Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday, Americans across the country gathered to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so cruelly and indiscriminately in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Although a decade has passed, I vividly remember that tragic day. I was right here in Washington when American Airlines flight 77 struck the Pentagon. It was a defining moment for our country. Congress acted swiftly to create a fund to aid victims of the attacks, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to update our laws to counter these new enemies. In the years since September 11, 2001, the threat that violent extremists pose to America has endured, if not increased. Fortunately, the increased attention to preventing terrorist attacks by both the Bush and Obama administrations has prevented another large scale attack, and foiled numerous plots. As we remember the victims of the September 11 attacks, and the soldiers and National Guard members who we have lost in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should also reflect on the lessons we have learned. In the aftermath of this tragedy, it became clear that turf battles between Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and a resulting lack of information sharing between these agencies, contributed to the failures that allowed the hijackers to enter the country and evade authorities. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, possessed deficient and outdated technology. It suffered from a woeful lack of skilled translators in key languages, and did not have sufficient numbers of counterterrorism analysts to swiftly absorb and comprehend intelligence information. Each of these factors contributed to the Government's failure to connect the dots prior to the attacks. Faced with these issues and a new type of threat, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were forced to adapt. Over the past decade, I have worked to ensure that our Federal agencies have the tools they need to make our borders more secure, improve our intelligence gathering, track down terrorists, and bring them to justice. Having expedited the hiring of translators and armed with upgraded technology, the FBI can now operate and communicate more efficiently. I have also supported efforts to refine government surveillance authority to allow agencies to gather the information they need to prevent additional attacks. However, along with these expanded authorities, I have also worked to include essential oversight and accountability measures to ensure that these new powers do not go unchecked. The most intrusive surveillance authorities of the USA PATRIOT Act are subject to sunsets, which require Congress to revisit how the authorities have been used. Combined with inspector general audits and public reporting requirements, the American people and Congress can regularly scrutinize the use of these surveillance tools. The importance of oversight and supervision of Government powers to protect civil liberties was important before September 11, 2001, and even more critical after. While I firmly believe in keeping our Nation safe, relinquishing our freedoms and values will only weaken our ability to fight terrorism. Ten years after September 11, 2001, the ability of our intelligence community to collect and analyze information has drastically improved. However, despite these improvements, we have vast amounts of information that can become overwhelming and lead to lapses in national security, such as the shootings at Fort Hood and the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I remain committed to ensuring that we continue to adapt and respond to evolving threats in order to keep this country safe from another terrorist attack, while upholding the rule of law and protecting critical civil liberties and privacy protections. Although some of the national security policies and tactics of the past decade have caused divisiveness and controversy, President Obama delivered news on May 1, in which all Americans could take comfort. Justice had finally been served to Osama bin Laden for his atrocities. While the death of Osama bin Laden will never bring all of his victims back, we hope that it may help bring closure to all those who still grieve over their loss. The hard work of our brave American service members, who have sacrificed so much, made this mission a success for the benefit of an entire country. As we commemorate the sacrifices of so many that took place 10 years ago and in the wars since, we must continue to dedicate ourselves to upholding and strengthening the principles and values that define our democratic Nation. That is what distinguishes us from those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, it is what ultimately enable us to defeat them, and it is what people around the world expect from us.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate THIS for Diplomats of Washington, DC, on its 50th anniversary. Established in 1961, and formerly known as The Hospitality and Information Service, THIS has welcomed diplomats and their families from around the world to the Nation's Capital. Understanding the power of exchange, THIS continues to provide enriching educational, informational and cultural experiences. In the past year, THIS' 300 volunteers donated 20,000 hours to provide 65 programs and 208 language and cultural exchanges with 1734 diplomats. Programs included seminars on American government; visits to the Supreme Court, White House, Pentagon, Library of Congress, private art collections, performances at the Kennedy Center, as well as a Sports in America series. Language conversation groups included Arabic, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, Turkish, and English. Diplomats and their families from all over the world speak of how important THIS has been to their adjustment to and appreciation of the United States. Congratulations to THIS for Diplomats and its volunteers around the world on 50 years of service in advocating peace, tolerance, and prosperity.