Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 1 minute for Senator Lindsey Graham to speak on his amendment.

Madam President, my State was devastated by Hurricane Irene, and I am going to do everything possible to help Vermonters get the aid they need. But I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky.

First, it is a terrible idea to cut critical national security programs to offset funding for emergency disasters. It would set a precedent and make it infinitely harder to help our States cope with these crises, whether it is Katrina or whether it is earthquakes or no matter what it is.

Disasters strike unexpectedly. The funding to recover and rebuild is not built into the budget. They strike Republican and Democratic States alike. To say in this: Well, why don't we cut out our State Department or our embassies, so we cut out the aid the United States gives to Haiti--we live in a global economy--this amendment makes no sense.

Mr. President, Senators Sanders, Lautenberg, Conrad, Gillibrand and I filed an amendment to provide an additional $2.5 billion to the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Fund, which is woefully underfunded right now. In addition, our amendment would waive the $100 million per State cap on emergency funding, which has been done for previous disasters, and allow 100 percent Federal reimbursement for disaster repair work occurring more than 180 days after the disaster.

Nearly 3 weeks ago, Vermont bore the full brunt of then-Tropical Storm Irene as it turned gentle mountain streams and valley rivers into raging torrents of destruction. Whole towns were cut off from the outside world. Homes, businesses, farms, water systems, and miles of roads and bridges were swept away. And some Vermonters lost their lives in these devastating floods.

Roads, bridges, and rail lines all over the State have been wiped out. Flooding closed more than 300 town and State roads and damaged more than 30 bridges in Vermont, stranding people in more than a dozen towns for days. It is going to take years and years for my small State to recover.

In the aftermath, it has been extremely difficult to move emergency supplies and rebuilding materials around, as some of the washed-out roads have gaping gullies in the middle that are 30 feet or more deep, and some of the reopened roads and bridges are not yet recommended for heavy traffic.

The consequences have been harsh. Residents are forced to make 30- mile-plus detours to the nearest grocery store or doctor--on mountain roads, some of them unpaved. Businesses are struggling to reopen and find customers. Schools have been forced to remain closed until repairs are made.

And tourists are worried about traveling to Vermont this fall to see the foliage or this winter to do some skiing.

Our small State is stretched to the limit right now. Winter is fast approaching, which means the end of the construction season is near. By November it will be too cold to lay asphalt, and by December snow and ice will cover the mountains, leaving many towns dangerously isolated. We need to make more permanent repairs as soon as possible or future rains and the fall's freeze-thaw cycle will further deteriorate our roads and make them all but impassable this winter. With just weeks to accomplish so much, we need the full and immediate support of FEMA, the Department of Transportation, and many other Federal agencies.

Earlier natural disasters across the Nation have drawn down our emergency fund accounts, jeopardizing the ability to respond in those States, as well as the newly stricken States such as Vermont. FEMA has less than $400 million in its disaster account for the rest of fiscal year 2011, and the Federal Highway Administration's disaster account is under $200 million. On top of that, the Federal highway account already has over $1 billion in backlogged projects waiting for funding. Since damage to Vermont's Federal-aid roads and bridges alone will exceed half a billion dollars, it is unclear whether the $2.5 billion we propose in this amendment will even cover all of the costs for declared disasters including Irene. But it is a good start.

We must act quickly to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund, Federal highway's emergency road fund, and a variety of other disaster accounts that are at dangerously low levels right now. Without additional funding to these and other emergency accounts, Vermont and all of the other 49 States with ongoing Federal disasters will not have the resources they need to rebuild.

Thousands of American families and businesses have been devastated by an unprecedented series of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters this year. The people hurting out there are desperate for a helping hand from their fellow Americans. Given the breadth and depth of Irene's destruction, on top of the ongoing disasters already declared in all 50 States, we must ensure that FEMA, the Department of Transportation, and all of the other Federal agencies involved in disaster-relief efforts have the resources they need to help our citizens in their desperate time of need.

Mr. President, this Saturday, the Nation marks the 224th anniversary of the day when the Founders signed the fundamental charter for our democracy--the Constitution of the United States. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated hundreds of issues and proposals before crafting the final charter. Thankfully, the Founders had the foresight to know that their debate would not be the final word on the subject. The work of defining our Nation--ensuring protection of rights for all Americans--would continue, as we strive to create ``a more perfect union.''

It was through the leadership of the late Senator Robert C. Byrd that the Congress began to officially celebrate the signing of the Constitution, calling the September 17 anniversary Constitution Day. Senator Byrd understood the importance of ensuring that future generations value our Nation's founding charter. This week, in schools across the country, students will learn about the Constitutional Convention and the meaning of Constitution Day.

For well over two centuries, the Constitution has allowed America to flourish and, importantly, adapt to new challenges. Since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Constitution has been amended just 17 times. There has been much discussion of late about amending our Nation's fundamental charter. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is not something that I take lightly. Proposing amendments to the Constitution should not be a reflexive response to political threats. Each Member of Congress swears to support and defend the Constitution; it should be treated with the reverence it deserves, not as leverage in heated political debate. While I certainly believe that the Constitution has been improved over time in our effort to create a more perfect union, those amendments were thoroughly considered and debated over time. Before we alter our national charter, we must openly consider whether such amendment would hamstring future generations.

Pressure groups may demand that elected representatives sign pledges about what they will and will not do if elected to office. The pledge I follow--the one I was honored to make again at the beginning of this Congress--is to uphold the Constitution. I take that pledge seriously. ``We the People'' owe a great debt to the Framers of our Constitution. And as we commemorate the signing of the Constitution of the United States of American 224 years ago, I hope all Americans will take this opportunity to read the words of our founding charter and learn about how it protects us all.

Mr. President, with the Senate now back in session, as a Vermonter I would like to call the Senate's attention to Mr. Keegan Bradley's first-place finish in the 93rd Professional Golf Association's Championship Tournament on Sunday, August 14. Mr. Bradley is the first male golfer born in Vermont to win a major PGA Championship.

Keegan Bradley has earned a permanent place for himself, and Vermont, in the record books. As a rookie golfer, his participation in the 2011 PGA Championship is his first major tournament, making him one of only three rookie golfers ever to place first in a major tournament debut. This win also marks the end of a six-major tournament dry spell for American golfers. In order to win this year's PGA Championship, Bradley needed to demonstrate tenacity and determination. Keegan successfully came back from a four-shot deficit in the last three holes of the tournament, proving his ability to focus and overcome obstacles.

His PGA Championship win extends Mr. Bradley's successful start to his professional golf career. Most notably, he placed first in another PGA tournament earlier this year, the HP Byron Nelson Championship in Texas. In 2011 he has also finished in the top 10 in 4 PGA tournaments, as well as having finished within the top 25 in 10 others.

Even more impressively, Keegan Bradley has spent many of his younger years living in the New England area, with seasonal weather that did not always afford him the luxury of training year-round. This resulted in much time-sensitive dedication and focus, as winter weather inhibits year-round outside practice in our part of the country.

Keegan Bradley was born in Woodstock, VT, in 1986 and attended Woodstock High School. He is the son of Mr. Mark Bradley, golf professional at Crown Point Golf Club, and Mrs. Kay Bradley. Keegan is also the nephew of Ms. Pat Bradley, a Ladies Professional Golf Association Hall-of-Famer. I am proud to recognize Keegan Bradley for his accomplishment, both as a Vermonter and a professional golfer. I join all Vermonters in wishing him many more years of success.

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

Mr. President, I have spoken to so many of my colleagues-- I know I have with my good friend, a distinguished Member of this body, the Senator from Montana, and others--about what has happened in Vermont. We are a little State. We are 660,000 people. We are a State that has sent volunteers all over the country where people have been hit by earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and flooding, but now Vermont has been hit.

