Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; further, that the amended version be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment.

Mr. President, the Senate today is turning its attention to a measure that will help create jobs, energize the economy, and promote innovation. The Patent Reform Act, which has also come to be called 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 and bipartisan legislation. During the next few days, the Senate can come together to pass this needed legislation, and do so in a bipartisan manner. It represents the finest traditions of the Senate.

I thank the majority leader for proceeding to this measure, and the Republican leader for his cooperation.

This is a bill that was reported unanimously by the members of the Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that it is important to our country's continued economic recovery, and to our ability to successfully compete in the global economy. America needs a 21st century patent system in order to lead. The last reform of our patent system was nearly 60 years ago, and I think it is about time the patent system caught up with the needs of this country and what the rest of the world has already done.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama challenged the Nation to out-innovate, out-build, and out-educate. Enacting the America Invents Act is a key to meeting this challenge.

Reforming the Nation's antiquated patent system will promote American innovation, it will create American jobs, and it will 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.

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.

Our bipartisan Senate cosponsors include Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Gillibrand of New York, the distinguished Acting President pro tempore, Senator Coons of Delaware, as well as Senator Kyl, the assistant Republican leader, Senator Sessions of Alabama, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Franken of Minnesota, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Senator Harkin of Iowa.

Republicans and Democrats from big States and small, and from all ends of the political spectrum, are coming together to support American innovation.

The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved this legislation on February 3, 2011. But this effort extends back several years. Our current congressional efforts to reform the Nation's patent system began in 2005. Indeed, 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. 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 considering today, in fact, is structured on the original House bill and contains many of the original provisions.

From the beginning, we each 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. It 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, and it will do so without adding a penny to the deficit.

Not a dime in taxpayer money is spent on the Patent and Trademark Office reforms. They are all funded by patent fees, not taxes.

The America Invents Act will accomplish three important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate from the beginning: It will improve and harmonize operations at the Patent and Trademark Office; it will improve the quality of patents that are issued; and it will provide more certainty in litigation.

Particularly, this legislation will transition our Nation's patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. It will also make changes to improve the quality of patents that are issued, and it will provide the PTO with the resources it needs to work through its backlog.

The America Invents Act provides the tools the PTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff, to help businesses bring new products to market and create jobs.

This is interesting because this is a piece of legislation that is supported by both business and labor--something we all want to see in this Chamber--including the National Association of Manufacturers, the United Steelworkers, the National Venture Capital Association, the AFL- CIO, the Association of American Universities, and companies representing all sectors of the patent community that have been urging action on patent reform proposals for years.

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. 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.'' It is not a creature of the legislature but an integral part of our Constitution.

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.

In spite of this, a Newsweek study last year found that only 41 percent of Americans believe the United States is staying ahead of China in innovation.

A Thompson Reuters analysis has already predicted that China will outpace the United States in patent filings this year.

China has a specific plan not just to overtake the United States in patent applications, but to more than quadruple its patent filings over the next 5 years--all the more reason why we must act now. This is not something that should be delayed. We should act on it. Delaying it is saying we want China to overtake the United States. Moving forward says we want to be competitive.

It is astonishing to consider that China has been modernizing its patent laws and promoting innovation, but the United States has failed to keep pace. I said before, it has been 60 years since we last enacted reform of American patent law. We can no longer wait. We can no longer remain complacent and expect to stay on top.

In many areas that were highly contentious when the patent reform debate began, the courts have acted. Their decisions reflect the concerns heard in Congress that questionable patents were too easily obtained, too difficult to challenge. The courts have moved the law in a generally positive direction, more closely aligned with the text of the statutes.

More recently, the Federal circuit aggressively moved to constrain runaway damage awards, which plagued the patent system by basing awards on unreliable numbers, untethered to the reality of licensing decisions.

The courts have addressed issues where they can, but in some areas only Congress can take the necessary steps. Our act will both speed the application process and, at the same time, improve patent quality. It will provide the USPTO with the resources it needs to work through its application backlog, while also providing for greater input from third parties to improve the quality of patents issued and that remain in effect.

