Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise for one final time to address the Senate. My remarks will be brief. Actually, I just want to say one thing: Thank you. I wish I could say it with the eloquence of one of my first friends in the Senate, Senator Dale Bumpers, who told his stories and always made his case pacing these aisles like a lion tethered to a specially made, extra long microphone cord, or with the breadth of vision of the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, who sprinkled his classic Mother's Day or Fourth of July speeches with memorized poetry and his vast command of history, or with the fire of my dear friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who would bellow to the rafters his passion for the America that could be and then call on the Senate to make it so.

What a privilege it has been to serve with such men and so many other men and women who have made up this body over the last 24 years. You have been my friends, advisers, sometimes adversaries, always worthy, and my inspiration. I thank you. My colleagues in this body are, to a man or a woman, thoughtful, hard-working patriots. We do not always agree, understandably. But every Senator I have met is pursuing a course he or she believes is best for the Nation and advocating policies he or she believes are best for their States.

When I have come to any of you with my ideas about what is best for the Nation or my State, you have listened respectfully, counseled wisely, and helped whenever you could, and so I thank you.

The Senate is often referred to as a family, and that is certainly how I feel about my staff, many of whom are gathering today to say our goodbyes. Perhaps what I will miss the most on leaving the Senate is coming to work every day in Washington and in Wisconsin with such a bright, creative, and dedicated group of people constantly focused on what is best for our Nation and my State, challenging and pushing me to be the best Senator I could be. You cannot be a cynic about the future of this country when you work in an office such as mine and have the privilege to interact with generations of intelligent, civic-minded, and loyal staffers.

I thank them all for making a hard job not just easy but enjoyable and for serving the people of Wisconsin tirelessly and exceedingly well.

My final thanks go to the extraordinary people of Wisconsin. Thank you for letting me pay back, in part, the great debt my family owes to the State that took in my immigrant mother and father and allowed our family, including my brothers, Sidney and Allen, and our sister Dolores, to grow and thrive. Thank you for taking a chance on me in that first election 24 years ago and renewing my contract three more times. Thank you for trusting me with your problems and concerns, your hopes and dreams.

Please know we have listened to you carefully and fought for you always. Every Wisconsinite who wanted it, Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, farmer or city dweller, got full consideration in my office. Whether it was arranging a Capitol tour, finding a lost Social Security check, pushing for legislation to reform the Federal dairy program or reviving the shipbuilding industry in Marinette, WI, every Wisconsinite had an ally and an advocate in us.

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve these 24 years in this hallowed institution, alongside my fellow Senators and my staff and as the voice for the people of Wisconsin. For that, I thank you all one last time.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Rabbi Baruch Frydman- Kohl for his invocation this morning and welcome him and his beloved wife Josette to the Senate.

Rabbi Baruch's father Jack and my father Max were brothers and Europeans during the First World War. Both were exiled to Siberia. Later, after my father immigrated to America, he helped Jack and his family come to Milwaukee.

Baruch is the Anne and Max Tanenbaum senior rabbi of Best Tzedec Congregation, the largest synagogue community in Canada. The focus of his rabbinate has been family education, lifelong learning, and care for the housebound, hospitalized, and homeless. Beyond the synagogue, the rabbi is the president of the Toronto Board of Rabbis and recently organized the Path of Abraham mission to bring Jews, Christians, and Muslims to the Holy Land to explore the challenges of three religions, two nations, and one land.

Baruch's list of accomplishments and credentials is as impressive as it is long. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of his biography printed in the Record following my remarks.

I will just add to this list his place in my heart as a beloved cousin, valued friend, and welcomed reflection of all about our fathers that was

strong, smart, and good. I thank the rabbi for his time and attention to the Senate today.

Exhibit 1

Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl

Baruch Frydman-Kohl is the Anne and Max Tanenbaum Senior

Rabbi of Beth Tzedec Congregation, the largest synagogue

community in Canada. The focus of his rabbinate has been a

commitment to family education, life-long learning and care

for the housebound, hospitalized and homeless. Rabbi Baruch

initiated the development of a ``synaplex'' of innovative

ritual and educational opportunities to encourage more

participation in synagogue life.

