Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, since the Senate began this debate on the American Invents Act more than a week ago, I have talked about American ingenuity and innovation. As this debate comes to a close, I want to emphasize that this is legislation that should promote innovation, help create jobs, and help energize the economy as we continue our recovery. This legislation can be a key part of a jobs agenda. We can help unleash innovation an promote American invention, all without adding a penny to the deficit. This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

Innovation has 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. A number were themselves inventors. 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 right 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 President has spoken all year about the need to win the future by out innovating our competition. This bill can play a key role in that effort.

Yesterday, I commended Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, for his white board presentation this week on the importance of patent reform to help America win the 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 2 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 3 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 in recent 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.

As we began this debate, I referred back to the President's State of the Union address and his challenge to the Nation to out-innovate, out- build and out-educate our global competitors. Enacting the America Invents Act is a key to meeting this challenge. Reforming the Nation's antiquated patent system will promote American innovation, create American jobs, and grow America's economy. I thank the President and his administration for their help and support for the Leahy-Hatch- Grassley America Invents Act. Commerce Secretary Locke has been a strong partner in our efforts, and Director Kappos of the Patent and Trademark Office has been an indispensable source of wise counsel.

The America Invents Act 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.

The America Invents Act is the product of eight Senate hearings over the last three Congresses. Our bill is the product of years of work and compromise. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported patent reform legislation to the Senate in each of the last three Congresses, this year, unanimously. And the House has seen efforts over the same period led by Congressmen Lamar Smith of Texas and Howard Berman of California. The legislation we are acting on today, in fact, is structured on the original House bill and contains many of the original provisions.

From the beginning, we recognized the need for a more effective and efficient patent system, one that improves patent quality and provides incentives for entrepreneurs to create jobs. A balanced and efficient intellectual property system that rewards invention and promotes innovation through high quality patents is crucial to our Nation's economic prosperity and job growth. That is how we win the future--by unleashing the American inventive spirit. This bill, the America Invents Act, will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish.

It is important to our country's continued economic recovery, and to our successfully competing in the global economy. America needs a 21st century patent system to lead. The last extensive reform of our patent system was nearly 60 years ago. It is time.

While the Congress debates spending and budget measures in an often too partisan manner, the American people are craving--and the American economy is demanding--bipartisan legislation that can create jobs and help our economy through common sense measures. That is what this bill can do. It relies on not one dollar of taxpayer money. Let me emphasize, not a dime in taxpayer money is spent on the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, reforms. They are all funded by patent fees, not taxes.

Innovation drives the Nation's economy, and that entrepreneurial spirit can only be protected by a patent system that promotes invention and spurs new ideas. We need to reform our patent system so that these innovations can more quickly get to market. A modernized patent system--one that puts American entrepreneurs on the same playing field as those throughout the world--is a key to that success. This is an idea that cuts across the political spectrum.

During Senate debate over the last week our bill has been improved by a number of Senators who have contributed amendments. Senators Bennet, Coons, Schumer, Menendez, Pryor, Stabenow, Baucus, Bingaman, Coburn and Kirk have all contributed, and I thank them for working with us. Senator Cardin attempted to offer germane amendments, and I regret that these were blocked.

I thank our ranking Republican on the committee and the comanager of this measure, Senator Grassley, and his staff, Kolan Davis and Rita Lari, for their dedication to this effort. I commend Senator Hatch for sticking with it for these many years, and Senator Kyl for helping get this done.

I also extend my personal thanks, as well, to Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota who was active during committee consideration and helped manage this legislation effort in the Senate. She has been outstanding.

The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of many dedicated staffers. I would like to thank in particular the steadfast work of Aaron Cooper of my Judiciary Committee staff. Aaron has spent countless hours in meetings and briefings, with Members, other staff, and interested parties, working to help me ensure that the America Invents Act preserved the meaningful reforms we have been working toward since 2005. I would also like to thank Ed Pagano, my chief of staff, and Bruce Cohen, my chief counsel, who have worked on this issue since the start, as well as Susan Davies who served as my chief Intellectual Property counsel through the formative stages of this legislative effort. Erica Chabot, Curtis LeGeyt and Scott Wilson of my Judiciary Committee staff also deserve thanks for their committed work on this legislation.

I also commend the hardworking Senate floor staff, Tim Mitchell and Trish Engle, as well as Dave Schiappa, and the staffs of other Senators, including Tim Molino, Joe Matal, and Matt Sandgren, for their dedicated efforts.

I also thank the many individuals, companies, associations and coalitions that have helped with this effort. This legislation has been supported by both business and labor, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the United Steelworkers, the AFL-CIO, the Association of American Universities, the American Bar Association, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of University Technology Managers, the American Council on Education, the Council on Government Relations, PhRMA, BIO, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination, IBM, General Electric, Eli Lilly and Company, Bose Corporation, Johnson and Johnson, 3M, General Mills, Honeywell, Monsanto, Motorola, Cargill, Inc., Caterpillar, Enventys, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, AdvaMed, Air Liquide, Bayer, Beckman Coulter, Boston Scientific, BP, Bridgestone American Holdings, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, the California Healthcare Institute, the Colorado BioScience Association, Cummins, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Eastman Chemical Company, ExxonMobil, Genentech, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey, Henkel Corporation, Hoffman-LaRoche, Illinois Tool Works, International Game Technology, Kodak, Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Milliken and Company, Northrop Grumman, Novartis, PepsiCo., Inc., Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, SanDisk Corporation, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., United Technologies, USG Corporation, the Virginia Biotechnology Association, Weyerhaeuser, the American Institute for CPAs, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Tax Justice Network USA, the New Rules for Global Finance, the American College of Tax Counsel, Consumer Action, The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the Partnership for Philanthropic Planning, Global Financial Integrity, the International Association for Registered Financial Consultants, the National Association of Enrolled Agents, USPIRG, the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, the Financial Planning Association, the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, the Citizens for Tax Justice, the National Treasury Employees Union, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and numerous other organizations and companies representing all sectors of the patent community that have been urging action on patent reform proposals for years.

