Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to express strong support for the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, a bill that provides funding to hire and prevent the layoff of tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

Difficult economic times have devastated the ranks of these critical positions. Since 2008, California alone has seen more than 70,000 educators laid off. The resources in this bill will help cities and towns across the country avoid more layoffs and start rebuilding their workforce.

Nationwide, some 300,000 education jobs have been lost in the past 3 years, and State and local budget cuts will endanger as many as 280,000 teacher jobs next year.

The difficult economy has also strained police departments across the country. In the past 18 months, 10,000 police officers have been laid off around the country, while 30,000 vacancies have gone unfilled.

I have heard from many police departments in my home State of California that fear that this understaffing will jeopardize public safety. They are concerned that with fewer officers for patrols, investigations and other critical tasks, crime will increase.

Fire departments face similar problems. Thousands of firefighters were laid off in 2009 and 2010, and another 7,000 face layoffs this year.

This legislation will help communities address staffing shortages in these critical positions.

To help our schools, the bill would provide $30 billion to States and school districts to protect and create up to 400,000 education jobs nationwide, which would prevent the layoffs of up to 280,000 teachers and hire tens of thousands more.

In my home State of California, this will safeguard more than 37,000 education jobs.

According to the Government Accountability Office, 72 percent of school districts expect to have less funding in the 2011-2012 school year as compared to last year.

In California, public schools are suffering from State budget cuts. I have heard from thousands of teachers in my State who have received pink slips each spring over the last several years warning that their jobs are in danger.

Many teachers wait for months to find out whether they will still be teaching the following year. Many pink slips are rescinded, sparing jobs, but others are not as lucky. Our teachers should not have to deal with such uncertainty, and this bill helps safeguard those jobs.

With so many teachers losing their jobs in California, classrooms are becoming crowded and the school year is becoming shorter. On average, K-3 classrooms in California are up to 25 students, up from 20 students 2 years ago.

Average class sizes for higher grades have risen from 28 students to 31. The more we squeeze students into one classroom, the more difficult it is to provide standards-based instruction, and the harder it is for students to focus on their education.

This bill invests in education to keep educators on the job, continuing to provide students with a supportive learning environment.

In a country that prides itself on providing children with every opportunity, it does not make sense to lay off the very teachers who prepare our children for the future.

Another casualty of budget cuts is the many talented individuals who are being driven away from the teaching profession because of the lack of job stability. I fear that a deteriorating education system means more children will slip through the cracks and be unprepared for college or to compete in the global economy.

The quality of education is a direct reflection of how firmly we support our teachers.

In addition to supporting thousands of teaching jobs, the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act also provides $4 billion for communities to hire police officers. These

funds will support more than 17,000 positions over the next 3 years, including about 2,600 in my home State of California.

There is also $1 billion for firefighters, supporting about 6,300 positions nationwide.

These funds go to support the dedicated first responders we depend upon in emergencies--the firefighters who enter burning buildings to save lives and the police officers who risk everything to keep our streets and homes safe.

In recent years, firefighters and police officers have taken on even more responsibilities as they prepare for--and respond to--terrorist attacks. We are reminded of the importance of these first responders when we remember the brave men and women who worked so heroically to save lives after the 9/11 attacks, including more than 400 firefighters, police, and other emergency personnel who lost their lives that day.

Now is the time to stand with our first responders and give them the support they need. We must make sure our emergency personnel are not risking their lives because too many of their colleagues have been laid off.

While this legislation will strengthen our schools and protect our streets and homes, it will not add a penny to the deficit. This is accomplished by paying for the bill with a half-percent tax on Americans with an adjusted gross income over $1 million.

I have long said that those people who have benefited from this economy and can help out should do so. Millionaires can afford to help build a smarter, safer, stronger nation.

It is not the wealthiest Americans who have been bearing the brunt of this recession; it is the middle class and the poor who have suffered.

Our Nation continues to face serious economic difficulties. The unemployment rate is over 9 percent, and remains stuck at 12 percent in California. This lack of employment is causing severe financial strain with too many families losing their homes and too many families struggling to make ends meet.

Congress needs to help Americans get back to work and get our economy moving forward. And this bill will help.

With the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, we will strengthen our schools, help our children get the education they deserve and give our first responders the support they need to keep our communities safe.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about amendment No. 855, which I filed with Senators Coburn, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Brown.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce adjusted gross income limits on farm subsidies that were established in the last farm bill by:

Pursuing thousands of individuals flagged by the IRS as potentially illegal recipients of farm subsidies; reclaiming subsidies from millionaires and other illegal recipients; and auditing subsidy recipients who claim they are in compliance with income limits but whose IRS tax returns suggest otherwise.

I do not intend to ask for a vote on this amendment at this time, but I would like to explain to my colleagues why I am calling upon the USDA to more vigorously enforce the adjusted gross income limits in law.

In the 2008 farm bill, Congress capped the income of farm bill subsidy payment recipients at $500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 for farm income.

The limits were imposed because there had been increasing concerns that direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing loan benefits had been going to corporate agriculture and millionaires.

These subsidy programs are designed to provide a safety net to farmers whose industry suffers from dramatic swings in prices from year to year.

Congress intended to prevent individuals who could provide their own safety net from drawing funds they didn't need from taxpayers.

The final enacted limits--$500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 for farm income--prevent payments only to farmers and absentee farm- owners who are doing extremely well financially.

Less than 2 percent of Americans make this much money in a given year.

And Congress applied the caps flexibly.

Income can be averaged over a 3-year period, standard income tax deductions apply, and farmers can deduct their expenses related to their entire farm operation.

Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture clear direction to investigate and enforce the income caps.

But the USDA has been very slow to enforce this provision.

First, USDA did not thoroughly review subsidy recipients to prevent illegal payments from going out the door in 2009, 2010, or 2011, even though the farm bill instructed that ``the Secretary shall deny the issuance of applicable payments and benefits'' to farmers who fail to certify compliance.

Second, the USDA has not yet aggressively pursued thousands of payment recipients that the IRS has identified as likely violators.

Third, the USDA has not conducted a single audit of a subsidy recipient, even though the farm bill states:

The Secretary shall establish statistically valid

procedures under which the Secretary shall conduct targeted

audits of such persons or legal entities as the Secretary

determines are most likely to exceed the limitations . . .

Finally, USDA has made no attempt to identify those who lied about or concealed their income in order to receive subsidy payments. Such an act would constitute fraud against the U.S. government.

USDA has taken the initial step by working with the IRS to identify potentially illegal payments in 2009 and 2010, and I commend them for this action.

The preliminary results of their investigation are staggering:

The IRS ``flagged'' 13,000 individuals in USDA's database with tax returns that suggest they exceed congressionally mandated income caps.

When USDA reached out to 200 randomly selected ``flagged'' individuals, more than 15 percent returned the money--with no questions asked.

Another 30 percent of those contacted by USDA didn't bother to respond, suggesting a lack of respect among payment recipients for USDA's enforcement ability.

This preliminary effort demonstrates that enforcing this law is both fair and fiscally responsible.

Thousands of recipients could be receiving tens, even hundreds, of millions of Federal dollars each year, illegally.

Wealthy farmers--and absent farm owners--are still claiming payments from the farm bill's safety net programs, and the USDA is not doing enough to stop them.

Some of my colleagues believe we should wait for the next farm bill to address this problem. But I doubt they recognize that failing to enforce this provision wastes this much money.