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will speak later about the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Alabama. He has been very helpful in getting this patent bill through. He is correct that this amendment he speaks to is one added in the other body, not by us. We purposely didn't have it in our bill. I know Senator Grassley will follow my remarks. There is no question in my mind that if the amendment of the Senator from Alabama were accepted, it in effect will kill the bill. Irrespective of the merits, it can come up on another piece of legislation or as freestanding legislation. That is fine. But on this bill, after 6 years of effort to get this far, this bill would die because the other body will not take it up again. Hurricane Irene

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will use my time to note some of the things happening in my own very special State of Vermont, the State in which I was born. As Vermonters come together and continue to grapple with the aftermath of storm damage from Irene, I wish to focus today on the agriculture disaster that has hit us in Vermont and report to the Senate and our fellow citizens across the Nation about how the raging floodwaters wreaked havoc on our farming lands and infrastructure in Vermont. It was 12 days ago now that this enormous, slow-moving storm hit Vermont and turned our calm, scenic brooks and creeks into raging gushers. In addition to our roads and historic covered bridges that were destroyed or carried away, we had barns, farmhouses, crops, parts of fields, and livestock washed away in the rising floodwaters. I recall the comments of one farmer who watched his herd of cows wash down the river, knowing they were going to die in the floodwaters. Now the cameras have begun to turn away, but the cleanup and urgent repairs are underway. For major parts of Vermont's economy, the worst effects of this storm are yet to come. For our dairy farmers, who are the bedrock of our economy and keystones of our communities, the toll of this disaster has been heavy and the crises has lasted longer as they have struggled to take care of their animals while the floodwaters recede. This is a photograph of East Pittsford, VT, taken by Lars Gange just over a week ago. The water we see is never there. It is there now. Look at this farm's fields, they are destroyed. Look at homes damaged and think what that water has done. As I went around the state with our Governor and Vermont National Guard General Dubie the first couple of days after the storm hit, we went to these places by helicopter and I cannot tell you how much it tore at my heart to see the state, the birthplace to me, my parents, and grandparents. To see roads torn up, bridges that were there when my parents were children, washed away. Historic covered bridges, mills, barns, businesses just gone and what it has done to our farmers, it is hard, I cannot overstate it. Our farmers have barns that are completely gone, leaving no shelter for animals. They are left struggling to get water for their animals, to rebuild fencing, to clean up debris from flooded fields and barns, and then to get milk trucks to the dairy farms. Remember, these cows have to be milked every single day. We also have farmers who do not have any feed or hay for their animals because it all washed away. As one farmer told me, the cows need to be milked two or three times every day, come hell or high water. This farmer thought he had been hit with both, hell and high water. While reports are still coming in from the farms that were affected, the list of damages and the need for critical supplies, such as feed, generators, fuel, and temporary fencing is on the rise. As we survey the farm fields and communities, we know it will be difficult to calculate the economic impacts of this violent storm on our agriculture industry in Vermont. Many of our farmers were caught by surprise as the unprecedented, rapidly rising floodwaters inundated their crops, and many have had to deal with the deeply emotional experience of losing animals to the fast-moving floodwaters. We have farms where whole fields were washed away and their fertile topsoil sent rushing down river. The timing could not have been worse. Corn, which is a crucial winter feed for dairy cows, was just ready for harvest, but now our best corn is in the river bottoms and is ruined. Other farms had just prepared their ground to sow winter cover crops and winter greens; they lost significant amounts of topsoil. River banks gave way, and we saw wide field buffers disappear overnight, leaving the crops literally hanging on ledges above rivers, as at the Kingsbury farm in Warren, VT. Vegetable farming is Vermont's fastest growing agricultural sector, and, of course, this is harvest season. Our farmers were not able to pick these crops, this storm picked many fields clean. Many Vermonters have highly productive gardens that they have put up for their families to get through the winter by canning and freezing. Those too have been washed away or are considered dangerous for human consumption because of the contaminated floodwaters. Vermont farmers have a challenging and precarious future ahead of them as they look to rebuild and plan for next year's crops, knowing that in our State it can be snowing in 1\1/2\ or 2 months. I have been heartened, however, by the many stories I have heard from communities where people are coming together to help one