The America Invents Act will accomplish 3 important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate from the beginning: It will improve and harmonize operations at the

PTO; it will improve the quality of patents that are issued; and it will provide more certainty in litigation. In particular, the legislation will move this Nation's patent system to a first-inventor- to-file system, make important quality enhancement mechanisms, and provide the PTO with the resources it needs to work through its backlog by providing it with fee setting authority, subject to oversight. The America Invents Act provides the tools the PTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff, which will help business bring new products to market and create jobs.

Innovation has always been at the heart of America and American success. From the founding of our Nation, we recognized the importance of promoting and protecting innovation, and so the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress and science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws have made our system the envy of the world.

High quality patents are the key to our economic growth. They benefit both patent owners and users who can be more confident in the validity of issued patents. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, by contrast, enable patent trolls who extort unreasonable licensing fees from legitimate businesses, and constitute a drag on innovation. Too many dubious patents also unjustly cast doubt on truly high quality patents.

After 6 years of debate and discussion, more than a dozen hearings and mark up sessions, and countless hours of member and staff meetings with two presidential administrations and interested parties across the spectrum, the Senate is finally acting to make the first meaningful, comprehensive reforms to the nation's patent system in nearly 60 years. The Senate debate has now extended for more than a week. Passage of the America Invents Act demonstrates what we can accomplish when we cast aside partisan rhetoric, and focus on working together for the American people and for our future.

It has been almost 6 years since Chairman Smith and Congressman Berman introduced the first version of patent reform legislation in 2005, but the structure and guiding principles of the legislation remain the same. The bill will speed the process by which the Patent Office considers applications and should improve the quality of patents it issues.

Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democratic or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. Working together, we can smooth the path for more interesting--and great--American inventions. That is what this bipartisan, comprehensive patent reform bill will do. No one claims that ours is a perfect bill. It is a compromise that will make key improvements in the patent system. Having coordinated with the leaders in the House through this process, I hope that the House will look favorably on our work and adopt this measure so that it can be sent to the President without delay and its improvements can take effect in order to encourage American innovation and promote American invention.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

No, the amendment is entirely different from the 2008 amendment related to patents that place on tax on implementation of the Check 21 Act. The Schumer-Kyl program addresses certain business method patents and does not target any specific patents. The Schumer-Kyl program is intended to provide a cost-effective alternative to litigation to examine business-method patents.

That is correct. It is still unclear whether the subject matter of these patents qualifies as patentable subject matter under current law. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, as you know, are a drag on innovation because they grant a monopoly right for an invention that should not be entitled to one under the patent law.

Certainly. If a petitioner provides evidence to the PTO and the PTO determines that the patent is on a ``covered business method patent'' then the PTO would institute a post-grant review of that patent. In this review, the PTO could consider any challenge that could be heard in court.

That is correct. The proceeding has a higher threshold than current reexamination before the PTO will even undertake a review of the patent. So as a practical matter, a patent without any serious challenge to its validity would never be subject to a proceeding.

I would. The patent may still be subject to the proceeding, but since the court did not hold the patent invalid or unforceable, it would not likely have an effect on the pending appeal.

Mr. President, the managers' amendment to the America Invents Act, adopted 97-2 on March 1, contained a rule of construction that nothing in section 14 of the act should be construed to imply that other business methods are patentable or that other business-method patents are valid. This provision was included merely as a clarification. No inference should be drawn in any way from any part of section 14 of the act about the patentability of methods of doing business.

Mr. President, I have discussed this with the Republican leadership, and we are prepared to yield back all time on both the Democratic and Republican sides.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it has been many years getting to this point. I cannot tell you the amount of pride I have in my fellow Senators, both Republicans and Democrats. I thank the Senator from Iowa who has been here with me and so many others I mentioned earlier. It is nice to finally have this bill through the Senate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will take another step toward completing action on the America Invents Act. This is commonsense legislation that will make the first comprehensive reforms to our Nation's patent system in nearly 60 years. The debate on this bill since its introduction 6 years ago has been long, and the compromises have been many. I am confident that the bill before us today makes the needed changes to bring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office into the 21st century.

The America Invents Act is bipartisan legislation that has resulted from deliberation in both the Senate and House. It has been the topic of more than a dozen hearings and committee meetings in the Senate, and countless hours of meetings and negotiations. I had hoped to complete action on this legislation last week. The additional time has allowed every Senator the opportunity to come to the floor and speak about the important matters encompassed by this bill. We have debated and adopted relevant amendments and debated and rejected other amendments, including some that were not even relevant to this legislation. This is a bill that does not spend a dollar of taxpayer money and does not add to the deficit. It will directly result in millions of dollars being saved, and indirectly in helping unleash American innovation to create jobs and help bolster our economy.

Now is the time to act. Now is the time to vote. Now is the time to move forward with this job-creating bill that will help boost our economy and restore America's competitive edge in the global marketplace.

Modernizing our patent system through the America Invents Act will make America more competitive. It protects innovators and inventors large and small, from the small independent inventor in Middlesex, VT, to cutting-edge manufacturers and innovators in Ohio and California. It will give the Patent and Trademark Office the tools it needs to process and award the patent for what may be the next life-saving device or life-changing invention. And the America Invents Act will do all of this without spending a dollar of taxpayer money. This is a jobs bill that doesn't add a cent to the deficit. Supporters of this legislation come from both sides of the aisle, from every corner of the country, and from every component of the patent community.

This country's first patent was issued to a Vermonter. Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, examined the application, and President George Washington signed it. A lot has changed in the more than 220 years since that first patent was issued. We cannot remain complacent and expect to remain at the forefront of innovation. Enacting the America Invents Act is one way in which we can come together and show the American people that we in Washington are working together with the future of our country in mind.

I commend Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, for his white board presentation today on the importance of patent reform to help America win the 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 2 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.

I urge all Senators to support the cloture motion on the America Invents Act. The Nation's economy, American inventors and innovators, our competitive edge in the global marketplace all will be helped when we pass this important bill.

Mr. President, I understand we have the Feinstein amendment No. 133 at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein amendment No. 133 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his words here this morning. He is part of the small group of Republicans and Democrats who have worked very hard over the last couple of years on this bill with the idea of giving us something that would allow inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs in America to be able to compete with the rest of the world.

I am one American who believes we can compete with anybody anywhere provided we get a level playing field. Other countries have set up enough barriers for us of their own. We shouldn't be setting up barriers here in the United States. One thing we can do is to make some major, long-overdue changes in the patent laws to give us that level playing field. Inventors and innovators in America who will take advantage of this will be better off for it and will create jobs, but most importantly, we will show the rest of the world that America is open for business.

