Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for scheduling this confirmation vote today. Mae D'Agostino has the distinction of being the first newly considered judicial nominee this year. Every judicial confirmation thus far this year was of a nominee who had been unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee last year. Each of those nominations could, and in my view should, have been considered and confirmed last year before the Senate adjourned in December. Ms. D'Agostino appeared at a hearing in February, and her nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Northern District of New York was reported unanimously earlier this month. Now she is being considered by the Senate. This is an example of what we can do. It should not take weeks and months for the Senate to consider nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee, particularly those who are consensus nominees.

Ms. D'Agostino is a native of Albany, New York, and has spent her career in private practice in the Albany area. In addition to her legal practice, Ms. D'Agostino has taught at Albany Law School and the Junior College of Albany. Once confirmed, Ms. D'Agostino will be the only woman currently serving, and only the second woman ever to serve, on the Northern District of New York Federal bench. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for working with the President on this nomination. They have worked hard throughout the process. In addition to Ms. D'Agostino, there remain nine other judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration after having been

reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Two of those nominations have twice been considered by the Judiciary Committee and twice reported with strong bipartisan support, first last year and again in February. They are Susan Carney of Connecticut to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Michael Simon to fill a vacancy on the district court in Oregon. Another has been reported favorably four times Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California. So in addition to the D'Agostino nomination to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in New York, there are nominees ready to be confirmed to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in California, another judicial emergency vacancy in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, vacancies on the Federal and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. I expect the Judiciary Committee will consider and report additional judicial nominations this week, adding to the number of judicial nominees ready for final Senate action.

Recently the Judicial Conference of the United States reaffirmed its recommendation that two additional judgeships be added to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit given its workload. That is in addition to the two existing vacancies. Regrettably, the unnecessary delays in considering Susan Carney's nomination to fill one of those vacancies has left that court and the people it serves without much- needed resources. It has also given right-wing pressure groups the chance to launch unfounded attacks on Ms. Carney full of false accusations and innuendo. This is a nominee who had the support of a majority of the Republicans on the committee, and who should have been considered and confirmed last year. The Senate should take up her nomination, debate it and vote on it rather than allowing her record to be smeared. That would be the fair thing to do and the right thing to do. I hope we will do so soon.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays in filling vacancies is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion.

Regrettably, rather than reduce vacancies dramatically as we did during the Bush administration, the Senate has reversed course in the first 26 months of the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34. That has now been reversed, with vacancies first topping 90 in August 2009 and staying above that level since. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent.

In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years, when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. Whereas the Democratic majority in the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60 in President Bush's first 2 years, today judicial vacancies still number 96. By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but they have not been. We have not even kept up with the rate of attrition, putting at risk the ability of Americans to have a fair hearing in court.

The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevent people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others-- including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act.

We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner as the nomination before us today demonstrates. President Obama has worked with the New York home State Senators to identify this nominee, just as he has worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle to identify superbly qualified nominees in districts with vacancies. All the nominations on the Executive Calendar have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.

During President Bush's first term, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office and by this date in President Bush's third year had confirmed 112. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 74 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration.

I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I am encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' I am glad to see him echo my call to turn the page and end the days of tit for tat on judicial nominations. That is what I did from the first days of the Bush administration in spite of how President Clinton's nominees had been treated.

The committee's ranking Republican often points to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation with the White House by some home State Senators. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have before us. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate.

I hope that it is a sign of progress that we are today proceeding to confirm a judicial nominee considered this year and reported earlier this month and hope that we can continue to work to restore regular order in considering judicial nominations. However, I would observe that it is nearly April and every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long. I hope we can join together to make real progress.

I congratulate Mae D'Agostino and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand for their work.

The distinguished senior Senator from New York is on the floor. I am delighted to see him, and I would ask, when he is finished, if he asks for a quorum call, if he might ask to have it charged against both sides equally.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the sixth continuing resolution of the fiscal year. While this is not a record for Congress, it is certainly a number far higher than is appropriate for responsibly funding the government. I want to take a minute to explain how we got to this point.

Last December the Senate Appropriations Committee prepared an omnibus spending bill to fund the government for fiscal year 2011. The omnibus was not a perfect bill, but it was based on hundreds of hours of hearings, committee meetings and bipartisan negotiations. Members of both parties had input into the process and content of the bill. So it was perplexing that in the waning hours of the 111th Congress our friends on the other side of the aisle walked away from this bill. Because any action in the Senate is now subject to the approval of a supermajority we were unable to pass the omnibus and instead passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through the beginning of March.

I fully understand concerns about using an omnibus as a method for budgeting; it is far from a perfect mechanism. But the alternative is to operate the way we have for the last 6 months, stringing along stop- gap measures that undermine Federal programs and agencies. The impact of uncertain budgeting is felt at the State and local levels as well. I hear on a daily basis from Vermonters about Head Start programs that are considering layoffs, college students concerned whether they will have to take out more loans if Pell grants are cut, and hundreds of others worried about the future of home heating, housing and basic safety net programs for many who are struggling mightily right now.

It is critical that rather than muddling along with more short-term continuing resolutions that we pass a responsible budget plan for the remainder of the year. The current 3-week CR under consideration is an example of how this process does not serve us well. Halfway through the fiscal year we are debating significant cuts to infrastructure funding like Save America's Treasures, the Public Television Facilities Program and to efforts that provide basic services such as rural housing assistance to Vermonters.

I am extremely disappointed with the elimination of the Save America's Treasures program. It has preserved hundreds of historic landmarks throughout the country, a number of which are iconic Vermont structures, valuable parts of my State's identity. Another cut that is disappointing is the elimination of funding in fiscal year 2011 for the International Fund for Ireland. It is an unfortunate twist that on St. Patrick's Day, Congress is poised to pull the plug on this program of assistance for the most economically depressed communities of Northern Ireland.

These are not abstract cuts. The elimination and reduction of this funding will have a measurable and negative impact on job creation and the daily lives of Americans. While I believe these cuts are misguided, I will reluctantly support the continuing resolution. I do not make this decision lightly or with any enthusiasm. Unfortunately this bill is the only option available to keep the government running and prevent a shutdown. A shutdown would cause severe hardship for countless people, and the President and Congress must use this time to find an acceptable compromise to fund the government through the remainder of the year.

Will the leader withhold?

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for scheduling this confirmation vote today. I have been talking about this nomination since last year. Amy Jackson is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the District Court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital, for some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it was one of two nominations to that court unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action, despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts. The President has had to renominate Ms. Jackson, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider her and now, finally, the Senate is being allowed to consider her.

I have spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous occasions, including during the last 2 weeks. I have noted the criticism from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the District Court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have acted before adjourning last year in response to his request. All four nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. They were needlessly delayed.

When the Senate was allowed to consider and confirm Judge Boasberg on Monday, I, again, raised the question of the refusal on the other side of the aisle to proceed to consider the Jackson nomination. Ms. Jackson's nomination was reported without opposition by the Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. Ms. Jackson is a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and experience who the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association gave its highest peer review rating of ``well qualified.'' Representative Norton has called her one of the top practitioners in one of the District's top law firms and given her a strong endorsement. I expect this will be another of the nominations that has been needlessly delayed and then confirmed unanimously or nearly so.

