during the 1-year ``grace period'' after the first 
public disclosure, even if during this ``grace period'' someone else 
(e.g., another inventor) either publishes its own independent work on 
the invention or seeks its own patent on the invention based on its 
independent work.
  Prior art is created when a disclosure is made available to the 
public. However, the ``grace period'' operates so that an inventor's 
own disclosure (or the disclosure by someone else that represents 
nothing more than the inventor's own work itself) is excluded as prior 
art to the extent of any of these inventor-originated disclosures made 
one year or less before the inventor seeks a patent. In short, 
inventors have one year from when they make their work public to seek 
patents.

   Amendments Addressing Section 18 (Transitional Review Process for 
                        Business Method Patents)


    Amendment #25--Sunset of Business Method Patents Review Program

  Though I am generally supportive of this bill, Section 18, which 
creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has 
come under criticism.
  There has been a lot of inconsistency in the status of the law 
surrounding business method patents over the years.
  Historically, business methods and systems to implement those methods 
were not patentable, but in the 1998 State Street v. Signature 
Financial Group ruling, that all changed.
  After that ruling, there was an explosion of applications for 
business method patents, and many were issued. However, many of these 
patents are of poor quality.
  Many business methods are facially obvious, whereas patentable 
inventions are supposed to be novel and non-obvious.
  They also lack prior art. It is very difficult to determine which 
business methods are simply common practice in different industries, 
but simply have been properly documented.
  The difficulties associated with issuing business method patents 
coupled with the lack of resources within the USPTO lead to issuance of 
many weak business method patents, some of which probably should not 
have been awards. Thus, a slew of litigation followed.
  This section, though controversial because it targets a specific type 
of patent, is intended to iron out the inconsistency in issuance of 
these types of patents and the many different rulings that flowed from 
mountains of litigation.
  While I believe it is important to achieve to consistency, I also 
think the necessity of this process is finite. Currently, the provision 
sunsets in 10 years, however, that period is too long in my opinion.
  Given the concerns associated with this section and the limited 
relevance of this provision, I have proposed an amendment that would 
make this provision sunset in 5 years.


 Amendment #24--Requiring Departmental determination that there is no 
                    ``unlawful taking of property''

  As I mentioned previously, Section 18 of this bill has been subject 
to criticisms, most notably the fact that the transitional review 
program is creates may cause some patents to be taken away, which may 
lead to a potential violation of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Patents, though intangible, are considered property and they are 
valuable--some extremely valuable and a source of great wealth to their 
owners. A process that could strip a patent owner of their property 
without just

[[Page H4389]]

compensation comes dangerously close to an unlawful taking, in my 
opinion.
  This is of great concern to me, and therefore I am offering an 
amendment to address the constitutionality issue of this provision.
  My amendment requires the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office, within a year of enactment of this bill, to make a 
determination of whether the provisions of this section could create a 
condition that could be considered an unlawful taking of property under 
the ``takings clause'' found in the Fifth Amendment of the 
Constitution. The Director would need to report to Congress the 
underlying reasoning for his determination.
  While there may be a valid intent and purpose behind the provisions 
in section 18 of this bill, no purpose is so great that it warrants a 
violation of the Constitution.
  My amendment will help ensure that the Constitution is upheld and 
adhered to, a goal that we all, regardless of party affiliation, should 
wholly support.