Beyond the synagogue, the Rabbi is the President of the

Toronto Board of Rabbis and recently organized the Path of

Abraham mission to bring Jews, Christians and Muslims to the

Holy Land to explore the challenges of three religions, two

nations and one land. He serves on the Board of UJA

Federation of Toronto, has served on the Executive Committee

of the Rabbinical Assembly, and as past president of two of

its regions. He was awarded a Coolidge Fellowship to pursue

research in an inter-faith community at the Episcopal

Divinity School at Harvard University. The Rabbi received his

doctorate in Jewish Philosophy from the Jewish Theological

Seminary and is a Rabbinic Fellow of the Shalom Hartman

Institute of Jerusalem. Rabbi Frydman-Kohl is the author of

scholarly articles in the area of Jewish philosophy and

mysticism.

Rabbi Baruch's father, Jack, and Senator Kohl's father,

Max, were brothers and young teenagers during the First World

War when they were caught between the Austrian-Hungarian

Empire and Czarist Russia. They were taken captive and sent

to exile in Siberia. Later, after Max's immigration to

America, he helped to bring Jack and his family to Milwaukee.

Through their love and care for each other, the two brothers

enabled each other to survive war and to build a new life in

America.

Rabbi Baruch is married to Josette. They are the parents of

Yakov (married to Sarah), Rafi and Amir and the doting new

grandparents of Ilana Adi.

Madam President, I rise today with great sadness to inform the Senate that Jennifer Green, a valued member of my staff and a cherished member of the Senate family, passed away last weekend after a brief illness. It is a comfort to all who knew Jennifer that she spent her last hours in a room filled with the family she cherished so deeply, but no room on Earth would have been large enough to hold all those who mourn her, who have been touched and made better by Jennifer's beautiful smile, big heart, and easy friendship. She is sorely missed in my office, throughout the Senate, and even across the country.

Jennifer worked in my office for the past 14 years, but she served the Senate for nearly a quarter century, starting with the Sergeant at Arms when she was just 20 years old. Jennifer was often the first face visitors to my office would see. She did more than just arrange Capitol tours or point them to the nearest DC attraction; she worked out a botched hotel reservation, found a glass of water to soothe an overheated toddler, listened to worries about a failing farm, a sick grandparent, or a threatened job.

Many of my constituents arrive in the office a little overwhelmed by Washington, perhaps a little angry at Congress, but after meeting Jennifer, they left knowing they had a friend here. Jennifer put a human, caring face on the Senate--a service to this institution that affected the way hundreds, and probably thousands, of Wisconsinites viewed their government.

Of course, no one, not visitor or staff, could leave the office without an update on Jennifer's family, especially her beloved mother Beatrice Spicer, her father Floyd Spicer, her brothers and sisters, and her son Lorenzo Green. She was so proud of this fine young man, as we all are. Through Jennifer, we got to watch a mischievous little boy grow to a talented and strong man serving our country as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard. She made sure everyone got a good look at the handsome--and big--framed picture she kept in her cubicle of Lorenzo in uniform.

Jennifer made us all feel as if we were part of her wonderful family. She was always the first to ask to see the picture of a new baby, quick to drive a colleague to the doctor or listen to a staffer who lost a parent, ready to swap a recipe or dissect the Redskins' latest performance. And that was not just my experience and that of my staff-- Jennifer knew just about everyone who works on the Hill. We have had a steady stream of visitors stopping by the office to share memories and express their condolences. Thank you all for the comfort that has brought our staff.

Jennifer's funeral will be held in her hometown of Princeton, WV, this Saturday. I urge anyone who wants to attend or to leave a message for the family through the funeral home to contact my office for details. We will also be organizing a memorial service for Jennifer here in the Senate in the coming weeks, and we will make sure all offices get plenty of notice so that her many friends can be there.

Everywhere you look in the Capitol, there are plaques, pictures, and statues commemorating the men and women who built this great institution, but these, like all things physical, oftentimes fade or are forgotten. Jennifer touched the heart of the Senate, the people who work here, and the people who visit. Hers is a legacy and a contribution that time cannot erase.

