Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Madam President, following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for an hour. Senators will be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each during that period of time. The majority will control the first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the final 30 minutes. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 23, the patent reform bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. Senators should expect rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the patent reform bill throughout the day.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania be permitted to speak as in morning business at 2:15 p.m. today for up to 15 minutes in order to deliver his maiden speech in the Senate.

Madam President, I understand that H.R. 1 is due for a second reading.

I object to any further proceedings on H.R. 1 at this time.

Madam President, we have before us today an extremely important piece of legislation. It is called the America Invents Act of 2011. The reason I emphasize 2011 is because it has been almost 60 years since we had the last meaningful reforms of the Nation's patent system. We have tried on many occasions in recent years to get this bill on the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee has reported out a number of bills over the years, and we have taken no action here on the Senate floor for a number of reasons. But it is now on the floor. There are a couple of issues to which our attention will be directed.

I have received calls from a number of Senators who have amendments they want to offer that are in relation to this bill, only two of which I think are really meaningful, but I am sure there are others. I hope we can move through this. One of the first amendments filed is one that has nothing to do with patent reform, and we will dispose of that.

I think it is important to understand that this bill, if we do it right, will create millions of jobs. Some estimates suggest literally millions of new jobs could be created through this reform. Not every patent creates a job or generates economic value. Some are worth

thousands of jobs. Jack Kilby's 1959 patent for the semiconductor is an example of that, as well as Steve Wozniak's patent for a personal computer in 1979. So it is impossible to predict how many new jobs or even industries may lie buried within the Patent Office backlog, but there are thousands of backlogged patent applications there that we have to dispose of. I hope we can work toward getting this done.

We have issues the Republican leader and I have worked on to move forward, and the first issue at hand that deals with funding the government is the CR. We are looking to try to figure out a way to do the short-term CR. The President has said--and we will hear this from him rather than from us--that we can't continue to have these short- term CRs, so we are working to see if we can find a way of funding the government in the foreseeable future. The way that is going to be done is on a bipartisan basis. We hope that will be the case. No one benefits from a shutdown of the government, partial or otherwise.

I look forward to our work on this bill. Until we have something to work on--the House is going to pass a short-term CR today. Until we actually have something to work on, we need to focus our attention on this patent bill which is so very important. I have introduced a revenue measure that we could work off of. We also have--and I just rule XIV'd--a second reading on a matter for the continuing resolution. It is H.R. 1, the one that comes from the House. I think it is pretty clear that won't pass, but it shows we are trying to move forward. The House is going to act on something today. I have placed my revenue measure on the floor, indicating to the Republican leader my intentions of moving forward on that. So it is important that we work together to get this done. The current funding for the government runs out this Friday.

I look forward to everyone working hard on the patent bill. When we are in a position to move forward on funding the government past March 4, we will move forward on that just as rapidly as we can, and we know we have to do it this week.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act of 2010.

For nearly a decade, there has been heated debate over a proposal to permit a sand and gravel mine on public lands next door to a Henderson community with over 13,000 residents--many of whom are retired seniors. Local citizens have voiced serious safety and community health concerns about the mine. I have listened to their concerns and share their opposition to the mine.

That is why I am re-introducing legislation to stop the development of the proposed 640-acre gravel pit by withdrawing the area from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral materials. This legislation ensures the safety of Nevadans and puts an end to this proposed mining operation once and for all.

The opposition to the proposed gravel mine is overwhelming. I have received petitions with thousands--literally thousands--of signatures from people who are up in arms over the proposed gravel mine because of its potential effect on the health of residents and the toll that operations would have on an otherwise peaceful community. The project would be located on federal land, so local governments are limited in their ability to influence the outcome of the Sloan Hills proposal. It is clear, though, that the location envisioned for this project is not in the best interests of our community.

Despite strong local opposition, the Bureau of Land Management has undertaken an evaluation of the proposed gravel operation at Sloan Hills. If approved, the resulting mine would blast rock, crush gravel, kick up dust, and consume precious water resources up to twenty-four hours a day, every day, for thirty years. This would all be done just a stone's throw away from peaceful Henderson neighborhoods. Residents are justifiably worried that this project will reduce their home values, harm their health, and impact their overall quality of life.

Most troublesome to Henderson residents are large clouds of fine particulate matter that would be generated by mining activities at the Sloan Hills site. This dust pollution, kicked up by the proposed gravel operation, could exacerbate air quality challenges in the Las Vegas Valley and would be particularly troublesome for the nearby, age- restricted communities--home to many seniors already suffering from respiratory problems.