Furthermore, the next farm bill is likely to include some form of payment regime, as every farm bill has for more than 50 years.

It might not be direct payments, but some form of subsidy payment regime is expected to remain.

Vigorous income limit enforcement makes the farm safety net stronger, not weaker. It assures that funding is available for those who need it, even in a time of severe cuts.

Our constituents are suffering through the longest economic downturn in a generation. And government resources to help those truly in need are dwindling.

And yet despite congressional direction to conduct audits and oversight of fraudulent payments to individuals already making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, the Department of Agriculture has not done enough to ensure that our limited resources are being spent wisely.

I urge our colleagues to join me in speaking out about this issue. I urge them to demand that the USDA enforce the law.

We need to send a clear message that fraudulent claims and subsidies to the rich are unacceptable.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the importance and many achievements of credit unions worldwide in celebration of the 63rd annual International Credit Union Credit Day.

The difference credit unions make in the United States by providing affordable and safe financial services to many Americans of moderate means has been significant and widely recognized.

However, the contributions credit unions have made on an international scale are equally notable. Since the mid-1800s, credit unions have established themselves in communities around the world struggling with social dislocation, political unrest, and economic depression as a means to promote economic growth and democratic practices at the local level. Today, more than 54,000 credit unions provide financial services to more than 186 million members in 97 nations. Nationally, credit unions provide financial services to more than 93 million Americans.

Credit unions make a difference on a global scale by providing access to affordable financial services for those who otherwise would have been excluded from the financial sector. Such financial services include the provision of small savings and loans, which enable some of the poorest individuals in the world to start their own microenterprises, improve household stability and stimulate growth in their communities. Credit unions are the largest source of these microfinance services in countries as diverse as Colombia, Kenya, Russia, Mexico, Thailand, and Rwanda.

Credit unions are also at the forefront of expanding access to finance for people living in rural areas who can't afford the time or money it takes to visit a financial institution. Credit unions are working with the World Council of Credit Unions, WOCCU, to introduce a variety of innovative technology solutions to bank the unbanked in rural areas. In Mexico, credit union officers carry hand-held personal digital assistant, PDA, devices to conduct financial transactions with members in communities located up to 90 minutes from the credit union office. In Kenya, Peru, and Mexico, point-of-sale devices enable credit unions to partner with local merchants in rural areas, allowing members to deposit and withdraw money from their credit union accounts. Finally, mobile banking capabilities in Mexico will enable members to check their balances and transfer funds without leaving their homes.

In addition, credit unions throughout the world are filling the agricultural

lending gap that has kept the vast majority of small farmers stuck in low-production, low-return cycles. In countries such as Peru, Kenya, and Colombia, credit unions are taking an integrated, value-chain approach to financing that includes access to agricultural training and markets for farmers to sell their products. As a result, farmers are not only increasing their incomes and producing more food for their families, they are also playing a role in securing their nations' food supply.

U.S. credit union members, staff and leagues, along with the Credit Union National Association and the U.S. Government support the global work of credit unions and WOCCU. Through WOCCU's International Partnerships Program, 25 U.S. credit union leagues are matched with developing credit union movements overseas to encourage the direct transfer of technology, skills, and experience among peers across borders.

I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending the work of credit unions, both domestically and internationally, for providing vital financial services that improve the lives of people demonstrating the greatest need around the world. By providing the world's poor with the most basic financial services, credit unions help expand job opportunities, improve local economies and promote democracy. In short, credit unions offer a sustainable development solution to some of the world's poorest countries, and this is the ``credit union difference.''

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November.

I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors.

The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer.

The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013.

But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters.

My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events.

However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports.

I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill.

The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island.

Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation.

As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.

These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence.

Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States.

The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses.

When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million.

The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco.

Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue.

Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs.

The economic impacts of these events are significant.

The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties.

This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to introduce the America's Cup Act of 2011. This legislation will enable foreign ships to compete for the 34th America's Cup, scheduled to begin in November.

I am happy to be joined by Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, and Sheldon Whitehouse as original cosponsors.

The America's Cup is one of the oldest global sporting competitions. Its economic impact is surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer.

The event will begin in San Diego on November 12th. Next year the events continue in Italy and Newport, Rhode Island, and they conclude in San Francisco in September 2013.

But the events in San Diego, Newport and San Francisco cannot take place unless we waive certain laws that prohibit foreign vessels from operating in U.S. waters.

My legislation waives the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act for all vessels participating in or supporting the America's Cup events.

However, this waiver is limited and narrow. It was carefully crafted to protect our domestic industry and passenger service operators. The legislation specifically states that the authority to operate in U.S. waters is strictly limited to activities that occur during and related to America's Cup Events.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting more than 25 individuals or from receiving compensation for transportation.

The vessels are prohibited from transporting merchandise between ports.

I understand that Jones Act waivers can be sensitive subjects for many, but I want to assure my colleagues that this is a noncontroversial bill.

The waiver is widely supported by local governments and business groups in California and Rhode Island.

Equally important, it is not opposed by the American Maritime Partnership, AMP. Like many of us, the AMP's neutrality was critical to me before I decided to pursue this legislation.

As many of my colleagues know, the American Maritime Partnership, formerly called the American Cabotage Task Force, is the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry. The group represents more than 450 member organizations ranging from vessel owners and shipboard unions to shipbuilders and equipment manufacturers.

These diverse interests recognize the importance of a strong domestic maritime industry and share my belief that the continued success of this industry is critical for America's economic security and independence.

Needless to say, Jones Act waivers are not an issue the AMP takes lightly, so I thank them for their willingness to work with me to bring this great event back to the United States.

The reason the American Maritime Partnership and so many other organizations support this legislation is that it will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

As I mentioned, the first event in the America's Cup World Series will occur in San Diego. This event alone is expected to bring $20 million to local businesses.

When the larger America's Cup Finals take place in San Francisco, the economic impacts are expected to be far greater. According to a recent study by Beacon Economics and the Bay Area Council the increase in economic activity in San Francisco could be nearly $1.4 billion. This is three times the estimated impact of hosting a Super Bowl, $300-$500 million.

The event could create as many as 8,840 jobs in San Francisco.

Local Governments could generate an additional $85 million in revenue.

Nationwide, the event is expected to increase domestic economic activity by $1.9 billion and create 11,978 jobs.

The economic impacts of these events are significant.

The waiver is widely supported by labor, business and members of both parties.

This is straightforward, common sense legislation that will facilitate international participation in a globally recognized sporting event.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Intelligence Committee to speak against amendment 753 to this appropriations bill. In sum, this amendment will require members of al-Qaida to be prosecuted only by military commissions. It will cripple executive authority and flexibility to go after terrorists. Of all things in this area where we should be agreed and the President should have maximum flexibility, it is with the disposition of people who commit acts of terror in this country. I feel very strongly about this.

The military commission system has been in effect since 2006. It has had six convictions. By comparison, terrorists have been tried by previous administrations, including the Bush administration, in article III courts, and more than 400 of them have been convicted and are serving time in Federal prisons.

One case may be brought up where somebody disagrees with a verdict. You can disagree with a Federal jury, but you cannot disagree with the record of conviction and the strong sentences imposed. I will go into this in a little more detail in a few minutes.

Just to say again, I have never seen a time when Congress has tried so much to constrain the power of the president and our professionals in law enforcement in their efforts to defeat terrorism.

As has been the policy of Republican and Democratic Presidents, the decision about how to prosecute a suspected terrorist should be based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests, not politics.

