On the recordJune 22, 2011
This manager's amendment is substantive. It contains provisions that should not be buried in a manager's amendment, and it should be defeated. First of all, it does maintain the fee diversion. It maintains the fee diversion because of an alleged lock box. We've heard about this before, and I have in my hand the Congressional Record of June 23, 2000, where the chairman, at the time, of the State, Justice, Commerce Subcommittee stated that the fees that are generated by the Patent Office are not to be used by any other agency or any other purpose. They remain in that account to be used in succeeding years. We are not siphoning off Patent Office fees for other expenditures. Well, guess what? It happened. And it's happened in the last 10 to 12 years to the tune of $1 billion. And this is exactly the same promise that they're making now. Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. Now, this change relative to the reported bill to what is in the manager's amendment is the thing that is subject to the waiver of CutGo to the tune of $717 million over the next 5 years. The proponents of this amendment say this is a mere technical waiver of CutGo. {time} 2110 $717 million is no mere technical waiver of CutGo. If you believe in CutGo, you've got to vote down the manager's amendment where this change was protected by the waiver granted for the Rules Committee. The amendment is substantive, it ought to be defeated.