Americans can be the innovators they have been from the time the first patent was issued--and I say this with pride--to a Vermonter back when then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reviewed the application, which was then signed by the President of the United States, George Washington. Now, of course, they are not reviewed by the Secretary of State and signed by the President, thank goodness, because there are over 700,000 applications pending.

We need legislation to bring us up to date, and this act will promote innovation, it will create new businesses and, as a result, new jobs. This is bipartisan legislation that will allow inventors to secure their patents more quickly and to have better success commercializing them.

The pending amendment would gut the reforms intended by the bill. With all due respect, it would destroy all the work we have tried to do in this bill. It would eliminate a major piece of this effort--the transition to a first-inventor-to-file patent system. First-inventor- to-file is a necessary component of this legislation and enjoys support from every corner of the patent community.

The administration, the Secretary of Commerce, and the head of the Patent and Trademark Office all oppose this amendment. A vast array of individuals, independent small inventors, small businesses, and labor oppose this amendment. The four senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who have worked so hard on this bill--Senators Grassley, Hatch, Kyl, and Sessions--oppose this amendment. Needless to say, I oppose this amendment. It would be a poison pill to these legislative reform efforts.

Supporters of the legislation before us--ranging from high-tech and life sciences companies to universities and small businesses--place such a high importance on the transition to the first-inventor-to-file system that many of them, including those who reside in just about every State, would not support a bill without those provisions.

A transition to first-inventor-to-file has been part of this bill since its introduction four Congresses ago. Yet, until very recently, first-inventor-to-file was never the subject of even a single amendment in the Judiciary Committee over all those years. This legislation is the product of eight Senate hearings and three markups spanning weeks of consideration and numerous amendments. Never was first-inventor-to- file a contentious issue. Now some well-financed special interests that do not support the America Invents Act have decided to kill the bill by a last-minute campaign to strike these vital provisions.

I urge Senators to support the goals of the America Invents Act and vote against this amendment to strike first-inventor-to-file.

Mr. President, the United States is the only industrialized country still using a first-to-invent system, and there is a reason for that. A first-inventor-to-file system, by contrast, where the priority of a right to a patent is based on the earlier filed application, adds simplicity and objectivity into a very complex system. By contrast, our current outdated method for determining the priority right to a patent is extraordinarily complex, it is subjective, it is time-intensive, and it is expensive. The old system almost always favors the larger corporation and the deep pockets over the small independent inventor.

This past weekend, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed the transition, calling our first-inventor-to-file standard a ``bright line.'' They went on to say it would bring ``certainty to the process.'' The editorial also rightly recognizes the ``protections for academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or preview them in public seminars'' that are included in the bill.

The transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit small inventors and inventors of all sizes by creating certainty. Once a patent is granted, an inventor can rely on its filing date on the face of the patent.

The reduction in costs to patent applications that comes with a transition to this system should also help the small independent inventor. In the current outdated system where more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is decided through an ``interference'' proceeding to determine which applicant can be declared to have invented the claimed invention first. It is lengthy, it is complex, and it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings. In a first-inventor-to-file system, however, the filing date of the application is objective and easy to determine, resulting in a streamlined and less costly process.

The bill protects against the concerns of many small inventors and universities by including a 1-year grace period to ensure the inventor's own publication or disclosure cannot be used against him as prior art but will act as prior art against another patent application. This encourages early disclosure of new inventions regardless of whether the inventor ends up trying to patent the invention.

The transition to first-inventor-to-file is ultimately needed to help American companies and innovators compete globally. As business and competition increasingly operate on a worldwide scale, inventors have to file patent applications in both the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions. Since America's current outdated system differs from the first-inventor-to-file system used in other patent-issuing jurisdictions--all our competitors--it causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. Harmonization will benefit American inventors.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke highlighted the importance of the first-inventor-to-file provision to the bill in his column published in The Hill yesterday. He noted that it ``would be good for U.S. businesses, providing a more transparent and cost-effective process that puts them on a level playing field with their competitors around the world.''

Secretary Locke went on to confront the erroneous notion that the current outdated system is better for small independent inventors, and he did it head-on by explaining that in his ``strong opinion that the opposite is true.'' The first-inventor-to-file system is better for the small independent inventor. As the Secretary noted:

The cost of proving that one was first to invent is

prohibitive and requires detailed and complex documentation

of the invention process. In cases where there's a dispute

about who the actual inventor is, it typically costs at least

$400,000 in legal fees, and even more if the case is

appealed. By comparison, establishing a filing date through a

provisional application and establishing priority of

invention costs just $110.

Secretary Locke explained how the 125,000 provisional applications currently filed each year prove that early filing dates protect the rights of small inventors. He reiterated that during the past 7 years, under the current outdated, cumbersome, and expensive system, of almost 3 million applications filed, only 1 patent was granted to an individual inventor who was the second to apply.

Our reform legislation enjoys broad support. I have already mentioned some of those supporters, but let me highlight a few more:

Just yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers urged every Senator to oppose the effort to strike the first-to-file transition, writing, ``The NAM supports transitioning the United States from a `first-to-invent' system to a `first-to-file' system to eliminate unnecessary cost and complexity in the U.S. patent system.''

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has expressed its strong support for the first-inventor-to-file system, writing that ``small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in the international markets will expand.''

The Intellectual Property Owners Association calls the first- inventor-to file system ``central to modernization and simplification of patent law'' and ``very widely supported by U.S. companies.''

Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-inventor-to- file transition will help ``independent inventors across the country by strengthening the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses.''

Six university, medical college, and higher education associations have urged the transition to first-to-file, saying that it will ``add greater clarity to the U.S. system.''

And, in urging the transition to the first-to-file system, the Association for Competitive Technology, which represents small and mid- size IT firms, has said the current outdated system ``negatively impacts entrepreneurs'' and puts American inventors ``at a disadvantage with competitors abroad who can implement first inventor to file standards.'' That is why it is so important to move to a first- inventor-to-file system.

I ask unanimous consent copies of the Washington Post editorial, ``Patenting Innovation,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I also ask letters from the National Association of Manufacturers, higher education associations, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my comments.