I was born in Vermont. My family came to Vermont in the 1800s. The only thing that could even begin to match what we have seen were the horrible floods of 1927. I was not alive then, but I remember the stories my parents told me. Certainly in my lifetime we have never seen anything like this. Vermont continues to grapple with the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene. It does not make a difference if you are a Republican or a Democrat, all Vermonters are joined together to rebuild after this disaster.

I wish to call the Senate's attention today to the severe and extensive damage done to our State's transportation infrastructure and to how the washed out roads and bridges are affecting the lives of all Vermonters.

Here are a few of the scenes of the destruction. This was a main highway. You can see one lane here. Look what happened. The road does not begin to pick up again until we get over here. That was a highway that had been used for decades. It is Route 100, south of Plymouth.

Plymouth, VT, is where Calvin Coolidge was born. He was spending time there with his father when he got news that he had suddenly become President and was sworn in by his father, who was the justice of the peace. The deputy sheriff thought they may need security so he stood there with a pitchfork in one hand and a lantern in the other.

But this photo shows you what has happened. They tried to build a temporary bridge up there. As you know, being from a northern State, Mr. President, we are going to have snow in Vermont in a matter of weeks and, of course, companies stop making asphalt in early November.

This is a photo I took of U.S. Route 4. I took it from a helicopter when Governor Shumlin and I toured the State

immediately after Irene. It is a major east-west route across Vermont. Again, look at this. We can't see one of the lanes of the road. It would have gone just like this, but it is gone, and look how deep it is. That is because this river moved from where it had never been before and tore it out.

Governor Shumlin, the Governor of our State, General Michael Dubie, the head of our National Guard, and I toured the damage around Vermont by helicopter immediately after the storm. We actually needed the helicopter because many of the places we went were unreachable on the ground.

This third one is the New England Central Rail Line in central Vermont that hosts Amtrak's Vermonter train. One can actually get on the Vermonter here in Washington and take it to New York and go up through New England to Vermont, which I have done a number of times. Economic Recovery Act funds had just repaired this line to nearly mint condition. Look at it now. We couldn't take a train across it. It has sunk out from underneath the track. That is a pretty horrific situation.

This shot was taken along Vermont Route 30 in Jamaica, VT, or what is left of it. This is while rains from the remnants of Hurricane Lee fell on Vermont. We just got hit and hit and hit up there. We can see work crews trying desperately to stay ahead of the rising water and some of them, frankly, risking their lives to do that.

I might say, in that regard, we have had people come in to help out. I told the two Senators from Maine yesterday, we had highway construction people from Maine--crews, some on vacation--who came down and helped. In response, when we thanked them, they said: You helped us; we will help you. The Presiding Officer knows rural America. He knows we pitch in to try to help each other.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Roads, bridges, and rail lines all over the State have been wiped out. I apologize to my colleagues for being emotional, but this is my State. This is my home. It is the home of my ancestors. We have seen flooding close more than 300 town and State roads and damage more than 30 bridges, stranding people in more than one dozen towns for days. Damage to the State's Federal aid roads and bridges will exceed $\1/2\ billion in our little State. It is going to take years and years to recover.

It has been extremely difficult to move emergency supplies and building materials around. Some of the washed-out roads have gaping gullies in the middle that are 30 feet or more deep. One can't drive a truck over that. Some of the reopened roads and bridges are not yet recommended for heavy traffic.

The consequences have been harsh. Residents are forced to make a 30- mile-plus detour to the nearest grocery store or doctor on mountain roads, many of them dirt roads. Businesses are struggling to reopen, rehire their people, and then to find new customers. Schools have been forced to remain closed until repairs are made, and children are wondering--adding to the trauma of what they have seen--when they are going back to the normalcy of going to school. Tourists are worrying about traveling to Vermont this fall to see the foliage or this winter to do some skiing. These are major industries in our State.

The end of construction season in Vermont is fast approaching. As I mentioned earlier, by November, it will be too cold to lay asphalt. By December, snow and ice will cover the mountains, leaving many towns dangerously isolated. My home was safe, but I live on a dead-end dirt road. It is 2 miles to the nearest paved road. I know how easily these dirt roads can be disrupted.

I applaud the Vermont Agency of Transportation and the Vermont National Guard--along with the work crews and Guardsmen from States all around the country--because they are moving quickly to make emergency road repairs and install temporary bridges. Governor Shumlin, General Dubie, and I had to helicopter into one town because it was the only way to get there. At least now it has a temporary road. But these are lifelines to the hardest hit communities. We need to make more permanent repairs as soon as possible or future rains and the fall's freeze-thaw cycle will further deterioration of our roads and make them all but impassable in the winter and cut off major parts of my State.

Given the breadth and depth of Irene's destruction, on top of the disasters already declared in all 50 States, we have to ensure that FEMA and the Department of Transportation have all the resources they need to help our citizens in their desperate time of need.

The other night the President addressed the Congress and the Nation from the floor of the House of Representatives. On his way in, he leaned over and said to me: I am thinking of your people in Vermont. That means a lot. I applaud him for issuing the emergency declaration very quickly and then making adjustments when we needed them.

We have to replenish the FEMA disaster relief fund and the Federal highway emergency road fund, both of which are at dangerously low levels right now, not just for Vermont but for every other State that has been hit with the same kind of problems. Without supplemental funding to these and the other emergency accounts, Vermont and all the other 49 States with ongoing Federal disasters are not going to have the resources to rebuild.

Americans should be worried about Americans. The kind of money we are talking about we throw away in Iraq and Afghanistan in 1 week's time and we do it on a credit card and we say we don't have to pay for it. Now we have some say: If we are going to help Americans, we better find out some way we can pay for it. What can we take away from other Americans to help these Americans? Can we take away from education, medical research, housing?

Let's start thinking about America. We have seen the billions, eventually trillions, we have spent trying to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, and we know how much that is appreciated. These are Americans who do appreciate and need the help.

Let us come home. Let us take care of the needs in America. There is so much on the line, so starkly for so many, it would be horrible and unseemly to play politics with disaster relief. We have never done this before.

I was heartened, as I came into one, badly damaged town and I got an e-mail from a very conservative Republican Senator who said: Pat, you helped us when our State was hit. What can we do to help your State? That is the kind of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats, have displayed in the past to come together.

Thousands of American families and businesses have been devastated by an unprecedented series of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires--look at the pictures out of Texas--and other disasters over these years. The people are hurting out there. They are not thinking about Democrats versus Republicans or red States versus blue States. They are saying: We are Americans. We help everybody else; we can at least help ourselves. People are desperate for a helping hand from their fellow Americans. We are one Nation. We have traditionally come to the aid of our fellow Americans in times of need.

In my 37 years in the Senate, we have always dealt with disaster bills together. We haven't cared whether it was a Republican State or a Democratic State or Democratic or Republican President. We have worked across the aisle, in the spirit of bipartisanship, in the best interests of America and in the best tradition of our country. As a nation, can we afford to toss that tradition and cooperation overboard? It is unconscionable that a small number decided to inject politics and political point-scoring into a situation that already is so difficult and so laden with grim realities for so many of our fellow citizens. Go and talk to a farmer who has seen his herd decimated and tell him that. Go and see a small business owner who is a major employer in a small town who is saying: I don't know how I can keep hiring these people. Go and tell a child who has asked their parents when the road will be done so we can go to school or visit grandma. Tell them. Tell them.

Leader Reid is right to bring an emergency disaster relief package to the floor that will give aid to all 50 States suffering from the effects of unprecedented natural disasters. I state the obvious when I say we need Republican cooperation to get this urgent job

done. I encourage my colleagues to end this shameful filibuster of the disaster relief bill. Let us proceed to a full debate on how to help our fellow Americans--our fellow Americans--as quickly as we can.

