Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding to consider legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program, SBIR/ STTR. Our Nation's small businesses and start-ups are crucial to maintaining America's position as the world leader in technology and innovation. The SBIR/STTR programs improve the ability of small businesses to take part in federally funded research. Last week, the Senate voted 95-5 to pass another bill to help small businesses and our economic recovery, the America Invents Act. This legislation will provide our small businesses and start-ups the legal landscape that they need to protect and commercialize their inventions to create jobs and boost our economy. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, in strongly endorsing the America Invents Act, wrote that ``[p]atent reform is needed to clarify and simplify the system; to properly protect legitimate patents; and to reduce costs in the system, including when it comes to litigation and the international marketplace.'' Similarly, Louis Foreman, an inventor and advocate for other independent inventors wrote that the legislation ``will make independent inventors, such as myself, more competitive in today's global marketplace.'' Both the council and Mr. Foreman specifically noted the importance of transitioning to ``first-inventor-to-file'' and ending fee diversion at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The America Invents Act will benefit small businesses and start-ups in several specific ways. First, the legislation will make it more difficult for large infringers to harass a patent owner through successive administrative challenges of the patent or challenges that have no likelihood of success. Large corporations often use these challenges to avoid license fees or discourage an infringement suit. For small businesses, patent owners and independent inventors, the expense of countering these tactics can make enforcement of their patents difficult to impossible. The improvements that this legislation makes to the inter partes system will limit harassment. Second, the America Invents Act requires discounts for small businesses at the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO. Specifically, the bill mandates that the PTO provide a 50-percent reduction in fees for small business, and a 75-percent reduction in fees for businesses that receive a new ``micro-entity'' designation as truly small and independent inventors. Together, these provisions ensure that the PTO's need to collect fees for services is not done on the backs of small businesses. Small businesses will, therefore, be able to afford patent protection better than today. Third, as part of the transition to first-inventor-to-file, the America Invents Act eliminates costly interference proceedings as the method for determining the right to a patent between competing inventors in favor of a derivation proceeding. Under current law, before enactment of the American Invents Act, when more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the patent is given to the applicant who has the resources to prove their claim to the invention. This costly proceeding is almost always won by larger corporations. A derivation proceeding is far simpler and does not require meticulous notes by the inventor, which gives large corporations an advantage, because the key date is the date of application. Finally, the legislation will improve patent quality overall. Roughly half of all patents in litigation have claims invalidated. When there are too many patents out there that are not able to withstand court scrutiny, it leads to a more difficult climate for small businesses to license their inventions and raise capital from investors. By improving our patent system, we can provide confidence that when a patent is granted, it is of high quality, and investors can rely on that. The New York Times editorialized last week that today, ``The patent system is too cumbersome, and it doesn't protect the small inventor. The America Invents Act is a smart reform.'' Indeed, the legislation is crucial to fulfilling the promise that we make to small businesses and independent inventors that if they put in the hard work, the United States is the place where a great invention will be rewarded. I thank the 95 Senators who voted in favor of Senate passage of the America Invents Act and look forward to continuing our work with Chairman Smith the House of Representatives to get the legislation to the President's desk without unnecessary delay. We tried to make sure that patent reform in the America Invents Act helps small businesses and increases their ability to serve as an engine for economic growth and good jobs here in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider a judicial nomination I have been talking about since last year. Judge Boasberg is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the district court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital for some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it was unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts. The President has had to renominate Judge Boasberg, the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider him and now, finally, the Senate is being allowed to consider him. I suspect the Senate will now confirm him unanimously or nearly so. Judge Boasberg has outstanding credentials. He was appointed to be a judge in DC by President George W. Bush in 2002. He has a wealth of experience, having presided over approximately 500 cases. He is a former assistant U.S. attorney, and received the highest peer review rating of well qualified from the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association. Yet as we proceed with this nomination, Senate Republicans have objected to proceeding to the nomination of Amy Jackson. Both Judge Boasberg and Ms. Jackson were reported without opposition by the Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. I have spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous occasions, including as recently as last week. I noted the criticism from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the