Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week we joined together in the aftermath of the tragic killings at Virginia Tech to mourn and support the families of the victims and the Virginia Tech community. This week we join together once again to commemorate National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Yesterday marked the official beginning of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Since 1981, communities in Vermont and across the Nation have observed this week through candlelight vigils and public rallies to renew our commitment to crime victims and their families. It is important, especially during this time of national sorrow, that we recognize the needs of crime victims and their family members and work together to promote victims' rights and services. We have been able to make some progress during the past 26 years to provide victims with greater rights and assistance. In particular, I have been honored to support passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, VOCA, Public Law 98-473, which established the Crime Victims Fund, ``the Fund.'' The fund allows the Federal Government to provide grants to State crime victim compensation programs, direct victim assistance services and services to victims of Federal crimes. Nearly 90 percent of the fund is used to award State crime victim compensation and victim assistance formula grants. These VOCA-funded victim assistance programs serve nearly 4 million crime victims each year, including victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, elder abuse, and drunk driving, as well as survivors of homicide victims. Our VOCA-funded compensation programs have helped hundreds of thousands of victims of violent crime. The Crime Victims Fund is the Nation's premier vehicle for supporting victims' services. It bears repeating that the Crime Victims Fund does not receive a dime from tax revenue or appropriated funding. Instead, it is made up of criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and special assessments. Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has set a cap on annual fund obligations expressly for the purpose of ensuring ``that a stable level of funding will remain available for these programs in future years.'' The ``rainy day'' fund created by this spending cap has been used to make up the difference between annual deposits and distributions three times during the past 7 years. The future of the fund is being threatened, however. After 26 years of progress, the Bush administration is proposing to rescind all amounts remaining in the fund at the end of fiscal year 2008. That would leave the fund with a balance of zero going into fiscal year 2009 and create a disastrous situation for providers of victims' services. Over the last few years, the Senate has successfully blocked several past attempts by this administration to rescind the fund's remaining balance and has supported the retention of all amounts deposited into the fund. Over the past 6 years, the Bush administration has squandered record surpluses and racked up $8.5 trillion in Federal debt. It is wrong to try to pay for its failed fiscal policies by emptying out the Crime Victims Fund. These resources are appropriately set aside to assist victims of crime. In order to preserve the fund once again, Senator Crapo and I, joined by more than a dozen other Senators are sending a letter this week to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking that the committee oppose the administration's proposal to empty the Crime Victims Fund and, instead, permit those amounts to remain in the fund, in accordance with law, to be used for the important programs and services needed by crime victims. Also, last week the Vermont Department of Corrections received a $400,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to implement a Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification, SAVIN, system to provide timely notifications to crime victims who request it. Programs like these give crime victims some peace of mind and facilitate communication among the courts and corrections and other law enforcement officials. We need to renew our national commitment to crime victims. The Senate can help by recognizing the importance of the Crime Victims Fund and supporting its essential role in helping crime victims and their families meet critical expenses, recover from the horrific crimes they endured, and move forward with their lives. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to honor our longstanding commitment to crime victims by working together to commemorate victims of crime and to preserve the Crime Victims Fund.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is considering H.R. 1681, the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007. The Judiciary Committee approved and the Senate passed our version of this bill last month, and I look forward to approving the Red Cross Governance bill again with the House-passed language. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, for their hard work on this issue and for introducing this important bill. I also want to congratulate the American Red Cross on appointing a new President and CEO last week. Mark W. Everson, currently the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was approved unanimously by the Board of Governors to head the American Red Cross, effective next month. I congratulate him on his appointment and thank current Chairwoman, Bonnie McElveen-Hunter for her dedicated leadership. Just last week we had the opportunity to see the importance of the Red Cross and the good work they are doing on behalf of our citizens. In response to the horrific shootings on Virginia Tech's campus, the American Red Cross mobilized their local chapter and provided 200-300 hot meals to rescue workers and police officers and ensured that Red Cross mental health workers were available to students, faculty and family members. I am glad the Senate and House have worked together to pass this bill to enhance the American Red Cross' governance structure so they can better provide these crucial services in all emergencies. Since its founding by Clara Barton in 1881, the American Red Cross has provided essential relief services to those affected by famine, floods and natural and manmade