This bill is important to me and to the people of southern Nevada. I want to thank Steve Sisolak, vice chair of the Clark County Commission, for all his hard work championing this issue in Southern Nevada. Keeping our communities safe, healthy, and livable is critical.

I appreciate your help and I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and the other distinguished members of the Senate Energy Committee to move this legislation forward in the near future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act of 2010.

For nearly a decade, there has been heated debate over a proposal to permit a sand and gravel mine on public lands next door to a Henderson community with over 13,000 residents--many of whom are retired seniors. Local citizens have voiced serious safety and community health concerns about the mine. I have listened to their concerns and share their opposition to the mine.

That is why I am re-introducing legislation to stop the development of the proposed 640-acre gravel pit by withdrawing the area from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral materials. This legislation ensures the safety of Nevadans and puts an end to this proposed mining operation once and for all.

The opposition to the proposed gravel mine is overwhelming. I have received petitions with thousands--literally thousands--of signatures from people who are up in arms over the proposed gravel mine because of its potential effect on the health of residents and the toll that operations would have on an otherwise peaceful community. The project would be located on federal land, so local governments are limited in their ability to influence the outcome of the Sloan Hills proposal. It is clear, though, that the location envisioned for this project is not in the best interests of our community.

Despite strong local opposition, the Bureau of Land Management has undertaken an evaluation of the proposed gravel operation at Sloan Hills. If approved, the resulting mine would blast rock, crush gravel, kick up dust, and consume precious water resources up to twenty-four hours a day, every day, for thirty years. This would all be done just a stone's throw away from peaceful Henderson neighborhoods. Residents are justifiably worried that this project will reduce their home values, harm their health, and impact their overall quality of life.

Most troublesome to Henderson residents are large clouds of fine particulate matter that would be generated by mining activities at the Sloan Hills site. This dust pollution, kicked up by the proposed gravel operation, could exacerbate air quality challenges in the Las Vegas Valley and would be particularly troublesome for the nearby, age- restricted communities--home to many seniors already suffering from respiratory problems.

This bill is important to me and to the people of southern Nevada. I want to thank Steve Sisolak, vice chair of the Clark County Commission, for all his hard work championing this issue in Southern Nevada. Keeping our communities safe, healthy, and livable is critical.

I appreciate your help and I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and the other distinguished members of the Senate Energy Committee to move this legislation forward in the near future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 11, H.R. 359, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I now withdraw my motion to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to S. Con. Res. 8.

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

Mr. President, before you rule on this, last week they had a very good series on National Public Radio about women in the military. It was really wonderful. It was so full of information. They talked about a woman who had served in the military in World War II. They had a general, a woman, the first four star general to be a woman. The show had a woman who had been in the military in the 1980s and a daughter who is a graduate from West Point now, going to medical school as a result of her military service. It was really terrific.

Of course, the issue the Pentagon is working through, and it is quite difficult, is combat for women. They had one woman there on this program who was awarded the Silver Star for her gallant actions, her heroic actions. She was part of a caravan. It was attacked and she was the hero of the battle. The shooting went on for 45 minutes.

I am very happy to be reading this into the Record. I ask the Chair to rule that this is without objection because it certainly is the right thing to do, to recognize women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

There is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, and I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 70, and the resolution be placed on the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, March 1; that following the prayer and the 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 for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second half; further that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for the weekly party caucus lunches; finally, following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the Patent Reform Act of 2011.

Mr. President, Senators should expect rollcall votes to occur throughout the day in relation to amendments to the patent reform bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. We waited for years to get this on the floor of the Senate. If Senators have amendments, they should move them quickly because we hope to finish this bill very quickly.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order and under the provisions of S. Res. 78 as a further mark of respect to the late former Senator James McClure.

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

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3:30 p.m. today. Senators during that period of time will be able to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 3:30 p.m., we will move to consideration of S. 23, which is the Patent Reform Act. At 4:30 p.m., the Senate will turn to executive session to consider the nominations of Amy Totenberg, of Georgia, to be a U.S. district judge and Steve C. Jones, of Georgia, to be a U.S. district judge. The time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. At 5:30 p.m., Senators should expect a voice vote on confirmation of the Totenberg nomination, to be followed by a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Jones nomination. We hope to complete action on the patent reform bill and consider a continuing resolution during this week's session.