A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Patent Reform Act of 2011, which I understand will be retitled as the ``America Invents Act.''

When this bill was marked up in the Judiciary Committee in 2007 and again in 2009, I voted against it, and I submitted minority views to the committee report for the bill. In the 2009 committee report, Senators Russ Feingold and Tom Coburn joined me in identifying a set of issues that we felt needed to be addressed before the bill was ready for consideration by the full Senate. Chief among these were concerns about the bill's system of postissuance administrative review of patents. Senior career staff at the Patent Office had expressed deep misgivings about the office's ability to administer this system. In response, at the conclusion of the 2009 mark up, Chairman Leahy pledged to invite the Patent Office to work with the committee to address these concerns and to try to develop a system that the office would be able to administer.

Chairman Leahy carried through on his pledge and held those meetings later that year. As a result, important changes were made to the bill, eventually resulting in a managers' amendment that was announced in 2010 by Chairman Leahy and then-Ranking Member Sessions. The 2010 managers' amendment, which is also the basis of the present bill, substantially addressed all of the concerns that Senators Feingold and Coburn and I raised in the 2009 Minority Report. As a result, I became a cosponsor of that amendment, and am proud to cosponsor and support the bill that is before us today.

I will take a few moments today to describe the key changes that led to the 2010 breakthrough on this bill. But first, I would like to address an important aspect of the bill that has recently become the subject of some controversy. This is the bill's change to a first- inventor-to-file patent system.

About two-thirds of the present bill has never been controversial and has been included in all of the various iterations of this bill ever since the first patent reform act was introduced in 2005 by Mr. Lamar Smith, who was then the chairman of the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee. Mr. Smith's 2005 bill, H.R. 2795, included the following proposals: it switched the United States from a first-to-invent patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. The Smith bill enacted chapter 32 of title 35, creating a first-window, post-grant opposition procedure. It authorized third parties to submit and explain relevant prior art to the Patent Office with respect to an application before a patent is issued. The Smith bill amended the inventor's oath, and expanded the rights of assignees to prosecute a patent application under section 118. And it also eliminated subjective elements from the patent code, and included the first proposal for creating derivation proceedings. All of these elements of Mr. Smith's original 2005 bill are retained in the bill that is before us today, and are, in fact, the most important parts of the bill. And, until recently, these provisions had not proven controversial.

After the announcement of the 2010 managers' amendment, however, members of the Judiciary Committee began to hear more from critics of the bill's move to a first-to-file system. Under current law's first- to-invent system, a patent applicant or owner has priority against other patents or applications, or against invalidating prior art, if he conceived of his invention before the other inventor conceived of his invention or before the prior art was disclosed. Under the first-to- file system, by contrast, the same priority is determined by when the application for patent was filed. Whichever inventor files first has priority, and third-party prior art is measured against the filing date, and is invalidating if it disclosed the invention before the date when the application was filed, rather than the date when the invention was conceived.

In commentary that was published on Sunday, February 27, Mr. Gene Quinn, the writer of the IP Watchdog Web site, made some worthy points about the present bill's proposed move to a first-to-file system. Responding to critics of first to file, Mr. Quinn first noted that: in practical effect, we already have a first inventor to file system. For example, since the start of fiscal year 2005 on October 1, 2004, there have been over 2.9 million patent applications filed and only 502 Interferences decided. An Interference Proceeding occurs when multiple inventors file an application claiming the same invention, and is the hallmark of a first to invent system . . . . On top of the paltry 502 Interferences over nearly 7 years, a grand total of 1 independent inventor managed to demonstrate they were the first to invent, and a grand total of 35 small entities were even involved in an Interference.

In other words, as Mr. Quinn notes, although the first-to-invent system is supposed to help the little guy, over the last seven years, only one independent inventor has managed to win an interference contest and secure the benefits of the first to invent system. And again, this is out of nearly 3 million patent applications filed over this period.

Mr. Quinn's comments also debunk the notion that an interference proceeding is a viable means of securing first-to-invent rights for independent and other small inventors. He notes that:

On top of this, the independent inventors and small

entities, those typically viewed as benefiting from the

current first to invent system, realistically could never

benefit from such a system. To prevail as the first to invent

and second to file, you must prevail in an Interference

proceeding, and according to 2005 data from the AIPLA, the

average cost through an interference is over $600,000. So

let's not kid ourselves, the first to invent system cannot be

used by independent inventors in any real, logical or

intellectually honest way, as supported by the reality of the

numbers above. . . . [F]irst to invent is largely a ``feel

good'' approach to patents where the underdog at least has a

chance, if they happen to have $600,000 in disposable income

to invest on the crap-shoot that is an Interference

proceeding.

Obviously, the parties that are likely to take advantage of a system that costs more than half a million dollars to utilize are not likely to be small and independent inventors. Indeed, it is typically major corporations that invoke and prevail in interference proceedings. The very cost of the proceeding alone effectively ensures that

it is these larger parties that benefit from this system. In many cases, small inventors such as start ups and universities simply cannot afford to participate in an interference, and they surrender their rights once a well-funded party starts such a proceeding.

Mr. Quinn's article also responded to critics who allege that the present bill eliminates the grace period for patent applications. The grace period is the one-year period prior to filing when the inventor may disclose his invention without giving up his right to patent. Mr. Quinn quotes the very language of this bill, and draws the obvious conclusion:

Regardless of the disinformation that is widespread, the

currently proposed S. 23 does, in fact, have a grace period.

The grace period would be quite different than what we have

now and would not extend to all third party activities, but

many of the horror stories say that if someone learns of your

invention from you and beats you to the Patent Office, they

will get the patent. That is simply flat wrong.

Mr. Quinn is, of course, referring to the bill's proposed section 102(b). Under paragraph (1)(A) of that section, disclosures made by the inventor, or someone who got the information from the inventor, less than 1 year before the application is filed do not count as prior art. And under paragraph (1)(B), during the 1-year period before the application is filed, if the inventor publicly discloses his invention, no subsequently disclosed prior art, regardless of whether it is derived from the inventor, can count as prior art and invalidate the patent. This effectively creates a ``first to publish'' rule that protects those inventors who choose to disclose their invention. An inventor who publishes his invention, or discloses it at a trade show or academic conference, or otherwise makes it publicly available, has an absolute right to priority if he files an application within one year of his disclosure. No application effectively filed after his disclosure, and no prior art disclosed after his disclosure, can defeat his application for patent.

