Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to address S. 978, legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee last week that would increase the penalties for willful copyright infringement by ``streaming.'' I would like to explain why I voted ``pass'' on the bill at the Judiciary Committee markup, and to express what my concern is.

First, I very much appreciate the intent behind this legislation, and commend Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn for bringing it forth. Online infringement of copyrights has had a very serious, detrimental, effect on the entertainment industry, which is based in large part in my State of California. Those who willfully infringe copyrights for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain deserve to be punished like the thieves that they are.

But in doing this, we must make sure that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. This bill simply copies the penalty structure from the current law that makes larger scale illegal downloading a felony. That law makes ``the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means''--i.e. downloading--a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment, if it involves: 10 or more copies; with a total retail value of more than $2,500; and within a 180-day period.

This bill just replicates that penalty structure, with the additional element of an alternative ``fair market value'' threshold. It makes willful infringement through ``public performances by electronic means''--i.e. streaming--also a felony, subject to the same 5-year maximum sentence, if it involves: 10 or more public performances; within a 180-day period; with either a total retail or economic value of more than $2,500; or total fair market value of licenses of more than $5,000.

As I stated at the beginning, I have no problem with increased punishment for large-scale infringers, whether they infringe through downloads or through streams. The problem, though, with this structure is that it treats streaming as being as serious as downloading. But a download, in my view, is obviously much more serious, because it makes a permanent copy of the song or movie or show, as opposed to the one- time viewing or listening that streaming creates. This is very likely why downloading was made a felony to begin with, while streaming wasn't. Given that downloading is much more serious and damaging, to have a moral consistency with the downloading penalties, the streaming thresholds, at least in quantity, should be much higher.

Therefore, I hope to work with the bill's sponsors before this legislation goes to the floor, to craft a more appropriate threshold, which reflects the differences between downloading and streaming. As the sponsors and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, have stated, there are other outstanding issues that they are committed to addressing before this bill comes to the floor, and I hope this concern that I have can be resolved in the same way.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Gerry Counihan, an extraordinary man and a wonderful example for us all.

Gerry is a familiar face and a friend to the Members of this body.

Each of us who have made the trip into this historic Capitol Building and boarded the elevator to cast a vote on this floor has been warmly welcomed or helped in some way by Gerry.

Gerry's life has had its share of challenges.

He was born with a learning disability, but with his trademark determination and optimism he beat the odds and graduated from Franciscan University in 1988.

Gerry first came to work here on Capitol Hill in 1991, and he returned in 1997 to take a job as a tour guide.

His enthusiasm and his love of American history made him an outstanding guide and a dedicated public servant.

Gerry also helped many visitors to our Capitol cope during a time of tragedy.

He gave the first public tour of the Capitol after two police officers were killed in 1998.

In 2001, Gerry gave the first tour when the Capitol reopened following the terrorist attacks of September 11.

In my opinion, this is a testament to the dedication and the patriotism Gerry has shown during his many years of service to our country.

In May 2007, Gerry was the victim of a brutal home invasion and assault. After this senseless act of violence, he was told by his doctors that he may never walk again.

But Gerry has never taken no for an answer.

After months in the hospital and grueling rehabilitation, Gerry returned to the Capitol, eventually taking a job as an elevator operator.

Again, Gerry impressed all of us in the Senate with his dedication and his generous spirit.

Gerry will soon begin a job at the Department of Health and Human Services. I know I speak for all of us when I say that HHS is lucky to have him.

Gerry makes the Senate a brighter place, and I am truly sorry to see him go. I admire his optimism, his dedication, and especially his courage in the face of adversity.

I wish Gerry well as he moves onto this exciting new challenge.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Claire McCaskill. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with important tools to locate border tunnels, identify criminals and punish those involved.

As the U.S., Mexico border has become more secure, criminals have sought out new ways to transfer drugs and people across the border. For years, smugglers have tried to go around our border checkpoints. Now, they are trying to go under them to evade border enforcement. There is an increasing number and sophistication of tunnels along the Southwest border.

Tunnels range from anything from a shallow dirt crawl way to sophisticated concrete structures with shoring, ventilation and electricity. One tunnel found in San Diego even had a makeshift elevator.

Underground tunnels present a serious national security threat. The first tunnel was discovered in May of 1990. However, beginning in 2001, tunnels began to increase dramatically. Between September 2001 and today, an astonishing 125 completed tunnels have been discovered making a total of 137 completed tunnels since 1990.

Border tunnels are most often used to transport narcotics from Mexico to the United States, but assumingly are also used to smuggle weapons and people. Just as tunnels can be used to transport drugs across the border, they could be used to smuggle a terrorist into the United States.

In recent years, there has been a striking increase in the sophistication of these tunnels. To date, authorities have discovered 61 sophisticated tunnels, 37 of which were constructed in California.

In San Diego in February of 2006, I had the occasion to visit a very sophisticated tunnel discovered by the multi- agency San Diego Tunnel Task Force, led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has established these tunnel task forces in San Diego, El Paso, Nogales, Yuma and Imperial Valley.

The tunnel was 2,400 feet long, close to half of a mile, stretching from an abandoned warehouse near the southern border of California through to Tijuana, Mexico. It remains the longest cross-border tunnel discovered in U.S. history, more than nine stories below ground at its deepest point, and had ample ventilation and groundwater drainage systems, cement flooring, lighting, and a pulley system.

Authorities seized over 4,200 pounds of marijuana in the tunnel, and have attributed the operation to the Arellano Felix Organization.

The exit of the tunnel in the United States was concealed in a small office inside a massive empty warehouse, covered only by four square tiles.

After seeing this tunnel, I introduced the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. The bill became law in 2007 and criminalized the construction, financing or use of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States. It also imposes a punishment for anyone who negligently permits others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage on their land.

The first prosecution under this law was in connection to a December 2009 partially-built tunnel found in Calexico, California. An investigation resulted in the arrest of Daniel Alvarez, a United States citizen. Alvarez eventually pled guilty to criminal violations put into place by the Border Tunnel Prevention Act and was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.

Today, I am introducing a bill to enhance the 2007 law. Specifically, it will make the use, construction or financing of a border tunnel a conspiracy offense. This would punish the intent to engage in tunnel activity, even in cases where a tunnel was not fully constructed.

The bill will include illegal tunneling as an offense eligible for Title III wiretaps even when there are not drugs or other contraband to facilitate a wiretap; specify border tunnel activity as unlawful under the existing forfeiture and money laundering provisions to allow authorities to seize assets in these cases.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mary Landrieu and Senator Claire McCaskill. This bill will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with important tools to locate border tunnels, identify criminals and punish those involved.

As the U.S., Mexico border has become more secure, criminals have sought out new ways to transfer drugs and people across the border. For years, smugglers have tried to go around our border checkpoints. Now, they are trying to go under them to evade border enforcement. There is an increasing number and sophistication of tunnels along the Southwest border.

Tunnels range from anything from a shallow dirt crawl way to sophisticated concrete structures with shoring, ventilation and electricity. One tunnel found in San Diego even had a makeshift elevator.

Underground tunnels present a serious national security threat. The first tunnel was discovered in May of 1990. However, beginning in 2001, tunnels began to increase dramatically. Between September 2001 and today, an astonishing 125 completed tunnels have been discovered making a total of 137 completed tunnels since 1990.

Border tunnels are most often used to transport narcotics from Mexico to the United States, but assumingly are also used to smuggle weapons and people. Just as tunnels can be used to transport drugs across the border, they could be used to smuggle a terrorist into the United States.

In recent years, there has been a striking increase in the sophistication of these tunnels. To date, authorities have discovered 61 sophisticated tunnels, 37 of which were constructed in California.