I have taken a lot of time of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Should There Be a Government Guarantee?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Is Poverty a Death Sentence?'' on September 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Afffairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ten Years After 9/11: Are We Safer?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Civil Rights Division Oversight.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Tax Reform in Comprehensive Deficit Reduction and U.S. Fiscal Policy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Agro-Defense: Responding to Threats Against America's Agriculture and Food System.''

Mr. President, yesterday, Americans across the country gathered to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so cruelly and indiscriminately in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Although a decade has passed, I vividly remember that tragic day. I was right here in Washington when American Airlines flight 77 struck the Pentagon. It was a defining moment for our country. Congress acted swiftly to create a fund to aid victims of the attacks, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to update our laws to counter these new enemies. In the years since September 11, 2001, the threat that violent extremists pose to America has endured, if not increased. Fortunately, the increased attention to preventing terrorist attacks by both the Bush and Obama administrations has prevented another large scale attack, and foiled numerous plots.

As we remember the victims of the September 11 attacks, and the soldiers and National Guard members who we have lost in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should also reflect on the lessons we have learned. In the aftermath of this tragedy, it became clear that turf battles between Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and a resulting lack of information sharing between these agencies, contributed to the failures that allowed the hijackers to enter the country and evade authorities. In addition,

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, possessed deficient and outdated technology. It suffered from a woeful lack of skilled translators in key languages, and did not have sufficient numbers of counterterrorism analysts to swiftly absorb and comprehend intelligence information. Each of these factors contributed to the Government's failure to connect the dots prior to the attacks.

Faced with these issues and a new type of threat, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were forced to adapt. Over the past decade, I have worked to ensure that our Federal agencies have the tools they need to make our borders more secure, improve our intelligence gathering, track down terrorists, and bring them to justice. Having expedited the hiring of translators and armed with upgraded technology, the FBI can now operate and communicate more efficiently. I have also supported efforts to refine government surveillance authority to allow agencies to gather the information they need to prevent additional attacks.

However, along with these expanded authorities, I have also worked to include essential oversight and accountability measures to ensure that these new powers do not go unchecked. The most intrusive surveillance authorities of the USA PATRIOT Act are subject to sunsets, which require Congress to revisit how the authorities have been used. Combined with inspector general audits and public reporting requirements, the American people and Congress can regularly scrutinize the use of these surveillance tools. The importance of oversight and supervision of Government powers to protect civil liberties was important before September 11, 2001, and even more critical after. While I firmly believe in keeping our Nation safe, relinquishing our freedoms and values will only weaken our ability to fight terrorism.

Ten years after September 11, 2001, the ability of our intelligence community to collect and analyze information has drastically improved. However, despite these improvements, we have vast amounts of information that can become overwhelming and lead to lapses in national security, such as the shootings at Fort Hood and the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I remain committed to ensuring that we continue to adapt and respond to evolving threats in order to keep this country safe from another terrorist attack, while upholding the rule of law and protecting critical civil liberties and privacy protections.

Although some of the national security policies and tactics of the past decade have caused divisiveness and controversy, President Obama delivered news on May 1, in which all Americans could take comfort. Justice had finally been served to Osama bin Laden for his atrocities. While the death of Osama bin Laden will never bring all of his victims back, we hope that it may help bring closure to all those who still grieve over their loss. The hard work of our brave American service members, who have sacrificed so much, made this mission a success for the benefit of an entire country.

As we commemorate the sacrifices of so many that took place 10 years ago and in the wars since, we must continue to dedicate ourselves to upholding and strengthening the principles and values that define our democratic Nation. That is what distinguishes us from those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, it is what ultimately enable us to defeat them, and it is what people around the world expect from us.

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate THIS for Diplomats of Washington, DC, on its 50th anniversary. Established in 1961, and formerly known as The Hospitality and Information Service, THIS has welcomed diplomats and their families from around the world to the Nation's Capital. Understanding the power of exchange, THIS continues to provide enriching educational, informational and cultural experiences.

In the past year, THIS' 300 volunteers donated 20,000 hours to provide 65 programs and 208 language and cultural exchanges with 1734 diplomats. Programs included seminars on American government; visits to the Supreme Court, White House, Pentagon, Library of Congress, private art collections, performances at the Kennedy Center, as well as a Sports in America series. Language conversation groups included Arabic, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, Turkish, and English.

Diplomats and their families from all over the world speak of how important THIS has been to their adjustment to and appreciation of the United States. Congratulations to THIS for Diplomats and its volunteers around the world on 50 years of service in advocating peace, tolerance, and prosperity.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to call the Senate's attention to the economic development contributions of Peter Van Oot, a friend and former member of my staff. Pete, a native of Westminster, VT, has long served his community and our State with dedication and enthusiasm. Through his work with the Brattleboro Economic Development Credit Corporation board, and, more recently, the Green Mountain Economic Development Corporation, Pete has worked tirelessly to create jobs and to promote our local economy. Named Volunteer of the Year by the Northeast Economic Development Association, Pete was recently recognized for his hard work, and I take this opportunity to offer him my congratulations. I ask unanimous consent that an August 8 article highlighting his work, in the Brattleboro Reformer, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will speak later about the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Alabama. He has been very helpful in getting this patent bill through. He is correct that this amendment he speaks to is one added in the other body, not by us. We purposely didn't have it in our bill. I know Senator Grassley will follow my remarks.

There is no question in my mind that if the amendment of the Senator from Alabama were accepted, it in effect will kill the bill. Irrespective of the merits, it can come up on another piece of legislation or as freestanding legislation. That is fine. But on this bill, after 6 years of effort to get this far, this bill would die because the other body will not take it up again.

Hurricane Irene

Mr. President, I will use my time to note some of the things happening in my own very special State of Vermont, the State in which I was born.

As Vermonters come together and continue to grapple with the aftermath of storm damage from Irene, I wish to focus today on the agriculture disaster that has hit us in Vermont and report to the Senate and our fellow citizens across the Nation about how the raging floodwaters wreaked havoc on our farming lands and infrastructure in Vermont.

It was 12 days ago now that this enormous, slow-moving storm hit Vermont and turned our calm, scenic brooks and creeks into raging gushers. In addition to our roads and historic covered bridges that were destroyed or carried away, we had barns, farmhouses, crops, parts of fields, and livestock washed away in the rising floodwaters. I recall the comments of one farmer who watched his herd of cows wash down the river, knowing they were going to die in the floodwaters.

Now the cameras have begun to turn away, but the cleanup and urgent repairs are underway. For major parts of Vermont's economy, the worst effects of this storm are yet to come. For our dairy farmers, who are the bedrock of our economy and keystones of our communities, the toll of this disaster has been heavy and the crises has lasted longer as they have struggled to take care of their animals while the floodwaters recede.

This is a photograph of East Pittsford, VT, taken by Lars Gange just over a week ago. The water we see is never there. It is there now. Look at this farm's fields, they are destroyed. Look at homes damaged and think what that water has done.

As I went around the state with our Governor and Vermont National Guard General Dubie the first couple of days after the storm hit, we went to these places by helicopter and I cannot tell you how much it tore at my heart to see the state, the birthplace to me, my parents, and grandparents. To see roads torn up, bridges that were there when my parents were children, washed away. Historic covered bridges, mills, barns, businesses just gone and what it has done to our farmers, it is hard, I cannot overstate it.

Our farmers have barns that are completely gone, leaving no shelter for animals. They are left struggling to get water for their animals, to rebuild fencing, to clean up debris from flooded fields and barns, and then to get milk trucks to the dairy farms. Remember, these cows have to be milked every single day. We also have farmers who do not have any feed or hay for their animals because it all washed away. As one farmer told me, the cows need to be milked two or three times every day, come hell or high water. This farmer thought he had been hit with both, hell and high water.

