On the recordJune 22, 2011
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 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.…