  Amendment #28--Sense of Congress--no violation of the takings clause

  The Constitution is the law of land, a body of law that we as 
lawmakers respect, and that the American people value as the 
cornerstone of democracy.
  Because some of the opponents of this bill have raised Constitutional 
concerns with specific provisions in the bill, I am offering an 
amendment that reaffirms our commitment to the Constitution.
  My amendment is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress 
that none of the provisions of this bill should constitute an 
unconstitutional taking of property under the fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, just as a clarification, the Rules Committee 
has the obligation to make sure that they move this through the House 
so it can come up, so these bills can come up. It's not about combining 
two bills; it's about a rule that allows two bills to be heard 
separately. That's all this does.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I do not commonly talk on rules. Usually I 
come for the substance of the underlying bill, and I will be speaking 
later on the underlying bill, on the Judiciary's patent reform bill, 
but I would like to speak not only to the fairness of the rule and the 
appropriateness and the reason for passage but also perhaps clarify 
something related to the underlying bill in the case of Judiciary.
  First of all, I'm delighted, delighted to see that we are reducing 
the amount of time for passage of a rule when they are like.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle certainly know that at 
the beginning of every Congress, once every 2 years, we pass a massive 
rules package that every suspension and every other bill is essentially 
brought under. A rules package is nothing but a slight addition to the 
overall set of rules of the House, and if we do not produce one, then 
we operate under the rules of the House. So I'm delighted to see that 
we are using floor time more efficiently.
  As to the question of the costs related to the upcoming bill on 
patent reform, I find something really amazing that I think all the 
Members should be aware of, Mr. Speaker, and that is this is a piece of 
legislation that has already passed by 95-5 out of the Senate. This is 
a piece of legislation that the ranking member and I have worked on for 
my entire 11 years here. This is a piece of legislation that every one 
of us has had input into and found ways to come together so that we had 
a 10:1 ratio when we passed it out of committee.
  And when it comes to the costs, the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
have to understand this is simply talking about the exclusive fees that 
both Republicans and Democrats on the committee have demanded be used 
only for the patent office work and not be diverted. So, even if at 
some point we have to admonish the appropriators to stay within a 
number, we're only talking about how much of the money that the men and 
women who apply for patents, the men and women who invent, contribute 
for the purpose of having that passed.
  So although people will pass dollars around, let's understand these 
are not tax dollars. These are dollars contributed with an application 
for a patent or for the extension, continuation of a patent. These are 
fees that inventors pay in order to have their inventions considered 
and retained, and nothing should be more sacred to Republicans and 
Democrats than making sure that those funds collected by these people 
are used there.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee and the chair of Oversight and Government Reform.
  The Congressional Budget Office sent the letter, Mr. Issa, about the 
manager's amendment, which had nothing to do with the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming that 30 seconds, I fully understand my 
colleague's statement about the CBO scoring question, but understand, 
Mr. Speaker, that subject to appropriations, no money will be spent 
except money contributed in fees by those folks.
  So whatever we must do in enactment of this law over time, we will 
do, but let's understand, we're not talking about the normal budget 
situation, where clearly any dollars that CBO is referring to are the 
dollars contributed by the men and women who invent things.
  So I think we really have to look at that and say, We know they're 
entitled to 100 cents on the dollar. That's all we're doing regardless 
of scoring.
  Mr. POLIS. I want to point out that the vote my friend from 
California referenced on the committee by a 10-1 margin is a completely 
different bill and finance mechanism than is contemplated under the 
manager's amendment to this bill. This manager's amendment has not been 
seen or voted on by any of the committees of jurisdiction and is a 
major break from precedents on this issue.
  I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise my concerns about H.R. 1249 and the rule 
and in particular the manager's amendment.
  America's uniquely innovative culture is the source of our economic 
strength, and I have long supported fundamental reforms to our patent 
system that would reduce the patent backlog, increase the quality of 
patents, and ensure that the patent system is not abused in ways that 
threaten innovation.
  One of the best things in the bill up until now has been a provision 
to attack the backlog by devoting all of the fees gathered in the 
patent process to the Patent Office. We are asking the stakeholders of 
invention to pay higher fees to reduce the backlog. How can we ask them 
to do that if we are going to divert the fees they pay to paying 
general government expenses?
  The provision in the underlying bill would have ended that practice, 
would have ended fee diversion, a diversion that has cost the invention 
community and our economy over a billion dollars in diverted funds. 
Unfortunately, the manager's amendment would severely undercut and 
really do away with that principle. I know as an appropriator I'm not 
supposed to be saying this. As a former member of the Judiciary 
Committee, however, I am, and that is, we should not be diverting these 
fees. We should not be diverting fees that need to be used to take down 
that backlog, to make sure that inventors can quickly patent their 
products and take them to market. This is part of our competitive 
economic advantage.
  And so I was very enthusiastic about that part of the bill. Concerned 
about others, concerned about moving to first-to-file, which I will 
talk about later, but now I am doubly concerned because I think the 
most constructive part of the bill has been seriously diminished.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I welcome my colleague's comments. However, I 
think the gentleman has a misunderstanding about the content of that 
provision. The provision in the manager's bill states that no moneys 
can be diverted from the fee collections. All of

[[Page H4390]]