Some of the most well-known terrorists of the past decade--``Shoe Bomber'' Richard Reid, ``Blind Sheik'' Omar Abdel Rahman and the ``20th Hijacker'' Zacarias Moussaoui--are serving life sentences after being tried in Article III criminal courts.

Prosecuting terrorists in military commissions makes sense in some cases, but requiring it for all AI-Qaeda terrorists in each and every case is not in the national security of the U.S.

In fact, that would severely limit our ability to handle some of the biggest threats.

To understand why this proposed amendment would be such bad policy, consider the two recent cases where al-Qaida tried to use operatives to attack our Homeland, but we captured and arrested the terrorists instead.

First, Najibullah Zazi, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., was arrested in September 2009 as part of an al-Qaida conspiracy to carry out suicide bombings on the New York City subway system.

Then on Christmas 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 before it landed in Detroit, Michigan. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula--AQAP--claimed responsibility for the attempted attack and said that Abdulmutallab had trained with and been tasked to carry out the plot for AQAP.

In both cases, the FBI arrested each Al Qaeda operative in the midst of the unfolding terrorist plot, and was able to obtain useful intelligence through interrogation.

Most recently the DEA and the FBI, through shared intelligence, were able to interrupt an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador right here in Washington, DC. That man will be tried in Federal court. That man was successfully interrogated by the FBI. That man spilled his guts to the FBI, as they say in the vernacular.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty last week to all counts of an eight-count criminal indictment charging him for his role in the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253. He cooperated, provided intelligence, and will probably spend the rest of his life behind bars when he is sentenced in January.

By comparison, two of six of the individuals convicted in military commissions are already out of prison living freely in their home countries of Yemen and Australia. Consider all of the following relatively light sentences handed down by military commissions since 9/ 11:

Bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan--acquitted of conspiracy and only convicted of material support for terrorism--received a five-month sentence

and was sent back to his home in Yemen to serve the time before being released in January 2009.

Australian David Hicks--the first person convicted in a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on material support for terrorism charges in March 2007--was given a 9-month sentence, which he mostly served back at home in Australia.

Omar Khadr pleaded guilty in a military commission in exchange for an 8-year sentence, but he will likely be transferred to a Canadian prison after 1 year.

Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi pleaded guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism in July 2010. In August 2010, a jury delivered a 14-year sentence, but the final sentence handed down in February 2011 was 2 years pursuant to his plea agreement.

Noor Uthman Muhammed pleaded guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism in February 2011. A jury delivered a 14-year sentence, but the final sentence will be less than 3 years pursuant to his plea agreement. These are military commission trials.

Ali Hamza al-Bahlul received a life sentence after he boycotted the entire military commission process and was convicted of soliciting murder and material support for terrorism without mounting a defense.

In the Zazi case, what the Senator from New Hampshire was suggesting would actually require the government to split up co-defendants even where they would otherwise be prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy.

For example, Zazi's alleged co-conspirators Zarein Ahmedzay and Adis Medunjanin would be prosecuted on terrorist charges in criminal court, but Zazi himself would have to be transferred to a military commission.

Splitting up co-conspirators into two different detention and prosecution systems might prevent prosecutors from achieving the guilty pleas and likely long prison sentences that will be secured in the Zazi conspiracy case. Prosecutors have already obtained convictions against six individuals, including Zazi and Ahmedzay, who face life in Federal prison without parole.

Importantly, we have heard from intelligence officials and others that a mandatory military commission policy will reduce our allies' willingness to extradite terror suspects to the United States for interrogation or prosecution, or even provide evidence about suspected terrorists if they will be shipped off to military commissions in all cases.

You might say why would our allies do that? I will tell you why: Because our allies--who know about the past five years and know about the opposition to military commissions in their countries--are very reluctant to give evidence to a judicial process that does not adhere to the rule of law as much as our tried and tested Federal court system does.

Take the 9/11 commission report, which recommends the following on page 380:

[t]he United States should engage its friends to develop a

common coalition approach toward the detention and humane

treatment of captured terrorists.

If Congress rejects the views of our allies and mandates military commission prosecutions for al-Qaida terrorists, it will also be a rejection of a recommendation from the 9/11 commission. Moreover, we will be undermining international law enforcement cooperation and dangerous terrorists could be set free as a result.

Every single suspected terrorist captured on American soil, before and after September 11, has been taken into custody by law enforcement--not the U.S. military. This should never change. If somebody commits an act on our soil, they should be prosecuted in an article III court. This doesn't mean that we are soft on terrorism in any way, but it does mean that terrorists should be brought to justice, forced to stand trial and given a very serious sentence.

As John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, stated in a March speech:

Terrorists arrested inside the United States will, as

always, be processed exclusively through our criminal justice

system. As they should be. The alternative would be

inconsistent with our values and our adherence to the rule of

law. Our military does not patrol our streets or enforce our

law in this country. Nor should it.

I could not agree more.

In summary, amendment No. 753, authored by the Senator from New Hampshire, will severely and seriously undermine our ability to incapacitate dangerous individuals and protect the American people. I believe this is something we cannot afford and I hope this body will do everything it can to protect the executive branch's flexibility.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice, dated March of 2010 which describes the more than 400 terrorist convictions in article III courts.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce legislation which would provide clarification to schools and school districts that wish to donate excess food to food banks and charitable organizations.

In 1996, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act to encourage the donation of food and grocery products to nonprofit organizations such as homeless shelters, soup kitchens and churches for distribution to needy individuals. The law limits the liability of donors to instances of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. However, because the law does not explicitly include schools as having limited liability, many schools and school districts have been hesitant to donate excess food.

This legislation would amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to clarify that schools and local education agencies participating in the school lunch program under the act are authorized to donate excess food to local food banks or charitable organizations. It would clarify that schools and local education agencies making donations would be exempt from civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act.

Schools interested in donating excess food would be encouraged and better informed with the passage of this legislation. The Secretary of Education would provide schools with guidance to assist schools with food donations.

Given the current economy and high unemployment rate, more and more individuals are becoming dependent on food banks and charities. This legislation would help to address the needs of those living in poverty by increasing support for food donations.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

These agreements will eliminate tariffs and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports and protect intellectual property and investment with three key trading partners.

At a time when the national unemployment rate stands at almost 10 percent--and tops 12 percent in my home State of California--I believe it is vital that we promote job growth by securing new opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, farmers and service providers in expanding foreign export markets.

These three agreements are a good place to start.

They are critical to the President's goal of doubling exports over 5 years, which could create 2 million new jobs. This is from a L.A. Times editorial of August 12, 2010.

It is simple: export growth as a result of these trade agreements will mean more jobs.

And we have no time to lose. Other trading partners have signed or are in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.

The European Union has already signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The EU-South Korea agreement came into effect in July.

Korea now has or is negotiating 13 free trade agreements involving 50 nations.

Canada concluded a trade agreement with Panama in 2010 and will gain preferential access to Colombia's market in August 2012.

Argentina and Brazil already have preferential access to the Colombian market.

We cannot afford to let our exporters lose market share to our competitors.

If we are left out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that we could lose up to 380,000 jobs and $40 billion in exports.

The best estimate is that these agreements will, in fact, create jobs.

According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these agreements will create at least 70,000 U.S. jobs.

U.S. exports to South Korea will increase by $11 billion and raise U.S. GDP by $12 billion.

The Colombia trade agreement will increase U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion.

