A bill to rescind amounts made available for water treatment improvements for the Flathead County Water and Sewer District and make the amounts available for Federal deficit reduction.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will create the first Heritage Area in California.

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer, Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the 5 Delta Counties to prepare this legislation and support their efforts to fully partner with the State, the Federal agencies, and other local governments to improve and care for the Delta.

This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a National Heritage Area.

The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working with all levels of federal, state, and local government, tribes, local stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history.

It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do. It will not affect water rights. It will not affect water contracts. It will not affect private property.

Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory from agencies that have it.

In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does is impose any additional responsibilities on local government or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, resources, and history.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique national treasure.

Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the United States.

The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries.

These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agricultural land elsewhere in the state.

Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of Native Americans in North America.

The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians, and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and transportation internationally.

Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors.

Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other infrastructure.

Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure.

The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and the water it supplies so many Californians.

The Delta Protection Commission, established under state law, has been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National Heritage Area in the Delta.

This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the Delta.

This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area and federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the commitment the Federal government must make to the Delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of

government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, improve water quality in the Delta, and; sustain the unique cultural, historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the Delta.

The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process already underway.

Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic development projects.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for their support.

I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable.

I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in the body.

The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects on babies and children who are still developing.

I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health problems.

Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity.

This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of Americans.

Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic consequences.

It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical companies.

In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA studies funded by industry.

The difference is glaring.

Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that exposure to BPA caused health problems.

Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. Not one.

Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on chemical companies to conduct research on their own products.

The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA.

This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies across the country, no matter which state they happen to live.

This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or later in life.

This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.

This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting our children's health.

Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and beverage products for children.

Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, BPA-free packaging available right now.

Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac liquid formula.

At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, and Weil Baby.

Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods.

Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in certain children's products.

The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting consumers in the European Union.

Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful chemical.

Let me briefly explain what BPA is.

BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants.

It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not.

Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe.

I don't buy it.

As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later life.

Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of

Mr. President, in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, on March 23, 2010, the 111th Congress made great strides towards protecting consumers from egregious health insurance company practices. However, despite the passage of this historic legislation, the urgent need to protect Americans from unfair health insurance rate increases remains.

Health insurance premiums have been spiraling upwards nationally at out-of-control rates--10, 20, 30 percent every year--all while big national insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Without further legislative action, health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people.

Over the past decade, family health insurance premiums have more than doubled, growing a shocking 130 percent, while workers' hourly earnings rose by only 38 percent, and inflation rose just 29 percent.

From 2000-2008, individuals in the employer-sponsored market saw premiums increase an average of 90 percent.

The cost of health insurance continues to outpace income and inflation for other goods and services, and these rapidly escalating costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.

In 2009, 57 percent of people attempting to purchase insurance in the individual market found it difficult or impossible to afford coverage.

All the while, in the third quarter of 2010, the six-largest investor-owned health insurance companies (Aetna, Coventry Health, United Health, Humana, WellPoint, and Cigna) saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income, putting them on pace to break their own profit record.

The problem is that the health reform law did not go far enough to control these unfair premium increases, it leaves a loophole.

Simply stated, there is no federal authority to do anything about these rate increases, even if they are unfair.

We need to close this loophole.

This is why today I am introducing, with Senators Boxer and Inouye, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011. Representative Schakowsky is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

This legislation creates a federal fallback rate review process, and grants regulatory authority to block or modify rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

This legislation is a simple, common-sense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or

use authority to block unfair rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.

On March 4, 2010, I introduced similar legislation to what I am introducing today. I worked with the Administration and the Finance Committee in putting it together, and with Representative Schakowsky.

President Obama included it in his health reform proposal, but unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria for reconciliation.

The time has come now to take action.

This legislation is necessary in order to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of insurance companies, especially before the majority of the consumer protections included in health reform are fully in place in 2014.

It is disturbing that year after year, health insurance premiums spiral out control, all while insurance companies enjoy increasing profits.

Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, meaning that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education.

This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.

Everyone by now is familiar with the increases that Anthem/Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint, was set to impose--as much as 39 percent--for 800,000 Californians.

It turns out that Anthem Blue Cross used flawed data to calculate health insurance premium increases to hundreds of thousands of policyholders in California, resulting in increases that were larger than necessary.

According to an independent analysis, the 25 percent average increase proposed by Anthem should have only been 15.2 percent.

What is most disturbing is that Anthem's case is not an aberration. Far from it.

This is not a problem unique to California. In the spring of 2010, health insurance companies pursued rate hikes in a number of States: as much as 60 percent in Illinois; 72 percent in Georgia; 50 percent in New Jersey; and 40 percent in Virginia, to name a few.

The White House reports that premium rates have been rising across the Nation, with substantial geographic variation.

For employer-sponsored family coverage, premiums increased 88 percent in Michigan over the past decade compared to a 145 percent increase in Alaska.

A report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that this summer, WellPoint pursued double digit increases in the individual market for 10 other States: Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The reporting requirements in the health reform law will improve the information available, but right now, comprehensive data on the premium increases insurers are imposing does not exist.

In 2009, despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., set a full-year profit record. These companies saw a 56 percent increase in profits from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion.

Furthermore, when many Americans were experiencing double-digit premium increases in 2009, high unemployment, and an average wage growth of only 2 percent, insurance CEOs gave themselves a 167 percent raise.

CEO pay for the 10 largest for-profit health insurance companies was $228.1 million in 2009, up from $85.5 million in 2008.

This doesn't even include the tens of millions more dollars in exercised stock options, and means that these CEOs raked in nearly $1 billion in total compensation.

In the first three months of 2010, the five largest for-profit health insurance companies, WellPoint Inc., United Health Group Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., recorded a combined net income of $3.2 billion--a 31 percent jump over the same period in 2009.

Meanwhile, large insurance companies now insure 2.8 million fewer Americans than they did on December 31, 2008. An estimated 59.1 million Americans were uninsured in the first quarter of 2010.

The California HealthCare Foundation reported that 6.8 million California residents lack health coverage.

That is 20 percent of the State's residents who are not able to afford health insurance.

All the while, insurance companies have been reducing the amount they spend on actual health care. As profits and CEO pay increased, the amount of money insurers spent on medical care went down.

The top six insurers drove down the portion of premiums spent on medical care. For example, the share of premium dollars that CIGNA spent on medical care decreased 6.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the prior year, and Humana's decreased 7.4 percent.

Now, because of legislation in the health reform law, insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of premiums on medical care and quality improvement services, not on profits.

This will go a long way to keeping insurance company greed in check, but we need to go farther.

Clearly without additional legislative requirements, health insurance companies are not going to change.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently published proposed rules defining the rate review process. These regulations are a first step towards protecting consumers and keeping insurers in check.

But they fall short of creating a strong rate review system, and rely too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior.

The regulations do not grant explicit regulatory authority--either State or Federal--to deny, modify, or block rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

The health reform law requires insurance companies to provide justification for unreasonable premium increases to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and post them on their Web sites.

The regulations subject rate increases of 10 percent or greater to additional scrutiny and review, but the State-specific thresholds in 2012 could sanction increases higher than 10 percent.

Transparency and increased scrutiny are steps forward, but there is still this loophole where there is no authority to block or modify even excessive, unjustified, and unfairly discriminatory increases.

This is why I am again introducing my rate review legislation, which will grant this authority.

I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.

This legislation gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to block premium or other rate increases that are excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory.

In some States, insurance commissioners already have that authority, and that is fine. The bill doesn't touch them.

In Maine, for example, the State superintendent of insurance was able to block Anthem's proposed 18.5-percent increase last year. She approved only a 10.9-percent increase.

In at least 17 States, including my own--California--companies are not required to receive prior approval for rate increases before they take effect.

In these States, the Secretary would review potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rate increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase, providing rebates to consumers, or adjusting an increase.

Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement the rate review process. States already doing this work will continue to do so unabated and unfettered. The legislation would not affect them.

However, for the consumers in the other 17 States with no authority, such as California, protection from unfair rate hikes would be provided.

Given the variation in State rate review authority and process, I think this proposal strikes the right balance.

There is no need for involvement in States with insurance commissioners that are able to protect consumers. So the legislation I am introducing simply

provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of large health insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line.

This legislation is particularly important given a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that many States lack the capacity and resources to conduct adequate rate review, regardless of the State's statutory authority to review rates.

I strongly believe that we need to take action on this. The health reform law made great strides towards holding companies and shareholders accountable for providing health care at a reasonable rate.

However, there is this loophole.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many States have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

There needs to be a Federal fallback in States that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review. In States where the Insurance Commissioner is not equipped to review, modify, and block unreasonable rates, my legislation would grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do so.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, the Health Insurance Rate Review Act of 2011, which will close this loophole.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.

This bill is an effort to plan for the competing uses--such as conservation, off-highway vehicle recreation, development, and military training--that are now being proposed for the desert. These uses of our public lands can coexist through comprehensive planning, but in the absence of such planning, it's quite possible that none will thrive.

During the previous Congress I introduced similar legislation to help preserve pristine desert lands that were donated to the Federal Government for permanent conservation a decade ago, but that more recently have come under threat of development because of a flawed bureaucratic process that failed to protect them.

Over the last year the bill was endorsed by more than 100 organizations and agencies, and it had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I am grateful to Senator Bingaman and his staff for working with me to prepare the bill for further action in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I believe we can revise the bill to address further the needs of renewable energy developers, the Department of Defense, off-road recreation enthusiasts, local government and others, and I look forward to continuing that effort in the new Congress.

I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California Desert--and this legislation strikes a carefully conceived balance between these sometimes competing concerns.

The key provisions of this bill would designate two new national monuments--the Mojave Trails and the Sand

to Snow National Monuments; add adjacent lands to the Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve; designate 5 new BLM wilderness areas and protect 4 important waterways--including the Amargosa River and Deep Creek--as Wild and Scenic Rivers; and enhance recreational opportunities in the desert and ensure that the training needs of the military are met.

This bill is the product of painstaking discussions with key stakeholders including environmental groups, local and State government, off-highway recreation enthusiasts, hunters, cattle ranchers, mining interests, the Department of Defense, wind and solar energy companies, California's public utility companies, and many others. I am grateful for all of their efforts.

The previous version of my bill proposed specific improvements to the Department of the Interior's rules governing the development of renewable energy on public lands. I'm pleased that the Department has instituted a number of new policies over the last year which have greatly improved the process. Consequently, the current bill focuses primarily on conservation, recreation and other important uses of the California desert.

