Floor Statements

I would like to respond to my colleague--by the way, I noticed she said it would be the first time in her lifetime that we had not passed a Defense authorization bill. It would not be the first time in my lifetime since it has been 41 years.

I would say to my friend and colleague, who has played a very important and essential role on many issues before the Armed Services Committee, not only because of the military background of her family, including a husband who is a distinguished A-10 pilot, but also as a former attorney general of her State, you are very familiar with many of the detainee issues.

I would like to say to my colleague that it was her amendments that were passed in the committee concerning detainee treatment that became part of the legislation. I believe the legislation in that section was passed by a vote of 25 to 1 in the committee. It is not as if there were sharp divisions between both sides of the aisle on the issue of detainee treatment. Yet apparently that seems to be the objection of the administration not only to the bill but even to taking up the bill for consideration before the full Senate, as the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out, for the first time in 41 years.

I would like to explore with her for a second this whole issue of detainee treatment. Just in the last week or so, we were able to kill one of the leading al-Qaida operatives. I think that action was supported by the majority of opinion in America, thanks to passage of legislation after 9/11 including the fact that the President had a finding that this individual was a terrorist. Yet somehow the President's counterterrorism expert seems to say that under our legislation, we would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo--and I quote from his speech at Harvard--and he went on to say:

Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to

hold all captured terrorists in military custody.

First of all, I would ask my colleague, isn't there a national security waiver the President could exercise if he wanted to in the legislation? Second of all, is it not true that you would have to be a designated member of al-Qaida before you would be required to be held in military custody?

So my question is, Is Mr. Brennan misinformed or simply contradicting what is actually the case in the legislation we passed by a unanimous vote through the Senate Armed Services Committee?

So the statement Mr. Brennan made in his speech on September 16 at Harvard Law School saying that our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody is not correct?

It is interesting that he didn't because those who have been released, the latest number I have is about a 20-percent, roughly--and I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire has different information, but at least one out of every five has returned to the fight and some of them in leadership positions of al-Qaida, which is, obviously, unacceptable.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes for the Senator from New Hampshire and myself.

I just want to mention very quickly--because in some respects, the Senator from New Hampshire comes from a military family-- that it is so important that we care for the men and women in the form of pay raises, in the form of housing, in the form of benefits, in the form of all of the things that are Congress's obligation to the men and women who are serving in the military. Now we are telling those men and women: Well, because of one provision in this legislation, which should be resolved through debate and amendments and votes, we are not going to take up the bill that authorizes the men and women the things that are necessary and vital for the men and women fighting in two wars.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who has played a very important role in the Armed Services Committee, particularly on the issue of detainee treatment, which is important to the American people. As she just mentioned, one out of four returns to the fight. It is a badge of courage and legitimacy and leadership now in al-Qaida for someone who has been released from Guantanamo.

I hope the majority leader and our colleagues would agree that we could sit down and bring this bill to the floor, have votes, amendments, and then let the men and women who are serving and those who have served, including our wounded warriors, know we care enough to pass legislation that is vital to their ability to defend this Nation and to make sure they are properly equipped and properly compensated.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion that I began Monday with the majority leader, Senator Reid, on the need to bring the national defense authorization bill to the floor of the Senate.

Since our colloquy Monday, Senator Reid has sent a letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and me. I would like to have a copy of the letter printed in the Record.

In the letter, Senator Reid lays out his concerns about some of the detainee provisions that were included in the Defense authorization bill as a result of a bipartisan compromise between Chairman Levin, myself, and Senator Graham, and cosponsored by a large, bipartisan group of members of the Armed Services Committee. In fact, this compromise was so bipartisan that after extensive debate on many amendments and a number of votes during markup by the committee using the regular order of the Senate, the resulting package of detainee provisions was adopted and made part of the bill by an overwhelming vote of 25 to 1.

Now, I understand that the White House has some objections to these detainee provisions that were adopted by the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Reid has essentially endorsed the White House position. In doing so, he is blocking the Defense authorization bill from coming to the floor, using his authority as majority leader to control the business of the Senate.

As I said Monday, I do not think that opposition to this particular provision outweighs the importance of this legislation to our national security mission, our troops, and their families. I stated on the floor Monday that I would work with Senator Levin and the administration to try to resolve their concerns about the detainee provisions in the bill. I stand by that commitment. But for the record, I want to address some of the issues raised by the majority leader.