district court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have acted on both these nominations last year in response to that request. They were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. These two judicial nominees to fill longstanding vacancies have been waiting too long for final consideration by the Senate. While I am glad we are ending the wait for Judge Boasberg, the refusal to proceed on the Jackson nomination is just another example of the needless delays on considering outstanding nominees. Ms. Jackson is a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and experience. She, too, received the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association's highest peer review rating of well qualified. Representative Norton has called her one of the top practitioners in one of the District's top law firms, and has strongly endorsed her nomination. In addition to Judge Boasberg, there are still 10 judicial nominees left waiting for Senate consideration having been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee: nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, a judicial emergency vacancy in California and vacancies on the Federal and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. They should be debated and confirmed without delay as well. I urge the Senate leadership to proceed to debate and vote on them before the upcoming recess. We should be working to clear the calendar before the recess and not unnecessarily extend these vacancies. That is what a return to regular order entails. The Judiciary Committee is holding hearings every 2 weeks and we hope finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial vacancies across the country.We can do that if the Senate continues to consider judicial nominations in regular order as they are reported by the Judiciary Committee. Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken out and urged the Senate to act. Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a timely fashion. When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging caseload'' of the court ``includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be printed in the record at the end of my statement. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement recent articles from the Palm Beach Post and the Associated Press about the delays in judicial confirmation and some additional examples of difficulties being caused. The Florida paper reports on the crisis in south Florida and the watch list for Federal courts with high caseloads and high vacancies. The Associated Press report is on the situation in Rhode Island where dozens of cases have had to be reassigned to judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts because the Senate continues to delay consideration of the nomination of Jack McConnell.

Mr. LEAHY. Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they continue to hover around 100. After tonight's confirmation, they will still number 96. The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. This is unacceptable. We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with Democratic and Republican home State Senators to identify superbly qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the support of their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far in President Obama's third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 72 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end of the Bush administration. I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees through the confirmation process.'' That should be good news to Ms. Jackson and the other judicial nominees now available and ready to be confirmed without further delay. My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a lack of cooperation by certain home State Senators with the White House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do little about confirming nominations we do not have. What we can do is proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has sent to the Senate. In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too long. Exhibit 1 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, November 4, 2010. Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the District of Columbia Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the vacancies that exist at our Court. Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M. Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31, 2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its 15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this situation already is being felt and will only increase over time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly handles includes many involving national security issues, as well as other issues of national significance. A large number of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time and attention from each of our judges. Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary. Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson) have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported out of Committee. We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve. Sincerely, Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge.

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, on March 10, my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and I introduced S. 558, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2011. It is identical to the bill she and I introduced last year and similar to those in prior years. Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation cluster munitions cause over a wide area understands the unacceptable threat they pose to civilians. These are not the laser-guided weapons the Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad. There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is an unsuspecting child or a farmer. In Laos today, people are still being killed and maimed by millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the Vietnam war. That legacy, resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It is shameful that we have contributed less money in the past 35 years to clean up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing. Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports, and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export, or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets. The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018. But, like Senator Feinstein, I do not believe we can justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and injure civilians, and which many of our allies have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and expects from the United States. Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1-percent failure rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of enactment. However, the bill permits the President to waive the 1- percent requirement if he certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States. I urge the Pentagon to work with us by supporting this reasonable step. Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions opened for signature in Dublin, 108 countries have signed the treaty, including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia, and other allies of the United States. However, the Bush administration did not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and the Obama administration has not signed it. Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless exercise since it does not yet have the support of the United States and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and stockpiled, and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions. It is important to note that the United States today has the technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the requirements of our bill, as well as the treaty. What is lacking is the political will to expend the necessary resources. There is no excuse for continuing to use cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. I urge the Obama Administration to review its policy on cluster munitions and put the United States on a path to join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an important step in the right direction. I again commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown such passion and persistence in raising this issue and seeking every opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. One key issue on which people have asked for clarification is the interplay between patent-defeating disclosures under subsection 102(a) and the situations where those disclosures are excepted and have no patent-defeating effect under the grace period provided in subsection 102(b). In particular, some in the small inventor community have been concerned that a disclosure by an inventor might qualify as patent- defeating prior art under subsection 102(a) because, for example, the inventor's public disclosure and by a ``public disclosure'' I mean one that results in the claimed invention being ``described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public''--might in some situation not be excluded as prior art under section 102(b)'s grace period. There is absolutely no situation in which this could happen given the interplay between subsections 102(a) and 102(b) as these subsections are drafted. We intend that if an inventor's actions are such as to constitute prior art under subsection 102(a), then those actions necessarily trigger subsection 102(b)'s protections for the inventor and, what would otherwise have been section 102(a) prior art, would be excluded as prior art by the grace period provided by subsection 102(b). Indeed, as an example of this, subsection 102(b)(1)(A), as written, was deliberately couched in broader terms than subsection 102(a)(1). This means that any disclosure by the inventor whatsoever, whether or not in a form that resulted in the disclosure being available to the public, is wholly disregarded as prior art. A simple way of looking at new subsection 102(a) is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the help of the Senator from Alabama on the patent bill which passed last night. It will help us increase jobs without adding anything to the deficit. We made what I think was a terrible mistake when the Congress voted to support going to war in Iraq--I was one of the 22 who voted against that war--and then voted to cut taxes and borrow the money to pay for the war in Iraq. We borrowed $1 trillion to pay for a war that has not made us safer. It has caused thousands of deaths of Americans and tens of thousands of others, and has degraded our military which will cost billions to rebuild. We also went into Afghanistan with the intent to catch Osama bin Laden, and when, according to accounts, he was surrounded, our personnel were yanked out of Afghanistan and sent to Iraq, and he escaped into Pakistan, and $1 trillion later, we are still there. Again, borrowed money for those two wars, one that went way beyond whatever it was supposed to and the other one that should never have happened in the first place. We also cut taxes on oil companies and millionaires and everybody else. And now we have a skyrocketing deficit, thanks to those mistakes. Later today we will vote on H.R. 1, the House Continuing Resolution, and then the Senate substitute. I want to speak briefly about how the Senate CR compares to H.R. 1, particularly funding for the Department of State and Foreign Operations. First, Senators should know what is in the House CR or, perhaps more importantly, what is not in it. It is notable that the House defines diplomacy and international development as non-security spending, in spite of, of course, the integral part they both play protecting our security around the globe. It ignores the views of Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, former Chairman General Powell, General Petraeus, President Obama, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and every former National Security Adviser. They have all made clear that these investments do directly protect U.S. security interests, not only on the front line States of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, but around the world. President Reagan and former Homeland Security Secretary Ridge also recognized the connection