U.S. exports to Panama grew by 41 percent in 2010 to $6.1 billion and will continue to rise with passage of the free trade agreement.

The Business Roundtable puts the number even higher at 250,000 jobs created with passage of the three agreements.

Let me speak to the effects these agreements would have on my home State of California.

As one of the 10 largest economic engines in the world with a $1.9 trillion economy, California is a leader in U.S. and global markets with products ranging from agriculture to high-tech products and manufacturing.

In 2008, approximately 60,000 California companies exported products abroad, with manufactured good exports supporting 738,000 California jobs.

South Korea, Colombia and Panama already represent growing markets for California exporters. In 2010, South Korea was California's fifth largest export market with exports totaling more than $8.1 billion, up from $5.9 billion in 2009. In 2010, Colombia was California's 34th largest export market with exports totaling $408.7 million--a 24- percent increase over the previous year.

In 2010, Panama, with a growth rate of 7.5 percent, was California's 42nd largest export market with exports totaling $252 million.

Passage of these agreements will provide important openings for California exports which will help create jobs.

According to Business Roundtable, more than 66 percent of California exports to Colombia will be duty-free after passage of this agreement, saving $27.2 million for California businesses and farmers, and more than 80 percent of California exports to South Korea will be duty free following implementation of the agreement, saving exporters $66 million.

In Panama, California high-quality beef, other meat and poultry products, soybeans, wines and most fresh fruit and tree nuts will become duty free upon enactment.

According to the California Chambers of Commerce Council for International Trade, California manufacturers will also gain significant access to the $5.25 billion Panama Canal expansion project as the agreement eliminates the 5 percent duty on construction equipment and infrastructure machinery. The project will ultimately reduce transportation costs for California exports.

Make no mistake, South Korea, Colombia and Panama represent significant opportunities for all U.S. exporters.

South Korea is our 7th largest trading partner, our 8th biggest export market and the 15th largest economy in the world.

The agreement represents the largest free trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA.

While Colombia and Panama have smaller economies, they are both emerging trading partners. In 2010, U.S. exports to Colombia grew by 34 percent to $12 billion, while exports to Panama grew by 41 percent to $6.1 billion.

Again, export growth will lead to job growth.

Some critics of these agreements argue that benefits gained by lowering tariffs and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports will be offset by benefits gained by our trading partners.

The fact is, our trading partners already have substantial access to the U.S. market while our exports continue to face significant barriers.

Currently, the average Korean applied tariff on U.S. non-agricultural products is 7 percent. In contrast, the average U.S. tariff on Korean nonagricultural imports is 3.7 percent.

The average Korean applied tariff on U.S. agricultural products is 52 percent. The average U.S. tariff on Korean agricultural products is 12 percent.

Approximately 90 percent of Colombian exports and 98 percent of Panamanian exports enter the United States duty free under existing trade preference programs.

In contrast, over 90 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia face tariffs averaging 12.5 percent, and less than 40 percent of U.S. exports to Panama enter duty free with industrial exports facing an average tariff of 7 percent and agricultural exports facing an average tariff of 15 percent.

So, these agreements will only serve to enhance U.S. competiveness by leveling the playing field for our exporters and give them opportunities our trading partners already enjoy here in the United States.

And I know our manufacturers, farmers and service providers can compete and succeed against anyone.

Let me briefly discuss the key benefits of these agreements.

Upon enactment of the agreement with South Korea, approximately 95 percent of bilateral trade in industrial and consumer products will become duty-free within 5 years of the enactment of the agreement, including industrial and consumer electronic machinery, most chemicals, motorcycles and certain wood products. Most remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 10 years.

More than half of current U.S. agricultural exports to Korea will become duty free immediately, including wheat, feed corn, soybeans for crushing, hides and skins, cotton, almonds, pistachios, bourbon whiskey, wine, raisins, grape juice, orange juice, cherries, frozen French fries and pet food.

Approximately 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia will be duty-free upon the enactment of the agreement. Most remaining tariffs will be removed after 10 years.

Both parties will grant certain farm products duty-free treatment immediately upon enactment of the agreement including high-quality beef, cotton, wheat, soybean meal, apples, pears, peaches, cherries and processed food products.

Colombia will phase out quotas and over-quota tariffs on standard beef, chicken leg quarters, dairy products, corn, sorghum, animal feeds, soybean oil and rice within the next three to 19 years.

Over 87 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Panama will become duty free upon enactment of the agreement, with the remaining tariffs phased out within 10 years.

Panama will provide immediate duty-free access for more than half of U.S. agricultural exports including high-quality beef, poultry products, soybeans, cotton, wheat, fruits and vegetables, corn oil and many processed foods.

I understand the concern some of my colleagues have about the effects free trade agreements may have on domestic jobs.

While I firmly believe that past free trade agreements have an overall positive impact on the economy and job growth, there is no doubt that some Americans have lost jobs due to increased trade.

That is why I remain a strong supporter of the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, Program, which has helped these American workers transition to new opportunities in emerging job markets.

TAA has proven to be a wise investment by ensuring that workers who lose their jobs remain productive and tax-paying members of our society, free of government assistance.

I am pleased that we voted to renew this critical program before the vote on the three trade agreements.

Now, I would like to address specific concerns raised about the agreements with Colombia and Korea.

Critics have argued that, given Colombia's weak labor laws and violence against labor leaders and union organizers, it should not be rewarded with a free trade agreement.

First, under the terms of the free trade agreement, Colombia has agreed to: reaffirm its obligations as a member of the International Labor Organization, ILO, and adopt and maintain in its laws and practice core labor rights and ILO labor standards; refrain from waiving or otherwise weakening the laws that implement this obligation in a manner affecting trade or investment; effectively enforce labor laws related to the fundamental rights, plus acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health; and ensure that workers and employers will have fair, equitable and transparent access to labor tribunals or courts.

All labor obligations are subject to the agreement's dispute settlement procedures.

Colombia in April also agreed to an action plan related to labor rights to prevent violence against labor leaders, prosecute antilabor violence and protect internationally recognized worker rights.

Among other things, this plan requires Colombia to: create a specialized Labor Ministry to improve the enforcement of labor rights; criminalize actions or threats that could affect fundamental workers' rights including the right to organize; eliminate the backlog of requests from union members for protection; expand the scope of a protection program for union leaders to additional labor activists and union organizers; assign 95 police investigators to support the prosecution of crimes against union members; double the number of labor inspectors by hiring 480 inspectors over the next 4 years including 100 new inspectors in 2011; and seek the assistance of the International Labor Organization to implement and enforce these pledges.

Colombia has met the first two deadlines for implementation of the action plan and I look forward to the successful completion of the remaining commitments.

There was also great concern about the auto provisions in the original 2007 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

Currently, South Korea maintains an 8-percent tariff on U.S. autos. The United States maintains a 2.5-percent tariff on Korean autos and a 25-percent tariff on Korean trucks.

Under the 2007 agreement, South Korea and the United States agreed to eliminate their respective duties on priority passenger vehicles immediately, to phase out their duties on other cars over 3 years and to phase out their duties on trucks over 10 years. In addition, South Korea agreed to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of its special consumption and annual vehicle taxes; not impose any new engine displacement taxes and to maintain non-discriminatory application of its existing taxes; and address several other non-tariff barriers to ensure that they do not impede the market access of U.S. autos.