I will conclude with this: If we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to win the future through American ingenuity and innovation, we must have a patent system that is streamlined and efficient. The America Invents Act, and a transition to a first-inventor-to-file system in particular, is crucial to fulfill this promise. I urge all Senators on both sides of the aisle to oppose the Feinstein amendment and support the important provision of first-inventor-to-file, which is at the heart of the America Invents Act.

As I said, I submit the list of stakeholders across the spectrum from high-tech and life sciences to universities and small inventors in support of a transition to the first-to-file system, and ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Delaware who has been so helpful on this legislation on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2011]

Patenting Innovation

More than 60 years have passed since a major overhaul of

the U.S. patent system has taken place. And it shows.

The U.S. patent system lags woefully. One example: Patents

in the United States are given to those ``first to invent.''

This approach is out of step with the rest of the world's

``first to file'' approach and is highly inefficient. It

invites people to come out of the woodwork years after a

product has been on the market to claim credit and demand

royalties.

The secretive and lengthy U.S. process also too often

results in patents for products that are neither novel nor

innovative. It leaves manufacturers vulnerable to

infringement lawsuits and damage awards long after their

products have gone to market.

The Senate is poised to take up a bill on Monday that would

eliminate these defects and bring the U.S. system into the

21st century.

The Patent Reform Act, introduced by Sens. Patrick J. Leahy

(D-Vt.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), would recognize the

``first inventor to file'' standard, creating a bright line--

the date on which a patent application was filed--and

bringing certainty to the process. Yet the bill is not

inflexible and wisely keeps in place protections for

academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or

preview them in public seminars.

The bill also would increase protections for those with

legitimate gripes. Third parties, currently shut out of the

process, would be given clear rules and time limits to

challenge patents that have not yet been approved. They'd

also have a chance to lodge objections after a patent has

been granted; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)

would resolve these disputes. This safety valve should reduce

the litigation costs associated with court challenges.

The PTO has long been overwhelmed and underfunded. The bill

would allow the agency to set the amount it charges for

filings while providing discounts to solo inventors and small

companies. An amendment likely to be introduced by Sen. Tom

Coburn (R-Okla.) would allow the agency to keep all of its

fees, thereby ensuring it the resources it needs to carry out

the bill's mandates.

The president made much of ``winning the future'' in his

State of the Union address. A patent system that protects

innovators and encourages meaningful breakthroughs would help

achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Illinois. I recall great discussions during the administration of President Reagan. I happened to like President Reagan. We got along very well. But I remember discussions on a balanced budget and all that, as his budget tripled the national debt. I do recall he did veto one spending bill because it didn't spend as much as he wanted. Rhetoric is one thing, as the Senator

from Illinois points out. Reality is often different. I thank him.

Amendment No. 133, as modified

I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 133, as modified, with no intervening action or debate; that the time until then be divided equally between the proponents and the opponents, and no amendments be in order to the Feinstein amendment prior to the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, how much time is remaining?

Is using my time?

Madam President, we are supposed to vote at 12:30. I realize the Senator couldn't be here when her amendment was brought up and couldn't be here when her amendment was modified. We did that for her. But I am in opposition to it, and I should at least have some of my time to be able to use.

Madam President, at the hour of 12:30 we are supposed to vote. I would ask unanimous consent, so far as my time has been used by those in another position, that Senator Grassley and I have 4 minutes back of our time.

Madam President, as I said earlier, Secretary Locke confronted the notion that the current outdated system is better for small independent inventors. He said the cost of proving that one was first to invent is prohibitive and requires detailed, complex documentation of the invention process. In cases where there is a dispute about who the actual inventor is, it typically costs at least $400,000 in legal fees and even more if the case is appealed. By comparison, establishing a filing date through provisional application to establish priority of invention costs just $110.

I appreciate the work of the Senator from California, but her amendment is a killer amendment. It would kill this bill. Our bill is set up so that it will allow us to compete with the rest of the world. Right now, we are behind the rest of the world in our patent system. Our bill as it is written allows us to compete with the rest of the world. Her amendment would hold us back and give an advantage to those countries with which we have to compete.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask that it be adopted.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 662, the surface transportation extension bill; that the bill be read three times and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, since this debate began, we have heard a lot about how the America Invents Act will help unleash the American inventive spirit. As a matter of personal pride, I point out that Vermonters have a long history of innovation and invention, and it is that creative spirit which has given rise to some interesting and even revolutionary inventions.

Few people may know that Vermont is issued the most patents per capita of any State in the country. Fewer still may know that the first-ever patent issued in the United States, which was reviewed by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and signed by George Washington, was granted to a Vermonter in 1790. It was Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford who began the great tradition of American innovation.

Throughout America's history, Vermont has contributed to our economic prosperity with inventive ideas. Thaddeus Fairbanks of St. Johnsbury patented the platform scale in 1830, which revolutionized the way in which large objects were weighed. Charles Orvis, of Manchester, the founder of the well-known sporting goods retailer Orvis, patented the open fly fishing reel in 1874. Many other inventions originated from Vermont in the early years of America, including an electric motor, an internal combustion engine, and the paddle wheel steamship.

Today, that innovative Vermont spirit continues. Vermonters have been contributing to the American economy through innovation and invention every year.

Exploring new ways to modify existing products to limit the environmental impact is a quintessentially Vermont idea. Researchers at the University of Vermont have developed and are now seeking a patent for a wood finish that releases fewer toxins into the air than standard finishes. They do it by utilizing whey protein instead of petroleum. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama noted that advances in green technology will be a key driver of our economy in the 21st century. Vermont inventors have been and will continue to be out in front in this area.

Computer technology will also be a driver of our 21st-century economy. Vermonters are active in producing the next generation of this technology as well. Viewers across the country were fascinated by the recent appearance of IBM's Watson supercomputer on ``Jeopardy.'' Components used to power Watson were invented by IBM researchers in Vermont, and I am sure those Vermonters watched proudly as Watson defeated Jeopardy legends Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in the recent man-versus-machine matchup.

Modernizing the patent system will help to ensure Vermont inventors will still be able to compete, not just on a national stage but in the international marketplace.

Much has changed since Samuel Hopkins received the first U.S. patent in 1790, but the need for a flexible and efficient patent system has remained constant. Inventors from Burlington to the Bay Area require the appropriate incentives to invest in the research required to create the next platform scale or the next Watson computer or the next lifesaving medical device.

