Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, March 7, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 4, 32, and 33; that there be an hour of debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, Calendar No. 32 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 33 and Calendar No. 4, in that order; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that there be no intervening action or debate; that there be no further motions in order to these nominations; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am told there is a bill at the desk due for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for a second reading on this matter in order to place the bill on the calendar, but under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Friday, March 4; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that time.

Mr. President, as a result of cloture being filed on S. 23, the America Invents Act, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments is 1 p.m. tomorrow. Senators should expect a series of three rollcall votes to begin at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. The first two votes will be on those judicial nominations we have already spoken of this evening, and the third vote will be on cloture on the America Invents Act.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate this evening, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 89 as a further mark of respect to the memory of Frank W. Buckles, the longest surviving U.S. veteran of World War I.

Madam President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 11 a.m. today. During that time, Senators will be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the next 30 minutes, and the remaining time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the final half.

At 11 a.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on passage of the 2-week continuing resolution. Upon disposition of that matter, the Senate will resume consideration of the America Invents Act. Additional rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the America Invents Act are expected to occur throughout the day.

Madam President, we have worked for weeks now in moving forward on this funding measure for the country. What Democrats have said for weeks now is that we are committed to working with all sides to find a middle ground that helps us move forward and move toward a fiscally responsible budget for the rest of the year.

Yesterday the House acted and soon the Senate will act as well. Our priorities are twofold: One, keeping the country running so essential services do not get interrupted--and certainly they should not be interrupted--at a time we can least afford it.

We have 2 more weeks to do this. We have heard today in the news that John McCain's economic adviser said if the Republicans continue going on the route they have talked about, it will eliminate 700,000 jobs in this struggling economy. Goldman Sachs issued a study yesterday indicating it would hurt the gross national product by up to 2 percent, and that is devastating.

So our priorities are twofold: One, keeping the country running so essential services do not get interrupted at a time we can least afford it; and, two, equally as important, we need to lay the groundwork with a budget that invests in what works and cuts what doesn't. We have to begin to bring down the deficit without forfeiting our future.

This has not been an easy process. But we need to set aside partisan motivations and remember we work for the American people, not our political parties. I am pleased the Republicans have agreed with the President's suggested cuts and dropped all those riders--provisions meant only to send messages, only to create unnecessary hurdles, and kill progress.

We are going to keep working toward a solution. This time around, it may not include everything Democrats want or everything Republicans want. But we need to have a compromise which will be part of an ongoing conversation. Just like our overarching priority when we budget--that we must live within our means--this next step recognizes that we must do the best with what we have.

Today we will also work toward finishing the patent reform bill. It is called the America Invests Act, a jobs bill. It is a priority. We have to finish

this matter. This matter, this patent legislation, is important in returning America's economy to a position of strength.

As we speak, there are 750,000 patent applications that are stuck in the Patent Office because they do not have enough people to do the work. It is true to Democrats' agenda from day one: creating jobs and ensuring America can compete in the 21st century's global economy.

Now, Madam President, I see my friend from Oklahoma on the Senate floor. A couple of things he has done in recent days have been extremely important: first of all, the money that is collected in the Patent Office should be used in the Patent Office. I also think it is important people recognize we have an entity around here called the General Accounting Office, which is the watchdog of Congress. It is an important entity. It is available to both Democrats and Republicans.

My friend from Oklahoma wrote a letter, as he has a right to do, about a couple different areas finding where there was duplication of services. They studied this and came back with what I think are some matters to which we need to direct our attention.

Duplication in different entities around here has become untoward. So I commend and applaud my friend from Oklahoma in helping us go down this path that I think is going to be extremely important for us to work our way out of the problems we have.

I know we have a lot of work to do, and it is important we do that work. We are going to get this spending matter out of the way today. Then we will have, as I have indicated, a little over 2 weeks to work something out on a long-term basis. The President has said he would like a longer period of time. We could not work that out with our friends on the Republican side. I hope, I hope they do not need a government shutdown--and I am not referring to my friends in the Senate but the House. I hope they do not need a government shutdown to do what is necessary for this country. I think we should avoid that shutdown, and we can avoid that shutdown and still recognize that there are costs that need to be cut from government spending. It cannot all come from our domestic discretionary side of the ledger. There are Pentagon moneys that can be saved. There are other programs that have been untouchable in past years that we need to look at for a long-term solution to the country's problems.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 15, S. Res. 81.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to this resolution be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support Senator Feinstein's amendment to restore the grace period under current law and eliminate the so-called first-inventor-to-file provisions of the legislation. This is the No. 1 outstanding issue of concern my constituents have raised with me, particularly small and independent inventors. It is a technical and complex issue, one about which experts in patent law have strong disagreements. But I think the bill would be much better without these provisions.