These rules are highly protective of inventors, especially those who share their inventions with the interested public but still file a patent application within a year. These rules are also clear, objective, and transparent. They create unambiguous guidelines for inventors. An inventor who wishes to keep his invention secret must file an application promptly, before another person discloses the invention to the public. And an inventor can also share his invention with others. If his activities make the invention publicly available, he must file an application within a year, but his disclosures also prevents any subsequently disclosed prior art from taking away his right to patent. The bill's proposed section 102 also creates clear guidelines for those who practice in a technology. To figure out if a patent is valid against prior art, all that a manufacturer needs to do is look at the patent's filing date and figure out whether the inventor publicly disclosed the invention. If prior art disclosed the invention to the public before the filing date, or if the inventor disclosed the invention within a year of filing but the prior art predates that disclosure, then the invention is invalid. And if not, the patent is valid against a prior-art challenge.

Some critics of the first-to-file system also argue that it will be expensive for inventors because they will be forced to rush to file a completed application, rather than being able to rely on their invention date and take their time to complete an application. These critics generally ignore the possibility of filing a provisional application, which requires only a written description of the invention and how to make it. Once a provisional application is filed, the inventor has a year to file a completed application. Currently, filing a provisional application costs $220 for a large entity, and $110 for a small entity.

One of Mr. Quinn's earlier columns, on November 7, 2009, effectively rebuts the notion that relying on invention dates offers inventors any substantial advantage over simply filing a provisional application. As he notes:

If you rely on first to invent and are operating at all

responsibly you are keeping an invention notebook that will

meet evidentiary burdens if and when it is neces-

sary to demonstrate conception prior to the conception of the

party who was first to file. . . .

[Y]our invention notebook or invention record will detail,

describe, identify and date conception so that others skilled

in the art will be able to look at the notebook/record and

understand what you did, what you knew, and come to the

believe that you did in fact appreciate what you had. If you

have this, you have provable conception. If you have provable

and identifiable conception, you also have a disclosure that

informs and supports the invention. . . . [And] [i]f the

notebook provably demonstrates conception, then it can be

filed as a provisional patent application at least for the

purpose of staking a claim to the conception that is detailed

with enough specificity to later support an argument in a

first to invent regime.

In other words, the showing that an inventor must make in a provisional application is effectively the same showing that he would have to make to prove his invention date under the first-to-invent system. A small inventor operating under first-to-invent rules already must keep independently-validated notebooks that show when he conceived of his invention. Under first-to-file rules, the only additional steps that the same inventor must take are writing down the same things that his notebooks are supposed to prove filing that writing with the Patent Office, and paying a $110 fee.

Once the possibility of filing a provisional application is considered, along with this bill's enhanced grace period, it should be clear that the first-to-file system will not be at all onerous for small inventors. And once one considers the bill's clean, clear rules for prior art and priority dates, its elimination of subjective elements in patent law, its new proceeding to correct patents, and its elimination of current patent-forfeiture pitfalls that trap legally unwary inventors, it is clear that this bill will benefit inventors both large and small.

Allow me to also take a moment to briefly describe the concerns that Senators Feingold and Coburn and I raised in our 2009 Minority Report, and how the present bill addresses those concerns.

Senators Feingold and Coburn and I proposed that the bill impose a higher threshold showing for instituting an inter partes, or post-grant review. This had long been a top priority for the Patent Office, both under the previous administration and under the current one. The Patent Office made clear that a higher threshold is necessary to weed out marginal challenges and preserve the office's own resources, and that a higher threshold would also force parties to front-load their cases, allowing these proceedings to be resolved more quickly. The present bill imposes higher thresholds, requiring a reasonable likelihood of invalidity for inter partes review, and more-likely-than-not invalidity for post-grant review.

Senators Feingold and Coburn and I also recommended that the Patent Office be allowed to operate inter partes reexamination as an adjudicative proceeding, where the burden of proof is on the challenger and the office simply decides whether the challenger has met his burden. The present bill makes this change, repealing requirements that inter partes be run on an examinational model and allowing the PTO to adopt an adjudicative model.

The 2009 Minority Report also recommended that the bill restrict serial administrative challenges to patents and require coordination of these proceedings with litigation. We also called for limiting use of ex parte reexamination to patent owners, noting that allowing three different avenues for administrative attack on patents invites serial challenges. The present bill does coordinate inter partes and post- grant review with litigation, barring use of these proceedings if the challenger seeks a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid, and setting a time limit for seeking inter partes review if the petitioner or related parties is sued for infringement of the patent. The present bill does not, however, bar the use of ex parte reexamination by third parties. The Patent Office and others persuaded me that these proceedings operate reasonably well in most cases and are not an undue burden on patent owners. The present bill does, however, impose limits on serial challenges that will also restrict the use of ex parte reexamination. The bill's enhanced administrative estoppel will effectively bar a third party or related parties from invoking ex parte reexamination against a patent if that third party has already employed post-grant or inter partes review against that patent.

Also, the bill allows the Patent Office to reject any request for a proceeding, including a request for ex parte reexamination, if the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office with respect to that patent.

Senators Feingold and Coburn and I also recommended that the PTO be allowed to delay implementation of post-grant review if the office lacks the resources to implement that new proceeding. The present bill includes a number of safeguards that are the product of discussions with the PTO. Among other things, the present bill authorizes a ramp-up period, allowing the office to limit the number of proceedings that can be implemented during the first 4 years after the new proceeding becomes effective.

The 2009 Minority Report also recommended that treble damages be preserved as a meaningful deterrent to willful or calculated infringement of a patent. The present bill does so, eliminating the restrictive three-buckets approach and broad safe harbors that appeared in the bill in 2009. The report also recommended that the bill remove subjective elements from patent law, such as the various deceptive- intent elements throughout the code and the patent-forfeiture doctrines. The present bill effectively makes both changes. In fact, the 2007 bill had already been modified in mark up to eliminate the patent forfeiture doctrines, a point elucidated in that year's committee report and confirmed by a review of the relevant caselaw.

