Floor Statements

Mr. President, once again, too many of our Nation's small businesses are facing difficulty in gaining access to capital. That is why today I am introducing the Increasing Small Business Lending Act to increase access to capital for our Nation's small businesses to help them sustain and build their businesses, create jobs and expand our economy.

In October 2008, markets froze. Credit lines were cut. A lending gap was created in the market. Even Small Business Administration guaranteed loans, that help reduce risk for lenders, were stalled. Congress stepped up and enacted temporary measures to help fill the gaps in small business lending, saving nearly 90,000 small businesses.

One such business is LazerCraze in North Andover, Massachusetts that received an SBA loan to expand to a second location and purchase state- of-the-art equipment that allowed them to hire an additional 37 full time employees.

SBA, administrator Karen Mills has said that the previous temporary changes to the SBA loan programs were a success, ``In short, it worked. We engineered a turnaround in SBA lending even though conventional credit was, and still is to some extent, very tight. Taxpayers got a big bang for the buck. With just over a billion dollars in total subsidy, we supported about $42 billion in lending. In fact, SBA had its highest-ever weekly loan volume the week before Christmas when we supported nearly 2 billion dollars in lending, 10 billion total last quarter. Here is the headline: overall, that is nearly 90,000 small businesses that are not surviving this recession, but growing and creating jobs.

Unfortunately, the temporary small business loan provisions ran out of funding in January 2011, ahead of the authorization which expired in March 2011. Since then, small business lending has declined, making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and for our economy to emerge from our economic downturn.

The legislation I am introducing today is similar to the Small Business Lending Market Stabilization Act, which I introduced in 2008 that was included in both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, and extended in the Small Business jobs Act, P.L. 111-240. The Increasing Small Business Lending, Act will eliminate for one year the fees for 7(a) and 504 Small Business Administration loans and increase SBA loan guarantee of 90 percent, policies that were started as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and extended in the Small Business Jobs Act.

According to the SBA, total small business loans outstanding, loans under $1 million, actually declined during the first half of 2011 after the temporary provisions ended. Loans outstanding to small businesses at the end of the second quarter totaled only $607 billion, which is the slowest since the economic downturn began in 2008.

We can't afford to have our economic progress reversed by a decline in access to capital for small businesses. Since the increased guarantee and reduced fees have expired, our economic recovery could be impeded if we don't act to continue the policies that we know work. By extending key provisions to bolster access to capital, small businesses will have the assurance and support they need to put their innovative ideas into practice and get more Americans back to work.

My legislation will complement the existing Small Business Lending Fund that encourages lending to small businesses through smaller community banks. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and I ask all Senators to support job growth and small businesses by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, there is a silent epidemic in our country that today threatens the lives of more than 5 million Americans. Of those people afflicted with this disease, 150,000 will not survive this decade. In 2008 alone, an estimated 56,000 Americans were newly infected while as many as 75 percent of all infected people did not even know that they carried this disease. Without further preventative action, this growing health threat will only cost more lives and hundreds of billions in additional health care expenses. This ticking time bomb is viral hepatitis.

That is bad news. But there is also cause for hope.

Treatment already exists that can eradicate hepatitis C in close to 75 percent of people with the disease. Another treatment reduces the level of hepatitis B in over 80 percent of those treated. There has been a vaccine against hepatitis B for decades that has left millions immune to that strain of virus. We understand how viral hepatitis is spread, how it can be prevented, and how to test people for infection. There have just been a string of significant medical advances that will improve the effectiveness of viral hepatitis screening and treatment.

It is clear that we already have the tools at our disposal to prevent, treat, and control the vast majority of these infections, now what we need is a coordinated strategy to put these tools to work.

That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis Testing Act of 2011, which appropriates $110 million over five years to improve education, testing, and care for viral hepatitis across Massachusetts and in local communities around the country. This legislation is a down-payment on a national effort to fight and ultimately eradicate hepatitis B and C in America. I hope

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in cosponsoring this effort.

Viral hepatitis is known as a silent killer because it can stay a- symptomatic for years before it leads to serious liver disease. It is the most common cause of liver cancer and yet doctors and patients alike are often largely uninformed about this disease. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and has spread to an estimated 2 billion people worldwide while hepatitis C has reached about 170 million people. Chronic viral hepatitis is widespread and it is dangerous.

Last year, the Institute of Medicine released a report outlining a number of specific recommendations on how to combat viral hepatitis. To build on those recommendations, Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Howard Koh convened a task force and developed a detailed, comprehensive action plan to combat the pervasive spread of this disease. These recommendations served as the foundation for the legislation I am proposing today.

As of today, there is no coordinated national strategy in place to fight viral hepatitis. The action plan put forward by Dr. Koh and his team seeks to rectify that problem by incorporating standardized viral hepatitis prevention and treatment programs into the health care infrastructure that already exists. The bill I introduced today would quickly implement a number of these programs and provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the resources to act.

The first step in prevention is determining who is infected with the virus so they can receive the appropriate care and will be less likely to pass on this disease to others. In order to determine the prevalence of the problem and to increase the number of people who are aware of their infection, The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act calls for HHS to work with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Preventive Services Task Force to develop and implement effective surveillance and testing protocols. Whereas 75 percent of people carrying viral hepatitis today do not even know they are infected, improved testing could flip that disturbing statistic on its head in just 5 years.

It is also a sad reality that a number of minority populations are at greatly increased risk for contracting viral hepatitis. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for over half of chronic hepatitis B cases. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians and Native Alaskans also have disproportionately high rates of these viruses. Additionally, without the proper preventative care, there is a high likelihood that pregnant women who carry the virus will pass it on to their unborn children.