For everyone in my office and for the entire Senate, I offer my deepest condolences to Jennifer's dear family. I hope you can find comfort in knowing of all the good she did and the joy she brought in her time here. We will all miss her profoundly and hold her in our hearts forever.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of Jennifer's obituary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate Northeast Wisconsin Technical College for its 100th anniversary.

Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, founded in 1912 as the City Vocational Schools in Green Bay and Marinette, has grown exponentially in size and impact over the past century. From its earliest offerings of courses in machine shop, woodworking, bookkeeping, and shorthand to today's workforce development in business management, engineering technologies and web development, it has maintained a commitment to providing students with exceptional hands-on training in traditional, new and emerging sectors.

I am proud to have supported NWTC throughout my time in the Senate, working to secure funding for various educational programs and the N.E.W. Clinic, where patients have access to

much needed, quality medical care while the next generation of health care workers receives exceptional, hands-on training. The N.E.W. Clinic, like NWTC, has become a tremendous asset to the residents of Wisconsin.

Today, NWTC graduates more students than all other Green Bay area colleges combined, preparing tens of thousands of students for careers through its 180 programs of study. For the last 2 years, NWTC has rated in the top 10 percent of community colleges nationally as ranked by the Aspen Institute.

Northeast Wisconsin Technical College has built a strong reputation and steadfast foundation that helps support and grow the regional economy. With statistics showing that 95 percent of its 2011 graduates continue to work in Wisconsin and 73 percent remain in the region, NWTC also shapes the local economy. Students, thousands of area businesses, their employees, and the entire region all benefit from NWTC's commitment to building partnerships and alliances that help everyone succeed.

On behalf of our entire Nation, I join the people of Wisconsin in recognizing and commending Northeast Wisconsin Technical College for providing 100 years of outstanding service and quality education to its students. Today, we honor the leaders who founded the college, and all of the faculty, staff, and students who enrich Wisconsin's long, proud tradition of excellence in education.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, for 10 years, summer interns working in Congressional offices have benefitted from a program run by the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership. This 6-week program is designed to enhance their internship experience by giving them an inside view of how Congress works and a deeper appreciation for the role that Congress plays in our democracy. Each week, the interns meet with senior congressional staff and other experts to discuss issues such as the legislative process, separation of powers, balancing governing and campaigning, political polarization, and more. My office has had the benefit of hosting Stennis interns over years and I know it contributes to a richer experience for all who participate.

Interns are selected for this program based on their college record, community service experience, and interest in a career in public service. This year, 28 outstanding interns, most of them juniors and seniors in college who are working in Republican and Democratic offices in both the House and Senate, have taken part.

I congratulate the interns for their involvement in this valuable program and I thank the Stennis Center and the Senior Stennis Fellows for providing such a meaningful experience for these interns and for encouraging them to consider a future career in public service.

I ask that a list of 2012 Stennis Congressional Interns and the offices in which they work be printed in the Record.

The list follows.

Nick Briggs, attending Brown University, interning in the

office of Rep. Jim McGovern;

Julia Caulfield, attending Western Washington University,

interning in the office of Sen. Mark Begich;

Ryan Clarke, attending the University of North Florida,

interning in the office of the House Democratic Leader;

Rebecca Dailey, attending Boston College, interning in the

office of Sen. Mark Begich;

Myranda Elliott, attending Hofstra University, interning in

the office of Rep. Paul Gosar;

Robert Glass, attending Georgia Southwestern State

University, interning in the office of Rep. John Barrow;

Alison Gocke, attending Princeton University, interning in

the House Committee on Natural Resources;

Sadhna Gupta, attending Duke University, interning in the

office of Rep. Jim McGovern;

Geoff Henderson, attending Haverford College, interning in

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs;

Katie Hill, attending Brown University, interning in the

office of Rep. David Cicilline;

Kayla Howe, attending The Monterey Institute of

International Studies, interning in the House Committee on

Foreign Affairs;

Dan Hsieh, attending Seattle University School of Law,

interning in the office of Sen. Mike Enzi;

Elizabeth Joseph, attending the University of Texas at

Austin, interning in the office of Sen. Thad Cochran;

Isabella Leavitt, attending Arizona State University,

interning in the office of Rep. Raul Grijalva;

Ju Young Lee, attending Claremont McKenna College,

interning in the office of Rep. Barbara Lee;

Hunter Ligon, attending the University of Oklahoma,

interning in the office of Rep. James Lankford;

Jennifer Lundemo, attending Dickinson State University,

interning in the office of Sen. Kent Conrad;

Ty McNamee, attending the University of Wyoming, interning

in the office of Sen. Mike Enzi;

Zach Ostro, attending the University of Maryland Francis

King Carey School of Law, interning in the office of Rep.

