Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see others on the floor seeking recognition, so let me continue. The full agenda before us, as we enter the final weeks of this legislative session, reflects how little this Republican leadership has accomplished, even when it has control of the White House, a Republican President, rubberstamp Republican leadership in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We have had a steady course of misguided priorities, including weeks--weeks--spent on constitutional amendments designed to restrict Americans' rights and the misuse of Congress's time and authority to interfere in court battles over the medical treatment of Terri Schiavo. These distractions have done nothing to help our country but instead cost Americans progress on real issues that matter most. These failures to focus on our real priorities have left America less secure. I look forward to a representative Congress that focuses on the Nation's real priorities. For example, the Republican-controlled Congress has yet to enact a Federal budget; this notwithstanding that the law required them to do it by April 15 of this year. The Republican leadership of the House and Senate decided to ignore the law and not pass one. We have passed but one appropriations bill, and we are required by law to pass 13. We have yet to reconcile and enact lobbying reform and ethics legislation. We have yet to deal with the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and health care. We have yet to reconcile and enact a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And the press reports today that the Republican leadership has decided they will not do that. And for the second year in a row, the Republican-led Senate will not even take up the annual intelligence authorization bill so we could vote up or down, even though they have a majority in their own party here. As we commemorated the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina last week, we were reminded that the situation in the gulf coast remains a tragedy with serious human consequences. We need to commit ourselves and our resources to helping our fellow citizens who are still in need after the appalling lack of responsiveness by this administration. We need to provide the assistance to that region of our country where rubble remains a fixture of the landscape 1 year later. We are spending tens of millions--hundreds of millions--storing trailers that will never be used. Some contractors have made billions, but people remain homeless. This is our Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to be able to react at a moment's notice if we have a danger. Here, even though they were given days of warning, they did not react. And when they did, it was one fumble after another, while the administration gave statements saying: Everything is under control. It reminds me of the President standing on the aircraft carrier saying: Mission accomplished. But not just the residents of the Gulf Coast who cannot return to homes or return to jobs, all Americans have to prepare for the threat of an avian flu pandemic so we do not see the repeat of last winter, when the Government was unprepared for a typical winter flu season. Mr. President, throughout your lifetime and my lifetime, every single year--every single year--we have had a flu season. And last year the administration acted surprised that we had a flu season. We should take action to preserve and improve rather than pollute the environment. Protecting our environment has become a pressing issue that has public safety and serious health consequences for all Americans, today and tomorrow. That demands immediate attention. We cannot ignore the destruction already wrought by the administration's ill-advised, head-in-the-sand policies. We have to provide resources that our returning veterans need at home. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars for health care facilities in Iraq that will never be used. Yet we are cutting back on health care facilities in America that our veterans need. America can do better. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars, ostensibly, to build schools in Iraq that will never be used, and our schools in America are falling apart without money for them. We can spend hundreds of millions of dollars for law enforcement in Iraq, law enforcement that has proven particularly ineffective, and, at the same time, we are cutting millions of dollars for law enforcement in America, while our crime rates skyrocket. America can do better. The Senate can make progress, but it has to work together. Today, we consider the nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore for a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the weeks before the recess, we confirmed several nominees to the Nation's important circuit courts. Working together, the Senate confirmed two circuit nominees and two Federal trial court nominees in a matter of minutes in one afternoon. That, I might point out, is the kind of progress we can make when the President nominates qualified, consensus nominees. When she is confirmed, Ms. Moore will be the 7th circuit court nominee and the 30th judge overall confirmed this year. Compare this with those left unconfirmed in the 1996 congressional session, when Republicans controlled the Senate and they stalled the nominations of President Clinton. And in that year, Republicans would not confirm a single appellate court judge--not one. Here, today, we will have our seventh appellate court judge. I think of the 61--61--judges of President Clinton who were pocket filibustered by a Republican- controlled Senate. I think of the irony that in the 17 months of President Bush's term in office when the Democrats controlled the Senate, we actually confirmed President Bush's judges faster than has been done under a Republican-controlled Senate. You would not know that from the speeches that are made. But today is a day to congratulate Ms. Moore on her confirmation. I hope she will be the kind of judge who will apply the law fairly and protect the rights of all litigants appearing in her courtroom. There are some superb people on that court. I think of such people as Judge Richard Linn. He should be a model for her as to the kind of judge this Nation deserves. He is one of the more senior members of that court. That is the kind of person I hope she will emulate. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I concur with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania and will support the President's nominee in this case. I mention that at the outset to advise Senators on this side of the aisle. I also welcome the distinguished Senator back from his trip. It sounds like it was a substantial trip. I spent August in Vermont, a matter of no great sacrifice I must say, but nevertheless a very busy month. That made me think, Madam President, when we returned today from recess, we have less than 4 weeks remaining in this legislative session. With so little time remaining, I hope we can join to make real progress on the issues that have languished unresolved, the real issues that matter most to the American people. We spend a lot of time talking about issues that really do not matter to the American people and ignoring those issues that do. I urge the administration and the Republican leadership of the House and Senate to recognize the failures that have set us back as a nation. We are ready to work together to rectify those failures. Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney struck the absolute wrong note when they recently labeled as ``appeasers'' the majority of Americans who recognize the disastrous war in Iraq as distracting them from winning the war on terror. Basically, they are saying anyone who questions their mistakes or points out their mistakes is nearly treasonous. My God, we have not heard talk like that since the days of King George. And that led to the revolution that made us a country. Again, this week, the Democratic leadership reached out to the President on this important issue. Rather than name-calling and seeking to divide Americans, rather than fostering fear and seeking to scare Americans into staying the disastrous course on which the Government remains headed, I urge Republican leaders to join to fight a smarter war on terror so we can make America safer. The cronyism, the incompetence that brought us the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina cannot continue to define Government action. With more Americans in poverty, and extreme poverty, with more children without health care, we must do better. America can do better. With rising interest rates, rising mortgage rates, rising health care costs, rising insurance costs, we must do better for America's working families. America can do better. While corporate profits have taken a greater and greater share of our gross national product, wages are stagnant. Those in charge refuse to allow a long overdue raise to the minimum wage. We have just come through a summer of record-high gas prices. For many families, the threat of record-high home heating prices this winter is around the corner. Yet this will be another year in which this administration will not raise the minimum wage. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we are more aware of the painful failure of the Federal Government in neglecting to protect the Nation from those attacks. September 11 could have been avoided. Our Government dropped the ball. We did not protect the Nation. In these last 5 years, the administration's decision to send hundreds of thousands of Americans into Iraq, diverting attention and resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the fight against al-Qaida--those loom largest among the many mistakes they have made which have created a more dangerous and threatening world. How sad, how discouraging, how needless, and how ominous it has been the past 5 years to see the national and international unity we had after those horrific attacks squandered by this administration's crass politics, their arrogant unilateralism, their misguided policies. It was around the time of the second anniversary of September 11 that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld put his finger on a key question in the fight against terrorism, when he asked whether we were creating or eliminating more terrorists through our actions. There can now be little doubt about the honest answer to the question about the actions taken by this administration over the last 5 years. Does anyone doubt the impact of the occupation of Iraq, the images from Abu Ghraib, the international scandal at Guantanamo, and the war profiteering by huge defense contractors? Our own State Department, the Bush State Department, had to revise its reports on international terrorism in order to reflect a more honest assessment of the growing incidence of terrorism violence. Hamas and Hezbollah are winning elections, as are hardliners in Iran and elsewhere throughout the Middle East. We see American soldiers, brave American soldiers, trapped in the sectarian violence in Iraq. We see the situation every day in Afghanistan deteriorating. Meanwhile, we have lost precious time to confront growing threats from Iran and North Korea and the Middle East. They are more threatening than any time in recent memory. The administration resisted recent efforts to examine what led to the tragic events of September 11. The administration does not want the rubberstamp Congress to ask them what they did, why they allowed September 11 to happen in the first place. They resisted the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. They resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission because they knew it would ask the question: Why did September 11 happen during the Bush administration? And they failed to implement many of the Commission's most important recommendations. Recently, President Bush held a press conference. He conceded what we all know: Iraq had ``nothing'' to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. Then he skipped quickly over the main reason we went into Iraq; namely, his erroneous contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A growing roster of conservative Republicans, from William Buckley on, is now acknowledging the failure of this administration's strategy in Iraq. Even as sectarian violence has continued to grow among Iraqis, as the losses it causes to America continue to mount, the administration tolerates no criticism or, worse yet, listens to no new perspectives on a deteriorating situation. They stubbornly insist: Stay on this uncorrected course for another 2\1/2\ years--this from a President who, when he first ran for office, told our country he was against nation building and against foreign military antagonists. It is difficult to come together and to move forward when the administration will not acknowledge that its historic miscalculations that led to the current situation. When they are not ignoring the past, they simply excuse it. The excuses for their failures are mockingly the same. In May 2002, the then-National Security Adviser, now Secretary of State, said: I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile. Of course, that was not true. The 9/11 Commission showed how the Bush administration had received many of the September 11 warnings that that was exactly what they were going to do. In September 2005, President Bush responded to the destruction of New Orleans by saying: I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. Of course, that was wrong. Of course, local papers and others had discussed this hurricane disaster scenario and others for years. It was predicted. And earlier this summer, Vice President Cheney said about Iraq: I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered. And a military spokesman said: I don't think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian violence. Of course, neither of these statements was accurate since sectarian violence was a known risk. It was even a predicted risk from the outset. It is one of the reasons so many opposed going there in the first place. Just as this administration's justification for U.S. involvement in Iraq continued to shift from one to the next, its excuses ring hollow when they refuse to acknowledge their errors and instead claim infallibility. ``Just trust us'' long ago proved its failure as a Bush administration policy. Ours is the strongest military in the world, but there are limits to military power. That military power and resources must never be squandered. Many people who have actively served in the military knew that. The President's father knew that. General Powell knew that. President Eisenhower, the military hero of World War II, a Republican President, knew that. Unfortunately, this administration, thousands of lives later, hundreds of billions of dollars later, is just beginning to learn it in what has proven to be a disaster of historic proportions. Imagine how different our situation would be today if we had not shifted our lead forces from Afghanistan to Iraq at the critical moment when we had Osama bin Laden cornered, when we were about to find him. What if the President had done what we unanimously