For those reasons, the legislation I introduced today also focuses on screening and treating high-risk populations and pregnant mothers for viral hepatitis. Educational programs targeting high-risk groups will empower people to protect themselves from contracting hepatitis, and ensuring that people who have viral hepatitis receive the appropriate follow-up care will further help to prevent the spread of this epidemic.

Additionally, providing doctors with the proper training on the causes, symptoms, and treatments would also go a long way toward stemming the tide of transmission and improving outcomes for patients who have contracted the disease. This legislation makes supplemental viral hepatitis training for health care professionals a priority.

To do the things we need to do in order to save lives and control this deadly epidemic, we are going to have to make a relativelodest investment. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act appropriates $110 million over 5 years that will go toward implementing the educational, screening, and treatment measures required under this act. Rather than creating a whole new hepatitis prevention apparatus, this funding will be used to integrate these new and improved procedures into the existing health care infrastructure through grants to public and nonprofit private entities, including States, Indian tribes, and public:private partnerships.

The human benefits of this legislation are undeniable--these provisions will reduce transmission, improve the quality of life for people with viral hepatitis, and prevent the deaths of countless mothers and fathers and children. It is also undeniable that this is a wise investment of resources and good policy. These investments are a classic case of using limited resources to maximum impact, as we invest a modest amount of money today in order to save lives, pain, and tens of billions of dollars tomorrow.

Today, hepatitis B costs patients around $2.5 billion per year. With baby boomers aging into Medicare and accounting for an estimated two out of every three cases of chronic hepatitis C, medical costs for treating this disease are expected to skyrocket from $30 billion to more than $85 billion in 2024. Late diagnosis is a significant driver of costs, as more expensive procedures and treatments are required the further the infection has progressed. To put this in even starker terms, the cost of the hepatitis B vaccine ranges from $75 to $165, while treatment can cost up to $16 thousand per year for a single person, or up to $110 thousand per hospital visit, should the disease develop into liver cancer.

Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis is the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases in the state. Additionally, there continues to be a striking increase in cases of hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the State, which suggests that there is a new epidemic of the disease taking hold.

Until recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature provided $1.4 million for surveillance to detect outbreaks and behaviors of concern as well as for targeted screening and treatment of high-risk populations. Today, however, as this public health threat spreads, all of that funding has been eliminated due to budget cuts. Massachusetts receives just $104,305 from the CDC for an Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coordinator. This is a valuable position but it is not nearly enough to support core public health services. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act will allow Massachusetts to invest in a sustainable infrastructure that would improve health care for our citizens.

The choice is ours: we can either invest in preventative programs and more robust screening now or we can just let this epidemic continue to proliferate around the country and foot the bill later for the expensive surgical procedures, medicines, and hospital bills that will only continue to grow.

Without action, thousands more Americans will die year from preventa seases. We know what we need to do; now it is up to us to do it. Let us not make excuses. Let us lower health care costs for American families, improve the quality o our care, and save lives. I again urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, there is a silent epidemic in our country that today threatens the lives of more than 5 million Americans. Of those people afflicted with this disease, 150,000 will not survive this decade. In 2008 alone, an estimated 56,000 Americans were newly infected while as many as 75 percent of all infected people did not even know that they carried this disease. Without further preventative action, this growing health threat will only cost more lives and hundreds of billions in additional health care expenses. This ticking time bomb is viral hepatitis.

That is bad news. But there is also cause for hope.

Treatment already exists that can eradicate hepatitis C in close to 75 percent of people with the disease. Another treatment reduces the level of hepatitis B in over 80 percent of those treated. There has been a vaccine against hepatitis B for decades that has left millions immune to that strain of virus. We understand how viral hepatitis is spread, how it can be prevented, and how to test people for infection. There have just been a string of significant medical advances that will improve the effectiveness of viral hepatitis screening and treatment.

It is clear that we already have the tools at our disposal to prevent, treat, and control the vast majority of these infections, now what we need is a coordinated strategy to put these tools to work.

That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis Testing Act of 2011, which appropriates $110 million over five years to improve education, testing, and care for viral hepatitis across Massachusetts and in local communities around the country. This legislation is a down-payment on a national effort to fight and ultimately eradicate hepatitis B and C in America. I hope

my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in cosponsoring this effort.

Viral hepatitis is known as a silent killer because it can stay a- symptomatic for years before it leads to serious liver disease. It is the most common cause of liver cancer and yet doctors and patients alike are often largely uninformed about this disease. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and has spread to an estimated 2 billion people worldwide while hepatitis C has reached about 170 million people. Chronic viral hepatitis is widespread and it is dangerous.

Last year, the Institute of Medicine released a report outlining a number of specific recommendations on how to combat viral hepatitis. To build on those recommendations, Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Howard Koh convened a task force and developed a detailed, comprehensive action plan to combat the pervasive spread of this disease. These recommendations served as the foundation for the legislation I am proposing today.

As of today, there is no coordinated national strategy in place to fight viral hepatitis. The action plan put forward by Dr. Koh and his team seeks to rectify that problem by incorporating standardized viral hepatitis prevention and treatment programs into the health care infrastructure that already exists. The bill I introduced today would quickly implement a number of these programs and provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the resources to act.

The first step in prevention is determining who is infected with the virus so they can receive the appropriate care and will be less likely to pass on this disease to others. In order to determine the prevalence of the problem and to increase the number of people who are aware of their infection, The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act calls for HHS to work with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Preventive Services Task Force to develop and implement effective surveillance and testing protocols. Whereas 75 percent of people carrying viral hepatitis today do not even know they are infected, improved testing could flip that disturbing statistic on its head in just 5 years.