While reports are still coming in from the farms that were affected, the list of damages and the need for critical supplies, such as feed, generators, fuel, and temporary fencing is on the rise. As we survey the farm fields and communities, we know it will be difficult to calculate the economic impacts of this violent storm on our agriculture industry in Vermont.

Many of our farmers were caught by surprise as the unprecedented, rapidly rising floodwaters inundated their crops, and many have had to deal with the deeply emotional experience of losing animals to the fast-moving floodwaters. We have farms where whole fields were washed away and their fertile topsoil sent rushing down river. The timing could not have been worse. Corn, which is a crucial winter feed for dairy cows, was just ready for harvest, but now our best corn is in the river bottoms and is ruined. Other farms had just prepared their ground to sow winter cover crops and winter greens; they lost significant amounts of topsoil.

River banks gave way, and we saw wide field buffers disappear overnight, leaving the crops literally hanging on ledges above rivers, as at the Kingsbury farm in Warren, VT. Vegetable farming is Vermont's fastest growing agricultural sector, and, of course, this is harvest season. Our farmers were not able to pick these crops, this storm picked many fields clean.

Many Vermonters have highly productive gardens that they have put up for their families to get through the winter by canning and freezing. Those too have been washed away or are considered dangerous for human consumption because of the contaminated floodwaters. Vermont farmers have a challenging and precarious future ahead of them as they look to rebuild and plan for next year's crops, knowing that in our State it can be snowing in 1\1/2\ or 2 months.

I have been heartened, however, by the many stories I have heard from communities where people are coming together to help one another. For instance, at the Intervale Community Farm on the Winooski River, volunteers came out to harvest the remaining dry fields before the produce was hit by still rising floodwaters.

When the rumors spread that Beth and Bob Kennett at Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester had no power and needed help milking--well, people just started showing up. By foot, on bike, all ready to lend a hand to help milk the cows. Fortunately for them and for the poor cows, the Vermont Department of Agriculture had managed to help get them fuel and the Kennetts were milking again, so asked the volunteer farm hands to go down the road, help somebody else and they did.

Coping with damage and destruction on this scale is beyond the means and capability of a small State such as ours, and Federal help with the rebuilding effort will be essential to Vermont, as it will be to other States coping with the same disaster. I worry the support they need to rebuild may not be there, as it has been in past disasters, when we have rebuilt after hurricanes, floods, fires and earthquakes to get Americans back in their homes, something Vermonters have supported even though in these past disasters Vermont was not touched.

So I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee and with all Senators to ensure that FEMA, USDA and all our Federal agencies have the resources they need to help all our citizens at this time of disaster, in Vermont and in all our states. Unfortunately, programs such as the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Watershed Protect Program have been oversubscribed this year, and USDA has only limited funds remaining. We also face the grim fact that few of our farms had bought crop insurance and so may not be covered by USDA's current SURE Disaster Program.

But those are the things I am working on to find ways to help our farmers and to move forward to help in the commitment to our fellow Americans. For a decade, we have spent billions every single week on wars and projects in far-away lands. This is a time to start paying more attention to our needs here at home and to the urgent needs of our fellow citizens.

I see my friend from Iowa on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his words, and I join with the Senator from Iowa in opposing the amendment for two reasons. First, as just simply as a practical matter, the amendment would have the effect, if it passed, of killing the bill because it is not going to be accepted in the other body, and after 6 years or more of work on the patent bill, it is gone. But also, on just the merits of it, the provision this amendment strikes, section 37 of H.R. 1249, simply adopts the holding of a recent district court decision codifying existing law about how the Patent and Trademark Office should calculate 5 days for the purpose of considering a patent term extension. So those are the reasons I oppose the amendment to strike it.

The underlying provision adopted by the House is a bipartisan amendment on the floor. It was offered by Mr. Conyers, and it has the support of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Berman on the Democratic side and the support of Mr. Cantor, Mr. Paul, and Mrs. Bachmann on the Republican side. I have a very hard time thinking of a wider range of bipartisan support than that.

The provision is simply about how they are calculating filing dates for patent extensions, although its critics have labeled it as something a lot more. A patent holder on a drug is entitled by statute to apply for an extension of its patent term to compensate for any delay the Food and Drug Administration approval process caused in actually bringing the drug to market. The patent holder not only has to file the extension within 60 days beginning on the date the product received permission for marketing, but there is some ambiguity as to when the date is that starts the clock running.

Only in Washington, DC, could the system produce such absurd results that the word ``date'' means not only something different between two agencies--the PTO and the FDA--but then it is given two different constructions by the FDA. If this sounds kind of esoteric, it is. I have been working on this for years and it is difficult to understand. But the courts have codified it. Let's not try to change it yet again.

What happens is that the FDA treats submissions to it after normal hours as being received the next business day. But the dates of submissions from the FDA are not considered the next business day, even if sent after hours. To complicate matters, the PTO recently changed its own method of defining what is a ``date.''

If this sounds confusing even in Washington, you can imagine how it is outside of the bureaucracy. Confusion over what constitutes the ``date'' for purposes of a patent extension has affected several companies. The most notable case involves the Medicines Company's ANGIOMAX extension application request.

The extension application was denied by the PTO because of the difference in how dates are calculated. MedCo challenged the PTO's decision in court, and last August the federal district court in Virginia held the PTO's decision arbitrary and capricious and MedCo received its patent term extension.

Just so we fully understand what that means, it means PTO now abides by the court's ruling and applies a sensible ``business day'' interpretation to the word ``date'' in the statute. The provision in the America Invents Act simply codifies that.

Senator Grassley has spoken to this. As he said a few weeks ago, this provision ``improves the patent system fairness through certainty and clarity.''

This issue has been around for several years and it was a controversial issue when it would have overturned the PTO's decision legislatively. For this reason Senator Grassley and others opposed this provision when it came up several years ago. But now that the court has ruled, it is a different situation. The PTO has agreed to accept the court's decision. The provision is simply a codification of current law.

Is there anyone who truly believes it makes sense for the word ``date'' to receive tortured and different interpretations by different parts of our government rather than to have a clear, consistent definition? Let's actually try to put this issue to bed once and for all.

The provision may solidify Medco's patent term extension, but it applies generally, not to this one company, as has been suggested. It brings common sense to the entire filing system.

However, if the Senate adopts the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, it will lead to real conflict with the House. It is going to complicate, delay, and probably end passage of this important bipartisan jobs-creating legislation.

Keep in mind, yesterday I said on the floor that each one of us in this body could write a slightly different patent bill. But we do not pass 100 bills, we pass 1. This bill is supported by both Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum. People on both sides of the aisle have been working on this issue for years and years in both bodies. We have a piece of legislation. Does everybody get every single thing they want? Of course not. I am chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't have everything in this bill I want, but I have tried to get something that is a consensus of the large majority of the House and the Senate, and we have done this.

In this instance, in this particular amendment, the House expressly considered this matter. They voted with a bipartisan majority to adopt this provision the amendment is seeking to strike. With all due respect to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, who contributed immensely to the bill as ranking member of the committee last Congress, I understood why he opposed this provision when it was controversial and would have had Congress override the PTO. But now that the PTO and court have resolved the matter as reflected in the bill, it is not worth delaying enactment of much-needed patent reform legislation. It could help create jobs and move the economy forward.

We will have three amendments on the floor today that we will vote on. This one and the other two I strongly urge Senators, Republicans and Democrats, just as the ranking member has urged, to vote them down. We have between 600,000 and 700,000 patents applications that are waiting to be taken care of. We can unleash the genius of our country and put our entrepreneur class to work to create jobs that can let us compete with the rest of the world. Let's not hold it up any longer. We have waited long enough. We debated every bit of this in this body and passed it 95 to 5. On the motion to proceed, over 90 Senators voted to proceed. It has passed the House overwhelmingly. It is time to stop trying to throw up roadblocks to this legislation.

