Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his words here this morning. He is part of the small group of Republicans and Democrats who have worked very hard over the last couple of years on this bill with the idea of giving us something that would allow inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs in America to be able to compete with the rest of the world. I am one American who believes we can compete with anybody anywhere provided we get a level playing field. Other countries have set up enough barriers for us of their own. We shouldn't be setting up barriers here in the United States. One thing we can do is to make some major, long-overdue changes in the patent laws to give us that level playing field. Inventors and innovators in America who will take advantage of this will be better off for it and will create jobs, but most importantly, we will show the rest of the world that America is open for business. Americans can be the innovators they have been from the time the first patent was issued--and I say this with pride--to a Vermonter back when then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reviewed the application, which was then signed by the President of the United States, George Washington. Now, of course, they are not reviewed by the Secretary of State and signed by the President, thank goodness, because there are over 700,000 applications pending. We need legislation to bring us up to date, and this act will promote innovation, it will create new businesses and, as a result, new jobs. This is bipartisan legislation that will allow inventors to secure their patents more quickly and to have better success commercializing them. The pending amendment would gut the reforms intended by the bill. With all due respect, it would destroy all the work we have tried to do in this bill. It would eliminate a major piece of this effort--the transition to a first-inventor-to-file patent system. First-inventor- to-file is a necessary component of this legislation and enjoys support from every corner of the patent community. The administration, the Secretary of Commerce, and the head of the Patent and Trademark Office all oppose this amendment. A vast array of individuals, independent small inventors, small businesses, and labor oppose this amendment. The four senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who have worked so hard on this bill--Senators Grassley, Hatch, Kyl, and Sessions--oppose this amendment. Needless to say, I oppose this amendment. It would be a poison pill to these legislative reform efforts. Supporters of the legislation before us--ranging from high-tech and life sciences companies to universities and small businesses--place such a high importance on the transition to the first-inventor-to-file system that many of them, including those who reside in just about every State, would not support a bill without those provisions. A transition to first-inventor-to-file has been part of this bill since its introduction four Congresses ago. Yet, until very recently, first-inventor-to-file was never the subject of even a single amendment in the Judiciary Committee over all those years. This legislation is the product of eight Senate hearings and three markups spanning weeks of consideration and numerous amendments. Never was first-inventor-to- file a contentious issue. Now some well-financed special interests that do not support the America Invents Act have decided to kill the bill by a last-minute campaign to strike these vital provisions. I urge Senators to support the goals of the America Invents Act and vote against this amendment to strike first-inventor-to-file. Mr. President, the United States is the only industrialized country still using a first-to-invent system, and there is a reason for that. A first-inventor-to-file system, by contrast, where the priority of a right to a patent is based on the earlier filed application, adds simplicity and objectivity into a very complex system. By contrast, our current outdated method for determining the priority right to a patent is extraordinarily complex, it is subjective, it is time-intensive, and it is expensive. The old system almost always favors the larger corporation and the deep pockets over the small independent inventor. This past weekend, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed the transition, calling our first-inventor-to-file standard a ``bright line.'' They went on to say it would bring ``certainty to the process.'' The editorial also rightly recognizes the ``protections for academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or preview them in public seminars'' that are included in the bill. The transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit small inventors and inventors of all sizes by creating certainty. Once a patent is granted, an inventor can rely on its filing date on the face of the patent. The reduction in costs to patent applications that comes with a transition to this system should also help the small independent inventor. In the current outdated system where more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is decided through an ``interference'' proceeding to determine which applicant can be declared to have invented the claimed invention first. It is lengthy, it is complex, and it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings. In a first-inventor-to-file system, however, the filing date of the application is objective and easy to determine, resulting in a streamlined and less costly process. The bill protects against the concerns of many small inventors and universities by including a 1-year grace period to ensure the inventor's own publication or disclosure cannot be used against him as prior art but will act as prior art against another patent application. This encourages early disclosure of new inventions regardless of whether the inventor ends up trying to patent the invention. The transition to first-inventor-to-file is ultimately needed to help American companies and innovators compete globally. As business and competition increasingly operate on a worldwide scale, inventors have to file patent applications in both the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions. Since America's current outdated system differs from the first-inventor-to-file system used in other patent-issuing jurisdictions--all our competitors--it causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. Harmonization will benefit American inventors. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke highlighted the importance of the first-inventor-to-file provision to the bill in his column published in The Hill yesterday. He noted that it ``would be good for U.S. businesses, providing a more transparent and cost-effective process that puts them on a level playing field with their competitors around the world.'' Secretary Locke went on to confront the erroneous notion that the current outdated system is better for small independent inventors, and he did it head-on by explaining that in his ``strong opinion that the opposite is true.'' The first-inventor-to-file system is better for the small independent inventor. As the Secretary noted: The cost of proving that one was first to invent is prohibitive and requires detailed and complex documentation of the invention process. In cases where there's a dispute about who the actual inventor is, it typically costs at least $400,000 in legal fees, and even more if the case is appealed. By comparison, establishing a filing date through a provisional application and establishing priority of invention costs just $110. Secretary Locke explained how the 125,000 provisional applications currently filed each year prove that early filing dates protect the rights of small inventors. He reiterated that during the past 7 years, under the current outdated, cumbersome, and expensive system, of almost 3 million applications filed, only 1 patent was granted to an individual inventor who was the second to apply. Our reform legislation enjoys broad support. I have already mentioned some of those supporters, but let me highlight a few more: Just yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers urged every Senator to oppose the effort to strike the first-to-file transition, writing, ``The NAM supports transitioning the United States from a `first-to-invent' system to a `first-to-file' system to eliminate unnecessary cost and complexity in the U.S. patent system.'' The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has expressed its strong support for the first-inventor-to-file system, writing that ``small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in the international markets will expand.'' The Intellectual Property Owners Association calls the first- inventor-to file system ``central to modernization and simplification of patent law'' and ``very widely supported by U.S. companies.'' Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-inventor-to- file transition will help ``independent inventors across the country by strengthening the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses.'' Six university, medical college, and higher education associations have urged the transition to first-to-file, saying that it will ``add greater clarity to the U.S. system.'' And, in urging the transition to the first-to-file system, the Association for Competitive Technology, which represents small and mid- size IT firms, has said the current outdated system ``negatively impacts entrepreneurs'' and puts American inventors ``at a disadvantage with competitors abroad who can implement first inventor to file standards.'' That is why it is so important to move to a first- inventor-to-file system. I ask unanimous consent copies of the Washington Post editorial, ``Patenting Innovation,'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I will conclude with this: If we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to win the future through American ingenuity and innovation, we must have a patent system that is streamlined and efficient. The America Invents Act, and a transition to a first-inventor-to-file system in particular, is crucial to fulfill this promise. I urge all Senators on both sides of the aisle to oppose the Feinstein amendment and support the important provision of first-inventor-to-file, which is at the heart of the America Invents Act. As I said, I submit the list of stakeholders across the spectrum from high-tech and life sciences to universities and small inventors in support of a transition to the first-to-file system, and ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Illinois. I recall great discussions during the administration of President Reagan. I happened to like President Reagan. We got along very well. But I remember discussions on a balanced budget and all that, as his budget tripled the national debt. I do recall he did veto one spending bill because it didn't spend as much as he wanted. Rhetoric is one thing, as the Senator from Illinois points out. Reality is often different. I thank him. Amendment No. 133, as modified I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 133, as modified, with no intervening action or debate; that the time until then be divided equally between the proponents and the opponents, and no amendments be in order to the Feinstein amendment prior to the vote.

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Is using my time?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I said earlier, Secretary Locke confronted the notion that the current outdated system is better for small independent inventors. He said the cost of proving that one was first to invent is prohibitive and requires detailed, complex documentation of the invention process. In cases where there is a dispute about who the actual inventor is, it typically costs at least $400,000 in legal fees and even more if the case is appealed. By comparison, establishing a filing date through provisional application to establish priority of invention costs just $110. I appreciate the work of the Senator from California, but her amendment is a killer amendment. It would kill this bill. Our bill is set up so that it will allow us to compete with the rest of the world. Right now, we are behind the rest of the world in our patent system. Our bill as it is written allows us to compete with the rest of the world. Her amendment would hold us back and give an advantage to those countries with which we have to compete. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, yesterday, we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. That was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle. It should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars. I also thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort, and who joined in tabling those amendments that have nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act. Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so that American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill. They should not be used to slow its consideration and passage. If America is to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system that this bill can bring. I continue to believe, as I have said all week, that we can finish this bill today, and show the American people that the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner. We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time, and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to this bill. Nonetheless, we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation. Today we should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses. I hope that we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, like energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to short time agreements for additional debate, if needed, and votes on those amendments. The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment that Senator Feinstein has filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system. I want to take a moment to talk about an important component of the America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. I said yesterday that the administration strongly supports this effort. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights'' and describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree, and believe it should help small and independent inventors. This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first-inventor-to-file patent system. A transition to first-inventor-to-file is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act. This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system. I also commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions. A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system is needed to keep America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system. This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, to work through its current backlog of more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications through work-sharing agreements with other patent-granting offices. The Director of the PTO often says that the next great invention that will drive our economic growth may be sitting in its backlog of applications. The time consuming ``interference proceedings'' that are commonplace in our current, outdated system are wasting valuable resources that contribute to this delay, and unfairly advantage large companies with greater resources. A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system was recommended in the 2004 Report by the National Academy of Sciences. The transition has been a part of this bill since its introduction four Congresses ago. This legislation is the product of eight Senate hearings and three markups spanning weeks of consideration and many amendments. Until very recently, first-inventor-to-file had never been the subject of even a single amendment in committee. Senator Feinstein has worked with me on this bill, has cosponsored it in the past and has voted for it. I urge Senators who support the goals of the America Invents Act to vote against this amendment to strike the bill's important reform represented by the first-inventor-to-file provision. Every industrialized nation other than the United States uses a patent priority system commonly referred to as a ``first-to-file'' system. In a first-inventor-to-file system, the priority of a right to a patent is based on the earlier filed application. This adds simplicity and objectivity into a very complex system. By contrast, our current, outdated method for determining the priority right to a patent is extraordinarily complex, subjective, time-intensive, and expensive. The old system almost always favors the larger corporation and the deep pockets over the small, independent inventor. The transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted. Once a patent is granted, an inventor can rely on its filing date on the face of the patent. This certainty is necessary to raise capital, grow businesses, and create jobs. The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. This, too, should help the small, independent inventor. In the outdated, current system, when more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is decided through an ``interference'' proceeding to determine which applicant can be declared to have invented the claimed invention first. This process is lengthy, complex, and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings. In a first-inventor-to-file system, however, the filing date of the application is objective and easy to determine, resulting in a streamlined and less costly process. Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. As business and competition are increasingly global in scope, inventors must frequently file patent applications in both the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions. Since America's current, outdated system differs from the first-inventor-to-file system used in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, it causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. Harmonization will benefit American inventors. Finally, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. That is why the bill includes a 1- year grace period to ensure that an inventor's own publication or disclosure cannot be used against him as prior art, but will act as prior art against another patent application. This will encourage early disclosure of new inventions, regardless of whether the inventor ends up trying to patent the invention. For these reasons among others, the transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and the experts at the Patent and Trademark Office. This past weekend, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed the transition, calling the first-inventor-to-file standard a ``bright line,'' and stating that it would bring ``certainty to the process.'' The editorial also recognizes the ``protections for academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or preview them in public seminars'' that are included in the bill. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has expressed its strong support for the first-inventor-to-file system, writing that ``small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in the international markets will expand.'' The Intellectual Property Owners Association calls the first- inventor-to-file system ``central to modernization and simplification of patent law'' and ``very widely supported by U.S. companies.'' Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-inventor-to- file transition will help ``independent inventors across the country by strengthening the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses.'' And, in urging the transition to the first-to-file system, the Association for Competitive Technology, which represents small and mid- size IT firms, has said the current first-to-invent system ``negatively impacts entrepreneurs'' and puts American inventors ``at a disadvantage with competitors abroad who can implement first inventor to file standards.'' If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to win the future through American ingenuity and innovation, then we must have a patent system that is streamlined and efficient. The America Invents Act, and a transition to a first- inventor-to-file system in particular, are crucial to fulfilling this promise. Madam President, in summary, as I said, yesterday we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. It was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle. I think it was a little bit frustrating for the public to watch. They saw us several hours in quorum calls and then having an amendment that passed 97 to 2. I would hope we might, in doing the Nation's business, move with a little bit more speed. But I do thank those Senators who supported it. The Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars. These are not bumper slogan ideas of saving money. These are actually doing the hard work necessary to save money. I thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort and who joined in tabling nongermane amendments that had nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act. Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill. We are at a time when China and Europe and the rest of Asia are moving ahead of us. We need the tools to keep up. We should not waste time with a lot of sloganeering amendments that would stop the bill. What we ought to focus on is making America good and making sure we can compete with the rest of the world. We should not have amendments used to slow this bill's consideration and passage. If America is going to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system this bill can bring. I continue to believe, as I have said all week, we can finish the bill--we actually could have finished it yesterday, when you consider all the time wasted in quorum calls--but I believe we can finish it today and show the American people the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner. We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to the bill. But we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation. We should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices either by a voice vote or a rollcall, I would hope in the next few minutes, and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses. I hope we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, such as energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to very short time agreements for additional debate, if needed. If a rollcall is called for, I am happy to have those. The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment Senator Feinstein filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system. I wish to take a moment to talk about an important component of the America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. This is strongly supported by the administration and by the managers of this package. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights,'' and it describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree. I also believe it should help small and independent inventors. This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts--and they were very recent efforts; after all, we have been working on this bill for years--of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first- inventor-to-file patent system. A transition to first-inventor-to-file system is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act. This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first- inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system. I commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions. It actually allows us to put America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system. This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office to work through its current backlog. That backlog has more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications. A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted. The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. Also, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. For these reasons, among others, this transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and experts at the Patent and Trademark Office. At this time I wish to have printed in the Record a few letters of support for the transition to first-to-file. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says that ``by moving to a first-inventor-to-file system, small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in international markets will expand.'' The Intellectual Property Owners Association says the transition to first-inventor-to-file ``is central to modernization and simplification of patent law and is very widely supported by U.S. companies.'' BASF says the first-to-file system will ``enhance the patent system in ways that would benefit all sectors of the U.S. economy.'' And the American Bar Association refutes claims that the first-to- file system would disadvantage small and independent inventors, saying that the legislation ``makes it clear that the award goes to the first inventor to file and not merely to the first person to file.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are now ready to go forward on the Bennet and Kirk-Pryor amendments. I am prepared to call them up for a vote in the next few minutes if we could get somebody on the floor. Amendment No. 117, as Modified I understand there is a modification at the desk of Bennet amendment No. 117.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am ready to go to third reading unless there are others who are otherwise tied up who knows where, but I wish they would take the time to drop by if they have amendments. Senator Grassley and I spent hours on the floor yesterday just waiting for people to bring up amendments. We went through a number of quorum calls. We are talking about something that is going to be a tremendous boost to businesses and inventors. Those who are watching are wondering probably why we have spent years getting this far. So much time is being wasted. I just want everybody to know the two of us are ready to vote. Yesterday we took hours of delay to vote on the Leahy-Grassley, et al. amendment, and then it passed 97 to 2. So I would urge Senators who have amendments to come to the floor. As the gospel says, ``Many are called, but few are chosen.'' It may be the same thing on some of the amendments, but ultimately we will conclude. Before my voice is totally gone, unless the Senator from Iowa has something to say, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, who has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee all the time I have been there. This has been very helpful. I appreciate what he said. I found interesting the list of patents from his home State of Illinois, and I think each one of us can point to some of those with pride. If we are going to stay competitive with the rest of the world, we have to get this bill passed. It has been more than 60 years since we updated our patent law. We are way behind the rest of the world. We have to be able to compete, so I thank the Senator. Further Modification to Amendment 121, as Modified Madam President, I have cleared this with the Senator from Iowa. Notwithstanding the adoption of the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 121, as modified, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified further with the changes that are at the desk.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.