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.

The Department of Commerce issued a report indicating that these reforms will create jobs without adding to the deficit. The Obama administration supports these efforts, as do industries and stakeholders from all sectors of the patent community. Congressional action can no longer be delayed.

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.

Thomas Friedman wrote not too long ago in the New York Times that the country which ``endows its people with more tools and basic research to invent new goods and services . . . is the one that will not just survive but thrive down the road. . . . We might be able to stimulate our way back to stability, but we can only invent our way back to prosperity.''

I think of the country's first patent, which was issued to a Vermonter. Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, examined the application, and President George Washington signed it.

A recent Judiciary Committee meeting on this measure was on the anniversary of the day Thomas Edison received the historic patent for the principles of his incandescent lamp that paved the way for the bulb that has illuminated our homes, offices, and venues in our country and around the world.

This week is when the patent was issued for lifesaving improvements to the diver's suit. It was magician Harry Houdini who devised a mechanism that allowed divers in distress to safely escape a diving suit.

So we can smooth the path for more interesting and great American inventions. That is what the bipartisan comprehensive patent reform bill would do.

I wish to recognize in particular the work of Senator Hatch, who is here on the Senate floor--and he has been a longtime partner of mine on intellectual property issues--and Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican on our committee. The bill has also received tremendous input from Senator Kyl, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Sessions and many others. We are working together, along with those on both sides of the aisle in the House, to reach the goal of improving patent quality and the operations at the PTO, and to address the related unpredictability of litigation that has been harming innovation.

No one claims that ours is a perfect bill. It is a compromise that will make key improvements in the patent system. Over the course of the next couple of days, the Senate will have the opportunity to consider amendments.

Senator Coburn intends to bring an amendment on the use of patent fees. Other Senators who disagree with the move to a first-to-file system may seek to reverse that progress. I urge those Senators that have amendments to come forward, agree to time agreements and proceed without delay.

We should be able to complete action on this bill this week and I would hope by Wednesday night. Then the Senate will need to move on to other important matters. So after a brief period for opening statements to outline the bill and frame the debate, I will call for Senators to come forward with any amendments they may have to the bill. This bill is important and its scheduling comes as no surprise. It was more than 10 days ago that the Senate unanimously agreed to its consideration.

So, let us do our job, and get to the task of considering and completing action on this important bill in order to help create jobs, encourage innovation and promote American invention.

Mr. President, some of the Nation's leading innovators and inventors have expressed strong support for S. 23, the America Invents Act. The Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination, whose members are patent and trademark holders, recently wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, stating that its members have ``an interest in a more efficient system that produces higher- quality patents and trademarks.'' The Intellectual Property Owners Association, one of the largest trade associations devoted to intellectual property rights also recently wrote to Senators endorsing important provisions in the bill, including the first-to-file system. I ask that these letters, as well as a statement of support from the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform be printed in the Record at this time. I also ask that a list of cross-sector manufacturers and innovators that support S. 23 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as part of the housekeeping measures we have, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Utah on the Senate floor, a man who has worked for years on this issue and has made every effort to keep it bipartisan.

I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa. As I noted before he got on the floor, he has been extremely important in working on this issue.

Mr. President, just so I can have a moment to speak with the Senator from Louisiana, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I understand we have a unanimous consent agreement at 4:30 p.m. to go to two judicial nominations.

I ask for the regular order.

There is both good news and bad news represented by today's debate. The good news is that we begin another week by considering two of President Obama's judicial nominations. With judicial vacancies remaining over 100, nearly half of them judicial emergencies, the Senate's action today on 2 outstanding nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies in Georgia is much needed.