The U.S. auto industry and labor unions argued that the United States should not expand Korean access to the U.S. market until U.S. manufacturers are able to significantly increase their market share in South Korea and South Korea makes more concrete assurances that it will dismantle nontariff barriers.

President Obama responded to their concerns and secured additional concessions from Korea that will expand U.S. access to the Korean auto market.

Under the terms of the December, 2010 agreement the U.S. will keep its 2.5-percent tariff on Korean imports until the 5th year following enactment of the agreement while Korea will immediately cut its tariff on U.S. autos in half--from 8 percent to 4 percent--and fully eliminate the tariff in the fifth year; and the U.S. will keep its 25-percent tariff on trucks until the 8th year and eliminate it by year 10 while Korea will keep its original commitment to eliminate its 10 percent tariff on U.S. trucks immediately.

The agreement also contains new provisions to eliminate nontariff barriers to U.S. auto exports to Korea and increase protection against surges of Korean auto imports in the U.S.

I applaud the administration for listening to the concerns of U.S. automakers.

These additional provisions strengthen the overall agreement and will provide new benefits for U.S. autos in an expanding foreign market and create more jobs. Due to President Obama's efforts, the United Auto Workers union and U.S. automakers now support the Korea agreement.

In these difficult economic times, our constituents are sending us a clear message: they want Congress to focus on jobs.

In this effort, we should leave no stone unturned.

Expanding access for U.S. exports to the growing markets of Korea, Colombia and Panama will help create new jobs and increase economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to support these agreements.

Madam President.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Act of 2011. Before I get into the bill, I want to say this is not an easy vote for me. It is a difficult vote because, beginning in 1979, I developed a relationship as mayor of San Francisco with China. Over these 30-plus years, I have seen China make the greatest changes of virtually any large country in the world. I know China has wanted to reach out, and the United States has reached out. On the Pacific Coast we have developed a century of trade which long ago overtook the Atlantic Coast. This trade between Asia and this country is, indeed, large and prized.

During that time, I have had occasion to have meetings with the former President of China, the former Premier of China, and the latest Foreign Minister on the subject of currency. I have urged each to let the renminbi float freely.

In every conversation, they have indicated that Beijing is aware of the situation and the need to allow the renminbi to respond to market forces, and there has been some progress. From July 2005 to July of 2008, the renminbi appreciated by 21 percent against the dollar, and since 2010 it has risen by an additional 7 percent. Unfortunately, action on this matter has not been sufficient, and China continues to resist a free-floating currency.

My last conversation with a major government official took place last Friday evening in San Francisco. On Saturday, I pulled out my binoculars. Our home is situated on a hill, and it overlooks San Francisco Bay. I watched the big cargo ships pulling out of the Port of Oakland going through the Golden Gate. I watched five of them, and I saw they were half loaded. Half-loaded cargo ships leaving the ports of America, going to Asia and particularly China, have become more and more a part of daily routine. Most are loaded with scrap paper, but equal trade is missing. We import huge amounts of goods from China, and the same amount--with the exception of some high-valued goods--does not go back to China.

I believe if we are going to have this great trading basin on the Pacific Ocean, everybody has to play by the same rules. In my view, this bill is not about putting sanctions on China. It is not about imposing retaliatory tariffs. It is about sending a clear message to Beijing that we are serious about the need to let the renminbi respond fully to market forces.

Let me point out that China is not specifically mentioned in this bill. The aim is to address misaligned exchange rates whenever we find them. This does not talk about manipulation of rates.

The bill has three fundamental purposes. First, it requires Treasury to report to Congress which currencies are fundamentally misaligned-- not manipulated, but misaligned--including those currencies that require priority action.

Secondly, the legislation provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department at the request of a U.S. industry to investigate whether an undervalued currency constitutes a subsidy subject to retaliatory tariffs.

Finally, the bill triggers certain penalties. If a priority country fails to realign its currency immediately upon designation, additional consequences take effect after 90 and 360 days subject to a Presidential waiver.

What does this all mean? What it means is that for the first time we are going to monitor exchange rates and determine whether any currency is misaligned. If that currency, in fact, is misaligned, then the bill triggers a period of time to remedy that misalignment. If it is not remedied within 3 months, it provides additional action. Again, all of this is subject to a Presidential waiver.

In effect, what you have is the Senate of the United States speaking out and saying enough is enough. The time has come to let the renminbi float freely, just as the dollar floats freely, and we take the upside along with the downside. If that is the case, then you have an equal and fair trading community. If it is not the case, you have a downward sloping trading community.

The penalties include a prohibition on OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, loans; increasing antidumping duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies; a prohibition on Federal procurement; opposition to any new financing from multilateral banks.

There is little doubt that the renminbi is undervalued. The Chinese leadership understands it, the Chinese people understand it, and the American people understand it.

In April 2011, in a study by William Cline and John Williamson at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, it was argued that the renminbi is undervalued by approximately 28.5 percent. Other studies provide different estimates, but the conclusion that the renminbi is undervalued is constant in virtually every study that has been done. This gives Chinese goods a steep advantage over U.S. goods. It results in a loss of U.S. jobs, and it results in my putting on my binoculars and watching huge cargo ships leave the large port of Oakland going under the Golden Gate Bridge only half full. When it is half full, it is usually waste paper.

You can only take so much of this. In my own way, I have been importuning the Chinese for over a decade. They are always polite, they always say, yes, they understand, but they also say, China has to take steps as China can take steps. Well, the United States is now at a pivotal point. In the great State of California, our unemployment rate is over 12 percent, and the half-empty cargo ships have to be filled up if we are going to have a fair trading community. As I look at it, letting the renminbi float free is what is necessary to do this.

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in September of 2010, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner argued this:

The undervalued renminbi helps China's export sector and

means imports are more expensive in China than they otherwise

would be . . . It encourages outsourcing of production and

jobs from the United States. And it makes it more difficult

for goods and services produced by American workers to

compete with Chinese-made goods and services in China, the

United States, and third countries.

Every economic report agrees with our Treasury Secretary's conclusion. History indicates that is correct. Just using one's eyes indicates that is happening. Indeed, cheaper Chinese goods lead to bigger trade deficits with the United States, and that leads to fewer U.S. jobs.

Here's another report by economist Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute, and he found that between 2001 and 2010, the trade deficit with China cost the United States 2.8 million jobs, of which 1.9 million were in manufacturing. Nothing makes up for it. We have gained in education jobs, health care jobs, but they are minuscule in comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs.

The report also argues that this trade deficit has been compounded by China's decision to keep the renminbi artificially low, essentially subsidizing Chinese exports at the expense of their American competitors. Regardless of whether the number of job losses is as high as the Economic Policy Institute

estimates, or as I have just said, at a time when we have got this national unemployment rate at almost 10 percent and 12 percent in California, we have to use every tool at our disposal to put Americans back to work. That means, quite simply stated, that the Senate can no longer afford to ignore the devastation of the manufacturing sector in this country.

A July 2009 article from the Harvard Business Review by Gary Pisano and Willy Shih argues that the decline in manufacturing will negatively impact our status as a leader in innovation. I agree that in order for the United States to address these ills and promote economic growth, we have got to reclaim our leadership in research, development, and high- tech manufacturing. In order to do so, we have to address the undervaluation of the renminbi. A market-based exchange rate between the renminbi and the dollar is not going to solve all of our problems, and nobody should believe it will, but it will create a level playing field. Trading communities cannot long exist on an unlevel trading field.

So this is very important for America at this time.