In addition to the Jackson nomination, there remain 10 additional judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration after having been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Also reported from the Judiciary Committee and before the Senate are nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, two judicial emergency vacancies in California and vacancies on the Federal and D.C. Circuit, in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act.

Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion.

When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging caseload'' of the Court ``includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than four percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the vacancies down significantly.

By now, judicial vacancies should have been cut in half, but they have not been. Unlike in the first 2 years of President Bush's first term when with a Democratic majority the Senate reduced vacancies from 110 to 60, judicial vacancies topped 90 in August 2009 and have remained above that level ever since. After tonight's confirmation, they will still number 95, putting at risk the ability of Americans to have a fair hearing in Court.

The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable.

We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal

bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with Democratic and Republican home state Senators to identify superbly qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.

During President Bush's first term, his first four tumultuous years in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office and by this date in President Bush's third year had confirmed 110. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 73 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first three years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration.

I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation by certain home state Senators with the White House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have before us. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate.

In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long.

I thank Chief Judge Lamberth for his efforts on behalf of his Court, on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, and on behalf of our justice system. The American justice system is not some discretionary luxury. It serves an essential function in our democracy. I thank all the women and men who work every day in our courts to guarantee justice for the American people.

I am glad that Amy Jackson's wait is finally over and congratulate her and her family on her confirmation.

Exhibit 1

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, November 4, 2010.

Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the

District of Columbia.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

judges of the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the

vacancies that exist at our Court.

Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four

vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the

additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M.

Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31,

2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its

15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this

situation already is being felt and will only increase over

time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly

handles includes many involving national security issues, as

well as other issues of national significance. A large number

of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time

and attention from each of our judges.

Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to

foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep

up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent

vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary.

Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been

reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await

floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson)

have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported

out of Committee.

We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's

vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the

Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us

continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve.

Sincerely,

Royce C. Lamberth,

Chief Judge.

I yield back any time I have remaining.

Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week, a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2011, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. This bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.

This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs.

While the Obama administration has made significant progress in improving the FOIA process, large backlogs remain a major roadblock to public access to information. A report released earlier this week by the National Security Archive found that only about half of the Federal agencies surveyed have taken concrete steps to update their FOIA policies in light of these reforms. In addition, twelve of the agencies surveyed by the National Security Archive had pending FOIA requests that were more than 6 years old, according to the report.

Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply unacceptable. And that is why we are introducing this bill.

The commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also study why Federal agencies are more and more relying on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public. In addition, the commission will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The commission will be made up of government and non-governmental representatives with a broad range of experience related to handling FOIA requests.

Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. Indeed, we need look no further than the unfolding and historic events in the Middle East and North Africa for evidence of the truth of these words. The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free.

I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Whitehouse who has cosponsored this bill. I urge all Senators to support the Faster FOIA Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act. This bill does one simple thing: It makes the EB-5 regional center program permanent. The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been highly successful since its inception in 1992, but it has always lacked the security of assured continuity. Extending the program by a few years at a time hampers the growth of the program and creates a disincentive for immigrant investors to bring their capital investments to the United States. EB-5 regional center programs have drawn jobs and millions of investment dollars to struggling communities and regions of our country. We can expand these job-creating

programs and allow new regional centers to compete for investments with quality projects--if the EB-5 authorization is made permanent in law.

The State of Vermont and Vermont entrepreneurs recognized the potential of this program early on, and Vermont gained regional center status in 1997. Our State and the Vermont entrepreneurs who took advantage of the regional center planned their projects with great care. As a result, both the State and our entrepreneurs have successfully attracted investors and created jobs. Other states have taken note of Vermont's success, and today there are now about 135 designated regional center programs across the country, which are creating jobs in States like Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, and New York, to name just a few.

A regional center program is an economic engine for the state or region in which it is located. In a small state like Vermont, the economic activity generated by EB-5 projects at resorts like Jay Peak and Sugarbush has created direct jobs in those communities. Some of those jobs are for the construction and expansion phase, and others are for long-term employees of the resorts. These resort expansions bring more tourists to Vermont to enjoy skiing and summertime activities. Then there are the multiplier effects of these projects. Our visitors spend money while skiing and touring Vermont, supporting other Vermont businesses with every purchase they make. The economic activity is not limited to tourism, and there are other innovative projects in the pipeline in Vermont--projects like biotechnology; water purification; and manufacturing. Because the entire State of Vermont is a designated regional center, there is great potential for diversity both in terms of projects and geographic location.

The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within a Regional Center, and they independently apply for EB-5 visas. If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, USCIS, foreign investors are granted conditional 2-year green cards. After 2 years, these investors must provide proof that they have created at least 10 jobs as a result of their investments, and that they have met additional investment requirements set by USCIS.

The Federal Government authorizes approximately 388,000 green cards each year. Out of that number, only 10,000 annually are reserved for the EB-5 program. The vast majority of the green cards issued by our Government are family-based and available to anyone who meets the admissibility criteria, irrespective of personal wealth. It is true that this program requires a significant up-front investment from a prospective immigrant, but that does not disadvantage others who wish to become permanent residents. Most importantly, that investment directly benefits American communities and workers at no cost to American taxpayers. Similar programs have long yielded extraordinary economic benefits for the people of Canada, Australia and other countries.

There is virtually no substantive opposition to the EB-5 program. Most elected officials will agree that creating jobs and capital investment is a good, bipartisan goal.

The bill I introduce today makes the program permanent, but I am also working on a broader package of improvements to the EB-5 program to modernize it and ensure it operates efficiently, and as Congress intended. We must make sure that the immigration agency has the tools it needs to keep the program free from fraud and abuse. We must offer stakeholders an efficient process with fair standards so that they have confidence in the program. I am developing legislation in consultation with stakeholders and agency officials to make changes that will bring about lasting improvements for everyone involved.

The EB-5 regional center program is one small corner of our overall immigration system--and it is one that generates tangible, ongoing economic benefits for Americans in the form of jobs and capital investment in local communities. It is an American success story, and we can build on its success with a continuing charter, with careful cultivation, and with appropriate oversight.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Nation commemorates Sunshine Week, a time to educate the public about the importance of open government. In recognition of Sunshine Week 2011, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to reintroduce the Faster FOIA Act of 2011, a bill to improve the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005 to address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the Senate unanimously passed it last year. This bill is the most recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.

This bill will establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency FOIA delays and to recommend to the Congress and the President steps to help eliminate FOIA backlogs.

While the Obama administration has made significant progress in improving the FOIA process, large backlogs remain a major roadblock to public access to information. A report released earlier this week by the National Security Archive found that only about half of the Federal agencies surveyed have taken concrete steps to update their FOIA policies in light of these reforms. In addition, twelve of the agencies surveyed by the National Security Archive had pending FOIA requests that were more than 6 years old, according to the report.