Marcia Fudge;

James Pollack, attending Harvard University, interning in

the office of Rep. Jackie Speier;

Stephanie Rice, attending Boston College, interning in the

House Committee on Financial Services;

Sterling Robinson, Jr., attending Hofstra Law School,

interning in the office of Rep. Charles Rangel;

Amir Rowe, attending St. John's University, interning in

the office of Rep. Charles Rangel;

Ray Salazar, attending Hawaii Pacific University, interning

in the office of Rep. Colleen Hanabusa;

Mike Sardano, attending New England Law Boston, interning

in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration;

Elizabeth Teagle, attending the University of Georgia,

interning in the office of Sen. Saxby Chambliss;

Kanoe Tjorvatjoglou, attending George Mason University,

interning in the office of Rep. Colleen Hanabusa;

Guy Wood, attending Princeton University, interning in the

office of Sen. Thad Cochran.

Mr. President, we know taxes are scheduled to increase for all Americans next year, and we know an across-the-board tax increase on all Americans would be very bad for our economy. What we disagree on is which tax cuts should be continued.

Unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan debate. Someone watching this debate would assume we cannot agree on anything when it comes to taxes, but they would be wrong. We do agree on far more than we disagree. We agree that middle-class tax rates should not go up. We agree that the alternative minimum tax should not affect middle-class taxpayers. We agree on a variety of tax breaks that help families raise children and invest in their education. Our disagreements elsewhere should not stop

us from acting where we do agree. We should cut through the partisan gridlock and pass the policies we all support.

One policy we can all support is a tax credit for companies that provide childcare to their workforce. This is a powerful and proven incentive for business--especially small business--to arrange onsite childcare for their employees.

I originally introduced this tax credit after we passed welfare reform in 1996. The purpose of welfare reform was to move recipients off benefits and into jobs--a path of financial freedom that is too often blocked by the lack of quality and affordable childcare. After years of work, we finally passed the employer-provided childcare tax credit in 2001. Since then, it has offered businesses a tax credit for building and maintaining a childcare center. Businesses can also receive a smaller tax credit for helping their employees find childcare elsewhere in the community.

Childcare is a good investment for employee and employer alike. Businesses get employees who miss less work to deal with family issues and stay at their jobs longer. Parents know their children are safe, sound, and close by while their mom or dad is at work. They do not have to choose between putting food on the table and caring for their children.

Now is not the time to add another stress to overstressed working families struggling to survive in a down economy. That is why today I am introducing a bill to continue the tax credit for employer-provided childcare. We all agree the employer-provided childcare tax credit should not expire. It is included in both tax bills we are considering this week and we should extend it now.

But support for childcare isn't the only thing the Republican and Democratic tax bills agree on. In fact, these two bills offer the same exact tax cut extension for the first $250,000 earned by every American family. If a family makes $1 more than that, they still get the same tax cut extension on their first $250,000. Even millionaires get the same tax cut extension as everyone else. Everybody, including the wealthiest Americans, benefits from the tax cuts we all can and do support.

Bipartisan policies, such as a tax credit for employer-provided childcare or middle-class tax cuts, should not be held hostage because of a partisan debate about other tax cuts. When we all can agree on something, we should vote for it.

Mr. President, we know taxes are scheduled to increase for all Americans next year, and we know an across-the-board tax increase on all Americans would be very bad for our economy. What we disagree on is which tax cuts should be continued.