between international assistance and our security. President Reagan said: Security assistance programs, an essential complement to our defense effort, directly enhances the security of the United States. Secretary Ridge said: The programs supported by the International Affairs Budget are as essential to our national security as defense programs. Secretary Gates said: I never miss an opportunity to call for more funding for and emphasis on diplomacy and development. There are a whole lot of other examples, from both Republican and Democratic leaders, which seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the House. Our Republican friends in the House should know that we cannot counter the influence of al-Qaida and other violent extremists through military force alone. They should know that helping countries such as Southern Sudan rebuild after conflict, building stable democratic institutions in countries such as Egypt, preventing the trafficking of nuclear material and other weapons in the former Soviet Union, educating and providing jobs for youth who would otherwise be fodder for terrorist recruiters in the Middle East, combating the corrosive influence of organized crime in Central America, preventing the spread of deadly viruses in Africa and Asia--viruses that are only one airplane ride away from the United States--or supporting NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or U.N. peacekeeping--these are all parts of our national security. It is the diplomats here and abroad, and the funds they administer, that help make U.S. leadership possible around the world. While the House press releases claim to adequately fund operations and programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, that is empty rhetoric. Secretary Clinton has said the House CR will unacceptably harm U.S. interests in those countries. That is only the beginning. The House CR slashes funding for refugees and other victims of disaster by 40 percent, at the same time Members on the other side of the aisle are rightly urging that we help the tens of thousands of Libyans, Tunisians and Egyptians who have fled their homes. The House CR provides no funding for the Global Food Security Fund which prevents hunger and famine in Africa and Asia and improves America's standing. It eliminates funding for the Clean Technology Fund which supports exports of solar, wind, and other renewable energy. And by doing so it opens the door wider to China's exports. How shortsighted can we be? It is like owning a business and you have a competitor on the other side of town and you say, Well, we are not going to advertise. We are not going to stock our shelves. We are only going to be open a couple of days a week. Gosh, I hope that competitor doesn't drive us out of business. It drastically reduces funding to operate our embassies and consulates, which every American traveling, working, or studying overseas depends on. Every one of us as Members of Congress knows when an American constituent has a problem somewhere we turn to our embassies or our consulates to help them. H.R. 1 would slash their funding. H.R. 1 would also sharply cut funding for global health programs: HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other deadly diseases--denying life-saving drugs and other services to hundreds of thousands of people, condemning women and children in other parts of the world to death. It would renege on our treaty obligations to the U.N. and to the international financial institutions, threatening our voting shares which our competitors--including China--are eager to purchase. At a time when China is rapidly expanding its influence globally, the House would have us pull back and say, you take over. You can be the power that other countries turn to, not the United States. Even Great Britain's conservative government, slashing spending left and right, is exempting, and even increasing, international aid, because unlike our Republican friends in the House, they recognize it is a matter of national security. The impact of H.R. 1 is equally devastating to our domestic programs. From the social safety net to programs that maintain and expand our country's infrastructure, these programs would be slashed. Numerous economists, from Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to Mark Zandi, recognize that the impact of H.R. 1 will be the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, at a time when our economy is beginning to recover. I hear this daily from fellow Vermonters. Take, for example, the mother who came into my Montpelier office a few months ago and explained how the Head Start Program changed her life. Not only did Head Start provide a reliable, safe, educational environment for her children, it made it possible for her to pursue a college education and be a strong tax-paying part of our society. But H.R. 1 would deny more than 300 of Vermont's children and families these same opportunities. For those unmoved by cuts to Head Start, H.R. 1 would also devastate one of our best economic development tools: the community development block grant program. CDBG has a proven track record of putting people to work through housing construction, public service improvement projects and downtown revitalization efforts. The 62-percent cut to CDBG in H.R. 1 would greatly hamper Vermont's ability to move these types of projects forward at a time when they are needed more than ever. In the past 3 weeks I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters who rely on the community services block grant program, which would also be slashed in H.R. 1. This is a program that serves 55,000 Vermonters whose incomes are at or below the poverty line--some of my State's most vulnerable people. The impact of this cut would shutter as many as six of our largest food shelves, and eliminate assistance for the thousands of Vermonters looking for housing and heating assistance each year. These are only three of the domestic programs that would be decimated by H.R. 1, part of a veritable laundry list of cuts that target the very programs that give Americans a hand up. Very simply we are talking about cutting, food, shelter, and heat, the basic necessities of life. Turning again to national security, a frequently asked question is how does the Senate CR compare to the fiscal year 2010 level for the Department of State and foreign operations? The answer depends on who you ask. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of State and foreign operations received close to $48.8 billion in regular appropriations and $4.1 billion in emergency supplemental funds for these purposes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Mexico. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 emergency supplemental provided about $2 billion for fiscal year 2010 costs related to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico. In other words, these programs received $54.9 billion for fiscal year 2010. While the Senate CR funding level is $1.38 billion or 2.8 percent above the fiscal year 2010 regular appropriation for the Department of State and foreign operations, it is $4.75 billion or 8.7 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level of $54.9 billion which supports operations and programs that must be continued in fiscal year 2011, a critical fact wholly ignored by the House. Although even the Senate CR cuts funding for the Department of State and foreign operations by billions of dollars, rather than the slash- and-burn approach of the House, it does so in a manner that seeks to limit the damage to our national security. Here are a few of the ways the Senate CR does that. Although the Senate CR cuts the State Department's operations budget by $606 million below the request, it provides $552 million above the amount in H.R. 1. These funds support U.S. embassies and consulates, as well as the State Department's diplomatic personnel and operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The Senate CR provides $1.5 billion for worldwide security protection. Although $25 million below the request, this is $44.4 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. This funds diplomatic security agents, armored vehicles, and training to protect U.S. personnel working in dangerous places overseas. It also, incidentally, protects Members of Congress who travel abroad. The Senate CR provides $625 million for educational and cultural exchange programs, which is $8.2 million below the request and $123.6 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds, which have traditionally been strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats particularly since 9/11, support exchanges between Americans and citizens of other countries, including the Fulbright, International Visitor Leadership, and Citizen Exchange programs. The House CR would result in the elimination of over 2,500 American exchanges and 8,600 foreign citizen exchanges. The Senate CR provides $2 billion for U.S. contributions to international peacekeeping, which is $87.3 million below the request and $196.5 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds pay for peacekeepers in the Sinai, Lebanon, Haiti, Congo, and many other countries that might otherwise descend into chaos and potentially require the deployment of U.S. troops at far greater risk and expense. The Senate CR provides $1.5 billion for U.S. contributions to international organizations, which is $50 million below the request and $28.5 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. This funds U.S. membership in the United Nations, NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organization, and other international organizations that directly protect our security. The Senate CR provides $39.5 million for the U.S. Institute for Peace, which is $7 million below the request. H.R. 1 does not include any funding for USIP. This funds conflict resolution and peace building, including in Iraq, and has been supported by Republicans and Democrats since Congress first established it. I ask unanimous consent that an Op-ed by GEN Anthony Zinni about USIP in the March 8 New York Times, entitled ``Peace-building that Pays Off,'' be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senate CR provides $7.8 billion for global health programs, which is $633 million below the request and $884 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds support programs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, polio and neglected tropical diseases, and to support voluntary family planning and reproductive health. The total to combat HIV/AIDS is $5.35 billion through the Department of State, which is $145 million below the request and $509 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. H.R. 1 would deny life-saving HIV/ AIDS drugs to some 400,000 people. I wonder how many House Members even know that. The Senate CR provides $750 million for the Global HIV/AIDS fund, which is equal to fiscal year 2010 and $150 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. At the House level, approximately 3.7 million people would not be tested for HIV, more than 10 million mosquito nets for malaria would not be provided, and 372,000 testing and treatments for tuberculosis would be halted. Malaria, which is preventable and curable, is a leading killer of African children. The Senate CR provides $879 million for international disaster assistance, which is $449 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. These funds support aid to people displaced by war, famine and natural disasters, such as the earthquake in Haiti and floods in Pakistan. The House would decimate our ability to respond to those catastrophes. That is not the America I know. Likewise, the Senate CR provides $1.68 billion for refugee assistance, which is equal to fiscal year 2010 and $662 million above the amount provided in H.R. 1. At a time when the number of refugees and other displaced persons in the Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan is skyrocketing, and protracted refugee crises exist from Burma to Iraq, the House would turn its back on these people. There are many other examples. The point should be lost on no one. The House CR would cause lasting, unprecedented damage to our global leadership and our security, and cost thousands of American jobs, at the same time that it would have no appreciable impact on the deficit. The amounts in the House CR or the Senate CR represent only 1 percent of the Federal budget, but it is a critical investment in our security that the House treats as a luxury we can do without. I challenge them to find a single current or former President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, or, frankly, anyone with expertise in this area--Republican or Democrat--who would agree with that shortsighted, dangerous view. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Mar. 7, 2011] Peace-Building That Pays Off (By Anthony C. Zinni) Williamsburg, Va.--In voting last month to eliminate financing for the United States Institute of Peace, members of the House of Representatives did not do their research. You will find the institute's competent work behind practically every American success in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has undertaken missions from the Balkans and Sudan to the Philippines and Somalia, where I supported the institute's efforts to mediate conflicts, promote the rule of law and encourage democracy. This week, as the Senate considers alternatives to the House budget bill, we should remember that the stakes for national security and peace-building are high. The institute was created in 1984, when the cold war was still at its height. Congressional leaders guided by Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, a Hawaii Democrat, saw the need for an institution that would strengthen the nation's ability to limit international violence and manage global conflict. President Ronald Reagan signed the act creating the institute. A bipartisan majority of Congress has supported it since--until now. The Institute of Peace is like the Marine Corps or special forces for foreign affairs and peace building. When others are fleeing conflict around the world, you'll usually find institute staff members going in. They were working in Afghanistan before 9/11 and were among the first nonmilitary personnel on the ground after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The institute's headquarters in Baghdad has twice been damaged by rocket and mortar attacks. At the height of the Iraq insurgency, when virtually every other American and international group pulled out their personnel, the State and Defense Departments requested that the institute stay. Under fire regularly, it was the only United States organization outside of those departments that did not flee Baghdad. But the institute's value goes beyond the bravery and commitment of its staff. In 2007, when the Army's loth Mountain Division arrived in Mahmudiya, a city of half a million in the ``triangle of death'' dominated by Al Qaeda south of Baghdad, officers asked the institute to mediate between Shiite civil authorities and the Sunni sheiks who controlled the area. Institute-trained negotiators convened warring Iraqis to consolidate security, restore services, develop the local economy, enhance local governance and improve the rule of law. Gen. David H. Petraeus called it a turning point in the war. In the six months before the institute's intervention, there had been 93 attacks on American forces in the area with homemade bombs; in the six months after, just one. Mahmudiya became a cornerstone of peace in the district, allowing the Army to reduce its strength from a brigade combat team of 3,500 soldiers to a battalion of 650, with corresponding savings and reductions in casualties. In Afghanistan, the institute conducts mediations on issues from refugees to property and water disputes. In the last year, these operations have resolved 18 tribal disputes throughout the country, mostly involving the abuse of women, and included 30 training programs for government officials, lawyers, mullahs, tribal councils and community leaders. The network is even supporting dialogue along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border, the earth's most dangerous frontier--home to Taliban and Qaeda attacks and a wellspring of religious and political extremism. Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does more with less. The institute's entire budget would not pay for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of a fighter plane, and wouldn't sustain even 40 American troops in Afghanistan for a year. Within the budget, peace-building is financed as part of national security programs, and is recognized as an important adjunct to conventional defense spending and diplomacy. The institute's share of the proposed international affairs budget, $43 million, is minuscule: less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State Department's budget, and one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Pentagon's. The idea that eliminating the United States Institute of Peace would benefit taxpayers is extremely shortsighted and ill informed. America deserves better from Congress than eliminating something that saves American lives and taxpayer dollars.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since the Senate began this debate on the American Invents Act more than a week ago, I have talked about American ingenuity and innovation. As this debate comes to a close, I want to emphasize that this is legislation that should promote innovation, help create jobs, and help energize the economy as we continue our recovery. This legislation can be a key part of a jobs agenda. We can help unleash innovation an promote American invention, all without adding a penny to the deficit. This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation. Innovation has been a cornerstone of the American economy from the time Thomas Jefferson examined the first patent to today. The Founders recognized the importance of promoting innovation. A number were themselves inventors. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by American companies, and protected and promoted by American patent laws have made our system the envy of the world. The President has spoken all year about the need to win the future by out innovating our competition. This bill can play a key role in that effort. Yesterday, I commended Austan Goolsbee, the chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, for his white board presentation this week on the importance of patent reform to help America win the global competition and create jobs. The creation of more than 220,000 jobs in the private sector last month, the creation of 1.5 million jobs over the last 12 months, and the unemployment rate finally being reduced to 8.9 percent are all signs that the efforts we have made over the last 2 years to stave off the worst recession since the Great Depression are paying off and the economic recovery is taking hold. The almost full percent point drop in the unemployment rate over the last 3 months is the largest decline in unemployment since 1983. Despite interruptions of economic activity in many parts of the country caused by winter weather over the last months and in recent days, despite the extraordinary rise in oil prices, the Dow Jones industrial average has climbed back to over 12,000 from a low point of 6,500. Passage of the America Invents Act should help bolster our economic recovery and keep us on the right path toward business development and job creation. As we began this debate, I referred back to the President's State of the Union address and his challenge to the Nation to out-innovate, out- build and out-educate our global competitors. Enacting the America Invents Act is a key to meeting this challenge. Reforming the Nation's antiquated patent system will promote American innovation, create American jobs, and grow America's economy. I thank the President and his administration for their help and support for the Leahy-Hatch- Grassley America Invents Act. Commerce Secretary Locke has been a strong partner in our efforts, and Director Kappos of the Patent and Trademark Office has been an indispensable source of wise counsel. The America Invents Act will keep America in its longstanding position at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs, while making sure no party's access to court is denied. The America Invents Act is the product of eight Senate hearings over the last three Congresses. Our bill is the product of years of work and compromise. The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported patent reform legislation to the Senate in each of the last three Congresses, this year, unanimously. And the House has seen efforts over the same period led by Congressmen Lamar Smith of Texas and Howard Berman of California. The legislation we are acting on today, in fact, is structured on the original House bill and contains many of the original provisions. From the beginning, we recognized the need for a more effective and efficient patent system, one that improves patent quality and provides incentives for entrepreneurs to create jobs. A balanced and efficient intellectual property system that rewards invention and promotes innovation through high quality patents is crucial to our Nation's economic prosperity and job growth. That is how we win the future--by unleashing the American inventive spirit. This bill, the America Invents Act, will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish. It is important to our country's continued economic recovery, and to our successfully competing in the global economy. America needs a 21st century patent system to lead. The last extensive reform of our patent system was nearly 60 years ago. It is time. While the Congress debates spending and budget measures in an often too partisan manner, the American people are craving--and the American economy is demanding--bipartisan legislation that can create jobs and help our economy through common sense measures. That is what this bill can do. It relies on not one dollar of taxpayer money. Let me emphasize, not a dime in taxpayer money is spent on the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, reforms. They are all funded by patent fees, not taxes. Innovation drives the Nation's economy, and that entrepreneurial spirit can only be protected by a patent system that promotes invention and spurs new ideas. We need to reform our patent system so that these innovations can more quickly get to market. A modernized patent system--one that puts American entrepreneurs on the same playing field as those throughout the world--is a key to that success. This is an idea that cuts across the political spectrum. During Senate debate over the last week our bill has been improved by a number of Senators who have contributed amendments. Senators Bennet, Coons, Schumer, Menendez, Pryor, Stabenow, Baucus, Bingaman, Coburn and Kirk have all contributed, and I thank them for working with us. Senator Cardin attempted to offer germane amendments, and I regret that these were blocked. I thank our ranking Republican on the committee and the comanager of this measure, Senator Grassley, and his staff, Kolan Davis and Rita Lari, for their dedication to this effort. I commend Senator Hatch for sticking with it for these many years, and Senator Kyl for helping get this done. I also extend my personal thanks, as well, to Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota who was active during committee consideration and helped manage this legislation effort in the Senate. She has been outstanding. The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of many dedicated staffers. I would like to thank in particular the steadfast work of Aaron Cooper of my Judiciary Committee staff. Aaron has spent countless hours in meetings and briefings, with Members, other staff, and interested parties, working to help me ensure that the America Invents Act preserved the meaningful reforms we have been working toward since 2005. I would also like to thank Ed Pagano, my chief of staff, and Bruce Cohen, my chief counsel, who have worked on this issue since the start, as well as Susan Davies who served as my chief Intellectual Property counsel through the formative stages of this legislative effort. Erica Chabot, Curtis LeGeyt and Scott Wilson of my Judiciary Committee staff also deserve thanks for their committed work on this legislation. I also commend the hardworking Senate floor staff, Tim Mitchell and Trish Engle, as well as Dave Schiappa, and