For shorthand, a lot of people talk about this issue as first- inventor-to-file versus ``first-to-invent.'' But, in my view, this terminology just confuses the issue. My constituents are most concerned about the loss of the unconditional 1-year grace period under current law. Both a first-to-invent and a first-inventor-to-file system could have the grace period; there is no inherent inconsistency. I am not sure why the two issues have been merged. Frankly, people who talk about priority fights and interferences are completely missing the point. The concerns are all about the grace period.

My constituents tell me that the current law grace period is crucial to small and independent inventors, for numerous reasons. First, it comports with the reality of the inventive process. An idea goes through many trials, errors, and iterations before it becomes a patent- worthy invention. Small inventors in Nevada tell me that sometimes they may have conceived an idea as an improvement to the apple; and it turns out to be a new type of orange. The grace period allows inventors the time to refine their inventions, test them, talk issues through with others, all without worry of losing their rights if these activities result in an accidental disclosure or the development of new ``prior art.''

Second, the grace period comports with the reality of small entity financing through friends, family, possible patent licensees, and venture capitalists. The grace period allows small inventors to have conversations about their invention and to line up funding, before going to the considerable expense of filing a patent application.

In fact, in many ways, the 1-year grace period helps improve patent quality--inventors find out which ideas can attract capital, and focus their efforts on those ideas, dropping along the way other ideas and inventions that don't attract similar interest and may not therefore be commercially meaningful.

These inventors therefore believe that the effective elimination of the grace period in the law is therefore a serious blow. They tell me that now they will have to try to file many more applications, earlier in the process. They tell me that the balm of ``cheap provisionals'' is snake oil, because a provisional still has to meet certain legal standards, meaning that you still have to spend a lot for patent counsel, which is the biggest single expense of filing an application. Because they can't afford to file that many applications, regular or provisional, they will have to give up on some inventions altogether. If that is so, it wouldn't just be bad for them, it would be bad for the creation of innovation in America.

They also are concerned that it will be harder to get VC funding because they will have filed applications on inventions that weren't quite the right ones. The added risk about whether they can ensure that the provisional application will be adequate to provide protection to this slightly modified but commercially more meaningful invention will be enough to scare off already difficult to obtain venture capital funding.

The legislation doesn't turn a blind eye to these problems. It provides a type of grace period, triggered by inventor disclosures. Will this new, significantly more scaled back grace period work? Maybe. I don't know. I can tell you that the independent inventors in Nevada swear by a code of secrecy and nondisclosure until they are far enough along to get patent protection. It would require a sea change in culture to be able to benefit from this very limited inventor's disclosure-triggered grace period.

Further, there are legitimate questions about how this new disclosure provision would work--for instance, what happens when an invention that is disclosed leads to other, different ideas and disclosures that update the state of the art before the application has been filed? How is an inventor going to be able to prove that changes in an ``ecosystem of technology'' were necessarily derived from her disclosure?

I would also note that I appreciate that PTO Director Kappos has been doing great work in terms of reaching out to small inventors, trying to make things cheaper and more efficient for them; trying to demystify the PTO for them. If any PTO Director could make this work, I feel confident he is the one who can do it.

But, you know what, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our current system has helped make America the most innovative country in the world; I will venture to say the most innovative society in world history. Our innovation system is the envy of the world. We don't need to harmonize with them; they are trying to figure out how we do it. This is one area where nothing is broken, and I am very worried about unintended consequence, especially when a lot of the folks arguing about this issue are not even talking about the thing that matters--the grace period.