Unfortunately, this has become a highly partisan debate. Someone watching this debate would assume we cannot agree on anything when it comes to taxes, but they would be wrong. We do agree on far more than we disagree. We agree that middle-class tax rates should not go up. We agree that the alternative minimum tax should not affect middle-class taxpayers. We agree on a variety of tax breaks that help families raise children and invest in their education. Our disagreements elsewhere should not stop

us from acting where we do agree. We should cut through the partisan gridlock and pass the policies we all support.

One policy we can all support is a tax credit for companies that provide childcare to their workforce. This is a powerful and proven incentive for business--especially small business--to arrange onsite childcare for their employees.

I originally introduced this tax credit after we passed welfare reform in 1996. The purpose of welfare reform was to move recipients off benefits and into jobs--a path of financial freedom that is too often blocked by the lack of quality and affordable childcare. After years of work, we finally passed the employer-provided childcare tax credit in 2001. Since then, it has offered businesses a tax credit for building and maintaining a childcare center. Businesses can also receive a smaller tax credit for helping their employees find childcare elsewhere in the community.

Childcare is a good investment for employee and employer alike. Businesses get employees who miss less work to deal with family issues and stay at their jobs longer. Parents know their children are safe, sound, and close by while their mom or dad is at work. They do not have to choose between putting food on the table and caring for their children.

Now is not the time to add another stress to overstressed working families struggling to survive in a down economy. That is why today I am introducing a bill to continue the tax credit for employer-provided childcare. We all agree the employer-provided childcare tax credit should not expire. It is included in both tax bills we are considering this week and we should extend it now.

But support for childcare isn't the only thing the Republican and Democratic tax bills agree on. In fact, these two bills offer the same exact tax cut extension for the first $250,000 earned by every American family. If a family makes $1 more than that, they still get the same tax cut extension on their first $250,000. Even millionaires get the same tax cut extension as everyone else. Everybody, including the wealthiest Americans, benefits from the tax cuts we all can and do support.

Bipartisan policies, such as a tax credit for employer-provided childcare or middle-class tax cuts, should not be held hostage because of a partisan debate about other tax cuts. When we all can agree on something, we should vote for it.

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

Madam President, I am here today to talk about the state of manufacturing in this country, how we can do better, and how we can create more jobs here at home.

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a good bill that will help keep jobs in this country, and help businesses bring more jobs back here at home. It would be especially good for manufacturing--and manufacturing, as we all know, is a critical part of our economy.

A healthy manufacturing sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity, and higher standards of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods, and the production of these goods creates the quality jobs that keep so many Americans families healthy and strong. That is why we need continued investment in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, as it is called.

Created in 1994, MEP is not just a Federal Government-funded program. MEP is unique in that it is funded almost equally between the States, fees paid by companies that use MEP, as well as the Federal Government. Each year, a bipartisan effort led by Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman, and myself has worked to secure funding for this important program.

MEP is the only public-private program dedicated to providing technical support and services to small and medium-sized manufacturers, helping them provide quality jobs for American working people. MEP is a nationwide network of proven resources that helps manufacturers compete nationally as well as globally. Simply put, MEP helps manufacturers grow sales, increase profits, and hire more workers.

Throughout our country, day in and day out, MEP is working with small and medium-sized manufacturers to keep jobs here, and also helping existing businesses bring their outsourced jobs back to the United States. Let me say that again, because it bears repeating. Each day, MEP is working with manufacturers to keep jobs here, and bring their outsourced jobs back to the United States.

Our small and medium-sized manufacturers face different challenges than larger companies, especially in this tough economy. The improvements that come to a business from working with an MEP center can make the difference between profitability or shutting their doors.

You would be hard pressed to find another program that has produced the results MEP has. In fiscal year 2010--the most recent data available--MEP clients across the United States reported over 60,000 new or retained workers, sales of $8.2 billion, cost savings of $1.3 billion, and plant and equipment investments of $1.9 billion.

And in a sign of how strong manufacturing is in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin MEP is opening up a third office in my

State, this time in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee region--which ranks No. 2 among the Nation's top 50 metropolitan areas for manufacturing employment--is seeing high growth in the food processing, equipment manufacturing, and industrial controls fields. These businesses want to create jobs and grow here in the United States, and they are turning to MEP, a public-private partnership, to help them compete in the global economy. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin manufacturers make nearly $400 million in improvements in technology, productivity, and profits, helping to generate $2 billion in economic impact, and creating or saving over 14,000 manufacturing jobs.