However, I intend to work with my colleagues from the West on separate legislation to further expedite the development of wind and solar energy in California and the West.

The California Desert Protection Act, which was enacted in 1994, was a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at conserving some of the most beautiful and ecologically significant lands in my home State.

The law created Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, as well as 69 desert wilderness areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM.

Collectively, it protected more than 7 million acres of desert lands, making it the largest land conservation bill in the lower 48 States in U.S. history.

To this day, it remains one of my proudest accomplishments since joining this body.

Much has changed since the passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Many of the impediments that prevented conservation of other pristine desert lands in the area no longer exist.

For example the Department of Defense concerns with designating some wilderness areas near Fort Irwin have been resolved; many mining areas inside national parks and potential wilderness have closed; grazing allotments on both BLM and National Park Service land have been retired by willing sellers; hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned land have been donated to or acquired by the Federal Government.

Yet even as these issues were resolved, new challenges have emerged. There are now competing demands over how best to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the desert.

Some believe the lands should be used for large-scale solar and wind facilities and transmission lines. Others would like to conserve critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Some would like more acreage available for grazing or for off-road recreation.

Finally, some would like to see additional lands made available for military training and base expansion.

Two years ago, I learned that BLM had accepted applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation. These lands had been donated to the Federal Government or acquired with taxpayer funds with the explicit goal of conservation.

Approximately $45 million of private donations--including a $5 million land discount from Catellus Corporation--and $18 million in Federal Land and Water Conservation grants was spent to purchase these lands, with the intent of conserving them in perpetuity.

As the sponsor of the legislative provisions that helped secure the deal to acquire the roughly 600,000 acres of former private land, I found the BLM's actions unacceptable.

We have an obligation to honor our commitment to conserve these lands--and I believe we can still accomplish that goal while also fulfilling California's commitment to develop a clean energy portfolio.

I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located.

I plan to work with senators from Western States to improve the renewable energy permitting process to allow quicker development of renewable energy projects on private and disturbed public land. This effort likely requires separate legislation and improved regulation.

I applaud the Department of the Interior's efforts over the last year to address this problem, especially Interior's proposed designation of 24 solar energy zones encompassing 677,000 acres of public land in 6 Western States. By designating these zones in appropriate areas and streamlining the permitting process for projects proposed there, the Department has helped ensure that sensitive areas of the desert can be preserved.

As BLM finalizes the creation of these Zones and its new Solar Energy Program, I will push BLM to create a development zone in the West Mojave, conduct sufficient study of zones to ensure projects in these locations can be permitted quickly, and establish the program's rules as expeditiously as possible.

I will continue to suggest ways that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can improve permitting on private lands, the Defense Department can welcome development on its bases, and the Forest Service can utilize its own lands. These matters may require legislation.

There is enough land in California's desert to protect the most precious areas of the Mojave and aggressively develop renewable resources where permitting will be rapid. California must develop 15,000 to 20,000 megawatts of renewable power to meet its climate goals by 2020, and the current permitting process will need to vastly improve for the state to meet this goal.

First, this bill will ensure that hundreds of thousands of acres of land donated to the federal government for conservation will be protected by creating the Mojave Trails National Monument. This new monument would cover approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, which includes approximately 266,000 acres of the former Catellus-owned railroad lands along historic Route 66. I visited the area and was amazed by the beauty of the massive valleys, pristine dry lakes, and rugged mountains.

In addition to its iconic sweeping desert vistas and majestic mountain ranges, this area of the Eastern Mojave also contains critical wildlife corridors linking Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. It also encompasses hundreds of thousands of acres designated as areas of critical environmental concern, critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise, and ancient lava bed flows and craters. It is surrounded by more than a dozen BLM wilderness areas.

The BLM would be given the authority to both conserve the monument lands, and also to maintain existing recreational uses, including hunting, vehicular travel on open roads and trails, camping, horseback riding and rockhounding.

The bill also creates an advisory committee to help develop and oversee the implementation of the monument management plan. It would be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, conservation and recreation groups, and local Native American tribes.

Before I go on to the other conservation provisions in the bill, I would like to address one important issue--and that is what should be done about some of the proposed renewable energy development projects proposed for lands included in this monument.

Although it is true that the monument will prevent further consideration of some applications to develop solar and wind energy projects on former Catellus lands or adjoining lands in the monument, it is important to note that of the proposals in question, not a single one has been granted a permit, nor is a single one under review at the California Energy Commission or under formal NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, review at BLM.

To ensure that creation of the monument does not unnecessarily harm the

firms that worked in good faith and invested substantial time and resources to produce renewable energy in California, the legislation will offer these companies an opportunity to relocate their projects to federal renewable energy zones currently being developed by the Department of the Interior.

Additionally, the monument would not prevent the construction or expansion of necessary transmission lines critical to linking renewable energy generation facilities with the electricity grid.

Second, the bill would establish the ``Sand to Snow National Monument,'' encompassing 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California.

The boundaries of this second, smaller new monument would include two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service San Gorgonio Wilderness, the Wildlands Conservancy's Pipe's Canyon and Mission Creek Preserves, and additional public and private conservation lands, including two wildlife movement corridor areas connecting the Peninsular Ranges with the Transverse Ranges.

This area is truly remarkable, and would arguably be the most environmentally diverse national monument in the country. It serves as the intersection of three converging ecological systems--the Mojave Desert, the Colorado Desert, and the San Bernardino mountains--and is one of the most important wildlife corridors in Southern California.

This monument designation would protect 23.6 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the habitat for approximately 240 species of migrating and breeding birds, the second highest density of nesting birds in the United States. It also serves as a home and a crucial migration corridor for animals traveling between Joshua Tree National Park, the oasis at Big Morongo, and the higher elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains.

I'd like to make one additional point, and that is that despite its ecological significance, this area is not particularly well-known-- largely because it is managed by a number of distinct entities, including the BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service and private preserves and conservation agencies. So, the monument designation would help to attract more attention to one of California's natural gems.

Third, the bill establishes new wilderness areas and allows more appropriate use of lands currently designated as Wilderness Study Areas.

The 1994 California Desert Protection Act extended wilderness protection to many areas in the desert, yet several areas near Fort Irwin were designated as wilderness study areas in order to allow the base to expand.

Now that Fort Irwin's expansion is complete, it is time to consider these areas for permanent wilderness designation.

The bill protects approximately 250,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness in five areas. These areas contain some of the most pristine and rugged landscapes in the California desert.

Beyond Fort Irwin, the bill also expands wilderness areas in Death Valley National Park, 90,000 acres, and the San Bernardino National Forest, 4,300 acres, inside the Sand to Snow National Monument created by this bill.

The bill also releases 126,000 acres of land from their existing wilderness study area designation in response to requests from local government and recreation users. This will allow the land to be made available for other purposes, including recreational off-highway vehicle use on designated routes.

Fourth, this bill would create the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area.

The agreed-upon designation for this area in Imperial County, near the Colorado River, was reached after careful discussion with key stakeholders.

Although the land possesses some wilderness characteristics, there are also competing interests. The Navy Seals currently use some of this area for occasional training. Additionally, many local residents enjoy touring the rolling hills in the area by jeep.

Through the combined efforts of conservation groups, local residents and county government, and the Department of Defense, a compromise conservation designation was developed.

For the land known as the Vinagre Wash, the bill will create a ``special management area'' covering 76,000 acres, including 12,000 acres of former railroad lands donated to the federal government.

Of these, 49,000 acres are designated as potential wilderness and only become permanent wilderness if and when the Department of Defense determines these lands are no longer needed for Navy Seal training.

This designation will permit the area to continue to be accessed by vehicles and be used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, sightseeing, and off-highway vehicle use on designated routes and protect tribal cultural assets in the area.

Fifth, the bill adds to or designates four new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling 76 miles in length. These designations will ensure the rivers remain clean and free-flowing and that their immediate environments are preserved. These beautiful waterways are Deep Creek and the Whitewater River in and near the San Bernardino National Forest, as well as the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon Creek near Death Valley National Park.

Sixth, the bill adds approximately 74,000 acres of adjacent lands to the three National Parks established by the 1994 California Desert Protection Act: 41,000 acres in Death Valley National Park. This includes former mining areas where the claims have been retired and a narrow strip of BLM land between National Park and Defense Department boundaries that has made BLM management difficult; almost 30,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve. This land was not included in the original Monument because of the former Viceroy gold mine. However, the mining operations ceased several years ago and the reclamation process is nearly complete. Additionally, a 2007 analysis by the Interior Department recommended that this area would be suitable to add to the Preserve; 2,900 acres in Joshua Tree National Park. This includes multiple small parcels of BLM land identified for disposal on its periphery. Transferring this land to the Park Service would help protect Joshua Tree by preserving these undeveloped areas that border residential communities.

Seventh, the bill designates new lands as Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.

One of the key goals I have strived for in this bill is to find balance to ensure that the many different needs and uses in the desert are accommodated with the least possible conflict. Some of the most frequent visitors to the desert are the off-highway recreation enthusiasts.

In California alone, there are over 1 million registered off-highway vehicles, many of which can be found exploring thousands of miles of desert trails or BLM designated open areas.

However, in order to meet military training needs, the Marine Corps is studying the potential expansion of Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms into Johnson Valley, the largest OHV area in the country. I strongly support providing our troops with the best possible training, but if the Marines need to expand the base into Johnson Valley, this could have potentially resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of OHV recreation lands.

In 2009 I met with Major General Eugene Payne, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics, and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, to discuss this issue, and I am very grateful for their efforts to consider base expansion options that would preserve much of Johnson Valley for recreation.

As the result of those meetings, the Marine Corps has committed to studying an alternative that would allow for a portion of Johnson Valley to be used exclusively for military training, another portion to be used exclusively for continued OHV recreation and a third area for joint use. While the environmental review process must first be completed, I am hopeful that this option will prevail for the benefit of the Marines and recreational users of Johnson Valley.

The lesson learned from Johnson Valley is that, despite the vast size of the California desert, there are relatively

few areas dedicated to OHV recreation, and even those areas face increasing competition from other types of uses. These areas are important not only to the hundreds of thousands visitors who enjoy them, but also to the local economy that depends on their tourist dollars. Additionally, by protecting these areas, we also protect conservation areas by providing appropriate places for OHV recreation.

This bill will designate five existing OHV areas in the Mojave desert as permanent OHV areas, providing off-highway groups some certainty that these uses will be protected as much as conservation areas. Collectively, these areas could be as much as 314,000 acres, depending on what, if any, of Johnson Valley is ultimately needed by the Marines.