If somebody does not like the legislation, vote against it. But this is the product of years of work. It is the best we are going to have. Let us get it done. Let us unleash the ability and inventive genius of Americans. Let us go forward.

We have a patent system that has not been updated in over a half century, yet we are competing with countries around the world that are moving light years ahead of us in this area. Let's catch up. Let's put America first. Let's get this bill passed.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 595

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

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Oklahoma knows that the basic thing he is trying to do is something I had supported. As he knows, I put it in the managers' package. He also is aware that my belief is--obviously we disagree--my belief is that the acceptance of his amendment will effectively kill the bill. Even today the leadership in the House told me they would not accept that bill with it. I say this only because tactically it would be to my advantage to object to the amendment. But the distinguished Senator is one of the hardest working members of the Judiciary Committee. He is always there when I need a quorum. Out of respect for him, I will not object.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that can derail and even kill this bill--a bill that would otherwise help our recovering economy, unleash innovation and create the jobs

that are so desperately needed. I have worked for years against Patent Office fee diversion, but oppose this amendment at this time. Its formulation was rejected by the House of Representatives, and there is no reason to believe that the House's position will change. Instead, for ideological purity, this amendment can sink years of effort and destroy the job prospects represented by this bill. So while I oppose fee diversion, I also oppose the Coburn amendment.

I kept my commitment to Senator Coburn and included his preferred language in the managers' amendment which the Senate considered last March. The difference between then and now is that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives rejected Senator Coburn's formulation. They preserved the principle against fee diversion but changed the language.

The language in the bill is that which the House devised and a bipartisan majority voted to include. It was worked out by the House Republican leadership to satisfy House rules. The provision Senator Coburn had drafted and offers again with his amendment today apparently violates House Rule 21, which prohibits converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending. So instead of a revolving fund, the House established a reserve fund. That was the compromise that the Republican House leadership devised between Chairmen Smith, Rogers and Ryan. Yesterday I inserted in the Record the June letter for Congressmen Rogers and Ryan to Chairman Smith of the House Judiciary Committee. Today I ask consent to insert into the Record the commitment letter from Chairman Rogers to Speaker Boehner.

The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, continues to make important improvements to ensure that fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are used for Patent and Trademark Office activities. That office is entirely fee-funded and does not rely on taxpayer dollars. It has been and continues to be subject to annual appropriations bills. That allows Congress greater opportunity for oversight.

The legislation that passed the Senate in March would have taken the Patent and Trademark Office out of the appropriations process, by setting up a revolving fund that would have allowed the office to set fees and collect and spend money without appropriations legislation and congressional oversight. Instead of a revolving fund, the House formulation against fee diversion establishes a separate account for the funds and directs that they be used for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The House Appropriations Chairman has committed to abide by that legal framework.

The House forged a compromise. Despite what some around here think, that is the essence of the legislative process. The Founders knew that when they wrote the Constitution and included the Great Compromise. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. This House compromise can make a difference and make real progress against fee diversion. It is something we can support and there are many, many companies and organizations that do support this final workout in order to get the bill enacted without further delay, as do I.

The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, creates a new Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund (the ``Reserve Fund'') into which all fees collected by the USPTO in excess of the amount appropriated in a fiscal year are to be deposited. Fees in the Reserve Fund may only be used for the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office. Through the creation of the Reserve Fund, as well as the commitment by House appropriators, H.R. 1249 makes important improvements in ensuring that user fees collected for services are used by the Patent and Trademark Office for those services.

Voting for the Coburn amendment is a vote to kill this bill. It could kill the bill over a formality--the difference between a revolving fund and a reserve fund. It would require the House to reconsider the whole bill again. They spent days and weeks working out their compromise in good faith. And it was worked out by the House Republican leadership. There is no reason to think they will reconsider and allow the original Coburn language to violate their rules and avoid oversight. They have already rejected that language, the very language proposed by the Coburn amendment.

We should not kill this bill over this amendment. We should reject the amendment and pass the bill. The time to put aside individual preferences and ideological purity is upon us and we need to legislate. That is what the American people elected us to do and expect us to do. The time to enact this bill is now. Vote no on the Coburn amendment.

I have listened to the Senator from Oklahoma, and no matter what we say about it, his is an amendment that can derail and even kill this bill. He expresses concern as to why the bill should be sought because somebody objects to the bill. I sometimes ask myself that question. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has objected to many items going forward on his own behalf, but this is an amendment that could derail or even kill the bill. This is a bill that would otherwise help our recovering economy to unleash innovation, create the jobs so desperately needed.

I probably worked longer in this body than anybody against Patent Office fee diversion. As the Senator from Oklahoma knows, I put a provision in the managers' package to allow the fees to go to the Patent Office. Now it is a lobby to keep that in in the other body. Its formulation was rejected by the House of Representatives.

There is no reason to believe the House position will change. I checked with both the Republican and Democratic leaders over there. There is no reason to believe their position will change, but we insist on ideological purities--including something I would like. The amendment would take years of effort, destroy the job prospects represented by this bill. While I oppose the fee diversion, I also oppose this amendment.

Does this bill have every single thing in it I want? No. We could write 100 patent reform legislations in this body where each one of us has every single thing we want, and we would have 100 different bills. We only have one. It does not have all the things I like, but that is part of getting legislation passed.

I did keep my commitment to Senator Coburn. I kept his language in the managers' amendment, and I caught a lot for doing that--I am a member of the Appropriations Committee--but I kept it in there. The difference between then and now is that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives rejected Senator Coburn's formulation. They preserved the principle against fee diversion but changed the language. In doing that, however, it is not a total rejection. They actually tried to work out a compromise. The language of the bill, which the House devised--a bipartisan majority voted to include--was worked out by the House Republican leadership to satisfy the House rules.

The provision that Senator Coburn has drafted and offers, again, with his amendment today apparently violates House rule 21 which prohibits converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending.

What the House did--and actually accomplished what both Senator Coburn and I and others want--instead of a revolving fund was to establish the reserve fund. That was the compromise that the Republican House leadership devised between Chairman Smith, Chairman Rogers, and Chairman Ryan.

Yesterday, I inserted into the Record the June letter from Congressmen Rogers and Ryan to Chairman Smith to the House Judiciary Committee.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the commitment letter from Chairman Rogers to Speaker Boehner.

I would note that it has been suggested somehow the Appropriations chairman is not going to keep his word. Well, Chairman Rogers is a Republican. I have worked with him a lot. He has always kept his word to me, just as we have the most decorated veteran of our military serving in either body as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the only Medal of Honor recipient now serving, Senator Inouye. Both he and the ranking Republican, Senator Cochran, have always kept their word to me certainly in more than the third of a century I have served on that committee.

The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, continues to make important improvements. It ensures the fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are used for Patent and Trademark Office activities. The one thing in there is that we in the Congress at least have a chance to make sure they are using it the way they are supposed to.

The office is entirely fee funded. It does not rely on taxpayer dollars. It has been and continues to be subject to the annual appropriations bill which allows the oversight that we are elected and paid for by the American people to do.

The legislation we passed in March would have taken the Patent Trademark Office out of the appropriations process by setting up a revolving fund. Instead of a revolving fund, the House formulation against fee diversion established a separate account and directs that account be used only by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The House Appropriations chairman is committed to abide by that legal framework. The Speaker is committed to that. The House forged a compromise. That is the essence of the legislative process.

The Founders knew when they wrote the Constitution to include the Great Compromise. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments.

The House compromise can make a difference. It made real progress against fee diversion, which is something we can support. There are many companies and organizations that do support this in order to get the bill enacted without delay. After 6\1/2\ years, let's not delay any more.