This last point should also help address a question that Mr. Quinn raised in his column on Sunday regarding proposed section 102(b)'s use of the word ``disclosure,'' and whether it covers public use or sale activities of the inventor. I would have thought that the meaning of the word would be clear: a disclosure is something that makes the invention available to the public--the same test applied by section 102(a) to define the scope of relevant prior art. And ``available to the public'' means the same thing that ``publicly accessible'' does in the context of a publication. Subject matter makes an invention publicly accessible or available if an interested person who is skilled in the field could, through reasonable diligence, find the subject matter and understand the invention from it. Obviously, Congress would not create a grace period that is narrower in scope than the relevant prior art. Thus for example, under this bill, any activity by the inventor that would constitute prior art under section 102(a)(1) would also invoke the grace period under section 102(b)(1). As a result, the inventor would be protected against his own activities so long as he files within a year, and under the bill's ``first to publish'' provisions, he would also be protected by any other person's disclosure of the invention, regardless of whether he could prove that the other person derived the invention from him.

The present bill is the product of almost a decade of hard work, including three Judiciary Committee mark ups, and the untold hours of work by Mr. Smith and other members of the House of Representatives that led to the introduction of the Patent Reform Act of 2005, the foundation of today's bill. This is a bill that will protect our heritage of innovation while updating the patent system for the current century. It will fix problems with current administrative proceedings, create new means for improving patent quality, and will generally move us toward a patent system that is objective, transparent, clear, and fair to all parties. I look forward to the Senate's passage of this bill and its enactment into law.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gene Quinn's columns of February 27, 2011, and November 7, 2009, with corrections of a few typos and enhancements of punctuation, be printed in the Record.

I would urge my colleagues to fully participate in this debate, come to the floor with any questions or comments they have, and at the end of this process Chairman Leahy will finally be rewarded with a bill that will bear his imprimatur and support, a bill that will be extraordinarily important to the future well-being of the people of the United States of America.

I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, it is a great privilege and honor for me to be able to represent the big, wonderful, diverse Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the Senate. Pennsylvania is a wonderful State. It has a terrific range of great attributes. It has big, bustling cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh at opposite ends; has all throughout the Commonwealth beautiful, historical boroughs such as Emmaus and Gettysburg. We go from the banks of the Delaware all the way to the shores of Lake Erie.

In a State this big, of course, we have a wide range of very vital industries. We have old industries that we have had for a long time and are still very important employers: agriculture, coal, steel, and many others. We are a big manufacturing State, manufacturing goods of all kinds. We have a huge service sector, especially in the fields of education, medicine, finance, tourism, and many others. We have some relatively new and very exciting industries in our Commonwealth that I am very hopeful will lead to an acceleration of job growth soon. I am thinking in particular of the natural gas and the Marcellus shale. I am thinking of the life sciences, all across the Commonwealth, especially in greater Philadelphia and greater Pittsburgh as well as in points in between. The medical device sector and pharmaceutical industries are offering some of the most exciting opportunities for economic growth anywhere in the Commonwealth.

So when I think about the diversity and the strength of our Commonwealth, I am convinced that Pennsylvania's best days are ahead of us.

That said, despite all of the underlying strengths and advantages we have, we have an economy that is struggling. We have job creation that is far too slow. As I said repeatedly throughout my campaign for the Senate seat and as I have said since then, I think there are two vital priorities that we need to focus on first and foremost here in Washington. The first is economic growth and the job creation that comes with it, and the second is restoring fiscal discipline to a government that has lost all sense of fiscal discipline. These two, of course, are closely related. We will never have the kind of job growth we need and we deserve until we get our fiscal house in order.

But I look at them as separate issues. I think they should be at the top of our priority list. I am absolutely convinced we can have terrific economic growth, terrific job growth. We can have the prosperity we have been looking for.

In fact, it is actually inevitable if the Federal Government follows the right policies, remembering first and foremost that prosperity comes from the private sector, it does not come from government itself, but that government creates an environment in which the private sector can thrive and create the jobs we so badly need. I would argue that the government does that by doing four things and doing them well.

The first is to make sure we have a legal system that respects property rights, because the clear title and ownership and ability to use private property is the cornerstone of a free enterprise system.

It requires, second, that the government establish sensible regulations that are not excessive, because excessive regulation--and frankly we have seen a lot of excessive regulation recently--too much regulation always has unintended consequences that curb our ability to create the jobs we need.

A third thing a government always needs to do is provide a stable currency, sound money, because debasing one's currency is the way to ruin, not the way to prosperity.

Fourth, governments need to live within their means. They cannot be spending too much money and they cannot have taxes at too high a level.

It is so important that government spending remain limited and, frankly,

much less than we have today, for several reasons. One, of course, government spending is the political allocation of capital rather than the allocation of free people and a free economy. The political allocation is always less efficient than that of men and women engaging in free enterprise.

Secondly, the reason too much spending is problematic is because it ultimately always has to be paid for with higher taxes. Higher taxes clearly impede economic growth and prevent job creation. They do that in many ways, not the least of which is diminishing the incentives to make investments, to take risks, to launch new enterprises, to hire new workers.

I would argue that of these four priorities, the government is not doing such a great job. The failure is most egregious when it comes to the level of spending that has recently developed in this town. The recent surge in spending amounts to about a 25-percent increase in the size of the government virtually overnight.

The government is now spending--this Federal Government alone--fully 25 percent of our entire economic output. Frankly, this huge surge in spending has not worked. The unemployment rate has stayed near to 10 percent, our deficits are now over $1\1/2\ trillion in a single year. That is more than 10 percent of our entire economy.

Of course, when you run annual deficits where you are spending more than you bring in, that shortfall is made up for with new borrowings. So we have been adding to our debt at what I think is an alarming pace. I would argue that this mounting debt is already today costing us job growth. It is costing us jobs because it creates a tremendous uncertainty in our economic future when we are not on a sustainable fiscal path. That uncertainty itself discourages entrepreneurs and job creators from doing the kinds of things we need.

