Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 50, line 18 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, there are 36 amendments at best count we have at this moment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4690 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 529 and the order of the House of June 22, 2000, except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable only for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; amendment No. 23 shall be debatable only for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and amendment No. 60 shall be debatable only for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield further, let me make this point: the argument is that we are squeezing this agency so that they are not able to process new patent applications rapidly enough. I would point out that 40 percent of their fee collections comes from maintenance of existing patents. And there is no significant workload associated with that, 40 percent of their fee generation. They requested $130 million in the budget. Only $22 million of that is for patent examiners, where they say the shortage is. The other increases they are asking for are really a lot of bells and whistles. I have to point out, they are preparing to build an enormous marble building down the river to consolidate all of their offices in one place. I do not know of an agency of the Government that is going to have a finer place to work, and that is fine. But I am just saying that the money they requested for patent examiners, where they say the problem is, is only $22 million. They ask for $130 million. Where is the other $108 million going?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me correct the gentlewoman's misunderstanding of that point. The fees that are generated by the Patent Office are not used for any other agency or any other purpose. They remain in that account to be used in succeeding years. We are not siphoning off the Patent Office fees for other expenditures.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, those fees remain in the Patent Office account for use in succeeding years. They are not siphoned off to any other purpose.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise in reluctant opposition simply because the offerer of the amendment is such a wonderful person and a great Representative and a great Chairman of the authorizing subcommittee dealing with the Patent and Trademark Office. But I have to oppose this amendment because it does enormous damage to the other agencies from which he seeks to take these monies. This amendment would slash the economic and statistical analysis part of the Department of Commerce by $10 million. That is a decrease to that small office of some 20 percent. And as my colleagues may or may not know, this office is the Nation's economic accountant. That is the office that develops measures and systems to collect the data from government and private sources to measure the Nation's gross domestic product and other economic indicators. Without that office being run at full staff, we would not know what the status of the American economy is. This bill provides $49 million for the ESA. We froze them at the current year level. And a decrease of 20 percent to this small office would seriously impact the country's ability to provide estimates of economic growth that everyone depends upon. Now, the amendment would also cut $40 million from the census and the program lines within the Bureau of the Census. A decrease of 30 percent would be crippling, and I do not think we want to cripple the census at this point, do we? But the most egregious cut would slash the Department of State Educational and Cultural Exchange program. It would cut it by almost in half, or $98.8 million cut. That would decimate things like the Fulbright Exchange Programs and the International Visitors Program. It would bring the international dialogue that is critical to American leadership in the world to a halt. This amendment would surely cause serious reductions in force, layoffs, in these agencies, and serious layoffs. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect and admiration and friendship for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). He is one of the best friends I have in this body, and I think he does a wonderful job in the chairmanship of the subcommittee for us, but I have to strongly oppose these amendments that would slash the funding for the Nation's Economic Statistics Agency that does our gross national product and for the Department of State's Educational and Cultural Exchange Program, which includes the Fulbright Scholarship Program, and the other cuts that I have mentioned before. Mr. Chairman, I have to urge and strongly urge a rejection of this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to state to the gentleman that, since 1994, we have increased the funding for this office by $250 million, $250 million over the last 5 years we have increased them. In this current bill, we are increasing them by $34 million. Now that is not exorbitant, but we think that the PTO has to live within the same constraints that all the other agencies of the Government must live within. They are not exempt from the regular laws of discipline that the rest of the agencies of the Government must live by. I appreciate the fact that they are generating huge amounts of money in the fees they collect, but these are Government-authorized fees.

Mr. ROGERS. The reason that I asked for a ruling was that this provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good amendment. I would hope that Members would support it. The USTR needs more funding, and we will attempt to remedy the source that the amendment seeks in later proceedings on this bill, so I would urge support for the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. We spent time listening to people who spoke on a matter that everyone knew was subject to a point of order and we allowed that to take place. I want to continue to be as lenient as possible and will do so to work with my colleagues, but we must bear in mind that we have to finish this bill before eternity strikes us.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, I do not think anyone can say that we were not completely lenient. I mean we sat here listening to maybe an hour and a half or 2 hours at one point.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that. However, yes we did that, and the debate went on interminably on items that were stricken on a point of order. I want to be lenient and to be fair, but there is a limit; we have a clock to deal with.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?