asked him to do, go get Osama bin Laden, the man who engineered September 11. We had him on the run. We let him go, and we went into a futile war in Iraq. In the years since then, the Iraq war has stretched our military to the breaking point. It has sapped hundreds of millions of dollars and preoccupied our attention. The White House has even disbanded the intelligence unit that for a year was dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden. All those nations that were on our side after September 11, 2001, now do not support us. What have we done? A diversion to Iraq has only succeeded in creating a new breeding ground for terrorists and in emboldening the rogue states to harbor and supply them. Starting this unnecessary war in Iraq did not make us more secure, it has made us less secure. And worse yet, the Bush administration allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. We need to adjust our course in order to effectively confront the threat of terrorism. We do not need excuses and name calling. We need honesty and determination. We need not just conventional military might but better intelligence, stronger alliances, repaired alliances, and better information sharing. We need to use our resources for homeland security, to protect our ports, our planes, our industrial plants, and our vital resources. Let us function as a constitutional democracy and act within a moral framework and legitimate legal rules. Let us be that democratic model to the world that America often has been and should be today. Let us show the strength and resolve of a free people, not a fearful people. Let us set a new direction to counterterrorism on our own terms, with American skill and with American values. This summer we expressed our gratitude to British authorities for disrupting a plot that reportedly endangered the citizens of both our countries. That episode and the fifth anniversary, next week, of the attacks of 9/11 are reminders there is little margin for error in countering terrorism. We need to refocus our attention and resources from the divisions that plague Iraq to eliminating the misdirection and mismanagement that still diverts us from an effective international strategy to protect the American people from terrorism. We need to be smarter and stronger to make America safer. We can do better. America can do better. For almost 5 years since the Government failed to protect us from 9/ 11, Bush administration officials in charge of security have been saying it is not a question of whether al-Qaida will attack us again but when. We need to do better. We need to do better. We should look at the mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. We should look at the colossal mistake that allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. We as America need to do better. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, of course, again, I will yield the floor if somebody else seeks time. I do not mean this in an unfair way because the distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, is not allowed to speak. I commend him. He comes from a wonderful State. It has been my privilege to visit there. I suspect it is a lot like Vermont. You have a chance to go into these small towns and cities, to go to county fairs and meet people. I have known the Presiding Officer to be a very accessible person when he was a Governor, when he was a member of the Cabinet, and now as a Senator. I try to do the same thing in my own State. During this past month, I have gone all over the State of Vermont. I have talked to people. I have attended funerals of brave soldiers killed in Iraq from Vermont. Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any other State in the country. And it is interesting, in a small State such as ours, as to the people you see at these funerals, everybody knows everybody else. I walk out and I see people whom I went to grade school with or people who knew my parents or I knew them or their families. We are there, and the other Members of the congressional delegation, the Governor, and nobody goes by a title. Our adjutant general is usually referred to as Mike. I am called Pat. There is Jim and Bernie and so on. We're a very proud State. We're a very patriotic State. We're a very honest State. We're the 14th State in the Nation, and we have answered the call. People wonder if maybe the call has been distorted this time. They wonder what this war does for our security. As I said earlier, I believe it has made us less secure as a nation, not more secure. They wonder where the failures were in Government that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. And, of course, as more information has come out, it could have been avoided, should have been avoided, should have been avoided. And they wonder if the lessons have been learned about that. They see Homeland Security that should be able to respond to any emergency, even that on a second's notice, and yet they see that it failed to respond to Katrina there was all kinds of notice. They see Republicans and Democrats joined together saying: Go get Osama bin Laden. And the administration does not get Osama bin Laden. Instead, they divert those forces to go into Iraq in a war we did not need and one that has made us less secure. They even disbanded the special intelligence unit that has been tracking Osama bin Laden. But worse yet--and I heard this from Republicans and Democrats alike in my State--when the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration say if you raise questions, if you point out their mistakes, somehow you are aiding the enemy, however defined, that you are not being patriotic. I am reminded to paraphrase Mark Twain. He said: Love your country. Question your Government. A lot of people in my State--Republicans and Democrats--say there is a great deal to question today. I hope they will continue to do so. I hope they will never fail to do so. I hope that those people who have the audacity in America--the freest democracy on Earth--that those leaders in our Government who have the audacity to question the patriotism of Americans who question their mistakes will themselves be quiet and leave--leave the stage. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, after the Senator from Pennsylvania uses whatever period of time he wants, or yields to another, there is half an hour available to the Senator from Vermont; is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for its August recess--4 weeks when we get to reconnect with our constituents, catch up on the concerns of our home States, and study our legislative plans with a depth and attention that we cannot devote during the hectic days we are in session. Some of us may even spend a little time with our families and friends. As I have done in years past, I will be in Vermont. The choice between spending August in Washington, DC, or Middlesex, VT, has always been an easy one for me. When the Senate is in session, our obligations are many and varied, as important as they are diverse. We hold hearings, and then we pursue followup questions. We try to engage in oversight, though that has not been a particularly fruitful exercise with this current administration. We investigate issues, and then we endeavor to craft solutions. We vote and we caucus and we deliberate. It is not always a process that yields results, but today I can report it has. I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee today in introducing a bipartisan bill on patent reform. The bill is the result of almost 2 years of hard work on hard issues. We held several hearings, had innumerable meetings with a