The bad news is that we did not consider these nominations earlier, and that we are not considering any of the other 8 judicial nominees awaiting final Senate consideration and confirmation. Two of those nominees, Sue Myerscough and James Shadid, were each nominated to fill emergency vacancies on the Central District of Illinois. Their confirmations would help relieve the chief judge of that district, who is the only active judge in the entire district. Chief Judge McCuskey wrote to Senator Durbin in November urging the Senate to take action to fill those vacancies, but we did not. Despite the desperate need in that district, neither of these nominations received final Senate votes when they were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. Both have now been reported unanimously again, and we should not further delay taking care of this overburdened court and the hard- working Americans who depend on it.

I do thank, in particular, the majority leader for scheduling this time, and also thank the Republican leader for his cooperation. I also commend our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley has worked with me on each of the judicial nominations that President Obama renominated this January.

All 13 of the judicial nominations that were unanimously reported last year have now been unanimously reported, again, this year. To date, five of those nominations have been confirmed and with the confirmation of Amy Totenberg and Steve Jones, we will have reconsidered and confirmed 7 of those 13 unanimously reported judicial nominees.

The Judiciary Committee has also now considered the renomination of Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit and Michael Simon to be a district court judge in Oregon. More than half of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of those nominations. They should be debated and confirmed without delay, as well.

Working with Senator Grassley, I also expect to be able to move forward with Judiciary Committee consideration of the renominations of two district court nominees, Edward Chen of California and Jack McConnell of Rhode Island, in the next few weeks. The renomination of Goodwin Liu of California to the Ninth Circuit will be reexamined at a Judiciary Committee hearing this week, at the request of our Republican members, and then reconsidered by the committee, as well.

We will be holding our third confirmation hearing of the year this week. It will include Professor Liu and four other judicial nominees from Tennessee, Florida, and New Jersey. At the earlier two hearings we considered eight additional judicial nominees who now await committee approval and Senate consideration. We are holding hearings every 2 weeks and hope finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial vacancies across the country.

I also commend the Senator from Iowa for his statement on February 14 during which he urged the Senate to turn the page and not revisit the recriminations from administrations past. I agree.

The nominees we consider today are both from Georgia. They were both reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee this year. Actually, they were also reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. They were among the 19 judicial nominees who were ready to be confirmed by the Senate last year but were not. When there was objection to proceeding last year, the vacancies persisted, the President had to renominate them and the Judiciary Committee had to reconsider their nominations. I expect the Senate will confirm them both tonight. I hope we do so unanimously. Both have the support of their home State Senators. Senators Isakson and Senator Chambliss worked with me and with President Obama in connection with these nominations.

While I am encouraged that the Senate is proceeding today, I am disappointed that we did not consider these nominees and other nominees from California, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia before the Presidents Day recess. We used to be able to clear the calendar of nominations before a recess. All six of these judicial nominees were approved unanimously by every Republican and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee weeks before the recess. When they are considered, I fully expect they will be confirmed unanimously by the Senate. With persistently high judicial vacancies around the country, the Senate should be considering judicial nominations without unnecessary delays. Litigants all over the country are having a hard time getting their cases heard in court because of the high number of vacancies. There are nominees pending on the calendar with unanimous support by both Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We ought to at least vote on these nominations to fill the vacancies.

In fact, when these 2 nominations are confirmed, there will still be nearly 100 Federal judicial vacancies around the country. That is too many and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer, and many others, including the President of the United States, have spoken out and urged the Senate to act.

Nearly one out of every eight Federal judgeships is vacant. That puts at serious risk the ability of Americans all over the country to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays is that the judges who remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion. These delays affect everyone; whether you are a plaintiff, a prosecutor, or a defendant.

Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of

President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent.

In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they continue to hover around 100.

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

We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with both Democratic and Republican home State Senators to identify superbly qualified consensus nominations.

None of the nominations on the Executive Calendar are controversial. They all have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law. All have demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.

During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. This was after 60 of President Clinton's nominations had been pocket- filibustered by those on the other side of the aisle. I decided not to continue that trend and we showed good faith in moving 100 of President Bush's nominees in the 17 months that I was chairman. During the remaining 31 months under Republican control, the Senate confirmed another 105 judicial nominations. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 67 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees.