In San Diego in February of 2006, I had the occasion to visit a very sophisticated tunnel discovered by the multi- agency San Diego Tunnel Task Force, led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has established these tunnel task forces in San Diego, El Paso, Nogales, Yuma and Imperial Valley.

The tunnel was 2,400 feet long, close to half of a mile, stretching from an abandoned warehouse near the southern border of California through to Tijuana, Mexico. It remains the longest cross-border tunnel discovered in U.S. history, more than nine stories below ground at its deepest point, and had ample ventilation and groundwater drainage systems, cement flooring, lighting, and a pulley system.

Authorities seized over 4,200 pounds of marijuana in the tunnel, and have attributed the operation to the Arellano Felix Organization.

The exit of the tunnel in the United States was concealed in a small office inside a massive empty warehouse, covered only by four square tiles.

After seeing this tunnel, I introduced the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006. The bill became law in 2007 and criminalized the construction, financing or use of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States. It also imposes a punishment for anyone who negligently permits others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage on their land.

The first prosecution under this law was in connection to a December 2009 partially-built tunnel found in Calexico, California. An investigation resulted in the arrest of Daniel Alvarez, a United States citizen. Alvarez eventually pled guilty to criminal violations put into place by the Border Tunnel Prevention Act and was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison.

Today, I am introducing a bill to enhance the 2007 law. Specifically, it will make the use, construction or financing of a border tunnel a conspiracy offense. This would punish the intent to engage in tunnel activity, even in cases where a tunnel was not fully constructed.

The bill will include illegal tunneling as an offense eligible for Title III wiretaps even when there are not drugs or other contraband to facilitate a wiretap; specify border tunnel activity as unlawful under the existing forfeiture and money laundering provisions to allow authorities to seize assets in these cases.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which Senator Coburn and I are offering as an amendment to pending legislation. The other cosponsors on this amendment are Senator Webb and Senator Collins. This is identical to a bill that we have submitted. On that bill there are more cosponsors. They are Coburn, Cardin, Webb, Corker, Lieberman, Collins, Shaheen, Burr, Risch, and Toomey.

I want to have the record straight that this amendment is in response to a bill which we have crafted. On Tuesday the Senate voted on the proposal but unfortunately we saw a process battle, which I spoke to on the floor, which I think overwhelmed, in some respects, the debate. That is not the case today. There are ongoing negotiations to see if it is possible to put together a solution which can bring all sides together on this amendment that we will be voting on at 2 o'clock. Thus far we do not have an agreement. However, at least one of our cosponsors of this has said to me--this is Senator Webb--that he would very much appreciate a straight up-or-down vote on Coburn-Feinstein so we know exactly where the Senate stands. It is still possible, even after that cloture vote, if we can reach a successful conclusion to the negotiation that we could have another vote and change that.

Today, this is the first vote that the Senate has taken based on the merits of repealing the ethanol subsidy and tariff. In a nutshell, let me give the reasons. I know of no other product in the United States that has a triple crown of benefits: It is a mandate: oil companies must buy this ethanol; there is a subsidy: oil companies are paid for buying this substance; and this substance known as corn ethanol is protected by a protective tariff which prevents other nations, such as Brazil, from importing ethanol which actually has more beneficial environmental effects.

As a matter of fact, corn ethanol is the least environmentally proficient form of ethanol. Everything else is better than corn; cellulosic is better, algae is better, and sugar is better. The bottom line is we have a triple crown of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff on the least effective, least environmentally sound ethanol there is.

More importantly, corn ethanol is now used to such an extent that it is having a major impact on food commodity prices and in particular on feed prices. This is particularly true in the poultry industry. I will get to that in a few minutes.

I do want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Thune for good-faith efforts to try to reach a compromise. As part of this compromise, at least from my point of view, a substantial amount of the revenue must be used to reduce the debt and deficit in addition to eliminating wasteful ethanol subsidies and tariffs. These negotiations have been ongoing since Tuesday. We have not yet reached an agreement. The vote at 2 o'clock will not end these talks. I am perfectly willing to continue to talk but I do think it is important that we have a clean up-or-down vote on the Coburn-Feinstein amendment.

The issue at hand is a simple issue. The subsidy given to these oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year and the tariff actually has the effect of making us more dependent on foreign oil. Let me explain. In 2005, the ethanol subsidy cost taxpayers $1.5 billion. This year that number is nearly $6 billion. In just 6 years it has gone from a cost of $1.5 billion to a cost of nearly $6 billion. There is a reason for it, and I will get to that in a moment, but since 2005, the total cost of this subsidy has been $22.6 billion.

Here is the increase every year: $1.5 billion in 2005; 2006, $2.6 billion; 2007, $3.3 billion; 2008, $4.4 billion; 2009, $5.2 billion; 2010, $5.7 billion; and the all-time high in these last 2 years of $5.7 billion.

However, it continues to rise. The proposal that has been made for an extension to 2015, by some, would cost another $31 billion.

Let me be clear. The subsidy is wasteful and duplicative. It does very little to promote the use of ethanol which oil companies already must use under current law. The renewable fuels standard dictates oil companies use 14 billion gallons of biofuels this year, 20.5 billion gallons by 2015, to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

These volumes, by law, increase every year. It more than doubles by 2022. It is that doubling in volume that will ultimately cost us; we are currently paying oil companies to follow this law.

Let me speak briefly about the tariff. The 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports makes our Nation more dependent on foreign oil. The tariff acts as a trade barrier, placing clean sugarcane ethanol imports from friendly nations at a competitive disadvantage to

oil imports from OPEC. This discourages imports of low-carbon ethanol from our allies and leads to more oil and gasoline imports from OPEC countries, which enter the United States tariff free. So you have a high tariff on ethanol imports but a very low tariff on oil. Sugarcane ethanol, one of the lowest carbon fuels that is widely available, suffers from this tariff.

This tariff makes no sense and it should be repealed. I believe that there is very strong consensus in this body on the tariff issue. The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act repeals the 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol blending subsidy known as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit on July 1. The 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol tariff is also repealed beginning on July 1. Two parts of the three-part triple crown of government support are covered in our bill.

The third part of the triple crown is that refineries are already required to use ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The subsidy pays them to use that mandated ethanol, and ethanol, again, is protected from competition by a very high import tariff.

I think we need to address this quickly because the effects are harmful and the costs are great. At highest risk are increased costs for feed, corn, and other food. Today, 39 percent of the U.S. corn crop is used to produce ethanol, according to the Congressional Research Service. Well over a third of the corn crop is used to produce ethanol. Corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel last week, this is an increase of 140 percent over 12 months.

In this graph you can see the rise, from $2 in 2005 to $3 in 2006, going up over 2007, 2008 to over $4, beginning to come down slightly in 2009, continues down in 2010, and then in 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, it has shot up to well over $6. This is devastating, to poultry farms all over the country. This is devastating to cattle and this is devastating to food commodity prices. These prices will continue to go up if we let these subsidies continue. The annual average price of corn has risen 225 percent since 2006. So from 2005 to today, there has been a 225-percent increase in corn prices. Does anybody think that is good for this Nation? Is it good for farmers who depend on corn feed? I don't think so.

Let me give you some examples. The annual feed cost for Foster Farms tripled over the past year, increasing costs by more than $200 million. That is greater than the firm's largest ever annual profit. Zacky Farms, which is a large farm, has lost $35 million over the last 3 years due to increased corn costs.