The risks are very real. History is replete with examples of countries that have accumulated too much debt. Frankly, it never ends well. Very often it leads to very high rates of inflation. It can lead to much higher interest rates, which can have a crippling effect on job growth. It can even lead to financial disruptions which can be very harmful, as we have recently seen.

With the recent acceleration in the size of our deficits and the increase in our debts, we are now rapidly closing in on the statutory limit to the amount of money that the Federal Government is permitted to borrow under law. That is an amount of over $14 trillion, but the truth is we are rapidly closing in on that limit. We will get there fairly soon.

The administration has suggested that we ought to, here in Congress, vote to raise that limit with no conditions attached. I have to tell you I think it is a very bad idea. This brings to mind the case of a family that is routinely living beyond their means. They routinely are spending more than their income and making up for the difference by running up to the limit on their credit cards. When this family reaches the limit on all of the credit cards they have, who thinks it is a good idea to give them another credit card?

I think most folks in Pennsylvania think it is probably time to reexamine the spending and look at the real problem that has gotten the family in this situation. I think that is where we are as a government. I think we need to fundamentally reexamine the spending we have been engaged in.

I will say clearly, I think failure to raise the debt limit promptly upon reaching it is not optimal and it would be very disruptive. I hope that does not come to pass. But I happen to think the most irresponsible thing we could do is simply raise this debt limit and run up even more debt without making changes to the problems that got us into this fix.

Specifically what I think we need to do is have real cuts in spending--now, not later, not at some distant hypothetical point in time in the future but now. That is one.

Second, I think we need real reform in the spending process, reform in the way Congress goes about its business, because the process is part of what has gotten us here.

I wish to see a balanced budget amendment, one with real teeth, one that requires our books to be balanced, one that limits the total spending to a reasonable percentage of our economy, and one that makes it harder to raise taxes. I think that would be a very good development. But that will take several years, at best, if we can get that implemented. Of course, all of the States have to agree.

In the meantime, I would hope we could have statutory spending caps, limits to how much the Federal Government can spend, and a mechanism that would redress the problem if for some reason we exceeded those limits.

As we have had this debate over whether we should attach these conditions to raising the debt limit, some have suggested this is a very dangerous discussion to have, because failure to immediately raise the debt limit, some have suggested, amounts to a default on our Treasury securities, on the borrowings we have already incurred.

That is not true. I think it is irresponsible to suggest that. The fact is the ongoing revenue from taxes that will be collected whether or not we immediately raise the debt limit--the ongoing revenue is more than 10 times all the money needed to stay current on our debt service. In fact, in the last 20 years, there have been four occasions when we have reached the debt limit without immediately raising it, and we never defaulted on our debt. This country never will. So I do not think we should have a discussion about something that is not going to happen. But since some in the administration have raised the specter of a default, I have introduced legislation that would clearly take that risk off the table entirely. My bill is called the Full Faith and Credit Act. It simply says, in the event we reach the debt limit without having raised it, it instructs the Treasury to make sure the debt service is the top priority. This guarantees that we would not default on our Treasuries, we would not create a financial crisis of any kind, and maybe, more importantly, it would be a great reassurance to the millions of Americans who have lent this government their money, the millions of Americans who hold Treasury bonds in their IRAs, their 401(k)s, their pension plans.

The retirees who live in Allentown, PA, who have lived modestly, saved money, and with their retirement savings have invested in the U.S. Treasury, I think those folks deserve the peace of mind of knowing that the first priority is going to make sure we honor the obligations and stay current on our debts.

I want to take a moment to thank Senator Vitter, because yesterday he came down to the floor and introduced my legislation as an amendment to the current patent reform bill. I hope we will be able to soon pass my amendment. I hope we will soon get to a vote here on the Senate floor. The real reason is, I want to remove this false specter of a default on our debt, so we can have an honest debate over how we are going to get spending under control--what kind of spending cuts we are going to have right now, and what kind of reforms we are going to make to the process going forward.

I do not think we can kick this can down the road anymore. We have been doing that for a long time. As I said earlier, it never ends well when governments continue taking on too much debt. Nobody here that I know wants to see a government shutdown. Nobody wants to see the disruption that would come from failing to raise the debt limit at some point. But nor can we proceed with business as usual.

All across Pennsylvania I hear every day when I am back home how important it is that this government learn to live within its means as Pennsylvania businesses and families have done.

Let me close by saying I still remain absolutely convinced we can have a terrific economic recovery. We can have a booming economic growth and the tremendous job creation that goes with it. It is overdue, but it can still arrive if we pass the kind of policies that create the right environment.

I am convinced the 21st century will be another great American century and Pennsylvania will be at the forefront.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I would say that as soon as we can work out the specifics with the staff, that is exactly the intention that Senator Vitter and I came to. So a single vote on the merger of two amendments.

I would take a moment to thank Senator Vitter for his help. Senator Vitter was kind enough to offer the text of my legislation as an amendment to the patent reform bill. What he is adding is suggesting that the legislation should require the Treasury to prioritize not only the debt service so we can avoid under all circumstances a default by the U.S. Government, but also making sure Social Security payments get the priority they deserve.

The fact is, in the unlikely--and I would say certainly unfortunate-- event that we were to reach the debt limit without having raised it, the Federal Government would still take in more than enough revenue to pay all of the interest service on the debt and all Social Security benefits. It is entirely manageable from an operational and functional point of view. Total revenue to the government from taxes alone is on the order of 70 percent of all expected expenditures. Debt service is only about 6 percent.

I appreciate the help of the Senator from Louisiana. By combining this, what we do--if we can pass this legislation, which I hope we will--is take off the table the specter of a default. We can take off the table the specter of any senior citizen not getting their Social Security payment. What we can then do is have an honest discussion about how are we going to reform a process that has gotten us into this fix--gotten us to the point where we are running a deficit of 10 percent of GDP, where our total debt is screaming toward totally unsustainable levels.

I can tell my colleagues, the folks in Pennsylvania know very well we cannot continue living beyond our means as this government has been. I see this as a very constructive, important opportunity to begin to have this discussion about how we are going to get this process under control.

I appreciate the help from Senator Vitter, and I yield.

Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Vitter for yielding his time and for his help on this effort. I want to be very clear. First, I am not aware of anybody in this body or anybody I know who wants to see a government shutdown. I am not aware of anybody who wants to see the disruption that would result from failing to raise the debt ceiling at the appropriate time. But I also feel strongly it is critical we take this opportunity to begin to address the structural problems we have.

The fact is we have a burden of debt right now that is costing us jobs in this country today. The uncertainty it creates, the cost of financing this, the question of whether and for how long we can roll this over, the extent to which inflation becomes a problem, all of these risk factors are already weighing on our economy and our ability to create jobs now. For the future, it is an even bigger risk.

Senator Vitter and I have taken this step so we can have an honest discussion about how we are going to bring this spending under control and the process reforms we are going to make so we can hopefully get off this unsustainable path and get on a sustainable trajectory for the economic growth we need. That is ultimately what this measure is all about. It simply says that in the event we reach the debt limit without having raised it first--and let's face it, we have been there before. This has happened in the past. In the last 20 years, it has happened on several occasions. So it is entirely possible that, despite the best efforts of those of us who want to avoid it, it could happen again.

If it were to happen again, we want to make sure that we have no default on our debt, that interest is paid, and that Social Security checks go to the recipients as they should. There will be plenty of resources from ongoing tax revenue to make sure that happens, and anything less would be very irresponsible.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Damages Language

Mr. President, if I can take the minute to rebut my colleague, first of all, it is true it would be very disruptive and there would be some chaos if we had a shutdown or if we eventually failed to raise the debt limit. This amendment, of course, does not cause that. This amendment, in fact, is designed precisely to prevent the kind of chaos that might otherwise ensue by simply ensuring that under no circumstances whatsoever would the United States Government default on its debt.

I think we all agree that the last thing we should ever tolerate would be a situation in which the United States Government would default on our debt. The chaos that would result from that would be devastating. So this is an amendment that says, in the event the debt limit is not raised when we reach it--and, by the way, we have been there before, so it is not inconceivable--that we would make sure we, under no circumstances, would default on the debt.

Because Senator Vitter offered a modification to this amendment, essentially the merger of these amendments ensures that Social Security payments would also go out. By the way, there is more than sufficient revenue from ongoing taxes to ensure that could be done. So in the interests of avoiding the chaos of an actual default, I think this absolutely should occur.

By the way, I think it is also important to note that a majority of all of the debt issued by this government is held by Americans. They are held by senior citizens who live in Allentown, PA, and who have saved their whole life and invested that savings in U.S. Treasury securities.

I think it is very important that we send the message to them that even if we are not able to get our work done and raise the debt limit, as I hope we will at the appropriate time, we certainly would not default on the debt they hold.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 112

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am soon going to ask for a vote on the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl managers' amendment. It resolves a number of issues in the bill, including fee diversion and business method patents damages, venue issues. Senators Coburn, Schumer, Bennet, Whitehouse, Coons, and others worked with us on those issues. I would like to vote on that and then go to the amendment offered yesterday by Senator Bennet on satellite patent offices, with a modification, as well as the modified amendment offered by Senator Kirk and Senator Pryor on ombudsman. If we can do that, we can get much of this finished. But while I am waiting for the--just so everybody will know, I am going to ask for a vote on that very soon. But I am waiting for the ranking member to come back.

I see the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, and I yield to her.

Mr. President, we have the Leahy-Grassley managers' amendment at the desk. I have a modification to it. I ask that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, we are prepared to go to a rollcall vote on this right now. I don't see the ranking member. As a courtesy, I am willing to wait a few more minutes before calling for the vote. While we are waiting for my friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I will note that what we are talking about is bipartisan legislation; it is supported by both business and labor.

People ask whether Congress can work together and whether, with all the problems facing America, Republicans and Democrats can come together to get work done, make things work, and do things that can make America stronger and more competitive in the world. This is a bill that does that. That is why we have a broad group of cosponsors in both parties across the political spectrum. It enables us to actually do something.

We have a decades-old patent system, which may have made sense in the time when you had patents that might not be superseded by new inventions for years. Now they can be superseded the day they come in. That is why we have 700,000 patents applications waiting to be processed. It is also why countries such as China and others are beginning to surpass us in their innovation, because we have been slow to catch up. We are in a situation where we are unable to compete with the rest of the industrialized nations. Their patent laws are ahead of ours. So this is a case where we in America have a chance to catch up. We do it without adding a cent to the deficit, but we also create jobs. Every major manufacturer in this country and inventors have said this is where we will create jobs.

I look at it, of course, with the point of view that my little State of Vermont on a per capita basis has more patents than any other State. We even had more than some States larger than ours. The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from a State that has spent a great deal of time and effort on innovation and is one of the leaders in the number of patents, especially in the high-tech area, in this country. But the patents don't help us compete unless we are able to move with them. We in Vermont have a long history of innovation and invention. The first patent in the United States was signed by George Washington after being cleared by Thomas Jefferson and granted to a Vermonter.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator has been involved in this right from the beginning. We have worked at having a bill that would be in the best interests of the Senate under both Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum. We have worked very closely together.

We run the risk of countries in Asia and Europe out-innovating the United States, and the patent systems in other countries are well ahead of us. If we want to compete, as I know the Senator from Arizona does, and I know I do, we want to have the best tools to compete. I believe Americans can compete with any country in the world, but they should at least have the tools to do it and be able to play--it becomes almost a clich, but we have to play on a level playing field. This will allow us to do that.

I compliment the Senator from Arizona for the way he has worked in his constant efforts in the committee, the public meetings, but that is the tip of the iceberg; it is the hundreds of hours of behind-the- scenes working to reach where we are. So I hope sometime in the next few minutes or so we can at least vote on the managers' package and then get going with the bill, because this is something that can be voted on, can be passed. We have been working, as the Senator from Arizona knows, very closely with our counterparts in the other body. I know Chairman Smith would like to move quickly. We could have a bill on the President's desk in a relatively short time.

I thank the Senator for his kind words.

Madam President, I thought the amendment pending is the managers' amendment.

Madam President, before he does that, would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator from Louisiana has been talking about amendment No. 112. Does that mean you are withdrawing 113?

So am I correct that amendment No. 113 is withdrawn?