another. For instance, at the Intervale Community Farm on the Winooski River, volunteers came out to harvest the remaining dry fields before the produce was hit by still rising floodwaters. When the rumors spread that Beth and Bob Kennett at Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester had no power and needed help milking--well, people just started showing up. By foot, on bike, all ready to lend a hand to help milk the cows. Fortunately for them and for the poor cows, the Vermont Department of Agriculture had managed to help get them fuel and the Kennetts were milking again, so asked the volunteer farm hands to go down the road, help somebody else and they did. Coping with damage and destruction on this scale is beyond the means and capability of a small State such as ours, and Federal help with the rebuilding effort will be essential to Vermont, as it will be to other States coping with the same disaster. I worry the support they need to rebuild may not be there, as it has been in past disasters, when we have rebuilt after hurricanes, floods, fires and earthquakes to get Americans back in their homes, something Vermonters have supported even though in these past disasters Vermont was not touched. So I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee and with all Senators to ensure that FEMA, USDA and all our Federal agencies have the resources they need to help all our citizens at this time of disaster, in Vermont and in all our states. Unfortunately, programs such as the Emergency Conservation Program and the Emergency Watershed Protect Program have been oversubscribed this year, and USDA has only limited funds remaining. We also face the grim fact that few of our farms had bought crop insurance and so may not be covered by USDA's current SURE Disaster Program. But those are the things I am working on to find ways to help our farmers and to move forward to help in the commitment to our fellow Americans. For a decade, we have spent billions every single week on wars and projects in far-away lands. This is a time to start paying more attention to our needs here at home and to the urgent needs of our fellow citizens. I see my friend from Iowa on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his words, and I join with the Senator from Iowa in opposing the amendment for two reasons. First, as just simply as a practical matter, the amendment would have the effect, if it passed, of killing the bill because it is not going to be accepted in the other body, and after 6 years or more of work on the patent bill, it is gone. But also, on just the merits of it, the provision this amendment strikes, section 37 of H.R. 1249, simply adopts the holding of a recent district court decision codifying existing law about how the Patent and Trademark Office should calculate 5 days for the purpose of considering a patent term extension. So those are the reasons I oppose the amendment to strike it. The underlying provision adopted by the House is a bipartisan amendment on the floor. It was offered by Mr. Conyers, and it has the support of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Berman on the Democratic side and the support of Mr. Cantor, Mr. Paul, and Mrs. Bachmann on the Republican side. I have a very hard time thinking of a wider range of bipartisan support than that. The provision is simply about how they are calculating filing dates for patent extensions, although its critics have labeled it as something a lot more. A patent holder on a drug is entitled by statute to apply for an extension of its patent term to compensate for any delay the Food and Drug Administration approval process caused in actually bringing the drug to market. The patent holder not only has to file the extension within 60 days beginning on the date the product received permission for marketing, but there is some ambiguity as to when the date is that starts the clock running. Only in Washington, DC, could the system produce such absurd results that the word ``date'' means not only something different between two agencies--the PTO and the FDA--but then it is given two different constructions by the FDA. If this sounds kind of esoteric, it is. I have been working on this for years and it is difficult to understand. But the courts have codified it. Let's not try to change it yet again. What happens is that the FDA treats submissions to it after normal hours as being received the next business day. But the dates of submissions from the FDA are not considered the next business day, even if sent after hours. To complicate matters, the PTO recently changed its own method of defining what is a ``date.'' If this sounds confusing even in Washington, you can imagine how it is outside of the bureaucracy. Confusion over what constitutes the ``date'' for purposes of a patent extension has affected several companies. The most notable case involves the Medicines Company's ANGIOMAX extension application request. The extension application was denied by the PTO because of the difference in how dates are calculated. MedCo challenged the PTO's decision in court, and last August the federal district court in Virginia held the PTO's decision arbitrary and capricious and MedCo received its patent term extension. Just so we fully understand what that means, it means PTO now abides by the court's ruling and applies a sensible ``business day'' interpretation to the word ``date'' in the statute. The provision in the America Invents Act simply codifies that. Senator Grassley has spoken to this. As he said a few weeks ago, this provision ``improves the patent system fairness through certainty and clarity.'' This issue has been around for several years and it was a controversial issue when it would have overturned the PTO's decision