We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it, we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout the first 3 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration.

I have often said that the 100 of us in the Senate stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans. We owe it to them to do our constitutional duty of voting on the President's nominations to be Federal judges. We owe it to them to make sure that hard-working Americans are able to have their cases heard in our Federal courts.

I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa is going to want to speak and time has been reserved for him. I first yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania on my time.

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

Mr. President, I understand there has been a request for a rollcall vote on Judge Jones, although I would recommend if we have such it be unanimous. I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, on the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Colorado has an amendment that could be disposed of quickly and which is agreeable to both sides.

I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I appreciate the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. When it comes to a vote, I think it will probably be unanimous. I suspect there will not even be a requirement for a rollcall vote. It does have this mandatory reduction in fees for small businesses at the Patent Office. I know the Senator is a strong advocate for small business in Colorado. The Patent Office has a backlog of more than 700,000 applications that haven't yet had a first response. This hits small businesses and independent ventures particularly hard because they can least afford a delay in receiving their rights. They have done a lot to reduce that backlog, but they need this legislation to finish it. They have the fast track process, where applicants pay additional fees to cover the costs and the examiners work overtime. Not all small businesses can afford the fast track application fee, and the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, wisely recognized that not all can afford that.

His amendment will ensure that small businesses and independent vendors will receive a 50-percent reduction in the fee. When the time comes for a vote, I will strongly support the amendment. I suspect both sides will strongly support it. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I know the Senator has advocated for satellite offices. His amendment speaks for geographic diversity. Otherwise, every one of us would be asking for one in our State. Vermont, which receives more patents per capita than any other State in the Union, would be asking for one, and so forth. He does not try to tilt the balance in favor of a particular State but he calls for geographic diversity. That is very wise. When the amendment comes to a vote, I will be there to support it.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is pending?

Was that set aside so he could introduce his second amendment?

That is what is pending now?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, once the Senator has introduced his amendment and has spoken, will he be willing to set that aside so that other amendments on the patent bill can come up?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2011, at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I am pleased we will finally vote on the bipartisan amendment that Senator Inhofe and I have proposed. I thank the Commerce Committee chairman and ranking member.

Before we vote I would like to respond to some remarks made on the floor yesterday. The junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, expressed some concern with the portion of our amendment that makes an improvement to the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act. As I understand one of Senator Coburn's concerns, it is the belief that the PSOB improvement I propose exceeds Congress's proper role under the Constitution.

Section 8 of article 1 in the Constitution empowers Congress to provide for the ``general welfare'' of the United States. Supporting our first responders, and encouraging more Americans to serve their communities as first responders, who are our first line of national security, falls squarely within this clause.

Congress can and does legislate in many areas that support the general welfare of our Nation, whether providing funds to fight violent crime through joint law enforcement task forces, or providing disaster aid to the states following natural disasters. Congress has traditionally acted to support our Federal system through beneficial legislation for the states. I find it difficult to understand how supporting all of our Nation's first responders, on an equal basis, exceeds Congress's proper and traditional constitutional role.

According to my review, there have been 65 Federal cases concerning the PSOB program, and not one of them challenged its constitutionality. In 1986, the Supreme Court took up a case involving the PSOB program, which did not involve a constitutional challenge, and in fact invoked the Constitution's supremacy clause to hold that the Federal PSOB program's benefit could not be interfered with by any inconsistent state law.

Senators may disagree about the wisdom or necessity of legislating for the general welfare or in support of our first responders, but as a constitutional matter, Congress authority to enact programs like the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act is well established.

For over 30 years, since 1976, the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program has assisted the families of first responders lost in the line of duty, including local police, firefighters, and EMS technicians. This policy was enacted in part to encourage more Americans to serve their communities as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics. The importance of the services they provide is undeniable.

Senator Coburn also expressed concern that our amendment expanded Federal costs. So let me be clear on this point: while the estimated cost of this proposal is modest--less than $13 million over 10 years our--amendment is fully paid for through an included offset. Let me repeat that because I think there may be some confusion on this point-- this amendment is completely paid for. It is deficit neutral and will have no budgetary impact given the included offset.