This section of the bill also requires the Secretary of the Inerior to conduct a study to determine which, if any, lands adjacent to these recreation areas would be suitable for addition. This will help make up for some of the lost acres in Johnson Valley should the Marines decide to expand there.

Finally, this bill includes other key provisions that address various challenges and opportunities in the California desert, including state land exchanges. There are currently about 370,000 acres of state lands spread across the California desert in isolated 640 acre parcels. Because many of these acres are inside national parks, wilderness, the proposed monuments or conservation areas, they are largely unusable. The bill seeks to remedy that problem by requiring the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a plan with the state to complete the exchange of these lands for other BLM or GSA owned property in the next ten years. These land exchanges will help consolidate the state lands into larger, more usable areas that could potentially provide the state with viable sites for renewable energy development, off-highway vehicle recreation or other commercial purposes.

Military activities. The bill ensures the right of the Department of Defense to conduct low-level overflights over wilderness, national parks and national monuments.

Climate change and wildlife corridors. The bill requires the Department of the Interior to study the impact of climate change on California desert species migration, incorporate the study's results and recommendations into land use management plans, and consider the study's findings when making decisions granting rights of way for projects on public lands.

Tribal uses and interests. The bill requires the Secretary to ensure access for tribal cultural activities within national parks, monuments, wilderness and other areas designated within the bill. It also requires the Secretary to develop a cultural resources management plan to protect a sacred tribal trail along the Colorado River between southern Nevada and the California-Baja border.

Prohibited uses of donated and acquired lands. In order to ensure that donated and acquired Catellus lands outside the Mojave Trails National Monument are maintained for conservation, the bill prohibits their use for development, mining, off-highway vehicle use, except designated routes, grazing, military training and other surface disturbing activities. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make limited exceptions in cases where it is deemed in the public interest, but comparable lands would have to be purchased and donated to the federal government as mitigation for lost acreage.

All of these provisions, when taken together, would serve to complement the lasting conservation established by the California Desert Protection Act--while ensuring that other important local uses are maintained in appropriate areas.

Though I have lived in or near San Francisco for most of my life, over the years I have come to truly appreciate California's sweeping desert landscapes.

I remember my first visits to the desert years ago. It was treated like a waste dump. It was full of abandoned cars. Old appliances littered the landscape.

But we have worked very hard to clean it up.

We have worked to make sure that the vast vistas and pristine desert habitat are respected by humanity, and that we give to our children a healthier, more beautiful desert than we inherited.

But if we are to remain successful in the long run, we must not only protect the desert land itself, we must also protect the broader environment from the ravages of climate change, and we must offer economic opportunity to those who live in these areas.

That is the purpose of this legislation. There are many places in the California desert where development and employment are essential and appropriate.

But there are also places that future generations will thank us for setting aside.

I have worked painstakingly with stakeholders to ensure that this legislation balances sometimes competing needs.

This bill, if enacted, will have a positive and enduring impact on the landscape of the Southern California desert by conserving pristine areas while meeting the needs of all desert stakeholders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 to extend the three expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--the authority to conduct, subject to court order, so-called ``roving wiretaps,'' ``lone wolf'' surveillance, and collection of business records. This legislation will extend these three authorities, otherwise set to expire on February 28, to December 31, 2013.

The bill will also change the expiration date of the intelligence collection authorities provided in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 so they, too, last until the end of 2013.

I firmly believe that the United States Government needs these authorities to help prevent against future terrorist attacks against our nation and to collect vital intelligence insights into the capabilities and intentions of our adversaries. We remain a nation under threat and need to remain vigilant in our defense.

Let me briefly describe the three expiring provisions.

First, court-ordered roving authority is directed against foreign intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance by such actions as rapidly changing cell phones. In a September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice reported to Congress that this authority ``has proven an important intelligence-gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.''

Second, lone wolf authority allows for court-ordered collection against non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism but for whom an association with a specific international terrorist group has not yet been identified. In the last Congress, when the Department of Justice advised that it had not yet been necessary for the Government to use this authority, the Department stated that it could foresee circumstances in which a terrorist target had not actually contacted a terrorist group or was known to have severed his association from a terrorist group.

From the events of the last several years, we have all become aware that we may be attacked by a lone, unaffiliated terrorist--or one whose links to

terrorist groups are only clear after an individual is apprehended.

Third, the collection of business records pursuant to court orders. This provision allows the Government to require the production of ``tangible things'' in order to obtain foreign intelligence information as part of an investigation. In the September 2009 letter, the Department of Justice urged reauthorization of that authority because ``[t]he absence of such authority could force the FBI to sacrifice key intelligence opportunities.''

I cannot elaborate into the use of these authorities in this unclassified context. I can say, however, that as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and as one who reviews the intelligence on the threats we face, we remain a nation under attack. Providing the authorities to collect intelligence to identify and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland remains necessary.

It is also important to allow Congress, in the future, to conduct a complete review of FISA provisions. By synchronizing the dates when different pieces of the law expire, Congress can consider changes to FISA at once, prior to the end of 2013.

In closing, l would like to assure all Members of the Senate and the American public that extending these sunsets does not shield them from oversight. There is a system of review and oversight in place that consists of the FISA Court, Inspectors General in the Department of Justice and in the intelligence community, regular oversight reviews by the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, a new Director of Compliance at the National Security Agency, and reporting to the Senate and House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. As Chairman of the Senate Select Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can assure colleagues that the Senate has placed, and will continue to place, oversight of the Government's surveillance authorities as a major priority.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress. This critical bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, a program that I was pleased to originally sponsor in the 106th Congress establishing the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

Coral reefs are among the oldest and most economically and biologically important ecosystems in the world. They provide habitat for more than one million diverse aquatic species, a natural barrier for protection from coastal storms and erosion, and are a potential source of treatment for many of the world's diseases. From a commerce perspective, reef-supported tourism is a $30 billion industry worldwide, and the commercial value of United States fisheries from coral reefs is more than $100 million.

However, our coral reef ecosystems face many threats including pollution, climate change and coral bleaching, and overfishing to name a few. Coral reefs cover only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean floor, yet provide habitat for more than twenty-five percent of all marine species.

The original Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 recognized the need to preserve, sustain and restore the condition of these valuable coral reef ecosystems. The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2011 would strengthen NOAA's ability to comprehensively address threats to coral reefs and empower the agency with tools to ensure that damage to our coral reef ecosystems is prevented or effectively mitigated. It also establishes consistent practices for maintaining data, products, and information, and promotes the widespread availability and dissemination of that environmental information.

Finally, the bill allows the Secretary to further develop partnerships with foreign governments and international organizations-- partnerships that are critical not only to the understanding of our coral reef ecosystems, but also to their protection and restoration.

Thank you and I would urge you to support this important legislation to continue supporting NOAA's leadership role in coral reef conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the need for inclusion of pharmacists in the National Health Services Corps, NHSC, student loan repayment program. It is imperative that our Nation focus its efforts on increased access to affordable, high quality healthcare for our Nation's underserved communities. Today's pharmacist graduates with a professional doctorate degree. My home State of Hawaii is home to our only school of pharmacy program located at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and this year will mark the school's very first graduating class. Pharmacists are vital to our intent of increasing access to patient-centered, team-based healthcare for all individuals. They collaborate with providers across the continuum of care to improve medication-use related outcomes, provides access to prevention and wellness screening that, among others, can reduce tobacco use and increase immunization rates all of which support provider effectiveness and organizational efficiencies. The integration of the pharmacist across the continuum of care helps increase access to primary and preventive care and allows for better management of chronic disease. Pharmacists support prescribers by focusing on the management of medications preventing adverse events that lead to avoidable emergency room visits and hospital admissions. This collaborative effort among healthcare providers helps improve clinical and economic outcomes and increases patient satisfaction with their care.

The current approach of recruiting and retaining primary care practitioners may limit access to robust patient-centered, team-based care by patients in underserved communities. Today over 88 percent of pharmacy students borrow over $107,000 to help them pay for their education. The incorporation of comprehensive pharmacy services in these particular communities is a primary objective of the Health Resources and Services Administration patient-safety and clinical pharmacy services collaborative. Making pharmacists eligible to participate in NHSC loan repayment program will ensure that the reorganization of our healthcare system envisioned in legislation, federal action, and community-based models all benefit from patient- centered, team-based models of care that integrate comprehensive pharmacy services.

I urge you to consider the benefits of including pharmacists in the NHSC student loan repayment program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I am pleased to introduce my Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, Seafood Safety Act. The Seafood Safety Act will strengthen the partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to coordinate Federal activities for ensuring that commercially distributed seafood in the United States meets the food quality and safety requirements of Federal law. The bill provides for no new jurisdiction and does not alter any existing jurisdiction given to FDA or any other agency. The bill does not include any authorization of appropriations, but seeks only to strengthen existing partnerships and share information.

The bill remains largely unchanged since I first introduced it in the 110th Congress, but this version, like the one I introduced in the 111th, incorporates the FTC as an additional partner since they have broad existing authority for consumer and interstate commerce fraud issues.

Specifically, the bill requires the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, DHS, and the FTC to enter into agreements as necessary to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. Those agreements must address seafood testing and inspection; data standardization for seafood names; data coordination for the exportation, transportation, sale, harvest, or trade of seafood; seafood labeling compliance assurance; and information-sharing for observed non-compliance. The bill also increases the number of laboratories certified to inspection standards of the FDA and allows the Secretary of Commerce to increase the number and capacity of NOAA laboratories responsible for seafood safety testing. It allows for an increase in the percentage of seafood import shipments tested and inspected to improve detection of violations. Finally, the bill allows the Secretary of HHS to refuse entry of seafood imports from countries with known violations, and also allows the Secretary to permit individual seafood shipments from recognized and properly certified exporters.

For the safety of the American people, I remain committed to the Seafood Safety Act and look forward to continuing to work to ensure its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, which I also introduced in the 111th. This bill would harmonize the enforcement provisions of the U.S. statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to strengthen international fisheries enforcement.

Specifically it would grant the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard authority to implement international fisheries laws, expand their authorities in carrying out investigations and enforcement activities, and establish interference with investigations as a prohibited act. It would also amend the enforcement provisions of statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, while increasing both civil and criminal penalties for violating international fisheries laws.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to maintain and make public a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported, IUU, fishing and authorize appropriate action against listed vessels, which will hopefully allow for strong strides in our fight against illegal activity.