legislatively. For this reason Senator Grassley and others opposed this provision when it came up several years ago. But now that the court has ruled, it is a different situation. The PTO has agreed to accept the court's decision. The provision is simply a codification of current law. Is there anyone who truly believes it makes sense for the word ``date'' to receive tortured and different interpretations by different parts of our government rather than to have a clear, consistent definition? Let's actually try to put this issue to bed once and for all. The provision may solidify Medco's patent term extension, but it applies generally, not to this one company, as has been suggested. It brings common sense to the entire filing system. However, if the Senate adopts the amendment of the Senator from Alabama, it will lead to real conflict with the House. It is going to complicate, delay, and probably end passage of this important bipartisan jobs-creating legislation. Keep in mind, yesterday I said on the floor that each one of us in this body could write a slightly different patent bill. But we do not pass 100 bills, we pass 1. This bill is supported by both Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum. People on both sides of the aisle have been working on this issue for years and years in both bodies. We have a piece of legislation. Does everybody get every single thing they want? Of course not. I am chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't have everything in this bill I want, but I have tried to get something that is a consensus of the large majority of the House and the Senate, and we have done this. In this instance, in this particular amendment, the House expressly considered this matter. They voted with a bipartisan majority to adopt this provision the amendment is seeking to strike. With all due respect to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, who contributed immensely to the bill as ranking member of the committee last Congress, I understood why he opposed this provision when it was controversial and would have had Congress override the PTO. But now that the PTO and court have resolved the matter as reflected in the bill, it is not worth delaying enactment of much-needed patent reform legislation. It could help create jobs and move the economy forward. We will have three amendments on the floor today that we will vote on. This one and the other two I strongly urge Senators, Republicans and Democrats, just as the ranking member has urged, to vote them down. We have between 600,000 and 700,000 patents applications that are waiting to be taken care of. We can unleash the genius of our country and put our entrepreneur class to work to create jobs that can let us compete with the rest of the world. Let's not hold it up any longer. We have waited long enough. We debated every bit of this in this body and passed it 95 to 5. On the motion to proceed, over 90 Senators voted to proceed. It has passed the House overwhelmingly. It is time to stop trying to throw up roadblocks to this legislation. If somebody does not like the legislation, vote against it. But this is the product of years of work. It is the best we are going to have. Let us get it done. Let us unleash the ability and inventive genius of Americans. Let us go forward. We have a patent system that has not been updated in over a half century, yet we are competing with countries around the world that are moving light years ahead of us in this area. Let's catch up. Let's put America first. Let's get this bill passed. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 595

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an amendment that can derail and even kill this bill--a bill that would otherwise help our recovering economy, unleash innovation and create the jobs that are so desperately needed. I have worked for years against Patent Office fee diversion, but oppose this amendment at this time. Its formulation was rejected by the House of Representatives, and there is no reason to believe that the House's position will change. Instead, for ideological purity, this amendment can sink years of effort and destroy the job prospects represented by this bill. So while I oppose fee diversion, I also oppose the Coburn amendment. I kept my commitment to Senator Coburn and included his preferred language in the managers' amendment which the Senate considered last March. The difference between then and now is that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives rejected Senator Coburn's formulation. They preserved the principle against fee diversion but changed the language. The language in the bill is that which the House devised and a bipartisan majority voted to include. It was worked out by the House Republican leadership to satisfy House rules. The provision Senator Coburn had drafted and offers again with his amendment today apparently violates House Rule 21, which prohibits converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending. So instead of a revolving fund, the House established a reserve fund. That was the compromise that the Republican House leadership devised between Chairmen Smith, Rogers and Ryan. Yesterday I inserted in the Record the June letter for Congressmen Rogers and Ryan to Chairman Smith of the House Judiciary Committee. Today I ask consent to insert into the Record the commitment letter from Chairman Rogers to Speaker Boehner. The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, continues to make important improvements to ensure that fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are used for Patent and Trademark Office activities. That office is entirely fee-funded and does not rely on taxpayer dollars. It has been and continues to be subject to annual appropriations bills. That allows Congress greater opportunity for oversight. The legislation that passed the Senate in March would have taken the Patent and Trademark Office out of the appropriations process, by setting up a revolving fund that would have allowed the office to set fees and collect and spend money without appropriations legislation and congressional oversight. Instead of a revolving fund, the House formulation against fee diversion establishes a separate account for the funds and directs that they be used for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The House Appropriations Chairman has committed to abide by that legal framework. The House forged a compromise. Despite what some around here think, that is the essence of the legislative process. The Founders knew that when they wrote the Constitution and included the Great Compromise. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. This House compromise can make a difference and make real progress against fee diversion. It is something we can support and there are many, many companies and organizations that do support this final workout in order to get the bill enacted without further delay, as do I. The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, creates a new Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund (the ``Reserve Fund'') into which all fees collected by the USPTO in excess of the amount appropriated in a fiscal year are to be deposited. Fees in the Reserve Fund may only be used for the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office. Through the creation of the Reserve Fund, as well as the commitment by House appropriators, H.R. 1249 makes important improvements in ensuring that user fees collected for services are used by the Patent and Trademark Office for those services. Voting for the Coburn amendment is a vote to kill this bill. It could kill the bill over a formality--the difference between a revolving fund and a reserve fund. It would require the House to reconsider the whole bill again. They spent days and weeks working out their compromise in good faith. And it was worked out by the House Republican leadership. There is no reason to think they will reconsider and allow the original Coburn language to violate their rules and avoid oversight. They have already rejected that language, the very language proposed by the Coburn amendment. We should not kill this bill over this amendment. We should reject the amendment and pass the bill. The time to put aside individual preferences and ideological purity is upon us and we need to legislate. That is what the American people elected us to do and expect us to do. The time to enact this bill is now. Vote no on the Coburn amendment. I have listened to the Senator from Oklahoma, and no matter what we say about it, his is an amendment that can derail and even kill this bill. He expresses concern as to why the bill should be sought because somebody objects to the bill. I sometimes ask myself that question. Of course, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has objected to many items going forward on his own behalf, but this is an amendment that could derail or even kill the bill. This is a bill that would otherwise help our recovering economy to unleash innovation, create the jobs so desperately needed. I probably worked longer in this body than anybody against Patent Office fee diversion. As the Senator from Oklahoma knows, I put a provision in the managers' package to allow the fees to go to the Patent Office. Now it is a lobby to keep that in in the other body. Its formulation was rejected by the House of Representatives. There is no reason to believe the House position will change. I checked with both the Republican and Democratic leaders over there. There is no reason to believe their position will change, but we insist on ideological purities--including something I would like. The amendment would take years of effort, destroy the job prospects represented by this bill. While I oppose the fee diversion, I also oppose this amendment. Does this bill have every single thing in it I want? No. We could write 100 patent reform legislations in this body where each one of us has every single thing we want, and we would have 100 different bills. We only have one. It does not have all the things I like, but that is part of getting legislation passed. I did keep my commitment to Senator Coburn. I kept his language in the managers' amendment, and I caught a lot for doing that--I am a member of the Appropriations Committee--but I kept it in there. The difference between then and now is that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives rejected Senator Coburn's formulation. They preserved the principle against fee diversion but changed the language. In doing that, however, it is not a total rejection. They actually tried to work out a compromise. The language of the bill, which the House devised--a bipartisan majority voted to include--was worked out by the House Republican leadership to satisfy the House rules. The provision that Senator Coburn has drafted and offers, again, with his amendment today apparently violates House rule 21 which prohibits converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending. What the House did--and actually accomplished what both Senator Coburn and I and others want--instead of a revolving fund was to establish the reserve fund. That was the compromise that the Republican House leadership devised between Chairman Smith, Chairman Rogers, and Chairman Ryan. Yesterday, I inserted into the Record the June letter from Congressmen Rogers and Ryan to Chairman Smith to the House Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the commitment letter from Chairman Rogers to Speaker Boehner.