I want to read to you for a moment a summary of the impacts on Zacky Farms. Here is the background. Zacky Farms is a family-owned, vertically integrated producer of quality turkey products for consumers in the retail and food service markets. The company is 55 years old but has roots in supplying poultry products to consumers that reach back all the way to 1928, representing three generations of commitment to the business. Zacky currently employs over 1,000 and supplies approximately 2 percent of the turkey consumed in the United States.

During the past 3-plus years, the growing use of corn for ethanol has been nothing less than devastating on Zacky Farms. Why? The cost of turkey feed represent about 60 percent of the final price of turkey products that consumers buy in stores. Corn is roughly 50 percent of the turkey feed formulation, making corn one-third of the cost of a turkey. Soybean meal, usually the second largest ingredient in turkey feed, competes for the same acreage as corn, and consequently the pricing of soybean meal often moves in tandem with corn. The government is sitting on acres and paying farmers not to plant soybeans, thereby encouraging costs to rise. I didn't know that. We are paying farmers not to plant soybeans. Recent reports show that since 1990, there are essentially no new acres available. Ethanol use of corn is therefore driving up other turkey feed ingredient prices also.

The increasing use of corn in ethanol--now nearly 40 percent of the Nation's corn supply--has been a major factor in driving the price of corn from $2 a bushel, to $4 a bushel, to $6 a bushel, and currently $7.75 a bushel. That is what Zacky is currently paying. This dramatic increase has all occurred since the fourth quarter of 2006. The turkey industry has been unable to pass these cost increases along fast enough to maintain profitability.

We were in the caucus on Tuesday, and we heard one Senator talk about how a farm has actually collapsed because of these prices in his State, and a second Senator reiterated his deep concern about what is happening to the poultry interest in his State. So this is not just Foster Farms and Zacky Farms, which happen to be in California, it is all over.

They then go into the impact of corn for ethanol on employees, suppliers, customers, consumers, and family ownership, and they say they have suffered significant losses during the past 3 years, and it has been estimated to be as much as $35 million in losses from 2008, 2009, and 2010, and their banking relationships have been shattered after 60 years of banking. Bank of America told the company to find another bank.

In 2008, the company was forced to implement across-the-board salary freezes and other measures to help control these costs. Turkey prices have jumped dramatically and will continue to increase--in other words, the market is becoming such that turkey is going to become an endangered species, particularly in a down market. And they stopped promotions, such as the free Thanksgiving turkey with the purchase of a certain dollar amount. It goes on and on. This is a very serious issue.

Let me give you another one. Paul Cameron is a commercial cattle feeder from the Imperial Valley. He says:

My company employs 32 hard-working men and women. Many of

these employees are second and third generation to the

livestock business. Our cattle rely primarily on Midwestern

grown corn as their primary source for grain.

This is the conflict here:

This year 41 percent of our Nation's corn crop will be used

up by a heavily subsidized ethanol industry. In a year where

nationally our grain inventories have already been reduced by

adverse weather, corn has risen in price by 140 percent.

Because of this, any chance of profitability in all protein

industries has vanished.

The cattle inventory in our own operation is being reduced

and we have begun the process of laying off many of our

employees. Coming from a county with 27.9 percent

unemployment (April EDD), these good, hard-working people

will be relegated to trying to find jobs where there are

none. These are the very people that take great pride in the

fact that they not only feed a Nation, but also feed the

world.

This is what these subsidies are doing. This is actual testimony read verbatim.

I have a letters from the American Meat Institute, California Dairies, National Chicken Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Meat Association, National Pork Producers Council, and the National Turkey Federation essentially saying the same thing:

Corn-based ethanol has distorted the corn market, and

stretched corn supplies to the point production costs have

increased significantly. Additionally, the current import

tariff on foreign sources of ethanol harms United States

consumers by retarding the development of a robust and

sustainable biofuels market.

That is a direct quote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this testimony following my remarks.

Then there is a very long list in a letter to Senators Reid and McConnell from a couple dozen agencies, both agricultural and environmental, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that letter as well.

Thank you. Also, from the Western United Dairymen Association and from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association as well.

I do this not because I want to run through it all but because I think it is evidentiary testimony to what is happening as a result of what is very bad and egregious public policy. At a time of debt and deficit,

where we are looking to find a compromise solution, which is going to be very difficult. If we reach one, it will have a dramatic impact on this Nation. To continue a program which has the potential to cost tens of billions of dollars makes no sense to me at all.

This summer, experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs. The USDA predicts that U.S. corn reserves will sink to their lowest level since the mid-1990s this summer, and rising food prices are contributing to global poverty and instability. So we are faced with a vote today that is very simple. The vote says: End this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff. It says: Do not wait for it to expire at the end of the year, but do it as of July 1. If we do it as of July 1, we will produce approximately $2.7 billion to the Treasury to ameliorate debt and deficit. I think this is an easy $2.7 billion to save.

Now, someone might say: Well, what are you doing to all of the producers of ethanol? Shouldn't we protect them? Well, this has been going on for a very long time--since 2005. To have an industry develop that then becomes dependent on this trifecta of subsidy, mandate, and protective tariff is only going to increase costs in the future. I understand beginning an industry with some help, giving them a leg up, giving them a toehold. That toehold becomes a foothold, and then they go on their own. The ethanol industry instead wants a continuation of the subsidy that effectively goes to the oil companies--the most profitable industry in the United States--continue the subsidy, continue the mandate, and continue to protect ethanol.

You can be sure that if we don't do this now and we wait for it to end at the end of 2012, there will be a fight to continue it. We are all talking about saying no. We are all talking about that the time has come when we have to do business differently. We have a lot of major problems out there. We have a lot of people who need help. Would I rather help those people or would I rather help Big Oil do essentially what they are mandated to do anyway? The choice is easy. The choice is clear. Would I want to continue a high, protective tariff on the least environmentally friendly commodity, corn ethanol? It is not even algae. It is not cellulosic. It is not sugar cane. It is the least environmentally friendly feedstock used to produce ethanol.

I have opposed this from the beginning because I am not that prescient, I just knew that once we started this it wasn't going to end. Once we started it, it was going to be more, more, more. That is the beat. If we can sell it in the next few hours with the proposal that meets the strictures of both sides of this great institution--we are trying to do that, but there are people who strongly believe it should be ended quickly, and that is what this cloture vote this afternoon will show. It would be the first consequential vote of the Senate to say that major subsidies to oil companies, to do what they are mandated to do, have come to an end. Protective tariffs of the least environmentally friendly source of ethanol will come to an end, and they will come to an end in a timely way. This is what the government should be doing.

I would like to yield the floor at this time. I know this has been tough. The big surprise to me has been how emotional our caucus on the Democratic side has been, and I understand the other side's caucus, the Republican side, was emotional as well. This appears to be much more major than the legislation itself might signal. I am very hopeful we will have 60 votes. That would send a very loud message from the Senate.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Hon. Tom Coburn,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Coburn and Feinstein, The undersigned

livestock and poultry groups appreciate your leadership with

the introduction of ``The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal

Act,'' which would end 30 years of tax credits for

conventional ethanol and end the tariff on imported ethanol

on July 1st.

At a time when animal agriculture is facing pressures on

many fronts, this legislation would ease the economic strain

that is heavily affecting the industries that rely so heavily

on corn to feed livestock and poultry. Corn-based ethanol has

distorted the corn market, and stretched corn supplies to the

point production costs have been increased significantly.

Additionally, the current import tariff on foreign sources of

ethanol harms U.S. consumers by retarding the development of

a robust and sustainable biofuels market.

If enacted, your legislation would save taxpayers nearly

$3.3 billion in 2011. Experts such as the Congressional

Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have

already concluded that the subsidy is unnecessary and leading

economists agree that ending it would have little impact on

ethanol production, prices, or jobs.