Finally, by creating an International Cooperation and Assistance Program that will provide assistance for international capacity building efforts, training, outreach, and education, it is my hope that we are able to more-successfully combat IUU fishing and promote international marine conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There be no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in United States international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Seven years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108- 357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in United States domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, they are built in higher priced United States shipyards; do not receive Maritime Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading--but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade, Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes

ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing tax equity to the United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other United States flag international operations. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the U.S. Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am reintroducing today will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, non-profit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing resulting in closures of non-profit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem, the Nation's non-profit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed hospital's quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that non-profit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. The study also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis, and that investments in technology and staffing leads to better care. In addition, it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of non-profit teaching hospitals is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 151-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. The Queen's Health Systems serve as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency program in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pathology, psychiatry, and is a clinical teaching facility for obstetrics-gynecology. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. The Queen's Health Systems operate the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs, for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital in the rural, economically depressed island of Molokai. Furthermore, the Queen's Health Systems annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code, these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Non- profit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as that of universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital cannot buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimates show that the provision with its general application will help a number of teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate has several times before acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act of 2003, which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the

Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, nearly 16 years ago I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Over a decade ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the

ottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28, Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000, Report of Hearing Officer.

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomi were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal; an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomi to cede the remainder of their traditional lands, some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago, and remove their nation west. For years, the Pottawatomi steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomi to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomi who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy- seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomi 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. However, the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomi sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomi moved westward, many of the Pottawatomi, particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty, refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomi who remained in the east with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed

by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

After learning of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomi, including most of the Wisconsin Band, vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomi were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 172, Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949. Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties, Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. By the act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 380, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi that still remained in the east. In addition, Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2,007 Wisconsin Pottawatomi: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1,550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomi in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of the money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this Congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomi then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA, granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi from both sides of the border brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823, 1950. The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445, 1983. The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate, and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the Congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left an unfulfilled obligation, and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice, so long delayed, is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities.

Currently, there is no Council, and despite the Federal Government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a nation we need to preserve our Native communities as they are rich with cultural significance and living history.

Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities.

In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens.

Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities.

The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.

As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether.

The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years.

This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to end space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, yesterday, we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. That was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle. It should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars.

I also thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort, and who joined in tabling those amendments that have nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act. Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so that American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill. They should not be used to slow its consideration and passage. If America is to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system that this bill can bring.

I continue to believe, as I have said all week, that we can finish this bill today, and show the American people that the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner. We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time, and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to this bill. Nonetheless, we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation.

Today we should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses. I hope that we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, like energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to short time agreements for additional debate, if needed, and votes on those amendments.

The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment that Senator Feinstein has filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system.

I want to take a moment to talk about an important component of the America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. I said yesterday that the administration strongly supports this effort. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights'' and describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree, and believe it should help small and independent inventors.

This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first-inventor-to-file patent system. A transition to first-inventor-to-file is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act.

This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system. I also commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system is needed to keep America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system. This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, to work through its current backlog of more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications through work-sharing agreements with other patent-granting offices.

The Director of the PTO often says that the next great invention that will drive our economic growth may be sitting in its backlog of applications. The time consuming ``interference proceedings'' that are commonplace in our current, outdated system are wasting valuable resources that contribute to this delay, and unfairly advantage large companies with greater resources.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system was recommended in the 2004 Report by the National Academy of Sciences. The transition has been a part of this bill since its introduction four Congresses ago. This legislation is the product of eight Senate hearings and three markups spanning weeks of consideration and many amendments. Until very recently, first-inventor-to-file had never been the subject of even a single amendment in committee.

Senator Feinstein has worked with me on this bill, has cosponsored it in the past and has voted for it.

I urge Senators who support the goals of the America Invents Act to vote against this amendment to strike the bill's important reform represented by the first-inventor-to-file provision. Every industrialized nation other than the United States uses a patent priority system commonly referred to as a ``first-to-file'' system. In a first-inventor-to-file system, the priority of a right to a patent is based on the earlier filed application. This adds simplicity and objectivity into a very complex system. By contrast, our current, outdated method for determining the priority right to a patent is extraordinarily complex, subjective, time-intensive, and expensive. The old system almost always favors the larger corporation and the deep pockets over the small, independent inventor.

The transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted. Once a patent is granted, an inventor can rely on its filing date on the face of the patent. This certainty is necessary to raise capital, grow businesses, and create jobs.

The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. This, too, should help the small, independent inventor. In the outdated, current system, when more than one application claiming the same invention is filed, the priority of a right to a patent is decided through an ``interference'' proceeding to determine which applicant can be declared to have invented the claimed invention first. This process is lengthy, complex, and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings. In a first-inventor-to-file system, however, the filing date of the application is objective and easy to determine, resulting in a streamlined and less costly process.

Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. As business and competition are increasingly global in scope, inventors must frequently file patent applications in both the United States and other countries for protection of their inventions. Since America's current, outdated system differs from the first-inventor-to-file system used in other patent-issuing jurisdictions, it causes confusion and inefficiencies for American companies and innovators. Harmonization will benefit American inventors.

Finally, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. That is why the bill includes a 1- year grace period to ensure that an inventor's own publication or disclosure cannot be used against him as prior art, but will act as prior art against another patent application. This will encourage early disclosure of new inventions, regardless of whether the inventor ends up trying to patent the invention.

For these reasons among others, the transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and the experts at the Patent and Trademark Office.

This past weekend, the Washington Post editorial board endorsed the transition, calling the first-inventor-to-file standard a ``bright line,'' and stating that it would bring ``certainty to the process.'' The editorial also recognizes the ``protections for academics who share their ideas with outside colleagues or preview them in public seminars'' that are included in the bill.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has expressed its strong support for the first-inventor-to-file system, writing that ``small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in the international markets will expand.''

The Intellectual Property Owners Association calls the first- inventor-to-file system ``central to modernization and simplification of patent law'' and ``very widely supported by U.S. companies.''

Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-inventor-to- file transition will help ``independent inventors across the country by strengthening the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses.''

And, in urging the transition to the first-to-file system, the Association for Competitive Technology, which represents small and mid- size IT firms, has said the current first-to-invent system ``negatively impacts entrepreneurs'' and puts American inventors ``at a disadvantage with competitors abroad who can implement first inventor to file standards.''

If we are to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy, if we are to continue to lead the globe in innovation and production, if we are to win the future through American ingenuity and innovation, then we must have a patent system that is streamlined and efficient. The America Invents Act, and a transition to a first- inventor-to-file system in particular, are crucial to fulfilling this promise.

Madam President, in summary, as I said, yesterday we were finally able to make progress when the Senate proceeded to a vote on the managers' amendment, the Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment, to the America Invents Act. It was a very important amendment, with contributions from many Senators from both sides of the aisle.

I think it was a little bit frustrating for the public to watch. They saw us several hours in quorum calls and then having an amendment that passed 97 to 2. I would hope we might, in doing the Nation's business, move with a little bit more speed. But I do thank those Senators who supported it.

The Leahy-Grassley-Kyl amendment should ensure our moving forward to make the changes needed to unleash American innovation and create jobs without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of the bill will save millions of dollars. These are not bumper slogan ideas of saving money. These are actually doing the hard work necessary to save money.

I thank those Senators who have stayed focused on our legislative effort and who joined in tabling nongermane amendments that had nothing to do with the subject of the America Invents Act.

Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issue of reforming our out-of-date patent system so American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place in this important bill.

We are at a time when China and Europe and the rest of Asia are moving ahead of us. We need the tools to keep up. We should not waste time with a lot of sloganeering amendments that would stop the bill. What we ought to focus on is making America good and making sure we can compete with the rest of the world. We should not have amendments used to slow this bill's consideration and passage. If America is going to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system this bill can bring.

I continue to believe, as I have said all week, we can finish the bill--we actually could have finished it yesterday, when you consider all the time wasted in quorum calls--but I believe we can finish it today and show the American people the Senate can function in a bipartisan manner.

We have not been as efficient as I would have liked. We have been delayed for hours at a time and forced into extended quorum calls rather than being allowed to consider relevant amendments to the bill. But we are on the brink of disposing of the final amendments and passing this important legislation.

We should be able to adopt the Bennet amendment on satellite offices either by a voice vote or a rollcall, I would hope in the next few minutes, and the Kirk-Pryor amendment regarding the creation of an ombudsman for patents relating to small businesses.

I hope we can adopt the Menendez amendment on expediting patents for important areas of economic growth, such as energy and the environment, as well. I am prepared to agree to very short time agreements for additional debate, if needed. If a rollcall is called for, I am happy to have those.

The remaining issue for the Senate to decide will be posed by an amendment Senator Feinstein filed to turn back the advancement toward a first-inventor-to-file system.

I wish to take a moment to talk about an important component of the

America Invents Act, the transition of the American patent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. This is strongly supported by the administration and by the managers of this package. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy notes that the reform to a first-inventor-to-file system ``simplifies the process of acquiring rights,'' and it describes it as an ``essential provision [to] reduce legal costs, improve fairness and support U.S. innovators seeking to market their products and services in a global marketplace.'' I agree. I also believe it should help small and independent inventors.

This reform has broad support from a diverse set of interests across the patent community, from life science and high-tech companies to universities and independent inventors. Despite the very recent efforts--and they were very recent efforts; after all, we have been working on this bill for years--of a vocal minority, there can be no doubt that there is wide-ranging support for a move to a first- inventor-to-file patent system.

A transition to first-inventor-to-file system is necessary to fulfill the promises of higher quality patents and increased certainty that are the goals of the America Invents Act. This improvement is backed by broad-based groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Bar Association, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Business Software Alliance, and the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, among others. All of them agree that transitioning our outdated patent system to a first- inventor-to-file system is a crucial component to modernizing our patent system.

I commend the assistant Republican leader for his remarks yesterday strongly in favor of the first-inventor-to-file provisions. It actually allows us to put America at the pinnacle of innovation by ensuring efficiency and certainty in the patent system.

This transition is also necessary to better equip the Patent and Trademark Office to work through its current backlog. That backlog has more than 700,000 unexamined patent applications.

A transition to a first-inventor-to-file system will benefit the patent community in several ways. It will simplify the patent application system and provide increased certainty to businesses that they can commercialize a patent that has been granted.

The first-inventor-to-file system will also reduce costs to patent applicants and the Patent Office. Importantly, a first-inventor-to-file system will increase the global competitiveness of American companies and American inventors. Also, the first-inventor-to-file provisions that are included in the America Invents Act were drafted with careful attention to needs of universities and small inventors. For these reasons, among others, this transition is supported by the overwhelming majority of the patent community and American industry, as well as the administration and experts at the Patent and Trademark Office.