This is going to create jobs. We have 600,000 to 700,000 patents sitting there waiting to be processed. Let's get on with it. For all of these fees and the reserve fund can only be used for the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office. I don't know what more we can do. But I would say I am perfectly willing to accept what the House did because it assures that the fees go to the Patent Office.

I am also well aware that voting for this amendment kills the bill. It could kill the bill over a formality--the difference between a reserve fund and a revolving fund.

I think the House Republican leadership worked out their compromise in good conscience, and I agree with it.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is funded entirely by user fees, and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will ensure the PTO has access to the fees it collects. We have heard from a number of organizations which agree with that, and I ask unanimous consent that a sample of these letters from the Business Software Alliance, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, DuPont, and other financial organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, when the America Invents Act was first considered by the Senate last March, I spoke about the contributions Vermonters have made to innovation in America since the founding of our Nation. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I know about what Vermont has done. I wish to remind everybody that from the first patent ever issued by our government to cutting-edge research and inventions produced today Vermonters have been at the forefront of innovation since the Nation's birth.

Many may think of our Green Mountain State as being an unlikely hotbed of innovation, but we have actually over the last few years issued the most patents per capita of any State in the country-- actually more patents than a lot of States that are larger than we are. It is a small State, to be sure, but it is one that is bursting with creativity.

The rich history of the inventive spirit of Vermont is long and diverse. Vermonters throughout have pursued innovations from the time of the Industrial Revolution to the computer age. Vermont inventors discovered new ways to weigh large objects as well as ways to enjoy the outdoors. They have perfected new ways to traverse rivers and more environmentally friendly ways to live in our homes. Over the years, as America has grown and prospered, Vermont's innovative and creative spirit has made the lives of all Americans better and possibly made them more productive. The patent system in this country has been the catalyst that spurred these inventors to take the risks necessary to bring these ideas to the marketplace.

The story of innovation in Vermont is truly the American story. It has been driven by independent inventors and small businesses taking chances on new ideas. A strong patent system allowed these ideas to flourish and brought our country unprecedented economic growth. These same kinds of inventors exist in Vermont today, as they do throughout our great country.

But these inventors need to be assured that the patent system that served those who came before them so well can do the same today. The America Invents Act will provide that assurance for years to come.

My distinguished colleague from Vermont and I have both spoken several times on the Senate floor since the Senate came back in session about the devastation in Vermont. I cannot help but think of the devastation that Irene has caused in so many of our communities at home. Just as Senator Sanders and Congressman Welch and Governor Shumlin, I have seen the damage and heartbreak firsthand. But I also saw the fruits of innovation that will help bring recovery to communities throughout Vermont: the heavy machinery that helped to clear debris and that will build our roads and our bridges and our homes; the helicopters that brought food and water to stranded residents; and the bottles that allowed safe drinking water to reach them.

The American patent system has helped to develop and refine countless technologies that drive our country in times of prosperity but also in times of tragedy. It is critical we ensure that this system remains the best in the world.

Vermont and the rest of the country deserve the world's best patent system. The innovators of the past had exactly that, but we can ensure that the innovators who are among us today and those who will come in succeeding generations will have it as well by passing the America Invents Act.

I am proud of the inventive contributions that Vermonters have made since the founding of this country. I hope to honor their legacy. I hope to inspire the next generation by securing the passage of this legislation.

I have been here for a number of years, but this is one of those historic moments. The patent system is one of the few things enshrined in our Constitution, but it is also something that has not been updated for over half a century. We can do that. We can do that today with our vote. We can complete this bill. We can send it to the President. The President has assured me he will sign it. We will make America stronger. We will create jobs. We will have a better system. And it will not cost American taxpayers anything. That is something we ought to do.

Mr. President, the America Invents Act is supported by dozens of businesses and organizations, large and small, active in all 50 States.

The America Invents Act is the product of more than 6 years of debate and compromise. The stakeholders have crossed the spectrum--from small businesses to high-tech companies; financial institutions to labor organizations; life sciences to bar associations.

More than 180 companies, associations, and organizations have endorsed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these supporters be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, my colleague and friend from Missouri is correct Prior user rights, if properly crafted and asserted, can be of great benefit to keeping high-paying jobs here at home.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I will say to my good friend that he is not the first to raise this issue with me and the other Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees who have worked on this bill. I have discussed section 5 at length with the distinguished House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith. Perhaps I can help provide some of the needed clarity for my colleague concerning what we intend to be within the confines of the definition of ``internal commercial use'' as it is used in section 5 of the bill.

Yes. My colleague and I are in agreement that it is our intention, as the sponsors of this comprehensive measure, that the prior use right set forth in section 5 of H.R. 1249 shall vest when innovative technology is first put into continuous internal use in the business of an innovator's enterprise with the objective of making a commercializable product.

I thank my colleague for the question. His understanding is correct. So long as the prior use begins more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of a subsequent patent or publication by a later inventor, the initiation of continuous internal use in the manufacture of products should guarantee the defense of prior use.

My colleague is correct in his reasoning and his understanding of what is intended by section 5. The methods used by Edison in producing multiple failures for electric light bulbs were no less commercial uses before the ultimate production of a commercially successful light bulb. Let us agree that internally used methods and materials do qualify for the defense of prior user rights when there is evidence of a commitment to put the innovation into use followed by a series of diligent events demonstrating that the innovation has been put into continuous--into a business activity with a purpose of developing new products for the benefit of mankind.

The senior Senator from Wisconsin is correct. That is also my

view of the exception. I understand the Senator has consistently opposed the expansion of prior user rights, but I agree with his analysis of the scope of the exception in section 5 of H.R. 1249.

Section 18

The proceeding created by Section 18 is modeled on the proposed post-grant review proceeding under Section 6 of the Act. As in other post-grant proceedings, the claims should typically be evaluated to determine whether they, among other things, meet the enablement and written description requirements of the act, and contain patentable subject matter under the standards defined in the statutes, case law, and as explained in relevant USPTO guidance. While the program will generally otherwise function on the same terms as other post-grant proceedings, the USPTO should implement Section 18 in a manner that avoids attempts to use the transitional program against patent owners in a harassing way. Specifically, to initiate a post issuance review under the new post grant or transitional proceedings, it is not enough that the request show a substantial new question of patentability but must establish that ``it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.'' The heightened requirement established by this bill means that these proceedings are even better shielded from abuse than the reexamination proceedings have been. In fact, the new higher standard for post issuance review was created to make it even more difficult for these procedures to be used as tools for harassment. Therefore, the rule that bars the PTO from reconsidering issues previously considered during examination or in an earlier reexamination still applies. While a prior district court decision upholding the validity of a patent may not preclude the PTO from considering the same issues resolved in that proceeding, PTO officials must still consider the court's decision and deviate from its findings only to the extent reasonable. As a result, I expect the USPTO would not initiate proceedings where the petition does not raise a substantial new question of patentability than those that had already been considered by the USPTO in earlier proceedings. Does that answer my colleague's question?''

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his strong support of this bill.

In a few moments the Senate is going to have the opportunity to make significant reforms to our Nation's patent system for the first time in more than half a century.

The America Invents Act is the product of extensive consideration. We have worked on this for four Congresses. We have had dozens of hearings, weeks of committee debate, and I have lost count of the hundreds of other meetings we have had. This bill is an opportunity to show the American people that Democrats and Republicans can come together to enact meaningful legislation for the American people. The time to do that is now.

The only remaining issues that stand in the way of this long overdue reform are three amendments. Each of them carries some merit. In the past, I might have supported them. But this is a compromise. No one Senator can have everything he or she may want.

The underlying issues have been debated. The bill as written represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that should be passed without changes. Any amendment to this bill risks killing it.