In a sense--and I don't like to say this, but in a sense--the legislation is a ``shot across the bow.'' It gives the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department clear authority to take actions against undervalued currencies wherever they may occur, and particularly for high priority currencies. But it is also important that this bill is not merely about imposing penalties. It is very well drafted, in my view, and I read it cover to cover. It mandates consultations with priority countries, the International Monetary Fund, and key trading partners. In other words, it continues to place an emphasis on dialogue and diplomacy.

The bill provides another tool for U.S. companies that have been affected by cheaper Chinese imports due to an undervalued renminbi. It makes it clear that Congress has the authority to investigate whether an undervalued currency is a subsidy subject to countervailing duties, and it provides two well-known methodologies to determine the value of the benefit conferred on exports by an undervalued currency.

Let me be clear. This bill does not mandate any countervailing tariffs due to an undervalued currency. It simply restates that Commerce has the authority to investigate whether such duties are appropriate if a domestic company provides the proper documentation.

Over the past 30 years, in visit after visit, I have seen how dialogue and cooperation have solidified ties between the United States and China, and Sino-American cooperation is very important. I watched the process becoming the foundation for what I believe is our most important bilateral relationship. Indeed, in my view, this relationship can positively impact the security and economic well-being of both countries. As such, when addressing disputes that may arise between Washington and Beijing, I believe it is in the interests of both nations to use diplomacy and negotiation to find commonsense solutions.

Yet, on this matter, I believe the time has come. We are past the polite talks where people say ``I realize, I know, I understand,'' and not much happens. In the last 10 years, it looked as if China were going to take action, and then China has retrenched on that action. So I believe we must send a clear signal to China that it has to move faster to a market-based exchange rate.

I know China doesn't like this. I know it has serious concerns about the bill. I understand that many U.S. companies and national organizations that do business in China are concerned about the impact this bill will have on our bilateral economic relationship. But I also know over the 20-year period I have been following the currencies of both countries, the improvement is small, and the impact on the United States has been great.

So as a friend of China and a strong supporter of United States-China ties, I hope this vote will demonstrate our deep concern. I hope it will give the administration the leverage it needs to encourage Beijing to work with us and our partners in the international community to bring the renminbi into alignment with market forces. I do not say this in a hostile way. I say it in friendship and with hope that there is a future where trading between China and the United States can be on equal terms.

I also wish to salute the authors of this legislation because I think they have done a very good job. Senator Brown, who is on the floor, Senator Schumer, Senator Graham, and others have put forward, I think, a carefully worded bill which carries with it the real opportunity for change between the trading relationships of our two great countries. So I thank them, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011. The act would eliminate inequities in current law by allowing court-martialed servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to seek review by the United States Supreme Court.

In our civilian courts today, all persons convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel have a limited right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, CAAF, actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. In other words, if the CAAF refuses to take their case, or denies their extraordinary relief petition, the servicemember has no right to further review in the Supreme Court.

For fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the CAAF denied a total of 2230 petitions for review. The CAAF also averages about 20 denials of extraordinary relief petitions every year. Taken together, this means that there are more than 750 court-martial decisions per year in which servicemembers are denied the opportunity to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.

In addition to this disparity between our civilian and military court systems, there is another disparity within the military court system itself. The government may petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But servicemembers do not have the same rights to petition the Supreme Court that the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle have.

The bill I am introducing today is a simple one, which would correct these inequities. It would allow servicemembers whose appeals are denied review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or who were denied extraordinary relief, the opportunity to seek review of those decisions by writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While this legislation would provide a fairer legal process for servicemembers, it would not unduly burden the military or the Supreme Court. As noted in the 2010 House Judiciary Committee Report on the legislation, the expanded Supreme Court review of court-martial decisions authorized by the legislation would result in only about 80- 120 additional petitions for certiorari each year. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the increased workload for Department of Defense attorneys and Supreme Court clerks would cost less than $1 million each year.

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform of one of those rights-- the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

It is long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011. The act would eliminate inequities in current law by allowing court-martialed servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to seek review by the United States Supreme Court.

In our civilian courts today, all persons convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel have a limited right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, CAAF, actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. In other words, if the CAAF refuses to take their case, or denies their extraordinary relief petition, the servicemember has no right to further review in the Supreme Court.

For fiscal years 2008 through 2010, the CAAF denied a total of 2230 petitions for review. The CAAF also averages about 20 denials of extraordinary relief petitions every year. Taken together, this means that there are more than 750 court-martial decisions per year in which servicemembers are denied the opportunity to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.

In addition to this disparity between our civilian and military court systems, there is another disparity within the military court system itself. The government may petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But servicemembers do not have the same rights to petition the Supreme Court that the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle have.

The bill I am introducing today is a simple one, which would correct these inequities. It would allow servicemembers whose appeals are denied review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or who were denied extraordinary relief, the opportunity to seek review of those decisions by writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While this legislation would provide a fairer legal process for servicemembers, it would not unduly burden the military or the Supreme Court. As noted in the 2010 House Judiciary Committee Report on the legislation, the expanded Supreme Court review of court-martial decisions authorized by the legislation would result in only about 80- 120 additional petitions for certiorari each year. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the increased workload for Department of Defense attorneys and Supreme Court clerks would cost less than $1 million each year.

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform of one of those rights-- the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

It is long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join in the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month and to recognize the many invaluable contributions that have been made by the Hispanic-American community.

For generations, a vibrant Hispanic community has worked tirelessly to enrich and strengthen our Nation.

With ancestors coming to the U.S. from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America, the Hispanic community's rich culture has enhanced the great diversity of the United States.

According to the latest census numbers, there are more than 54 million people of Hispanic heritage living in the United States, including 4 million in Puerto Rico alone.

All across America, a vibrant Hispanic-American community is contributing to all sectors of our economy and is playing a key role as small business entrepreneurs and government leaders on the Federal, State and local levels.

This is especially true in California, my home State, which boasts over 1,000 publicly elected officials of Hispanic heritage. These dedicated public officials serve as Members of the U.S. Congress, the California State Legislature, and hold numerous positions on the city and county levels of government.

This year, I was proud to support the nomination of Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. Her nomination is historic, as she would be the first Latina judge to serve on that court.

Judge Gonzalez represents an American success story, as her path in life has been extraordinary. Of her parents, her sixteen aunts and uncles, and their children, Judge Gonzalez Rogers is one of only three family members to attend college.

She has been able to rise from modest beginnings to graduate from two of the best universities in the country.

It is my hope that many more young people will follow Judge Gonzalez's journey. That is why I believe it is in America's best interest to give talented young adults who have good moral character and are dedicated to serving the United States the opportunity to succeed. The DREAM Act embodies the values of hard work that make this country great and I will continue to support this important legislation.

I believe it is also important to recognize the 1.1 million Hispanic Americans 18 years or older who are veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. Americans of Hispanic descent have defended and served our country with valor in every conflict since the Revolutionary War.

Forty-one Hispanic Americans have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award presented by the United States.

I commend our Hispanic-American veterans, as well as those on active duty, who have risked and given their lives for the safety and well- being of our Nation.

It is my hope that more of today's young people, including those of Hispanic heritage, will soon have the opportunity to pursue their dreams of obtaining a higher education degree or serving in the U.S. military.

On the larger front, we must continue to strive towards reforming our broken immigration system, which is crucial to the future success of the Nation's economy.

This country was built by people who risked everything because they believed in the promise and opportunities available in America. Part of the American dream is that anyone with a desire and a will to work can make a life for themselves here.