At this time I wish to have printed in the Record a few letters of support for the transition to first-to-file.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says that ``by moving to a first-inventor-to-file system, small firms will in no way be disadvantaged, while opportunities in international markets will expand.''

The Intellectual Property Owners Association says the transition to first-inventor-to-file ``is central to modernization and simplification of patent law and is very widely supported by U.S. companies.''

BASF says the first-to-file system will ``enhance the patent system in ways that would benefit all sectors of the U.S. economy.''

And the American Bar Association refutes claims that the first-to- file system would disadvantage small and independent inventors, saying that the legislation ``makes it clear that the award goes to the first inventor to file and not merely to the first person to file.''

I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Madam President, we are now ready to go forward on the Bennet and Kirk-Pryor amendments. I am prepared to call them up for a vote in the next few minutes if we could get somebody on the floor.

Amendment No. 117, as Modified

I understand there is a modification at the desk of Bennet amendment No. 117.

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

Madam President, I am ready to go to third reading unless there are others who are otherwise tied up who knows where, but I wish they would take the time to drop by if they have amendments. Senator Grassley and I spent hours on the floor yesterday just waiting for people to bring up amendments. We went through a number of quorum calls. We are talking about something that is going to be a tremendous boost to businesses and inventors. Those who are watching are wondering probably why we have spent years getting this far. So much time is being wasted.

I just want everybody to know the two of us are ready to vote. Yesterday we took hours of delay to vote on the Leahy-Grassley, et al. amendment, and then it passed 97 to 2.

So I would urge Senators who have amendments to come to the floor. As the gospel says, ``Many are called, but few are chosen.'' It may be the same thing on some of the amendments, but ultimately we will conclude. Before my voice is totally gone, unless the Senator from Iowa has something to say, I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

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

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, who has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee all the time I have been there. This has been very helpful. I appreciate what he said. I found interesting the list of patents from his home State of Illinois, and I think each one of us can point to some of those with pride. If we are going to stay competitive with the rest of the world, we have to get this bill passed.

It has been more than 60 years since we updated our patent law. We are way behind the rest of the world. We have to be able to compete, so I thank the Senator.

Further Modification to Amendment 121, as Modified

Madam President, I have cleared this with the Senator from Iowa. Notwithstanding the adoption of the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 121, as modified, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified further with the changes that are at the desk.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that an article written for The Hill by the distinguished Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, dated March 2 of this year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is interesting, I do not want to embarrass the person whom I wanted to speak about at all, but I was interested in listening to my dear friend, Senator Durbin, speak about his time at Georgetown Law School. Both he and I graduated from the Georgetown Law School. He talked about a classmate of his who was in patent law, and he realized this was a complex subject, one that is not the sort of law that he, Senator Durbin, was going to go into, any more than I would have.

But I also think of another graduate of Georgetown Law Center who was an engineer, had a degree in engineering, studied patent law, and became one of the most distinguished patent lawyers, litigators in this country, and is now a member of the Federal circuit court of appeals and that is Judge Richard Linn.

It was interesting hearing the Senator from Illinois, himself one of the finest lawyers in this body. My wife Marcella and I had the honor of being out in Chicago with Judge Linn and his wife Patty for a meeting of the Richard Linn American Inn of Court in Chicago. He serves with great distinction. In fact, a major part of this legislation reflects an opinion he wrote.

But I digress. I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of the Lee amendment No. 115, with the time until 5:15 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Lee amendment No. 115; that the Lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that upon disposition of the Lee amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Menendez amendment No. 124; that Senator Menendez be recognized to modify his amendment with the changes at the desk and the amendment, as modified, be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

I thank the superb staff for writing that out because I am not quite sure I could have done that on my own.

I had hoped as we began debate on this important bill to modernize America's patent system that the Senate would focus specifically on this measure designed to help create jobs, energize the economy and encourage innovation.

I had hoped that we would consider relevant amendments, and pass the bill. The America Invents Act is a key part of any jobs agenda. We can help unleash innovation and promote American invention, all without adding a penny to the deficit.

This is commonsense, bipartisan legislation. I said at the outset that I hoped the Senate would come together to pass this needed legislation and do so in the finest tradition of the Senate. I thank the Republican manager of the bill and the assistant Republican leader for their support and efforts on this bill.

Unfortunately, we have become bogged down with nongermane, nonrelevant, extraneous discussions and amendments.

Earlier this week, Senators who were focused on our legislative effort and responsibilities joined in tabling an amendment that has nothing to do with the subject matter of the America Invents Act.

Extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the important issues of reforming our out-of-date patent system so that American innovators can win the global competition for the future have no place on this important bill. They should not be slowing its consideration and passage.

If America is to win the global economic competition, we need the improvements in our patent system that this bill can bring.

We must now dispose of another such amendment so that we may proceed to final passage of the America Invents Act and help inventors, American businesses and our economic recovery.

I take proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States seriously. I take seriously my oath as a Senator to support and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to it.

Over the years I have become more and more skeptical of recent efforts to amend the design that established the fundamental liberties and protections for all Americans. I believe the Founders did a pretty good job designing our fundamental charter.

I likewise take seriously the standard set in article V of the Constitution that the Congress propose amendments only when a supermajority of the Congress deem it ``necessary.'' While there have been hundreds of constitutional amendments proposed during my service in the Senate, and a number voted upon during the last 20 years, I have been steadfast in my defense of the Constitution.

The matter of a so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is not new to the Senate. Indeed, I believe the first matter Senator Hatch moved through the Judiciary Committee when he chaired it and I served as the ranking member was his proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

I strongly opposed it, but I cooperated with him in his effort to have the committee consider it promptly and vote.

I wish others would show the managers of this bill that courtesy and cooperation and not seek to use this bill as a vehicle for messages on other matters.

The Judiciary Committee has considered so-called balanced budget amendments to the Constitution at least nine times over the last 20 years. The Senate has been called upon to debate those amendments several times, as well, in 1982, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1997. Despite the persistent and extraordinary efforts of the senior Senator from Utah, they have not been adopted by the Congress.

The only time the Senate agreed to the proposed constitutional amendment was in 1982. On that occasion, the House of Representatives thought the better of it. On the subsequent five occasions, as Senators came to understand how the proposed amendment undercut the Constitution, it was defeated.

Now another Senator has adopted this cause.

He has proposed a different, even more complicated proposed constitutional amendment. That will require study in order to be understood. It will require working with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

While the new Senator from Utah is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Constitution subcommittee, he has not consulted with me about his proposal, nor, as far as I know, with the chairman of the subcommittee, the senior Senator from Illinois.

Instead, he preemptively seeks to raise the matter on this important bill, which is designed to create jobs, encourage American innovation and strengthen our economy.

For the last 20 years, the so-called balanced budget amendment has been a favorite slogan for some. For some others of us, we have done the hard work to actually produce a balanced budget and, indeed, a surplus.

Rather than defile the Constitution, we have worked and voted to create a balanced budget and a budget surplus. In 1993, without a single Republican vote to help us, Democrats in the Congress passed a budget that led to a balanced budget and, indeed, to a budget surplus of billions of dollars by the end of the Clinton administration.

That surplus was squandered by the next administration on tax breaks for the wealthy and an unnecessary war that cost trillions but went unpaid for. Those misjudgments were compounded by financial fraud and greed that led to the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. That is what we have been seeking to dig out from under since 2008.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter received from American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in opposition to the Lee amendment.

We have stabilized the economic freefall and begun to revive the economy.

Everyone knows that economic growth is the path toward budget balance. Economic growth and winning the future through American innovation is what the bipartisan American Invents Act is all about.

Accordingly, for all these reasons as well as the reasons for which I opposed the efforts to amend the Constitution in 1982, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1997, I oppose amendment No. 115.

Exhibit 1

[From the Hill, Mar. 2, 2011]

Delivering Innovation and Jobs Through Patent Reform

(By Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke)

Today, there are more than 700,000 unexamined patent

applications log-jammed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office (USPTO).Many of them represent inventions that will

come to market and launch new businesses and create new,

high-paying jobs.

But without a patent, securing the funds needed to get a

business or innovation off the ground is nearly impossible,

for both small and large inventors alike.

Patent reform legislation the Senate is considering this

week can change that.

And it can build on the progress USPTO Director David

Kappos has already made in reducing the time it takes to

process the average patent--currently nearly 3 years.

New programs have been introduced to fast-track promising

technologies, reforms have been made to help examiners more

quickly process applications, and the Patent Office recently

announced a plan to give inventors more control over when

their patent is examined.

The result? The backlog of patents is decreasing for the

first time in years, even as new applications have actually

increased 7 percent.

But if the USPTO is to speed the movement of job-creating

ideas to the marketplace, it will take more than internal,

administrative reforms alone. That's where the patent reform

legislation comes in.

Here's what it promises to do: First, it allows the USPTO

to set its own fees--a major part of ensuring that the agency

has reliable funding. This will enable the USPTO to hire more

examiners and bring its IT system into the 21st century so it

can process applications more quickly and produce better

patents that are less likely to be subject to a court

challenge.

Second, it decreases the likelihood of expensive litigation

because it creates a less costly, in-house administrative

alternative to review patent validity claims.

Also, the pending legislation would add certainty to court

damages awards, helping to avoid excessive awards in minor

infringement cases, a phenomenon that essentially serves as a

tax on innovation and an impediment to business development.

Finally, patent reform adopts the ``first-inventor-to-

file'' standard as opposed to the current ``first-to-invent''

standard. First inventor to file is used by the rest of the

world, and would be good for U.S. businesses, providing a

more transparent and cost-effective process that puts them on

a level playing field with their competitors around the

world.

There is some concern among some small, independent

inventors, who feel like the current system is better for

them, but it's our strong opinion that the opposite is true.

Here's why: The cost of proving that one was first to

invent is prohibitive and requires detailed and complex

documentation of the invention process. In cases where

there's a dispute about who the actual inventor is, it

typically costs at least $400,000 in legal fees, and even

more if the case is appealed. By comparison, establishing a

filing date through a provisional application and

establishing priority of invention costs just $110. The

125,000 provisional applications currently filed each year

prove that early filing dates protect the rights of small

inventors.

In the past seven years, of almost 3 million applications

filed, only 2 patents were granted to small entities that

were the second inventor to file but were able to prove they

were first to invent. Of those 25, only one patent was

granted to an individual inventor who was the second to file.

Thus, in the last seven years, only one independent inventor

in nearly 3 million patent filings would have gotten a

different outcome under the ``first-inventor-to-file''

system.