the staffs of other Senators, including Tim Molino, Joe Matal, and Matt Sandgren, for their dedicated efforts. I also thank the many individuals, companies, associations and coalitions that have helped with this effort. This legislation has been supported by both business and labor, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the United Steelworkers, the AFL-CIO, the Association of American Universities, the American Bar Association, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of University Technology Managers, the American Council on Education, the Council on Government Relations, PhRMA, BIO, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination, IBM, General Electric, Eli Lilly and Company, Bose Corporation, Johnson and Johnson, 3M, General Mills, Honeywell, Monsanto, Motorola, Cargill, Inc., Caterpillar, Enventys, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, AdvaMed, Air Liquide, Bayer, Beckman Coulter, Boston Scientific, BP, Bridgestone American Holdings, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, the California Healthcare Institute, the Colorado BioScience Association, Cummins, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Eastman Chemical Company, ExxonMobil, Genentech, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey, Henkel Corporation, Hoffman-LaRoche, Illinois Tool Works, International Game Technology, Kodak, Medtronic, Merck & Co., Inc., Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Milliken and Company, Northrop Grumman, Novartis, PepsiCo., Inc., Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, SanDisk Corporation, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., United Technologies, USG Corporation, the Virginia Biotechnology Association, Weyerhaeuser, the American Institute for CPAs, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Tax Justice Network USA, the New Rules for Global Finance, the American College of Tax Counsel, Consumer Action, The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, the Partnership for Philanthropic Planning, Global Financial Integrity, the International Association for Registered Financial Consultants, the National Association of Enrolled Agents, USPIRG, the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, the Financial Planning Association, the American Association of Attorney-Certified Public Accountants, the Citizens for Tax Justice, the National Treasury Employees Union, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and numerous other organizations and companies representing all sectors of the patent community that have been urging action on patent reform proposals for years. The America Invents Act will accomplish 3 important goals, which have been at the center of the patent reform debate from the beginning: It will improve and harmonize operations at the PTO; it will improve the quality of patents that are issued; and it will provide more certainty in litigation. In particular, the legislation will move this Nation's patent system to a first-inventor- to-file system, make important quality enhancement mechanisms, and provide the PTO with the resources it needs to work through its backlog by providing it with fee setting authority, subject to oversight. The America Invents Act provides the tools the PTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff, which will help business bring new products to market and create jobs. Innovation has always been at the heart of America and American success. From the founding of our Nation, we recognized the importance of promoting and protecting innovation, and so the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to ``promote the progress and science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to . . . inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries.'' The patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws have made our system the envy of the world. High quality patents are the key to our economic growth. They benefit both patent owners and users who can be more confident in the validity of issued patents. Patents of low quality and dubious validity, by contrast, enable patent trolls who extort unreasonable licensing fees from legitimate businesses, and constitute a drag on innovation. Too many dubious patents also unjustly cast doubt on truly high quality patents. After 6 years of debate and discussion, more than a dozen hearings and mark up sessions, and countless hours of member and staff meetings with two presidential administrations and interested parties across the spectrum, the Senate is finally acting to make the first meaningful, comprehensive reforms to the nation's patent system in nearly 60 years. The Senate debate has now extended for more than a week. Passage of the America Invents Act demonstrates what we can accomplish when we cast aside partisan rhetoric, and focus on working together for the American people and for our future. It has been almost 6 years since Chairman Smith and Congressman Berman introduced the first version of patent reform legislation in 2005, but the structure and guiding principles of the legislation remain the same. The bill will speed the process by which the Patent Office considers applications and should improve the quality of patents it issues. Innovation and economic development are not uniquely Democratic or Republican objectives, so we worked together to find the proper balance for America--for our economy, for our inventors, for our consumers. Working together, we can smooth the path for more interesting--and great--American inventions. That is what this bipartisan, comprehensive patent reform bill will do. No one claims that ours is a perfect bill. It is a compromise that will make key improvements in the patent system. Having coordinated with the leaders in the House through this process, I hope that the House will look favorably on our work and adopt this measure so that it can be sent to the President without delay and its improvements can take effect in order to encourage American innovation and promote American invention. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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