This legislation will help American consumers by ending the

costly and unnecessary protection and subsidization of

converting corn into fuel. We applaud you for your leadership

on the issue and strongly encourage Congress to pass this

legislation promptly.

Sincerely,

American Meat Institute.

California Dairies, Inc.

National Chicken Council.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

National Meat Association.

National Pork Producers Council.

National Turkey Federation.

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

Mr. President, I ask that I could briefly respond to the Senator's comments. Senator Coats and I work together on Intelligence. I have great respect for him. I understand the regional issues involved, so I understand the Senator's thinking. My thinking is, we get a strong vote on this today. This is simply a cloture vote. We have 60 votes. We have some time to see if we can work something out.

One thing I have learned in this whole line of pursuit is, if you give your word, keep it. The only thing you have is your integrity, and I give you my word that we will continue to try to bring both sides together.

I know this is a long journey. I know we will be blue-slipped and we have to come back and we will have to have a bill we can put a tax matter on. That is for a later day. I think we are into this, and so many people want kind of a clean vote, that if we have that, I am prepared to give you my word to continue to try to discuss this.

My own view on these things is to do the very best we can, try to reach a compromise when issues are like this, and march on to the next thing. This has become far harder than I anticipated. I think we are relatively close to a solution, to a compromise. Whether Senator Coburn will accept it, I do not know. But I know these discussions are going on, and all I can do is pledge you my best effort to try to get to something that satisfies everybody.

If you come from a large ethanol-producing State, I understand what this means. On the other hand, I also understand this is going to be the first of many coming down the line. We have to change the way we do business if we are going to carry out the mandate of a prudent government, we have to make a lot of changes. None of it is going to be easy, so we might as well get used to it now. But for whatever it is worth, you have my word I will continue to try.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, together with Senator Snowe, legislation today to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers.

The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would protect personal privacy and reduce identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers.

Since the 106th Congress, I have worked to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable, threat to Americans' personal privacy.

In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States.

Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records, including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents, many of which are available on the Internet.

Once accessed, the numbers act like keys, allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year, at a combined cost of billions of dollars.

What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts.

One thief stole a retired Army Captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army Captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts.

A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else, a thief who wanted her refund check.

A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan.

Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances.

It also hurts American businesses. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft.

When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves.

Limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed.

In the last Congress, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and I worked together to pass a bill to prevent Federal, State, and local entities from printing social security numbers on government checks and to prohibit government entities from employing prisoners in jobs like data entry that gave them access to people's social security numbers.

But comprehensive legislation is still needed.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled Social Security Numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected and Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved, the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain.

The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers.

I believe this legislation could play a critical role in halting the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens.

As President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force reported to us now three years ago, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.''

Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed.

I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers 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 the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2011.

Introducing this bill today is bittersweet. As my colleagues know, we have been working to pass this bill for almost a decade now. But for all those years it was one of our dearest colleagues, Senator Ted Kennedy, who stood before this body to introduce the legislation.

We certainly miss Senator Kennedy's leadership, his passion, his dedication and his political skill.

But as I stand here today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, I know that he would be proud to see the continued work and support for this bill.

Today, I am joined by Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Boxer as original cosponsors of this legislation.

It is my hope that in this Congress we can make some positive changes in this important area.

Let me start by explaining what the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act does.

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act directs the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture. It requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases in farm animals. It requires that companies defend the process of adding gross amounts of antibiotics to the feed and water of livestock and it requires them to prove that this practice does not contribute to antibiotic-resistance among humans.

Unfortunately, it has become a common practice in industrial agriculture to use antibiotics for ``growth promotion.'' This practice allows for animals kept in cramped quarters to grow artificially fast, and artificially fat.

The most concerning part is that the low doses of antibiotics fed to these animals breed antibiotic resistant pathogens. These pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the most significant public health challenges facing us today, and numerous peer-reviewed studies have concluded that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is making the problem worse.

A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 25 percent of all meat was contaminated with pathogens that were resistant to three or more types of antibiotics.

I have heard for years that antibiotics were the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human medicine. But today, tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic resistant infections. So unfortunately we are learning the hard way that these precious, life saving drugs no longer work as well as they once did.

Antibiotic resistance is a real and growing problem, and its causes are man-made.

As our use of antimicrobial drugs has increased, so has the ability of bacteria to withstand their effects. The only way to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics is to use them responsibly.

In human medicine, this means that doctors must use better discretion when prescribing antibiotics. As patients, we must do our part and finish the prescriptions given to us.

But antibiotics are also used in animal medicine, so veterinarians and farmers must also ensure that antibiotics are used responsibly.

I was surprised to learn that the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in animals such as chickens, pigs, and cattle. Even more surprising is the vast majority of antibiotic consumption by livestock is by animals that show no clinical signs of illness.

This type of treatment, referred to by doctors and veterinarians as non-therapeutic, creates the perfect breeding ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Unlike therapeutic doses of medicine that are prescribed when we, or any other animal gets sick, non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics are routinely added to the food or water of livestock that are not ill.

These doses are not large enough, or powerful enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside their bodies. Instead, the small dose of antibiotics only kills off the weakest bacteria; leaving the strongest, most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce.

Recognizing the impending health crisis, some have taken dramatic action. In 1998, Denmark became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the food and water of livestock. The entire European Union followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics.

But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and it is time for a wakeup call.

That is why I am reintroducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This legislation implements a precautionary principle when it comes to using antibiotics and requires that producers and drug companies affirmatively demonstrate that the non- therapeutic antibiotics in livestock production do not contribute to the incidence of antibiotic resistant infections in humans.

Put simply, if growth promoting antibiotics can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all.

The real strength of this legislation is that it takes an incremental approach. The new regulations regarding antibiotic use under PAMTA would only apply to the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health and are used non-therapeutically.

This means that any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this legislation.

PAMTA also preserves the ability of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals.

By focusing on only the most egregious misuses of medically important antibiotics, PAMTA tackles the problem of antibiotic resistance where we know we can make the most difference.

I understand that some question the need for this legislation; they say that there is no evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in humans.

Unfortunately they are wrong.

Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently testified in front of the House Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., increased hospitalization.

Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration also testified at the hearing and agreed with Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.''

Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support these conclusions. In response to public health concerns about the rise of cephalosporin, an antibiotic, resistance in Salmonella and E. coli, chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent.

Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even while the number and severity of these infections are increasing.

One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 percent.

CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were fatal because MRSA is nearly immune to almost every antibiotic used in modern medicine.

By comparison, in 2005 there were 17,011 deaths due to AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning.

Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the misuse of drugs in human medicine.

But MRSA is also infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital setting.

There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting people is

coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among ST398 strains, which makes treatment especially challenging.

A recent study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital acquired strains of MRSA and community acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are trending in opposite directions.

The study found that community acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006.

By contrast, hospital acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent over this same time period.

Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or in restaurants.

While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

Since the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in veterinary medicine, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

The reason I am so committed to this legislation is that a reduction in highly resistant infections will save lives. One of my constituents shared a truly heartbreaking story.

The Don family, from Ramona, California, is a tight knit family. They are active in the community, and loved by their neighbors. Until recently, like most happy, healthy families, antibiotic resistant infections just wasn't a subject that came up much.

So when Mr. and Mrs. Don sent their son Carlos off to sixth grade camp in 2007, they never expected that an antibiotic resistant infection would change their lives.

Carlos was the picture of health. He was a bright, vibrant, athletic 12-year old, who loved to play football.

When he returned home from camp, he had a 104 degree fever and could barely walk. It was the sickest his parents had ever seen him.