Many proposals in this legislation have been debated for a

decade, but we now have core provisions with broad support

that will undoubtedly add more certainty around the validity

of patents; enable greater work sharing between the USPTO and

other countries; and help the agency continue with

operational changes needed to accelerate innovation, support

entrepreneurship and business development, and drive job

creation and economic prosperity.

And thanks to the leadership of Senate and House Judiciary

Committee Chairmen, Patrick Leahy1 and Lamar Smith, getting

this bipartisan jobs legislation passed is a top priority.

There's a clear case for it. As President Obama said in his

State of the Union address, ``The first step in winning the

future is encouraging American innovation.''

Reforming our patent system is a critical part of that

first step.

Speeding the transformation of an idea into a market-making

product will drive the jobs and industries of the future and

strengthen America's economic competitiveness.

Mr. President, even though I oppose this amendment and would simply allow it to go for a voice vote because the proponent of the amendment is not even on the floor, I will, to protect his right and notwithstanding his not following the normal policy, ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act. This bipartisan legislation will dramatically reduce prescription drug costs by preventing one of the most egregious, anti-consumer tactics ever devised to keep generic drugs off the market.

This amendment would combat ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies which delay entry of low-cost generic competition. These pay-for-delay agreements are estimated by the FTC to cost consumers $3.5 billion each year, and are estimated by the CBO estimates to cost the federal government more than $2.8 billion over the next decade in higher drug reimbursement payments.

In 2008, $235 billion were spent on prescription drugs in the United States. Generic drugs play a crucial role in containing rising prescription drug costs, by offering consumers therapeutically identical alternatives to brand-name drugs, at a significantly reduced cost. Studies have shown that generic competition to brand name drugs can reduce drug prices by as much as 80 percent. However, in recent years generic entry has frequently been blocked by anti-competitive, anti-consumer agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs.

In pay-for-delay agreements, a brand-name drug manufacturer settles patent litigation by paying off a generic competitor with large amounts of cash, or other valuable consideration to stay off the market until expiration--or a time close to expiration--of the brand-name patent. For example, in 2006, the CEO of Cephalon, which makes the sleep disorder pill Provigil, praised the deals his company made with four generic drug-makers to keep generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012. ``We were able to get six more years of patent protection,'' he said. ``That's $4 billion in sales that no one expected.'' Unfortunately, that $4 billion came from the pockets of American consumers.

At their core, pay-for-delay agreements permit brand-name drug companies to pay off competitors not to compete. The brand name drug company wins because it reaps the profits from eliminating competition. The generic drug company wins because they get paid millions of dollars to do nothing more than drop their patent challenge. But consumers and the American taxpayer loses, to the tune of billions of dollars in higher drug costs every year.

Agreements between competitors, like these, are the most nefarious type of antitrust violation. Unfortunately, when the FTC has challenged ``pay-for-delay'' agreements, courts have favored big industry interests over consumers. Courts have wrongly concluded that this type of basic antitrust violation is immune from antitrust law because it involves the settlement of a patent challenge. In other words, it is permissible for competitors to collude to when it involves a patented drug and in order to keep lower cost drugs out of consumers' medicine cabinets. These misguided court rulings are what make passage of our legislation so vital.

For years, we have seen the use of anticompetitive agreements increase. From 2000 to 2004, there were twenty settlements of drug patent litigation, but we saw no pay-for-delay agreements because drug companies assumed they violated antitrust law. But, these settlements became all too prevalent following three courts of appeals decisions in 2005 which effectively found them to be per se legal and prevented the FTC from taking action on behalf of consumers against these settlements.

In the 2 years following these 2005 court decisions, 28 out of 61 patent settlements had provisions in which the brand name drug company made payments to the generic manufacturer in exchange for the generic manufacturer agreeing to delay entry of generic competition. Clearly, pay-for-delay agreements are not necessary to settle a case because during that same time, 33 cases settled without delaying entry to consumers in exchange for a payment.

Last fall, the FTC released a report which found a record 19 pay-for- delay settlements in fiscal year 2009, the highest ever recorded in a single year. This report convincingly demonstrates the danger these deals pose to consumers. Each of these deals will lead to higher drug costs for millions of consumers. Each of these deals cost the Federal Government large sums in taxpayer money in higher drug reimbursement costs. Each of these deals deprive consumers of needed drug competition. The time for action to stop these anti-consumer, anticompetitive back room deals is now.

Our legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last Congress with a strong bipartisan majority. The Judiciary Committee made several changes to the legislation as it is was introduced in the 111th Congress, and the legislation I am introducing today includes all of these changes. I believe the current version of this legislation represents a well balanced approach to this problem. Under my bill, these settlement agreements will be presumed to be illegal. However, the FTC will need to pursue legal action prior to these agreements being found illegal, and the drug companies will have an opportunity to convince the Judge why these agreement are not in fact anticompetitive. If found illegal, the FTC will have the authority to assess civil penalties up to three times the profits gained by the drug companies.

I believe this measure strikes the right balance. By presuming these agreements to be illegal, and armed with strong civil penalties, this bill will deter drug companies from entering into anti-competitive and anti-consumer ``pay-for-delay'' settlements in the first place. By giving the drug companies a hearing before a neutral tribunal, the drug companies will have their day in court to go forward with those agreements which truly do not harm competition.

The evidence is clear. These ``pay-for-delay'' agreements between brand name and generic drug companies deny consumers the benefits of generic drug competition and costs consumers and the Federal Government billions of dollars. My legislation will give the FTC strong remedies to prevent these agreements when it concludes they harm competition. Millions and millions of Americans that struggle to pay their prescription drug costs and who need low priced generic alternatives are awaiting action on this amendment. I urge my colleagues support for the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing, along with my colleagues, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress by a unanimous 15-0 vote.

Our legislation will eliminate unwarranted and outmoded antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing nearly 90 percent of the Nation's freight rail transportation, as measured by revenue. The harmful result of this industry concentration for railroad shippers is well documented. A 2006 General Accounting Office Report found that shippers in many geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.

A recent staff report, issued September 15, 2010, of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also makes clear how railroads have benefited from the unique combination of deregulation and large- scale antitrust immunity, to the detriment of rail shippers and consumers. This Report--titled ``The Current State of the Class I Freight Rail Industry''--stated that ``[t]he four Class I railroads that today dominate the U.S. rail shipping market are achieving returns on revenue and operating ratios that rank them among the most profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' The four largest railroads nearly doubled their collective profit margins in the last decade to 13 percent ranking the railroad industry the fifth most profitable industry as ranking by Fortune magazine.

Increased concentration and lack of antitrust scrutiny have had clear price effects--according to the Commerce Committee Report, since 2004, ``Class I railroads have been raising prices by an average of 5 percent a year above inflation.'' The recent Commerce Committee Report concluded that ``Class I freight railroads have regained the pricing power they lacked in the 1980s, and are now some of the most highly profitable businesses in the U.S. economy.'' Given the industry's concentration and pricing power, the case for full fledged application of the antitrust laws is plain.

The ill-effects of railroad industry consolidation are exemplified in the case of ``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail rates. They are the victims of monopolistic practices and price gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.

These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.

And similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the Antitrust Subcommittee in the 110th Congress which detailed numerous instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups affected by monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act in the last Congress. Supporters of the legislation include 20 state Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Chemistry Council, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Public Power Association, and the American Bar Association Antitrust Section.

The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will eliminate these exemptions.

No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980-- deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, just name just two examples.

Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the purview of

the Clayton Act, allowing the federal government, state attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.

Significantly, our bill will not affect in way the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board to regulate freight railroads. It will in no way limit or alter the authority of the STB; the STB will continue to exercise full jurisdiction over the railroad industry.

In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.

It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing.'' This bill wil ensure that consumers can obtain discount prices at the very time they need them the most.

In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case turned the Sherman Act on its head to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses--will correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se ban on vertical price fixing. My bill has been endorsed by the National Association of Attorneys General, 38 state attorneys general, as well as numerous antitrust experts, including former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour, and the leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation of America, and the American Antitrust Institute. This legislation passed the Judiciary Committee last year.

The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices.

Ample evidence exists of the pernicious effect of allowing vertical price fixing. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to enact so- called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. Studies the Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such ``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $2.1 billion per year at that time.

Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is even greater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today would be $300 billion, translating into retail bills that would average $750 to $1,000 higher for the average family of four every year.

The experience of the last three years since the Leegin decision has begun to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from permitting vertical price fixing. The Wall Street Journal has reported that more than 5,000 companies have implemented minimum pricing policies. A new business--known as ``internet monitors''--has materialized for companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller

end its discounting. There have been many reports of everything from consumer electronics and video games to baby products and toys, rental cars and bicycles being subject to minimum retail pricing policies.

Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to consumers.

In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an ``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses involved possess market power ``is a further, significant consideration'' under the rule of reason.

In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores or consumers with limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts and complicated economic evidence necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of former FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a virtual euphemism for per se legality.''

Our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted two extensive hearings into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing the ban on vertical price fixing in the last two Congresses. Both former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky and former FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms discount clothing stores, and a senior executive of the Burlington Coat Factory discount chain testified as well, both citing the likely dangers to the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company ``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position in the market place to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices for consumers.

The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.

In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Fast Track to College Act, a bill to support the expansion of dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools. Such programs allow young people to earn up to two years of college credit while also earning their high school diploma.

I believe the key to our country's economic recovery is a strong investment in our young people. By investing in education, we ensure that today's students are well prepared to compete in a global economy.

Far too many of our students are falling behind in school, and as students struggle with their studies or drop out of school altogether, their futures and the health of our workforce are at risk. Young people who drop out of high school are at increased risk for negative outcomes such as unemployment and incarceration, as well as reliance on public assistance for healthcare, housing, and other basic needs--outcomes that have high costs for their communities and our economy. Conversely, adults who earn bachelor's degrees earn on average two-thirds more than high school graduates and $1 million more than high school dropouts over their working lives.

Studies show many youth drop out because they don't see a practical reason to complete high school or go on to get a college degree. Maybe they don't think they can get into college, don't think they can afford to go, or just don't see the point in going. Dual enrollment programs and Early College High Schools address these issues by showing students that they can succeed in college courses while saving time and money. They don't drop out because they can see that they are on track to a degree--and ultimately a job. By earning college credit, and possibly even an Associate's Degree, students are better prepared after high school to continue their education or pursue career training.