I would urge all Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, to join me and join Senator Grassley in opposing these amendments. They are the final hurdles standing in the way of comprehensive patent reform.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from businesses and workers representing the spectrum of American industry and labor urging the Senate to pass the America Invents Act without amendment.

The bill is important for our economy. It is important for job creation. It is a product of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration. It is the way our system is supposed to work. I look forward to passing the bill and sending it directly to the President's desk for his signature.

I know my friends both on the Republican side and Democratic side have amendments to this bill, but they are not amendments that should pass. I mentioned the one earlier. I talked about the amendment that would put all our--well, Madam President, which amendment is the first in order?

Madam President, I yield the floor. I know both Senator Sessions and Senator Grassley wish to speak to that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the first vote--we have several more votes--the remaining votes be 10- minute votes.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Madam President, I understand what the Senator from Oklahoma says, but the Coburn amendment can derail and even kill this bill. So, as I have told the Senator, I will move to table in a moment. But this bill would otherwise help our recovering economy. It would unleash innovation and create jobs.

I have worked for years against Patent Office fee diversion, but I oppose this amendment. Its formulation was already rejected by the House of Representatives. They have made it very clear. There is no reason they will change. This amendment can sink years of efforts by both Republicans and Democrats in this body and the other body to pass it. Actually, this amendment could kill the bill over a mere formality: the difference between a revolving fund and a reserve fund.

We have worked out a compromise in good faith. The money, the fees-- under the bill as it is here--can only be spent at the PTO, but the only thing is, we actually have a chance to take a look at what they are spending it on, so they could not buy everybody a car or they could not have a gilded palace. They actually have to spend it on getting through the backlog of patents. It will not go anywhere else. It will only go to the Patent Office.

So we should not kill the bill over this amendment. We should reject the amendment and pass the bill. It is time for us to legislate. That is what the American people elected us to do. That is what they expect us to do. Let's not kill the bill after all this work over something that will really make no difference in the long run. So I therefore will move to table the Coburn amendment.

Madam President, because this amendment would kill the bill, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 6 months ago, the Senate approved the America Invents Act to make the first meaningful, comprehensive reforms to the Nation's patent system in nearly 60 years. Today, the Senate has come together once again, this time to send this important, job- creating legislation to the President to be signed into law.

Casting aside partisan rhetoric, and working together in a bipartisan and bicameral manner, Congress is sending to President Obama the most significant jobs bill of this Congress. The bill originated 6 years ago in the House of Representatives, when Chairman Smith and Mr. Berman introduced the first patent reform proposals.

After dozens of congressional hearings, markup sessions, and briefings, and countless hours of Member and staff meetings, through two Presidential administrations, and three Congresses, patent reform is finally a reality.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan accomplishment. This is what we in Washington can do for our constituents at home when we come together for the benefit of the country, the economy, and all Americans.

I especially thank Senator Kyl for his work in bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate--twice--and Senator Grassley for his commitment to making patent reform the Judiciary Committee's top priority this year. Chairman Smith, in the other body, deserves credit for leading the House's consideration of this important bill. I look forward to working with him on our next intellectual property priority--combating online infringement.

I thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who worked together to get quorums and get this passed. I thank them for their contribution.

Mr. President, I acknowledge several members of my Judiciary Committee staff, specifically Aaron Cooper, who sits here beside me. He spent more hours than I even want to think about, or his family wants to think about, working with me, other Senators, Members of the House, other staff, and stakeholders to preserve the meaningful reforms included in the America Invents Act, as did Susan Davis before him. Ed Pagano, my chief of staff, kept everybody together. I also thank Bruce Cohen, my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, who every time I thought maybe we are not going to make it would tell me ``You have to keep going,'' and he was right. Erica Chabot, Curtis LeGeyt, and Scott Wilson of my Judiciary Committee staff have also spent many hours working on this legislation.

I also commend the hard-working staff of other Senators, including Joe Matal, Rita Lari, Tim Molino, and Matt Sandgren for their dedication to this legislation. Chairman Smith's dedicated staff deserves thanks as well, including Richard Hertling, Blaine Merritt, Vishal Amin, and Kim Smith.

I would also like to thank the majority leader for his help in passing this critical piece of legislation.

The America Invents Act is now going to be the law of the land. I thank all my colleagues who worked together on this.

In March, the Senate passed its version of the America Invents Act, S. 23, by a 95-5 vote. One of the key provisions of the legislation transitions the United States patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. The Senate considered and rejected an amendment to strike this provision, with 87 Senators voting to retain the transition.

When this body first considered the America Invents Act, some suggested that along with the first-inventor-to-file transition, the legislation should expand the prior user rights defense. The prior user rights defense, in general, is important for American manufacturers because it protects companies that invent and use a technology, whether embodied in a process or product, but choose not to disclose the invention through the patenting process, and instead rely on trade secret protection. The use of trade secrets instead of patenting may be justified in certain instances to avoid, for example, the misappropriation by third parties where detection of that usage may be difficult. These companies should be permitted to continue to practice the invention, even if another party later invents and patents the same invention.

In the United States, unlike in our major trading partners, prior user rights are limited to inventions on methods of doing or conducting business. The Senate bill included only a very limited expansion of this defense, and required the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, ``PTO'', to study and report to Congress on the operation of prior user rights in other countries in the industrialized world, and include an analysis of whether there is a particular need for prior user rights given the transition to a first-inventor-to-file system.

The House-originated bill, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which the Senate is considering today, makes important improvements to expand prior user rights beyond just methods of doing business. These improvements will be good for domestic manufacturing and job creation. I agree with the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary that inclusion of expanded prior user rights is essential to ensure that those who have invested in and used a technology are provided a defense against someone who later patents the technology.

I understand that there is some confusion regarding the scope of the defense in the bill. The phrase ``commercially used the subject matter'' is intended to apply broadly, and to cover a person's commercial use of any form of subject matter, whether embodied in a process or embodied in a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter that is used in a manufacturing or other commercial process. This is important particularly where businesses have made substantial investments to develop these proprietary technologies. And if the technology is embedded in a product, as soon as that product is available publicly it will constitute prior art against any other patent or application for patent because the technology is inherently disclosed.

The legislation we are considering today also retains the PTO study and report on prior user rights. I again agree with the chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, that one important area of focus will be how we protect those who make substantial investments in the development and preparation of proprietary technologies. It is my hope and expectation that Congress will act quickly on any recommendations made by the PTO.

Section 27 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act requires a study by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, on effective ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gen patents and exclusive licensing for primary genetic diagnostic tests exist. I support this section, which was championed by Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and look forward to the USPTO's report.

I want to be clear that one of the reasons I support section 27 is that nothing in it implies that ``gene patents'' are valid or invalid, nor that any particular claim in any particular patent is valid or invalid. In particular, this section has no bearing on the ongoing litigation in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,

The America Invents Act is now going to be the law of the land. I thank all my colleagues who worked together on this.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to two dedicated public servants in Vermont who passed away tragically in the floods of Hurricane Irene.

Both Michael Garofano Sr. and Michael Garofano Jr. were employees at the Rutland City Water Facility in Rutland, VT, where they served at the interest of their communities until the very end. During the worst hours of Hurricane Irene in Vermont, Michael Sr. and Michael Jr. sought to protect the people of Rutland by inspecting the town's water system infrastructure. In this brave moment, both men unfortunately lost their lives as the waters of Mendon Brook rose to threatening levels. We will always remember them for their everlasting courage, evident by their extreme dedication to protecting their family and beloved community during a crisis.

Michael Sr. joined the Rutland City Water Facility as its manager in 1981. He served zealously, ensuring that the water of Rutland City was safe at all times for those living in the region. He was also a member of the American Water Works Association where he was committed to benefitting not only Vermont, but also the country, in its pursuit of clean water. Michael was highly respected and honored by those who worked under his supervision. He was known as one of the best employees the industry had to offer.