The majority leader quotes White House Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan from a recent speech he made at Harvard saying, ``Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice--our federal courts.''

This statement is simply and completely untrue. It is a total mischaracterization of section 1032 of the bill.

The section of the bill dealing with military custody was extensively debated in committee and reflects the bipartisan compromise reached on all the detainee provisions. Section 1032 does not extend to all terrorists.

It applies, as Chairman Levin made clear in a public statement on Tuesday, only to members of al-Qaida and its affiliates, like al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula which launched the December 2009 attempt to bomb a civilian airliner over Detroit and which subsequently attempted an attack on the United States by using parcel bombs this time last year. And it only applies to members of al-Qaida and its affiliates who are captured in a very narrow set of circumstances: those captured attacking the United States or its coalition allies or attempting or planning such an attack.

This narrow focus is far from Mr. Brennan's claim that military custody would be required for all terrorists. That is simply wrong. It grossly distorts the scope of the provision.

The focus on al-Qaida and its affiliates was intentional. Al-Qaida is and has been for the last 10 years the focus of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, that Congress passed overwhelmingly after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. We are at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates. The President has said so plainly.

In fact, it was just days ago that the Obama administration used the fact that we are at war with al-Qaida to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen. That was a decision I fully support. Awlaki had become a leading operational planner for what administration officials now regard as the branch of al-Qaida that poses the most significant threat to the United States.

The inconsistency in Mr. Brennan's position and, to the extent he speaks for the White House, the administration's national security policy as a whole is that this administration asserts the right-- correctly, in my view--to kill a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates through use of military force but would deny that the same individual should be held in military custody if captured. Instead, following Mr. Brennan's point of view, if we capture an al-Qaida terrorist in the very act of carrying out an attack on our homeland or U.S. interests elsewhere, we should revert to law enforcement methods and hold that al-Qaida terrorist under civilian law enforcement standards.

By insisting that law enforcement custody rather than military custody should apply, the administration has to contend with the requirement to provide Miranda warnings to criminal suspects and the Federal rules that require presentment before a Federal magistrate within a short period of time after arrest, normally within 24 to 48 hours, for a criminal suspect to be informed of the charges against them and to be assigned a lawyer.

I would also note that the detainee provision that Mr. Brennan and the majority leader now complain of contains a national security waiver that can be exercised to transfer even members of al-Qaida or its affiliates into civilian law enforcement custody if that is warranted by the circumstances and deemed the appropriate course of action.

I strongly believe the language adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee is reasonable, fair, and most importantly constitutional. However, as I just stated, I will work with Chairman Levin and the administration to remedy any deficiencies in the language. However, I believe the administration must now present to the Senate and the Armed Services Committee its specific concerns. Absent this, I would hope the majority leader would move to this important legislation and let the Senate implement its prescribed duties.

I look forward to hearing from the majority leader and the administration so that the Senate may move forward on this vital and important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I referred.

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

Mr. President, I paid attention to the remarks made by the majority leader concerning the upcoming schedule for the next week or 2 or 3 and the fact that we are now considering the motion to proceed to a bill pertaining to Chinese currency.

I understand very well that it is the prerogative of the majority leader to set the legislative agenda of the Senate, and I respect that prerogative. But I have to express some amazement that the issue of the Chinese currency is taking precedence over the myriad of other important issues we should be acting on.

One of the articles in today's CQ Today says:

Last year, it looked like the time was right for Congress

to confront China.

``[A] similar bill'' was passed by the House.

This year, the expected bulwark against the measure is the

GOP-controlled House, where top Republicans are echoing

concerns from the business community that enacting the

measure could spark a trade war.

Republican leaders uniformly voted against the China

measure last year, bucking the majority of their party, while

Democrats voted . . . for the bill.

Schumer--

Speaking of the Senator from New York--

argues that a strong Senate vote this time around would make

it ``hard for the House to block it.''

But an aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of

Virginia says there are no plans to vote on China currency

legislation.

So with over 9 percent unemployment, with the debt and deficit continuing to run out of control, with the 12 or 13 appropriations bills not acted on, with the Defense authorization bill, perhaps for the first time in 41 years, not being taken up by the Senate, now, in its wisdom, under the leadership of the majority leader, we will be taking up the China currency bill.

China currency is an important issue. I think it is worthy of debate and discussion in happier times. But if one has any curiosity about the low esteem with which Congress is being held, then no better example of that is the way we have addressed the issues, including not passing a budget, which is against our own law, for the second consecutive year; including going through a continuing resolution rather than authorizing and appropriating the functions of government, as is the responsibility of the Congress of the United States.