That is why I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which provides competitive grant funding for Early College High Schools and other dual enrollment programs that allow low-income students to earn college credit and a high school diploma at the same time. These programs put students on the fast track to college and increase the odds that they will not only graduate, but also go on to continue their education and secure higher-paying jobs.

This bill authorizes $140,000,000 for competitive 6-year grants to schools, with priority given to schools that serve low-income students. The funding will help defray the costs of implementing new programs, strengthening existing programs, and providing students and teachers with the resources they need to succeed in early college high schools and other dual enrollment programs. The bill also includes $10 million for states to provide support for these programs, as well as an evaluation component so we can measure the program's effectiveness.

I am proud to sponsor this legislation, with the support of Senator Brown of Ohio, because I believe this investment in our schools will help solve the dropout crisis and secure America's future by ensuring that all young people can compete in today's global economy. Further, I believe that all children, regardless of income or other factors, deserve equal opportunities to fulfill their potential, and it is both morally and fiscally responsible for this Congress to invest in high- quality educational programs that help our youth reach their potential.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills that I believe will be important for our small businesses, especially our smaller manufacturers. In each of these bills, there is an emphasis on keeping our research and development and manufacturing here in the United States, rewarding our innovative American businesses with predictable credits and equitable treatment, and creating good paying jobs.

The first bill, S. 155, is designed to incentivize keeping jobs in the United States by increasing the existing Research & Development tax credit for companies that produce most of their goods domestically. The Domestic Jobs Innovation Bonus Act would create a bonus R&D Credit that increases incrementally to reward a higher percentage of domestic production. To earn the bonus credit, a company would need to make at least half of their products domestically--and for doing so would receive an additional 2 percentage points on top of the existing R&D credit. The credit would max out at a 10 percentage point increase for companies with 90 percent to 100 percent of their receipts from domestic production. For example, a company with 100 percent domestic production that would normally receive a 20 percent R&D tax credit would receive a 30 percent credit under this proposal.

To be clear, this isn't a tax credit that will benefit every company that has a presence in the United States. It

may not benefit many large, multi-national corporations, but those companies will still have access to the existing R&D Credit, which I support as well.

It is my hope that a credit like this could convince a company that is deciding whether to manufacture and research here or abroad, to choose America.

I am introducing a second bill, S. 156, with Senators Corker and Alexander that would establish a uniform energy efficiency descriptor for all water heaters and improve the testing methods by which that descriptor is determined. Currently, water heaters are lumped into two categories under two federal statutes, based on arbitrary gallon capacity and energy input ratings. ``Smaller'' water heaters are covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, NAECA, and must be rated using an energy factor or EF rating. ``Larger'' water heaters are within the scope of the Energy Policy Act, EPACT, and must be rated using a thermal efficiency or TE rating. Not only do the testing methods differ, but a manufacturer is forbidden to place an EF rating on a TE-sized unit, and vice-versa.

This legislation would direct the Department of Energy to work with industry stakeholders to develop a uniform energy efficiency descriptor that applies to all sizes of water heaters. It also would develop a test method to accurately determine that descriptor for all types of water heaters. It is my hope that the water heating manufacturing community can develop and implement the new test method and descriptor that will eliminate confusion and enable consumers and business owners to make informed purchasing decisions on water heaters. In today's tough economy, energy bills continue to stretch family budgets. Families can save money and conserve energy if they have accurate information about how much energy home appliances consume.

The difference between EF and TE ratings was based on the assumption that smaller units were exclusively for residential uses while larger units were exclusively for commercial purposes. Due to advances in manufacturing technology, the assumptions underlying the earlier dividing line are no longer accurate. In fact, both larger and smaller units made by leading U.S. manufacturers are used in residences without regard to which Federal law applies. Yet, Federal legislation continues to be written by taking this distinction into account.

In particular, these American companies are affected by the current disparate energy standards because it can disadvantage some of their products. Establishing one standard will help breakdown a patchwork of incentives and efficiency designations at both the state and federal level. For example, water heaters rated with a TE rating are not eligible for the ENERGY STAR label, and accordingly, not eligible for many state appliance rebate programs that link their incentives to an ENERGY STAR designation. This bill will make it so all products are competing on a level playing field for all incentives.

In addition to the energy savings that this bill will provide, it is also about the jobs potential for companies making these cutting-edge products. A globally-recognized cluster of water technology companies is emerging in the City of Milwaukee and surrounding counties. An important part of this effort is innovative water heater technologies. Incentivizing these products through predictable and equitable standards is vital to these companies.

The third bill, S. 157, would extend the Section 48 investment tax credit to solar light pipe technology. This is a promising new technology that could save our businesses money on their electricity bills, and reduce our overall energy usage--two goals on which we can all agree. Light pipes collect natural light, and then through the use of sensor technology, automatically dim the other lights in a building--thereby using less electricity for the same amount of light.

Despite the clear benefits of the technology, high cost has kept many businesses from using light pipes. Adding this technology to Section 48 will provide that boost that these businesses need to justify the expense.

I became aware of this technology because one of the companies that makes it is based in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This company, Orion Energy Systems, employs about 250 people, and has been growing even during this tough economic time. In addition to light pipes, Orion makes energy efficient lighting systems, and partners with wind and solar power companies to significantly reduce the energy costs for many of our largest and most distinguished companies. Orion technology has been deployed at more than 6,000 facilities, and has worked with 126 of the Fortune 500 companies. Since 2001, Orion customers have saved more than $1 billion in electricity costs by displacing nearly 600 megawatts.

This credit will help Orion and companies like it create thousands of jobs through the production of the technology as well as installing it.

I urge my colleagues to support all of these bills, and I hope that they are enacted as part of an agenda that focuses on innovation, job creation, and shoring up our vital manufacturing sector.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for approximately 20 minutes, and I probably will not use all of that time and will yield back.

I thank the Chair.

Executive Order on Regulations

Mr. President, I rise today to speak again about President Obama's January 18 Executive order that directed all Federal agencies within the administration to review or repeal those significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, overly burdensome, or would have a significant economic impact on ordinary Americans.

The President went on to say--I am paraphrasing from his words--they are costly, they are duplicative, in many cases they aren't necessary, we need to review them, and in some cases, actually, they are stupid. That is a direct quote from the President. I am paraphrasing, but he did say the word ``stupid.''

Probably ``stupid'' would be the word, or maybe ``egregious'' or ``fed up'' that almost any group or any organization back home would use when you visit with them. I know Senators, on their past break or our work period, if you will, probably spoke to a lot of groups. I will tell you what happened to me.

I would walk into a group--any organization, be it farmers, ranchers, educators, health care, whatever--and they would say: Pat, what on Earth are you doing back there, passing all these regulations, a wave of regulations that do not make common sense and do not fit the yardstick, if you will, of cost and benefit? We can't even wake up any morning without some new regulation popping up across the desk, and we just don't have the people to do this. You are about to put us out of business.

The first thing I say is, I am not a ``you guy,'' I am an ``us guy.'' And I am very much aware of these regulations. We have to do something about it. I brought up the fact the President himself recognized these problems.

But I have to say that while I applauded this decision by the President, I noted there were some loopholes in his Executive order, and they are roughly these--if I could sort of summarize them: No. 1, if you are doing something for the public good--and, obviously, the secretary of any agency is going to say: Sure, we are doing something for the public good--well, then, you are exempt. That is a pretty big loophole to drive the truck through.

Secondly, it was if you are an independent agency. Well, let's try the IRS. I think more people than most would say: Yes, we have some regulatory problems with the IRS.

Several more, and I won't go into those. Then you have this paragraph, which I am going to read, that agencies can apply to their decision as to whether they are going to review the regulations they have on the books and regulations coming down the pike. They can apply this to see if they are exempt, and this is within the Executive order.

In applying these principles, each agency is directed to

use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated

present and future benefits and costs as accurately as

possible.

I can't imagine anybody being opposed to that.

Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may

consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult

or impossible to quantify--

I don't know how you do that--

including equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive

impacts.

That is about as amorphous as any language that I could possibly put together. If any secretary, or anybody in any agency who promulgates all the regulations they think they are forced to under some congressional act or perhaps an Executive order they are trying to issue applies this language, of course, they are exempt.

So there are loopholes, again, that you can drive trucks through in regards to the fact that this Executive order is basically not going to be adhered to because everybody will stand up and say: We are exempt. We are doing public good. We are doing this language--whatever that means.

So while I applaud the decision by the President, I decided last week I would introduce legislation to strengthen and codify his Executive order. All that means is, when I say we codify it, we say: OK, the Executive order stands but, sorry, no exemptions.

What a day that would bring to Washington, with all the Federal agencies saying: Whoa, stop. We are going to take a look at all the regulations we have out there now, and we are going to take a look at all the ones we are promulgating--which are hundreds of them. And, I might just note, there were 44 major regulatory decisions that cost the American business community $27 billion just last year, according to one study. We are finding more and more people coming to Washington who have an agenda in regards to these regulations, but the folks out there who are being impacted seem to be overlooked.

I have 30, 32, 35 cosponsors on this bill. I asked on both sides of the aisle for cosponsors. I think it is a good bill. It would be a brandnew day in Washington if every Federal agency had to stop and say: Whoa, wait a minute. Let's apply a cost-benefit yardstick. The Executive order sort of goes into what that would mean. They have one individual who is supposed to be doing all of this, so they could report to him, although that would be quite a load. My goodness, if all the Federal agencies stopped their regulatory process, there would be a cheer out in the hinterland in regards to every business I can think of.

Well, as the administration moves forward with this review, I am going to have something to say in several areas: health care, energy, and financing, to people who are lending agencies and the effect of the regulatory reform. But today I want to talk about agriculture.

Today I want to talk about the EPA and what is going on in regards to what I think is regulatory overkill for sure.

I am privileged to be the ranking Republican and to serve with the Senator from Michigan, our chairwoman of the committee, Senator Stabenow. Basically, as the administration moves forward with its review, I recommend the President and his advisers pay particularly close attention to the activities of three specific agencies when they are determining which proposed regulations will place the greatest burden on agriculture--a key component of our Nation's economy and the ability to feed this country and a troubled and hungry world--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Since fiscal year 2010, 10 new regulations promulgated--that is a fancy word in Washington which means issued--by the EPA have accounted for over $23 billion in new cost to the American taxpayer. Now, that is outrageous, and they are just getting started. The EPA has several new proposals, many of which will have immediate negative impacts on the ability of America's farmers and ranchers to continue to produce enough food to feed our communities, our States, our country, and, yes, the world. Think of how valuable that is as we look down the road with about a 9.3 billion increase in population compared to 6 billion today. We are going to have to double agriculture production, and I will talk about that a little later.