It is also a sad reality that a number of minority populations are at greatly increased risk for contracting viral hepatitis. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for over half of chronic hepatitis B cases. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians and Native Alaskans also have disproportionately high rates of these viruses. Additionally, without the proper preventative care, there is a high likelihood that pregnant women who carry the virus will pass it on to their unborn children.

For those reasons, the legislation I introduced today also focuses on screening and treating high-risk populations and pregnant mothers for viral hepatitis. Educational programs targeting high-risk groups will empower people to protect themselves from contracting hepatitis, and ensuring that people who have viral hepatitis receive the appropriate follow-up care will further help to prevent the spread of this epidemic.

Additionally, providing doctors with the proper training on the causes, symptoms, and treatments would also go a long way toward stemming the tide of transmission and improving outcomes for patients who have contracted the disease. This legislation makes supplemental viral hepatitis training for health care professionals a priority.

To do the things we need to do in order to save lives and control this deadly epidemic, we are going to have to make a relativelodest investment. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act appropriates $110 million over 5 years that will go toward implementing the educational, screening, and treatment measures required under this act. Rather than creating a whole new hepatitis prevention apparatus, this funding will be used to integrate these new and improved procedures into the existing health care infrastructure through grants to public and nonprofit private entities, including States, Indian tribes, and public:private partnerships.

The human benefits of this legislation are undeniable--these provisions will reduce transmission, improve the quality of life for people with viral hepatitis, and prevent the deaths of countless mothers and fathers and children. It is also undeniable that this is a wise investment of resources and good policy. These investments are a classic case of using limited resources to maximum impact, as we invest a modest amount of money today in order to save lives, pain, and tens of billions of dollars tomorrow.

Today, hepatitis B costs patients around $2.5 billion per year. With baby boomers aging into Medicare and accounting for an estimated two out of every three cases of chronic hepatitis C, medical costs for treating this disease are expected to skyrocket from $30 billion to more than $85 billion in 2024. Late diagnosis is a significant driver of costs, as more expensive procedures and treatments are required the further the infection has progressed. To put this in even starker terms, the cost of the hepatitis B vaccine ranges from $75 to $165, while treatment can cost up to $16 thousand per year for a single person, or up to $110 thousand per hospital visit, should the disease develop into liver cancer.

Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis is the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases in the state. Additionally, there continues to be a striking increase in cases of hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the State, which suggests that there is a new epidemic of the disease taking hold.

Until recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature provided $1.4 million for surveillance to detect outbreaks and behaviors of concern as well as for targeted screening and treatment of high-risk populations. Today, however, as this public health threat spreads, all of that funding has been eliminated due to budget cuts. Massachusetts receives just $104,305 from the CDC for an Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coordinator. This is a valuable position but it is not nearly enough to support core public health services. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act will allow Massachusetts to invest in a sustainable infrastructure that would improve health care for our citizens.

The choice is ours: we can either invest in preventative programs and more robust screening now or we can just let this epidemic continue to proliferate around the country and foot the bill later for the expensive surgical procedures, medicines, and hospital bills that will only continue to grow.

Without action, thousands more Americans will die year from preventa seases. We know what we need to do; now it is up to us to do it. Let us not make excuses. Let us lower health care costs for American families, improve the quality o our care, and save lives. I again urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I believe we are currently debating the motion to proceed to go to the energy, water, et cetera, package. Included in that is the proposal of the President that he has sent up asking the Senate to vote on the question of an infrastructure bank.

I believe there was a prior vote in the Senate on that in the context of the Jobs Act, which we all know failed at that time. There are some signs that this may wind up being a partisan effort here, but I hope colleagues will stop and think very carefully about the infrastructure bank proposal and what it represents to our country.

Whether we can get it over the hurdle at this moment, I do not know. But it is an idea whose time has come, and I am confident in the next weeks or months, hopefully, the Senate will embrace this concept. The reason for doing so is very simple. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle are increasingly reminded when they go home, as well as familiar here just in the general dialog about where we are going in our country, of the enormous deficit reduction--the deficit; it is on my mind--of the infrastructure deficit we face in this country as a whole.

So I want colleagues to stop and think hard about a simple question: How are we going to build America? How are we going to build America going forward so that we can do what our parents and our grandparents did for us, providing us with the basic infrastructure of a nation that has been able to allow people to move easily from home to work to places of commerce across the country, an interstate highway system, all of our airports, our train stations, all of the assets that provided for the strength of our Nation and for the kind of communities we live in? None of it appeared out of nowhere. It was built because people had a vision, people had an idea about how you make communities strong, and also how economies work. The fact is that some of the greatest projects in our country, whether it is some of the great bridges we look at today--Golden Gate Bridge, Triborough Bridge, George Washington, countless bridges across the Potomac and elsewhere--the tunnels, the roads, our water treatment facilities, our airports, and the airline system we have, all of those things contribute to the strength of our country.

But everyone here knows we are not currently pursuing a set of projects calculated to make America more competitive and to continue that rich history and tradition of building for the future. We are busy living off the assets that were created by the generations that preceded us. So the question has to be asked by every colleague here: Are we going to appropriate the money for grants? And the answer is no, partly because the deficit and the debt are telling us in loud terms we do not have those kinds of funds right now, but also because everybody here sees the difficulty we are having trying to get the highway bill reauthorized or the FAA bill reauthorized in order to do the things we need to do.

The proposal for an infrastructure bank is a proposal that recognizes this fiscal reality. We simply do not have and will not allocate the types of funds necessary to do the job every American knows has to be done. That does not mean the job cannot be done. There is a way to do it. And the way to do it is to invite other people's money, the private sector, not tax dollars, to come to the table and invest in these projects, where these projects have revenue streams that will support that kind of investment.