Here we are, as I said, unemployment is 9.1 percent, with an estimated 14 million Americans out of work; 228,098 homes are in foreclosure nationwide, a jump of 7 percent from July to August of this year. In my home State of Arizona, 1 in every 248 homes is in foreclosure, the third worst in the Nation. In the majority leader's home State--No. 1 in the Nation--1 in every 118 homes is in foreclosure.

Mr. President, 22.5 percent of the homes in America are ``underwater,'' meaning their mortgage is more than their home is worth. In Arizona, that number is 49 percent. In Nevada, 60 percent of the homes are underwater.

We have a $1.3 trillion deficit. We have a debt of nearly $14.8 trillion. It represents $43,357 for every man, woman, and child in America.

So we will take up before the Senate the China currency bill--the China currency bill. Then someone in this body may wonder why the approval rating of Congress is--one I saw was 12 percent, one 13 percent. I think proceeding in this fashion we may be able, with some success, to drive that down into single digits.

I hold townhall meetings, as most of my colleagues in Congress do as well, and people are very angry at Congress. We, understandably, look at the President's approval ratings. I would urge my colleagues to look at those approval ratings of Congress. As I have often said, and have probably worn out the line, we now have such high rates of disapproval that we are down to blood relatives and paid staffers.

So here we are, with the fiscal year having begun on the first of October, for the first time in 41 years, apparently, we are not going to schedule or pass a Defense authorization bill. The Defense authorization bill, in my view--and it is a biased view because of my membership on that committee for so many years; but not totally biased--authorizes pay and personnel. It budgets training and equipping the Afghan security forces. It fully supports the budget request of $1.75 billion in coalition support. It fully supports the budget request to support the activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq. It increases the funding for cybersecurity initiatives. It provides a provision that would require DOD to acquire and incorporate capabilities for discovering previously unknown cyber attacks on its networks. It covers missile defense, strategic capabilities, nuclear safety, and nuclear proliferation. It supports crucial defense modernization programs.

My friends, there is no more compelling requirement than that of the defense of this Nation. The Armed Services Committee, of which I am a proud member, and work in a bipartisan fashion with the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin from Michigan--puts in long hours, and we scrutinize and we study and we have hearings and we try to do the people's work in the vital and important mission of defending this Nation.

So now the fiscal year has expired. We are operating on a ``continuing resolution,'' and what is the issue before the body, the august body, the world's greatest deliberating body, according to some? The China currency bill--the China currency bill--which we expect to take up for the entire week, which according to any reliable report will never see the light of day in the other body.

Now, there have been controversies surrounding the Defense authorization bill not only this year but in previous years. I strenuously objected last year to the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell being included in the Defense authorization bill until we had a chance to assess the effect on morale, readiness, recruitment, and battle effectiveness, which was the view of the majority of the chiefs of the services.

The year before, we took up a hate crimes bill and put it on the Defense authorization bill. My objection was that it had nothing to do with our Nation's defense. But there are many issues that need to be addressed, many issues concerning detainee treatment, concerning other issues, which are controversial.

But the job of the Senate is to debate and to amend and to pass legislation. What is more important--what is more important--than the security of this Nation and the care for the men and women who are serving in the military?

I note the presence of the majority leader on the Senate floor. I have urged him privately on several occasions to bring up the Defense authorization bill. He responded to me--and I am sure he may respond-- that there are issues concerning detainees, about trials in the United States, about Guantanamo Bay. My response to the majority leader has been, those are issues the Senate should debate; those are issues the Senate should make its judgment on; and I assured him--and I assure him again--that I will consider the objections and reservations that the President and the executive branch have to some provisions in the bill, particularly concerning detainee treatment. I give great deference to the view of the executive branch and the President of the United States. But that does not mean we should not take up the bill. It does not mean we should not take up the Defense authorization bill and the appropriations bills following.

First, we authorize. Then we are supposed to appropriate. The Senator from Nevada, the distinguished majority leader, and I came to the Senate together more years ago than we would like to remind some of our colleagues. But 20-some years ago, when we came to this body, we regularly took up authorization and appropriations bills. We took them up one by one, we had debate, and we had amendments.

By the way, the practice of filling up the tree, which both sides of the aisle in this body are guilty of, was not heard of in those days.