Many people seem to think the decline of American manufacturing is inevitable. These critics point to high wages and claim that those make us uncompetitive worldwide. I do not agree. Look at Germany and Japan, two countries with high-wage structures, and yet both have a larger manufacturing sector as a portion of their economy than we do. So higher wages are not why we trail Germany and Japan in manufacturing. We have failed to invest in manufacturing and employee training sufficiently to keep up with global competition--and that is the problem.

We do have the tools and the programs available to help grow our economy and bring jobs back to the United States. Workers in Wisconsin and across the country stand ready to get back to work. Programs such as MEP help companies do the right thing for both their country as well as their bottom line--because betting on the American worker is still the best investment in the world.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012. This legislation will help American companies protect their valuable trade secrets by giving them the additional option of seeking redress in Federal courts when they are victims of economic espionage or trade secret theft. Stolen trade secrets cost American companies billions of dollars each year and threaten their ability to innovate and compete globally. Our bill ensures that companies have the most effective and efficient ways to combat trade secret theft and recoup their losses, helping them to maintain their global competitive edge.

Today, as much as 80 percent of companies' assets are intangible, the majority of them in the form of trade secrets. This includes everything from financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, to formulas, designs, prototypes, processes, procedures, and codes. Trade secrets are often the lifeblood of a business. If they are stolen and wind up in the hands of competitors, it can wipe out years of research and development and cost millions of dollars in losses. The chief executive of GM recently said that he worries about trade secret theft ``every day.'' This comes as no surprise considering the loss to Ford Motor Company in 2006 when an employee stole 4,000 documents which he took to China and used for the benefit of his new employer Beijing Automotive Company, a competitor to Ford. The damage to Ford was estimated to be between $50 million and $100 million.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Economic Espionage Act, which made economic espionage and trade secret theft a Federal crime. Nearly 15 years later, trade secret theft and economic espionage continue to pose a threat to U.S. companies, yet there is no Federal civil remedy for victims. To complement the criminal enforcement of economic espionage and State trade secret laws, the Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act would provide another avenue for companies to protect their trade secrets. The bill enables victims of trade secret theft to seek injunctive relief, putting an immediate halt to trade secret misappropriation, and compensation for their losses in Federal court. It will help fill a gap in Federal intellectual property law by providing legal protections for non-patentable, non-copyrightable innovations, on the condition that the owner of the innovation has taken reasonable measures to keep the innovation a secret.

Today, companies that fall victim to economic espionage and trade secret theft often can only bring civil actions in State court, under a patchwork of State laws, to stop the harm or seek compensation for losses. While State courts may be a suitable venue in some cases, major trade secret cases will often require tools available more readily in Federal court, such as nationwide service of process for subpoenas, discovery and witness depositions. In addition, for trade secret holders operating nationwide, a single Federal statute can be more efficient than navigating 50 different State laws. Finally, our bill permits judges to issue seizure orders to prevent defendants from destroying evidence. In sum, our bill demonstrates a Federal commitment to trade secret protection by expanding the legal options for victims of economic espionage and trade secret theft.

This legislation will not inundate Federal courts with minor trade secret cases because it includes limits so that only the most serious cases requiring Federal courts will be permitted. These limitations require the victim of trade secret theft to certify that the dispute requires either a substantial need for nationwide service of process or the misappropriation of trade secrets from the U.S. to another country. Finally, it is important to emphasize that our legislation is not intended to replace State trade secret laws, but to complement them to ensure that victims of economic espionage and trade secret misappropriation can get the most prompt, effective and efficient justice.

We cannot take lightly the threat of trade secrets theft to American businesses, American jobs, and American innovation. This legislation is another simple and straightforward step we can take to help companies defend themselves against trade secret theft. It demonstrates our commitment at the Federal level to protect all forms of a business's intellectual property and their innovative spirit.