disasters. Last year alone, the American Red Cross responded to approximately 75,000 disasters with the help of more than one million volunteers and thirty-five thousand employees. As a key participant in the United States' disaster relief plan, the American Red Cross is charged with helping the United States prevent, prepare and respond to national emergencies. Over the past several years, however, the American Red Cross has been strained by disasters of an unparalleled scope; the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the December 2004 Asian tsunami and the 2005 hurricane season that included the enormously destructive hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. These events all challenged the Red Cross's ability to respond to disasters quickly and effectively. In order to improve its disaster relief services, the American Red Cross's Board of Governors unanimously voted to accept recommendations given by an independent advisory board, which examined the American Red Cross's governance structure and practices. H.R. 1681 reflects these recommendations and would improve the American Red Cross's governance structure by centralizing and reorganizing its infrastructure. Some notable enhancements include reducing its board size from 50 members to 20 in order to facilitate emergency action, giving the board all the powers in governing and managing the American Red Cross, and establishing a Presidential Advisory Council composed of eight to ten principal officers of the executive departments and senior officers of the Armed Forces to provide governmental input and support. Additionally, the modernized charter would enhance congressional oversight and transparency by creating an Ombudsman who would provide an annual report to Congress articulating any concerns of volunteers, employees, donors, clients and the public. The House adopted two amendments to the Senate-passed language that would clarify and ensure that the chapters of the American Red Cross are geographically and regionally diverse and that the American Red Cross will reach out to local charitable and faith-based organizations when providing relief services in local communities. These improvements to the bill make no statutory changes and I hope my colleagues will support them. According to the American Red Cross's end of the year report, Hurricane Katrina created a record of 1.4 million families, or around 4 million people, who needed emergency assistance such as food, clothing and other necessities. My wife, Marcelle, was one of hundreds of thousands of volunteers dedicated to providing these essential relief services to victims of Katrina. No one knows when the next disaster will strike. Congress must do everything in our power to ensure that the American Red Cross can continue and improve upon the essential humanitarian work on which the United States and the world relies. I commend the Red Cross for taking important action to reform itself and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to submit today a bipartisan resolution to designate May 15, 2007, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Joining me in the submission of this resolution are Senators Specter, Reid, Biden, Grassley, Cornyn, and Stabenow. I thank them for their leadership in recognizing the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make each day for the American people. This is now the eleventh year running that I have been involved in the submission of this resolution to keep alive in the memory of all Americans the sacrifice and commitment of those law enforcement officers who lost their lives serving their communities. For many years I submitted this worthy resolution with my old friend and our former colleague Senator Campbell, a former deputy sheriff who was a true leader on this issue. Both Senator Campbell, and I, as a former prosecutor, witnessed firsthand the risks faced by law enforcement officers every day while they serve and protect our communities. I also want to thank each of our Nation's law enforcement officers for their commitment to the safety and protection of their fellow citizens. They are the real-life heroes; too many of whom too often make the ultimate sacrifice. It is important to support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders, and to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation's citizens safe and secure. Currently, more than 870,000 men and women who guard our communities do so at great risk. After the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, 72 peace officers died while trying to ensure that their fellow citizens in those buildings got to safety. That act of terrorism resulted in the highest number of peace officers ever killed in a single incident in the history of our country, and is a tragic reminder of how important it is for the Congress to provide all of the resources necessary to protect officers in the line of duty. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,900 law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We are fortunate in Vermont that we rank as the State with the fewest officer deaths in history, with 19 recorded; however, that is 19 deaths too many. In 2006, 147 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty, well below the decade-long average of 165 deaths annually, and a drop from 2005 when 156 officers were killed. A number of factors contributed to this reduction, including better equipment and the increased use of bullet-resistant vests, improved training and advanced emergency medical care. I hope as the 110th Congress moves forward that all Senators can work together to ensure that all of our law enforcement officers have the full support and resources of the Federal Government. I am proud of the work I have been involved in to help make it safer on the beat for our officers. Back in 1998, Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act in response to the tragic Carl Drega shootout on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two state troopers who lacked bulletproof vests were killed. Since then, we have successfully reauthorized this program three more times: in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, in the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2004, and most recently