I know the majority leader's time is valuable. I would just remind my friends that the legislative calendar, which is here, is waiting consideration.

Here are just a few of the authorizing bills waiting consideration. The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has approved the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act. The Senate Finance Committee has approved the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Reauthorization Act. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved the Surface Transportation Extension Act.

Today is October 3--the third day of fiscal year 2012--and guess how many of the 12 annual appropriations bills have passed this body? The answer is one. It is not as if the bills are not ready for floor consideration. They have been cleared and placed on the legislative calendar. So why not bring them to the floor for debate and amendments--the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill. All of these, by the way, should have been preceded by authorizing legislation.

What has happened around here, unfortunately, for the majority of the Members of the Senate is that by virtue of the fact that we do not take up authorization bills for the functions of various branches of government, it renders the appropriations process transcendent in the deliberations and conclusions this body has made, thereby making members of the Appropriations Committee have an unwarranted, in my view, but certainly far more impactful role in the Senate than the members of the authorizing committees.

I intend to continue to work in this body and with some of the newer Members to change that process, to require appropriations bills to reflect the authorizing committees' legislation, that the Appropriations Committee not be permitted to authorize, which is not their role, which over the years has become more and more prevalent and routine.

My office resides in the Russell Senate Office Building, which is named after a distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee--a committee of which I am the ranking member. He was a distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a distinguished Member of this body. I am sure if he were on this floor today, that former distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee would be making the same remarks I am today.

The responsibilities--not the privileges but the responsibilities--of those of us on the authorizing committees, including the Armed Services Committee this year, have been abrogated and overcome by a process which is clearly gridlocked.

I recognize the presence of the majority leader on the floor. I yield to the majority leader and then will return to my remarks following his.

I thank the majority leader for his comments. First of all, on the issue of China currency, I believe it is correct that the administration itself objects to this legislation, much less the other body taking it up. I say with great respect to the majority leader and his knowledge of the economy and the jobs that have been lost to China, China currency may be part of the problem, but it is certainly not the reason for the 2 million jobs lost. Certainly the majority of the reason for that is for other reasons which have been well ventilated.

I say to the majority leader, I would be glad and will continue to sit down with the administration and with the majority leader and with Senator Levin on this issue of detainee treatment. The fact is that the President of the United States began his tenure as President of the United States with the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay. I want to close Guantanamo Bay. I have made that very clear. But Guantanamo Bay cannot, for all practical purposes, be closed at this time. That brings in other issues such as treatment of people who are apprehended and attempting to inflict damage and mayhem on the people of the United States.

I think it is something we can work out. I would hope we would be able to debate and amend, which is the usual way we address issues in this body, rather than refusing to bring legislation to the floor because there is a particular objection to it.

Last year, as the majority leader pointed out, I was opposed to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell on the grounds that the same view I had was that of the service chiefs, that we needed to assess the impact of repeal on retention readiness and battle effectiveness. But that should not, in my view, be the reason for us not to take up the legislation this year.

I am sure the majority leader is aware, this would be the first time in 41 years we are in two wars. We have to address the issues that only the authorizing committee is capable and chartered to do. So I hope the majority leader would observe that we could take up this legislation, debate it, amend it. The President always has veto authority if he wishes to veto it. We also have the other body on the other side of the Capitol that would play a role in this. We would go through the normal process of passing the Defense authorization bill, which has been a tradition for some 41 years here in the Senate.

I do appreciate the majority leader taking the time from his busy schedule to come to the floor and express his reasoning behind the schedule that he has set for the Senate, which is well within his authority.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as I was saying, we have only 1 of the 12 authorization bills that has been considered by the Senate to date, which was the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The Senate passed that bill on July 20. Congress did not enact a single one of the annual appropriations bills through regular order last year or a budget last year or this year. What kind of message do we send the American people when they are suffering under unprecedented and unacceptable economically difficult times? We are sending the message that either we are unable or unwilling to address the issues that are affecting their very lives.

When I go home and find people without jobs and with half of the homes underwater, when I find people out of work, when I pass by the shuttered and closed strip malls throughout my State of Arizona, and then hold a townhall meeting, obviously my constituents are angry and frustrated. I do not know of a single townhall meeting that I have had, not a single one, where someone stood up and said: Pass the China currency bill and then our lives will be improved.

I am sure that with some the China currency bill is one of some importance and priority.