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 Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012. This legislation will help American companies protect their valuable trade secrets by giving them the additional option of seeking redress in Federal courts when they are victims of economic espionage or trade secret theft. Stolen trade secrets cost American companies billions of dollars each year and threaten their ability to innovate and compete globally. Our bill ensures that companies have the most effective and efficient ways to combat trade secret theft and recoup their losses, helping them to maintain their global competitive edge.

Today, as much as 80 percent of companies' assets are intangible, the majority of them in the form of trade secrets. This includes everything from financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, to formulas, designs, prototypes, processes, procedures, and codes. Trade secrets are often the lifeblood of a business. If they are stolen and wind up in the hands of competitors, it can wipe out years of research and development and cost millions of dollars in losses. The chief executive of GM recently said that he worries about trade secret theft ``every day.'' This comes as no surprise considering the loss to Ford Motor Company in 2006 when an employee stole 4,000 documents which he took to China and used for the benefit of his new employer Beijing Automotive Company, a competitor to Ford. The damage to Ford was estimated to be between $50 million and $100 million.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Economic Espionage Act, which made economic espionage and trade secret theft a Federal crime. Nearly 15 years later, trade secret theft and economic espionage continue to pose a threat to U.S. companies, yet there is no Federal civil remedy for victims. To complement the criminal enforcement of economic espionage and State trade secret laws, the Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act would provide another avenue for companies to protect their trade secrets. The bill enables victims of trade secret theft to seek injunctive relief, putting an immediate halt to trade secret misappropriation, and compensation for their losses in Federal court. It will help fill a gap in Federal intellectual property law by providing legal protections for non-patentable, non-copyrightable innovations, on the condition that the owner of the innovation has taken reasonable measures to keep the innovation a secret.

Today, companies that fall victim to economic espionage and trade secret theft often can only bring civil actions in State court, under a patchwork of State laws, to stop the harm or seek compensation for losses. While State courts may be a suitable venue in some cases, major trade secret cases will often require tools available more readily in Federal court, such as nationwide service of process for subpoenas, discovery and witness depositions. In addition, for trade secret holders operating nationwide, a single Federal statute can be more efficient than navigating 50 different State laws. Finally, our bill permits judges to issue seizure orders to prevent defendants from destroying evidence. In sum, our bill demonstrates a Federal commitment to trade secret protection by expanding the legal options for victims of economic espionage and trade secret theft.

This legislation will not inundate Federal courts with minor trade secret cases because it includes limits so that only the most serious cases requiring Federal courts will be permitted. These limitations require the victim of trade secret theft to certify that the dispute requires either a substantial need for nationwide service of process or the misappropriation of trade secrets from the U.S. to another country. Finally, it is important to emphasize that our legislation is not intended to replace State trade secret laws, but to complement them to ensure that victims of economic espionage and trade secret misappropriation can get the most prompt, effective and efficient justice.

We cannot take lightly the threat of trade secrets theft to American businesses, American jobs, and American innovation. This legislation is another simple and straightforward step we can take to help companies defend themselves against trade secret theft. It demonstrates our commitment at the Federal level to protect all forms of a business's intellectual property and their innovative spirit.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 150th anniversary of the Richland County Fair. I am proud to honor this celebration and all that this event has contributed to the State of Wisconsin.

The Richland County Agricultural Society was founded in 1857 with the mission to improve ``the character and operation of the agricultural, mechanical, and household arts.'' In order to achieve its mission, later that year it sponsored a cattle show and fair. The success of that first cattle show led the organization to purchase the fairground, which has allowed them to evolve and continue to sponsor this popular fair for the next 100 years. Since the original fair in 1857, year in and year out, organizers have proudly showcased the beauty, simplicity, and fortitude of rural Wisconsin life; the only years the fairs were not held were during the four summers of our Nation's Civil War. After turning over the fairground and buildings to Richland County in 1957, this landmark celebration became officially known as the Richland County Fair. For 150 years, the Richland County Fair has built upon the foundation of recognition of the agricultural, mechanical, and household arts that truly represent the beauty of Wisconsin.