Over the last 6 years, I have worked on meaningful, comprehensive patent reform legislation. During that time, I have kept in mind the tradition of great Vermont innovators such as Thaddeus Fairbanks and Charles Orvis. I was also pleased that we had key Republicans and Democrats working together to get this legislation before the Senate.

The next generation of Vermonters is as eager as the last to show America and the world what they can produce. Vermont may be one of the smallest States in our Nation, but it is busting with creativity. The America Invents Act will ensure that the next Samuel Hopkins can flourish well into the 21st century.

Senator Grassley and I had a couple of matters we were going to take care of. I see a distinguished colleague seeking recognition. Before I yield the floor, might I ask my friend how much time he may need?

I will yield so my colleague can speak, and then the Senator from Iowa will be back, and we can continue with our other business.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up and agree to amendment No. 132, the Cardin-Landrieu amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we revert to the pending amendment, which I believe was the Leahy amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, yesterday, we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. That was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle. It should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars.

I also thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort, and who joined in tabling those amendments that have nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act. Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so that American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill. They should not be used to slow its consideration and passage. If America is to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system that this bill can bring.

I continue to believe, as I have said all week, that we can finish this bill today, and show the American people that the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner. We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time, and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to this bill. Nonetheless, we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation.

Today we should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses. I hope that we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, like energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to short time agreements for additional debate, if needed, and votes on those amendments.

The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment that Senator Feinstein has filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system.

I want to take a moment to talk about an important component of the America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. I said yesterday that the administration strongly supports this effort. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights'' and describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree, and believe it should help small and independent inventors.

This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first-inventor-to-file patent system. A transition to first-inventor-to-file is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act.

This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system. I also commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system is needed to keep America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system. This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, to work through its current backlog of more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications through work-sharing agreements with other patent-granting offices.

The Director of the PTO often says that the next great invention that will drive our economic growth may be sitting in its backlog of applications. The time consuming ``interference proceedings'' that are commonplace in our current, outdated system are wasting valuable resources that contribute to this delay, and unfairly advantage large companies with greater resources.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system was recommended in the 2004 Report by the National Academy of Sciences. The transition has been a part of this bill since its introduction four Congresses ago. This legislation is the product of eight Senate hearings and three markups spanning weeks of consideration and many amendments. Until very recently, first-inventor-to-file had never been the subject of even a single amendment in committee.

Senator Feinstein has worked with me on this bill, has cosponsored it in the past and has voted for it.

I urge Senators who support the goals of the America Invents Act to vote against this amendment to strike the bill's important reform represented by the first-inventor-to-file provision. Every industrialized nation other than the United States uses a patent priority system commonly referred to as a ``first-to-file'' system. In a first-inventor-to-file system, the priority of a right to a patent is based on the earlier filed application. This adds simplicity and objectivity into a very complex system. By contrast, our current, outdated method for determining the priority right to a patent is extraordinarily complex, subjective, time-intensive, and expensive. The old system almost always favors the larger corporation and the deep pockets over the small, independent inventor.

The transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted. Once a patent is granted, an inventor can rely on its filing date on the face of the patent. This certainty is necessary to raise capital, grow businesses, and create jobs.

The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. This, too, should help the small, independent inventor. In the outdated, current system, when more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is decided through an ``interference'' proceeding to determine which applicant can be declared to have invented the claimed invention first. This process is lengthy, complex, and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings. In a first-inventor-to-file system, however, the filing date of the application is objective and easy to determine, resulting in a streamlined and less costly process.

Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. As business and competition are increasingly global in scope, inventors must frequently file patent applications in both the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions. Since America's current, outdated system differs from the first-inventor-to-file system used in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, it causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. Harmonization will benefit American inventors.

Finally, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. That is why the bill includes a 1- year grace period to ensure that an inventor's own publication or disclosure cannot be used against him as prior art, but will act as prior art against another patent application. This will encourage early disclosure of new inventions, regardless of whether the inventor ends up trying to patent the invention.

For these reasons among others, the transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and the experts at the Patent and Trademark Office.

This past weekend, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed the transition, calling the first-inventor-to-file standard a ``bright line,'' and stating that it would bring ``certainty to the process.'' The editorial also recognizes the ``protections for academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or preview them in public seminars'' that are included in the bill.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has expressed its strong support for the first-inventor-to-file system, writing that ``small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in the international markets will expand.''

The Intellectual Property Owners Association calls the first- inventor-to-file system ``central to modernization and simplification of patent law'' and ``very widely supported by U.S. companies.''

Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-inventor-to- file transition will help ``independent inventors across the country by strengthening the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses.''

And, in urging the transition to the first-to-file system, the Association for Competitive Technology, which represents small and mid- size IT firms, has said the current first-to-invent system ``negatively impacts entrepreneurs'' and puts American inventors ``at a disadvantage with competitors abroad who can implement first inventor to file standards.''

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 win the future through American ingenuity and innovation, then we must have a patent system that is streamlined and efficient. The America Invents Act, and a transition to a first- inventor-to-file system in particular, are crucial to fulfilling this promise.

Madam President, in summary, as I said, yesterday we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. It was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle.

I think it was a little bit frustrating for the public to watch. They saw us several hours in quorum calls and then having an amendment that passed 97 to 2. I would hope we might, in doing the Nation's business, move with a little bit more speed. But I do thank those Senators who supported it.

The Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars. These are not bumper slogan ideas of saving money. These are actually doing the hard work necessary to save money.

I thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort and who joined in tabling nongermane amendments that had nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act.

Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill.

We are at a time when China and Europe and the rest of Asia are moving ahead of us. We need the tools to keep up. We should not waste time with a lot of sloganeering amendments that would stop the bill. What we ought to focus on is making America good and making sure we can compete with the rest of the world. We should not have amendments used to slow this bill's consideration and passage. If America is going to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system this bill can bring.

I continue to believe, as I have said all week, we can finish the bill--we actually could have finished it yesterday, when you consider all the time wasted in quorum calls--but I believe we can finish it today and show the American people the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner.

We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to the bill. But we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation.

We should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices either by a voice vote or a rollcall, I would hope in the next few minutes, and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses.