I also heard a concern about the fact that this amendment may not be germane to the underlying bill. If I am not mistaken, one of the very first amendments the Senate voted on, and for which Senator Coburn voted in favor and had no procedural objection that I am aware of, was an amendment to repeal the health care law. I do not think that amendment would be ruled germane. Nonetheless, in the spirit of moving the legislative process forward, the Senate voted on it.

Senator Inhofe and I have worked together to try to advance two proposals that are important to us, and which will both support our Nation's first responders and encourage volunteerism. I thank Senator Inhofe once again, and I urge all Senators to join us in support of this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for my amendment from the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMTs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 112th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules for the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the committee rules.

Mr. President, today I again introduce legislation to correct an inequity in the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program, by extending benefits to nonprofit Emergency Medical Services, EMS, providers who die or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer.

The legislation is named after Dale Long, a long-time paramedic and shift supervisor with the Bennington Rescue Squad in Vermont. Dale Long died two years ago in a tragic, on-duty accident while treating and transporting a patient. He had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont paramedic. He helped many, many people in ways they will never forget, and Dale Long will not be forgotten.

I had the pleasure and honor of meeting Dale in 2009--less than two months before his death--when he was in Washington to receive the prestigious Star of Life Award from the American Ambulance Association. Dale earlier had received Vermont's EMS Advanced Rescuer of the Year Award, in 2008. In 2010, Dale was honored as part of the National EMS Memorial Service.

Dale's tragic passing highlighted a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established more than 30 years ago to lend a hand to police officers, firefighters and medics who lose their lives or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. The current benefit only applies to public safety officers employed by a Federal, State, or local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by nonprofit agencies, medics working for these nonprofit services unfortunately are not eligible for this help under the PSOB program.

Nonprofit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the vital and timely community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program.

The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act will correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover nonprofit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a nonprofit organization.

The modest cost of this remedy also is fully offset and will not add to the federal deficit.

This is a carefully crafted, commonsense remedy to a clear discrepancy in the law. I am pleased with the widespread support this bill has earned. Momentum continues to build for this solution, and I will keep at this effort until the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act becomes the law of the land.

I thank several first responder organizations--including the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMTs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Fraternal Order of Police--for their support of this effort.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2011, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

As we have seen in recent years, public corruption can erode the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service, and, too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked. Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of Congress, judges, governors, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools they need to investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will increase sentences for serious corruption offenses and will provide investigators and prosecutors more time to pursue public corruption cases. The bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including bribery and theft of government property, to ensure that those who violate the public trust are held accountable. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes.

The bill extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. We recently increased the statute of limitations for securities fraud to 6 years. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy and are among the most difficult and time- consuming cases to investigate. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

This bill also amends several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. It includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. This important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it will help to ensure that the work of public officials cannot be bought, and it will put teeth behind key ethics reforms enacted by Congress in 2007.

The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a

public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. It adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-funded state programs, and expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Senator Cornyn and I have added two new modest fixes into this year's bill. The first allows information sharing that will make it easier for law enforcement to investigate possible criminal activity by Federal judges. The second further clarifies and strengthens the federal program bribery statute.

I remain committed to ensuring sufficient funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has consistently affirmed that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but reports in the past decade indicated that this shift in resources sometimes meant a reduction in the number of public corruption investigations and at times made pursuing key corruption cases more difficult. The Justice Department and the FBI have been working to reverse this trend, but we must make sure that law enforcement has all the tools and the resources it needs to strongly confront these serious and corrosive crimes.

In recognition of the difficult budget situation in which we find ourselves and in an effort to maintain maximum bipartisan support for this important legislation, I have agreed to remove from this year's bill a modest authorization for anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors that we included in past versions. Nonetheless, given the vital importance of this work, I hope that Senator Cornyn and others will join me in calling on appropriators and the Justice Department and FBI to ensure that significant resources are allocated to investigating and prosecuting public corruption.