One of the important features of the infrastructure bank that I ask colleagues to focus on is the fact that this bank is not a grant entity. There will be no grants. It is exclusively loans, and exclusively loans that meet the fiduciary test of their ability to be able to be repaid, to have a revenue stream that will support the loans themselves.

I would say to my colleagues, some of them I know have asked me occasionally: Well, is this going to be an entity such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Is it going to be one of those government-supported entities that got some folks in trouble? The answer is no, resoundingly and profoundly no. It is not similar in any way whatsoever. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued stock. They were for-profit entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They were using the Federal guarantee on a loan to actually leverage their position in the marketplace in competition with other entities and for-profits. This bank is not for profit. No issuance of stock will be listed on any exchange. It will exist exclusively for the purpose of lending to those types of projects that meet the highest fiscal standards with respect to the ability of those projects to be repaid.

In fact, in each and every lending situation, the infrastructure bank will make a risk analysis, just as you do on any deal in Wall Street. There is a risk analysis, and a risk factor will be assigned to that deal. In fact, fees will be charged to the borrowers, to the dealmakers, in order to cover that level of risk. That will be part of the cost of the transaction.

The benefit of this infrastructure bank is that by virtue of the Treasury Department providing a discount for the Federal Treasury guarantee, you actually make the loan attractive in terms of the private sector in competition, and it does so at a level, as I said, of risk analysis that does not put the Federal Government or the taxpayer on line and at risk for the measured level of the loan itself, but only the risk which is credited or put on the books in terms of what is carried by the Treasury Department as the risk of this particular loan.

So, in fact, if you look at the type of projects that are authorized by this--only energy projects, transportation projects, and water projects--in the better part of the country, they are limited to $100 million size or up, and there is a set-aside for rural communities. In the rural communities, the

level of loans could be $25 million or up, because obviously in parts of rural America, you have smaller kinds of projects, and we want everyone in the country to be able to share from the benefits of this kind of an infrastructure bank.

I would say to my colleagues, this bank has bipartisan support. It has been introduced in slightly different forms from what the President has put it in. But the fundamentals of the bank in structure and concept are the same. It has been introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who is a coauthor; Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Mark Warner are the original cosponsors. But it has other cosponsors and broader support including, I might add, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a strong supporter of the infrastructure bank, and was present at the announcement of this legislation, as well as the

I thank my friend from Oregon. Nobody works harder on building coalitions than the Senator from Oregon. He has done a superb job on health care and tax policy, so those words mean a lot. I appreciate that. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, we are where in the legislative process now?

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words, if I may, about the nominee whom we are about to vote on.

I strongly support the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

It has been more than 12 years since Heather first came to work for me in the Senate as a senior legislative assistant, and later she became my legislative director and top policy aide. In all those years on the Hill, I want to assure my colleagues who are thinking about this position that she stood out not just for her policy knowledge and her understanding of the budget and the legislative process but for her ability to work across the aisle.

I know a lot of colleagues are anxious to confirm people who come not with partisan intent but with the ability to try to get things done in Washington. Believe me, Heather has that ability.

She worked with me and developed my proposal a number of years ago for a constitutional line-item veto--a proposal which now has many bipartisan supporters in the Senate. I also saw firsthand her instinct to put aside ideology and to go after waste, to push for tough-minded budget reforms, all of which protected the taxpayers' interests. She worked with me through seven budget cycles, and I am pleased to say, as many Members remember, we balanced the budget back in those years. So I think she comes with an experience of understanding what the tough choices are that can help to improve our fiscal situation now.

I came to know somebody who worked diligently and looked at the budget with a critical eye. When Jack Lew announced Heather's nomination, he said she was known for her ``dedication to sound public policy that makes a difference in people's lives.''

Health care, technology, poverty, education, infrastructure--for every single one of these priorities, she will look at them to determine whether the current policies are working, whether there are ways we could do things more effectively, and whether the American taxpayer is getting what they deserve in return for their investment. For all those efforts, I think Jack Lew could not have chosen a stronger or more competent Deputy.

For all of those efforts, I think Jack Lew could not have chosen a stronger or a more competent deputy. I hope my colleagues will support her nomination.

Mr. President, I reserve my time.

It is my understanding that under the order, this is the time for the debate. Is that correct?

If the time is not about to be used, it will be tallied?

I suggest we yield it back mutually or someone speaks.

I am always in favor of extending courtesies. I think it is important to do that. But I would just reserve, if I can, therefore, that we might wait until the Senator is here and have those 2 minutes used at that time.

I will suggest the absence of a quorum until the Senator is here, at which time we will have 2 minutes equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

With the consent of the other side, all time will be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from West Virginia.

I strongly support the nomination of John Bryson to serve as Secretary of Commerce. I think he is an exceptional choice by the President, and I am absolutely confident, having served with many Commerce Secretaries through the years, that he is going to be one of our best. I think he is the right person at this moment in time to be taking the helm at the Department of Commerce. It is a critical, defining moment in many ways for our economy. The challenges are well known by everybody here in the Senate, and the decisions we make or fail to make on new energy sources, on infrastructure, technology, research--all of the items the Senator from West Virginia mentioned-- all of those are going to play a critical part in defining the United States leadership role in the global economy.

The experience of John Bryson in the private sector has won him broad support in the business community.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from former Secretaries of Commerce serving both Republican and Democratic administrations alike be printed in the Record.