I hope we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, such as energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to very short time agreements for additional debate, if needed. If a rollcall is called for, I am happy to have those.

The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment Senator Feinstein filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system.

I wish to take a moment to talk about an important component of the

America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. This is strongly supported by the administration and by the managers of this package. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights,'' and it describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree. I also believe it should help small and independent inventors.

This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts--and they were very recent efforts; after all, we have been working on this bill for years--of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first- inventor-to-file patent system.

A transition to first-inventor-to-file system is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act. This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first- inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system.

I commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions. It actually allows us to put America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system.

This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office to work through its current backlog. That backlog has more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted.

The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. Also, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. For these reasons, among others, this transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and experts at the Patent and Trademark Office.

At this time I wish to have printed in the Record a few letters of support for the transition to first-to-file.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says that ``by moving to a first-inventor-to-file system, small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in international markets will expand.''

The Intellectual Property Owners Association says the transition to first-inventor-to-file ``is central to modernization and simplification of patent law and is very widely supported by U.S. companies.''

BASF says the first-to-file system will ``enhance the patent system in ways that would benefit all sectors of the U.S. economy.''

And the American Bar Association refutes claims that the first-to- file system would disadvantage small and independent inventors, saying that the legislation ``makes it clear that the award goes to the first inventor to file and not merely to the first person to file.''

I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, we are now ready to go forward on the Bennet and Kirk-Pryor amendments. I am prepared to call them up for a vote in the next few minutes if we could get somebody on the floor.

Amendment No. 117, as Modified

I understand there is a modification at the desk of Bennet amendment No. 117.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of Bennet amendment No. 117, as modified, with the changes at the desk and Kirk amendment No. 123 en bloc; further, that the amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I am ready to go to third reading unless there are others who are otherwise tied up who knows where, but I wish they would take the time to drop by if they have amendments. Senator Grassley and I spent hours on the floor yesterday just waiting for people to bring up amendments. We went through a number of quorum calls. We are talking about something that is going to be a tremendous boost to businesses and inventors. Those who are watching are wondering probably why we have spent years getting this far. So much time is being wasted.

I just want everybody to know the two of us are ready to vote. Yesterday we took hours of delay to vote on the Leahy-Grassley, et al. amendment, and then it passed 97 to 2.

So I would urge Senators who have amendments to come to the floor. As the gospel says, ``Many are called, but few are chosen.'' It may be the same thing on some of the amendments, but ultimately we will conclude. Before my voice is totally gone, unless the Senator from Iowa has something to say, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Madam President, I also wish to associate myself with the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa. He has worked very hard to help us get to the floor. Considering the enormous amount of time that has been spent by both sides of the aisle on this bill, the amount of time that has been spent working out problems, I wish we could complete it. I understand there are a couple Senators who may have amendments. I am not sure where they are, but I am sure they will show up at some point. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, who has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee all the time I have been there. This has been very helpful. I appreciate what he said. I found interesting the list of patents from his home State of Illinois, and I think each one of us can point to some of those with pride. If we are going to stay competitive with the rest of the world, we have to get this bill passed.

It has been more than 60 years since we updated our patent law. We are way behind the rest of the world. We have to be able to compete, so I thank the Senator.

Further Modification to Amendment 121, as Modified

Madam President, I have cleared this with the Senator from Iowa. Notwithstanding the adoption of the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 121, as modified, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified further with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, we are down to very few things. I hate to put in another quorum call and then hear from Senators calling they want some time to speak about amendments. I know sometimes we follow the ``Dracula'' rule, being that we do not legislate until it is dark and Dracula comes out. Maybe, since the days are getting longer, we could do some things during daytime hours. I send out a call, a pleading call: If people want their amendments, come forward, let's have a vote up or down on them and be done with it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that an article written for The Hill by the distinguished Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, dated March 2 of this year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is interesting, I do not want to embarrass the person whom I wanted to speak about at all, but I was interested in listening to my dear friend, Senator Durbin, speak about his time at Georgetown Law School. Both he and I graduated from the Georgetown Law School. He talked about a classmate of his who was in patent law, and he realized this was a complex subject, one that is not the sort of law that he, Senator Durbin, was going to go into, any more than I would have.

But I also think of another graduate of Georgetown Law Center who was an engineer, had a degree in engineering, studied patent law, and became one of the most distinguished patent lawyers, litigators in this country, and is now a member of the Federal circuit court of appeals and that is Judge Richard Linn.

It was interesting hearing the Senator from Illinois, himself one of the finest lawyers in this body. My wife Marcella and I had the honor of being out in Chicago with Judge Linn and his wife Patty for a meeting of the Richard Linn American Inn of Court in Chicago. He serves with great distinction. In fact, a major part of this legislation reflects an opinion he wrote.

But I digress. I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of the Lee amendment No. 115, with the time until 5:15 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Lee amendment No. 115; that the Lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that upon disposition of the Lee amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Menendez amendment No. 124; that Senator Menendez be recognized to modify his amendment with the changes at the desk and the amendment, as modified, be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

I thank the superb staff for writing that out because I am not quite sure I could have done that on my own.

I had hoped as we began debate on this important bill to modernize America's patent system that the Senate would focus specifically on this measure designed to help create jobs, energize the economy and encourage innovation.

I had hoped that we would consider relevant amendments, and pass the bill. The America Invents Act is a key part of any jobs agenda. We can help unleash innovation and promote American invention, all without adding a penny to the deficit.

This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation. I said at the outset that I hoped the Senate would come together to pass this needed legislation and do so in the finest tradition of the Senate. I thank the Republican manager of the bill and the assistant Republican leader for their support and efforts on this bill.

Unfortunately, we have become bogged down with nongermane, nonrelevant, extraneous discussions and amendments.

Earlier this week, Senators who were focused on our legislative effort and responsibilities joined in tabling an amendment that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the America Invents Act.

Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issues of reforming our out-of-date patent system so that American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place on this important bill. They should not be slowing its consideration and passage.

If America is to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system that this bill can bring.

We must now dispose of another such amendment so that we may proceed to final passage of the America Invents Act and help inventors, American businesses and our economic recovery.

I take proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States seriously. I take seriously my oath as a Senator to support and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to it.