As the current generation of Hispanic Americans continues to strive to fulfill the American dream, I am pleased to celebrate their past accomplishments as well as their future achievements that will continue to make this country great.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the Cornyn amendment that would force the administration to sell new F-16s to Taiwan.

Yesterday, the administration announced details of a $5.8 billion arms package to Taiwan.

The central element of this package is the decision to support a substantial upgrade to Taiwan's existing fleet of 145 F-16 A/Bs.

The upgrades include state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry such as targeting systems, AIM-9X air-to-air missiles and precision guided munitions.

The deal also includes the active electronically scanned array radars that, according to Taiwan's Defense Ministry, will allow its planes to detect China's new J-20 stealth aircraft.

The package also includes pilot training and spare parts for Taiwan's F-5 jets and C-130 transport planes.

It will significantly improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities without increasing cross-strait tensions.

As we all know, Taiwan has asked the administration to accept a letter of request to sell 66 of the newer F-16 C/Ds.

Those who support the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan were clearly disappointed by the decision to move forward with only upgrades to Taiwan's existing fleet.

Senator Cornyn described the decision as a ``capitulation to Communist China'' and a ``slap in the face to strong ally and longtime friend.''

Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, let's be clear: The administration has deferred the decision on the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan, it has not rejected it outright.

It has acted in a manner consistent with the previous administration that also refused to accept Taiwan's request for new F-16s.

Let me remind my colleagues that under the Obama administration, total arms sales to Taiwan have totaled $12.25 billion, more than double the amount sold during President George W. Bush's first term.

It is clear these attacks are more about politics than the security and self-defense capability of Taiwan.

Next, let's look at the arms sales package itself.

The decision to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16 A/Bs will provide many of the same capabilities as the new F-16 C/Ds.

According to the Pentagon, with a robust retrofit the F-16 A/B and F- 16 C/D are comparable aircrafts. The upgraded F-16 A/Bs will have active electronically scanned array, AESA, radars, equal to the new F- 16s; embedded global positioning system inertial navigation systems, equal to the new F-16s; ALQ-213 warfare management systems, equal to the new F-16s; night vision goggles, equal to the new F-16s; AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles, equal to the new F-16s; sensor fused weapons and laser guided bombs, equal to the new F-16s.

And the list goes on.

According to Mark Stokes of the Project 2049 Institute and a former Pentagon China expert, the radar ``offers a significant capability that would be able to maintain Taiwan's qualitative advantage'' over China.

Michael Pillsbury, a current Pentagon consultant on China, argued that the A/B upgrades could be perceived as

providing Taiwan with more capabilities than the C/Ds.

Supporters of this amendment will argue in favor of both upgrades and new planes, as requested by Taiwan.

Allow me to repeat: The administration has not formally rejected the sale of new F-16s. It is still under active consideration.

Clearly, the decision to upgrade the F-16 A/Bs does not prevent the administration from later selling Taiwan the newer planes.

Regardless of timing, we have to consider carefully what impact the sale of new F-16s to Taiwan would have on cross-straits relations.

In May 2010, I had the pleasure of visiting China and Taiwan for a series of meetings with Senators Mark Udall and Kay Hagan.

We had full and rewarding discussions on a range of issues, including cybersecurity, energy, trade, and cross-strait relations.

One bright story in the region, I believe, is that of Taiwan and its relationship with the mainland.

The reports we received on our visit were encouraging.

The three direct lines--air service, sea service and postal service-- are all in place.

The number of flights between Beijing and Taiwan has reached 270 per week, and I understand they are packed to the brim.

There is also substantial Taiwanese in China today.

Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou told us he was thrilled that negotiations were successful on an Economic Framework Agreement, known as ECFA, which he subsequently signed and was ratified by Taiwan's legislature.

On the 1-year anniversary of its passage, Taiwanese officials announced that agricultural exports to China covered by the agreement jumped 262 percent--to $69.31 million--in the first 7 months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.

Overall, Taiwanese exports to the mainland in the first half of 2011 totaled $61.56 billion, up 10.53 percent from the year before.

Follow-on talks have recently begun between both sides which will focus on the trade in goods and services and dispute resolution.

With the momentum generated by the agreement, I believe China and Taiwan should begin to address the security situation across the strait.

It is my strong belief that China should begin to reduce its more than 1,000 ballistic missiles deployed along its coast.

I deeply believe that enhanced economic cooperation and constructive dialogue will move China and Taiwan away from military confrontation to a clear path of resolving differences diplomatically.

In my view, the arms sales package for Taiwan announced by the administration will improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities and still enhance this ongoing cooperation and dialogue.

Selling the new F-16's to Taiwan would only serve to undermine the progress we have made with China this year.

Military escalation between Taiwan and China, which the sale of the F-16 C/D variant would be construed as, is not in the best interests of the United States.

Finally, let me discuss how this amendment is being proposed.

Simply put, a trade bill to renew the Generalized System of Preferences and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is not the proper vehicle for a sensitive foreign policy debate.

The administration and most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have made it clear that we must renew trade adjustment assistance before we consider the trade agreements.

If this amendment passes, it will threaten the chances of passing trade adjustment assistance in the House and, ultimately, consideration of the three outstanding free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.

If we are to have this debate, it should be during consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Cornyn amendment.

Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I am pleased to release a report today outlining key steps that the United States can take to assist our friends in Central America as they try to reduce escalating violence. The report--entitled ``Responding to Violence in Central America''--is endorsed by all seven Senators on the Caucus. In particular, I want to thank my cochairman Senator Grassley for his efforts on this report.

Violence in Central America has reached crisis levels. Throughout Central America, Mexican drug trafficking organizations, local drug traffickers, transnational youth gangs, and other illegal criminal networks are taking advantage of weak governance and underperforming justice systems.

Contrary to what many might think, the murder rates in Central America last year were significantly higher than those in Mexico. In 2010, there were 18 homicides per 100,000 people in Mexico. In comparison, there were 50 murders per 100,000 people in Guatemala, 66 in El Salvador and 77 in Honduras. GEN Douglas Fraser--the Commander of U.S. Southern Command--said that ``the northern triangle of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras is the deadliest zone in the world outside of war zones.''

Our report calls for security in Central America to become a greater priority across all U.S. Government agencies. The caucus calls for a two-track approach to U.S. assistance to Central America focusing in the short term on highly vetted law enforcement units while not losing sight of the long-term goal of strengthening institutions.

The report's key recommendations include:

Expand vetted units: The caucus calls for the expansion of vetted law enforcement units which work with the Drug Enforcement Administration-- known as sensitive investigative units--to all seven countries in Central America. Vetted units provide a trusted partner to U.S. law enforcement in countries where corruption is often rampant. I supported language that was included in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science's Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations bill that recommends the expansion of these units throughout Central America.

Speed up security assistance: Our report calls on the State Department to speed up the arrival of security assistance to Central America by changing it from being managed remotely by the U.S. Embassy in Mexico to allowing it to be managed directly by each of the U.S. embassies in Central America.

Increase drug traffickers' extraditions: Our report recommends that the Obama administration encourage our partners in Central America to increase the extradition to the United States of their nationals who are involved in international drug trafficking. Currently, Panama, Honduras, and Costa Rica will not extradite their nationals to the United States.

The caucus believes that extradition from Mexico to the United States has been a critical tool in combating Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Bringing these fugitives to the United States for prosecution ensures that they cannot evade justice through bribes or threats of violence in their home countries.