Since we last introduced this bill, our country has unfortunately taken a step backward in its efforts to fight fraud and corruption. Last year, in the case of Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron, whose collapse had such devastating effects on the economy early in the last decade, and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that plays an important role in combating public corruption, corporate fraud, and self-dealing.

The Court's decision leaves corrupt and fraudulent conduct which prosecutors in the past addressed under the honest services fraud statute to go unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision excluded undisclosed ``self-dealing'' by state and federal public officials, and corporate officers and directors, which is when those officials or executives secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public or, in private sector cases, their shareholders and employees.

I introduced legislation in the last Congress, the Honest Services Restoration Act, to close this crucial gap and restore the government's ability to prosecute key categories of corruption cases. I have heard from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House who are eager to fix this problem. I hope to continue working with Senator Cornyn and others to find a bipartisan solution to fixing honest services fraud and perhaps to incorporate a fix into this comprehensive anti-corruption bill at some point in the future.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. It is time to strengthen the criminal law to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I hope that all Senators will support this bipartisan bill and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.

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

Mr. President, today I again introduce legislation to correct an inequity in the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program, by extending benefits to nonprofit Emergency Medical Services, EMS, providers who die or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer.

The legislation is named after Dale Long, a long-time paramedic and shift supervisor with the Bennington Rescue Squad in Vermont. Dale Long died two years ago in a tragic, on-duty accident while treating and transporting a patient. He had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont paramedic. He helped many, many people in ways they will never forget, and Dale Long will not be forgotten.

I had the pleasure and honor of meeting Dale in 2009--less than two months before his death--when he was in Washington to receive the prestigious Star of Life Award from the American Ambulance Association. Dale earlier had received Vermont's EMS Advanced Rescuer of the Year Award, in 2008. In 2010, Dale was honored as part of the National EMS Memorial Service.

Dale's tragic passing highlighted a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established more than 30 years ago to lend a hand to police officers, firefighters and medics who lose their lives or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. The current benefit only applies to public safety officers employed by a Federal, State, or local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by nonprofit agencies, medics working for these nonprofit services unfortunately are not eligible for this help under the PSOB program.

Nonprofit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the vital and timely community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program.

The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act will correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover nonprofit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a nonprofit organization.

The modest cost of this remedy also is fully offset and will not add to the federal deficit.

This is a carefully crafted, commonsense remedy to a clear discrepancy in the law. I am pleased with the widespread support this bill has earned. Momentum continues to build for this solution, and I will keep at this effort until the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act becomes the law of the land.

I thank several first responder organizations--including the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMTs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Fraternal Order of Police--for their support of this effort.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2011, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

As we have seen in recent years, public corruption can erode the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service, and, too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked. Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of Congress, judges, governors, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools they need to investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will increase sentences for serious corruption offenses and will provide investigators and prosecutors more time to pursue public corruption cases. The bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including bribery and theft of government property, to ensure that those who violate the public trust are held accountable. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes.

The bill extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. We recently increased the statute of limitations for securities fraud to 6 years. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy and are among the most difficult and time- consuming cases to investigate. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

This bill also amends several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. It includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. This important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it will help to ensure that the work of public officials cannot be bought, and it will put teeth behind key ethics reforms enacted by Congress in 2007.

The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a

public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. It adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-funded state programs, and expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Senator Cornyn and I have added two new modest fixes into this year's bill. The first allows information sharing that will make it easier for law enforcement to investigate possible criminal activity by Federal judges. The second further clarifies and strengthens the federal program bribery statute.

I remain committed to ensuring sufficient funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has consistently affirmed that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but reports in the past decade indicated that this shift in resources sometimes meant a reduction in the number of public corruption investigations and at times made pursuing key corruption cases more difficult. The Justice Department and the FBI have been working to reverse this trend, but we must make sure that law enforcement has all the tools and the resources it needs to strongly confront these serious and corrosive crimes.