Senator Cornyn and I believe that these delays are simply unacceptable. And that is why we are introducing this bill.

The commission created by the Faster FOIA Act will make key recommendations to Congress and the President for reducing impediments to the efficient processing of FOIA requests. The commission will also study why Federal agencies are more and more relying on FOIA exemptions to withhold information from the public. In addition, the commission will examine whether the current system for charging fees and granting fee waivers under FOIA should be modified. The commission will be made up of government and non-governmental representatives with a broad range of experience related to handling FOIA requests.

Thomas Jefferson once wisely observed that ``information is the currency of democracy.'' I share this view. Indeed, we need look no further than the unfolding and historic events in the Middle East and North Africa for evidence of the truth of these words. The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government information to the American people, so that our democracy remains vibrant and free.

I have said many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. As we celebrate Sunshine Week, it is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the Nation in celebrating an open and transparent government. I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Whitehouse who has cosponsored this bill. I urge all Senators to support the Faster FOIA Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Creating American Jobs Through Foreign Capital Investment Act. This bill does one simple thing: It makes the EB-5 regional center program permanent. The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been highly successful since its inception in 1992, but it has always lacked the security of assured continuity. Extending the program by a few years at a time hampers the growth of the program and creates a disincentive for immigrant investors to bring their capital investments to the United States. EB-5 regional center programs have drawn jobs and millions of investment dollars to struggling communities and regions of our country. We can expand these job-creating

programs and allow new regional centers to compete for investments with quality projects--if the EB-5 authorization is made permanent in law.

The State of Vermont and Vermont entrepreneurs recognized the potential of this program early on, and Vermont gained regional center status in 1997. Our State and the Vermont entrepreneurs who took advantage of the regional center planned their projects with great care. As a result, both the State and our entrepreneurs have successfully attracted investors and created jobs. Other states have taken note of Vermont's success, and today there are now about 135 designated regional center programs across the country, which are creating jobs in States like Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, and New York, to name just a few.

A regional center program is an economic engine for the state or region in which it is located. In a small state like Vermont, the economic activity generated by EB-5 projects at resorts like Jay Peak and Sugarbush has created direct jobs in those communities. Some of those jobs are for the construction and expansion phase, and others are for long-term employees of the resorts. These resort expansions bring more tourists to Vermont to enjoy skiing and summertime activities. Then there are the multiplier effects of these projects. Our visitors spend money while skiing and touring Vermont, supporting other Vermont businesses with every purchase they make. The economic activity is not limited to tourism, and there are other innovative projects in the pipeline in Vermont--projects like biotechnology; water purification; and manufacturing. Because the entire State of Vermont is a designated regional center, there is great potential for diversity both in terms of projects and geographic location.

The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within a Regional Center, and they independently apply for EB-5 visas. If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, USCIS, foreign investors are granted conditional 2-year green cards. After 2 years, these investors must provide proof that they have created at least 10 jobs as a result of their investments, and that they have met additional investment requirements set by USCIS.

The Federal Government authorizes approximately 388,000 green cards each year. Out of that number, only 10,000 annually are reserved for the EB-5 program. The vast majority of the green cards issued by our Government are family-based and available to anyone who meets the admissibility criteria, irrespective of personal wealth. It is true that this program requires a significant up-front investment from a prospective immigrant, but that does not disadvantage others who wish to become permanent residents. Most importantly, that investment directly benefits American communities and workers at no cost to American taxpayers. Similar programs have long yielded extraordinary economic benefits for the people of Canada, Australia and other countries.

There is virtually no substantive opposition to the EB-5 program. Most elected officials will agree that creating jobs and capital investment is a good, bipartisan goal.

The bill I introduce today makes the program permanent, but I am also working on a broader package of improvements to the EB-5 program to modernize it and ensure it operates efficiently, and as Congress intended. We must make sure that the immigration agency has the tools it needs to keep the program free from fraud and abuse. We must offer stakeholders an efficient process with fair standards so that they have confidence in the program. I am developing legislation in consultation with stakeholders and agency officials to make changes that will bring about lasting improvements for everyone involved.

The EB-5 regional center program is one small corner of our overall immigration system--and it is one that generates tangible, ongoing economic benefits for Americans in the form of jobs and capital investment in local communities. It is an American success story, and we can build on its success with a continuing charter, with careful cultivation, and with appropriate oversight.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding to consider legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program, SBIR/ STTR. Our Nation's small businesses and start-ups are crucial to maintaining America's position as the world leader in technology and innovation. The SBIR/STTR programs improve the ability of small businesses to take part in federally funded research.

Last week, the Senate voted 95-5 to pass another bill to help small businesses and our economic recovery, the America Invents Act. This legislation will provide our small businesses and start-ups the legal landscape that they need to protect and commercialize their inventions to create jobs and boost our economy.

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, in strongly endorsing the America Invents Act, wrote that ``[p]atent reform is needed to clarify and simplify the system; to properly protect legitimate patents; and to reduce costs in the system, including when it comes to litigation and the international marketplace.''

Similarly, Louis Foreman, an inventor and advocate for other independent inventors wrote that the legislation ``will make independent inventors, such as myself, more competitive in today's global marketplace.''

Both the council and Mr. Foreman specifically noted the importance of transitioning to ``first-inventor-to-file'' and ending fee diversion at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The America Invents Act will benefit small businesses and start-ups in several specific ways. First, the legislation will make it more difficult for large infringers to harass a patent owner through successive administrative challenges of the patent or challenges that have no likelihood of success. Large corporations often use these challenges to avoid license fees or discourage an infringement suit. For small businesses, patent owners and independent inventors, the expense of countering these tactics can make enforcement of their patents difficult to impossible. The improvements that this legislation makes to the inter partes system will limit harassment.

Second, the America Invents Act requires discounts for small businesses at the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO. Specifically, the bill mandates that the PTO provide a 50-percent reduction in fees for small business, and a 75-percent reduction in fees for businesses that receive a new ``micro-entity'' designation as truly small and independent inventors. Together, these provisions ensure that the PTO's need to collect fees for services is not done on the backs of small businesses. Small businesses will, therefore, be able to afford patent protection better than today.

Third, as part of the transition to first-inventor-to-file, the America Invents Act eliminates costly interference proceedings as the method for determining the right to a patent between competing inventors in favor of a derivation proceeding. Under current law, before enactment of the American Invents Act, when more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the patent is given to the applicant who has the resources to prove their claim to the invention. This costly proceeding is almost always won by larger corporations. A derivation proceeding is far simpler and does not require meticulous notes by the inventor, which gives large corporations an advantage, because the key date is the date of application.

Finally, the legislation will improve patent quality overall. Roughly half of all patents in litigation have claims invalidated. When there are too many patents out there that are not able to withstand court scrutiny, it leads to a more difficult climate for small businesses to license their inventions and raise capital from investors. By improving our patent system, we can provide confidence that when a patent is granted, it is of high quality, and investors can rely on that.