I would say to the Presiding Officer, this is a letter written to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell from Carlos Gutierrez, Norman Mineta, Barbara Franklin, Don Evans, Mickey Kantor, Pete Peterson, all former Commerce Secretaries, all of whom are strongly supportive of this nomination.

In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Reid from the president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me say, very quickly, that John Bryson brings to this role the special qualities of somebody who has served as the chairman and CEO of one of the Nation's largest utility companies for almost 20 years, being the chairman and CEO of Edison International. He has been a board member for nonprofit organizations as well as for major corporations in our country: Boeing, Disney, some of the great success stories of our country.

He has extensive experience working on international issues through his work at Edison International and as chair of the Pacific Council on International Policy. I am convinced that if he is confirmed as Secretary of Commerce today, he is going to focus on increasing American exports, and he will be a superb ambassador, helping American companies that are looking to expand across the globe. This is a person who has already proven his ability to be able to deal with people in other countries, with other companies, and I am confident about his ability to perform this task.

His previous experience has exposed him to the importance of innovation and technology at a vital time for the information economy. His Department is now leading the administration in its efforts on issues ranging from privacy to spectrum reform. I am confident he is the right person to help make that process work.

I also know his work on competitiveness means he will be at the forefront of helping to lead our country to, in fact, invest in the skills of our workers, the infrastructure of the Nation, and retain and bring the brightest people in the world to this task.

Finally, I want to close saying, in my conversations with whom I hope to be Secretary Bryson, we raised an issue that is of critical importance to us in Massachusetts. Because of Federal regulations limiting fishing in our waters, a lot of our fishermen have been put out of business or pushed to the brink, and there is a great frustration that exists between the fishing community in our region and the Federal Government.

When I met with John Bryson, he exhibited an understanding of the importance of that issue and a willingness to come to Massachusetts and help us resolve this current situation. We are, frankly, here waiting for his confirmation, months after those conversations took place, and his talents could have been put to use in so much of the challenge we face in this Nation.

I hope my colleagues will join in an overwhelming vote of support for this outstanding, capable nominee, who I think is the right person for this time.

Mr. President, on Friday, October 7, the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 was awarded to three distinguished women for their courageous efforts to promote peace and democracy. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, her compatriot and peace activist Leymah Gbowee, and prodemocracy campaigner Tawakkol Karman of Yemen join the ranks of the chosen few whose dedication to peace is acknowledged by the international community.

President Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first democratically elected female head of state, has helped Liberia recover from 14 brutal years of civil war. Taking office in 2006 after a lengthy exile, she led her nation to greater peace and security, while transforming Liberia in the eyes of the world.

Ms. Gbowee, a founding member of the Women in Peacebuilding Network, mobilized over 3,000 Muslim and Christian women to hold nonviolent protests that helped bring an end to Liberia's civil war. Her efforts demonstrate that the desire for peace and the power to effect change transcend ethnic, religious, and gender divides.

Ms. Karman has for years been a vocal champion of human rights in Yemen. In 2005, she founded a group called Women Journalists Without Chains. Since then, she has braved physical threats and harassment to advance the cause of freedom in her country. And this year, she has emerged as one of the leaders of Yemen's nonviolent democratic uprising. As the first Arab woman to receive a Nobel prize, her selection honors all of the mothers, daughters, and sisters across the Middle East who have been standing for their rights alongside their fathers, sons and brothers.

In the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, very few women have received this high honor. The choice of the selection committee this year is more than a recognition of the strength and courage of these women; it is a clear and resounding testament to the idea that women's rights are important, that it is smart policy to promote gender equality, and that societies are better off when all of their members--women included--can safely exercise their fundamental rights and become drivers of economic security and political opportunity.

Let's take this moment to remember another Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr. Wangari Maathai, who passed away just days before this year's announcement. Dr. Maathai led the Green Belt Movement with tenacity and vision, transforming Kenya's landscape and women's lives. She and the women who are honored this year leave an indelible mark on our social consciousness. I want to congratulate President Johnson Sirleaf, Ms. Gbowee, and Ms. Karman on their selection and to thank them for their service to their communities and commitment to uphold global standards of human rights.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 287; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 78; that there be 4 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 78; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the course of the past half century, Joe Garland served as the unofficial historian of Gloucester, MA--its fishermen, its boats and its life. But Joe Garland not only wrote history in his books and newspaper column--he was part of history, guiding his beloved hometown through headwinds and troubled waters. Joe Garland passed away August 30, and his family and friends gathered October 1 for a memorial service. I would like to share with the Senate the thoughts and memories of Joe that I shared with those who were part of that service honoring this great champion of all things Gloucester.

If you visit the Fisherman's Memorial on Gloucester's waterfront on a stormy winter day, the statue of the Heroic Mariner seems to be steering the whole town into the wind toward fair weather. And if you look closely at the statue, you can almost see Joe Garland in its carved granite face, full of grit and determination, guiding his beloved Gloucester through headwinds and troubled waters.

``Beating to windward'' is the art of sailing into the wind. ``Beating to Windward'' is also the name of the column Joe wrote so many years for the Gloucester Times. And it is no surprise to any of us who knew him that Joe used the column to champion all things Gloucester. Joe didn't just chronicle Gloucester's history--he was a part of it. In his column and in his books, he brought to life the era of the great schooners--like the 122-foot Adventure, the flagship of Gloucester, and the larger-than-life Gloucestermen--like the ``Bear of the Sea,'' Giant Jim Patillo, and the ``Lone Voyager,'' Howard Blackburn.

But he also used the sharpness of his pen to make his case on all kinds of civil causes--opposing unbridled economic development, warning about the loss of local control of the hospital and water supply, complaining about comprises on the environment or demanding the preservation of Gloucester's beauty. And trust me--Joe never hesitated to offer his advice to a certain U.S. Senator, if he felt like I needed it.