When Carlos didn't get better the next day, they took him to Urgent Care. He was given a dose of antibiotics that the doctors said would knock the bug out in a few days.

But the drugs didn't work.

The next day Carlos was in even worse shape and he had to be rushed to the hospital by an ambulance. His new doctors put him on every single antibiotic the hospital had to offer.

Even at the extremely high levels prescribed to Carlos, the drugs still didn't work.

It took doctors 48 hours to find and acquire an antibiotic that was strong enough to kill the infection.

By that time Carlos' lungs, kidneys, liver, intestines and heart had all failed.

The only thing left, doctors told his parents, was his brain. The doctors said that Carlos knew his body was failing and that he was in a fight for his life.

It pains me to say that this story does not have a happy ending. Carlos lost his life because the antibiotics that we have relied on for 80 years didn't work.

No parents should ever have to undergo the heartbreak and the tragedy that the Dons went through in 2007.

Their son was as healthy and happy as any 12-year-old could be, but he was cruelly taken away from them because of a disease that we could not fight.

I believe that with this bill we have an opportunity to prevent other families from suffering from this same tragic story.

There are some who believe this legislation may actually make our food supply less safe. Their argument is that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and healthy animals make for healthy food.

But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. Over 375 public, consumer, and environmental health groups including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the legislation because they believe that reducing antibiotic use in agriculture will protect the health and safety of Americans.

It is not just health groups that support this approach. The fact is that farmers and meat producers can keep their animals healthy without adding hundreds of pounds of antibiotics to the food and water of their animals.

In Denmark, one of the world's largest exporters of pork, producers have made modest changes to their husbandry practices and reduced overall antibiotic use by over 50 percent. Pork production has grown, and other animal health indicators such as litter size and average daily weight gain have improved.

In Iowa, hog farmers like Paul Willis and Jude Becker have shown that antibiotic-free production is possible in the heartland of America too.

In California, companies like Niman Ranch in Alameda have proved that Beef, Pork, Poultry and Lamb can be produced profitably in America on a large scale without the routine use of antibiotics. In fact, fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill has grown a highly successful business based on meats raised without antibiotics, much of it supplied by Niman Ranch.

This bipartisan bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, their families, and every one of us who consumes the food they produce.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical reforms.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, together with Senator Snowe, legislation today to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: Social Security numbers.

The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would protect personal privacy and reduce identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers.

Since the 106th Congress, I have worked to safeguard Social Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable, threat to Americans' personal privacy.

In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best known and easiest way to identify individuals in the United States.

Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. They can be found in privately held databases and on public records, including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless other public documents, many of which are available on the Internet.

Once accessed, the numbers act like keys, allowing thieves to open credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government benefits.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year, at a combined cost of billions of dollars.

What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts.

One thief stole a retired Army Captain's military identification card and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6- month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army Captain realized what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent accounts.

A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else, a thief who wanted her refund check.

A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even though he had never applied for such a loan.

Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can destroy finances.

It also hurts American businesses. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season because of fears about identity theft.

When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict access themselves.

Limitations on the display of Social Security numbers are critically needed.

In the last Congress, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and I worked together to pass a bill to prevent Federal, State, and local entities from printing social security numbers on government checks and to prohibit government entities from employing prisoners in jobs like data entry that gave them access to people's social security numbers.

But comprehensive legislation is still needed.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled Social Security Numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better Protected and Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could Be Improved, the GAO concluded that current protections are insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain.

The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express consent; prevent Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; limit the circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties for misuse of Social Security numbers.

I believe this legislation could play a critical role in halting the growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and its citizens.

As President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force reported to us now three years ago, ``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the crime.''

Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will continue to grow over time and that action is needed.

I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers 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 the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2011.

Introducing this bill today is bittersweet. As my colleagues know, we have been working to pass this bill for almost a decade now. But for all those years it was one of our dearest colleagues, Senator Ted Kennedy, who stood before this body to introduce the legislation.

We certainly miss Senator Kennedy's leadership, his passion, his dedication and his political skill.

But as I stand here today to introduce the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, I know that he would be proud to see the continued work and support for this bill.

Today, I am joined by Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Boxer as original cosponsors of this legislation.

It is my hope that in this Congress we can make some positive changes in this important area.

Let me start by explaining what the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act does.

The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act directs the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture. It requires drug companies and producers to demonstrate that they are using antibiotics to treat clinically diagnosable diseases in farm animals. It requires that companies defend the process of adding gross amounts of antibiotics to the feed and water of livestock and it requires them to prove that this practice does not contribute to antibiotic-resistance among humans.

Unfortunately, it has become a common practice in industrial agriculture to use antibiotics for ``growth promotion.'' This practice allows for animals kept in cramped quarters to grow artificially fast, and artificially fat.

The most concerning part is that the low doses of antibiotics fed to these animals breed antibiotic resistant pathogens. These pathogens make their way into our food, our water, and our communities.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the most significant public health challenges facing us today, and numerous peer-reviewed studies have concluded that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is making the problem worse.

A recent study published in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly 50 percent of grocery store meat was contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. Even more concerning, 25 percent of all meat was contaminated with pathogens that were resistant to three or more types of antibiotics.

I have heard for years that antibiotics were the closest thing to a ``silver bullet'' in human medicine. But today, tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die each year from antibiotic resistant infections. So unfortunately we are learning the hard way that these precious, life saving drugs no longer work as well as they once did.

Antibiotic resistance is a real and growing problem, and its causes are man-made.

As our use of antimicrobial drugs has increased, so has the ability of bacteria to withstand their effects. The only way to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics is to use them responsibly.

In human medicine, this means that doctors must use better discretion when prescribing antibiotics. As patients, we must do our part and finish the prescriptions given to us.

But antibiotics are also used in animal medicine, so veterinarians and farmers must also ensure that antibiotics are used responsibly.

I was surprised to learn that the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in animals such as chickens, pigs, and cattle. Even more surprising is the vast majority of antibiotic consumption by livestock is by animals that show no clinical signs of illness.

This type of treatment, referred to by doctors and veterinarians as non-therapeutic, creates the perfect breeding ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Unlike therapeutic doses of medicine that are prescribed when we, or any other animal gets sick, non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics are routinely added to the food or water of livestock that are not ill.

These doses are not large enough, or powerful enough, to eliminate all the bacteria inside their bodies. Instead, the small dose of antibiotics only kills off the weakest bacteria; leaving the strongest, most resistant bacteria behind to reproduce.

Recognizing the impending health crisis, some have taken dramatic action. In 1998, Denmark became the first country to ban the routine use of antibiotics in the food and water of livestock. The entire European Union followed suit in 2006. Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan have also implemented full or partial bans on non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics.

But the majority of producers in the U.S. have not followed suit; and it is time for a wakeup call.

That is why I am reintroducing the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. This legislation implements a precautionary principle when it comes to using antibiotics and requires that producers and drug companies affirmatively demonstrate that the non- therapeutic antibiotics in livestock production do not contribute to the incidence of antibiotic resistant infections in humans.

Put simply, if growth promoting antibiotics can't be used safely, they shouldn't be used at all.

The real strength of this legislation is that it takes an incremental approach. The new regulations regarding antibiotic use under PAMTA would only apply to the limited number of antibiotics that are critical to human health and are used non-therapeutically.

This means that any drug not used in human medicine is left untouched by this legislation.

PAMTA also preserves the ability of farmers to use all available antibiotics to treat sick animals.

By focusing on only the most egregious misuses of medically important antibiotics, PAMTA tackles the problem of antibiotic resistance where we know we can make the most difference.