Certainly, I don't think it is in the top 10 priorities of the people I represent in the State of Arizona, but our Nation's security is important to my constituents. We have a sizable military presence in Arizona. The national

defense authorization bill that has passed through the Armed Services Committee is very important to the people of this country and our security in these very uncertain times.

I hope the majority leader will agree to change his priorities and bring the bill to the floor. I will continue to work to resolve concerns he or the administration has expressed concerning the legislation itself. But because the executive branch has concerns about legislation and objections to legislation, that should not prevent it from coming to the floor of the Senate. That should not be a reason why the Senate should not exercise its responsibilities to debate, to amend, and to authorize all these much needed priorities for the men and women who are serving our country with courage and efficiency. It is our job to provide them with whatever they need to do their job in the most efficient fashion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as my colleagues know, last night the House of Representatives approved a continuing resolution which includes critical funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. It has been reported that my friends on the other side of the aisle are committed to defeating this measure because the FEMA spending has been offset by a $1.5 billion reduction in the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

I would like to remind my colleagues that in 2009, before the change of leadership in the House, that body sent over a bill, H.R. 3435, to ``Make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program''--otherwise known as ``Cash-for-Clunkers.'' That bill provided an additional $2 billion, on top of an already appropriated $1 billion, for a program that did nothing to boost long-term car sales in this country.

And how was the second appropriation to ``Cash-for-Clunkers'' paid for? You guessed it, unused funds from a Department of Energy loan guarantee program. The former leadership in the House transferred money from the Department of Energy Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program that was funded by the stimulus bill.

If ``Cash-for-Clunkers'' was important enough to transfer money from a loan guarantee program that was not being utilized, why not the disaster relief we are seeking to fund now? I would like to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle as to what made ``Cash-for- Clunkers'' so critical to our Nation's health that we could pay for it with money from a loan guarantee program but are unable to do the same with FEMA?

And what is it about the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program that the majority prioritizes over FEMA's disaster relief efforts?

According to the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Energy has not obtained technical expertise to monitor the loan program, developed sufficient performance measures to ensure the loan guarantee program achieves its intended goals, and ``could not provide Congress with information on whether the program was achieving its goals and warranted continued support.''

There is absolutely no excuse for not passing the continuing resolution approved by the House last night.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Postal Reform Act of 2011, which will restore the financial health and long- term viability of the United States Postal Service, USPS. This bill is the companion to the bill Representative Issa introduced in the House of Representatives in June of this year. I would like to thank him for his leadership on this important issue.

According to the USPS, by 2020, they are expecting to face up to a $238 billion shortfall. Even with dramatic cost savings of $12 billion and workforce reduction of 110,000 postal employees in the past four years, the Postal Service is expected to end this fiscal year with a $10 billion loss.

First-Class mail, which makes up more than half of the Postal Service revenues, continues to fall at alarming rates and shows no signs of ever recovering. This combined with 80 percent labor costs and labor contracts that contain ``no-layoff' clauses points to the fact that the Postal Service is broken.

Congress can no longer enact temporary fixes that avert financial crisis for only a brief period. Congress, the Postal Service, labor unions, and the mailing community must be willing to lay everything on the table and make hard choices now to save the Postal Service for the future. I believe the Postal Reform Act of 2011 will do just that.

Two key provisions in this bill alone would save the Postal Service billions of dollars annually. First, the bill would create a Postal Service Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which is modeled after the District of Columbia control board Congress created to address the fiscal crises the city was facing in the mid 1990s. This authority, triggered by a USPS default on its Federal obligations, would replace the Postal Board of Governors with mandates to cut costs, and put the USPS back on the path to financial solvency.

The second key provision would create a Commission on Postal Reorganization that would use a BRAC like process to consolidate and close post offices and mail processing facilities. According to the Postal Service the ``current mail processing network has a capacity of over 250 billion pieces of mail per year when mail volume is now 160 billion pieces of mail. Right-sizing the network is vital to the future of the Postal Service and its customers.'' Congress, however, continues to put up political road blocks that prevent these closings and consolidations. This proposal will take the politics out of the process and allow the USPS to right-size its operations.

Other provisions in the bill would require arbitrators to take into account the financial health of the Postal Service if labor contracts move to arbitration. It would also exempt USPS from the Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Act, and other wage rules that increase USPS contracting costs.