the fees have to stay with the Patent Office. It has to be 
reprogrammed.
  Mr. SCHIFF. If I can reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCHIFF. May I have an additional 15 seconds?
  Mr. POLIS. I would express my hope to the gentleman from Florida that 
this discussion might continue on his time. We are down to our last 
minute and a half on this side.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
support of the rule but also in support of the manager's amendment.
  I think the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of one of the two 
committees that you have referred to here, is absolutely right, that 
these funds are sequestered and cannot be used for any other purpose. 
The Appropriations Committee may not appropriate all of the funds at 
one time, but they can only hold those funds in trust for the Patent 
Office. And then the Patent Office as they identify needs that need to 
be worked on will come to the appropriators, will come to you and your 
committee, and get approval for them. That maintains congressional 
oversight of the Patent Office. This is supported by the Commissioner 
of the Patent Office.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, and I will be very brief.
  If the funds that are sequestered--first of all, it requires another 
act of Congress to appropriate those sequestered funds back to the 
Patent Office. If it was never the intention to divert those, then why 
change the bill?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman may not be aware, but we have 
long had a practice on the Appropriations Committee of reprogramming 
funds within an agency's budget. All of the agencies have problems 
during the year where they need to change moneys from one particular 
account to another. That's fine. But they have to come to the 
Appropriations Committee for a reprogramming request. It's routine, 
it's considered normal, and it does not require an act of Congress. 
It's simply the signature of the chairman and the ranking Democrat of 
the Appropriations Committee, and the moneys are transferred.
  When the Patent Office collects fees that exceed its appropriated 
level, that amount of money is placed in a sort of escrow account, just 
for their purposes, just for their use. If they see the need for more 
funds, they simply send up another reprogramming request, and the 
moneys can be transferred from the escrow account to the Patent Office. 
It's a standard procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman.
  The only concluding point I want to make is the funds that are held 
in the escrow account, if the Congress subsequently decides because of 
budgetary problems they have a better use for those funds, they want to 
be used for something else, to pay down something else, there's nothing 
that precludes the Congress from reallocating those funds. The patent 
community, the inventor community, still has to come hat in hand to the 
Appropriations Committee and say, Please give us the money you put in 
escrow.
  There's no need to set up this account if we simply take this step in 
the underlying bill which would end diversion once and for all.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is not correct. This provision 
in the manager's amendment precludes the expenditure of this escrow 
account for any purpose other than Patent Office. It's in the manager's 
amendment, and the gentleman will have a chance to vote on it.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, appropriations are at the discretion of Congress every 
year. For that reason and others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
rule and the underlying bills. Patent reform is critical, it's 
important, and it's the right way to go, but this bill and the 
manager's amendment and the rule are the wrong approach.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to remove the $712 million plus CutGo waiver for amendments to 
H.R. 1249.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question, because while it has shortcomings, at 
least the CutGo rule provides some checks on increasing spending. By 
waiving CutGo today, this Congress might risk demonstrating how little 
we care about fiscal discipline.
  In order to get patent reform right, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule 
and the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  I don't like the idea that we have to waive CutGo any more than 
anyone else in this Chamber; however, if we want to maintain Congress's 
constitutional ability to appropriate funds, it is necessary.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 316 offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       Page 4, line 16, before the period insert the following: 
     ``except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee

[[Page H4391]]

     on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion for the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 316, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 672.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 184, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               AYES--230

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bishop (UT)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Davis (CA)
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Johnson (GA)
     Lucas
     Lummis
     McHenry
     Nunnelee
     Paulsen
     Stivers
     Thornberry
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1423

  Mrs. MALONEY, and Messrs. VAN HOLLEN, BERMAN, and CARNEY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 464, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


      Commemorating The 20,000th Vote Of The Honorable Norm Dicks

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise 
to call the attention of my colleagues to a milestone that one of our 
Members has now reached, a very significant milestone. One of my best 
friends in the House, who I served with on the Appropriations Committee 
for many years, and who greeted me when I first came to the Congress, 
my friend, Congressman Norm Dicks, has just recently cast his 20,000th 
vote in the House of Representatives. And I personally think almost 
every one of them was correct.
  Madam Speaker, it is a testament to his distinguished record of 
service in this Chamber, which began on January 3, 1977, at the start 
of the 85th Congress. Since that date, our colleague, Norm Dicks has 
continued to represent the people of the Sixth Congressional District 
of Washington, the cities of Bremerton and Tacoma, as well as the 
Olympic Peninsula, as he has worked his way up to the top of the 
leadership of the House Appropriations Committee. As some of you know, 
I refer to him as the Chairman in waiting.
  The expertise he has developed on defense and natural resource issues 
throughout those years on the committee is well known.
  Madam Speaker, as I indicated, Norm Dicks now serves as our ranking 
Democratic Member on the Appropriations Committee, and serves with the 
distinguished chairman, Hal Rogers from Kentucky.
  I believe I can speak for all of us, all of our Members today, in 
congratulating Norm on reaching this important milestone. And I think I 
can also say for both sides of the aisle, Norm Dicks is one of those 
Members who reaches across the aisle and tries to make policy in a 
positive way.
  Norm Dicks, I think, is an example for all of us. He's become one of 
the few Members of the House who has had the determination and 
endurance to remain engaged in the people's business for so long here 
in the House of Representatives.
  Norm, we congratulate you, not only on your 20,000th vote, but on the 
quality of service you have given to this

[[Page H4392]]

House, to this country, and to your district and Washington State. 
Congratulations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, 5-minute 
voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 186, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--239

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Lummis
     Stivers
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1437

  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________