Over the years I have become more and more skeptical of recent efforts to amend the design that established the fundamental liberties and protections for all Americans. I believe the Founders did a pretty good job designing our fundamental charter.

I likewise take seriously the standard set in article V of the Constitution that the Congress propose amendments only when a supermajority of the Congress deem it ``necessary.'' While there have been hundreds of constitutional amendments proposed during my service in the Senate, and a number voted upon during the last 20 years, I have been steadfast in my defense of the Constitution.

The matter of a so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is not new to the Senate. Indeed, I believe the first matter Senator Hatch moved through the Judiciary Committee when he chaired it and I served as the ranking member was his proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

I strongly opposed it, but I cooperated with him in his effort to have the committee consider it promptly and vote.

I wish others would show the managers of this bill that courtesy and cooperation and not seek to use this bill as a vehicle for messages on other matters.

The Judiciary Committee has considered so-called balanced budget amendments to the Constitution at least nine times over the last 20 years. The Senate has been called upon to debate those amendments several times, as well, in 1982, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Despite the persistent and extraordinary efforts of the senior Senator from Utah, they have not been adopted by the Congress.

The only time the Senate agreed to the proposed constitutional amendment was in 1982. On that occasion, the House of Representatives thought the better of it. On the subsequent five occasions, as Senators came to understand how the proposed amendment undercut the Constitution, it was defeated.

Now another Senator has adopted this cause.

He has proposed a different, even more complicated proposed constitutional amendment. That will require study in order to be understood. It will require working with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

While the new Senator from Utah is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Constitution subcommittee, he has not consulted with me about his proposal, nor, as far as I know, with the chairman of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from Illinois.

Instead, he preemptively seeks to raise the matter on this important bill, which is designed to create jobs, encourage American innovation and strengthen our economy.

For the last 20 years, the so-called balanced budget amendment has been a favorite slogan for some. For some others of us, we have done the hard work to actually produce a balanced budget and, indeed, a surplus.

Rather than defile the Constitution, we have worked and voted to create a balanced budget and a budget surplus. In 1993, without a single Republican vote to help us, Democrats in the Congress passed a budget that led to a balanced budget and, indeed, to a budget surplus of billions of dollars by the end of the Clinton administration.

That surplus was squandered by the next administration on tax breaks for the wealthy and an unnecessary war that cost trillions but went unpaid for. Those misjudgments were compounded by financial fraud and greed that led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. That is what we have been seeking to dig out from under since 2008.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter received from American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in opposition to the Lee amendment.

We have stabilized the economic freefall and begun to revive the economy.

Everyone knows that economic growth is the path toward budget balance. Economic growth and winning the future through American innovation is what the bipartisan American Invents Act is all about.

Accordingly, for all these reasons as well as the reasons for which I opposed the efforts to amend the Constitution in 1982, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1997, I oppose amendment No. 115.

Exhibit 1

[From the Hill, Mar. 2, 2011]

Delivering Innovation and Jobs Through Patent Reform

(By Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke)

Today, there are more than 700,000 unexamined patent

applications log-jammed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office (USPTO).Many of them represent inventions that will

come to market and launch new businesses and create new,

high-paying jobs.

But without a patent, securing the funds needed to get a

business or innovation off the ground is nearly impossible,

for both small and large inventors alike.

Patent reform legislation the Senate is considering this

week can change that.

And it can build on the progress USPTO Director David

Kappos has already made in reducing the time it takes to

process the average patent--currently nearly 3 years.

New programs have been introduced to fast-track promising

technologies, reforms have been made to help examiners more

quickly process applications, and the Patent Office recently

announced a plan to give inventors more control over when

their patent is examined.

The result? The backlog of patents is decreasing for the

first time in years, even as new applications have actually

increased 7 percent.

But if the USPTO is to speed the movement of job-creating

ideas to the marketplace, it will take more than internal,

administrative reforms alone. That's where the patent reform

legislation comes in.

Here's what it promises to do: First, it allows the USPTO

to set its own fees--a major part of ensuring that the agency

has reliable funding. This will enable the USPTO to hire more

examiners and bring its IT system into the 21st century so it

can process applications more quickly and produce better

patents that are less likely to be subject to a court

challenge.

Second, it decreases the likelihood of expensive litigation

because it creates a less costly, in-house administrative

alternative to review patent validity claims.

Also, the pending legislation would add certainty to court

damages awards, helping to avoid excessive awards in minor

infringement cases, a phenomenon that essentially serves as a

tax on innovation and an impediment to business development.

Finally, patent reform adopts the ``first-inventor-to-

file'' standard as opposed to the current ``first-to-invent''

standard. First inventor to file is used by the rest of the

world, and would be good for U.S. businesses, providing a

more transparent and cost-effective process that puts them on

a level playing field with their competitors around the

world.

There is some concern among some small, independent

inventors, who feel like the current system is better for

them, but it's our strong opinion that the opposite is true.

Here's why: The cost of proving that one was first to

invent is prohibitive and requires detailed and complex

documentation of the invention process. In cases where

there's a dispute about who the actual inventor is, it

typically costs at least $400,000 in legal fees, and even

more if the case is appealed. By comparison, establishing a

filing date through a provisional application and

establishing priority of invention costs just $110. The

125,000 provisional applications currently filed each year

prove that early filing dates protect the rights of small

inventors.

In the past seven years, of almost 3 million applications

filed, only 2 patents were granted to small entities that

were the second inventor to file but were able to prove they

were first to invent. Of those 25, only one patent was

granted to an individual inventor who was the second to file.

Thus, in the last seven years, only one independent inventor

in nearly 3 million patent filings would have gotten a

different outcome under the ``first-inventor-to-file''

system.

Many proposals in this legislation have been debated for a

decade, but we now have core provisions with broad support

that will undoubtedly add more certainty around the validity

of patents; enable greater work sharing between the USPTO and

other countries; and help the agency continue with

operational changes needed to accelerate innovation, support

entrepreneurship and business development, and drive job

creation and economic prosperity.

And thanks to the leadership of Senate and House Judiciary

Committee Chairmen, Patrick Leahy1 and Lamar Smith, getting

this bipartisan jobs legislation passed is a top priority.

There's a clear case for it. As President Obama said in his

State of the Union address, ``The first step in winning the

future is encouraging American innovation.''

Reforming our patent system is a critical part of that

first step.