Accordingly, I support the Feinstein amendment. And I encourage my colleagues to support it too. I am not making this argument as the Senate majority leader, but as the Senator from Nevada--if the current grace period isn't broke, then we absolutely shouldn't fix it with something that my constituents tell me, with alarm, may make it harder for them to patent their innovations.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Feinstein in introducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 along with Senator Ensign and Senator Boxer. Our bill protects Lake Tahoe by helping federal agencies work more collaboratively with local governments to manage federal lands, preventing catastrophic wildfires, keeping invasive species out of the lake, using sound science to prioritize projects, and leveraging state and local funding. Senator Feinstein has done a lot of work to improve this legislation while maintaining a broad coalition of support and I want to thank her for her good work.

Lake Tahoe is a place of incredible beauty. When Mark Twain first saw Lake Tahoe in 1861, he described it as ``a noble sheet of blue water lifted 6,300 feet above the level of the sea, and walled in by a rim of snow-clad mountain peaks that towered aloft full three thousand feet higher still!'' He went on to proclaim the view in front of him as surely ``the fairest picture the whole earth affords.'' I could not agree more.

But for all its beauty, Lake Tahoe Basin is in peril. The famed clarity of the lake declined by over a third during the last 50 years; it is estimated that 25 percent of the trees in the basin are dead or dying; the prized Lahontan cutthroat trout sport fish that once grew to more than 40 pounds are no longer present; and many of the basin's natural marshes and wetlands have been altered or drained. This perilous decline jeopardizes the 23,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in annual revenues that Lake Tahoe contributes to the Nevada and California economies.

It became clear to me in the 1990s that a major commitment and coordinated efforts were necessary to turn things around for the health and future of Lake Tahoe and the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 1996, I called then-President Clinton and Vice President Gore and asked if they would come to Lake Tahoe with me so that they could see both the incredible beauty of the place and many threats facing it. When we convened in July 1997, the President and Vice President brought four cabinet secretaries with them and we had a multi-day session on the future of Lake Tahoe. President Clinton promised to make Lake Tahoe a priority-- for the people of Nevada, for the people of California, and for the whole country. An executive order and the subsequent Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 were the result of that commitment.

It would have been difficult to imagine at that first summit how much progress we would be able to make in the last 14 years. The clarity of the lake now appears to have stabilized, thousands of acres of forest lands have been restored, roads and highways across the basin have been improved to limit runoff, and the natural function of many miles of stream zones and riparian areas has been restored. But there is a great deal yet to be done. We offer the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 as the next step.

Our bill focuses federal attention on the areas where we can be most effective and it builds on the lessons we have learned since 1997. The basic summary of the bill is that it authorizes $415 million over 10 years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of fire, and restore the environment.

I would like to make a very important point about the federal role in protecting Lake Tahoe. The U.S. Forest Service manages 75 percent of the land surrounding the lake and it is impossible to make real progress in the Lake Tahoe Basin without providing the Forest Service with the tools they need to manage that land. With that in mind, we call on the Forest Service to support the thresholds put forth by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, we provide encouragement and funding to work on the restoration of stream environment zones, and we withdraw all Forest Service in the Basin lands from mineral entry in order to minimize soil disturbance. The Forest Service is also granted increased flexibility to exchange land with the states of Nevada and California which will allow for more cost-efficient management of the over 8,000 publicly owned urban parcels spread throughout the Basin. Currently, the Forest Service owns over 3,280 of these urban parcels and there are questions about whether it is in the public interest for the Forest Service to manage these urban lands or whether it would be better to pass them to other responsible entities that could provide more efficient management. We have asked the Forest Service to report to Congress on their plans for improving this part of their program, including any suggestions for how Congress might be able to help. Along with these new authorities and direction for forest management, the bill authorizes $136 million to reduce the threat of wildfire. This includes work on Forest Service lands as well as work done by local fire agencies. Local communities and fire districts that receive grants from this generous program will provide a 25 percent cash match.

Lake Tahoe is uniquely beautiful and it's worth fighting to protect it. It is my sincere hope that my grandchildren will see the day when the lake's clarity is restored to 100 feet or more, when Tahoe's giant native trout are once again plentiful, and when nearby forests are diverse and healthy. Mark Twain saw something amazing when he crested into the Lake Tahoe Basin. We owe it to ourselves and to subsequent generations to restore as much of that splendor as we can. This bill is the next step in that journey.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Feinstein in introducing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 along with Senator Ensign and Senator Boxer. Our bill protects Lake Tahoe by helping federal agencies work more collaboratively with local governments to manage federal lands, preventing catastrophic wildfires, keeping invasive species out of the lake, using sound science to prioritize projects, and leveraging state and local funding. Senator Feinstein has done a lot of work to improve this legislation while maintaining a broad coalition of support and I want to thank her for her good work.