You modified No. 112. I didn't know what you wanted to do with amendment No. 113.

Madam President, the Senator raised some questions with me, both in committee and out of the committee, with respect to each other's positions. I appreciate his work in the committee to expedite getting the bill out of the committee. Like him, I believe it is extraordinarily important to level the playing to allow American innovators to compete in the world and within our country. I compliment the Senator and, as he knows, I have included his proposal in the managers' amendment because I thought it was a good proposal.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 p.m. be for debate on the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 121, as modified, which I believe is pending, and the Vitter for Toomey amendment No. 112, as modified, en bloc, and divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 121, as modified; that upon disposition of the Leahy-Grassley amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Vitter for Toomey amendment No. 112, as modified; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that there be no amendments in order to any of the amendments listed in this agreement prior to the vote; further, that the Vitter amendment No. 113, as modified, be withdrawn.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to ask a question about the proposal that the Senator from California will make on pay, which is fine with me. Can we not have an alternative in the bill that we give the money to charity so somebody would actually see it? This would be one one-hundred thousandth of 1 percent, according to the Treasury. The last time we had a shutdown, I just voluntarily gave $4,000, $5,000 to charity. Would it not make a lot more sense, and actually people might get some benefit from it, especially places such as homeless shelters? They are going to be hurt by a government shutdown. Why not do something where they would get the money directly?

We could, actually, by saying either return it to the Treasury or give an equal amount to charity and file with the Secretary of the Senate to which charity they gave it.

Not if one gives the full amount.

While the Senator is waiting for that, if I might ask the Senator a question.

Article 2 of the Constitution says:

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his

services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased

nor diminished during the period for which he shall be

elected.

Would the Senator's amendment be constitutional under that provision? And remember that we voted to increase the pay of the President when President Clinton--if I could have the attention of the Senator--

Between the time when President Clinton was in office, but it did not take effect until President George W. Bush came in and it doubled the salary for President Bush but not President Clinton. How do you, by statute, change, even for a matter of days, a Presidential salary? Doesn't it violate article 2 of the Constitution?

But you are saying that even though it goes directly against the Constitution, which says his compensation shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall be elected, that unless he objected--well, by the same token, why couldn't we raise the pay of a President unless he objected?

It seems to be a total violation of the Constitution.

But we have some responsibility in this body to actually pass laws that are constitutional. It would, if there were a shutdown, and if upon a per-diem basis his salary was decreased, why isn't that de facto a violation of the Constitution?

Of course you are.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about an extraordinary event.

That is not my question.

I don't disagree with anything the Senator is saying, but how do you get--it would be like reducing a judge's salary. The Constitution specifically prohibits that. You say it is not reducing, but of course it is. If you say we are shut down 5 days, take whatever percentage 5 days of the President's annual salary is, you withhold it--you are not going to give it back when the government comes back into service--you have decreased his salary.

I am not suggesting not doing it for the Congress, but I don't see how--I am not sure what kind of example we set if we pass a piece of legislation which on the face of it violates the Constitution. I am not talking about Members of Congress. As I said, the last time we had a shutdown I took whatever was my amount and added it to the thousands and thousands of dollars I give every year to charity. I added it to that. But in this case, you go against article 2 by decreasing the President's salary.

Of course you do.

So is the Senator saying we set the right example by passing a bill which, on the face of it, violates the Constitution, but it is okay unless somebody challenges it?

You just cut it for those days.

Yes, the Senator is correct. I thank her for her hard work in putting together the gatekeeper damages language with Senator Specter and myself in committee last Congress. It was instrumental in helping to move this bill forward. However, as the Senator from California recognizes, the courts have advanced the law regarding damages since then. For example, in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., decided just this year, the Federal Circuit held that expert testimony regarding a ``rule of thumb'' for allocating profits between a patent user and a patent owner did not meet the Daubert test for expert testimony, and was inadmissible. And in Lucent Technologies Corp. v. Gateway, Inc., the

Federal Circuit found that no rational jury could have concluded a ``tiny feature of one part of a much larger software program with numerous features . . . appear[ing] to account for the overwhelming majority of consumer demand'' was worth an 8% royalty.'' This represented a new, greater level of review for jury damages assessment. In light of cases like these, it no longer appears necessary for this bill to contain language regarding the assessment of damages.

Yes, it is. The courts have been making good progress in developing the law in this area, and I do not believe patent reform legislation should interfere with this progress. Should the House propose or pass some language on damages, I will certainly consult with the Senator from California to obtain her views on that language.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Leahy- Grassley-Kyl, et al., managers' amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I want to thank all Senators for supporting adoption of the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl managers' amendment. This consensus amendment is a compromise that resolves a number of the key outstanding issues in the bill, including fee diversion, business method patents, damages and venue. I want to take a moment to discuss the importance of these provisions.

First, the provisions in this managers' amendment that end fee diversion from the PTO are supported by all corners of the patent community. Today, users fund 100 percent of the PTO's operations. The PTO does not take a dime of taxpayer money. For all of the improvements that this legislation makes to our patent system, the Patent Office will always be hindered if it cannot retain the funds it generates to more adequately plan for its future. Today, as we ask our Patent Office to unleash the best in innovation from our businesses, our Patent Office does not have the funding to do the same for itself. Ending fee diversion will better equip the patent office with the resources to tackle the complexities of the 21st century.

Second, the managers' amendment creates a temporary proceeding at the Patent Office to reexamine certain business method patents. I appreciate the work that Senator Schumer has done on this issue, and the provisions included in the managers' amendment represents a middle- ground that bridges a divide on this issue between the financial and tech communities that reside in all of our States.

Third, the managers' amendment strikes provisions on damages and venue. Removing these provisions addresses recent concerns voiced by certain Members of the House, and raised by the high-tech community.

Finally, this managers' amendment wraps in Senator Bennet's previously offered amendment to provide a 50-percent reduction in fees for small business accelerated patent applications at the PTO, as well as some technical amendments. This break for small businesses, which drive innovation and create jobs, will better enable them to compete with the demands of the 21st century.