Joe wrote with passion, conviction and humor, never with ill will or with the intent to wound. He was a gentleman. And always, whether in his column or in his books, he promoted the interests of Gloucester's fishing fleet. In my office in Washington, I have a copy of the book he wrote in 2006, ``The Fish and the Falcon,'' about Gloucester's role in the American Revolution. His inscription to me expresses his appreciation ``for your efforts to relieve the fiscal crisis that has long haunted our beleaguered fishing industry.'' He urged me to keep up the fight, and I have.

Joe wrote 21 books, and I always enjoyed his sharing the latest with me. In my Boston office, I have a copy of his book about the Adventure, which he helped to restore. It arrived with an invitation from Joe to tour the schooner and, of course, I didn't waste any time accepting his invitation. He welcomed me aboard, and his tour made the Adventure's history come alive--from its construction in 1926 through its career as a ``highliner,'' the biggest moneymaker of them all, landing nearly $4 million worth of cod and halibut during her career.

But the book that spoke to me the most was his last, ``Unknown Soldiers,'' his memoir of World War II and his journey from a student at Harvard to a ``dogface'' with a close-knit infantry in Sicily, Italy, France and finally Germany. It is a clear, eloquent and unflinching panorama of the mundane and the horrific in war. It is, by turns, humorous, poignant and gut-wrenching, with the common soldier perspective long associated with journalist Ernie Pyle or cartoonist Bill Mauldin, a point of view with which soldiers from my war, from any war--a band of brothers stretching through generations of Americans-- can identify.

I was deeply saddened to learn of Joe's passing. But I am glad that his passing was gentle, his last moments of his life near the window of his beloved house by the sea, surrounded by loved ones and squeezing the hand of the woman he loved--Helen, his wife, his World War II pen pal. And how fitting that in those final moments, the schooner Landon fired a farewell cannon salute to Joe as it headed out to sea. Joe loved the tradition of cannon salutes, so much so that he fired one at the wedding of his stepdaughter, Alison, only to have it backfire, burning a hole in his jacket and covering his face with gunpowder, just in time for the official wedding photos. But that was Joe, and a face smudged with gunpowder underscored what we all know--truly, his was a life well lived.

There is an anonymous quote I once read which may well describe how we should think of Joe's passing. It says:

I am standing upon the seashore. A ship at my side spreads her white sails to the morning breeze and starts for the blue ocean. She is an object of beauty and strength, and I stand and watch her until, at length, she hangs like a speck of white cloud just where the sea and sky come down to mingle with each other. Then someone at my side says, ``There! She's gone.''

Gone where? Gone from my sight--that is all. She is just as large in mast and hull and spar as she was when she left my side, and just as able to bear her load of living freight to the place of destination. Her diminished size is in me, not in her, and just at the moment when someone at my side says, ``There, she's gone,''--there are other eyes watching her coming, and other voices ready to take up the glad shout, ``There she comes!'' And that is dying.

Because Joe loved the sea so much--and because he enjoyed watching seagulls soar--I close with a special poem. It is titled ``Sea Joy'' and it was written in 1939 by a little girl named Jaqueline Bouvier. America eventually came to know her as Jackie Kennedy. But when she was 10 years old, she wrote:

``When I go down by the sandy shore

I can think of nothing I want more

Than to live by the booming blue sea

As the seagulls flutter round about me

I can run about--when the tide is out

With the wind and the sand and the sea all about

And the seagulls are swirling and diving for fish

Oh--to live by the sea is my only wish.''

To Helen and Joe's family, I extend my deepest sympathy, but with a reminder that Joe's work, like the sea he loved, is eternal and booming, and that Joe's life, like the seagulls he enjoyed so much, swirled and soared.

And to Joe, from one sailor to another, I wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, how much time is being divided now or is it divided?

Well, Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use under the 1 hour, and I will not use all that, by any means.

Mr. President, this is obviously an issue that is more complicated than the debate may have indicated--at all moments, at least. I think there are complicated and longstanding frustrations that have built up with a lot of Senators and a lot of people in America that bring us here to this moment on the Senate floor.

As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a reluctance to see us engage in an effort that I think can put other interests at risk in certain ways. On the other hand, I have voted to allow and help this legislation to reach the point of postcloture because I think it is an important debate and because I think China needs to carefully think about the process and the substance of what people are saying on the floor of the Senate.

This is a very complicated relationship, with enormous interests on both sides, and we need to avoid a confrontation in a lot of different ways. There are a lot of different kinds of confrontations--trade, physical confrontation in the South China Sea and the straits and elsewhere, confrontations over human rights in Tibet--and there are a lot of issues at play. But with respect to the trade issue, China has a huge interest in the United States being able to export more effectively to China.

China has an interest in its middle class growing in its purchasing power and expressing that purchasing power through consumption. One of the things China needs is its own higher level of domestic consumption. It is saving too much. One of the reasons it saves too much is it doesn't have a safety net structure of any kind, really, so people do save. That is the nature of life there. But at the same time, I think China is seeing a slowdown of its own economy now. One of the reasons for the slowdown in China's economy is the fact that we have had a slowdown in our economy and our ability to consume, and the American consumer is paying off debt, wisely, and consuming less of the goods brought in from China. So it all is interconnected.

China is also our biggest banker. China is critical to our ability to deal with our current economic challenge in many ways--and Europe's, I might add. Both Europe and the United States would benefit significantly with a new trade relationship with China.