I understand that some question the need for this legislation; they say that there is no evidence that antibiotic use in agriculture leads to infections in humans.

Unfortunately they are wrong.

Rear Admiral Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently testified in front of the House Energy Committee that ``studies related to Salmonella as both a human and animal pathogen, including many studies in the United States, have demonstrated that use of antibiotic agents in food animals results in antibiotic resistant bacteria in food animals, resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and are transmitted to humans, and resistant bacterial infections result in adverse human health consequences, e.g., increased hospitalization.

Doctor Joshua Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration also testified at the hearing and agreed with Rear Admiral Khan. The FDA, he said, ``supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production purposes is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.''

Quantitative evidence from the EU and Canada also support these conclusions. In response to public health concerns about the rise of cephalosporin, an antibiotic, resistance in Salmonella and E. coli, chicken hatcheries in Quebec voluntarily stopped using the drug in February 2005. Following the ban, the public health agency of Canada reported a dramatic 89 percent decrease in the incidence of resistant salmonella in chicken meat and 77 percent decrease in related human infections. Once the drug was partially reintroduced in 2007, antibiotic resistant infections in people jumped back up 50 percent.

Unfortunately we are fighting an uphill battle with antibiotic resistant infections. Our tools and resources are diminishing even while the number and severity of these infections are increasing.

One example is Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, MRSA infections in 1974 accounted for only two percent of the total number of staph infections; in 1995 it was 22 percent; and by 2004 it was 63 percent.

CDC estimates that by 2005, there were 94,360 MRSA infections in the United States. Tragically, about 19,000 of them, 20 percent, were fatal because MRSA is nearly immune to almost every antibiotic used in modern medicine.

By comparison, in 2005 there were 17,011 deaths due to AIDS; so the scope and consequence of this problem is stunning.

Of course not all MRSA is derived from the overuse of antibiotics on the farm. Many infections are acquired in the hospital, and it is believed that these bacteria became resistant to antibiotics due to the misuse of drugs in human medicine.

But MRSA is also infecting individuals who have not been in a hospital setting.

There is strong evidence that at least one strain of MRSA infecting people is

coming directly from livestock. This strain, known as ST398, has been shown to disproportionately infect farmers and their families. Like all MRSA, ST398 is resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and oxacillin. But resistance to other antibiotics is also common among ST398 strains, which makes treatment especially challenging.

A recent study by the CDC in December 2009 showed that hospital acquired strains of MRSA and community acquired MRSA strains such as ST398 are trending in opposite directions.

The study found that community acquired MRSA, a type of MRSA that did not emerge in the hospital setting and is not contracted there, increased 700 percent between 1999 and 2006.

By contrast, hospital acquired MRSA cases declined roughly 10 percent over this same time period.

Over the past decade, it has become clear that MRSA is not just a problem for hospital administrators. More and more individuals are acquiring this devastating infection in their homes, at their gyms or in restaurants.

While it is exceedingly difficult to determine the exact extent that antibiotic use in agriculture influences individual MRSA cases, we know for certain that statistical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

Since the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 84 percent of all antibiotic usage in this country is in veterinary medicine, one can reasonably conclude that a reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture will result in a reduction of highly resistant MRSA cases.

The reason I am so committed to this legislation is that a reduction in highly resistant infections will save lives. One of my constituents shared a truly heartbreaking story.

The Don family, from Ramona, California, is a tight knit family. They are active in the community, and loved by their neighbors. Until recently, like most happy, healthy families, antibiotic resistant infections just wasn't a subject that came up much.

So when Mr. and Mrs. Don sent their son Carlos off to sixth grade camp in 2007, they never expected that an antibiotic resistant infection would change their lives.

Carlos was the picture of health. He was a bright, vibrant, athletic 12-year old, who loved to play football.

When he returned home from camp, he had a 104 degree fever and could barely walk. It was the sickest his parents had ever seen him.

When Carlos didn't get better the next day, they took him to Urgent Care. He was given a dose of antibiotics that the doctors said would knock the bug out in a few days.

But the drugs didn't work.

The next day Carlos was in even worse shape and he had to be rushed to the hospital by an ambulance. His new doctors put him on every single antibiotic the hospital had to offer.

Even at the extremely high levels prescribed to Carlos, the drugs still didn't work.

It took doctors 48 hours to find and acquire an antibiotic that was strong enough to kill the infection.

By that time Carlos' lungs, kidneys, liver, intestines and heart had all failed.

The only thing left, doctors told his parents, was his brain. The doctors said that Carlos knew his body was failing and that he was in a fight for his life.

It pains me to say that this story does not have a happy ending. Carlos lost his life because the antibiotics that we have relied on for 80 years didn't work.

No parents should ever have to undergo the heartbreak and the tragedy that the Dons went through in 2007.

Their son was as healthy and happy as any 12-year-old could be, but he was cruelly taken away from them because of a disease that we could not fight.

I believe that with this bill we have an opportunity to prevent other families from suffering from this same tragic story.

There are some who believe this legislation may actually make our food supply less safe. Their argument is that antibiotics keep our animals healthy, and healthy animals make for healthy food.

But research shows us that these concerns are misguided. Over 375 public, consumer, and environmental health groups including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the legislation because they believe that reducing antibiotic use in agriculture will protect the health and safety of Americans.

It is not just health groups that support this approach. The fact is that farmers and meat producers can keep their animals healthy without adding hundreds of pounds of antibiotics to the food and water of their animals.

In Denmark, one of the world's largest exporters of pork, producers have made modest changes to their husbandry practices and reduced overall antibiotic use by over 50 percent. Pork production has grown, and other animal health indicators such as litter size and average daily weight gain have improved.

In Iowa, hog farmers like Paul Willis and Jude Becker have shown that antibiotic-free production is possible in the heartland of America too.

In California, companies like Niman Ranch in Alameda have proved that Beef, Pork, Poultry and Lamb can be produced profitably in America on a large scale without the routine use of antibiotics. In fact, fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill has grown a highly successful business based on meats raised without antibiotics, much of it supplied by Niman Ranch.

This bipartisan bill makes incremental changes to ensure that our actions on the farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of our farmers, their families, and every one of us who consumes the food they produce.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass these critical reforms.

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

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act, which Senator Coburn has offered and I have cosponsored, along with Senators Burr, Cardin, Collins, Corker, Lieberman, Risch, Shaheen, Toomey, and Webb.

I know the fact that this amendment is on the floor scheduled to be voted on at 2:15 this afternoon has caused some deep consternation on my side of the aisle. There is objection to the procedures used. I am not going to get into that. I am going to say a vote is a vote, and we are facing a vote at 2:15 unless something changes.

To be candid, if there were an offer to bring this to the floor next week or the week after for a time specific and a commitment specific, I believe the author and myself and our cosponsors would certainly agree to that. But in the absence of that offer, it is important that the Senate take a position on a program that has become both gross and egregious, and I want to explain why I feel that way.

No other product I know of has the triple crown of government support that corn ethanol enjoys in this country. Its use is mandated by law. Oil companies are paid by the Federal Government to use it, so there is a subsidy, and corn ethanol is protected by a rather high tariff. Consequently, it has been very profitable for farmers. This amounts to almost $6 billion a year of taxpayers' money that goes to support the corn ethanol industry in this country.

Put another way, that is $15 million each and every day spent on this subsidy at a time when, candidly, we simply can't afford it.

They say there are very few privileges left out there. This is one that is enormous, and I think we have to take a look at it. I think if this amendment passes, nearly $3 billion is saved between July 1 and the end of the year. That is not insignificant. It goes into the general fund and it helps abate the deficit.