As we return to the America Invents Act, I encourage any Senator who has a germane amendment to come and debate it now. This is bipartisan legislation that our economy desperately needs. It will allow the PTO to function, and our inventors and innovators to flourish. If any other Senators have amendments, this is the time. We need to move on to other pressing matters as soon as we complete work on this bill.

Mr. President, first, I commend Chairman Leahy and the entire Judiciary Committee for their work on this bill. The chairman has endured so many ups and downs and different versions, and we would not be here today if not for him.

I rise to speak in support of the America Invents Act, a bill to overhaul our patent system, which plays such a critical role in our economy. It is one of the main reasons America has been able to maintain its competitive edge.

The Commerce Department estimates that up to 75 percent of the economic growth in our Nation since World War II is due to technological innovation--innovation made possible by a patent system that protects the rights to that innovation.

I have seen the importance and success of the patent system firsthand in Minnesota, which has brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note. In Minnesota, we know how important the patent system is to our economy. We rank sixth in the Nation in patents per capita and have the second highest number of medical device patents over the last 5 years. Companies such as 3M, Ecolab, and Medtronic are well-known leaders in innovation, but Minnesota also supports innovative small businesses such as NVE Corporation and Arizant Healthcare. We are now first per capita, in fact, for Fortune 500 companies in our State, and that is in large part because of innovation. So many of these companies started small, invented products, and got patents which were protected. People weren't copying their products, and they were able to grow and produce jobs in our country.

Having a patent system that works for small business is particularly critical to creating jobs in America. But our patent laws haven't had a major update since 1952. The system is outdated and has become a burden on our innovators and entrepreneurs. Because of these outdated laws, the Patent and Trademark Office faces a backlog of over 700,000 patent applications and too often issues low-quality patents. One of these 700,000 patents may be the next implantable pacemaker or new therapy for fighting cancer, but it just sits in that backlog.

Our current system also seems stacked against small entrepreneurs. I have spoken to small business owners and entrepreneurs across our State of Minnesota who are concerned with the high cost and uncertainty of protecting their inventions. For example, under the current system, when two patents are filed around the same time for the same invention, the applicants must go through an arduous and expensive process called an interference to determine which applicant will be awarded the patent. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings because the rules for interference are often stacked in favor of companies with deep pockets. This needs to change.

Our current patent system also ignores the realities of the information age in which we live.

In 1952, back when the patent bill came about, the world wasn't as interconnected as it is today. There was no Internet. People didn't share information the way they do in this modern age. They had party telephone lines then. In 1952, most publicly available information about technology could be found in either patents or scientific publications. So patent examiners only had to look to a few sources to determine if the technology described in a patent application was both novel and nonobvious.

Today, as we all know, there is a vast amount of information readily available everywhere you look.

It is unrealistic to believe a patent examiner would know all of the places to look for this information, and even if the examiner knew where to look, it is unlikely he or she would have the time to search all of these nooks and crannies. The people who know where to look are the other scientists and innovators who also work in the field. But current law doesn't allow participation by third parties in the patent application process despite the fact that third parties are often in the best position to challenge a patent application. Without the benefit of this outside expertise, an examiner might grant a patent for technology that simply isn't a true invention--it is simply not an actual invention--and these low-quality patents clog the system and hinder true innovation.

Our Nation can't afford to slow innovation anymore. While China is investing billions in its medical technology sector, we are still bickering about regulations. While India encourages invention and entrepreneurship, we are still giving our innovators the runaround, playing a game of red light/green light with the R&D tax credit.

America can no longer afford to be a country that churns money and shuffles paper, a country that consumes, imports, and spends its way through huge trade deficits. We need to be a nation that makes things again, that invents stuff, that exports to the world, a country where you can walk into any store on any street in any neighborhood, purchase the best goods, and be able to turn it over and see the words ``Made in the USA.''

In the words of New York Times columnist and Minnesota native Tom Friedman, we need to be focusing on ``nation building in our own Nation.'' Well, as innovators and entrepreneurs across Minnesota have told me, our country needs to spawn more of them. The America Invents Act would do just that.

First, the American Invents Act increases the speed and certainty of the patent application process by transitioning our patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. This change to a first-inventor-to-file system will increase predictability by creating brighter lines to guide patent applicants and Patent Office examiners. By simply using the filing date of an application to determine the true inventor, the bill increases the speed of the patent application process, while rewarding novel, cutting-edge innovations.

To help guide investors and inventors, this bill allows them to search the public record to discover with more certainty whether their idea is patentable, helping eliminate duplication and streamlining the system. At the same time, the bill still provides a safe harbor of a year for inventors to go out and market their inventions before having to file for their patents. This grace period is one of the reasons our Nation's top research universities, such as the University of Minnesota, support this bill. The grace period protects professors who discuss their inventions with colleagues or publish them in journals before filing their patent application. The grace period will encourage cross-pollination of ideas and eliminate concerns about discussing inventions with others before a patent application is actually filed.

Moreover, this legislation helps to ensure that only true inventions receive protection under our laws. By allowing third parties to provide information to the patent examiner, the America Invents Act helps bridge the information gap between the patent application and existing knowledge.

The legislation also provides a modernized, streamlined mechanism for third parties who want to challenge recently issued, low-quality patents that

should never have been issued in the first place. Eliminating these potentially trivial patents will help the entire patent system by improving certainty for both users and inventors.

The legislation will also improve the patent system by granting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office the authority to set and adjust its own fees. Allowing the Office to set its own fees will give it the resources to reduce the current backlog and devote greater resources to each patent that is reviewed to ensure higher quality patents.

The fee-setting authority is why IBM, one of the most innovative companies around--by the way, the host of the ``Jeopardy''-winning Watson--well, the IBM facility there that actually developed Watson was in Rochester, MN. In fact, IBM, which has its facilities in Rochester and the Twin Cities, as well as many other places in this country, was granted a record 5,896 patents in 2010. IBM supports this bill. It allows the Patent Office to set its own fees and run itself like a business, and that is good for companies such as IBM, as well as for small entrepreneurs.

Mr. President, as chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion, I have been focused on ways to promote innovation and growth in the 21st century. Stakeholders from across the spectrum agree that this bill is a necessary step to ensure that the United States remains a world leader in developing innovative products that bring prosperity and happiness to those in our country. Globalization and technological advancement have changed our economy. This legislation will ensure that our patent system truly rewards innovation in the 21st century. Our patent system has to be as sophisticated as those who are inventing these products and those who at times are trying to steal their ideas. That is what this is about.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for regular order on the Vitter amendment.