That is what I want to talk about for a moment. I believe in trade. I have supported trade here. I don't believe in unequal trade. I don't believe in unfair trade. I believe in enforcing the agreements we have. If you look at NAFTA, for instance, NAFTA had side agreements--side agreements on the environment, side agreements on labor standards--and they were never enforced. People have a right to be angry if they see an agreement that is made and then parts of it are enforced, parts of it are not, and they see their jobs go

overseas, whether it is from North Carolina or Georgia or Massachusetts or Ohio or any other place in our country. So I think it is important to have trade that is fair and sensible.

You are not going to grow your economy trading with yourself--no way--particularly if your overall population growth isn't growing that fast and you are a mature economy. Economics just doesn't work that way. You need newer markets and other places to expand. So I believe it is important for us to recognize that the world's trading system only works if the participants treat each other fairly.

Over the last decade, our national debate on the costs and benefits of trade has intensified, and, frankly, the uneasy alliance, the uneasy consensus that had been created from the 1980s forward with respect to trade is being frayed right now, is being frayed for understandable and clearly definable reasons.

The American worker is not seeing their wages go up. There are a lot of reasons for that: the unfairness of our Tax Code, the inability of people in America today to be able to bargain the way they used to, the lack of an NLRB and a court that uphold the rights of labor to be able to negotiate--a whole bunch of reasons people are disadvantaged today. One of them is the fact that you have this unfair competition.

In order to keep the consensus that allows Americans to say: Yes, trade is a good thing, it has to be a good thing. And to be a good thing, it has to be fair and it has to result in people's lives being improved by it, meaning their wages go up, their job gets better, and their opportunities are better. But everything has been working in the opposite direction. I think that is why so many of our colleagues feel a responsibility to come to the floor on this legislation and make sure that China and others hear from the American people loudly and clearly.

We did this before on a vote we took on currency legislation back in 2005. I think China heard us then, and China began slowly to allow the value of its currency to begin to fluctuate rather than keeping it pegged tightly to the dollar.

China has taken measures. In fairness, China's currency has appreciated over the course of the last few years. Some argue exactly how much--somewhere in the vicinity of 27 percent, maybe 7 percent the last year--but it is not fast enough, and it is still not fair enough. And the fact is that there are other Chinese trade tactics that contribute to our increasing trade deficit with China, not just currency.

Unfortunately, our efforts through multilateral institutions--nobody can point a finger at the United States and suggest that we haven't played by the rules or that we haven't gone to the global institutions in order to try to resolve these differences. We have gone to the World Trade Organization, and we have won, step by step, slowly but surely. But if your tactic is to just keep in this highly mercantilistic, focused strategy of China's to just keep on pushing, take advantage of everything you can, and you get a little nibble against you here and there at the WTO, a little nibble over there, that is really just an inconvenience on the road to a kind of trade domination that is bad for everybody.

That is why I am here today. That is why I have voted for this legislation to come to the floor, to have this debate. This debate is an imperfect stand-in for the broader discussion we need to have about our economic relationship with China. The truth is that our bilateral relationship is both filled with promise and plagued by complex challenges we have to overcome for the good of both countries.

The Chinese market is a huge and growing opportunity for American firms, obviously. Despite the hurdles to entry--and there are hurdles-- China is still our fastest growing export market today. People had better think about this as we go forward.

I am convinced that the key to America pulling itself out of this economic challenge we are in today and the key to Europe pulling itself out is for the United States and Europe to actually work out, almost formally, a new and better relationship with respect to trade with China, as well as with the other fast-developing countries--Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, India--because if those societies will allow us adequate entry to market and if those societies will purchase more from Europe and the United States, then we will export more, manufacture more, and come out of the economic doldrums. That reverberates to China's benefit, also, because their investments in the United States become more secure, because our debt goes down, because we have a stronger economy, and because we are purchasing more in return from them. What goes around comes around.

My hope is that we can agree on fair terms and conditions for trade with these rising powers. If we do, we will create jobs. That is the fastest way we have to create jobs and pull out of our economic doldrums today. The simplest, fastest, most obvious way to do this is to be able to access those other markets rapidly with American goods and begin to restore confidence to the marketplace so that people believe they will get a larger return on their investment and begin to reinvest in job creation and in the marketplace.

The current trade model we are operating under with massive U.S. trade deficits and enormous Chinese trade surpluses is not only unfair, it is unsustainable. So we have to rebalance that relationship. And China's own leaders need to understand that their country's long-term economic health absolutely cannot rest on a foundation of subsidized exports fueled by an indebted American consumer and the credit card of the American consumer. That is a deathly unvirtuous--to use our former Fed Chairman's comments about virtuous and unvirtuous cycles, it is about as unvirtuous as you can get in that economic relationship.

Now, conflict, in my judgment, is not the best way to resolve our tensions. Making clear how we feel and what we think the reality is and what is important in our relationship is critical.

Some of our colleagues have come to the floor to argue that our two countries are already in a trade war. Others have come to the floor to say this bill is going to trigger one. I don't agree with either view. I don't think either one of those views is correct.

If we were in a real trade war with our largest lender, let me tell you, they would be doing a heck of a lot more damage than the misalignment of currency is currently doing to us.

The specific remedy proposed in this legislation is neither as dramatic nor as offensive as some people have said. This is a pretty carefully structured piece of legislation, and I think the language has been chosen in a thoughtful way and the remedies that are available under this bill are not as dramatic as some would suggest. It doesn't propose raising tariffs on all Chinese goods. It only proposes increasing tariffs on those Chinese goods that receive an unfair advantage from an undervalued currency and then compete with American- made goods here in the United States. It is a pretty limited and targeted message. And that is within our rights. If the yuan is properly valued, that will simply not be necessary. That is China's decision, China's choice.