Mr. LEAHY. I would note that it has been suggested somehow the Appropriations chairman is not going to keep his word. Well, Chairman Rogers is a Republican. I have worked with him a lot. He has always kept his word to me, just as we have the most decorated veteran of our military serving in either body as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the only Medal of Honor recipient now serving, Senator Inouye. Both he and the ranking Republican, Senator Cochran, have always kept their word to me certainly in more than the third of a century I have served on that committee. The America Invents Act, as passed by the House, continues to make important improvements. It ensures the fees collected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are used for Patent and Trademark Office activities. The one thing in there is that we in the Congress at least have a chance to make sure they are using it the way they are supposed to. The office is entirely fee funded. It does not rely on taxpayer dollars. It has been and continues to be subject to the annual appropriations bill which allows the oversight that we are elected and paid for by the American people to do. The legislation we passed in March would have taken the Patent Trademark Office out of the appropriations process by setting up a revolving fund. Instead of a revolving fund, the House formulation against fee diversion established a separate account and directs that account be used only by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The House Appropriations chairman is committed to abide by that legal framework. The Speaker is committed to that. The House forged a compromise. That is the essence of the legislative process. The Founders knew when they wrote the Constitution to include the Great Compromise. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. Ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. The House compromise can make a difference. It made real progress against fee diversion, which is something we can support. There are many companies and organizations that do support this in order to get the bill enacted without delay. After 6\1/2\ years, let's not delay any more. This is going to create jobs. We have 600,000 to 700,000 patents sitting there waiting to be processed. Let's get on with it. For all of these fees and the reserve fund can only be used for the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office. I don't know what more we can do. But I would say I am perfectly willing to accept what the House did because it assures that the fees go to the Patent Office. I am also well aware that voting for this amendment kills the bill. It could kill the bill over a formality--the difference between a reserve fund and a revolving fund. I think the House Republican leadership worked out their compromise in good conscience, and I agree with it. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is funded entirely by user fees, and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will ensure the PTO has access to the fees it collects. We have heard from a number of organizations which agree with that, and I ask unanimous consent that a sample of these letters from the Business Software Alliance, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, DuPont, and other financial organizations be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the America Invents Act was first considered by the Senate last March, I spoke about the contributions Vermonters have made to innovation in America since the founding of our Nation. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I know about what Vermont has done. I wish to remind everybody that from the first patent ever issued by our government to cutting-edge research and inventions produced today Vermonters have been at the forefront of innovation since the Nation's birth. Many may think of our Green Mountain State as being an unlikely hotbed of innovation, but we have actually over the last few years issued the most patents per capita of any State in the country-- actually more patents than a lot of States that are larger than we are. It is a small State, to be sure, but it is one that is bursting with creativity. The rich history of the inventive spirit of Vermont is long and diverse. Vermonters throughout have pursued innovations from the time of the Industrial Revolution to the computer age. Vermont inventors discovered new ways to weigh large objects as well as ways to enjoy the outdoors. They have perfected new ways to traverse rivers and more environmentally friendly ways to live in our homes. Over the years, as America has grown and prospered, Vermont's innovative and creative spirit has made the lives of all Americans better and possibly made them more productive. The patent system in this country has been the catalyst that spurred these inventors to take the risks necessary to bring these ideas to the marketplace. The story of innovation in Vermont is truly the American story. It has been driven by independent inventors and small businesses taking chances on new ideas. A strong patent system allowed these ideas to flourish and brought our country unprecedented economic growth. These same kinds of inventors exist in Vermont today, as they do throughout our great country. But these inventors need to be assured that the patent system that served those who came before them so well can do the same today. The America Invents Act will provide that assurance for years to come. My distinguished colleague from Vermont and I have both spoken several times on the Senate floor since the Senate came back in session about the devastation in Vermont. I cannot help but think of the devastation that Irene has caused in so many of our communities at home. Just as Senator Sanders and Congressman Welch and Governor Shumlin, I have seen the damage and heartbreak firsthand. But I also saw the fruits of innovation that will help bring recovery to communities throughout Vermont: the heavy machinery that helped to clear debris and that will build our roads and our bridges and our homes; the helicopters that brought food and water to stranded residents; and the bottles that allowed safe drinking water to reach them. The American patent system has helped to develop and refine countless technologies that drive our country in times of prosperity but also in times of tragedy. It is critical we ensure that this system remains the best in the world. Vermont and the rest of the country deserve the world's best patent system. The innovators of the past had exactly that, but we can ensure that the innovators who are among us today and those who will come in succeeding generations will have it as well by passing the America Invents Act. I am proud of the inventive contributions that Vermonters have made since the founding of this country. I hope to honor their legacy. I hope to inspire the next generation by securing the passage of this legislation. I have been here for a number of years, but this is one of those historic moments. The patent system is one of the few things enshrined in our Constitution, but it is also something that has not been updated for over half a century. We can do that. We can do that today with our vote. We can complete this bill. We can send it to the President. The President has assured me he will sign it. We will make America stronger. We will create jobs. We will have a better system. And it will not cost American taxpayers anything. That is something we ought to do. Mr. President, the America Invents Act is supported by dozens of businesses and organizations, large and small, active in all 50 States. The America Invents Act is the product of more than 6 years of debate and compromise. The stakeholders have crossed the spectrum--from small businesses to high-tech companies; financial institutions to labor organizations; life sciences to bar associations. More than 180 companies, associations, and organizations have endorsed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.