In recognition of the difficult budget situation in which we find ourselves and in an effort to maintain maximum bipartisan support for this important legislation, I have agreed to remove from this year's bill a modest authorization for anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors that we included in past versions. Nonetheless, given the vital importance of this work, I hope that Senator Cornyn and others will join me in calling on appropriators and the Justice Department and FBI to ensure that significant resources are allocated to investigating and prosecuting public corruption.

Since we last introduced this bill, our country has unfortunately taken a step backward in its efforts to fight fraud and corruption. Last year, in the case of Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron, whose collapse had such devastating effects on the economy early in the last decade, and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that plays an important role in combating public corruption, corporate fraud, and self-dealing.

The Court's decision leaves corrupt and fraudulent conduct which prosecutors in the past addressed under the honest services fraud statute to go unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision excluded undisclosed ``self-dealing'' by state and federal public officials, and corporate officers and directors, which is when those officials or executives secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public or, in private sector cases, their shareholders and employees.

I introduced legislation in the last Congress, the Honest Services Restoration Act, to close this crucial gap and restore the government's ability to prosecute key categories of corruption cases. I have heard from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House who are eager to fix this problem. I hope to continue working with Senator Cornyn and others to find a bipartisan solution to fixing honest services fraud and perhaps to incorporate a fix into this comprehensive anti-corruption bill at some point in the future.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. It is time to strengthen the criminal law to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I hope that all Senators will support this bipartisan bill and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his comments.

In less than 2 weeks, the current short-term extension of three authorities authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. I thank the two leaders for working to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to consider the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and to do so in a way that ensures that these authorities do not lapse while the Republican majority in the House and new Senators consider these measures.

The bill I introduced on January 26, and that the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider this week, is based on the bill the Judiciary Committee considered and passed with a bipartisan majority last Congress.

It includes additional adjustments made at Senator Kyl's suggestion after the committee reported the bill in 2009. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to report that legislation again, and I will urge the Senate to consider and pass the improvements to the USA PATRIOT Act that we have proposed, during this short, additional 90-day extension.

The original USA PATRIOT Act included important sunsets that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe that the sunsets suggested by Dick Armey back in 2001 have been a good thing. I have tried to conduct aggressive oversight of USA PATRIOT Act surveillance authorities since the bill was originally enacted in 2001. The sunsets have been helpful in that process. Accordingly, I do not support permanent extension of these surveillance authorities.

Nor do I support undercutting important oversight and government accountability with respect to these intelligence gathering tools. Instead, I support strengthening oversight while providing the intelligence community the certainty it needs to protect national security.

The bill I hope we will consider before May 27 would give the intelligence community the certainty it needs by extending these expiring authorities while also strengthening congressional and judicial oversight. This legislation is the result of bipartisan negotiations 2 years ago. It had the strong support of the administration.

The House bill we are amending was not the product of bipartisan agreement, or even an open debate in the House. It would extend the PATRIOT Act without improvement for the rest of the year. That is too little for too long.

I do not begrudge our friends in the House time to do their work, and for the new Republican majority to seek additional time to consider the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. But it should not take a year to pass improvements to these provisions. Importantly, we should not extend this debate into an election year and risk that some will play politics with our national security.

With the 90-day extension that the leaders have proposed, we will be able to consider the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 and improve authorities that are otherwise set to expire.

Our bill can promote transparency and expand privacy and civil liberties safeguards in the law. It will increase judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans.

I hope that ours is a package of reforms that all Americans can support. A bipartisan group of Senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of

it in the last Congress, including Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. Subsequent negotiations produced a package that was endorsed by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

When Congress did not act on that negotiated package of reforms, but instead passed an extension of the expiring authorities until February 28, 2011, I took steps to see that key portions of the package were implemented administratively by the Department of Justice.

It is my hope that during this short extension Congress will pass the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011 to codify the steps forward that the Attorney General has taken to implement parts of our legislative proposal administratively.