Speeding the transformation of an idea into a market-making

product will drive the jobs and industries of the future and

strengthen America's economic competitiveness.

Mr. President, even though I oppose this amendment and would simply allow it to go for a voice vote because the proponent of the amendment is not even on the floor, I will, to protect his right and notwithstanding his not following the normal policy, ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, yesterday the Senate began debating the America Invents Act. We adopted the committee amendments, and we proceeded to have five additional amendments offered to the bill. This morning I will be offering a managers' amendment, along with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, that incorporates additional improvements being made at the suggestions of Senator Coburn, Senator Schumer, Senator Coons, Senator Bennet, and others.

When we adopt this managers' amendment, I believe we will move very close to a consensus bill the Senate can and should pass to help create good jobs, encourage innovation, and strengthen our recovery and economy.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration and the Edward Wyatt article.

I thank all of those with the administration who worked on the matter, and particularly Secretary Locke, Director Kappos of the Patent and Trademark Office, and former Secretary Daley, now Chief of Staff at the White House.

The statement describes the bill as representing a fair, balanced, and necessary effort to improve patent quality. It concludes: ``Senate passage of this bill is consistent with the Administration's commitment to support and encourage innovation that leads to improved competitiveness, economic prosperity, and job growth--without adding a penny to the deficit.''

It also notes that transition to a first-to-file system simplifies the process of acquiring rights and describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness, and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.''

I agree. I believe it should help small and independent inventors. On President's Day, just over a week ago, the New York Times included an article on its front page entitled ``U.S. Sets 21st-Century Goal: Building a Better Patent Office.''

That is what we are trying to do with our bill, the bipartisan Leahy- Grassley-Hatch Patent Reform Act or, as it has become known, the America Invents Act. We have to reform our patent office and our patent laws. They have not been updated for 60 years. We have to help to create good jobs, encourage innovation, and strengthen our economy.

The reporter notes the growth in patent applications to more than 2,000 a day last year. That is not a typographical error--2,000 a day last year. A record 209,000 patents were issued in 2010. But there remains a backlog of 700,000 patents awaiting initial action at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and another 500,000 being processed. That is 1.2 million applications in the pipeline. Among them could be the next medical miracle, the next energy breakthrough, the next leap in computing ability, the next killer app. We should all do what we can to help PTO Director Kappos and the dedicated women and men of the PTO to modernize and reform.

It makes no sense that it takes 2 years for an inventor to get an initial ruling on his or her patent application, then another year or more to get the patent.

As 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.

We are not going to be the leader we are today if we allow that to continue. But the Senate has before it bipartisan legislation that can lead to long-needed improvements in our patent laws and system. We should be focused on it and moving ahead to pass it without delay. It 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.

This is the time for the Senate to serve the interests of the American people by concentrating on the important legislation before us. We should not be distracted. It is a bipartisan bill. We should not be diverted into extraneous issues but focus our debate on those few amendments that Senators feel need to be debated to perfect this bill and which are germane to this bill.

I mentioned in my opening statement the anticipated amendment on fee diversion. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to end patent fee diversion. It is a reform that Senator Hatch and I have long supported. I appreciated him working with me and withholding his amendment during committee consideration. So we are incorporating his amendment in the managers' amendment.

We also incorporate in the managers' amendment an amendment from Senator Schumer that concerns business method patents. We provide a process for their reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office. This would also improve patent quality.

We incorporate suggestions from Senator Bennet and Senator Coons to remove certain damages and venue provisions that are no longer necessary in light of recent court decisions. The administration noted in its statement that it would not object to the removal of these provisions.

Senator Bennet came forward last night with sound amendments that he explained. They are included in this amendment, along with the change to the definition of a ``microentity'' made at the suggestion of the majority leader, and my amendment to conform the name of the legislation to the America Invents Act. I hope we adopt this amendment without delay.

I understand there may be Senators who do not agree with the first- to-file reform to update and simplify our system. If they intend to bring an amendment, they should do so without delay. We should be able to complete action on this bill today or tomorrow. Then the Senate can turn its full attention to another important matter, the funding resolution needed to be enacted this week by Congress. What we should not do is delay or sacrifice the job-creating potential of this bill to a side debate about the debt limit or whether we amend the Constitution of the United States. Those are debates I will be happy to have in their own right. We must not allow other countries around the world to have such a competitive advantage because we are too slow in moving on this bill.

The bipartisan American Invents Act is too important to be turned into a mere vehicle to launch speeches and debates about pet causes. It is not the bill to have debates about whether if the United States were to reach its debt ceiling, the government should favor paying creditors such as China before meeting its other obligations to the American people.

That theoretical debate has nothing to do with the patent reforms in this bill, and there will be a bill that you can have the debate on if you want. In fact, this bill is one that does not spend taxpayers' money or raise the debt one dollar. Accordingly, I will ask the support of our lead Republican sponsors and the bipartisan Senate leadership to promptly table extraneous amendments so we can complete our work on this legislation and serve the interests of the American people.

I have a managers' amendment. I described part of it already. I will send it to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and this be considered.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask for agreement on the managers' amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object--I would ask if the distinguished Senator could hold off----

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I understand Senator DeMint will be offering an amendment in the first degree which will require setting aside the managers' amendment. My understanding is, once he has done that, we will then set aside his amendment and go back to the managers' amendment.

I yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment now be set aside and that the managers' amendment be the pending amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, my understanding is the Senator from Illinois will offer his amendment and then will not object to his amendment then being set aside and we go back to the managers' amendment; is that correct?

I will not object.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his contribution to this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the Kirk-Pryor amendment and go back to the pending business, which is the managers' amendment.

Mr. President, I understand there will be another Senator who will come down and speak, and in the meantime I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, be recognized as though in morning business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the Senator for his kind words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not if one gives the full amount.

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

Article 2 of the Constitution says:

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his

services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased

nor diminished during the period for which he shall be

elected.

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

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

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

It seems to be a total violation of the Constitution.

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

Of course you are.

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

That is not my question.

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

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

Of course you do.

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

You just cut it for those days.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 4:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``How Did We Get Here? Changes in the Law and Tax Environment Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Breaking the Cycle of North Korean Provocations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011. The committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examination of Public Relations Contracts at the General Services Administration's Heartland Region.''

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

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