Michael Sr.'s son, Michael Garofano Jr., also had the interest of water quality at heart. As a water operator at the Rutland City Water Facility, he too braved the elements of Hurricane Irene to serve his family and community. As an independently contracted landscaper, Michael's loyalty to his community was widely recognized. At a mere 24 years of age, both his accomplishments and bravery are of honorable praise.

Michael Garofano Sr. and Jr. are survived by wife and mother, Celestine ``Sally''--Sitek--Garofano and son and brother, Thomas Garofano of Rutland, Vermont. My wife Marcelle and I wish to express our deepest condolences to Sally, Thomas, and Michael Sr. and Jr.'s extended family. In the days following the hurricane, many acts of bravery have been displayed throughout our state. All of Vermont can be proud of Michael Sr. and Michael Jr.'s incredible courage and the legacy they both have left behind.

I ask unanimous consent that the obituary for Michael Garofano Sr. and Michael Garofano Jr. from the Rutland Herald be printed in the Record so all may recognize two men whose acts of bravery will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 8, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 8, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 8, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Tax Reform Options: International Issues.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Quality and Safety in Child Care: Giving Working Families Security, Confidence, and Peace of Mind'' on September 8, 2011, at 10:15 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 8, 2011, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``New State Voting Laws: Barriers to the Ballot?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Afghanistan: Right Sizing the Development Footprint.''

Madam President, every time I hear discussion about how we balance the budget, especially coming from the other side of the aisle--maybe because I have been here long enough--I remember the last time we did balance the budget during President Clinton's term. We balanced the budget. We

created an amazing surplus. We created millions and millions of new jobs.

But you know what. Not a single Republican voted for that. It passed in the Senate only because the Vice President of the United States cast the deciding vote. No Republican voted--we actually had to do more than just have a bumper sticker ``Let's Balance the Budget.'' We actually did balance the budget, which required some very tough choices. No Republican voted for that.

In fact, they all condemned it saying: This would bring about wrack and ruin, and on and on. It did not. It created an enormous budget surplus and created 22 million new jobs. We were paying down the national debt. We left a very large surplus to President Clinton's successor, President Bush, who immediately wasted it on a needless war in Iraq and tax cuts, both of which I voted against.

It is also interesting to be lectured by the other side of the aisle about balancing the budget when they voted to go into two of the longest wars in our history, and for the first time in our history voted to pay for them by borrowing the money. Now look where trillions of dollars will have gone because of Iraq and Afghanistan, and now to be told that to continue to pay for unnecessary wars we must cut out things for Americans such as education, medical care, housing, scientific research, and things such as finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, repairing our aging bridges, roads--even hearing a Member of the other body saying: We cannot respond to the tragedies caused by Irene in the distinguished Presiding Officer's home State, mine and others, unless we take the money from other needs in this country. Yet that same Member supported an unnecessary war in Iraq and supports paying for it on the credit card. Come on. Let's be real. Let's start thinking about things in America.

The Senate began debate last night on the America Invents Act. Unfortunately, as has happened so many times, we had to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to something that has strong support. I would note that 93 Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

This is a bipartisan consensus bill. It is largely similar to the legislation the Senate passed in March. Incidentally, we passed that on a vote of 95 to 5. Some would say these days that we cannot even have a vote like that on a resolution saying the Sun rises in the east. Here Republicans and Democrats came together 95 to 5. The Senate can and should move immediately to pass this bill. It will create good jobs. It will encourage innovation. It will strengthen our recovering economy, and it will not cost the taxpayers anything.

I want to commend Senator Hatch, the longtime Republican lead sponsor of this measure; Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee; and Senator Kyl, the Republican whip, for their support of the bill and for their commitment to making patent reform become a reality.

This is an effort we have worked on for nearly 6 years. I sometimes shudder to think of the amount of time my staff and I have spent on this issue. During those 6 years it has become even more important to the economy. The time has come to enact this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1249 from the Obama administration.

The statement describes the bill as a balanced and well- crafted effort to enhance the services to patent applicants and America's innovators provided by the U.S. Patent Office.

The Statement of Administration Policy emphasizes the bill supports the USPTO's efforts to improve patent quality, reduce the backlog of patent applications, reducing domestic and global costs for U.S. companies. I underscore these points because they are exactly the goals Chairman Smith of the other body and I set out to achieve when we first introduced patent reform legislation 6 years ago. It has been over half a century since our patent laws were updated.

Look at the changes that have occurred during that time. We have become even more of a global economy than ever before. We have become more of an innovative economy than ever before. Improving patent quality will benefit businesses across the economic spectrum. The America Invents Act will improve patent quality by expanding the role of third parties to the patent examination process, creating a streamlined first-window, postgrant review to quickly challenge and weed out patents that never should have been issued in the first place.

It improves the funding mechanism for the Patent Office to confront its backlog of nearly 700,000 patent applications. Those are patents that could be creating jobs and improving our economy. For years, low- quality patents have been a drain on our patent system, and in turn our economy, by undermining the value of what it means to hold a patent. Higher quality patents will bring greater certainty in the patent system. That is going to make it easier to get investment in American businesses, create jobs, and grow our economy. This act is bipartisan legislation. It is going to lead to long-needed improvements in our patent system and laws. I would note that no one Senator, no industry, no interest group, got everything it wanted in this bill. I suggested that if we were going to write this bill exactly the way we wanted in this body, we would have 100 separate bills. But we can only pass one. That is the nature of compromise.

This bill represents a significant step forward in preparing the Patent Office and, in turn businesses, to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Support for the bill has grown over time. It is now endorsed by an extensive list of supporters across the political spectrum. Look at who we have here. How often do you see this kind of a breakdown?

The National Association of Manufacturers, the United Steelworkers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Association of American Universities, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Coalition for the 21st Century Patent Reform, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, the National Retail Federation, the Financial Services Roundtable, the American Bar Association, the United Inventors Association of America, the Association of Competitive Technology, the Association of University Technology Managers, the Information Technology Council, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and so many more.

I cannot remember a time in my years in the Senate where we have seen such a broad coalition come together: business, labor, high-tech, and others, coming together to pass legislation. We should grant this legislation final approval.

The Senate and the House have now both considered it. A host of associations, interested parties from the private sector have endorsed passing the bill without further amendment. At a time when we can do something to create jobs and not cost the taxpayers money, every day we wait, every day we delay is another day before those jobs are created. Every day we wait, every day we delay is another day that we hold back the innovative genius of America. Every day we wait, every day we delay is another day we are unable to compete with the rest of the world on a level playing field.

Any amendment--any amendment, including ones I might like--would force reconsideration by the House, and more unnecessary delay, and longer before we can create those jobs, longer before we can innovate, longer before we can compete with the rest of the world. I can think of a half dozen amendments that I would like to have in the bill.

I will vote against them because it is time to get this done. Patent reform legislation has been debated exhaustively in both the Senate and the House for the past four Congresses. It is the product of dozens of hearings and weeks of committee markups. We should proceed to the bill and pass it.

Let's not have any one person feeling they have the magic point everybody else has somehow overlooked. That is not the way the legislative process works. There are 100 here in the Senate and 435 in the House. Nobody gets every single thing they want. But here, the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate are getting what they feel is best for America.

It is time for the Senate to serve the interests of the American people by passing the legislation before us. We have before us a consensus bill that will facilitate invention, innovation, and job creation today. This can help everybody from startups and small businesses to our largest cutting-edge corporations.

Let's put Americans back to work. Let's show the American people that the Congress can actually accomplish something and do it for America. Here is something on which both Republicans and Democrats can come together. Let's not delay any longer. We have taken 6 years to get here. We had a vote yesterday where over 90 Senators voted to proceed, which indicates it is time to get moving, it is time to stop debating, and it is time to vote.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.