universe of interested participants in the patent system, and received input from a number of voices in debate about patent reform. We delved deeply into the myriad problems plaguing our patent system, especially those that hinder the issuance of high-quality patents. In introducing this bill together, we take a productive step toward updating the most outdated aspects of the patent code and attempt to bolster the Patent and Trademark Office in its administrative review of patents throughout the process. We are striving to place incentives on the parties with the most information to assist the PTO by sharing that information. We place our patent system in line with much of the rest of the world, by moving from a ``first-to-invent'' system to a ``first- to-file.'' Congress needs to address the urgent needs for revision and renewal in our patent system, and we must harness the impressive intellectual power and varied experiences of all the players in the patent community as we finalize our new laws. I believe that, while introducing this bill today is not the end of the process--and indeed, in many respects, it is truly the beginning--it is a significant accomplishment that we have come together to set down a comprehensive approach to overhauling our patent system. If the United States is to preserve its position at the forefront of innovation, as the global leader in intellectual property and technology, then we need to move forward, and this bill is our first step. We must improve and enhance the quality of our patent system and the patents it produces. This legislation is not an option but a necessity. Senator Hatch and I have made genuine progress on this complex issue. We agreed on many salutary changes, but it can be no surprise that we differed on some aspects of the effort as well. Recognizing the critical importance of compromise, of offering a bill to the interested public to study and improve, and of taking a clear first step down the path to genuine reform, we both made concessions. This is not the bill I would have introduced if I were the sole author, and I expect Senator Hatch would say the same. I appreciate the concessions that Senator Hatch made. I have tried to be both reasonable and accommodating in honoring my commitment to him--a commitment that he requested specifically--to introduce a bill before the August recess. In particular, I am concerned about how some of the changes proposed would affect the generic pharmaceutical industry, especially the provision that would limit the ``inequitable conduct'' defense to only those cases in which a patentee's willful deception of the PTO results in an invalid patent claim. While I think we should expect the highest caliber of behavior by those who are seeking patents--which are, after all, often highly profitable government monopolies--surely we can at least insist on an absence of affirmative deceit. I hope and expect that we can continue the discussion on this issue as the year progresses. I also want to ensure the delicate balance we have struck in the post-grant review process and make certain that the procedure is both efficient and effective at thwarting some strategic behavior in patent litigation and at promoting a healthier body of existing patents. Fee- shifting, even in a limited set of cases, likewise raises concerns that should have a more public airing. I respect the necessity for considering and balancing a number of different concerns as we draft comprehensive and complicated legislation. I will never sacrifice the quality of the laws we produce to expediency, but I recognize the utility of such compromises when, as with this bill, introduction is a first step in a larger and longer discussion. I am extremely pleased that Senator Hatch and I have come together to tackle these important and urgent issues. Many hours of hard work were spent by both of our offices to develop legislative language so that we can, today, jointly introduce a bill to move the debate forward. The bill is a remarkable achievement and a substantial step toward real reform. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hatch, other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the affected parties on these matters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the National Guard Caucus, who has labored indefatigably in this area, calling on his experience not only as a U.S. Senator but especially his experience when he was Governor and commander in chief of the Guard in his own State.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 4827 to the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill that is already adopted.

Mr. LEAHY. I will be brief on amendment No. 4827. This is an amendment that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri and I filed yesterday. It guarantees that $2.4 billion of the $13 billion included in the managers' package on Tuesday for the Army and Marine Corps be allocated for National Guard equipment. It does not add any money. It ensures that the promises that have already been made to the Guard about funding will be fulfilled and, also, of course, make sure we have a much needed infusion of equipment to the National Guard. It follows an amendment that Senator Bond and I introduced last September to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We realized, with the significant shortfalls in equipment available to the Guard at home for use in such natural disasters or other domestic emergencies, if, God forbid, we had another such tragedy, the Guard would not have had enough trucks, tractors, and communication gear across the country to adequately respond. The problem then--and still is--that much of their equipment has been left in Iraq, where the National Guard has been indispensable. Since the start of the war in Iraq, Guard units have deployed with their gear and then, after a year, they have left this gear for use by other units arriving in Iraq. Worse still, the National Guard has consistently been underfunded, leaving it with well less than the required equipment stocks. These low levels of equipment threaten the Guard's ability to carry out the two critical prongs of its dual mission. Two days ago, the top National Guard LTG Steven Blum, reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, due largely to vast equipment shortfalls. Almost a year after Katrina, the Department of Defense leadership-- which is ultimately responsible for monitoring the Guard's capabilities--has yet to recognize this clear problem, let alone to develop a real funding plan to deal with the problem. The $900 million included in last year's, Defense appropriations bill was only the beginning of addressing this major problem with shortfalls--a problem that General Blum himself estimates to total nearly $21 billion. Congress has no choice but to act. That is why this amendment takes another step toward addressing the Guard's response capabilities at home. It adds $2.4 billion on top of the funding in the regular bill and bridge supplemental for the Guard to procure equipment--for items as diverse as remanufactured tanks, radios, medium-sized trucks, and command-and-control systems. I would like to commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, who were able to identify almost $340 million in National Guard and Reserve equipment in the committee markup of the baseline Defense bill. That number shows the enormous support that exists within the Defense Subcommittee, especially when the Senate Defense allocation was $9 billion below that set in the House of Representatives. On behalf of our Guard units, our Guard members, and of all Americans who so acutely rely on their steadfast readiness and service, I urge my colleagues to vote now for a much-needed, higher level for the Guard. This problem is so pressing and so severe that we cannot afford to lose momentum. I just mention again, 2 days ago the top National Guard General, LTG Steven Blum, reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready. We really have no choice but to act. This will not even begin to handle the problems, but it will be a good start. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add, after Senator Bond's name and my name, Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Senators Lincoln, Dodd, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Dorgan, Mikulski, Harkin, Rockefeller, Baucus, and Jeffords as cosponsors.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Bond and I have amendment No. 4827. I ask consent the pending amendment be set aside and it be in order to call up that amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. The Senator from Missouri is right.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide $200 million in emergency humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanese and Israeli civilians affected by the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. I commend Senator Stabenow for this amendment. If this conflict and the terrible loss of innocent lives and destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Israel had occurred three months ago when we were debating the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, there would have been no question that we would have included this aid. To date, the U.S. Government has pledged $30 million in humanitarian aid to Lebanon. While welcome, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed. Over 900,000 Lebanese citizens--one in five--have fled their homes and are either displaced in Lebanon, living in schools and public buildings, or are refugees in Syria. Estimates are that 200,000 people are in immediate need of humanitarian aid including food, water, fuel, shelter and medical care. Basic goods are in short supply and hospitals in the south of Lebanon are facing electricity and water shortages. Just getting access to people who are in the greatest need has been a difficult challenge for relief organizations. The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have been doing their best to evacuate people and deliver medical supplies, shelter materials, and food to affected people in southern Lebanon. Current estimates are that at least $300 million will be needed in the next 3 months to meet their basic needs. The international community has pledged assistance, but if past practice is any indicator, pledges often do not turn into actual contributions. This additional $200 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid would demonstrate the commitment of the United States to help the innocent victims on both sides of this conflict. The funds should be used by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, which have already depleted much of their available funds and without this amendment will be forced to rob funds that are needed to respond to other humanitarian disasters--in Darfur, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere. I thank the Senator from Michigan for offering this amendment and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for its August recess--4 weeks when we get to reconnect with our constituents, catch up on the concerns of our home States, and study our legislative plans with a depth and attention that we cannot devote during the hectic days we are in session. Some of us may even spend a little time with our families and friends. As I have done in years past, I will be in Vermont. The choice between spending August in Washington, DC, or Middlesex, VT, has always been an easy one for me. When the Senate is in session, our obligations are many and varied, as important as they are diverse. We hold hearings, and then we pursue followup questions. We try to engage in oversight, though that has not been a particularly fruitful exercise with this current administration. We investigate issues, and then we endeavor to craft solutions. We vote and we caucus and we deliberate. It is not always a process that yields results, but today I can report it has. I am pleased to join with the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee today in introducing a bipartisan bill on patent reform. The bill is the result of almost 2 years of hard work on hard issues. We held several hearings, had innumerable meetings with a universe of interested participants in the patent system, and received input from a number of voices in debate about patent reform. We delved deeply into the myriad problems plaguing our patent system, especially those that hinder the issuance of high-quality patents. In introducing this bill together, we take a productive step toward updating the most outdated aspects of the patent code and attempt to bolster the Patent and Trademark Office in its administrative review of patents throughout the process. We are striving to place incentives on the parties with the most information to assist the PTO by sharing that information. We place our patent system in line with much of the rest of the world, by moving from a ``first-to-invent'' system to a ``first- to-file.'' Congress needs to address the urgent needs for revision and renewal in our patent system, and we must harness the impressive intellectual power and varied experiences of all the players in the patent community as we finalize our new laws. I believe that, while introducing this bill today is not the end of the process--and indeed, in many respects, it is truly the beginning--it is a significant accomplishment that we have come together to set down a comprehensive approach to overhauling our patent system. If the United States is to preserve its position at the forefront of innovation, as the global leader in intellectual property and technology, then we need to move forward, and this bill is our first step. We must improve and enhance the quality of our patent system and the patents it produces. This legislation is not an option but a necessity. Senator Hatch and I have made genuine progress on this complex issue. We agreed on many salutary changes, but it can be no surprise that we differed on some aspects of the effort as well. Recognizing the critical importance of compromise, of offering a bill to the interested public to study and improve, and of taking a clear first step down the path to genuine reform, we both made concessions. This is not the bill I would have introduced if I were the sole author, and I expect Senator Hatch would say the same. I appreciate the concessions that Senator Hatch made. I have tried to be both reasonable and accommodating in honoring my commitment to him--a commitment that he requested specifically--to introduce a bill before the August recess. In particular, I am concerned about how some of the changes proposed would affect the generic pharmaceutical industry, especially the provision that would limit the ``inequitable conduct'' defense to only those cases in which a patentee's willful deception of the PTO results in an invalid patent claim. While I think we should expect the highest caliber of behavior by those who are seeking patents--which are, after all, often highly profitable government monopolies--surely we can at least insist on an absence of affirmative deceit. I hope and expect that we can continue the discussion on this issue as the year progresses. I also want to ensure the delicate balance we have struck in the post-grant review process and make certain that the procedure is both efficient and effective at thwarting some strategic behavior in patent litigation and at promoting a healthier body of existing patents. Fee- shifting, even in a limited set of cases, likewise raises concerns that should have a more public airing. I respect the necessity for considering and balancing a number of different concerns as we draft comprehensive and complicated legislation. I will never sacrifice the quality of the laws we produce to expediency, but I recognize the utility of such compromises when, as with this bill, introduction is a first step in a larger and longer discussion. I am extremely pleased that Senator Hatch and I have come together to tackle these important and urgent issues. Many hours of hard work were spent by both of our offices to develop legislative language so that we can, today, jointly introduce a bill to move the debate forward. The bill is a remarkable achievement and a substantial step toward real reform. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hatch, other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the affected parties on these matters.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one week ago, I stood behind President Bush as he signed the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 into law. The President gave a short speech about the importance of the legislation and his commitment to defending it. He even distributed a letter to all those in attendance celebrating this reauthorization. In his letter he acknowledged that ``further work remains in the fight against injustice, and each generation has a responsibility to write a new chapter in the unfinished story of freedom.'' I ask unanimous consent to insert his letter into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Keeping the Voting Rights Act intact is important, but enforcing it is equally important. Now that Congress has passed the law--and the President has signed it--it is up to the President to ensure that this law and all of its provisions are enforced fully and faithfully. I was pleased last Thursday to hear the President commit to aggressive enforcement and to defend the Act from legal attacks. Article I of the Constitution provides for the Congress to write the laws, and Article II provides for the President to enforce them. Congress has done its part, and now the President must do his. I commended him for saying that he will. Last week I spoke to the Senate about a letter I had sent to the President in which I urged him not to follow his usual practice of signing a bill with his fingers crossed behind his back and later issuing a presidential signing statement undercutting the law that Congress passed. I return today to report to the Senate that, to the best of my knowledge, the President has accepted that advice and has not issued an after-the-fact signing statement. I thank the President for following this course. In fact, the material posted on the White House website includes a ``fact sheet'' in which the White House reaffirms the President's commitment ``to vigorously enforce the provisions of the law and to defend it in court.'' The Voting Rights Act is the keystone in the foundation of civil rights laws and is one of the most important methods of protecting all Americans' foundational right to vote. Several generations have kept the chain of support for the Voting Rights Act unbroken, and now we have once again done our part to continue that legacy and revitalize the Act. We know that effective enforcement of these provisions is vital in fighting against discrimination that, unfortunately, still exists in this nation today. As the President has acknowledged, the wound is not healed and there is more to do to protect the rights of all Americans to vote and have their votes count. I also note for the record that today, two weeks after final passage of the House bill to reauthorize and revitalize the Voting Rights Act, and one week after the President signed that historic legislation into law, copies of Senate Report 109-295 have finally been printed. This is the committee report on S.2703 that I commented on during my statement to the Senate on July 27. It contains the objection of all eight Democratic members of the committee. As previously noted, it is unusual in that it does not represent the views of a majority of the committee and certainly does not represent the views of the Democratic sponsors of that Senate legislation. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, July 27, 2006. I send greetings to those celebrating the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. It has been vital to guaranteeing the right to vote for generations of Americans and has helped millions of our citizens enjoy the full promise of freedom. By refusing to give in to discrimination and segregation, heroes of the Civil Rights Movement called our country back to its founding ideals of freedom and opportunity for everyone. Leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall believed in the constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality and trusted their fellow Americans to do the right thing to ensure these blessings for every man, woman, and child. Over the years, our Nation has grown more prosperous and powerful, and it has also grown more equal and just. Yet, further work remains in the fight against injustice, and each generation has a responsibility to write a new chapter in the unfinished story of freedom. Reauthorizing this legislation is an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect. America is grateful for the sacrifices of citizens such as Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, after whom the bill reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act was named. I also appreciate the members of the House and Senate for passing this historic legislation. By working together, we can help build an America that lives up to our guiding principle that all men and women are created equal. Laura and I send our best wishes on this special occasion. George W. Bush.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and Senators Dorgan and Harkin, The Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006. This legislation would prohibit the procurement of victim-activated landmines and other weapons that are designed to be victim-activated. It builds on a long history of leadership by the Congress on the issue of landmines, which indiscriminately kill and maim innocent people, as well as U.S. troops, around the world. I will have another statement on this subject when we return from the August recess, but I want to make a couple of points today. First, Senators should know that since 1997 when an international treaty banning the manufacture, use, export and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines was initialed at Ottawa, 154 nations have signed and 151 have ratified the treaty. This is an extraordinary achievement, for which Lloyd Axworthy, Canada's Foreign Minister at the time, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines deserve enormous credit. Unfortunately, the United States is not a signatory to the treaty and at one time even worked against it. Thanks to the treaty, the manufacture and export of antipersonnel landmines has decreased significantly, and the number of victims has also declined. But mines continue to be a weapon of choice, especially for rebel groups such as the FARC in Colombia and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Second, the United States has not exported antipersonnel mines since 1992, produced antipersonnel mines since 1997, or used anti personnel mines since 1991. This is not a weapon we need. Moreover, for the past decade the Department of Defense has been developing alternatives to landmines. The goal has been to replace mines that cannot distinguish between an enemy combatant and a U.S. soldier, an innocent child, a farmer or a refugee. That program has produced man-in-the-loop technology that is ready to be deployed in a new generation of mines that are not victim-activated. I have long supported this program and I commend the Department of Defense for its support for the development of this technology. I believe it will provide the U.S. military with the force multiplier and protection afforded by conventional landmines without impeding the mobility of our troops or endangering innocent civilians. It will enable the military to finally stop using or stockpiling victim- activated landmines that have no place in the arsenal of a civilized nation, much less the world's only superpower. As we see daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, civilians bear the brunt of wars today. They do not have body armor or armored vehicles. They are routinely caught in the crossfire. At any moment they are at risk of being killed or maimed by a landmine or other improvised explosive that lies in wait until triggered by whoever steps on it or drives over it. I want to emphasize that the need for this legislation is not because the United States is causing the mine problem. It is not. As I mentioned, we have not used or exported antipersonnel mines for 15 years, despite fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are also the largest contributor to humanitarian demining in countries that have been severely affected by mines, and we support programs to assist mine survivors. But just as a solution to the Middle East conflict depends on the active, sustained engagement and leadership of the United States, so does the problem of landmines. As was the case with poison gas more than half a century ago, the solution to the mine problem is the stigmatization of these indiscriminate weapons so the political price of using them serves as a deterrent. Will some rebel groups or rogue nations continue to defy the international norm? Undoubtedly. But by setting an example and using our influence we can reduce their numbers significantly to the benefit of our troops and the innocent. I again want to thank my friend Senator Specter, who has supported legislation to ban landmines for more than a decade.

Mr. LEAHY. That is correct and I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I have been pleased to have him as a partner over the years on legislation to eliminate these inhumane weapons, and I welcome the opportunity to do so again today. We want to send a message to the world that victim-activated landmines and other weapons designed to be victim-activated are beyond the pale. We have seen what they can do to our troops. We have seen what they do to a child who picks up one of these seemingly harmless objects, only to have it blow off an arm or worse. These weapons do not belong in the arsenals of civilized nations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and Senators Dorgan and Harkin, The Victim-Activated Landmine Abolition Act of 2006. This legislation would prohibit the procurement of victim-activated landmines and other weapons that are designed to be victim-activated. It builds on a long history of leadership by the Congress on the issue of landmines, which indiscriminately kill and maim innocent people, as well as U.S. troops, around the world. I will have another statement on this subject when we return from the August recess, but I want to make a couple of points today. First, Senators should know that since 1997 when an international treaty banning the manufacture, use, export and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines was initialed at Ottawa, 154 nations have signed and 151 have ratified the treaty. This is an extraordinary achievement, for which Lloyd Axworthy, Canada's Foreign Minister at the time, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines deserve enormous credit. Unfortunately, the United States is not a signatory to the treaty and at one time even worked against it. Thanks to the treaty, the manufacture and export of antipersonnel landmines has decreased significantly, and the number of victims has also declined. But mines continue to be a weapon of choice, especially for rebel groups such as the FARC in Colombia and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Second, the United States has not exported antipersonnel mines since 1992, produced antipersonnel mines since 1997, or used anti personnel mines since 1991. This is not a weapon we need. Moreover, for the past decade the Department of Defense has been developing alternatives to landmines. The goal has been to replace mines that cannot distinguish between an enemy combatant and a U.S. soldier, an innocent child, a farmer or a refugee. That program has produced man-in-the-loop technology that is ready to be deployed in a new generation of mines that are not victim-activated. I have long supported this program and I commend the Department of Defense for its support for the development of this technology. I believe it will provide the U.S. military with the force multiplier and protection afforded by conventional landmines without impeding the mobility of our troops or endangering innocent civilians. It will enable the military to finally stop using or stockpiling victim- activated landmines that have no place in the arsenal of a civilized nation, much less the world's only superpower. As we see daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, civilians bear the brunt of wars today. They do not have body armor or armored vehicles. They are routinely caught in the crossfire. At any moment they are at risk of being killed or maimed by a landmine or other improvised explosive that lies in wait until triggered by whoever steps on it or drives over it. I want to emphasize that the need for this legislation is not because the United States is causing the mine problem. It is not. As I mentioned, we have not used or exported antipersonnel mines for 15 years, despite fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are also the largest contributor to humanitarian demining in countries that have been severely affected by mines, and we support programs to assist mine survivors. But just as a solution to the Middle East conflict depends on the active, sustained engagement and leadership of the United States, so does the problem of landmines. As was the case with poison gas more than half a century ago, the solution to the mine problem is the stigmatization of these indiscriminate weapons so the political price of using them serves as a deterrent. Will some rebel groups or rogue nations continue to defy the international norm? Undoubtedly. But by setting an example and using our influence we can reduce their numbers significantly to the benefit of our troops and the innocent. I again want to thank my friend Senator Specter, who has supported legislation to ban landmines for more than a decade.