I would much prefer a negotiated, multilateral solution, as I described, involving this new relationship, a new trade relationship on a global basis, which I think would send an extraordinary message to a beleaguered Europe, where Greece, as we all know, is basically fundamentally insolvent, needing some kind of a managed, structured transition hopefully that avoids a greater crisis in Italy and Spain and contagion in their banking system, which clearly needs recapitalization, clearly needs more than the $440 billion that was put on the table, clearly needs some kind of a rescue fund with some very tight kinds of requirements not dissimilar to what we did in the United States in 2008 and 2009 out of sheer necessity. My hope is they will do that.

Nothing would do more to send a message of confidence about the future of job growth than to have this new trade understanding and relationship where responsible partners are behaving responsibly and accepting responsibility for the global marketplace in which we all operate, not just exploit it but support it, protect it, nurture it.

Beyond the currency, there are many other sources of tension in our economic relationship, and they need to be resolved. China does not protect adequately our intellectual property in its

market. That is almost a euphemism. The violations of intellectual property rights, the outright theft in some streets and communities within China of billions of dollars of American designed and marketed and developed property is shocking. In addition to that, China imposes artificial regulatory barriers to the entry of many of our goods. It fails to crack down on cyber attacks, and it has executed a thinly veiled effort to appropriate key foreign technologies. On each of these issues, and others, we have been going to the WTO, we have been bringing cases, and we have been winning those cases. As I have said, that is not a substitute for this larger fix in the relationship that is critical.

I believe overcoming market access challenges is actually where we ought to be focusing our efforts in China and also in the other large, fast-growing markets. That, as I have said several times, is really the answer--the quick answer, if you will. We can develop goods and we can invest in companies here, but if we can't sell the goods to more than ourselves, we have some serious limits on us. It is important for us to be fighting for that market access.

I believe that to increase our exports, we are going to have to increase our competitiveness at home and we are going to have to convince our partners to lower their tariffs, remove discriminatory regulatory restrictions on our exporters, protect intellectual property, use scientific standards as the basis for allowing our agricultural goods to enter, and recognize that trade in services is becoming as important to the modern economy as trade in goods. We need to make the case that doing all of these things is not to the advantage of one country or another, it is to all of our shared advantage because of the nature of the global marketplace in which we live.

Countries such as China, India, and Brazil are stakeholders. Whether or not they want to admit it publicly, they are stakeholders in the West's economic success. They need access to our customers. They need access to our investors. They want to make deals over here. They want to be in joint ventures. They want to own companies. And their businesses and citizens will benefit from strong, sustainable growth in the world's largest economies.

China is an important partner of the United States in a lot of ways. It is also a major investor in the United States. So I don't think we are here to rupture that relationship; I think we are here to send a message to the Chinese about the urgent need to repair it. We want a mutually beneficial relationship, an equitable partnership that will pay dividends for both countries. And I believe, if we listen to each other and work in good faith, we can make that happen and we can enter into a better framework of cooperation that inures to the benefits and the security and the stability and the leadership demands of both of our countries.

We both sit on the Security Council of the United Nations. We both have remarkable responsibilities through our economic power. We are still the largest economy on the face of this planet, maybe three times larger than China--still, even as China is growing. China will surpass us. With that reality of where China stands today economically comes major responsibility. No country has exercised that responsibility through all the last century and into this century with a greater sense of purpose and responsibility than the United States. Hopefully, China will embrace the notion that its new economic power brings with it that same shared responsibility. I hope we can engage in the creation of that kind of mutually beneficial relationship.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to commend the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on the occasion of the institution's October 1, 2011, induction ceremony for the 231st class of members in Cambridge, MA. These 211 new members earned election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for extraordinary individual achievement and are among the world's most influential artists, scientists, scholars, authors, and institutional leaders. In accepting membership into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, these individuals agreed to contribute their talents, experience, and knowledge to help the academy advance the Nation's social welfare.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is an august, quintessentially American institution founded by Massachusetts' own John Adams and other scholar-patriots during our Nation's struggle for independence. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is currently chaired by Louis W. Cabot and led by President Leslie C. Berlowitz and is a vital center of knowledge focused on the great challenges and concerns of the day, from science and technology policy to global security; social policy to the humanities; and culture, and education.

I won't read all 211 of the new members' names, but listed among these brilliant individuals are;

Dr. Daniel Arie Haber, the leading physician-scientist whose research has focused on the molecular genetics of human cancer. He identified genes implicated in breast cancer development and in Wilms' tumor, a children's kidney cancer.

Chester C. Langway, Jr., who is responsible for launching the era of deep ice core drilling programs. He recruited scientists from other disciplines and countries to work on ice cores and collaborated closely with them. Consequently, international teams of scientists have extracted fundamental information from ice cores, and studies have provided detailed climatological and other environmental data, over a geological time period including the Holocene and late Pleistocene ages, on the regional and global conditions existing at the time of snow deposit. Results reveal man's impact on the changing environment and long-term evidence regarding abrupt global climate changes and led to discovery of the Dansgaard-Oeschger event.

Dr. W. Jason Morgan, who was the first to propose that Earth's surface is made up of a number of rigid crustal blocks, establishing the kinematic framework for the paradigm of plate tectonics, which revolutionized the study of Earth and its history.

Also included in this group is Robert Kraft, who is probably best known as the owner of our beloved New England Patriots but has also dedicated his life to advancing science, philanthropy, the arts, and education.

I am including for the Record the names of all 211 inductees into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I wish them all the best and thank them for their contribution to the knowledge of our Nation.

The information follows: