but also on just the merits of it, the provision that this amendment strikes, section 37 of h.r. 1249, simply adopts the holding of a recent district court decision codifying existing law about how the patent and trademark office should calculate filing dates for the purpose of considering a patent term extension. so those are the reasons why i oppose the amendment to strike it. the underlying provision adopted by the house is a bipartisan amendment on the floor. it's offered by mr. conyers, had the support of mrs. pelosi and mr. berman and the support of mr. cantor on the republican side. i have a very hard time thinking

of a wider range of bipartisan support than that. and provision is simply about how to calculate filing dates for patent term extensions, though its critics have labeled it something a lot more. a patent holder on a drug is entitled by statute to apply tor extension of the patent term and actually bring the drug to market. the patent holder has to file the extension within 60 days beginning on the date the product received permission for marketing. but there is some ambiguity as to when the date is that starts the clock running. only in washington, d.c.? could the system produce such absurd result that the word date means such differences between two agencies, but then is given two different instructions by the f.d.a. if this sounds kind of esoteric,

madam president, it is. i've been working on this thing for years, and it is difficult to understand. but the courts have codified it and let's not go and try to change it yet again. what happens is f.d.a. treats add tphoeugs it after normal hours -- admission to it after normal hours as the next business day. the date of admission is not considered the next business day by f.d.a. the p.t.o. changed its own method on defining what is a date. this sounds confusing even in washington. imagine how it is outside of the bureaucracy. confusion over what constitutes

a date for purposes of a patent extension has affected several companies. the most notable case involves the medicines companies angio max extension application request. the p.t.o., after med cochallenged the p.t.o.'s decision in court, after the extension application was denied by the p.t.o. because of the difference in dates, medco challenged that. last august the federal district court in virginia held the p.t.o.'s decision arbitrary and capricious and medco received its patent term extension. now, so we fully understand what that means it, means the p.t.o. now abides by the court's ruling as applies a sensible business day interpretation of the word "date" in the statute. the provision in the america

invents act simply codifies that. senator grassley has spoken to this a few weeks ago. this provision improves the patent system fairness to certainty and clarity. the issue has been around for several years and it was a controversial issue. we all accept that, when it would have overturned the p.t.o.'s decision legislatively. now that the court has ruled, it's a different situation. the p.t.o. has agreed to accept the court's decision. the provision is simply a codification of current law, and those who might have disagreed before say, okay, the court's ruled. we accept the court. madam president, in my phraoeuf,

i would -- in my previous life i would get a lot of cases in my state, federal court circuit court of appeals, when you have a court decision, you go by that court decision. that's what senator grassley and i are doing. is there anyone who truly believes that it makes sense for the word "date" to receive tortured and different interpretations by different parts of our government rather than to have a clear, consistent definition to actually try to put this issue to bed once and for all. the provision may solidify medco's patent term extension but applies generally, not just to this one company, but suggested it is going to bring common sense to the entire filing system. if the senate adopted the amendment, however, the senator from alabama will lead to real

conflict with the house. it's going to complicate, delay, probably end passage of this important bipartisan jobs-creating legislation. keep in mind, madam president, yesterday i said on the floor that each one of us in this body could write a slightly different patent bill. we don't pass 100 bills. we pass one. this bill, this bill is supported by both republicans and democrats across the political spectrum. people have been working on this issue for years and years. the same thing in the other body. people on both sides of the aisle worked on this for years. we have a piece of legislation. does everybody get every single thing they want? of course not. madam president, i'm chairman of the senate judiciary committee.

i don't have everything in this bill i want, but i've tried to get something where there is ao consensus of the large majority of the house and the senate, and we've done this. in this instance, in this particular amendment the house expressly considered this matter. they voted with the bipartisan majority adopted provision that this amendment is seek to go strike. with all due respect, the distinguished senator from alabama whorbgs contributed i am -- alabama, who contributed immensely to the bill as ranking member last congress, i understood why he was opposed to this position. but now the federal court and the p.t.o. have resolved the matter as reflected in the bill, it's not worth delaying much-needed patent reform legislation that can help create jobs and move the economy forward. madam president, we will have

three amendments on the floor today that we'll vote on th-fplt one and -- vote on. this one and the other two, i would strongly urge republicans and democrats to vote them down. we have between 600,000 and 700,000 patents that are waiting to be taken care of. we could unleash the genius of our country and put our entrepreneur class to work and create jobs. it can let us compete with the rest of the world. let's not hold up any longer. we waited long enough. we debated every bit of this in this body and passed it 95-5. we on the motion to proceed, over 90 senators voted to proceed. it has passed the house overwhelmingly. it is time to stop trying to throw up roadblocks to this

legislation. whoever doesn't like the legislation, vote against it. but this is a product of years of work. it is the best we're going to have. let us get it done. let us unleash the ability, inventive genius of americans. let us go forward. we have a patent system that hasn't been updated in over half a century, and yet we're competing with countries around the world that are moving light-years ahead of us in this area. let's catch up. let's put america first. let's get this bill passed. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: madam president, i call up cantwell amendment number 595. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from washington, ms. cantwell, proposes amendment numbered 595. on page 119 strike line 21 and all that follows through page 125 line 11 and insert the following. ms. cantwell: madam president, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. simply, my amendment restores section 18 of the language that was passed out of the united states senate. so it basically complements the senate -- implements the senate language. madam president, i come to the floor today with much respect from my colleagues, chairman leahy who worked on this legislation for many years and others who have tried to work on this important legislation and move it forward. i am sure it has been challenging. and i mean no offense to my

colleagues about this legislation. it's simply my perspective about where we need to go as a country and how we get there. i'm excited that we live in an information age. one of the things i count very fortunate in my life is the fact that this is the age we live in. i often think if we lived in the agrarian age, maybe i would be farming and that is also of great interest, given the state of washington's interest in agriculture. maybe i would live in the industrial age. and when new factories were being built, that would be interesting. but i love the fact, love the fact that whether you're talking about agriculture, whether you're talking about automotive, whether you're talking about health care, whether you're talking about software, whether you're talking about communications, whether you're talking about space travel, whether you're talking about aviation, we live in an information age where innovation

is created every single day. in fact, we are transforming our lives in a much more rapid pace than any other generation because of all that transformation. so i love the fact that the united states has been an innovation leader and i love the fact that the state of washington has been an innovation leader. if one thing i pride myself on is representing a state that has continued to pioneer new technology and new innovations. so when i look at this patent bill, i look at whether we are going to help the process in making innovation happen at a faster rate or more products and services to help us in all of those industries i just mentioned, or whether we're going to gum up the wheels of the patent process. and so, yes, i join my colleagues who have been out here on the senate floor, like senator feinstein and others who

debated this issue of changing our patent system to the first-to-file, which will disadvantage inventors because first-to-file will lead to big companies and organizations getting the ability to have patents and to slow down innovation. if you look at what canada and europe has done, i don't think anybody in the world market today says oh, my gosh, let's change to the canadian system because they have created incredible innovation. or let's look to europe because their first-to-file has created such innovation. in fact, when canada switched to this first-to-file system, it actually slowed down the number of patents filed. so i have that concern about this legislation, but we've had that discussion here on the senate floor. i know my colleague is going to come to the floor and talk about fee diversion, which is the fact that the patent office actually collects money on patents; a

very viable way to make the patent office effective and efficient because it can take the money that it collects from these patents and use it to help speed up the process of verifying these patents and wording them. but the senate shows good action on this issue and good measure and simply said that the money collected by the patent office should stay in the patent office budget. but, madam president, that's not what the house has done. the house has allowed that money to be diverted into other areas of appropriations, and the consequence will be that this patent reform bill will basically be taking the economic engine away from the patent office and spreading it out across government. and so the reforms that we would seek in patents to make it a more expeditious process is also going to get slowed down. so, madam president, i could spend my time here today talking about

those two things and my concerns about that but that's not really why i'm here this morning. i'm here to talk about how this legislation has a rifleshot earmark in it for a specific industry to try to curtail the validation of a patent by a particular company. that's right, it's an earmark rifleshot to try to say that banks no longer have to pay a royalty to a particular company that has been awarded a patent and has been upheld in court decisions to continue to be paid that royalty. so that's why i'm here this morning, and you would say well, she is objecting to that earmark. she is objecting to that personal approach to that particular industry giveaway in this bill.

well, actually, madam president, i'm concerned about that, but what i'm concerned about is the way that they have drafted this language to benefit the big banks of america and screw a little innovator is basically drafted so broadly, i'm worried other technology companies are going to be swept up in the definition and their patents are also going to be thrown out as invalid. that's right, madam president. every state in the united states could have a company that under this language could now have someone determine that their patent is no longer viable even though the patent office has awarded them a patent. that's right, companies who have revenue streams from royalties who are operating their companies could now have their bank financing, everything pulled out from under them because they no longer have a royalty stream. that's right, businesses could lay off people, businesses

could shut down all because we put in broad language in the house version that exacerbates a problem that was in the senate version to begin with. now, i could say that, you know, this is all a process and legislation follows a process, but i object to this process, madam president. i object to this language that benefits the big banks, was never debated in the committee of jurisdiction, the judiciary committee, it was not debated, it was not voted on. it was not discussed there. it was put into the manager's amendment which was brought to the senate floor with little or no debate because people wanted to hurry and get the manager's amendment adopted. now, i objected to that process in driving this language because i was concerned about it, sought a colloquy at that point in time and was not able to get one from any of my colleagues

and so opposed this legislation. well, now this legislation has been made even worse in the house of representatives by saying that this language which would nullify patents -- that's right, the united states senate would be participating in nullifying patents that the patent office has already given to companies -- can now go on for eight years. eight years is what the language says when it comes back from the house of representatives. so madam president, all i'm asking my colleagues to do today is go back to the senate language that you passed. go back to the senate language that at least says this earmark that you're giving to the big banks so they can invalidate a patent by a company because you don't like the fact you have to pay a royalty on check imaging processing to them, i'm sorry you don't like to pay the royalty but when somebody innovates and makes a technology, they have the right

to charge a royalty. you've been paying that royalty. i'm sorry, big banks, if you don't like paying that royalty anymore. you are making a lot of money. but to try to come to the united states senate with an earmark rifleshot and x out that competition because you don't want to pay for that technology is not the way the united states senate should be operating. and the fact that the language is so broad that it will encompas other followings is what really has me concerned. if all my colleagues want to vote for this special favor for the big banks, go ahead. but the fact that you are going to basically pull us in to having other companies covered under this is a big concern. and the action that i'm concerned about is business

method patents, and the term "covered business method patents" means patents or claims or method or corresponding pratt us for a performing data processing or other operations. or other operations. what does "or other operations" mean? how many companies in america will have their patent challenged because we don't know what "or other operations" means? how many? how many inventors will have their technology basically found null and void by the court process or the patent office process because of this confusing language? so madam president, i'm here to ask my colleagues to do a simple

thing: revert back to the senate language. it's not a perfect solution. if i had my way, i'd strip the language ute altogether. if i had my way, i would have much more clarity and predictability to the patent lawyers and patent office so that the next three or four years won't be spent in chaos between this change in the patent business method language and the whole process that's going to go on. instead, we would be moving forward with predictability and certainty. so i ask my colleagues to just help this process. help this process move forward by going back to the senate language. i know that my colleagues probably want to hurry and get

this process done, but i guarantee you, this language with the senate version can easily go back to the house of representatives and be passed. when i asked my colleagues to -- what i ask my colleagues to think about is howrm companies are also going to get caught in this process by the desire of some to help the big banks get out from under something the courts have already said they don't deserve to get out of. so i hope that we can bring closure to this issue, and i hope that we can move forward on something that gives americans the idea that people here in washington, d.c. are standing up for the little guy. we are standing up for inventors, we are standing up for those kind of entrepreneurs, and we are not spending our time putting earmark rifleshot language into legislation to try to assuage large entities that are well on

their way of taking care of themselves. so madam president, i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time, and hope that if my colleagues have any questions on this language as it relates to their individual states that they would contact our office and we would be happy to share information with them. i thank the president and i yield the floor. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. i rise today to urge this body to complete the extensive work that has been done on the leahy-smith america invents act, and send this bill to the president for signature. the america invents act has been years in the making. the time has come to get this bill done once and for all. the importance of patent law to our nation has been evidenced since the founding. the constitution sets control over patent laws, one of the enumerated powers of the congress. specifically, it gives the congress power -- quote -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respected writings and discoveries." unquote. today we take an important step towards ensuring the constitutional mandate of congress is met as we modernize our patent system. this bill is the first major overhaul of our patent laws literally in decades. my colleague have spoken at length about the myriad ways the

america invents act will bring our patent law into the 21st century. what i want to focus on of course is jobs. the america invents act is fundamentally a jobs bill. innovation and intellectual property has always been and always will be at the heart of the american economy. by rewarding innovators for inventing new and better products, we keep america's creative and therefore economic core healthy. over the last few decades, however, innovation has outpaced our patent system. we have an enormous backlog at the p.t.o. the result of this backlog is that it is much harder for creators to obtain the property rights they deserve in their inventions. that challenge in turn makes it harder for inventions to be marketed and sold which reduces the incentive to innovate. eventually this vicious cycle became poisonous. the america invents act cuts this cycle by making our patent system more efficient and

reliable. by providing the patent and trademark office as the resource it needs to reduce the backlog of nearly 700,000 patent applications, the bill will encourage the innovation that will create and protect american jobs. in addition, the bill streamlines review of patents to ensure that the poor-quality patents can be weed out through administrative review rather than costly litigation. i'm especially pleased that h.r. 1249 contains the provision to help cut back on the scourge of business method patents plaguing america's business. business method patents are an anathema to the protection the patent system provides because they apply not to novel products or services but to abstract and often very common concepts of how to do business. often business method patents are issued for practices that have been widespread use for years, such as check imaging or

one-click checkout. imagine trying to patent the one-click checkout long after people have been using it. because of the nature of the business methods, these practices aren't as easily identifiable by the p.t.o. as prior are and bad patents are issued. of course this problem extends way beyond the financial services industry. it includes all businesses that have financial practices, from community banks to insurance companies to high-tech start-ups. section 18, the schumer-kyl provision, allows for administrative review of those patents so businesses acting in good faith do not have to spend millions of dollars it costs to litigate a business method patent in court. that's why the provision is supported not only by the financial services round table and community bankers, but by the chamber of commerce, the national retail foundation and in my home state, by the partnership for a greater new york. i'd like to ask unanimous consent, madam president, to put letters of support of section 18

from all these groups in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: okay. a patent holder who has his patent -- whose patent is solid has nothing to fear from a section 18 review. indeed, a good patent will come out of such a review strengthened and validated. the only people who have any cause to be concerned about section 18 are those who have patents that shouldn't have been influenced in the -- shouldn't be influenced in the first place and who are hoping to make a lot of money suing legitimate businesses with these not-legitimate patents. and to them i say the scam should stop. in fact, 56% of business patent lawsuits come in one court, in the eastern district of texas. why do they all go to one court? not because of just coincidence. why do people far and wide seek this?

because they know that court will give them favorable proceedings and many of the businesses who are sued illegitimately say instead of millions of dollars of discover and everything else in a court that i believe i can't get a fair trial in, i'll settle. that shouldn't happen, and that's what our amendment stops to do, simply by providing review before costly litigation goes on and on and on. now, my good friend and colleague, senator cantwell, has offered an amendment that would change the section 18 language to return to what the senate originally passed in march. last march. essentially senator cantwell is asking the senate to return to the original schumer-kyl language. of course i don't have an inherent problem with the original schumer-kyl language. however, while i might ordinarily be inclined to push my own version of an amendment, i have to acknowledge that the house made some significant improvements in section 18. first, h.r. 1289 extends the

traditional review program of section 18 from four to eight years in duration. this change was made to accommodate concerns that four years was short enough, that bad actors would just wait out the program before bringing their business method patent suits. the lying and wait strategy would be possible because section 18 under this amendment, because section 18 only allows transitional review proceedings to be initiated by those facing lawsuits. on a 20-year patent it's not hard to wait four years to file suit, and therefore avoid a scrutiny under a section 18 review. it would be much harder, however, to employ such an evasive maneuver under a program that lasts eight years. second, the amendment changes the definition of business method patents to eliminate the house clarification that section 18 goes beyond a mere class of 705 patents. originally class 705 was used as

the template for the definition of business method patent in section 18. however, after the bill passed the senate, it became clear that some offending business method patents are issued in other sections. so the house bill changes the definition only slightly so, that it does not track the class 705 language. finally, the amendment limits who can take advantage of the section 18 program by eliminating access to the program by privy of those who are sued. specifically, h.r. 1249 allows parties who shared interest with a sued party to bring a section 18 proceeding. and the cantwell amendment would eliminate that accommodation. all the house changes to section 18 of the senate bill are positive and i believe we should keep them. but to my colleagues, i would say this. in closing, the changes that senator cantwell are proposing do not get to the core of the bill, and the most profound

effect they would have is to delay passage of the bill by requiring it to be sent back to the house, which is something of course that we're all having to deal with on all three of the amendments that are coming up. i urge my colleagues to remember that this bill and the 200,000 jobs it would create are too important to delay it even another day because of minor changes to the legislation. i would urge my colleagues to vote against my good friend, maria cantwell's amendment, and move the bill forward. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise to express my continued support for the america invents act. we've been working on patent reform legislation for several years now. in fact, almost the whole time i've been in the senate. so it is satisfy to see the senate again voting on this bipartisan bill. it is important to note that this bill before us is the same

one that was passed by the republican-controlled house of representatives in june. i commend house judiciary chairman lamar smith for his leadership on this monumental legislation. he has really worked hard on this for many years, and i really want to pay personal tribute to him. i also want to recognize the efforts of my colleague from vermont, senate judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy. over the years he and i worked tirelessly to bring about long overdue reforeman to our patent system and i appreciate pat for his work on this matter. i also want to recognize the efforts of senate judiciary committee ranking member chuck grassley of iowa as well as many other senate colleagues who have been instrumental in this legislative process. the u.s. constitution is the supreme law of the land and the shortest operating constitution in the world. founders put only the most essential provisions in it, listing are the most essential rights of individuals and the most essential powers that the federal government should have.

what do you think made it on to that short list? raising and supporting the army and maintaining a navy? no question there. coining money? that one is no surprise. but guess what else made the list. here's the language: the founders granted to congress the power -- quote -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." in other words, the patents of copyrights is one of the essential specifically enumerated powers given to the government. it is also one of the most visionary forward looking provisions in the u.s. constitution. thomas jefferson understood that giving people an exclusive right to profit from their inventions would give them -- quote -- "encouragement to pursue ideas which may produce utility." yet, jefferson also recognized the importance of striking a balance when it came to granting

patents, a tkeufgt task. he -- a tkeufgt task. he said i know well the difficulty of drawing a line between things which are worth to the public, the embarrassment of an exclusive patent and those which are not. as the inventor and statesman, he understood granting a person an exclusive right to profit from their invention was not a decision that should be taken lightly. this bill is not perfect, but i am pleased with the deliberative process that led to its development. and i am confident that congress followed jefferson's lead until striking a balanced approach to patent reform. there can be no doubt that patent reform is necessary and it's long overdue. every state in the country has a vested interest in an updated patent system. when patents are developed commercially, they create jobs both through the company marketing products and for their suppliers, distributors and retailers. the single -- one single

deployed patent affects most all sectors of our economy. utahans have long understood this relationship. ours is a rich and diverse inventive legacy. in the early 1900's a young teenager approached his teacher with a sketch he had been working on. it was a drawing inspired by the rose of dirnan in a po*e taeu tow field. -- potato field. after examining the sketch the teacher told the student he should pursue his idea and he d. that student was farnsworth, who went on to patent the first all-electric television. he had to fight for many years to secure the rights to his patent but he continued to invent, developing and patenting hundreds of other inventions. another utah native developed a way to amplify sound after he had trouble hearing in the mormon tab pwer knack kel. his headphones were later ordered by the navy during world

war 1. william layton grew tired of manually calculating how far his wagon company traveled each day so in the pheulgd of a journey -- middle of a journey he and others built a roadometer, a -- and it worked based on the same principles that power modern odometers. john browning, the son of a piern near revolutioned the firearm securing his inventions through a patent and is known all over the world for the work he did. robert jarvik who worked at the university of utah, a wonderful doctor who he now personally, developed the first successful artificial heart at the university of utah. this illustrate the ingenuity that has been exemplified in

every generations since. last year utah was recognized as one of the most inventive states in the union. such a distinction did not surprise me especially since the university of utah recently logged the university's 5,000th invention disclosure and has over 4,000 patent applications filed to date. this impressive accomplishment follows on the heels of news that the university of utah overtook m.i.t. in 2009 to become america's number one research institution for creating startup companies based on university technology. a group of students at brigham young university recently designed a circuit that was launched with the shuttle endeavour and another group developed a prosthetic leg that cost $25 versus the $10,000 a prosthetic leg may typically cost. inventors contribute, like my fellow utahans, citizens across the country recognize the

technological development is integral to the well-being of our economy and the prosperity of our families and communities. and as technology advances it is necessary at times to make adjustments that will ensure congress is promoting the healthy progress of science and useful arts. the america invents act will improve the patent process, giving inventors in utah and across the country greater incentives to innovate. strengthening of our patent system will not only help us lead out of these tough times -- will help lead us out of these tough times, tough economic times, but it will help us maintain our competitive edge beth domestically and aproduct. take for example the transition to a first inventor to file system and the establishment of a poift post-grant review process or procedure. these changes alone will decrease litigation costs so that small companies and individuals will not be dissuaded from protecting their patent rights by companies with

greater resources. the bill provides the uspto with rule making authority to set or adjust its own fees for seven years without requiring a statutory change every time an adjustment is needed. providing the us u.s. p.t.o. with ability to adjust its own fees will give the agency greater flexibility and control which will benefit inventors and businesses. the legislation enables patentholders to request a supplement examination of a patent if new information arises after the initial examination. by establishing this new process, the u.s. p.t.o. would be asked to consider, reconsider or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. further, this provision does not limit the u.s. p.t.o.'s authority to investigate misconduct or to sanction bad actors. i am confident this will remove the uncertainty and confusion that defines current patent

litigation and i believe it will enhance patent quality. the america invents act creates a mechanism for third parties to submit relevant information during the patent examination process. this provision will provide the u.s. p.t.o. with better information about the technology and claimed invention by leveraging the knowledge of the public. this will also help the agency increase the efficiency of examination and the quality of patents. this bill would create a reserve fund for user fees that exceed the amount appropriated to the u.s. p.t.o. i prefer the language in the senate-passed bill which created a new revolving fund for the u.s. p.t.o. separate from annual appropriations. certainty is important for future planning but the appropriations process is far from reliable. while conceptually i understand why our house counterparts revised the senate passed language and i am in agreement about maintaining congressional oversight i believe this is one area that should be

reconsidered. it's just that important. that is why i support senator tom coburn's amendment. if passed, his amendment will preserve congressional oversight and give the u.s. p.t.o. the necessary flexibility to operate during these critical times. the house-passed compromise language is a step in the right direction, especially since the chairman of the house appropriations committee has committed that all fees collected by the u.s. p.t.o. in excess of its annual appropriated level will be available to the u.s. p.t.o. however, i remain concerned that the budget uncertainties that exist today may negatively impact the u.s. p.t.o. and its ability to implement many of the new responsibilities required by the america invents act. i remain concerned about some provisions that the house either expanded or added. on balance, however, the positives of this legislation far outweigh the negatives and i am confident it will contribute to the greater innovation and productivity our economy

demands. it provides essential up frossments our patent system such as changes to the best mode disclosure requirement, expansion of the prior user rights defense to affiliates with an exemption for university on patents, incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions, restrictions on false marking claims, removal of restrictions on the residency of federal circuit judges, clarification of patents, providing assistance to small businesses through -- through a patent ombudsman program and establishing additional u.s. p.t.o. satellite offices. madam president, we all know that every piece of legislation has its short comings. that is the reality of our legislative process. however, taken as a whole, the america invents act further builds upon our country's rich heritage of intellectual property protections, a cornerstone provided by article 1, section 8 of the constitution. package of the america invents

act will update our patent system -- excuse me, help strengthen our economy, and provide a springboard for further improvements to our intellectual property laws. i urge all of my colleagues to join in this monumental undertaking, madam president, and i appreciate those who have worked so hard and long on these programs. again, i mention with particularity the congressman from texas, lamar smith, and also my friend and colleague, senator leahy and others as well, senator grassley especially, and there are others as well i should mention, but i'll leave it at that for this particular time. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam

president. i rise today to speak on a matter of great importance to our country, and that's jobs and our economy. i know the president will be speaking this evening, and i want to emphasize the importance that we focus on a long-term strategy to get our economy going. by that, i mean a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic strategy for our country. the things that go into that include building the best possible business climate, the kind of business climate that will stimulate private investment, that will stimulate entrepreneurship, ingenuity, it will stimulate job creation by businesses small and large across our economy. we need to build a strong business climate. we need a long-term, pro-growth economic strategy to do that. we also need to control our spending and live within our means, and we need a comprehensive energy policy. all three of these things go

into the right kind of long-term, comprehensive approach that this country needs to get our economy growing and get people back to work. i'd like to start by taking just a minute to look at our current situation, to talk about where we are. if you look at unemployment, unemployment is more than 9% and it's been more than 9% for an extended period of time. weekly jobless claims, more than 400,000. we have more than 14 million people who are out of work, and that doesn't include people who are underemployed or people who are no longer working, no longer looking for work because they have been discouraged and aren't included in the work force. 14 million people that we need to get back to work. we also have a tremendous deficit problem. if you look at our revenue today, we have revenues of about about $2.2 trillion. we have our spending at a rate

of $3.7 trillion. that's $1.5 trillion deficit, and that's adding up to a more than $14 trillion debt. $14 trillion debt that weighs on our economy. if we don't deal with it, it is a debt that our children will have to pay. that's not acceptable for us, and we have to deal with it. at the same time that we get this economy going. if you look at our current situation, we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend and that our debt, our deficit, our debt is growing at at $4 billion a day. i brought some graphs so we can look at it graphically. here you see revenues and spending. unfortunately, the spending line is the red line along the top here. spending of more than than $3.7 trillion a year. at the same time our revenues revenues $2.2 trillion. that gap, $1.5 trillion budget

deficit that we are accumulating on an annual basis and as i say is now leading to a debt that's more than $14 trillion. if you look at this next chart, we talk about unemployment. here you see annual unemployment. currently we're at 9.1%. we have been there for an extended period of time. again, that represents more than 14 million people that are unemployed, that we need to get back to work. now, the other thing you will notice on this chart is the blue line. this blue line is the chart for my home state. there you will see our unemployment is about 3.2% to 3.3%. for the last decade in our state, we have focused on a pro-growth, pro-jobs economic strategy. by that, i mean building the best possible business climate, making sure we live within our means and building a

comprehensive energy approach to develop all of our energy resources, and there is no reason that we can't do the same thing at the federal level. in fact, we need to do exactly that at the federal level. so i'm here today to talk about some of the things that we need to do to make that happen. the first is that i emphasize by building a good business climate, i mean legal tax and regulatory certainty. legal tax and regulatory certainty so that businesses know the rules of the road so that they can invest, they can invest shareholders' dollars so that entrepreneurs can start new businesses so that existing businesses can expand. but to do that, they need to know the rules of the road. they need to know what our tax policy is. and right now, we have a tax policy that expires at the end of the next year. so how do you as a businessperson go out this and start making investments when you don't know what the tax policy is going to be beyond the end of next year?

we need tax reform. how about regulation? we have incredible regulatory burden. how do you go out there and make an investment, get a business going, hire people if you don't know what the regulatory requirements are? we need to reduce that pregnant burden. we need to pass trade agreements so that our companies can sell not just here in the united states but they can sell globally. if you look at the history of our country, if you look at the history of our country, that is how we have grown this economy. that is how we have become the most dynamic economic engine in the world. it's through that entrepreneurship, that american ingenuity. and the role of government is to create a business climate that unleashes that potential. we have got to roll back the regulatory burden. we have got to create clear, understandable rules and tax policy to follow so that these companies can make these

investments, get the 14-plus-million people back to work, at the same time we get a grip on our spending, start living within our means. that's how we not only raise our standard of living and our quality of life, but we make sure that we don't pass on a huge debt to our children and our grandchildren. so let me talk about some of the kinds of laws and legislation that we need to pass to make sure that happens. not too long ago, president obama issued an executive order, and i hope it's something that he talks about this evening in his address to the joint session of congress. in that executive order, he said all of the agencies, all of the federal agencies need to look at their regulations. at their existing regulations and any regulations that they are putting out and make sure that if those regulations are costly, burdensome, if they don't make sense, if they are

outmoded or outdated, that they are eliminated, that they are stripped away so that we empower people, companies throughout this great country to do business. make sure the executive order, make sure all of our agencies look at their regulations and eliminate those that don't make sense, that are costly and that are burdensome so that we can stimulate economic activity and job creation in this country. i think we need to do exactly that. in fact, let's make it a law. let's make it the law that all of the regulatory agencies need to look at their existing regulation and any regulations they are looking at putting out to make darned sure that they are clear, straightforward, understandable, that they are workable, and not only that our regulations are clear and understandable, that the regulators work with americans and american companies to make sure that they understand them

and that they're able to meet them so that they can pursue their business plans, their business growth, their business investment and their -- and that they hire and put people back to work. that's how it's supposed to work. that's how it's supposed to work. together with senator pat roberts of kansas and myself and others have put together the regulatory responsibility for our economy act. that's just what it says. now, how much more bipartisan can we get than that? the president puts out an executive order saying we need to roll back some of this regulation that's burdening our business base, then we as republican senators say okay, here's an act to put that executive order into law, let's work together in a bipartisan way to reduce this regulatory burden that is stifling economic growth and job creation in our country. that's what congress is supposed to do. that's what we need to do. that's what the people of this country want us to do on a

bipartisan basis. so when the president comes to the capitol this evening and talks about how we get business going, let's get business going by reducing this regulatory burden so that private investment can get people back to work in this country. it's not about more government spending. it's about private investment and private initiative. we have to create the framework to make it happen. and we can do it and we can do it on a bipartisan basis. another example: the united states has been the leader in aviation throughout its history. throughout the history of aviation since kittyhawk, the united states has led the world in aviation. invention, in development, in innovation and all the things that have gone into the development of aviation throughout its history the united states has been a leader. one of the key areas for growth in aviation right now is u uas,

unmanned aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft. our military uses them to tremendous benefit in iraq, afghanistan, around the world. even though our military flies u.a.s. unmanned aerial systems all over the globe, we can't fly them here in the united states together with manned aircraft. but yet if we're going to continue to lead the world in aviation innovation, we have got to find a way to fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in our airspace here in the united states. so myself and others have been talking to the f.a.a. and working with the federal aviation administration saying hey, you have got to promulgate rules, set the rules of the road or in this case the rules of the air, so we can fly both manned and unmanned aircraft together in the united states airspace. and the f.a.a. has been working on this for i don't know how

long but a long period of time and as of yet, they've not come out with those rules of the road so we can fly both mapped and unmanned aircraft in our airspace. but we need to but if we don't, other countries will move ahead of us. maybe not in military aviation where we're flying all -- unmanned aircraft all over the world but how about in commercial and general aviation and all the other applications that will have for unmanned aircraft? so in the f.a.a. bill which we're now working to complete, a version has passed the house, a version has passed the senate, we're trying to reconcile the two versions and get it passed, again, we need to do this and do it in a bipartisan way. i've included language that authorizes and in fact requires that the f.a.a. set up airspace in the united states so that manned and unmanned aircraft can be flown currently. again, -- con concurrently.

it's about creating exciting, good-paying jobs of the future. and if the agency isn't going to take that step, then we as congress have to make sure that we take that step and move the aviation industry forward. another example of how we've got to create the environment, the forum that encourages that type of innovation, entrepreneurship, investment in job creation. that is our role. that is our responsibility in this most important of wall issues which is getting our can economy going and getting people back to work. one other area i'll touch on is the free trade agreements. we have three pending free trade agreements. one is with south korea. the u.s.-south korea treatment. another one is panama, another one is colombia. those trade agreements have been negotiated for some time. for three years, those trade agreements have been pending. it's time we take them from pending to passed.

we need the administration to bring those free trade agreements to the senate and to the house and we will pass them. we have worked across the aisle in a bipartisan way to make sure that whatever issues needed to be dealt with to bring those free trade agreements to the congress have been dealt with. whether it's trade adjustment authority, whatever it is, we have worked together in a bipartisan way to say look, we have addressed the issues, now the administration needs to bring the free trade agreements to the senate floor. and we will pass them. just one of those free trade agreements for example if we take the south korea, u.s.-south korea free trade agreement, we're talking more than $10 billion in trade every year. $10 billion in trade for our united states companies. these -- these free trade agreements reduce tariffs on the order of 85%. we're talking more than a quarter of a million jobs that

will be created if we pass these agreements. for every 4% increase in trade we're talking a million american jobs that we can create. again, it's about creating the environment that empowers investment, that empowers our entrepreneurs across this great country that empowers businesses large and small to invest and to get our economy going. at the same time that we get this economy going and growing, we've got to start living within our means. right now as i just indicated, we have a $1.5 trillion deficit and a debt that's closing in on $14.5 trillion. so at the same time we get this economy growing which will grow our revenues, not higher taxes, revenues from a growing economy with tax reform that empowers that economic growth, at the same time we've got to get control of our spending and live within our means. along with my fellow senators

i've sponsored a number of pieces of legislation that again i believe we can pass in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get our spending under control. the first is a balanced budget amendment. i come from a state, i was a governor for 10 years. we have a balanced budget amendment every single year we are required by our constitution to balance the budget. states have a balanced budget requirement, businesses, families, communities, all have to live within their means. our federal government has to live within its means. and if you think about it, a balanced budget amendment gets everybody involved. we not only have to pass it here in the senate and over in the house with a two-thirds majority, but then it goes out to the states for ratification. what better way to get everybody throughout the whole country directly involved in making sure that we control our spending? because every state has to deal with a balanced budget

amendment. so it's all of us working together as americans, it's the congress going to the people of this great country and saying here's a balanced budget amendment. you tell us what you think. again, what a great way to get everybody involved the way we should get everybody involved in making sure we live within our means not only today but tomorrow and throughout future generations. at the same time we need to pass other tools that can help us get control of our spending. for example, the reduce unnecessary spending act. this is absolutely a bipartisan act. this is an act that i think was originally sponsored by senator tom carper, a former governor, democrat from delaware, and senator john mccain. and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill. one of the key things this legislation does, it gives the president a line-item veto. so again, reaching across the aisle as a republican reaching out and giving our president a tool, a line-item veto to make

sure we cut out waste, fraud and abuse, that we control our spending. as a governor, the most effective tool that i had was the line-item veto and we need to make sure our president has it as well. and we need to look at a biennial budget so that we pass a budget on a two-year cycle. we mange sure we get the budget passed and the next year we come back, paying the adjustments we have to make but at the same time we have time for oversight, making sure the spending is going in accordance with the directives of congress and where there is waste, where there is fraud, where there is abuse, where there is duplication, we cut it out. again, it is absolutely what the american people want us to do. and the third area i'm going to touch on for just a minute and i'll go to my next chart, is building the right kind of energy plan. a comprehensive energy policy that will help this country develop all of its energy resources. we did it in my home state of

north dakota. i know that we can do it at the federal level. if you think about it, energy development in this country is an incredible opportunity. it's an opportunity to produce more energy, more cost effectively with better environmental stewardship that will enable all of our industries, because they all need energy, to exet in a global economy. but in addition to that what a great opportunity to create high-paying jobs. but again, i go back to what i said before. for our energy companies that are looking to invest hundreds of millions and billions of dollars, they need to know the rules of the road. it comes back to creating a comprehensive energy policy that sets those rules of the road so they know what their tax situation is, they know what the regulations and the regulatory requirements are because when they make those investments, hundreds of billions of dollars to produce more energy to help us produce that energy with good environmental stewardship, they have to know they're going to be

able to get a return. they have to know that they can meet the regulatory requirements and that those investments may last 40 and 50 years and they know that they're going to have to be able to recoup those investments. this first chart shows you an example of energy gevment development in our state. out west, oil and gas. north dakota is now the fourth largest oil producing state in the country. we've passed up states like oklahoma and louisiana and people don't realize it. and you go that's great, you have energy. every state has some kind of energy. if you look at this map, we have oil and gas, we have coal, we have wind, we're in the top 10 wind producers. we have biofuels, biodiesel, solar, all of them. and different states have different strengths. and a lot of states have oil and gas or coal or certainly wind or they can develop the biofuels. okay, but it comes down to creating that environment that

stimulates the private investment so companies will come in and do just exactly what i'm talking about. at the federal level, as well as at the state level. this next chart shows what's actually happening at the federal level. this chart is the cost of major new regulations. what it shows over the last three decades is the cost of regulation by year. over the last 30 years. when the cost of regulation is high, if you go back and check, you'll see our economy wasn't doing very well. and when the cost of regulation was low, you'll see that it was doing much better. look at the cost of regulation today. $26.5 billion in 2010, the cost of meeting the regulatory requirements. that's what i'm talking about. that's what's impeding job growth. that's what's impede -- is impeding economic growth and

business investment and we've got to address it. we've got to roll back the regulatory burden that our companies and our entrepreneurs in this great country face. this last chart gives you just one example of some of the new regulations that environmental protection agency is putting out that somebody wants to develop energy has to meet. now, you're an energy company. or you're a young person with a good idea to develop a new type of energy or an existing type of energy with a new technology. can you meet all those requirements? can you even begin to understand them? do you have a big enough legal team and scientific team, do have you a deep enough wallet to try to figure all of that out before you put your money at risk or your shareholders' money at risk? that's what's impeding economic growth in our country and we've got to deal with it. and congress has to deal with it. again, it's not rocket science.

it's not rocket science. and it's not about spending more federal dollars. we have to create the environment that will encourage, that will stimulate, that will empower private investment and it is that private investment throughout this land that will get our economy going and get people back to work. and we can do it. and it has to be a long-term strategy. it can't be a few stopgap measures that we put in place now for the next 90 days or for one year at a time. it's got to be on a long-term, sustained basis. i believe that's what people want to hear this evening. i think they want to hear that kind. commitment to a long-term strategy, a pro-growth, pro-jobs economic strategy that will get this economy going now, tomorrow, and for the long term. and it has to be done in a bipartisan way to get it through this congress, signed by the president, it does have to be

bipartisan. but it's that kind of vision that we need for our country. thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the time and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. as you know, job creation in this country has come to a halt. the labor department reported last friday that zero jobs were created in august. the economic recovery that was hoped for failed to materialize. unemployment remains at 9.1%. hope is not enough. our economy is stagnant. the president's latest pivot to jobs is anchored on blaming the previous administration which is now nearly three years past, yet despite repeated assurances of improvement, president obama's own economic policies have

failed. the president's stimulus plan failed to produce the 3.5 million jobs that he promised. his green jobs initiative gave us more red ink but never came close to the five million new jobs that he predict thad it would. all the while, the federal bureaucracy he controls churns out expansive and expensive new regulations that amount to an assault on private sector job creation. mr. barrasso: the facts really are inescapable. since president obama took office, america has lost approximately 2.3 million jobs. we are in an economic crisis, a crisis that extends to america's confidence in the president to do anything that will change the current course. what the american people want is a plan, a plan that will yield results. they want leadership, and they have rejected the president's insistence that the only way

forward is through more spending. today, western members of the senate and house are calling on the president to accept a new way, a pro-growth plan to create jobs in the west that will lead to broader economic recovery all across the country. the western caucus jobs frontier report was produced by members of the senate and house western caucuses. it contains legislative proposals already introduced in both houses of congress, and these are proposals that create jobs now. the proposals we support speak largely to the economic challenges faced by western states. they are also aimed at the ruinous regulations and reliance on foreign energy and lawsuit abuse that continues to stifle our entire economy. these bills are ready to pass. they are ready to create jobs

today. any serious job creation proposal has to start with serious steps to increase affordable american energy. for decades, westerners have worked in high-paying energy jobs, and these jobs have good benefits. since taking office, the obama administration has consistently pushed extreme policies and heavy-handed regulations to make it harder to develop american energy. very simply, fewer energy projects mean fewer american jobs. members of the senate and congressional western caucuses have proposed a wide range of legislation to increase the number of red, white, and blue energy jobs all across the country. encouraging the development of an all of the above energy resources will create thousands of jobs in the west and make our country less dependent on foreign energy. this administration has consistently shut down offshore energy exploration.

it's arbitrarily canceled existing leases. it continues to try and impose additional hurdles to onshore production such as redundant environmental reviews, burdensome permitting review requirements and delays in processing of applications. our bills, the ones in this report, will streamline the permitting process and break down the barriers imposed by president obama. this will make it cheaper and easier, cheaper and easier for the private sector to create jobs. westerners recognize that we can't pick and choose which forms of energy to support. when it comes to energy, we need it all and we need it now. that's why we need a bill that will let energy producers tap existing resources of american oil and natural gas. our plan is a bill that will do that. it's called domestic jobs, domestic energy and deficit reduction. it's been introduced by both

representative rob bishop of utah and david vitter of louisiana. this bill would force the interior department to stop blocking offshore energy exploration. that department's stall tactics have gone so far that even president bill clinton has called them ridiculous. the domestic jobs, domestic energy and deficit reduction act would reduce the obama administration and force the obama administration to quit stalling. the barrage of new regulations coming out of washington continues to be a big, wet blanket, a big, wet blanket thrown over the job creators in our country. in july of 2011, this administration issued 229 rules, and it finalized 379 additional rules that are going to cost our job creators over $9.5 billion. that's in july alone. our plan includes a bill that i have introduced called the

employment impact act. this bill forces washington regulators to look, to look before they leap when it comes to regulations that could hurt american jobs. under this bill that i have introduced, every regulatory agency would be required to prepare a jobs impact statement. they have to do it with every new rule that they propose. that statement would include a detailed assessment of the jobs that would be lost or gained or sent overseas by any given rule. they would consider whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market in general. the administration has also attempted to drastically increase wilderness areas, to expand washington jurisdiction on private waters and to misuse the endangered species act. well, mr. president, western lawmakers are proposing to reassert congressional authority to ensure a proper balance

between job creation and conservation. our bills in this report will increase trainers -- transparency and stop any agency from issuing regulations without considering the local economic impact. throughout our nation's history, mr. president, american farmers and ranchers have provided an affordable, abundant and safe domestic supply of food and energy. while in recent years, america's agriculture and forestry industries have been increasingly threatened by the surge of regulations coming from washington, especially those from the environmental protection agency. our plan is going to push back. we will strengthen these industries and their ability to meet the world's growing food and energy needs. westerners also recognize the mining sector is vital to our economic recovery. we know that the manufacturing jobs cannot be created without the raw materials needed to produce those goods.

well, since the obama administration won't break down barriers to american minerals, our nation is growing increasingly dependent on foreign minerals, countries like china and russia. this inaction is unacceptable, and it is inexcusable. our plan includes senator murkowski's bill, the critical minerals policy act. that will ensure that the long-term viability of american mineral production will be there. her bill will require that -- the u.s. geological survey to establish a list of minerals critical to the u.s. economy, and then provide a comprehensive set of policies to address each economic sector that relies upon those critical minerals. it also creates a high-level interagency working group to optimize the efficiency of permitting in order to facilitate increased exploration and production of domestic

critical minerals. these are just some of the ideas, mr. president, included in our jobs frontier plan. as it says, "breaking down washington's barriers to america's red, white, and blue jobs." we eliminate back-door cap and tax regulations. and finally, we will take on excessive lawsuits against federal agencies that have increased dramatically and destroy jobs in the west. every single one of the bills, mr. president, in the republican jobs plan has been written and introduced in one or both houses of congress. this is a plan that can be implemented now. this is a plan that will work to create jobs, and this is a plan that will reduce the cost of energy and restart the economy. mr. president, there is a lot that needs to be done to fix our ailing economy. these are some ideas. western ideas that come from the lawmakers that know best how our

rural communities are suffering and how we can get folks back to work. many of these proposals come from the states. they have the support of our western governors and legislators. these are ideas not born in washington. recent jobless numbers confirm that the current approach from washington has failed. if the president is serious about incorporating the ideas of every american in every part of the country, then he needs to look beyond washington. i want to thank every member of the senate and congressional western caucuses for their work and their expertise on this report. i look forward to turning these ideas into policies and that way putting all of america back to work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, i want to take some time today to talk about my views on afghanistan and why we should rethink aid to

pakistan. i just completed my third two-week reserve assignment in afghanistan, and while many members of congress get a firsthand look at the situation on fact-finding missions, my time provided me a more in-depth view with a focus on the countermarkets objectives of nato's isaf mission. first the good news. the work of our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen is nothing short of amazing. serving in one of the poorest, roughest and most remote parts of the globe, they have crushed al qaeda's training bases, they have driven the taliban from government, they fostered a new elected government and welded 47 allies into a force for human rights and development and education, especially for girls. 42% of afghans live on just $1 a

day. only one in four can read. malnutrition is a serious problem and infant mortality is the third highest of any country. according to the united nations, nearly 40% of afghan children under 3 are moderately or severely under weight. more than 50% of children under 3 experience stunted growth. afghanistan has more than twice the population of illinois, but its electricity generation for the entire year is less than 2% of the electricity generated in illinois just for the month of may. the nearly 30 million people of afghanistan are victimized by a number of terrorist groups beyond just the taliban, like the hig, the etim and a new threat called the hakani network that i will go into detail about. the afghans are most victimized by their neighbors, the pakistanis.

now, i served as a reservist in afghanistan for the first time in 2008, and i believed then that pakistan was complicated, that we have many issues there and we should advance our own interests diplomatically. i no longer agree with that. pakistan has now become the main threat to afghanistan. pakistan's intelligence service is the biggest danger to the afghan government. pakistan also poses a tremendous threat to the lives of american troops, and let me be clear, many americans died in afghanistan because of pakistan's i.s.i. sitting in our commanders' briefs for two weeks and talking to our headquarter's leaders and spending a few days in the field, it became clear to me that if we were working in afghanistan alone, we would have

had a much better chance to turn that country around more quickly, restoring it to its status as an agricultural economy with a loose government and a high degree of autonomy given to each tribe or region, but we are not alone. while our military reduced al qaeda and afghanistan to a shadow of its former shadow, a new force is emerging. on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, al qaeda, i must report, is still armed and dangerous, but it is far less numerous or capable than it once was, but al qaeda is not the most potent force that is arrayed against us. the new face of terror is called the hakani network. built around its founder and his son, it has become the most dangerous, lethal and cancerous force in afghanistan. and one other thing.

as much as pakistani officials claim otherwise, the hakanis are backed and protected by pakistan's own intelligence service. statements by pakistani government officials to the contrary are direct lies. the hakani network kills americans. it attacks the elected government of afghanistan and remains protected in its pakistani headquarters of mere imshaw. without that pakistani safe haven, the hakani network would suffer the same fate as al qaeda. afghan and u.s. special operations teams take out many commanders and these operators operate each night also against numerous haqqani leaders. but the haqqanis are able to spend all day planning attacks on afghans and americans and then sleeping soundly in their beds in pakistan.

in such an environment, with our deficits and debt, military aid to pakistan seems naive at best and counterproductive at worst. i'm seriously thinking that we should reconsider assistance to the pakistani military. recently our president chose to withdraw 33,000 american troops from the afghan battle. general petraeus and admiral mullen did not choose this option. nevertheless, i think our new commander, general allen, can withdraw the first 10,000 american troops by christmas without suffering a military reversal in afghanistan. afghanistan's army and police are growing in size, now numbering over 300,000, and capability. and despite recent reports of desertions, afghanistan's security forces will soon reach a level where some of our troops

may safely leave the country. as we withdraw, we should consider enablements like a pay raise for afghan troops to improve their retention and moral. i spoke with general allen about a commander's assessment that should be delivered at the end of the year. after withdrawing 10,000 troops, i hope that he will clearly define when the next 23,000 can come out. now in the united states, politically there is little difference between withdrawing at the end of the year and withdrawing at the end of the fiscal year. but mill -- militarily there is a world of difference. the fighting season in afghanistan runs through october. general allen is ordered to withdraw his troops by september

30, then many of his forces will disappear during the taliban's key offensive months. but if the troops leave in november-december, we will guarantee another bad military year for the taliban and the haqqanis and an even stronger afghan army in the long term. i hope the president sets an end-of-year deadline rather than an end-of-fiscal-year deadline. it's the right thing to do militarily and politically. and if he does this, he reduces the chance of a radical islamic extremist victory on the afghan battlefield in 2012. while in afghanistan, i worked to help update and rewrite isap's counternarcotic plan. afghanistan is the source of over 80% of the world's heroin and opium. the drug economy fuels the

insurgency and corruption of the afghan government itself. from 2001 to 2009, secretary rumsfeld and then-ambassador holbrooke blocked isaf from doing much about narcotics. this left a huge funding source for the insurgency untouched. i saf was able to change direction slightly in 2009 and 2010 by supporting interdiction and eradication and alternative livelihoods for afghan farmers. but while commendable, these programs didn't work and the size of the afghan poppy crop is likely to go up. the plan that i worked on advocates a shift in isaf to apply its military strength of intelligence and helicopters and special operations to support afghan decisions to arrest the top drug lords of afghanistan,

starting with the ones who heavily financially back the insurgency. we joined together in 2005 to arrest bin laden's banker, and we should do it again. i strongly backed the afghan counternarcotics ministry idea to announce a top-ten drug lord list to emulate the early success of j. edgar hoover when he established the reputation of the f.b.i. in our remaining two years in afghanistan, we can do a lot to cripple the insurgency and help the 2014 elections by removing a number of key bad actors from the battlefield. what about the future? the president says that our formal current mission will end in 2014. much of his vision will be approved at the chicago nato summit in may of 2012.

by 2014, i believe that afghans will be able to do nearly all of the conventional fighting with some u.s. special operations support remaining. but remember, while the afghan army is likely to win, its budget for this year is $11 billion. the afghan government collected only $1 billion in tax revenue in 2010. we will have to help. and without regular u.s. combat troops, we risk a taliban-haqqani i.s.i. alliance winning unless we do help that afghan military. on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we should all agree that afghanistan should never become a major threat to american families again. should pakistan not change its ways, we can do one other thing. an american tilt towards india

to encourage the world's largest democracy to bankroll an afghan government that fights terror and the i.s.i. given the outright lying and duplicity of pakistan, it appears that a tilt towards india will allow us to reduce our forces in afghanistan, knowing that india will help bankroll an afghan government. this would allow to us reduce our troops while also reducing the possibility of afghanistan once again becoming a terrorist safe haven. pakistanis would object to this pro-indian outcome, but they will only have their own i.s.i. to blame. september 11 teaches us that neither the united states nor india can tolerate a new formal afghan terror state. it's too bad that pakistan seems to have chosen to back the losing side, the terrorists, against the afghan people and

the two largest democracies on earth. finally, a word about our troops. each night they combat the most dangerous narco insurgents on earth, and many 19- and 20-year-old americans volunteered to serve over 7,000 miles tpre home. their generation -- from home. their generation is named after september 11. these young people in uniform are personally employed and risking their lives to ensure that all americans will never again witness another september 11. they are america's best hope and i hope to god that when i'm older some of them run for president. from my own nursing home, i know that the country would be in good hands if one of these young americans guides our nation's destiny. i'm lucky to know many of their names. major fred tanner, u.s. army. lieutenant colonel doug mccobb

air force. and our allies wink commander harold marsh royal air force. rear admiral tony johnston royal navy. colonel robert vicars, british army. i honor them and their younger comrades wishing all the military personnel of isaf's 47 nations a very good day as they wake up in afghanistan tomorrow morning for another hard day's work and one of the most toughest battlefields in the world. thank you. and with that, mr. president, i yield back.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i want to do a couple of things. i want to talk about an amendment, but i also want to -- i have one of my colleagues sitting in your position as

president pro tempore noticed an error i made on july 27. senator whitehouse questioned my numbers. in fact, he was right. i said 115 million in regards to the savings on limousines. it was 11.5 million per year, not 115. it was 115 million over ten years. i stand to put that in the record that i was in error, and senator whitehouse as a cordial colleague, questioned me on it and i thank him for his accountability. we have before the senate now a patent bill, and there's no question that there's a lot of work that we need to do on patents. i know the president pro tempore sits on the committee that i do, and we spent a lot of time on this. but i'm really concerned, toeuf say -- i'm really concerned i have to say with what we're hearing in the senate about why we wouldn't do the right thing

that everybody agrees we should be doing because somebody doesn't want us to do that in the house. and i think it's the worst answer we could ever give the american people. when we have a 12% approval rating and the republicans have worse than that, why would we tell the american people we're not going to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time because somebody in the house doesn't want us to? and that we're going to say we're not going to put these corrections into a patent bill. they're obviously important. and we're going to say it's going to kill the bill when in fact it's not going to kill the bill. but that's what we use as a rationalization. let me describe for a minute what has gone on over the years and what has not happened. the first point i would make is there has not been one oversight hearing at the patent office by the appropriations committee in either the house or the senate for ten years. so i haven't evenly looked at

it. and yet, the objection to -- what we're seeing from an appropriation objection is, and even our chairman of our committee on judiciary who is an appropriator, supports this amendment but isn't going to vote for it because somebody in the house is going to object to it. but the point is, is we have money that people pay every day from universities to businesses to individual small inventors. they pay significant dollars into the patent office. and you know what's happened with that money this year? $85 million that was paid for by american taxpayers for patent examination and first looks didn't go to the patent office. and yet, we have over a million patents in process at the patent

office, and over 700,000 of those vent ever had their first look. when we talk about our economy and we talk about the fact that we want to do things that enhance intellectual property in our country and which is one of our greatest assets, and then we don't allow the money that people actually pay for that process to go for that process, and we backlog, for years now patent applications -- and we've done two things. one is we've limited the intellectual property that we can capture. number two is we've allowed people to take those same patents when we have limited ability, speurpl *f especially some of -- especially some of our smaller organizations and allow those to be patented elsewhere. the lack of a kindly approach on

that is lacking. i see the senator from vermont and i think he he wanted 7 or 8 minutes. i'm happy to yield at this time if he'd like to have it. thank you. so, the process is broken, and since 1992, a billion -- almost a billion dollars has been taken out of the patent office, and so we wonder why in the world is the patent office behind? the patent office is behind pause we won't allow them to have the funds that the american taxpayers who are trying to get ideas and innovations, copyrights, trademarks and patents done, we won't allow the patent office to have the money. so the amendment that i'm going to be offering, i have a modification on it that's trying to be cleared on the other side, and i won't actually call up the amendment this time until i hear

whether that has been accepted. the amendment i have says that we will no longer divert the money that american businesses, american inventors, american universities pay to the patent office to be spent somewhere else, that it has to be spent on clearing their patents. i would like to introduce into the record, and i would submit a copy at this time, a letter i received august 1 from the head of the patent office, and i must tell you that we are so fortunate that we have director capos. we have a true expert in patents with great knowledge who has made tremendous strides in making great changes at our patent office, but he requires a steady stream of money and he

requires the ability to manage the organization in a way to where he can actually accomplish what we have asked him to do. and quite frankly, i have spent a lot of time working with the patent office. not everybody else that wants an advantage in the patent system, but with the patent office, and i'm convinced we have got great leadership there now. and in his letter, he talks about the inability to update their i.t. because the money isn't there because we won't let them have the money. their money, money of the american taxpayers. and let me just give a corollary. if, in fact, you drive your car into the gas station and you give them $100 for 25 or 28 gallons of gas and if they only give you 12 gallons of gas and they say sorry, the appropriations committee said you couldn't have all the gas that you give for the money that you pay, we would be outraged. or if you go to the movie and you pay the fee to go to the

movie and you buy a ticket and you walk in and halfway through the movie they stop the projection and say sorry, we will not give you the second half of the movie even though you paid for it. well, inventors in this country have paid the fees to have their patents examined and evaluated and reviewed. and yet, we, because of a power struggle, have decided that we're not going to let that money go to the patent office. so the amendment i have says that we're going to allow that to happen, that if money is paid and it goes into a proper fund that is allocatable only to the patent office, it can't be spent anywhere else and has to go to the patent office. some of the objections, especially in the house of the

appropriations committee is there is no oversight. well, the reason there is no oversight is because they haven't done any oversight and neither have we. so you can't claim that as an excuse of why you're afraid. this patent bill will give an authorization of seven years for their fees. we can change that if we want. but the fact is we're never going to know if we need to change it if we never do oversight, which they have not done. nobody has done yost on patent laws. and i'm talking aggressive oversight. what was your start, how would you end, where would you spend the money, what's your employee turnover, what's your employee productivity, what should we expect? none of that has been asked. i believe it's probably pretty good based on -- i have a lot of confidence in the management at the patent office, especially in terms of what i have seen in performance in the last couple of years versus before that. but the fact is that oversight hasn't been done. it's not just the patent office. we haven't done it anywhere.

very little oversight has been accomplished by the senate. and it's one of the biggest legitimate criticisms that can be made of us as a body, is that we're lazy in our oversight function. of the $3.7 trillion that's going to be spent, we're going to oversight about $100 billion of it total. so the amendment does a couple of things. and let me detail that for a moment. one of the things by giving -- returning the money to the patent office is the director thinks that he can actually cut the backlog in half. in other words, we have over 700,000 patents that have never been looked at sitting at the patent office now. he believes that in a very short period of time they could cut that to 350,000.

from 1992-2011, $900 million has been taken from the p.t.o. in 2004, congress diverted diverted $100 million. 2007, it diverted $12 million. last year it diverted diverted $53 million. it's $80 million to $85 million that's going to be diverted this year. in four years out of the last ten, the congress gave the patent office all the money because it was so slow and so lethargic in terms of meeting the needs of inventors. the only thing we have in the current bill is the promise of a speaker and the promise of a chairman that they will do that. there is nothing in law that forces them to do it. there is nothing that will make sure that the money is there. and no matter how good we fix the patent system in this

country, if there is not the money to implement it, we will not have solved the problems. in june of 2000, the house debated the p.t.o. funding, and an interesting exchange took place between representative roybal-allard and representative rogers who was a cardinal at the time. representative allard discussed the need of p.t.o. fee diversion and user fees to pay for the agents. in the documentation of the congressional record, she asked chairman rogers if 100% of the user fees would go to the p.t.o. mr. rogers stated the fees will not be siphoned off for any other agency or purpose and remain in the account for future years. but according to the p.t.o., in fiscal year 2000, $121 million was, in fact, diverted. so when we have the chairman of the committee say we shouldn't doubt the word of the

appropriations committee and yet we have in the record the exact opposite of what the appropriation committee said was going to happen, we should be concerned and we should fix it to where the money for patent examination goes for patent examination. so we have a clear record of a statement that said it wasn't going to happen and in fact fact $121 million was diverted from the patent office. finally, from 1992-2007, 1992-2007, $750 million more in patent and trademark fees was collected than was allowed to be spent by the patent and trademark office. had they had that money, we would have had a backlog of about 100,000 patents right now, not 750,000. they would have intellectual property as a greater value in our country with greater advantage over our trading partners because that money would have been effectively

used. on july 12, the former c.b.o. director douglas holtz-eakin wrote saying that the establishment of the patent and trademark reserve fund would be ineffective in stopping the diversion of the fees from the u.s. patent office. in other words, what's in this bill now won't stop the diversion of the fees. just so people think i'm not just picking on one area, this is a bad habit of congress. it's not just in the patent and trademark office where we tell people they are going to pay a fee to get something done and then we steal the money and use it somewhere else. for example, the nuclear waste fund at the department of energy. utility payments by individual consumers pay for a nuclear waste fee, and that money has been spent on tons of other

things through the years rather than on the collection and management of nuclear waste. $25 billion, to the tune of of $25 billion has been spent on other things. the securities and exchange commission, they are a fee-based agency. since the s.e.c. was established, it's collected money by user fees, charged for various transactions in order to cover the cost of its regulation. the primary fees are for sales of stock, registration of a new stock, mergers, tender offers. it also collects fees for penalty fines, for bad behavior that go into the treasuries general fund and amounts collected by the s.e.c. budget were diverted to other government programs. so in 2002, congress changed the treatment of the fees of the s.e.c. so they would only go to a special appropriations account solely for the s.e.c. the s.e.c. wouldn't directly have access to the fees. however, should they collect more than its appropriation.

in the dodd-frank bill, congress again changed the treatment of the fees and required some of the fees to go to the general treasury and others to the reserve fund. as a result, lots of complaints with the s.e.c. they still don't have access to their funds. thus like the p.t.o., if congress chooses not to provide all the funds in the initial appropriation, they won't have them. in 2012 budget justification from the securities and exchange commission, they noted it had significant challenges -- noted maintaining the staffing level of the budget sufficient to carry out its core mission. from 2005-2007, s.e.c. had frozen or reduced budgets that forced the reduction of 10% of their staff and 50% in technology investment. what happened in 2007 and 2008 in this country? what were the problems? so the diversion of the money

from the s.e.c. actually contributed to the problems that we had in this country. so it doesn't work. finally, one that is my favorite and i fought against every year since i have been here is the crime victims fund, and that's a fund where people who are criminals actually have to pay into a fund for restitution to criminal victims. and we have stolen billions of dollars from that fund that aren't taxes. they are actually restitution moneys, but the congress has stolen it and spent it on other areas. the morality of that i don't think leads anybody to question that that is wrong. let me now, if i may, call up amendment 599 and ask that the pending amendment be set aside and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there

objection? the senator from oklahoma has the floor. is there objection? mr. leahy: reserving the right to object. the senator from oklahoma knows that the basic thing that he is trying to do is something that i had supported. as he knows, i put it in the manager's package. he also is aware that my feeling is -- obviously, my feeling is the acceptance of his amendment will effectively kill the bill. even today, the leadership in the house has told me they would

not accept that bill with it. i say only because tactically, it would be to my advantage to object to the amendment, but the distinguished senator is one of the hardest working members of the judiciary committee, is always there when i need a quorum, and out of respect to him i will not object. mr. coburn: i thank the senator for this. this is a minor technical correction. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for himself and others proposes amendment 599 as modified -- mr. coburn: i would ask the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i noted before the chairman of the judiciary committee came to the floor that we had a difference of opinion and he would support on what happened to the bill. this was a minimal technical correction that was recommended to us, and i appreciate the senator allowing it to be considered.

a hr let me spend a minute talking about the chairman and his feeling that this won't go anywhere. this is a critical, critical juncture for our country. when we're going to make a decision to not do what is right because somebody is threatening that they don't agree with doing what's right and that they won't receive it. you know, in my life -- 63 years -- that's how bullies operate. and the way you break a bully is you challenge a bully. and the fact is, as i've just recorded into the history of the house the statements by the chairman of the appropriation committee in the house in terms of his guarantee for protecting the funds for p.t.o., which he turned around and took $121 million out of the funds that

very same year that he guaranteed on the floor that he wouldn't do. so what i would say is we ought not worry about idle threats. what we ought to worry about is doing the best right thing for our country. and the best right thing is to give the money to the patent office the people are paying for so that the patents will get approved and our technological innovation will be protected. and so i don't buy the idea that the house isn't going to take this if we modify and actually what 95% of the people in this country would agree to, that the patent office ought to get the money that we're paying for patent fees, just like the f.d.a. ought to get the money that's paid by drug companies for new applications, just like the park service ought to put the money for the camping sites that are paid for camping sites back into the camping sites. why would we run away from doing right things? and so i find it very difficult

when we rationalize down doing the correct thing that everybody agrees should be done, but we won't do it for the right reasons. that's why we have a 12% approval rating. that's why people don't have confidence in congress, because we walk away from the tough challenges of bully who is say we won't do something if you do what is right. and i'm not going to live my life that way. i'm not going to be a senator that way. i'm going to stand on a position of principle. this is a principle that 95 senators in this body agree with. and we're going to have several of our leaders try to get them not to do that on the basis of rationalization to a bully system that says we won't do the oversight but we still want to be in control. and in the fact, the process of that, america loses, because we

have 750,000 patents that are pending right now, and there should only be about 100,000, because the bullies have won in the past. and i'm not going to take it anymore. i'm going to stand up and challenge it every time. and i'm going to make the argument that if you pay a fee for something in this country for the government to do, that money ought to be spent doing what you paid the government to do. it's outside of a tax. it's a fee, and it is immoral and close to being criminal to not spend that money for that fee. so if our body decides today they're going to table this amendment, the question that the american people have to ask is: where's the courage in the senate to do what's best for our country? why are the senators here if they're not going to do what's best for the country? why are they going to play the

game of rationalization and extortion on principles that matter so much to our future? i won't do that anymore. everybody knows this is the right thing to do. and we're baby sitting some spoiled members of congress who don't want to carry out their responsibilities in an honorable way and do the oversight that's necessary. and what they want to do is complain that they don't have control. well, this bill authorizes funds for seven years. we can change that number of years. we can actually change the actual amount of fees if in effect they're not doing a good job. right now, as already put in the record, there's no history of significant oversight to the patent office, so they wouldn't know in the first place.

and so what we're asking is to do the right thing, the transparent thing, the morally correct thing, and give the patent office the opportunity to for america what it can do for them instead of handcuff us and handicap us to where we can't compete on intellectual property in our country. i've said enough on that. i will reserve the balance of my time when i finish talking about one other item. there's an earmark in this patent bill for the medicine company. it ought not be there. this is something that's being adjudicated in the courts right now. senator sessions has an amendment that would change it. i believe it's inappropriate to specify one company, one situation on a drug that is

significant to this country, and we're fixing the wrong problem. we probably won't win that amendment but i think it is again something the american people ought to look at and say why is this here? why is something in this big bill that's so important to our country -- and i agree with our chairman. he has worked months, if not years, over the last six years trying to get to this process, and now we have this put in. we didn't have it ours. the chairman didn't have it in ours. it came from the house, and we ought to ask the question: why is it there? why are we interfering in something that's at the appellate court level right now? why are we doing that? none of us can feel good about that. none of us can say it's the right thing to do. and why would we tolerate it? you know, it really is this lack

of confidence in america is about a lack of confidence in us. when people know and find out what's happened here, they're going to ask a question, the powerful and the wealthy advantage themselves at the expense of everybody else. they have access, those that are lonely, those that are in terms of their material assets don't. it's the type of thing that undermines the confidence that we need to have. and i just wanted to say i'm a cosponsor of senator sessions' amendment. i believe that he's accurate on it. i think they've won this in the court. it's on appeal. they'll probably win it on appeal. this will end up being an unnecessary thing. and there's a way for to us fix

it if in fact they lose if it's appropriate to do that. but i believe it's inappropriate at this time. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i've listened to the senator from oklahoma. this is an amendment that can derail and even kill this bill. now, he expresses concern that why should a bill be sought because somebody objects to the bill. i sometimes remember it would be socked because there are so many objections to it. i sometimes ask myself that question. of course the distinguished senator from oklahoma has objected to many, many items going forward of his own, on his

own behalf of. but this is an amendment that could derail and even kill the bill. and this would otherwise help our roeufrg economy. it would unleash innovation and create the jobs so desperately needed. now, i probably worked longer in this body than anybody against patent office fee diversion. i happen -- and as the senator from oklahoma knows, i put a provision in the managers' package to allow the fees to go to the patent office. it's a lobby to keep that in in the other body. its formulation was rejected by the u.s. house of representatives. there is no reason to believe the house position will change. i've checked with both republican and democratic

leaders over there. no reason to believe their position will change. but, we insist on ideological purities, including something i would like. the amendment would seek years of efforts, stroeu the jobs process represented by this bill. while i oppose fee diversion, i also oppose this amendment. does this bill have every single thing in it i want? no. we could write 1 hundred patent reform -- we could write 100 patent reform legislation in this body, where each one of us has every single thing we want and we'd have 100 bills. we only have one. it doesn't get all the things i like but that's the art of getting legislation passed. i did keep my commitment to senator coburn. i kept his language in the managers' amendment.

and i caught a lot of grief for doing that. i'm a member of the appropriations committee and i kept it in there. but the difference between then and now is that the republican leadership of the house of representatives rejected senator coburn's formulation. they preserved the principle against fee negotiation but changed the language. in doing that it's not a total rejection. they actually tried to work out a compromise. the language of the bill which the house advised, a bipartisan majority voted to include was worked out by the house republican leadership to satisfy house rules. the provision coburn has drafted again with his amendment today apparently violates house rule 21, which prohibits converting discretionary spending into mandatory spending. so what the house did -- and actually accomplished by both

spw-rpb -- spwurpb and -- accomplished by both what senator coburn and i and others want. it was the compromise devised between chairman smith and chairman ryan. yesterday i inserted in the record the june letter from congressman rogers and ryan to chairman smith of the house judiciary committee. i'd ask consent to insert into the record the commitment letter from chairman rogers to speaker boehner. and i would note, mr. president, that there's been the suggestion somehow the cooperation chairman or not, they're going to keep their word. chairman rogers is a republican,

i've worked with him a lot, he's always kept his word to me just as we have the most decorated veteran of our military serving in either body as chairman of the national appropriations committee, the only medal of honor now serving, senator inouye. he and ranking ranking republic, senator cochran, have always kept their word for me. the america invents act as passed by the house continues to make important improvements, assures the fees collected by the u.s. patent and trademark office are used for patent and trademark office activities. the one thing in there is that we in the congress at least have a chance to make sure they're using the way they're supposed to. the office is entirely fee funded. it does not rely on taxpayer

dollars. it has been and continues to be subject to annual appropriations bills, which allows the oversight that we are elected and paid for by the american people to do. now, the legislation that we passed in march would have taken the patent trademark office out of the appropriation process by setting up a revolving fund. it is i want a revolving fund, the house formulation against fee diversion established a separate account and directs that account be used only by the u.s. patent and trademark office. and the house appropriations chairman is commited to abide by that legal framework. the speaker is committed to that. the house forged a compromise. that's the essence of the legislative process. the founders knew when they wrote the constitution to include the great promise. ideological purity does not lead

to legislative enactments. ideological purity does not lead to legislative enactments. the house compromise can make a difference and make real progress against fee diversion, something we can support. and there are many, many companies and organizations that do support this final workout in order to get the bill out without delay. after six and a half years, let's not delay anymore. this is going to create jobs. we've got 600,000 to 700,000 patents waiting there to be processed. let's get on with it. let's get on with it. for all of these fees and the reserve fund can only be used for the operations of the patent and trademark office. i don't know what more we can do, but i would say i'm perfectly willing to accept what the house did because it assures that the fees go to the patent office. i'm also well aware that voting

for this bill, this amendment kills the bill. it could kill the bill over a formality, the difference between a reserve fund and a resolving fund. i think the house republican leadership worked out their compromise in good conscience, and i agree with it. i put in the record the letter from chairman rogers to speaker boehner and leader cantor. i can consent to do that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and the u.s. patent and trademark office is funded by -- entirely by using fees and the leahy-smith america invents act will ensure the period of time has access to the fees it collects. we have heard from a number of organizations that agree with that, and i ask unanimous consent a sample of these

letters from the business software alliance, small business entrepreneurship council, dupont, other financial organizations be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i reserve the balance of -- i would ask consent my full speech be made a part of the record and ask consent that i be allowed to reserve the balance of my time, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coburn: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i just wanted to respond to my chairman's comments. first of all, what we have proposed came out of the judiciary committee in the house 32-3. in other words, only three people in the judiciary committee in the house objected to this. the other point i would make is the letter from chairman rogers does not bind the next appropriations chairman. i think everybody would agree to that. it only binds him, and it only binds him as long as he honors his commitment. i have no doubt that he will honor his commitment as long as he is chairman. and the third point i would make is what the house has set up doesn't make sure the funds go to the period of time. it means they just can't go somewhere else. that's what they have set up.

they do not have to allow all the funds collected to go to the period of time. so they can reserve $200 million or $300 million a year and put it over there in a reserve fund that will set at the treasury that will cause us to borrow less, but the money won't necessarily go to the period of time. there's nothing that mandates the fees that are collected go to the patent and trademark office. so i understand my chairman, i understand his frustration with trying to get this bill through, and i understand that he sees this as a compromise. i just don't. and i understand we're going to differ on that and agree to disagree. with that, i would yield the floor back and allow the chairman to take the roll and reserve the balance of my time. mr. leahy: i thank the senator. i reserve the balance of my time. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: mr. president, i wanted to pick up on a point that the senior senator from vermont made earlier today. both he and i have had the opportunity to travel throughout the state of vermont to visit many of our towns which have been devastateed by one of the worst natural disasters in our state's history.

we have seen in the southern part of the state, in wilmington, for example, the entire business district severely damaged. i have seen in central vermont a mobile home park almost completely wiped out with people who are in their 80's now having to look to find new places in which to live. i have seen a public housing project for seniors down in brattleboro severely damaged. a lot of seniors there are now having to find new places to live. we have been through the state office complex in waterbury, the largest state office building in the state housing 1,700 vermont workers, the nerve center of the state. devastated. nobody is at work there today. we have seen hundreds of bridges

and roads destroyed, and right now as we speak there are rains coming in the southern part of the state, causing more flooding, more damage. we have seen a wonderful gentleman from rutland lose his life because he was doing his job to make sure that the people of that area were protected. so we have seen damage the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime, and, mr. president, what i would say -- and i know i speak for you as well -- is that the name of our country is the united states of america, the united states of america, and what that means is that we are a nation such that when disaster strikes louisiana or mississippi in terms of hurricane katrina, i know the presiding officer remembers the outpouring of support from vermont for the people in that region, and all of our hearts went out, and in

joplin, missouri, that community suffered an incredible tornado that took 150 or so lives, devastated that city. and what america is about and what a nation is about is that when disaster hits one part of the country, we reunite as a nation to give support to help those communities, those businesses, those homeowners who have been hurt get back on their feet. right now, i know the senior senator from vermont has made this point many times, we are spending billions of dollars rebuilding communities in afghanistan and iraq. well, i think i speak for the vast majority of the people in this country and in my state of vermont that if we can spend billions rebuilding communities in iraq and afghanistan, we sure can rebuild communities in

vermont, new jersey, north carolina and other parts of the united states of america that have been devastateed by this hurricane irene. so, mr. president, i think as a body, as a congress, the house and senate have got to work as expeditiously as we can to come up with the funds to help rebuild all of the communities that have been so severely damaged by this terrible flood, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen. and with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: when the america invents act was first considered by the senate last march, i spoke about the contributions vermonters have made to innovation in america since the founding of our nation. the distinguished presiding officer and i know about what vermont has done, but i remind everybody that from the first patent ever issued by our government, to cutting edge research and inventions produced today, vermonters have been at the forefront of innovation since the nation's birth. now, many may think of our green

mountain state as being an unlikely hotbed of innovation, but we have actually in the last few years issued the most patents per capita of any state in the country. actually, more patents than a lot of states larger than we are. it's a small state, to be sure, but it's one that's bursting with creativity. and the rich history of the inventive history of vermont is long and diverse. vermonters throughout the state have pursued innovations from the time of the industrial revolution to the computer age. vermont inventors discover new ways to weigh large objects but also how to enjoy the outdoors. they have perfected new ways to traverse rivers and more environmentally friendly ways to live in our homes. over the years, as america has grown and prospered, vermont's innovative and creative spirit have made the lives of all americans better. it has also made them more productive.

the patent system in this country has been the catalyst that's spurred these inventors to take the risks necessary to bring these ideas to the marketplace. the story of innovation in vermont is truly the american story. it has been driven by independent vendors and small businesses taking chances on new ideas. but a strong patent system allowed these ideas to flourish. they also brought our country unexpected, unprecedented -- i should say they brought our country unprecedented economic growth. now these same kind of inventors still exist in vermont today as they do throughout our great country, but these inventors need to be assured that the patent system that served those that came before them, that served them so well can do the same today. the america invents act will provide that assurance for years to come.

now, my distinguished colleague from vermont and i have both spoken several times on the floor since the senate came back in session about the devastation in vermont. and i can't help but think of that devastation that irene caused in so many of our communities back home. just as senator sanders and congressman welsh and governor shumlin, i've seen the damage and heartbreak firsthand. i've also seen the fruits of innovation in communities throughout vermont. the heavy machinery out to clear debris that will rebuild our roads and our bridges and our homes. the helicopters that brought food and water to stranded residents. the bottles that allowed safe drinking water to reach them. the american patent system has helped to develop and refine

countless technologies that drive our country in times of prosperity but also in times of tragedy. it is critical that we ensure that that system remains the best in the world. vermont and the rest of the country deserve the world's best patent system. the innovators of the past had exactly that. we can assure the innovators that are among us today and those that will come in succeeding generations will have it as well by passing the america invents act. i'm proud of the inventive contribution that vermonters have made since the founding of this country. i hope to honor their legacy. i hope to inspire the next generation by securing the passage of this legislation. i've been here for a number of years, mr. president. this is one of those historic moments. the patent system is a few

things enshrined in our constitution. it's also something that hasn't been updavid petraeused for over half a -- that hasn't been updated for over half a century. we can do that. we can do that today with our votes. we can complete this bill. we can send it to the president. the president has assured me he will sign it, and we'll make america stronger, we'll create jobs, we'll have a better system, and it won't cost the american taxpayers anything. that is something we ought to do. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, the parliamentary situation, how much time does senator cantwell have at this time? the presiding officer: 13 minutes remaining. mr. kerry: it's my understanding senator cantwell wants to preserve a proponent of that. i would on behalf of senator cantwell yield myself five minutes at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i appreciate the comments of our friend from alabama, senator sessions, regarding his amendment to strike section 37 of the patent reform bill, but i disagree with him on substantive terms, and i want our colleagues -- i ask our colleagues to look carefully at the substance of this amendment and at the importance of this amendment with respect to precedent not for one company from massachusetts or from one entity, but for companies all

over the country and for the application of patent law as it ought to be applied. the only thing that section 37 does -- the only thing -- is to codify what a federal district court has already said and to implement what the united states patent and trademark office is already doing. there's no breaking of new ground here. this is codifying the federal district court, codifying what the patent office has done, and in fact codifying common sense. it's putting into effect what is the right decision with respect to how we treat patents in our country. section 37 is in fact a very important clarification of a currently confusing deadline for filing patent term extension application under the hatch-waxman act. and, frankly, this is a clarification, i would say to the senator from alabama, that

benefits everybody in the country. in fact, this is a clarification which has already been put into effect for other types of patents that were once upon a time treated with the same anomaly. they rectified that. they haven't rectified it with respect to this particular section of patent law. so all we're doing in this is conforming to appropriate law, -p conforming to the standards the patent office applies and conforming for all countries -- companies in the country, for any company that might be affected similarly. if this were a bailout for a single firm or pharmaceutical company, as some have tried to suggest it might be, in why the world did a similar provision previously get reported out of the senate judiciary committee by a vote of 14-2? how in the world could this provision then have passed the

house of representatives as it did? and why would many house republicans have supported it as they did? the answer is very simple: because it's the right thing to do under the law and under the common sense of how we want patents treated in the filing process. the law as currently written, frankly, was being wrongly applied by the patent and trademark office. and you don't have to take my word for that. that's what a federal court has said. on more than one occasion, each time the court has ruled that it was the patent and trademark office, not an individual firm called wilmerhale or medicines company, not those two that made a mistake here. now let me make that very clear so the record is as clear as it can be here. the current law as it's written says that to obtain an extension of the term of a patent under this section, the owner of record of the patent or its agent shall submit an

application to the director. such an application may be only submitted within the 60-day period beginning on the date that the product received permission under the appropriate provision of law. now, the f.d.a. reasonably interprets this language to mean that if something is received after the close of business on a given business day, it is deemed to be received the next business day. under this interpretation, the filing by the medicines company was indisputably timely. my colleagues should not come to the floor and take away from entities that are trying to compete via the marketplace over some technicality the suggestion that because something was filed electronically on a particular given day at 5:00 in the afternoon when people have gone home, they weren't open, that

somehow they deemed that not to have been appropriately filed. but rather than accept that commonsense interpretation, the patent trademark office told the medicines company it was late. they just decided that. then they said you're late despite the fact that that interpretation contradicted the same business day rule that the f.d.a. uses when interpreting the very same statute. so, as a result, mr. president -- madam president, the issue went to court. and guess what? the court told the p.t.o. that it was wrong. a federal judge found that the patent office and f.d.a. had been applying inconsistent interpretations of the exact same statutory language in the hatch-waxman act. the f.d.a. uses one interpretation that has the effect of extending its own internal deadlines. but the p.t.o. insisted on using a different interpretation. and the result was heads i win,

tails you lose. and for companies investing in innovative medicines, the court found that the p.p.o. failed to provide -- i yield myself one additional minute. it further found that the p.t.o.'s interpretation has the effect of depriving the applicants of a portion of their time for filing an application. after considering all the relevant factors, the court adopted the f.d.a.'s interpretation. so the court told the p.t.o. that they were wrong and it was them and nonprofit the medicines company that made a mistake. so, madam president, this is not an earmark. it isn't, as senator sessions contends, a single-company bailout. it's a codification of a court ruling. it's a clarification. it's common sense. it puts a sensible court decision into legislative language. and it is legislative language that applies to everybody across the country, to all companies equally. it doesn't single out any particular company but amends the patent law for the benefit

of all applicants. so i ask my colleagues to oppose the sessions amendment on the merits. more importantly, we need to move forward with this important bill that chairman leahy and senator grassley have worked so hard on, passing the sessions amendment would stop that. it would require a house-senate conference on the bill and it would at best seriously delay, and at worst make it impossible to exact patent reform during this conference. so, madam president, this is on the merits. this is for all companies. this is common sense. this is current law. this is current practice. and i ask my colleagues accordingly to vote appropriately. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 4:00 p.m. the senate proceed to the votes in relation to the amendments and passage of h.r. 1249, the america invents act, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in order in

effect, that the final ten minutes of debate be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee or their designees, with the chairman controlling the final five minutes. further, that there be four minutes equally divided between proponents and opponents prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: madam president, i reserve the balance of the time for senator cantwell. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: may i inquire of the chair how much time remains for me to speak until we get into the last order of the chair? the presiding officer: four and a half minutes. mr. cornyn: madam president, i want to speak for four and a half minutes, i guess, about the natural disasters that have been confronting our nation, and in particular in texas where the state has had about 3.5 million acres of land burned and many people now find themselves literally homeless as

a result of fires that many of my colleagues have seen on tv or watched on the internet, but they frankly don't capture the scale of the devastation. just to give you an idea of the scope of this natural disaster, so far in 2011, more than 18,000 wildfires have been reported in the state. as i mentioned, it's burned an area roughly the size of connecticut. that's nearly 2,900 structures that have been lost and unfortunately there has also been a loss of life in these fires as well as 5,000 texans now have been evacuate interested their homes, and unfortunately these fires have been a feature of life in parts of texas for most of the year because we are in the middle of a historic drought where because of la nina, the weather pattern, we have an abnormally dry year and indeed it's caused more than than $5 billion of structural

losses alone as a result of that drought. i have not only seen some of the devastation myself before i left austin, but i have also talked to a number of people on the ground who are well informed. representative tim kleinschmidt who represents the district east of austin told me as many as a thousand people have been evacuated from homes in that area and have been living in shelters since sunday. water and electricity are also down in many areas, and the wind has unfortunately swept the fire into areas and now is only about 30% contained. i have also talked to some of our other local leaders, our county judges like grimes county judge betty shafflett who told me while they have no unmet needs right now, they are very concerned about the threat to life and property and are working as hard as they can to

contain the fires. i have also talked to our outstanding chief of the texas department of emergency management and the director of the texas forest service who tells me that as many as 2,000 americans from places other than texas have come to the state to help fight these fires and help protect property and life. we have had a good federal response to some -- to one extent, and that is the u.s. forest service has provided planes, bull dozers -- bulldozers and other equipment. unfortunately, we have seen the white house so far not extend the disaster declaration beyond the original 52 counties approved for fema assistance on may 3 -- or i should say that assistance ran out on may 3 more than four months ago. suffice it to say that the disaster declaration should be extended to cover the rest of the state. at least 200 more texas counties

that need federal assistance. i'm informed from reading the newspaper that president obama reached out to governor perry yesterday to extend his condolences, but frankly more than condolences, what we need are the resources to help fight these fires, to deal with the disaster and to help get people back in their homes as soon as possible. i would just say that in conclusion, madam president, that the majority leader has raised the question of whether disaster relief should be paid for or whether it should be borrowed money. i come down on the side of believing that we can't keep borrowing money we don't have. that's what the american people keep telling us that's what the last election was all about. that's what the financial markets are telling us. and i believe that the american people believe that we have plenty of money in the federal government for congress to do its job, by setting priorities and funding those priorities,

and i believe that emergency assistance to the people who have been hit hardest by these natural disasters are one of those priorities. we should fund it instead of funding wasteful spending and duplicative programs and engaging in failed keynesian stimulus schemes. so, madam president, with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa has five minutes. mr. grassley: thank you very much. i urge my colleagues to oppose all three amendments to the patent bill so that we can send this important jobs bill to the president of the united states for his signature. i urge my colleagues then to support final passage of leahy-smith america invents act. this is a strong bipartisan bill that will enhance america's innovation and give us economic

growth. it will protect the inventors' rights and improve transparency and third-party participation in the patent review process. it will strengthen patent quality and reduce costs and will recur -- and will curb litigation abuses and improve certainty for investors and innovators. the leahy-smith america invents act will also help small entities in their patent applications and provide for reduced fees for microentities and small businesses. it will help companies do business more efficiently both here and abroad. the bill includes a provision that will prevent patents from being issued on claims of tax strategies. these strategies are add unwarranted fees on taxpayers

for attempting to comply with the tax code. finally, the bill will enhance the operations of the patent and trademark office with administrative reforms, give the patent and trademark office fee-setting authority, which we hope then will lead to a reduction of backlog and improve the ability of the -- of the patent and trademark office to manage its affairs. i want to thank chairman leahy, senator hatch, the lead sponsors of this legislation for the tremendous amount of work that they have put into this america invents act, not only for this congress but over the past three or four years that this bill has been worked on. this has been a long process spanning those several congresses, and without the leadership of these two senators on patent reform, we wouldn't be ready to cross the finish line

today. in addition, i want to thank the staff of the judiciary committee, bruce cohen, aaron cooper, curtis legite, matt sandgren of senator hatch's staff, joe mattel of senator kyl's staffers and i'd like to thank the floor staff for their help in processing this bill in an efficient manner, and i'd like to especially thank colin davis and rita laura yocum of my staff for their help on the bill. for the third time, i urge my colleagues to vote for the leahy-smith america invents act and to oppose all the three amendments we're going to be voting on so that we can keep the bill clean and send it to the president without delay. senator leahy has made it very clear to all 100 senators that if you support this bill, it is a gamble to say that it will be

a law if we have to move it beyond the senate to the house. this bill will help american inventors create innovative new products and services and stimulate job creation. the bill will upgrade and strengthen our patent system and keep america competitive in an increasingly global economy. this is a good bill. i urge my staff, all of my colleagues to support it. how much time do i have left, madam president? the presiding officer: one minute. mr. grassley: i would urge my colleagues because i rebut the senator sessions' amendment, to keep in mind that when somebody tells you that this is to bail out one company, understand that that one company has gotten justice from the judicial branch of our government because a

judge has said for that company that they were denied their rights under the 60-day rule to file for an extension of patent. so what that judge said was that bureaucrats in our agencies acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not having the same rules that designate when the 60-day period of time starts, so we have a judge that says so so maybe people can refer to that opinion, refer to that opinion and get what you want, but we ought to have it in the statute of what's uniform, and that's what the bill does and the sessions amendment would strike that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont has the balance of the time until 4:00 p.m. mr. leahy: thank you, madam

president. i thank the distinguished senator from iowa for his strong support of this bill. in a few moments, the senate is going to have the opportunity to make significant reforms to our nation's patent system for the first time in more than half a century. the america invents act is the product of extensive consideration. four congresses we have worked on this. we have had dozens of hearings. weeks of committee debate. i have lost count of the hundreds of other meetings we have had. now, this bill is an opportunity to show the american people that democrats and republicans can come together to enact meaningful legislation for the american people. the time to do that is now. the only remaining issues in

this long overdue reform are three amendments. each of them carry some merit. in the past, i might have supported them, but this is a compromise. no one senator can have everything he or she may want. the underlying issues have been debated. the bill as written represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that should be passed without changes. any amendment to this bill risks killing it. i would urge all senators, republicans and democrats alike, to join me, join senator grassley in opposing these amendments. they are the final hurdles standing in the way of comprehensive patent reform. now, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record letters from businesses and workers representing a spectrum of american industry and labor, urging the senate to pass the america invents act without amendment. i ask unanimous consent for

that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: the bill is important for our economy. it's important for job creation. it's a product of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration. it's the way our system is supposed to work. i look forward to passing the bill and sending it directly to the president's desk for his signature. i know that my friends both in the senate on the republican side and democratic side have amendments to this bill. they are not amendments that should pass. i mentioned the one earlier. i talked about the amendment that would put all our -- well, madam president, which amendment is the first in order? the presiding officer: sessions amendment numbered 600. mr. leahy: madam president, i would yield the floor. i know both senator sessions and senator grassley wish to speak

to that. the presiding officer: the senators will have four minutes equally divided. the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, the oath that judges take is to do equal justice, and it says for the poor and the rich. every day, statutes of limitations require that a litigant file a lawsuit within so many days and file petitions in so many days. senator cornyn here, former justice on the texas supreme court, attorney general of texas, he fully understands that. i know he supports my view of this issue, and that is that the rules have to be equally applied and it's just not right that the little widow lady, it's not right that somebody would -- a poor lawyer or whatever misses a deadline and a judge throws the case out, and they do.

big law firms like will murhale file motions every day based on delay and filing those cases. big insurance companies file lawsuits, file motions to dismiss every day against individuals who file their claim too late. and they win. when this big one has a good of risk, presumably they have an errors and omissions policy. that's what they're supposed to do. one of the reason the average partner makes a million dollars plus a year is because they have high responsibilities and they're required to meet those responsibilities and be responsible. so i believe it's improper for us while this matter is on appeal and in litigation for us to take action driven by this continual lobbying pressure that would exempt one company -- they can say it's others

involved but look, it's always about one company, i've been here for 10 years, i know how it's played out. i've seen it. i've talked to the advocates on their behalf and i just haven't been able to agreed to it because i see the average person not getting the benefit they getting. the presiding officer: the time of the senator has expired. mr. sessions: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, "the wall street journal" and others have editorialized in favor of it and i urge my colleagues to support it. the presiding officer: two minutes. mr. grassley: two minutes. well, i think the senator from alabama has given me a reason to suggest the importance of the language of the bill that he wants to strike. because he said that law ought to be equally applied. well, the law for this one company is that they were not given justice by bureaucrats

that acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and they were denied their rights under the law. so that company is taken care of because there was an impartial judge that felt that they had been abused and their rights under hatch-waxman to be able to extend their patent. so you might be able to argue in other places around the country when you're likewise denied your right that you got this court case to back you up. but we can't have one agency saying when a 60-day period of time starts for mail coming in or mail going out, to exercise your 60-day period, and for another agency to do it another way, and that's basically what the judge said, that congress surely couldn't have meant that. so the language of -- of this

section 37 does exactly what senator sessions wants, is to guarantee in the future that no bureaucrat can act in an arbitrary and capricious way when they decide when does a 60-day period of time start. and so we put it in the statute of the united states so the courts look at it and the bureaucrats look at it in exactly the same way. if you are a citizen of this country, you ought to know what your rights are, you ought to know that a bureaucrat treats you -- treats you the same way they treat in like situations somebody else. you can't have this sort of arbitrary and capricious action on the part of faceless bureaucrats that denies the rights. and this puts it in statute and solidifies it so everybody knows what the law is rather than relying upon one judge or in the

future having to rely upon the court someplace else. so i ask you to not support the sessions amendment because it would deny equal rights to some people in this country as this judge said, those equal rights were already denied. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the time has expired. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i would ask consent after the first vote -- we have several more votes -- that the remaining votes be 10-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the question -- the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: have the yeas and nays been ordered on this? the presiding officer: they have not. the question is on the sessions amendment number 600. mr. leahy: i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 51. the amendment is not agreed to. there are now -- without

objection. there are now four minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the cantwell amendment. ms. cantwell: madam president. the presiding officer: could we please have order in the chamber? the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: madam president, encouraging my colleagues to support the cantwell amendment, the cantwell amendment is reinstatement of section 18 language as it passed the united states senate, so casting a vote for the cantwell amendment will be consistent with language previously supported by each member. the reason we are trying to reinstate the senate language is because the house language broadens a loophole that will allow for more confusion over patents that have already been issued. it will allow for the cancellation of patents already

issued by the patent office. throwing into disarray and legal battling many companies who already believe they have a legitimate patent. the house language by adding the words "other" broadens the definition of section 18 and extends it for eight years so that this chaos and disarray that is really supposedly targeted at a single earmark for the banking industry to try to get out of paying royalties is now so broadened that many other technology companies will be affected. the presiding officer: could we please have order in the chamber to allow the senator to finish her remarks. ms. cantwell: i urge my colleagues to support the cantwell amendment and agree to the language that you previously agreed to.

the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: i rise in opposition to my dear friend, maria cantwell's amendment. business method patents are a real problem. they never should have been patented to begin with. let me give you an example. double click, we double click on a computer or something like that, and after that's a practice for a while, someone says -- files a patent and says i want to patent double politicking, and because of the way the patent office works, the opponents of that never get a chance to weigh in as to whether it should be a patent. the patent office has gone way overboard in allowing these business method patents. they say well, you get your day in court. that's true, except that 56%, more than half of all the business method patent litigation goes to one district, the eastern district of texas, which is known to be extremely favorable to the plaintiffs. it takes about ten years to

litigate. it costs tens of millions of dollars. so the people who are sued over and over again for things like double clicking and things like how to photograph a check, common things that are business methods and not patents settle, and it's a -- it's a lucrative business for a small number of people, but it's wrong. what this bill does is very simple. what the bill does in terms of this amendment is very simple. it says the patent office will make an administrative determination before the years of litigation as to whether this patent is a legitimate patent, and that doesn't allow the kind of abusive that we -- abuse thae have seen. it applies to all financial transactions, whether it be a bank or amazon or a store or anybody else, and it makes eminent sense. so as much respect as i have for

my colleague from washington, i must strongly disagree with her argument and urge that the amendment be voted down and yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 13, the nays are 85, and one senator responded "present." the amendment is not agreed to.

there are now four minutes equally divided prior to the vote in troalings the coburn amendment. the senator from oklahoma -- could we please have order before the senator from oklahoma speaks. the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: thank you. this is a straightforward amendment that says if you pay into the patent and trademark office to have a patent evaluated, that that money ought to be spent on the process. we now have stolen almost $900 million from the patent office. we have almost a million patents in arrears. we have a fantastic leadership in the patent office and we won't send them the money to do their job. it's unconscionable that we won't do this. i understand the arguments against it and i reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? mr. leahy: madam president, could we have order.

the presiding officer: could we have order, please, so the senator from vermont can speak. can we please have order. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, i understand what this says, but the coburn amendment can derail and even kill this bill. i say this because as i've told the senator i will move to table it in a moment but this bill would otherwise help our recovering economy,, innovation and create jobs. i've worked for years against patent office fee diversion. but i oppose this amendment. its formulation was already rejected by the house of representatives. they've made it very clear there is no reason they will change. this amendment can sink years of efforts by both republicans and democrats in this body and the other body to pass. what we've done -- actually this amendment can could kill the bill over a mere formality, the difference between a

revolving fund and reserve fund. we've worked out a compromise in good faith. the money -- the fees can only be spent, under the bill as it is here, can only be spent by the p.t.o. but the only thing is we actually have a chance to take a look at what they're spending it on. so they couldn't buy everybody a -- a car, they couldn't have a gilded place, they actually have to spend it on getting through the backlog of patents. it won't go anywhere else. it will only go to the patent office. so we should not kill the bill over this the amendment. we should reject the amendment and pass the bill. it's time for to us legislate. that's what the american people elected us to do, that's what they expect us to do. let's not kill the bill after all this work over something that will really make no difference in the long run. so i therefore move to table the

coburn amendment. the presiding officer: all time has not yet expired. mr. coburn: madam president, i think i have reserved my time. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma has reserved his time. he has a minute and a half. mr. coburn: i would mike the following points and ask for order before i do that. the presiding officer: could we please have order so the senator from oklahoma can speak. mr. coburn: it is true that the house bill moves the money to where it can't be spent elsewhere but there is no requirement that the money be spent in the patent office. there is a written agreement between an appropriation chairman and the speaker that is as good as long as both of them are in their position. this is a seven-year authorization. it will not guarantee the money actually goes to the patent office. this bill with this amendment in it went out of the house judiciary committee 32-3 in a strong bipartisan -- it was never voted on in the senate because the appropriators objected because of a technical

error which has been corrected in this amendment. so it violates no house rules, it violates no condition and in fact will guarantee that the patent office has the funds that it needs to have to put us back in the place we need it. this bill will not be killed because we're going to make sure the money for patents goes to the patent office. and anybody that wants to claim that, ask yourself what you're saying. we're not going to do the right thing because somebody says they won't do the right thing? we ought to do the right thing. i yield back the remainder of my time. mr. leahy: madam president, because this bill would kill the bill i move to table and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. could i please see a sufficient second. there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.