The New York Times editorialized last week that today, ``The patent system is too cumbersome, and it doesn't protect the small inventor. The America Invents Act is a smart reform.'' Indeed, the legislation is crucial to fulfilling the promise that we make to small businesses and independent inventors that if they put in the hard work, the United States is the place where a great invention will be rewarded. I thank the 95 Senators who voted in favor of Senate passage of the America Invents Act and look forward to continuing our work with Chairman Smith the House of Representatives to get the legislation to the President's desk without unnecessary delay. We tried to make sure that patent reform in the America Invents Act helps small businesses and increases their ability to serve as an engine for economic growth and good jobs here in America.

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

Mr. President, today I join the senior Senator from California and others to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. This legislation would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, so that same-sex marriages authorized under State law will be recognized by the Federal Government and protected under Federal law. Since the passage of DOMA, several States, including the State of Vermont, have provided the protections of marriage to same-sex couples. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, these families are not treated fairly. That is why today's action is needed.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I often find myself confronted by those who think the issue of civil rights is merely one for the history books. This is not true. There is still work to be done. The march toward equality must continue until all individuals and all families are both protected and respected. Today, Congress will begin to help bring fairness to all our Nation's families.

The issue of marriage is one that has long been left for the states to determine, and they have. Today, five States, including my home State of Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, have granted same-sex couples the right to get married. With DOMA as law, however, we are creating a tier of second-class families in States that have authorized same-sex marriage. As a Vermonter who has been married for 48 years, I believe it is important that we encourage and sanction committed relationships. That is the best way to provide for stable, supportive families. Vermont has led the Nation in this regard. In 2000, Vermont took a crucial step when it became the first State in the Nation to allow civil unions for same-sex couples. In 2009, Vermont took another important step to help sustain the relationships that fulfill our lives by becoming the first state to adopt same-sex marriage through the legislative process. I am proud of the progressive example set by my constituents, and I do not want any of them harmed by the continuing effect of DOMA.

The time has now come for the Federal Government to recognize that these families deserve all of the legal protections afforded to opposite-sex married couples recognized under state law. The Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2004 that stated that same-sex couples are denied more than one thousand Federal benefits. Right now, couples in states that authorize same-sex marriage laws cannot file joint Federal tax returns and are not entitled to the same Social Security and medical leave benefits as opposite-sex married couples under Federal law. This goes against American values and it must end.

This is a question of basic civil rights, and how the constitutional principles of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause protect all of us from discrimination. The President and the Attorney General recognized this when they announced that the Department of Justice will no longer defend two court cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the DOMA. I applaud President Obama and Attorney General Holder for making the right decision. However, the administration is still enforcing DOMA elsewhere, because it is the law of the land. It is now time for leaders in Congress to change that law. The Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 would allow same-sex couples who are married under state law to be eligible for Federal benefits. Nothing in this bill would obligate any person, religious organization, state, or locality to celebrate or perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Those prerogatives would remain. What would change, however, and what must change, is the Federal Government's treatment of State-sanctioned marriage.

I believe this legislation is overdue, and it is a step in the right direction toward fostering equal treatment under law. I urge my fellow Senators to come together to support this important bill.

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

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

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider a judicial nomination I have been talking about since last year. Judge Boasberg is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the district court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital for some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it was unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts. The President has had to renominate Judge Boasberg, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider him and now, finally, the Senate is being allowed to consider him.

I suspect the Senate will now confirm him unanimously or nearly so. Judge Boasberg has outstanding credentials. He was appointed to be a judge in DC by President George W. Bush in 2002. He has a wealth of experience, having presided over approximately 500 cases. He is a former assistant U.S. attorney, and received the highest peer review rating of well qualified from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association.

Yet as we proceed with this nomination, Senate Republicans have objected to proceeding to the nomination of Amy Jackson. Both Judge Boasberg and Ms. Jackson were reported without opposition by the Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. I have spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous occasions, including as recently as last week. I noted the criticism from Chief

Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the district court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have acted on both these nominations last year in response to that request. They were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. These two judicial nominees to fill longstanding vacancies have been waiting too long for final consideration by the Senate.

While I am glad we are ending the wait for Judge Boasberg, the refusal to proceed on the Jackson nomination is just another example of the needless delays on considering outstanding nominees. Ms. Jackson is a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and experience. She, too, received the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association's highest peer review rating of well qualified. Representative Norton has called her one of the top practitioners in one of the District's top law firms, and has strongly endorsed her nomination.

In addition to Judge Boasberg, there are still 10 judicial nominees left waiting for Senate consideration having been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee: nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, a judicial emergency vacancy in California and vacancies on the Federal and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. They should be debated and confirmed without delay as well. I urge the Senate leadership to proceed to debate and vote on them before the upcoming recess. We should be working to clear the calendar before the recess and not unnecessarily extend these vacancies. That is what a return to regular order entails.

The Judiciary Committee is holding hearings every 2 weeks and we hope finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial vacancies across the country.We can do that if the Senate continues to consider judicial nominations in regular order as they are reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act.

Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion. When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging caseload'' of the court ``includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be printed in the record at the end of my statement.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement recent articles from the Palm Beach Post and the Associated Press about the delays in judicial confirmation and some additional examples of difficulties being caused. The Florida paper reports on the crisis in south Florida and the watch list for Federal courts with high caseloads and high vacancies. The Associated Press report is on the situation in Rhode Island where dozens of cases have had to be reassigned to judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts because the Senate continues to delay consideration of the nomination of Jack McConnell.

Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they continue to hover around 100. After tonight's confirmation, they will still number 96.

The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable.

We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with Democratic and Republican home State Senators to identify superbly qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.

During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 72 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration.

I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' That should be good news to Ms. Jackson and the other judicial nominees now available and ready to be confirmed without further delay.

My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation by certain home State Senators with the White House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate.

In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long.

Exhibit 1

U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, November 4, 2010.

Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

judges of the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the

vacancies that exist at our Court.

Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four

vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the

additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M.

Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31,

2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its

15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this

situation already is being felt and will only increase over

time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly

handles includes many involving national security issues, as

well as other issues of national significance. A large number

of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time

and attention from each of our judges.

Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to

foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep

up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent

vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary.

Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been

reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await

floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson)

have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported

out of Committee.

We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's

vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the

Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us

continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve.

Sincerely,

Royce C. Lamberth,

Chief Judge.

Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I ask unanimous consent that when I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time be equally divided between both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on March 10, my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and I introduced S. 558, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011. It is identical to the bill she and I introduced last year and similar to those in prior years.

Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation cluster munitions cause over a wide area understands the unacceptable threat they pose to civilians. These are not the laser-guided weapons the Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad.

There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to explode as

designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is an unsuspecting child or a farmer. In Laos today, people are still being killed and maimed by millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the Vietnam war. That legacy, resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It is shameful that we have contributed less money in the past 35 years to clean up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing.

Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports, and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export, or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets.

The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018. But, like Senator Feinstein, I do not believe we can justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and injure civilians, and which many of our allies have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and expects from the United States.

Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1-percent failure rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of enactment. However, the bill permits the President to waive the 1- percent requirement if he certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States. I urge the Pentagon to work with us by supporting this reasonable step.

Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions opened for signature in Dublin, 108 countries have signed the treaty, including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia, and other allies of the United States. However, the Bush administration did not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and the Obama administration has not signed it.

Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless exercise since it does not yet have the support of the United States and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and stockpiled, and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions.

It is important to note that the United States today has the technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the requirements of our bill, as well as the treaty. What is lacking is the political will to expend the necessary resources. There is no excuse for continuing to use cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

I urge the Obama Administration to review its policy on cluster munitions and put the United States on a path to join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an important step in the right direction.

I again commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown such passion and persistence in raising this issue and seeking every opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.

Mr. President, I appreciate that. But I think what we are going to do is try to go back and forth.

So Senator Sessions will go next. But I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from New York. I yield with the consent that I then be recognized at the end of the speech of the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I appreciate the help of the Senator from Alabama on the patent bill which passed last night. It will help us increase jobs without adding anything to the deficit.

We made what I think was a terrible mistake when the Congress voted to support going to war in Iraq--I was one of the 22 who voted against that war--and then voted to cut taxes and borrow the money to pay for the war in Iraq. We borrowed $1 trillion to pay for a war that has not made us safer. It has caused thousands of deaths of Americans and tens of thousands of others, and has degraded our military which will cost billions to rebuild.

We also went into Afghanistan with the intent to catch Osama bin Laden, and when, according to accounts, he was surrounded, our personnel were yanked out of Afghanistan and sent to Iraq, and he escaped into Pakistan, and $1 trillion later, we are still there. Again, borrowed money for those two wars, one that went way beyond whatever it was supposed to and the other one that should never have happened in the first place. We also cut taxes on oil companies and millionaires and everybody else. And now we have a skyrocketing deficit, thanks to those mistakes.

Later today we will vote on H.R. 1, the House Continuing Resolution, and then the Senate substitute. I want to speak briefly about how the Senate CR compares to H.R. 1, particularly funding for the Department of State and Foreign Operations.

First, Senators should know what is in the House CR or, perhaps more importantly, what is not in it.

It is notable that the House defines diplomacy and international development as non-security spending, in spite of, of course, the integral part they both play protecting our security around the globe. It ignores the views of Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, former Chairman General Powell, General Petraeus, President Obama, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and every former National Security Adviser. They have all made clear that these investments do directly protect U.S. security interests, not only on the front line States of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, but around the world.

President Reagan and former Homeland Security Secretary Ridge also recognized the connection between international assistance and our security. President Reagan said:

Security assistance programs, an essential complement to

our defense effort, directly enhances the security of the

United States.

Secretary Ridge said:

The programs supported by the International Affairs Budget

are as essential to our national security as defense

programs.

Secretary Gates said:

I never miss an opportunity to call for more funding for

and emphasis on diplomacy and development.

There are a whole lot of other examples, from both Republican and Democratic leaders, which seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the House.

Our Republican friends in the House should know that we cannot counter the influence of al-Qaida and other violent extremists through military force alone. They should know that helping countries such as Southern Sudan rebuild after conflict, building stable democratic institutions in countries such as Egypt, preventing the trafficking of nuclear material and other weapons in the former Soviet Union, educating and providing jobs for youth who would otherwise be fodder for terrorist recruiters in the Middle East, combating the corrosive influence of organized crime in Central America, preventing the spread of deadly viruses in Africa and Asia--viruses that are only one airplane ride away from the United States--or supporting NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or U.N. peacekeeping--these are all parts of our national security. It is the diplomats here and abroad, and the funds they administer, that help make U.S. leadership possible around the world.

While the House press releases claim to adequately fund operations and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, that is empty rhetoric. Secretary Clinton has said the House CR will unacceptably harm U.S. interests in those countries.

That is only the beginning. The House CR slashes funding for refugees and other victims of disaster by 40 percent, at the same time Members on the other side of the aisle are rightly urging that we help the tens of thousands of Libyans, Tunisians and Egyptians who have fled their homes.

The House CR provides no funding for the Global Food Security Fund which prevents hunger and famine in Africa and Asia and improves America's standing.

It eliminates funding for the Clean Technology Fund which supports exports of solar, wind, and other renewable energy. And by doing so it opens the door wider to China's exports. How shortsighted can we be? It is like owning a business and you have a competitor on the other side of town and you say, Well, we are not going to advertise. We are not going to stock our shelves. We are only going to be open a couple of days a week. Gosh, I hope that competitor doesn't drive us out of business.

It drastically reduces funding to operate our embassies and consulates, which every American traveling, working, or studying overseas depends on. Every one of us as Members of Congress knows when an American constituent has a problem somewhere we turn to our embassies or our consulates to help them. H.R. 1 would slash their funding.

H.R. 1 would also sharply cut funding for global health programs: HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other deadly diseases--denying life-saving drugs and other services to hundreds of thousands of people, condemning women and children in other parts of the world to death.

It would renege on our treaty obligations to the U.N. and to the international financial institutions, threatening our voting shares which our competitors--including China--are eager to purchase.

At a time when China is rapidly expanding its influence globally, the House would have us pull back and say, you take over. You can be the power that other countries turn to, not the United States. Even Great Britain's conservative government, slashing spending left and right, is exempting, and even increasing, international aid, because unlike our Republican friends in the House, they recognize it is a matter of national security.

The impact of H.R. 1 is equally devastating to our domestic programs. From the social safety net to programs that maintain and expand our country's infrastructure, these programs would be slashed.

Numerous economists, from Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to Mark Zandi, recognize that the impact of H.R. 1 will be the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, at a time when our economy is beginning to recover. I hear this daily from fellow Vermonters. Take, for example, the mother who came into my Montpelier office a few months ago and explained how the Head Start Program changed her life. Not only did Head Start provide a reliable, safe, educational environment for her children, it made it possible for her to pursue a college education and be a strong tax-paying part of our society. But H.R. 1 would deny more than 300 of Vermont's children and families these same opportunities.

For those unmoved by cuts to Head Start, H.R. 1 would also devastate one of our best economic development tools: the community development block grant program.

CDBG has a proven track record of putting people to work through housing construction, public service improvement projects and downtown revitalization efforts. The 62-percent cut to CDBG in H.R. 1 would greatly hamper Vermont's ability to move these types of projects forward at a time when they are needed more than ever.

In the past 3 weeks I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters who rely on the community services block grant program, which would also be slashed in H.R. 1. This is a program that serves 55,000 Vermonters whose incomes are at or below the poverty line--some of my State's most vulnerable people. The impact of this cut would shutter as many as six of our largest food shelves, and eliminate assistance for the thousands of Vermonters looking for housing and heating assistance each year.

These are only three of the domestic programs that would be decimated by H.R. 1, part of a veritable laundry list of cuts that target the very programs that give Americans a hand up. Very simply we are talking about cutting, food, shelter, and heat, the basic necessities of life.

Turning again to national security, a frequently asked question is how does the Senate CR compare to the fiscal year 2010 level for the Department of State and foreign operations? The answer depends on who you ask.

In fiscal year 2010, the Department of State and foreign operations received close to $48.8 billion in regular appropriations and $4.1 billion in emergency supplemental funds for these purposes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Mexico. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental provided about $2 billion for fiscal year 2010 costs related to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico. In other words, these programs received $54.9 billion for fiscal year 2010.

While the Senate CR funding level is $1.38 billion or 2.8 percent above the fiscal year 2010 regular appropriation for the Department of State and foreign operations, it is $4.75 billion or 8.7 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level of $54.9 billion which supports operations and programs that must be continued in fiscal year 2011, a critical fact wholly ignored by the House.

Although even the Senate CR cuts funding for the Department of State and foreign operations by billions of dollars, rather than the slash- and-burn approach of the House, it does so in a manner that seeks to limit the damage to our national security. Here are a few of the ways the Senate CR does that.

Although the Senate CR cuts the State Department's operations budget by $606 million below the request, it provides $552 million above the amount in H.R. 1. These funds support U.S. embassies and consulates, as well as the State Department's diplomatic personnel and operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

The Senate CR provides $1.5 billion for worldwide security protection. Although $25 million below the request, this is $44.4 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. This funds diplomatic security agents, armored vehicles, and training to protect U.S. personnel working in dangerous places overseas. It also, incidentally, protects Members of Congress who travel abroad.

The Senate CR provides $625 million for educational and cultural exchange programs, which is $8.2 million below the request and $123.6 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds, which have traditionally been strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats particularly since 9/11, support exchanges between Americans and citizens of other countries, including the Fulbright, International Visitor Leadership, and Citizen Exchange programs. The House CR would result in the elimination of over 2,500 American exchanges and 8,600 foreign citizen exchanges.

The Senate CR provides $2 billion for U.S. contributions to international peacekeeping, which is $87.3 million below the request and $196.5 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds pay for peacekeepers in the Sinai, Lebanon, Haiti, Congo, and many other countries that might otherwise descend into chaos and potentially require the deployment of U.S. troops at far greater risk and expense.

The Senate CR provides $1.5 billion for U.S. contributions to international organizations, which is $50 million below the request and $28.5 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. This funds U.S. membership in the United Nations, NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organization, and other international organizations that directly protect our security.

The Senate CR provides $39.5 million for the U.S. Institute for Peace, which is $7 million below the request. H.R. 1 does not include any funding for USIP. This funds conflict resolution and peace building, including in Iraq, and has been supported by Republicans and Democrats since Congress first established it. I ask unanimous consent that an Op-ed by GEN Anthony Zinni about USIP in the March 8 New York Times, entitled ``Peace-building that Pays Off,'' be printed in the Record after my remarks.

The Senate CR provides $7.8 billion for global health programs, which is $633 million below the request and $884 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds support programs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, polio and neglected tropical diseases, and to support voluntary family planning and reproductive health.

The total to combat HIV/AIDS is $5.35 billion through the Department of State, which is $145 million below the request and $509 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. H.R. 1 would deny life-saving HIV/ AIDS drugs to some 400,000 people. I wonder how many House Members even know that.

The Senate CR provides $750 million for the Global HIV/AIDS fund, which is equal to fiscal year 2010 and $150 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. At the House level, approximately 3.7 million people would not be tested for HIV, more than 10 million mosquito nets for malaria would not be provided, and 372,000 testing and treatments for tuberculosis would be halted. Malaria, which is preventable and curable, is a leading killer of African children.

The Senate CR provides $879 million for international disaster assistance, which is $449 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds support aid to people displaced by war, famine

and natural disasters, such as the earthquake in Haiti and floods in Pakistan. The House would decimate our ability to respond to those catastrophes. That is not the America I know.

Likewise, the Senate CR provides $1.68 billion for refugee assistance, which is equal to fiscal year 2010 and $662 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. At a time when the number of refugees and other displaced persons in the Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan is skyrocketing, and protracted refugee crises exist from Burma to Iraq, the House would turn its back on these people.

There are many other examples. The point should be lost on no one. The House CR would cause lasting, unprecedented damage to our global leadership and our security, and cost thousands of American jobs, at the same time that it would have no appreciable impact on the deficit.

The amounts in the House CR or the Senate CR represent only 1 percent of the Federal budget, but it is a critical investment in our security that the House treats as a luxury we can do without. I challenge them to find a single current or former President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, or, frankly, anyone with expertise in this area--Republican or Democrat--who would agree with that shortsighted, dangerous view.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2011]

Peace-Building That Pays Off

(By Anthony C. Zinni)

Williamsburg, Va.--In voting last month to eliminate

financing for the United States Institute of Peace, members

of the House of Representatives did not do their research.

You will find the institute's competent work behind

practically every American success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has undertaken missions from the Balkans and Sudan to the

Philippines and Somalia, where I supported the institute's

efforts to mediate conflicts, promote the rule of law and

encourage democracy.

This week, as the Senate considers alternatives to the

House budget bill, we should remember that the stakes for

national security and peace-building are high. The institute

was created in 1984, when the cold war was still at its

height. Congressional leaders guided by Senator Spark M.

Matsunaga, a Hawaii Democrat, saw the need for an institution

that would strengthen the nation's ability to limit

international violence and manage global conflict. President

Ronald Reagan signed the act creating the institute. A

bipartisan majority of Congress has supported it since--until

now.

The Institute of Peace is like the Marine Corps or special

forces for foreign affairs and peace building. When others

are fleeing conflict around the world, you'll usually find

institute staff members going in. They were working in

Afghanistan before 9/11 and were among the first nonmilitary

personnel on the ground after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The institute's headquarters in Baghdad has twice been

damaged by rocket and mortar attacks. At the height of the

Iraq insurgency, when virtually every other American and

international group pulled out their personnel, the State and

Defense Departments requested that the institute stay. Under

fire regularly, it was the only United States organization

outside of those departments that did not flee Baghdad.

But the institute's value goes beyond the bravery and

commitment of its staff. In 2007, when the Army's loth

Mountain Division arrived in Mahmudiya, a city of half a

million in the ``triangle of death'' dominated by Al Qaeda

south of Baghdad, officers asked the institute to mediate

between Shiite civil authorities and the Sunni sheiks who

controlled the area. Institute-trained negotiators convened

warring Iraqis to consolidate security, restore services,

develop the local economy, enhance local governance and

improve the rule of law. Gen. David H. Petraeus called it a

turning point in the war.

In the six months before the institute's intervention,

there had been 93 attacks on American forces in the area with

homemade bombs; in the six months after, just one. Mahmudiya

became a cornerstone of peace in the district, allowing the

Army to reduce its strength from a brigade combat team of

3,500 soldiers to a battalion of 650, with corresponding

savings and reductions in casualties.

In Afghanistan, the institute conducts mediations on issues

from refugees to property and water disputes. In the last

year, these operations have resolved 18 tribal disputes

throughout the country, mostly involving the abuse of women,

and included 30 training programs for government officials,

lawyers, mullahs, tribal councils and community leaders. The

network is even supporting dialogue along the Afghanistan-

Pakistan border, the earth's most dangerous frontier--home to

Taliban and Qaeda attacks and a wellspring of religious and

political extremism.

Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does

more with less. The institute's entire budget would not pay

for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of

a fighter plane, and wouldn't sustain even 40 American troops

in Afghanistan for a year. Within the budget, peace-building

is financed as part of national security programs, and is

recognized as an important adjunct to conventional defense

spending and diplomacy. The institute's share of the proposed

international affairs budget, $43 million, is minuscule: less

than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State Department's budget,

and one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Pentagon's.

The idea that eliminating the United States Institute of

Peace would benefit taxpayers is extremely shortsighted and

ill informed. America deserves better from Congress than

eliminating something that saves American lives and taxpayer

dollars.

Mr. President, Congress has been working on the America Invents Act going back many years. It has gone through numerous iterations and changes have been made over time. Accordingly, I want to take a few minutes to discuss some important legislative history of a critical piece of this bill--section 2 of the legislation, which amends section 102 of title 35 of the United States Code. There has been a great deal of attention paid to subsections 102(a) and (b) and how those two subsections will work together. Senator Bennet and others have asked about this issue in particular.

One key issue on which people have asked for clarification is the interplay between patent-defeating disclosures under subsection 102(a) and the situations where those disclosures are excepted and have no patent-defeating effect under the grace period provided in subsection 102(b).

In particular, some in the small inventor community have been concerned that a disclosure by an inventor might qualify as patent- defeating prior art under subsection 102(a) because, for example, the inventor's public disclosure and by a ``public disclosure'' I mean one that results in the claimed invention being ``described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public''--might in some situation not be excluded as prior art under section 102(b)'s grace period. There is absolutely no situation in which this could happen given the interplay between subsections 102(a) and 102(b) as these subsections are drafted.

We intend that if an inventor's actions are such as to constitute prior art under subsection 102(a), then those actions necessarily trigger subsection 102(b)'s protections for the inventor and, what would otherwise have been section 102(a) prior art, would be excluded as prior art by the grace period provided by subsection 102(b). Indeed, as an example of this, subsection 102(b)(1)(A), as written, was deliberately couched in broader terms than subsection 102(a)(1). This means that any disclosure by the inventor whatsoever, whether or not in a form that resulted in the disclosure being available to the public, is wholly disregarded as prior art. A simple way of looking at new subsection 102(a) is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed.

I agree. One of the implications of the point we are making is that subsection 102(a) was drafted in part to do away with precedent under current law that private offers for sale or private uses or secret processes practiced in the United States that result in a product or service that is then made public may be deemed patent- defeating prior art. That will no longer be the case. In effect, the new paragraph 102(a)(1) imposes an overarching requirement for availability to the public, that is a public disclosure, which will limit paragraph 102(a)(1) prior art to subject matter meeting the public accessibility standard that is well-settled in current law, especially case law of the Federal Circuit.

That is correct. Subparagraph 102(b)(1)(B) is designed to work in tandem with subparagraph 102(b)(1)(A) to make a very strong grace period for inventors that have made a public disclosure before seeking a patent. Inventors who have made such disclosures are protected during the grace period, not only from their own disclosure, but also from disclosures by others that are made after their disclosure. This is an important protection we offer in our bill that will benefit independent and university inventors in particular.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining morning business time be yielded back.

Mr. President, American ingenuity and innovation have been a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson examined the first patent to today. The Founders recognized the importance of promoting innovation. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the

power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their respective discoveries.''

The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by American companies and protected and promoted by American patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world.

The Senate has before it the America Invents Act. This will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access to court is denied.

I was glad to see the overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of ending debate and invoking cloture that was cast yesterday. Yesterday was one of the rare instances ever in Vermont where snow impeded us and made it impossible for us to get back. I am delighted to be back here for what I hope will be the successful conclusion and vote on our legislation.

This is, after all, the product of eight hearings over the last three Congresses, hundreds of meetings, and dozens of briefings. I again thank Secretary Locke and PTO Director Kappos for their involvement, their wise counsel and their support.

Last Congress, I introduced the Patent Reform Act of 2009 as a precursor to the America Invents Act today, along with Senator Hatch and others, and our bill was the subject of consideration and amendments over several thoughtful sessions of markups in the Senate Judiciary Committee in March and April of 2009. At that time, Senator Kyl asked that I convene a meeting with the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to discuss whether there were further changes the office needed in the legislation to improve the office's efficiency. We held those discussions, and we held countless other meetings and briefings with interested parties in an effort to improve the legislation, again on a bipartisan basis. Bruce Cohen in my office, Aaron Cooper, Ed Pagano and others, had meeting after meeting just as predecessors of theirs had. In short, we spent a whole lot of time making sure this was done right and we did it in a bipartisan manner. Bolstering the American economic recovery and strengthening our efforts in global competition should not be matters of partisanship or political advantage.

The process of discussions, debates and deliberation has resulted in legislation that is going to be a much-needed boon to our economy. It is also a model for our legislative process. It shows what you can do when you set aside partisan rhetoric and instead negotiate and collaborate together in good faith.

I know I speak for Senator Kohl, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Coons and the other Democratic cosponsors of the bill when I thank the four senior Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions for working with us. Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democrat or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. It is both a process and a result that should make us all proud.

The last time Congress significantly updated the patent system was more than a half century ago. In the intervening decades, our economy has changed dramatically. A patent system developed in our 1952 economy before the Internet, before cell phones, before computers, before photocopiers, even before the IBM Selectric typewriter, needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st century realities, while staying true to the consistent constitutional imperative of encouraging innovation and invention.

Our patent laws that were the envy of the world in the 20th century desperately need to be updated if we are going to compete effectively and win the future. China and the European Union are improving their patent laws. We can't remain complacent. If we are going to win the global competition by out-innovating the rest of the world, we need a patent system that works in the 21st century.

The array of voices heard in this debate represent virtually all sectors of our economy, all interests in the patent system. They have not been uniform, as expected, but they know the legislative process is one of compromise and accommodation where possible, and it has been that way during the 6 years we have been at work on this bill. Three major areas of concern emerge from this discussion. The America Invents Act addresses each one of them.

First, there is significant concern about delays in the patent application process. The Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, currently has a backlog of more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the PTO is overwhelmed with patent applications and doesn't have the resources necessary to work through that backlog.

The Director of the PTO often says the next great invention that may drive our economic growth may be waiting on the shelf, waiting to be granted. Some estimate that each issued patent represents three to 10 jobs. We can ill-afford to keep so many job-creating patents backlogged at the PTO. The America Invents Act authorizes the PTO to set its fees and ensures that the PTO will have access to those fees. We want the PTO to work through its backlog and be current. In his white board presentation on the need for patent reform this week, Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, illustrated this point by noting that when Alexander Graham Bell applied for a patent that led to the telephone, it was granted in a month. The patent in 1974 that led to the cell phone took less than three years. The average time this year for a patent to be processed is almost three years and several thousand take far longer.

I want to commend Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. His white board presentation this week on the importance of patent reform shows we need to help America win global competition and create jobs. The creation of more than 220,000 jobs in the private sector last month, the creation of 1.5 million jobs over the last 12 months, and the unemployment rate finally being reduced to 8.9 percent are all signs that the efforts we have made over the last two years to stave off the worst recession since the Great Depression are paying off and the economic recovery is taking hold. The almost full percent point drop in the unemployment rate over the last three months is the largest decline in unemployment since 1983. Despite interruptions of economic activity in many parts of the country caused by winter weather over the last months and days, despite the extraordinary rise in oil prices, the Dow Jones industrial average has climbed back to over 12,000 from a low point of 6,500. Passage of the America Invents Act should help bolster our economic recovery and keep us on the right path toward business development and job creation.

According to an article in the New York Times just a couple of weeks ago, patent applications last year amounted to 2,000 a day. There are currently 1.2 million patent applications in the pipeline. Among them could be the next medical miracle, the next energy breakthrough, the next leap in computing ability, or the next killer app. We should be doing all we can to help the PTO Director. It makes no sense that it takes 2 years for an inventor to get an initial ruling on his or her patent application and another year or more to receive a patent, this during a time when technology changes sometimes by the hour, to say nothing by the year and the 2 year and 3 year. As the New York Times reporter Edward Wyatt notes: ``The delays and inefficiencies are more than a nuisance for inventors . . . . [P]atent delays cost jobs, slow the economy and threaten the ability of American companies to compete with foreign businesses.''

Second, there is a concern about the quality of patents that have issued. Just as high quality patents are the key to innovation, low quality patents are a drag on the economy because they provide monopoly rents over products or processes that were not inventive.

Patent examiners are facing a difficult task given the explosion in the

number of applications and the increasing complexity of those applications. When Congress last overhauled the patent system in 1952, the PTO received approximately 60,000 patent applications; in 2009, it received more than 480,000.

The America Invents Act will improve the quality of patents issued by the PTO in several ways. At the outset, our legislation makes the commonsense change that third parties who see a patent application and know that it is not novel and nonobvious, can assist the PTO examiners by providing relevant information and explaining its relevance.

The bill will also create a new post-grant review process for patents that recently issued to improve the quality of patents in the system, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, and it will streamline the current ``inter partes'' system so that it will be a more efficient alternative to litigation.

The third concern is that as business competition has gone global, and patent applicants are increasingly filing applications in the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions, our system puts American inventors and businesses at a disadvantage. The filing system in the United States differs from that in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, which have ``first-inventor-to-file'' systems. The difference causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. The inefficiencies exist both in the application process and in determining what counts as ``prior art'' in litigation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from today's New York Times, which calls the transition to first-inventor-to-file ``simpler and cheaper'' and says it ``should benefit the little guy.''

The America Invents Act transitions to a first-inventor- to-file process, as recommended by the administration, while retaining the important grace period that will protect universities and small inventors, in particular. We debated this change at some length in connection with the Feinstein amendment. That amendment was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 87 to 13. The Senate has come down firmly and decisively in favor of modernizing and harmonizing the American patent system with the rest of the world.

When we began the patent reform debate 6 years ago, there was also a significant concern that the costs and uncertainty associated with patent litigation had been escalating, which was resulting in a drag on innovation. Damage awards had been inconsistent and not always related to the value of the invention. This disconnect and uncertainty was a problem that also led to unreasonable posturing during licensing negotiations.

Fortunately, the courts have made great strides in addressing this issue, and there is general consensus that legislation need not and, in fact, should not affect the law of damages as a result.

The Senate has before it bipartisan legislation that can lead to long-needed improvements in our patent laws and system. This is a measure that can help facilitate invention, innovation and job creation, and do so in the private sector. This can help everyone from startups and small businesses to our largest, cutting edge companies.

The America Invents Act promotes innovation, and will improve our economy, by addressing the impediments to innovation. As the President challenges Americans to win the future, Congress cannot afford to sit idly by while innovation--the engine of our economy--is impeded by outdated laws. Our legislation leverages the ingenuity of our businesses, our universities, and our independent inventors, and creates a system in which that ingenuity can improve our economy. It will create jobs, improve products and reduce costs for American companies and American consumers.

I began working on patent reform years ago, along with Chairman Smith in the House, because of my belief that we needed a more efficient and streamlined system. For many years, patent law interested only a niche audience, and developments were reported only in trade publications. Now they are discussed everywhere from the front page of the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, and all three branches of government have taken an active role.

The America Invents Act is about economic development. It is about jobs; it is about innovation; it is about consumers. All benefit under a patent system that reduces unnecessary costs, removes inefficiencies, and holds true to the vision of our Founders that Congress should establish a national policy that promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.

When Thomas Jefferson examined that first patent in 1790--a patent that went to a Vermonter--no one could have predicted how the American economy would develop and what changes would be needed for the law to keep pace, but the purpose then remains the purpose today: promoting progress.

If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to continue to enjoy the fruits of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient.

Now is the time to bolster our role as the world leader in innovation. Now is the time to create jobs at home. Now is the time for Congress to act on patent reform. I urge all Senators to support the American Invents Act.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2011]

Patents, Reform and the Little Guy

In the last decade, Congress has missed several chances to

reform a patent system that is slow, costly and puts the

United States at odds with the rest of the industrial world.

On Wednesday, the Senate has another opportunity to reform

the nation's patent law.

The America Invents Act offers a step toward a more

effective and transparent patent protection system. This

should encourage investment in inventions and faster

diffusion of ideas. The bill, which has broad bipartisan

support, would boost the patent office's resources by letting

it keep all the fees it collects. This would enable it to

speed up the review of patent applications--which currently

takes almost three years to process--and work through an

immense backlog of 715,000 applications.

The bill should reduce costly litigation by creating an in-

house system to look into claims of patent infringement

before they go to court.

The bill would also replace the first-to-invent standard

prevailing in the United States--which grants formal

protection to the creator of an innovation--with the first-

inventor-to-file system used in most nations.

This change would make it cheaper for American patent

holders to get patent protection around the world. But it has

been met with vocal opposition from some groups of small

businesses and inventors who claim the change would benefit

big corporations at their expense.

We disagree. The new law would make the process simpler and

cheaper. That should benefit the little guy.

Small inventors who needed time and money to fully develop

and test their ideas could request a provisional patent until

they were ready for a full filing. It costs $110. And because

it is easy to determine who filed a patent first, the new

system would better protect small inventors from challenges

by corporations with deep pockets, reducing the chance of

costly litigation.

Right now, proving who invented something first is

difficult and expensive. According to the patent office, it

costs $400,000 to $500,000 to challenge a patent on the

grounds of a prior invention. Most small inventors don't have

that kind of money. Big corporations do.

In fact, the current system mostly protects whoever files

first for a patent. Of the last three million applications

filed, only 113 were granted to entities who filed second but

proved they had invented first. In 88 of these cases, the

winners were large corporations.

The patent system is too cumbersome, and it doesn't protect

the small inventor. The America Invents Act is a smart

reform.

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