as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. It is now authorized at $50 million per year through fiscal year 2009 to help State, tribal and local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. I have already begun to work with my colleagues to make sure that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program is fully funded this year. Bulletproof vests have saved the lives of thousands of officers and are a fundamental line of defense that no officer should be without. I know I am not alone in calling for the Senate to fully fund the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program and I truly hope my colleagues will agree that it is critical that we provide the funding authorized for this program. Hundreds of thousands of police officers are counting on us. I am also pleased to join with Senator Reed and others to introduce the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, which will provide parity in Federal benefits for law enforcement officers working in private educational institutions and for our Nation's rail carriers. Among these benefits are access to grants under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, and survivor benefits. All of the men and women who serve our society as law enforcement officers should be equally entitled to all of the benefits the Federal Government provides, no matter where they serve. National Peace Officers Memorial Day will provide the people of the United States, in their communities, in their State Capitals, and in the Nation's Capitol, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by our police forces. During the week of May 8-15, more than 20,000 peace officers are expected to gather in Washington to join with the families of their fallen comrades. I hope all Senators will join me in honoring their service by passing this important bipartisan resolution.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier today the Senate passed S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act, with overwhelming, bipartisan support. With this legislation, we in the Senate acted for the third time in a year to better protect our Federal judges from institutional and physical threats. For the past several years, I have introduced and sponsored legislation to extend the authority for Federal judges to redact relevant portions of their financial disclosure statements if they have been threatened. The authority to redact portions of judges' financial disclosure statements expired last year. The redaction authority bill passed by the Senate last year would have extended the redaction authority without interruption and expanded it to judges' families. It struck the right balance by preserving congressional oversight to prevent the misuse of this redaction authority, which has been a matter of some concern. I was disappointed that the House of Representatives failed to act on this legislation that passed the Senate last November but I am pleased that the new House of Representatives was able to pass it earlier this year. I continue to support an extension of redaction authority for threatened judges and am glad that the Senate is passing that measure, H.R. 1130 today. I trust that the President will sign it into law without delay.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in coming to agreement to proceed to final passage of this important legislation. This bill has been a top priority of the Federal judiciary. I introduce it back in January, and it proceeded through regular order. We held a hearing, issued a committee report, considered floor amendments, and debated the measure. Now it is time to vote for its passage. We can and we must provide for increased security for our Federal judges. Physical attacks on our judges threaten not only the dedicated public servants who serve in these roles but also the institution. Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of Government, those rights and privileges would not be preserved. Our Federal courts are the ultimate check and balance in our system of government. We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families from violence to ensure that they have the peace of mind to do their vital and difficult jobs.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we continue to debate and consider the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. It should not be a struggle to enact this broadly supported consensus legislation. We made some progress yesterday but failed to get to final passage of this important legislation. I hope we can get there later today. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support and leadership on this bill. Senator Reid knows all too well about the need for greater court security since the last courthouse tragedy occurred in Nevada. Nobody has been a stronger supporter of this legislation. He helped us pass similar protections twice last year. It is no surprise to me that yesterday he met with the head of the U.S. Marshals Service. Sadly, they reported a 17 percent increase in attacks this year. We cannot delay our response any further in the face of this trend. Senator Durbin, our assistant majority leader, has been consistently dedicated to getting this legislation passed. The tragic murder of Judge Lefkow's husband and mother in her home State of Illinois serves as a terrible reminder of why we need this legislation. Senator Durbin has worked tirelessly to prevent any further tragedies from befalling our Federal judges. As I have noted before, this legislation has broad bipartisan support. Yesterday Senator Cornyn gave a powerful statement in support of this legislation. Senator Cornyn is a former member of his State's judiciary. I urge Members to consider his views and support for these important provisions providing for increased security. Even the White House has issued a supportive Statement of Administration Policy. Yesterday a number of amendments were filed, but none of them was relevant to the important purpose of court security. There will be other opportunities to consider worthwhile amendments. I look forward to working with Senator Coburn on Department of Justice reauthorization later this year. We made some progress yesterday. The Senate adopted the Kyl-Feinstein amendment that was adopted in committee. I thank Senator Specter for working with me on an important managers' amendment. That amendment made several technical fixes and clarified our treatment and protection of magistrate judges and the Tax Court judges. Last night after significant debate we had a vote on an amendment offered by Senator Coburn. Regretfully, it took from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the Senator from Oklahoma to be ready to offer his amendment. Once offered we dealt with it promptly. I would like to thank Senator Whitehouse for helping me manage this bill yesterday. His eloquent words in support of this legislation were much appreciated. I thank Senators Klobuchar and Brown for helping me manage this legislation today during the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I hope that today we can finish our work on this important legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to call up the managers' amendment the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I have worked on. So, Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and Senator Specter, an amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I don't want to surprise my colleague from Oklahoma, I will in a moment move to table his amendment. Again, if this was a DOJ authorization bill--and I have presented and passed in this body DOJ authorization bills before--then if he wanted to bring the amendment up, we could vote it up or down. This is a different bill. We want it to be a clean bill. Therefore, Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is the managers' package has been agreed to and we are back on the Coburn amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the managers' package be considered and agreed to, and we revert to the pending amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if this was our Department of Justice authorization bill, these kinds of amendments could certainly be considered. We are talking about a court security bill which has passed this body twice, which is urgently needed. I am trying to keep extraneous matters off it and have them offered on legislation where it is more appropriate. Amendment No. 896

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I may, we are about to have a vote in connection with the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. If we are going to start talking about amendments for a couple of hours and bring up another one, we are not going to get anywhere on the bill for court security, which has been passed twice by this body. So I object.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could continue for a moment, without the Senator losing his right to the floor. I share his concern about expenditures. I wish we were back in the days of President Clinton, where we built up a surplus and started paying down the Federal debt; other than what a Republican-controlled Congress voted for, which has tripled the national debt.

Mr. LEAHY. Would this mean we would not be able to continue to borrow money for the war in Iraq?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would this also include the hundreds of billions of dollars we have borrowed so far for the war in Iraq?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is a concern on the other side of the aisle, and as the one who has the floor at this point, I withhold that request and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment, on behalf of myself and Senator Specter, irons out a few remaining technical and jurisdictional issues relating to our Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. We are offering a managers' amendment that contains a few technical fixes, including grammatical changes and proper references to ``magistrate judges.'' This bipartisan amendment will make clear that additional protection provided to the Tax Court by the Marshals Service shall be reimbursed by the funds allocated to the Tax Court. We also clarify the construction of which officers qualify as ``judges'' so that all Federal judges are treated the same with regard to life insurance. Senator Lieberman raised an objection with regard to section 505, which provided for the reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act. I understand that Chairman Lieberman is currently working to reauthorize that legislation, so Senator Specter and I have agreed to remove it from our court security bill. I note for my colleagues that no major policy changes relating to improving the security that our Federal judges receive appear in this managers' package. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for working with me on this important legislation. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Would that be the Feinstein-Kyl amendment?

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our patent system is grounded in the Constitution. Among the specifically enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, stands the command to ``promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.'' Those discoveries have, since the founding of our Nation, made us the envy of the world. Our inventors, our research institutions, and the many companies that commercialize those discoveries have brought a wealth of new products and processes to our society; we have all been the beneficiaries of that creativity and hard work. Vermont has long played an important role in bringing such inventions to the public, combining `Yankee ingenuity' with lots of sweat equity. In fact, the very first U.S. patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins, a farmer in Pittsford, VT, who discovered a process for making potash. That ethic continues to the present day; just last year, inventors in IBM's Essex Junction plant received 360 patents 10 percent of IBM's total U.S. patents. Vermont is special, of course, but not unique in this regard. American inventors are in every community, every company and school. They are individuals tinkering on the weekends in their garages. They are teams of PhDs in our largest corporations. They are scientists training students in laboratories at our colleges and universities. Our patent laws should support and reward all American innovators-- independent inventors, small businesses, venture capitalists, academic researchers, and large corporations. To do so, we must update our patent laws. Crafted for an earlier time, when smokestacks rather than microchips were the emblems of industry, those laws have served well but need some refinements. Senator Hatch and I introduced an earlier version of this bill, S. 3818, last August. At that time, I said we had taken the first step down a road to real, constructive patent reform, which could reduce the unnecessary burdens of litigation in the patent system and enhance the quality of patents granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. Senator Hatch wisely noted that we would have to have continuing conversations about issues that remained unresolved. We have spent the time since then hearing from all manner of interested parties, and indeed we have learned as much since we introduced S. 3818 as we had in the two years prior to its introduction. In this Congress, the partnership is not only bipartisan but bicameral. We have reached not only across the aisle but across the Hill to work out a bill that joins the Senate and the House, Democrats and Republicans, so that today we are introducing a Leahy-Hatch bill in the Senate that mirrors a Berman-Smith bill in the House. The message is both strong and clear: We have a unified and resolute approach to improving the nation's patent system. We will all have time to focus on the bill's many provisions in the weeks to come, but I would highlight three significant changes we have made since last summer, aided by the many stakeholders in this process. First, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 now includes a pure ``first-to- file'' system, which will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. The United States stands alone among nations that grant patents in giving priority for a patent to the first inventor, as opposed to the first to file a patent application for a claimed invention. The result is a lack of international consistency, and a complex and costly system in the United States to determine inventors' rights. At the same time, our legislation provides important protections for inventors at universities, by permitting them to discuss publicly their work without losing priority for their inventions. Second, poor patent quality has been identified as a key element of the law that needs attention. After a patent is issued, a party seeking to challenge the validity and enforceability of the patent has two avenues under current law: by reexamination proceeding at the USPTO or by litigation in federal district court. The former is used sparingly and some see it as ineffective; the latter, district court litigation, can be unwieldy and expensive. S. 3818 had created a new, post-grant review to provide an effective and efficient system for considering challenges to the validity of patents. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 has improved that system, and in particular, we have addressed concerns about misuse of the procedure. Post-grant review will include protections to avoid the possibility of misuse of the post-grant process. The Director is instructed to prescribe rules to prevent harassment or abuse, successive petitions are prohibited, and petitioners are barred from raising the same arguments in court. Third, we are keenly aware that a sound patent system needs fair and equitable remedies. As products have become more complex, often involving hundreds or even thousands of patented aspects, litigation has not reliably produced damages awards in infringement cases that correspond to the value of the infringed patent. Our bill last summer was our first effort to ensure that damages awards accurately reflected the harm caused by infringement. Subsequent conversations with many affected parties have led us to language that, we believe, better serves that purpose and avoids potential pitfalls. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 is also significant for what is not included. S. 3818 would have made three considerable changes to the patent laws that, upon further consideration and after listening to the affected parties, we have decided not to make in this year's legislation. First is the requirement that patent applicants not intentionally misrepresent a material fact or fail to disclose material information to the PTO. Candor and truthfulness are the backbone of the patent application system, and are protected by the inequitable conduct doctrine. S. 3818 would have weakened that doctrine, but it is preserved this year. Second, we maintain the traditional rule on attorneys' fees, instead of shifting fees and other expenses to the non-prevailing party as was proposed in S. 3818. Finally, we do not inject Congress into the ongoing litigation over the extra-territorial provision, section 271(f). S. 3818 would have repealed the provision in its entirety; the Patent Reform Act of 2007 does not, while the interpretation of the provision is currently pending before the Supreme Court. If the Court does not resolve that issue, we will revisit it in the legislative process. 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 continue to enjoy the fruits of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient. This bill is an important step towards that goal. I look forward to immediate and intense debate that will inform both the Members of Congress and the public about these improvements, that will allow us to further refine our legislation, and that will lead us to consideration on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, our patent system is grounded in the Constitution. Among the specifically enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, stands the command to ``promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries.'' Those discoveries have, since the founding of our Nation, made us the envy of the world. Our inventors, our research institutions, and the many companies that commercialize those discoveries have brought a wealth of new products and processes to our society; we have all been the beneficiaries of that creativity and hard work. Vermont has long played an important role in bringing such inventions to the public, combining `Yankee ingenuity' with lots of sweat equity. In fact, the very first U.S. patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins, a farmer in Pittsford, VT, who discovered a process for making potash. That ethic continues to the present day; just last year, inventors in IBM's Essex Junction plant received 360 patents 10 percent of IBM's total U.S. patents. Vermont is special, of course, but not unique in this regard. American inventors are in every community, every company and school. They are individuals tinkering on the weekends in their garages. They are teams of PhDs in our largest corporations. They are scientists training students in laboratories at our colleges and universities. Our patent laws should support and reward all American innovators-- independent inventors, small businesses, venture capitalists, academic researchers, and large corporations. To do so, we must update our patent laws. Crafted for an earlier time, when smokestacks rather than microchips were the emblems of industry, those laws have served well but need some refinements. Senator Hatch and I introduced an earlier version of this bill, S. 3818, last August. At that time, I said we had taken the first step down a road to real, constructive patent reform, which could reduce the unnecessary burdens of litigation in the patent system and enhance the quality of patents granted by the Patent and Trademark Office. Senator Hatch wisely noted that we would have to have continuing conversations about issues that remained unresolved. We have spent the time since then hearing from all manner of interested parties, and indeed we have learned as much since we introduced S. 3818 as we had in the two years prior to its introduction. In this Congress, the partnership is not only bipartisan but bicameral. We have reached not only across the aisle but across the Hill to work out a bill that joins the Senate and the House, Democrats and Republicans, so that today we are introducing a Leahy-Hatch bill in the Senate that mirrors a Berman-Smith bill in the House. The message is both strong and clear: We have a unified and resolute approach to improving the nation's patent system. We will all have time to focus on the bill's many provisions in the weeks to come, but I would highlight three significant changes we have made since last summer, aided by the many stakeholders in this process. First, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 now includes a pure ``first-to- file'' system, which will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. The United States stands alone among nations that grant patents in giving priority for a patent to the first inventor, as opposed to the first to file a patent application for a claimed invention. The result is a lack of international consistency, and a complex and costly system in the United States to determine inventors' rights. At the same time, our legislation provides important protections for inventors at universities, by permitting them to discuss publicly their work without losing priority for their inventions. Second, poor patent quality has been identified as a key element of the law that needs attention. After a patent is issued, a party seeking to challenge the validity and enforceability of the patent has two avenues under current law: by reexamination proceeding at the USPTO or by litigation in federal district court. The former is used sparingly and some see it as ineffective; the latter, district court litigation, can be unwieldy and expensive. S. 3818 had created a new, post-grant review to provide an effective and efficient system for considering challenges to the validity of patents. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 has improved that system, and in particular, we have addressed concerns about misuse of the procedure. Post-grant review will include protections to avoid the possibility of misuse of the post-grant process. The Director is instructed to prescribe rules to prevent harassment or abuse, successive petitions are prohibited, and petitioners are barred from raising the same arguments in court. Third, we are keenly aware that a sound patent system needs fair and equitable remedies. As products have become more complex, often involving hundreds or even thousands of patented aspects, litigation has not reliably produced damages awards in infringement cases that correspond to the value of the infringed patent. Our bill last summer was our first effort to ensure that damages awards accurately reflected the harm caused by infringement. Subsequent conversations with many affected parties have led us to language that, we believe, better serves that purpose and avoids potential pitfalls. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 is also significant for what is not included. S. 3818 would have made three considerable changes to the patent laws that, upon further consideration and after listening to the affected parties, we have decided not to make in this year's legislation. First is the requirement that patent applicants not intentionally misrepresent a material fact or fail to disclose material information to the PTO. Candor and truthfulness are the backbone of the patent application system, and are protected by the inequitable conduct doctrine. S. 3818 would have weakened that doctrine, but it is preserved this year. Second, we maintain the traditional rule on attorneys' fees, instead of shifting fees and other expenses to the non-prevailing party as was proposed in S. 3818. Finally, we do not inject Congress into the ongoing litigation over the extra-territorial provision, section 271(f). S. 3818 would have repealed the provision in its entirety; the Patent Reform Act of 2007 does not, while the interpretation of the provision is currently pending before the Supreme Court. If the Court does not resolve that issue, we will revisit it in the legislative process. 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 continue to enjoy the fruits of the most creative citizens, then we must have a patent system that produces high quality patents, that limits counterproductive litigation over those patents, and that makes the entire system more streamlined and efficient. This bill is an important step towards that goal. I look forward to immediate and intense debate that will inform both the Members of Congress and the public about these improvements, that will allow us to further refine our legislation, and that will lead us to consideration on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.