Madam President, I now send a modification to the desk.

Madam President, I will be happy to explain the context to the chairman of the committee.

This modification simply merges what was previously a separate Toomey amendment and a separate Vitter amendment. We had hoped to have votes on those as a first-degree and second-degree amendment. That wasn't possible, so this is a merged amendment. Let me explain what this amendment does.

The basis of this amendment is Senator Toomey's Full Faith and Credit Act. It is very important. It simply says if we ever as a country reach our debt ceiling, then even if we go beyond the debt ceiling, we will use all the tools available to the Treasury Secretary to continue for as long as possible to pay to make good on U.S. debt, we are not going to immediately default on U.S. debt.

There have been a lot of scare tactics, in my opinion, suggesting that if we ever reach that day of bumping up against our statutory debt ceiling, the very next day, the very next hour, the United States would default on its debt--not make good on our obligations of the U.S. Treasury. That isn't true. It doesn't have to be true. This important reform will ensure that it is not true. We get far more revenue into the U.S. Treasury than has to be spent simply to service the debt. So the underlying Toomey bill, which is the heart of this amendment, says we will make good on those obligations. They will be the top priority.

The original Vitter amendment, which is now merged together with the Toomey amendment, says the exact same thing with regard to Social Security payments. I am sure we would all agree that seniors on fixed incomes depend on their Social Security checks. So the Vitter part of this now merged Toomey-Vitter amendment says we will honor Social Security payments in the same status as debt payments and we will use Federal revenues first for those purposes before we do anything else. What that means is, if we ever do bump up on the debt ceiling, we would not stop Social Security checks the next day. We would not stop Social Security checks the next month. We could have many weeks--probably a few months--honoring all of those commitments in the areas of Social Security and debt on U.S. Treasury notes.

So that is the purpose of this now merged Toomey-Vitter amendment. We are not suggesting that it is necessarily a good idea to bump up the debt ceiling. We are saying, Let's all take a deep breath, let's not use scare tactics, let's not use hysteria, and let's plan ahead.

What we hope will be the outcome is that we will not only deal with the debt ceiling in a responsible way, but before that, we will also deal with our underlying fiscal crisis in a responsible way. We will make real and serious budget reforms to get on a fiscally sustainable path which we are clearly not on right now.

This morning Senator Toomey and I were in the Banking Committee hearing where Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve testified. Chairman Bernanke said again, as he has numerous times over the last year and more, that the fiscal path we are on as a Federal Government is completely unsustainable. He also said that is the single biggest long-term threat to our economy, and he also said while it is a long- term problem, it could manifest itself in serious negative consequences in the short term. So this could rattle our economy and even begin to create an economic crisis--who knows when--possibly in the short term.

So the clock is ticking and we need serious budget reform, and this combined Toomey-Vitter amendment would take the hysteria out of the discussion and hopefully urge us to take concrete action on that serious budget reform before it is too late.

With that, I wish to yield to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

Yes.

Yes. We will be seeking a single vote on the amendment, as modified.

First of all, as I understand it, it has been modified, so it has become----

If I could yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I think he can help answer the question. But to clarify from my point of view, we are seeking a vote--a single vote, which I think we are very close to locking in--on the new modified amendment, which is a combination of the separate Vitter and Toomey amendments.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Again, this amendment, as modified, simply says that if we were ever to reach the statutory debt limit for the Federal Government, then revenue coming in would go first to service two things: Social Security checks and interest on the Federal debt. So that would not be put in jeopardy for months down the line.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to take, quite frankly, some of the scare tactics and some of the hysteria out of the debate and to urge us to act. None of us wants to bump up on the debt ceiling. None of us is advocating that. What we are advocating is to take action now, real serious budget reform, to put us on a more fiscally sustainable path. We need to do that now. That is why we came to the floor with these concerns on the patent bill. We need to do that now. We need to act now. We need to get on a fiscally sustainable path now. The clock is ticking, as Chairman Bernanke reminded us before the Banking Committee this morning.

With that, I look forward to locking in a vote on this matter, and in the consent that establishes that, we will be happy to withdraw the other amendment and simply have one vote on the now combined Toomey- Vitter amendment.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

On behalf of Senator Coburn, I object.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Toomey- Vitter amendment, which we will vote on in the series of two votes starting at 5 p.m. The idea behind the Toomey-Vitter amendment is very simple. It says if we ever reach the debt ceiling, the government, as a top first priority, will use revenue to pay two things: first, proper interest payments on our U.S. Government debt; and secondly, Social Security checks to seniors.

The motivation behind this amendment is simple. First, those two things should be legitimately a top priority. No one should want the U.S. Government to default on its debt and no one should want the immediate stoppage, or the stoppage at any time, of Social Security checks to seniors. So first, it is legitimate to rank those two functions as an absolute top priority.

The second motivation behind this amendment is to take some of these scare tactics and hysteria out of this debate. Too many people, in my opinion, have been saying if we ever reach the debt ceiling, the next day all Social Security checks will stop and all payments will stop on U.S. Treasury bills--on government debt. That is not true. There is no reason it has to be true. This amendment, when passed into law, will ensure it is not true. It will ensure we look at this situation with focus and calmness and not hysteria and scare tactics.

The goal, I am certain--and I know it is for Senator Toomey, my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania--is not that we not default on our debt and not that we reach the debt ceiling, but it is that we take strong, responsible action well ahead of any threatened event to put us on a fiscally sustainable path.

Just this morning, both Senator Toomey and I were in a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee and the witness--the only witness--was Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. He said very clearly several things directly pertinent to this discussion. First, he said we are on a fiscally unsustainable path. Our budget situation is absolutely unsustainable. Second, he said that is the biggest long-term threat to our economy--the biggest threat. Third, he said that although it is a long-term problem, it could create a short- term crisis. It could create a crisis that could hit immediately, at any time. So we need to act and we need to act strongly.

Madam President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Madam President, I think I control the floor and I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.