The bill would require certain types of mail that Postal Service loses money on to cover their cost. In Fiscal year 2010, USPS lost nearly $1.7 billion on these type of ``underwater'' postal products that failed to cover their costs. For example, the Periodicals class of mail, which includes newspapers and magazines, has not covered its costs for 14 consecutive years, generating total losses of $4.3 billion over that period.

The bill also contains common sense language that would mandate that USPS employees pay the same health and life insurance premium percentage as other Federal workers. This is estimated to save the Postal Service $700 million annually.

Finally, this bill will allow the Postal Service to move to 5-day delivery, at a savings of anywhere from $1.7 to $3.1 billion annually.

We can no longer choose to support temporary fixes to the Postal Service. If we continue to act in this irresponsible way, the American taxpayer will be the one that ultimately suffers in the form of higher postage prices and taxpayer bailouts. We must make hard choices now so future generations of Americans will have a viable Postal Service.

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

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a fundamental problem of this body: the fact that Congress as an institution--and the Senate in particular--rarely engages in the process of authorizing prior to appropriating money for our government. As a result, a handful of senior appropriators and their unelected staffs dictate the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, often in a manner that directly contravenes the will of those committees that still authorize spending. It is time this process be stopped.

The solution is simple. We should not authorize on appropriations bills, and any funding proposed for unauthorized projects should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the authorizing committees and reflect the will of their members.

We are all to blame for this problem. The fact is that routine passage of authorizing legislation simply doesn't occur as it should. Far too often, even routine passage of appropriations legislation has devolved into passage of a

single omnibus bill. This also must stop.

A case in point is the appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense that was reported out of the Appropriations Committee last week. That legislation should reflect the will of the Defense authorization bill but runs directly contrary to it in many areas. At a time when we face a $14.7 trillion national debt that is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, the Senate Appropriations Committee is proposing a Defense spending bill that uses a budget gimmick totaling over $10 billion to mislead the American people about the savings the committee claims to achieve.

While the Department of Defense is struggling to find more than $400 billion in cuts directed by the President, the Appropriations Committee is still conducting business as usual by rewarding special interests and funding pet projects that have little or nothing to do with our national defense. In the bill reported out last week that purports to cut over $26 billion from the President's request by changes to 580 different programs, somehow the Appropriations Committee still found money for over $2.3 billion in additional spending not requested by the Department of Defense and for items that are far from real defense requirements.

I have here a list of the roughly 580 items changed by the Appropriations Committee which are differences from the bill adopted unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee in June in the Department of Defense authorization bill. This list is 45 pages long and represents $20 billion in changes.

For example, it is incredible to me the Appropriations Committee put a priority on spending $33 million in operation and maintenance funds. That money is used to maintain the readiness and combat capability of our troops. The $33 million is going to purchase schoolbuses, to build a mental health substance abuse facility on Guam, and a repository for cultural artifacts. I am not making that up: $33 million for a repository--oh, phase one of a repository for cultural artifacts, funding for a mental health substance abuse facility, and the purchase of schoolbuses. All of this money, and $40 million more next year to complete these facilities, is, at least in theory, supposedly, to help promote Guam's cooperation as part of the plan to move 8,700 marines and 9,000 family members from their current bases on Okinawa to Guam.

I know the marines will enjoy being on Guam. I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for them to have a repository for cultural artifacts. But the plan to move the marines, which will require spending between $18 billion and $23 billion on Guam to build up its capabilities as a permanent base, is so much in doubt that both the Armed Services Committee and the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee have stopped funding Guam military construction projects until the Department of Defense provides a master plan and considers alternatives that may provide the needed marine forward presence at much less expense.

In fact, we simply cannot afford to carry out the plans as they were originally envisioned. In the face of all the doubt about the scope and timing of the eventual buildup, the Appropriations Committee put a premium on buying schoolbuses, an artifact repository, and a mental health clinic in Guam. That is not anybody's idea of defense priorities in the fiscal environment we face.

In some cases, the Appropriations Committee was well aware that the Armed Services Committee had, on a unanimous vote, reported out a bill that denied funding for a program, but the appropriators funded the full amount anyway. This is the case with the Army's Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS. The Armed Services Committee cut the entire budget request of $406 million for this program because Army leaders have told the Senate they do not intend to ever buy or deploy the system and because repeated technical reviews have determined that MEADS is behind schedule, over cost, and a high risk of technical failure. The Appropriations Committee ignored the Armed Services Committee's decision not to authorize further funding for MEADS and instead appropriated the full amount of $406 million--even in the face of the fact of the need to cut defense spending by eliminating troubled programs that are not effectively providing increased combat capability for the troops.