Lake Tahoe is a place of incredible beauty. When Mark Twain first saw Lake Tahoe in 1861, he described it as ``a noble sheet of blue water lifted 6,300 feet above the level of the sea, and walled in by a rim of snow-clad mountain peaks that towered aloft full three thousand feet higher still!'' He went on to proclaim the view in front of him as surely ``the fairest picture the whole earth affords.'' I could not agree more.

But for all its beauty, Lake Tahoe Basin is in peril. The famed clarity of the lake declined by over a third during the last 50 years; it is estimated that 25 percent of the trees in the basin are dead or dying; the prized Lahontan cutthroat trout sport fish that once grew to more than 40 pounds are no longer present; and many of the basin's natural marshes and wetlands have been altered or drained. This perilous decline jeopardizes the 23,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in annual revenues that Lake Tahoe contributes to the Nevada and California economies.

It became clear to me in the 1990s that a major commitment and coordinated efforts were necessary to turn things around for the health and future of Lake Tahoe and the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 1996, I called then-President Clinton and Vice President Gore and asked if they would come to Lake Tahoe with me so that they could see both the incredible beauty of the place and many threats facing it. When we convened in July 1997, the President and Vice President brought four cabinet secretaries with them and we had a multi-day session on the future of Lake Tahoe. President Clinton promised to make Lake Tahoe a priority-- for the people of Nevada, for the people of California, and for the whole country. An executive order and the subsequent Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 were the result of that commitment.

It would have been difficult to imagine at that first summit how much progress we would be able to make in the last 14 years. The clarity of the lake now appears to have stabilized, thousands of acres of forest lands have been restored, roads and highways across the basin have been improved to limit runoff, and the natural function of many miles of stream zones and riparian areas has been restored. But there is a great deal yet to be done. We offer the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 as the next step.

Our bill focuses federal attention on the areas where we can be most effective and it builds on the lessons we have learned since 1997. The basic summary of the bill is that it authorizes $415 million over 10 years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of fire, and restore the environment.

I would like to make a very important point about the federal role in protecting Lake Tahoe. The U.S. Forest Service manages 75 percent of the land surrounding the lake and it is impossible to make real progress in the Lake Tahoe Basin without providing the Forest Service with the tools they need to manage that land. With that in mind, we call on the Forest Service to support the thresholds put forth by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, we provide encouragement and funding to work on the restoration of stream environment zones, and we withdraw all Forest Service in the Basin lands from mineral entry in order to minimize soil disturbance. The Forest Service is also granted increased flexibility to exchange land with the states of Nevada and California which will allow for more cost-efficient management of the over 8,000 publicly owned urban parcels spread throughout the Basin. Currently, the Forest Service owns over 3,280 of these urban parcels and there are questions about whether it is in the public interest for the Forest Service to manage these urban lands or whether it would be better to pass them to other responsible entities that could provide more efficient management. We have asked the Forest Service to report to Congress on their plans for improving this part of their program, including any suggestions for how Congress might be able to help. Along with these new authorities and direction for forest management, the bill authorizes $136 million to reduce the threat of wildfire. This includes work on Forest Service lands as well as work done by local fire agencies. Local communities and fire districts that receive grants from this generous program will provide a 25 percent cash match.

Lake Tahoe is uniquely beautiful and it's worth fighting to protect it. It is my sincere hope that my grandchildren will see the day when the lake's clarity is restored to 100 feet or more, when Tahoe's giant native trout are once again plentiful, and when nearby forests are diverse and healthy. Mark Twain saw something amazing when he crested into the Lake Tahoe Basin. We owe it to ourselves and to subsequent generations to restore as much of that splendor as we can. This bill is the next step in that journey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Foreign Service, Marine Corps, Navy, and Public Health Service; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, March 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; further, at 11 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 23, the America Invents Act; finally, there be a period of morning business from 2 to 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first hour and the Republicans controlling the next hour.

Mr. President, Senators should expect rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the America Invents Act to occur throughout the day tomorrow.