Support witness, judge and prosecutor protection programs: Next, our report calls for the State Department and USAID to use existing funds to provide support for witness, judge and prosecutor protection programs in Central America. Far too often, witnesses in Central America are afraid to testify at hearings because of corruption in the judicial system and fear of retaliation. Judges and prosecutors are equally afraid to pursue cases against high-profile criminals.

Map sources of violence: Our report recommends that the countries of Central America map the causes and sources of violence in the region. Without a clear understanding of the causes and sources of violence, it will be difficult to provide relevant solutions to the security situation in Central America.

Reduce the U.S. demand for drugs: Last, but certainly not least, the caucus's report emphasizes that drug consumption in the United States fuels violence in Central America. The United States continues to be the world's largest consumer of illegal drugs. The 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were current illegal drug users.

Senator Grassley and I have asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study to evaluate the successes and shortcomings of drug prevention and treatment programs in the United States. I have also asked my staff to prepare a report on how to most effectively reduce the U.S. demand for drugs.

Central America is at a dangerous crossroads. A further deterioration of the security situation in Central America could severely damage already weak institutions and justice systems. I, therefore, urge the Obama administration and my colleagues in Congress to make security in Central America a priority.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Michael Davidson, the former General Counsel of the Select Committee on Intelligence, for his long and distinguished service to the U.S. Senate. Mike quietly retired from the U.S. Senate for the second time on Labor Day, September 5, 2011.

At the Select Committee on Intelligence, where he worked for 8 years during his second career here in the Senate, he was always a source of wisdom and optimism. Mike was invariably calm, thoughtful and constructive. These qualities, in combination

with his brilliant legal mind and prodigious memory, made him an invaluable member of the committee staff. Indeed, Mike had a unique ability to recall past legislation, reports, or other parts of Senate history, and find them in archives and mostly forgotten records, to make sure that present day decisions were informed by the past.

In addition, Mike was known and respected throughout Washington. He will be greatly missed, not only by our committee, but by the many people who have had the privilege to work with him from other offices in the Congress, the executive branch, and the private sector. I know, and am appreciative, that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will be honoring Mike in October for his numerous services to the committee and the intelligence community.

I have often been amazed at the varied backgrounds of Senators and Senate staff alike, and Mike Davidson is another example why. He grew up in Brooklyn, NY, where his father was a professor of theater at Brooklyn College, and where we believe his devotion to the New York Mets was born. Mike received his bachelor of arts in history from Cornell University in 1961 and his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1964. With law degree in hand, Mike became one of the first Peace Corps volunteers in Kenya where he served for 3 years. Upon his return to the United States, he worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund between 1967 and 1973, trying civil rights cases and arguing appeals in various Federal courts. From 1974 to 1977, Mike taught clinical law at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Moving to Washington in 1977, he served as the chief staff counsel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In 1979, Mike became the Senate's very first legal counsel, representing the Senate in separation-of-powers and other litigation, and assisting committees in ethics, impeachment and other special investigations. One of the separation-of-powers cases Mike argued before the Supreme Court was INS v. Chadha. It turned out that Mike from his Peace Corps days actually knew the appellee Jagdish Chadha, who had been born in Kenya of Indian parents. Not only did Mr. Chadha not take personal offense that the Congress, through opposing counsel Michael Davidson, was trying to deport him, but because of his respect and admiration for Mike, Mr. Chadha brought a bottle of champagne to the Senate Legal Counsel's Office the next day to celebrate Mike's appearance before the Court.

In 1995, Mike retired from the Senate for the first time, but he soon found himself directing or serving as counsel to projects led by current or former U.S. Senators, including a project at the Aspen Institute, a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, and a project at the Constitution Project.

Mike returned to the Senate in 2002 to serve as the general counsel for the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Mike's work for the joint inquiry involved not only fact finding about the conduct of U.S. intelligence agencies prior to the terrorist attacks, but also successful advocacy before Judge Leonie Brinkema in the case of United States v. Moussaoui. The appearance was necessary to ensure that the congressional Joint Inquiry had the testimony it needed to tell the story of the FBI's Moussaoui investigation prior to the 9/11 attacks without interfering with the Moussaoui proceedings or other pending criminal prosecutions and investigations. Shortly after the completion of the Joint Inquiry in 2003, Mike joined the Select Committee on Intelligence as minority counsel for then-Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller. In 2007, he became the committee's general counsel, first for Chairman Rockefeller and later myself.

As general counsel, Mike led the work of the committee on all legislation referred to it and reported from it. Mike's tireless efforts, and his skill in bringing people together to talk about the issues, even after others had given up, led to the passage of an intelligence authorization act signed into law in October 2010, the first authorization bill for the intelligence community enacted in 6 years.

I can certainly attest that passage of that legislation was far from assured. The administration showed little enthusiasm for it, other committees objected to numerous provisions included, and the House of Representatives appeared insistent on two provisions--having to do with intelligence notifications to Congress and with investigations by the Government Accountability Office into intelligence matters--that were subject to veto threats. Mike was instrumental in resolving both those issues, and with working through countless other hurdles, in achieving enactment.

Within 9 months, the committee also saw passage and enactment of its second intelligence authorization act, with the fiscal year 2011 bill signed into law on June 8, 2011. We are well on our way with a third authorization bill in 12 months with the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2012.

Mike's careful legislative approach was very much in evidence during the much more prolonged congressional consideration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, during which he worked patiently to find legislative solutions that would satisfy the concerns of the intelligence community in modernizing one of the most important of its authorizing statutes, while also addressing a range of views in the Senate and the House and respecting the privacy and civil liberties concerns of Americans. Mike's painstaking attention to detail in the committee's reports and statements, with this act and throughout his tenure, has resulted in exemplary legislative histories for the bills we have reported--an important, and sometimes neglected, aspect in how our laws are implemented and interpreted.

Mike also paid special attention to building the public record concerning the work of the Intelligence Committee. Because of his efforts, the committee has greatly increased the number of public documents available on the committee's website, from the committee's own biennial activities reports to the yearly legislative request from the executive branch. Behind the scenes, Mike sought systematic approaches to informing the public about U.S. intelligence activities to the maximum extent possible consistent with national security.

Mr. Davidson was also essential in the committee's efforts to honor the sacrifices made by the men and women of the intelligence community, and their families, and to ensure that all intelligence agency employees received fair treatment and appropriate recognition by the Nation they served. All Senators understand the importance of taking care of their constituents. The Intelligence Committee attempts, where possible, to take care of intelligence professionals who often have no other place to turn. Not surprisingly to those who know him, Mike took special care with this responsibility. I recall one example--involving a legal dispute over a family member of an intelligence officer--where Mike's intervention led to justice being done, a family being preserved, and an intelligence professional being able subsequently to focus his attention on an absolutely essential operation.

As I mentioned, Mike retired from the Senate very quietly, working away on committee business to the last minute of his last day on the job. We know, however, that he is relishing the chance to spend more time in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado where he and his wife Karen have a second home near Denver, the home of son Jesse, daughter-in-law Ellen, and grandchildren Jordan and Garrett, and where his daughter Kate often visits. We fully expect, however, that with Mike's great energy and legal abilities he will continue to make a contribution to his country from his home here in the District of Columbia as well.

With gratitude for his service to the Senate and the Nation, for myself and the many others who have benefited from that service, I wish Mike the very best in all his future endeavors.