While Wisconsin's agriculture has changed since the mid-19th century, the fun of the fair traditions has not. It is through events like these that our communities come together to celebrate Wisconsin's unique offerings, culture, and traditions. It has stood the test of good and bad economies and serves as a reminder of our dairy and farming heritage. In recent years, the fair has provided entertainment to the citizens of Richland County and visitors by holding tractor pulls, magic shows, music concerts, games, and rides. With a rich, illustrious history, the Richland County Fair rings in its sesquicentennial anniversary and will no doubt head into many future fairs that build upon a wonderful community legacy. I am proud to have the opportunity to honor this event and honor the spirit of celebration that the Richland County Fair brings to the great State of Wisconsin.

Mr. President, today I introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2012. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs. This would help to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no interpreter certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency and therefore the demand for court interpreter services continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 21 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2010, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 25 million, compared to 23 million in 2005. In 2010, New York had almost 2.5 million. Texas had nearly 3.4 million. California had almost 6.9 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the state Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In Ohio, a woman was wrongly placed on suicide watch after an unqualified interpreter mistranslated her words. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system,

and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

This legislation does just that by authorizing $10 million per year, over 5 years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. The bill does not merely send Federal dollars to States to pay for court interpreters. It will provide much needed ``seed money'' for States to start or bolster their court interpreter programs to recruit, train, test, and certify court interpreters. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of 5 who speak a language other than English at home and who identify as speaking English less than very well. This legislation also directs the Department of Justice to prioritize funding for any State that does not have and has not begun to develop a qualified court interpreter program. In this way, the States most in need will benefit from the grant program.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's court interpreter program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, 8 years later, the court's public registry of interpreters lists 114 certified interpreters. Most of these are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language, French and German. The list of qualified interpreters who have received training and attained requisite scores on an oral assessment includes 56 individuals who speak Russian, Hmong, Korean, Bulgarian, Polish and many other languages. All of this progress in only 8 years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance.

This bill includes cost saving measures to ensure funding is spent wisely. For example, it provides for remote interpretation services to facilitate certified court interpretations when costs prohibit in- person interpretations. These services help cover the cost of interpreter transportation fees. Additionally, the bill encourages States to share successful cost saving programs with other States and defines an effective court interpreter program as one that ``efficiently uses funding to create substantial cost savings.'' To make certain grants are being used in the most resourceful manner, the Department of Justice is required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing where and how the funding was spent.

This legislation has the strong support of State court administrators and state Supreme Court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2012. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs. This would help to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no interpreter certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency and therefore the demand for court interpreter services continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 21 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2010, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 25 million, compared to 23 million in 2005. In 2010, New York had almost 2.5 million. Texas had nearly 3.4 million. California had almost 6.9 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee established by the state Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court. In Ohio, a woman was wrongly placed on suicide watch after an unqualified interpreter mistranslated her words. In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness' testimony. Justice Kennedy agreed that the lack of qualified court interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system,

and emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.

This legislation does just that by authorizing $10 million per year, over 5 years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. The bill does not merely send Federal dollars to States to pay for court interpreters. It will provide much needed ``seed money'' for States to start or bolster their court interpreter programs to recruit, train, test, and certify court interpreters. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of 5 who speak a language other than English at home and who identify as speaking English less than very well. This legislation also directs the Department of Justice to prioritize funding for any State that does not have and has not begun to develop a qualified court interpreter program. In this way, the States most in need will benefit from the grant program.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example of that. When Wisconsin's court interpreter program got off the ground in 2004, using State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, 8 years later, the court's public registry of interpreters lists 114 certified interpreters. Most of these are certified in Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language, French and German. The list of qualified interpreters who have received training and attained requisite scores on an oral assessment includes 56 individuals who speak Russian, Hmong, Korean, Bulgarian, Polish and many other languages. All of this progress in only 8 years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance.

This bill includes cost saving measures to ensure funding is spent wisely. For example, it provides for remote interpretation services to facilitate certified court interpretations when costs prohibit in- person interpretations. These services help cover the cost of interpreter transportation fees. Additionally, the bill encourages States to share successful cost saving programs with other States and defines an effective court interpreter program as one that ``efficiently uses funding to create substantial cost savings.'' To make certain grants are being used in the most resourceful manner, the Department of Justice is required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing where and how the funding was spent.

This legislation has the strong support of State court administrators and state Supreme Court justices around the country. Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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