Mr. LEAHY. That is correct and I thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I have been pleased to have him as a partner over the years on legislation to eliminate these inhumane weapons, and I welcome the opportunity to do so again today. We want to send a message to the world that victim-activated landmines and other weapons designed to be victim-activated are beyond the pale. We have seen what they can do to our troops. We have seen what they do to a child who picks up one of these seemingly harmless objects, only to have it blow off an arm or worse. These weapons do not belong in the arsenals of civilized nations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since July 12th we have watched with growing horror as hundreds of Hezbollah rockets have landed deeper and deeper inside Israel, indiscriminately killing and injuring civilians, and Israeli bombs, missiles and artillery shells have destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure in areas of Beirut and southern Lebanon. Some 550 Lebanese have died, the vast majority of them civilians, and an estimated 866,000 one in five Lebanese citizens have fled their homes and are either displaced in Lebanon, living in schools and public buildings, or as refugees in Syria. Fifty Israelis have died, and in Haifa and other towns in the north many families are living in terror in basements or shelters. Meanwhile, three Israeli soldiers remain as hostages and their families remain in anguish hostages held in violation of the Geneva Conventions and every other international norm. In another sense, Hezbollah and its supporters Syria and Iran are holding the entire population of Lebanon hostage. Of the 26,000 American citizens who were living in or visiting Lebanon when this crisis began, more than 12,000 have been evacuated, and the exodus continues. The cost to the U.S. Government of this air and sea lift is expected to be at least $46 million. The evacuation took too long to get started, and the delay and confusion caused a lot of frustration and anxiety among Americans in Lebanon as well as their families back home. As after Hurricane Katrina, I hope the administration has learned something from this experience. At the same time, I want to commend the State Department employees and U.S. military personnel who worked around the clock to help Americans who were trapped in Lebanon find a way out. The unprovoked, indiscriminate and utterly inexcusable kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and rocket attacks by Hezbollah should be universally condemned. Those who ordered it should be brought to justice. It has ignited a conflict that Hezbollah cannot win but which could engulf the region if a way is not found to stop the spiral of violence from widening. It is clear that a buffer zone patrolled by an international force is urgently needed along the Israeli-Lebanese border to prevent these kinds of violent incursions against Israel and its people, and that Hezbollah must be disarmed in order for Lebanon to finally finally-- break free of Syria's harsh grip. While hundreds of Hezbollah's missiles continue to rain down on Israel, Israel's military response has also caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Lebanon, including four United Nations observers. One of the latest tragedies is the destruction by an Israeli missile of an apartment building in Qana that resulted in 57 Lebanese deaths including 34 children, children who were not terrorists. Secretary Rice's whirlwind visits to the region have been welcome but they have produced few tangible results. This type of crisis diplomacy rarely achieves lasting solutions. She is also occupied with a widening civil war in Iraq, resurgent Taliban violence in Afghanistan, an increasingly recalcitrant and aggressive regime in North Korea, a worsening humanitarian crisis in Darfur with no end in sight, the specter of a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran in the world's future, and other pressing problems. She is simply unable to focus the sustained, high-level attention on the Middle East crisis that is needed. I and others like my friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, have urged President Bush to appoint a special envoy with the stature and the authority to work on a continual basis to help broker an immediate cease-fire and long term solutions to Israel's conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah someone who wakes up every single day with the challenge, the portfolio and especially the authority to help resolve this conflict. I renew this call for such an envoy again today. Some U.S. officials have questioned the possibility of a cease-fire with a terrorist organization like Hezbollah. That is a valid question, but cease-fires have been achieved with other terrorist groups, and while imperfect the results have been sharp reductions in violence. A cease-fire is needed immediately in Lebanon, to be followed with similar urgency by the deployment of an international peacekeeping force on the border. Too many innocent people are dying innocent people--in both countries. A peacekeeping force is necessary to prevent further loss of Lebanese and Israeli lives. The United States is committed to protecting Israel's security and we support Israel's right of self defense, including going after Hezbollah fighters who often launch their attacks from civilian areas. But for Israel's sake, for ours and especially especially--for the sake of innocent lives on both sides of these battle lines, it is vitally important to ask whether destroying Lebanon--not Hezbollah, but destroying Lebanon--will make Israel more secure or instead rally Muslims behind Hezbollah and give rise to further hatred and insecurity. I believe that continued bombing of civilian areas in Lebanon will not destroy Hezbollah, but in a perverse way, it may strengthen it. The fact that these attacks are being carried out with such intensity and are yielding so much death and destruction, with weapons supplied by the United States, and at a time when we are trying to repair our already frayed relations with Muslims around the world, is all the more reason for the United States and the people of Israel to consider and answer this question frankly and honestly. I am concerned, as others have also warned, that a short-term tactical victory--even if possible--could prove to be a hollow victory at great human cost. We should also reflect on the circumstances that preceded this crisis. For the past 5 years, the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East has been either to ignore it or to parachute in for just enough time for a few handshakes and photographs. There has never been an effective strategy. They have never been willing to expend any political capital. Their policy toward Syria and Iran has been erratic and ineffective. Their relations with the Palestinians have stagnated. It was clear since the earliest days of this administration that this laxity would define their approach to these tinderbox issues, and the terrible harm of that approach--to our ally Israel, to the Palestinians, and to the prospects for resuming a meaningful peace process in that region is all the more clear today. I am not among those who believe that the United States pulls all the strings in the Middle East. There are forces there over which we have only limited influence. But neither do I believe there can be a lasting solution to the Arab- Israeli conflict without the active, creative and sustained engagement of the United States, including direct talks with those with whom we strongly disagree, like Syria and Iran. That has been sorely lacking under this administration, and we are witnessing the price of that neglect in Lebanon and Israel today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if somebody comes, I will be willing to enter into a different consent agreement, if somebody comes seeking the floor on the other side, but I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business but with the time to be running as it normally would.