We can ensure that the progress in accountability and transparency that we achieved last year is not lost simply because it was never written into the statute.

In addition, we will have the opportunity to enact the parts of the bill that the Attorney General did not or could not adopt because they require a change in the statute. Chief among these is adding a new sunset on National Security Letters.

Second is repealing the presumption in favor of the government that a judge must honor when he or she reviews an application for a section 215 order for business records. The government does not need this presumption. In fact, the Attorney General endorsed the repeal of the presumption when he expressed his support for the bill in the prior Congress.

We can preserve the authorities that give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect national security. And we can ensure that inspectors general, Congress, and the public maintain vigilant oversight of the government, making sure these authorities are used properly and within constitutional bounds.

I urge all Senators to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 514 and then to support the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011.

Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act, ECEA, to help ensure that those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through environmental crime are held accountable for their actions. This common sense legislation was reported by the Judiciary Committee with overwhelming support last year. I hope the Senate will act on it in this Congress.

The tragic explosion of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig last year is just one example of why this legislation is needed. Eleven men died in that explosion, and oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico for months, with deadly contaminants washing up on the shores and wetlands of the Gulf Coast. The catastrophe threatened the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the Gulf region, as well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible for this and other catastrophes should be held accountable, and wrongdoers--not taxpayers--should pay for the damage they have done. This bill will help to deter environmental crime, protect and compensate victims of environmental crime, and encourage accountability among corporate actors.

First, the ECEA is drafted to deter schemes by big oil and others that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as a mere cost of doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws that result in prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm the crimes can cause. As last year's crisis in the Gulf of Mexico makes clear, Clean Water Act offenses can have serious consequences in people's lives and on their livelihoods. These consequences should be reflected in the sentences given to the criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent effect.

This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act violations.

Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act offenses would have to compensate the victims of those offenses for their losses. That restitution could help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their livelihoods should criminal liability be found.

Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be compensated for criminal wrongdoing. The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig brought to light the arbitrary laws that prevent those killed in such tragedies from bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for restitution to victims, allowing the families of those killed to be given the means to carry on.

This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These measures are tough but fair. They are important steps toward deterring criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of big oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this bill and these important reforms.

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

Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act, ECEA, to help ensure that those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through environmental crime are held accountable for their actions. This common sense legislation was reported by the Judiciary Committee with overwhelming support last year. I hope the Senate will act on it in this Congress.

The tragic explosion of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig last year is just one example of why this legislation is needed. Eleven men died in that explosion, and oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico for months, with deadly contaminants washing up on the shores and wetlands of the Gulf Coast. The catastrophe threatened the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the Gulf region, as well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible for this and other catastrophes should be held accountable, and wrongdoers--not taxpayers--should pay for the damage they have done. This bill will help to deter environmental crime, protect and compensate victims of environmental crime, and encourage accountability among corporate actors.

First, the ECEA is drafted to deter schemes by big oil and others that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as a mere cost of doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws that result in prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes.

Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm the crimes can cause. As last year's crisis in the Gulf of Mexico makes clear, Clean Water Act offenses can have serious consequences in people's lives and on their livelihoods. These consequences should be reflected in the sentences given to the criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach, asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent effect.

This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that, ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act violations.

Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act offenses would have to compensate the victims of those offenses for their losses. That restitution could help the people of the Gulf Coast rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their livelihoods should criminal liability be found.

Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be compensated for criminal wrongdoing. The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig brought to light the arbitrary laws that prevent those killed in such tragedies from bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that, when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for restitution to victims, allowing the families of those killed to be given the means to carry on.

This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These measures are tough but fair. They are important steps toward deterring criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of big oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting this bill and these important reforms.

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

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

Would the Senator yield for a moment? I assume the Senator is speaking on the time reserved for the Republican side.

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

Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back any time on this side. I understand from my colleague that they will yield back on their time.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is the first nomination the Graves nomination?

It is my understanding there is not a request for a rollcall vote on that one.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.