Why on Earth would we want to do anything to the farmer and rancher whose job it is to do that? That is beyond me. I will highlight two such proposals that many producers have brought to my attention. I just addressed the Commodity Classic in Kansas, in Great Bend, of about 200 farmers. Guess what their No. 1 concern was. Overregulation, regulation that could put them out of business. They are concerned about the farm bill and they are concerned about lending and they are concerned about debt. But first, in only 7 short weeks, the EPA will require farmers-- who are applying pesticide to kill pests so they can save the crop--to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act, even though that activity is already highly regulated under the Federal pesticide law. The President said we don't need regulations that are duplicative. We don't need two agencies having a different agreement on one regulation. We probably don't even need that regulation because we have very strong regulations under the FIFRA act that we have right now.

Farmers and other pesticide applicators, under this regulatory impact, would not be facing these requirements if the administration had chosen to vigorously defend its longstanding policy that protections under the Federal pesticide law were sufficient to protect the environment.

Excuse me, Mr. President. That was probably a phone call from some farmer listening to this and saying: Go ahead and give them you know what, Pat.

Unfortunately, the administration chose a different path and now estimates suggest this duplicative regulation will require 365,000 individuals to get a Clean Water Act permit--365,000 individuals--a requirement that will cost $50 million and require 1 million hours per year to implement. Bottom line, it will not add any environmental protection.

This layer of redtape will place a huge financial burden on the shoulders of farm families all across the country, as well as State governments responsible for enforcement while at the same time facing dire budget situations. Last month, John Salazar, a former Member of the House of Representatives and newly appointed Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture stated in his testimony before the House:

It is no secret that States across the country face dire

budget situations and many have had to close State parks,

cancel transportation projects and cut funding to higher

education. It is very difficult to justify diverting even

more resources to manage paperwork for a permit that is

duplicative of other regulatory programs and has no

appreciable environmental benefits. However, if Colorado's

estimates are reflective of the situation in other States,

the true cost to States will quickly outstrip EPA's

estimates. More than 365,000 individuals, $50 million, and 1

million hours per year to implement on the backs of our

farmers and ranchers.

Mr. President, these expenses are not just limited to the cost of compliance and enforcement. The April 9 effective date is near. There is still significant confusion and uncertainty about what pesticide applications will fall under these new regulations. This means farmers and other pesticide applicators may very well find themselves subject to massive penalties. On top of the fact that they shouldn't be filling out the paperwork in the first place, if they do not, they could be held responsible for massive penalties for minor paperwork violations to the tune of--get this--$37,500 per day per violation. Unbelievable.

Beyond agency enforcement, they will also now be exposed to the threat of litigation under the clean water law's citizen suit provisions. With the volatile nature of agricultural markets and increased demand, these sort of risks and resulting costs are something that producers and the hungry mouths who depend on them simply cannot afford.

Next, EPA is undertaking an effort to control particulate matter-- this is a favorite of mine--otherwise known as dust. They call it rural fugitive dust. This is a dust-off of the old 1970s effort to control rural fugitive dust. I remember that. Somebody must have pulled it from the file. This is part of the EPA's review of the PM standard under the Clean Air Act.

The agency is currently considering the most stringent regulations on farm dust that have ever been proposed. I finally reached the person who, when they first proposed this, was in charge of promoting it, or she was going to promulgate these regulations on rural fugitive dust. Before I could get a word in--I finally reached the person in charge; it took me 3 days--finally, before I could get a word in, she said: Did you realize--at that point I was a Congressman, and she said: Do you realize, Mr. Roberts, you have a lot of dust in your part of the country?

I said: I think I know that. That is why we had the Great Plains Conservation Program. Each farmer has to have a conservation program if they are going to apply or for it to be applicable to the farm bill. We have a Conservation Reserve Program. We are doing everything we can to control dust, rest assured. Nobody likes that.

I said: What would you have us do to comply with rural fugitive dust rules?

She said: You know the grain trucks at harvest go up and down gravel roads, and they cause a lot of dust.

No kidding.

I said: What would you have us do?

She said: Why don't you send out water trucks at 10 o'clock in the morning and 2 in the afternoon to every community in Kansas that has those gravel roads where you harvest wheat.

I said: Great idea. That would be marvelous. Maybe we could get a grant. Today, that would be a stimulus grant to small communities in regard to rural areas where we are doing the wheat harvest to, No. 1, buy the trucks and, No. 2, find the water.

That is just how ridiculous this is with rural fugitive dust. To put it simply, this defies common sense, whether it is cattle kicking up dust in a feedlot in Dodge City, KS, or Larned, KS, or anywhere in Kansas during harvest on a hot afternoon on the high plains in June. Dust is a naturally occurring event. Standards beyond the current limit would be impossible to meet, particularly in the western portion of the Nation where rainfall is often scarce. I don't even know why I am taking this seriously in regard to that kind of regulation.

In a bipartisan June letter, 23 Members of this body wrote a letter to express these concerns to Administrator Jackson stating:

Considering the Administration's focus on rural America and

rural economic development, a proposal such as this could

have a negative effect on those very goals . . . Common sense

requires the EPA to acknowledge that the wind blows and so

does dust.

As we think about EPA's actions impacting agriculture, it is critical to recognize that no one cares more about maintaining a clean environment than the American farmer and rancher. Producers across the country manage their operations responsibly because of their desire to keep farming and to one day pass along that ranch or field to their sons, daughters and grandchildren if

they can. They know firsthand that clean air and water and healthy soil go hand-in-hand with a healthy economy. Our producers deserve respect and appreciation from the EPA, not costly and redundant and yes, even ridiculous regulation.

Shifting departments now, the Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration--GIPSA--released a proposed rule that would dramatically increase the redtape governing the business relationships surrounding production and marketing of livestock in the United States. The rule was initially proposed last summer without the benefit of a meaningful cost-benefit analysis-- something we have been trying to get and something the administration should have included.

However, the proposal has since received significant criticism from ranchers, industry and members of Congress alike and is now being further evaluated by USDA officials.

As written, the proposal would dramatically reduce consumer choice and increase costs. The proposal exposes packers to liability for use of alternative marketing arrangements and other innovative procurement methods, thereby ultimately depressing the prices received for America's most efficient and successful producers while potentially reducing the quality available to consumers.

Further, the proposed rule would actually increase concentration in the sector as businesses are forced to change their current organizational structure--exacerbating the very issue the rule is allegedly designed to address. For example, in Kansas, we have a highly successful rancher-owned company made up of individual producers who own both cattle and shares in the company's processing infrastructure. Under this proposal, many of the individual members of the company may now be prohibited from selling cattle directly to other processors, creating the need for a middleman that would then lower the price the producer actually receives.

If implemented, the GIPSA rule poses a substantial threat to the continued viability of the domestic livestock sector. In Kansas, this industry contributes over $9.5 billion to our economy. With an economic footprint of this magnitude, the GIPSA regulation is a burden that Kansas and many other rural States and many of the livestock producers simply cannot afford.

Another agency falling through the President's Executive order loophole is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC is charged with developing dozens of new regulations impacting participants up and down the swaps and futures chain.

Shouldn't these regulations be held to the same standard of cost- effectiveness and undue burden as others? Yes--but no. I talked to Chairman Gensler in my office just a couple of days ago. He is a very nice man, very pleasant. He believes very strongly that the CFTC is exempt from the President's Executive order because the President said it was exempt. I indicated that I didn't think so, especially since the CFTC is presently pushing 40-plus rules out the door in 1 year with little or no priority.

We were told the intent of Dodd-Frank was to reduce systemic risk in the financial marketplace. However, several of CFTC's proposals appear to increase risk management costs on those who do not pose a systemic threat. The CFTC must be mindful that increased costs through high margin and capital requirements on certain segments of the marketplace may decrease a user's ability to use appropriate risk management tools.

A rigorous cost-benefit analysis is tailor-made for the CFTC's current situation: dozens of economically significant rules; the potential to negatively impact risk management costs of American businesses; and a simple question needing to be answered--do the benefits of this proposed regulation--we are talking about anywhere from 40 to 60 now--in the form of lower systemic risk in our financial system outweigh the increased costs on businesses?

Let me say something. In talking with Chairman Gensler--again, I really appreciate him coming by the office and talking. It became obvious to me that with all these regulations, maybe the first one ought to be a definition regulation. What is a swap? Who is a dealer? It has not been done yet. So we are going to propose 39 more regulations and we have not even defined whom the regulations will affect and what the subject matter is that they are going to regulate. That is really unbelievable.

We are going to have a hearing tomorrow in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Chairman Gensler will attend and give his testimony. We are going to be very welcoming to him in regard to the committee, but that is something I am going to ask him. Why on Earth are you going ahead with 40 regulations and you can't even define whom you are going to regulate or what you are going to regulate? There is no definition. That, to me, is pretty bad. You have the cart before the horse there.

In closing, I wish to make two points. First, in many rural areas of Kansas and the rest of the country, agriculture is the cornerstone of the economy. Second, in the coming decades we will be even more reliant on America's farmers and ranchers to feed an ever-growing world population. I said that before.

We must truly commit to a real and robust--here is a good Senate word--robust review and revocation of any and all unduly burdensome regulations that could inhibit American agriculture's ability to produce the safest, most abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber supply in the world. What are we talking about? We are talking about 9.3 billion people. What are we talking about? The ability for our agriculture--for everybody in agriculture to double our production, all the farmers and ranchers. Why on Earth would we want this whole business of regulatory impact--most of which is highly questionable, none of which fits the President's Executive order to take a look at the cost-benefit--why on Earth would we do this to the very person whose job it is to feed this country and the hungry world?

Look at the Mideast--in turmoil. I remember one interview on TV where somebody stuck a microphone in and asked one of the protesters in Libya: What are you protesting for? Democracy?

He said: No, a loaf of bread.

Where people are hungry and malnourished, you have no economic opportunity. Where you have people who are hungry, they will go and join extremist groups, even on over into terrorism groups.

I had the privilege of being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee here in the Senate. That was one of the big considerations we had in whole areas of the world where people do not have the ability to feed themselves, where they are in a food-deficient area. It really poses problems for the future of that part of the world. Yet here we ask our farmers and ranchers to double our ag production in a couple of decades. I don't know how we are going to do this with this regulatory nightmare.

Let's hope we wake up soon. I hope everybody will take a look at my bill to codify the President's Executive order--I give him credit for doing that--but not with all these loopholes that are going to drive us nuts out there in rural, smalltown America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.