Since 2005, we have spent $22.6 billion on this subsidy, and it gets more expensive every year. In 2011, the government will spend $5.7 billion; in 2012, $5.9 billion; in 2013, $6.2 billion. And you can see, since the program came into being in 2005--and I voted against it then--it was at $1.5 billion; the next year, $2.6 billion; the next year, $3.3 billion; the next year $4.4 billion, the next year, $5.2 billion; and 2010, $5.7 billion of a trifecta of triple-crown subsidies to go to recompense people for using corn ethanol. It is wrong.

On top of this subsidy, we have imposed a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol products from Brazil, India, and Australia and others that could import it more cheaply than it is grown here. This then contributes to making the United States more dependent on oil imports from OPEC.

Our amendment is simple. Beginning July 1, we would repeal the 45- cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy, which goes overwhelmingly to large oil companies, and it would eliminate the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

I believe very strongly that we need to act to repeal these subsidies and these tariffs before another $2.7 billion in taxpayer money, which is $15 million a day, is wasted over the remaining 6 months of this year.

Let me describe the real-world impact of these unwise subsidies and tariffs to our economy.

Last week, I was in the Central Valley at an event and I would say anywhere from six to eight farmers came up to me and said, ``Thank you for trying to end the ethanol business. I can no longer afford feed.'' I began to think, and so we took a look at what the situation is. The fact is this ethanol policy is inflating the price of corn and impacting other sectors of the economy.

Today, approximately 39 percent of our corn crop is now used to produce ethanol in this country. Here is where it has gone: The percent of corn for 2000, 7 percent; 2005, 14 percent; and 2010, 39 percent of the entire corn crop goes to produce ethanol. Corn futures reached a record $7.99 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade last week. Prices are up 140 percent in the past 12 months and continue to rise. In 2006, prices were $2 a bushel. Today they are $7.99 a bushel.

This has been a real spike in the price of feed. If it continues one can expect major price increases in grain and food as well. The average price of corn has risen 225 percent since 2006.

Here it is, here it goes on this chart. It goes down slightly and then it has gone up.

In California, the annual feed costs for Foster Farms--this is the largest poultry producer on the west coast--has tripled over the past year, increasing Foster Farms' cost for feed by more than $2 million. This is more than the largest profit the company has ever made.

I hear similar stories from small producers, from co-ops, from dairymen and cattlemen throughout California. The price of feed is rising to such an extent that experts are predicting a mass slaughter of hogs and dairy cows this summer. In other words, it is becoming cheaper to slaughter the animals rather than to feed them. That is wrong.

Paul Cameroon of Imperial County, CA, recently wrote to me:

As a cattle producer who has never asked for a subsidy of

any kind, I only ask that

ethanol production stand on its own and allow true supply and

demand to dictate the real price of corn.

It seems to me he is spot on. It seems to me when we look at charts like this on grain prices, on the huge subsidy that oil companies get, on the protective tariff, we have to say enough is enough. The USDA predicts that continued demand from the livestock, ethanol, and food industry will reduce corn reserves to the lowest level since the mid- 1990s. These low grain reserves will have repercussions globally. We know rising food prices exacerbate global poverty and could intensify political unrest in some parts of the world. But the bottom line is, diverting 39 percent of our crop toward ethanol is artificially driving up corn prices, which in turn is straining people and industries that depend on affordable corn.

In addition to impacting the price of corn, the $6 billion annual ethanol subsidy is fiscally irresponsible. If the current subsidy were to exist through 2014, as the industry has proposed, the Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal renewable fuels standard already requires them to use under the Clean Air Act. The biggest recipient receiving money is BP. According to reports, it receives $55 million. We cannot afford and should not pay oil companies such as ExxonMobil and BP to follow the law to the tune of $6 billion a year. As the GAO has found, the mandate for the use ``is duplicative in stimulating domestic production and use of ethanol, and can''--and is--``resulting in substantial loss of revenue to the Treasury.''

Let me just say one thing about the tariff. The tariff on low-carbon sugarcane ethanol, which I proposed repealing in 2006, makes our Nation more dependent on foreign oil. How? The combined tariffs on ethanol are 60 cents per gallon, at least 15 cents per gallon higher than the ethanol subsidies they supposedly offset. So this is essentially a major trade barrier.

We have a real problem with this triple crown: We mandate its use, we pay people to use it, and then we set a large tariff barrier to prevent anybody from importing any ethanol, whether it is corn or sugar, that is cheaper. This is expensive, $15 million a day, $6 billion, as I said, a year.

I know many of my colleagues agree with the substance of this legislation, and I appreciate very much that the amendment is being considered under somewhat unusual circumstances and procedures. I hope we can have a fair vote. I hope Members will not disregard the import of what we are doing. We are essentially saving the government nearly $6 billion a year by simply repealing the subsidy, repealing the mandate, and repealing the tariff. I believe the time has come.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I think everybody in this body now knows that I am strongly for this measure. Unfortunately, I think it has created a lot of feelings that really do not work to the benefit of this body.

It is my understanding there is an offer from the leader that we will have a vote by Friday next, which means a week from this Friday. I tend to just say what I think. On our side, I think there are real concerns about the process used to bring this amendment to the floor. I think that has created some, unfortunately, very bad feelings which even are enough to affect people's votes.

My view has been a little different. I have watched this ethanol amendment go from $1.5 billion in the early part of the 2000s to where it costs $5.7 billion now. It is a triple crown. It is a subsidy, it is a mandate, it is a protective tariff. It should go. I have no question about that.

I also want to see this body have an ability to work together. It also gives us a little bit of time to see if we can negotiate some agreement between the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from South Dakota. That would be the best of all worlds. Whether we can do this, I do not know, but I am certainly willing to try.

What I hate to see is this vote get so caught up--which it is now caught up in process--that we have no chance of sorting it out. I have asked the Senator from Oklahoma would he consider withdrawing this amendment so we can try and see if we could----

I would ask unanimous consent for a couple of seconds more.

--so that we could try and see if we can work something out with Senators Klobuchar and Thune. I would implore him once again, I think for the best interests of our body as a whole, both sides, we ought to take the time to try to work it out. I think we lose votes right now on the basis of the process alone that we would not lose on just a straight vote.

I believe if it were not for the process, we would have 60 votes. That is my belief. So I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know that right up front. I would implore him to let us withdraw the amendment, try to negotiate a solution, and then take this up, as the leader has pledged, by Friday next.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Tester's amendment on debit card swipe fees.

Like many of my colleagues, I have received countless letters on this issue,

from consumers, financial institutions, retailers, labor unions, and other interested parties. As a Member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure that the Nation's financial system functions fairly.

I am deeply concerned about protecting consumers and small banks from financial harm. This is a tough economy. I know that. I will do everything I can to make sure they are protected.

But my position on this issue has been unchanged from the beginning.

The Federal Reserve issued a proposed rule last December, and is in the process of considering over 11,000 comments submitted on that rule. Chairman Bernanke has said those comments have been informative, and the Federal Reserve will soon issue a final rule that should take into account concerns some have raised.

My position for a long time has been that we should not jump in the middle of that process. We should wait to see what the professionals at the Federal Reserve come out with, and then evaluate whether or not the final rule is fair and equitable for merchants, banks, and especially consumers.

It would be bad precedent for Congress to start cutting off that process in the middle. We don't want to go down that road.

The Federal Reserve is devoting substantial resources to this issue and are giving the comments careful consideration. We should let them finish their work.

Senator Tester's legislation also is flawed in other respects.

The study it proposes only involves banking agencies. It excludes consumer protection agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission.

The intent of existing law is to benefit consumers. If the law is going to be studied, consumer agencies should be involved too. We need to make sure consumers' interests are protected.

Senator Tester's legislation also requires that regulators evaluate whether the proposed rule meets certain tests. As I see it, the tests are so easily met that the final rule is almost guaranteed to be thrown out without being considered.

This is a problem for me.

If a study is to be done, it should be fair, impartial, and consider the interests of all affected parties.

The bottom line is that we don't know what the final rule issued by the Fed will be. I have heard a lot of conjecture from both sides on this issue, but no one has been able to convey any certainty.

I have heard from a number of constituents and national groups on this issue. They have expressed their views passionately, and I am grateful for their participation in this process.

I remain deeply committed to ensuring that small banks and consumers are protected. When the final rule is released, we should look at it carefully. And we should conduct a fair study of the rule if we need to do so.

But until that rule is released, we should allow the experts at the Federal Reserve to complete their work before we take any action.

Mr. President, I wish to thank both Senator Wyden and Senator Udall for their comments. We did have a meeting last night. We did discuss this thoroughly. The decision was that we would enter into this colloquy, so I will begin it, if I may.

These Senators and I, along with the junior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Mark Udall, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse met last night to discuss this amendment, the legal interpretation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions and how these provisions are implemented.

I very much appreciate the strong views Senator Wyden and Senator Udall have in this area, and I believe they are raising a serious and important point as to how exactly these authorities are carried out. I believe we are also all in agreement that these are important counterterrorism authorities and have contributed to the security of our Nation.

Mr. President, if I may respond, I have agreed that these are important issues and that the Intelligence Committee, which is charged with carrying out oversight over the 16 various intelligence agencies of what is called the intelligence community, should be carried out forthrightly. I also believe the place to do it is in the Intelligence Committee itself. I have said to these distinguished Senators that it would be my intention to call together a hearing as soon as we come back from the Memorial Day break with the intelligence community agencies, the senior policymakers, and the Department of Justice to make sure the committee is comfortable with the FISA programs and to make changes if changes are needed. We will do that.

So it would be my intention to have these hearings completed before the committee considers the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill so that any amendments to FISA can be considered at that time.

The fact is, we do not usually have amendments to the intelligence authorization bill, but I believe the majority leader will do his best to secure a future commitment if such is needed for a vote on any amendment. I have not agreed to support any amendment because at this stage it is hypothetical, and we need to look very deeply into what these Senators have said and pointed out last night with specificity and get the response to it from the intelligence committee, have both sides hear it, and then make a decision that is based not only on civil liberties but also on the necessity to keep our country safe. I believe we can do that.

I am very appreciative of their agreement to enter this colloquy.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues very much. I believe this concludes our colloquy.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and we yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.

We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the President on this important matter.

Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and support.

Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime.

On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house arrest.

While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house arrest.

Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.

Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based on a sham constitution.

The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power using the false veneer of a democratic process.

Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were fooled.

We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 1990 but annulled by the military junta.

This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy.

It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of Representatives for the military.

This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the army to form the ``civilian'' political party.

It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections.

And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.

It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.

In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.

President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.''

The National League for Democracy described the elections and the formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to a parody.''

Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's new president.

He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.

So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, remain the same.

So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted.

As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights; release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the restoration of a democratic government.

Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime.

This also includes tough banking sanctions.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.

Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of Burma.

I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.

But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international community.

A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country.

Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and the lack of the rule of law.

The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

It concludes:

Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an

all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad

spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement

of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the

democratization process, firmly grounded in national

reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should

be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions

policies.

I agree.

So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise again today with my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, to submit the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.

We are proud to be joined in this effort by two champions for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma, Senators McCain and Durbin, and we look forward to swift action by the Congress and the President on this important matter.

Congressman Joseph Crowley and Congressman Peter King are introducing this resolution in the House and I appreciate their leadership and support.

Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have received one bit of good news, but also, sadly, more confirmation on the urgent need to keep the pressure on the ruling military regime.

On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house arrest.

While her latest detention lasted more than 7\1/2\ years, she had spent the better part of the past 20 years in prison or under house arrest.

Her release was wonderful news for those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.

Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days after fraudulent and illegitimate elections for a new parliament based on a sham constitution.

The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of Burma silent long enough until they could solidify their grip on power using the false veneer of a democratic process.

Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were fooled.

We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 1990 but annulled by the military junta.

This new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy.

It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of Representatives for the military.

This would be in addition to the seats won by the ``Union Solidarity and Development Party'' founded by the military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the army to form the ``civilian'' political party.

It barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections.

And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.

It should come as no surprise that the military backed party won nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.

In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.

President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.''

The National League for Democracy described the elections and the formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to a parody.''

Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last prime minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's new president.

He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.

So, the names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and Development Party--but the faces, and the lack of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, remain the same.

So, while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize that Burma is not yet free and the regime has failed to take the necessary actions which allow for the import ban to be lifted.

As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military regime to end violations of internationally recognized human rights; release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the restoration of a democratic government.

Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import ban as a part of a strong sanctions regime.

This also includes tough banking sanctions.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.

Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of Burma.

I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.

But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma about the sanctions policy of the United States and the international community.

A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy argues that these sanctions are not targeted at the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country.

Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and the lack of the rule of law.

The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

It concludes:

Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an

all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad

spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement

of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the

democratization process, firmly grounded in national

reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should

be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions

policies.

I agree.

So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Scott Brown, in submitting a resolution that expresses the regret of the U.S. Senate for the passage of discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants. These laws are no longer in effect today. However, I believe it is important for Congress to express regret for the many injustices that were experienced by Chinese immigrants as a result of these policies, and for all of us as Americans to learn from this difficult chapter in our Nation's past.

Let me begin by offering a brief history of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In the 1870s, an economic downturn created political pressure to slow the growing population of Chinese immigrants who were coming to the United States to pursue a better way of life. In California, State laws and local ordinances were enacted that denied the Chinese basic rights and privileges such as the right to own land and the ability to access public schools.

At the urging of some California lawmakers, the U.S. Congress subsequently passed laws that further denied the rights of Chinese immigrants. The harshest of those measures was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that explicitly prohibited all State and Federal courts from naturalizing Chinese persons. This legislation was the first federal law ever enacted to exclude a group of immigrants solely on the basis of race or nationality.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was followed by the passage of the Geary Act in 1892, which extended the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 years and required all Chinese persons in the United States to register with the Federal Government to obtain certificates of residence to prove their right to be in the U.S.

In order to fully understand this Nation's deep-rooted hostility toward the Chinese during this time period, it is important to contrast the U.S. Government's vastly different treatment of European immigrants who entered the United States through Ellis Island. European immigrants were not subjected to the same burdensome and humiliating screening requirements as the Chinese.

Most are familiar with the stories of those coming to Ellis Island and seeing the Statute of Liberty in New York Harbor. However, often forgotten are the experiences of Chinese immigrants who made it to America by way of Angel Island in California.

In 1910, the U.S. Government opened the Angel Island Immigration Station as a way to isolate Chinese immigrants from the city of San Francisco and the remainder of the bay area in northern California. These immigrants were brought to Angel Island Station where they were separated from family members, subjected to embarrassing medical examinations and grueling interrogations, and detained for months or sometimes years.

Despite these hardships, Chinese immigrants persevered, and they continue to make invaluable contributions to the development and success of our Nation. The enactment of Chinese exclusionary laws is a shameful part of our history that must not be forgotten. It is my hope that this resolution will serve to enlighten those who may not be aware of this regrettable chapter in our Nation's history. In addition, I hope the resolution will help heal and bring some closure for those who lived through this difficult time and are still with us today.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.