Additionally, hundreds of millions of dollars in the fiscal year 2012 Defense appropriations bill have been allocated to things that were never requested by the Pentagon, never authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and which are simply not core defense priorities.

Example: There is $354 million added for medical research not requested by the Pentagon, including $120 million for breast cancer research, $10 million for ovarian cancer research, $64 million for prostate cancer research, and $50 million for other medical research for a laundry list of medical conditions. I am not questioning the merits of medical research, but they do not have anything to do with defending this Nation. They should be taken out of the appropriations of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee, not out of defense.

Again, I am not questioning the merits of medical research and the important role the Federal Government can play. I am saying it is time for it to stop being taken out of national defense.

The Appropriations Committee adds even more unrequested funding for programs such as $60 million for environmental conservation for ranges; $106 million for alternate energy research, whatever that means; $45 million for high-performance computing modernization--all of these, and a long list of them, may be good programs; they are not authorized; and the job of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to scrutinize these programs and select those that are in most need of funding--$5 million for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program; $4.5 million for the Civil Air Patrol.

Programs have some merit, but we have to look at these with an eye to the fact that we have been tasked to cut $400 billion that the President has already ordered the Pentagon to undertake.

Despite the Appropriations Committee's desire to find $26 billion in defense savings, they found money to add $240 million in unrequested funding--the Pentagon and the President did not ask for them--for a number of congressional special interest areas, such as advanced materials research, $10 million; Industrial Base Innovation Fund-- whatever that is--$30 million; Defense Rapid Innovation Fund, $200 million.

In the procurement account, the Appropriations Committee added $675 million for items that were not requested by the Pentagon or authorized by the Armed Services Committee, including $120 million for advance procurement of 12 Air Force C-130Js, $47.4 million for improved radars for Air National Guard F-15s, $140 million for program increases to classified programs--the list goes on and on.

Although the appropriators were looking for $26 billion in savings, they chose not to follow the Armed Services Committee in making cuts to some programs even when the justification for taking savings was clear. These examples include $150 million for the Army Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System; $495 million for Navy F/A-18E/F Hornets, which the Armed Services Committee pointed out were funded in the full-year Defense appropriations bill for the year 2011; $205 million for the Fleet Satellite Communications follow-on program, for which the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Committee noted that the funding for the requested booster was too early.

In order to give the appearance of real savings to the taxpayer, the Appropriations Committee, again, incredibly, shifted over $10 billion in funding from the nonwar base defense funding budget to the ``off- budget/emergency spending.'' For the benefit of the record, the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund does not count as part of the budget, but it is for overseas contingencies, i.e., the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So what did the Appropriations Committee do? They took money that is supposed to be for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they transferred over $3.2 billion to the account for

overseas contingency operations, $550 million for predator drones, $228 million for counterfire radars, $192 million for Fire Scout unmanned aerial systems, $784 million for unmanned aerial systems.

In the operations and maintenance accounts, the Appropriations Committee transferred over $6.2 billion for items that were requested in the base budget to the ``off-budget'' overseas contingency operations funding, including $3 billion for Army depot maintenance, $495 million for Navy depot maintenance--it goes on and on.

In the miliary personnel accounts, another $529 million was transferred from the defense budget, where it was requested, to the overseas contingency operations budget so it would count as ``defense savings.''

This is pure budget gimmickry. It is about time we got serious about cutting spending. Using budget gimmicks to shift over $10 billion from the base defense budget to the emergency account we have set aside for support of overseas contingency operations is not saving the taxpayers a dime. Cutting $10 billion from the President's request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shifting over $10 billion in nonwar expenses, and then claiming in a press release--they had the gall in a press release--that the President's request for the warfighting accounts is fully supported is not only a gimmick, it is dishonest with the American people. It is a disservice to the men and women of the military who depend on that funding for critical warfighting equipment and support.

I have talked to many of our senior commanders in Iraq and members of the Iraqi Government during repeated trips to Iraq this year. All of them have recommended that the United States maintain at least 10,000 soldiers beyond December 31, 2011. There is no money in the warfighting accounts for, if we have, additional troops. So because of the administration's delay in any decision for any additional troops, understandably, that is not funded in these bills, which is required, obviously, by October 1, the end of the fiscal year.

What will also put our troops, our national security, and our Nation at grave risk is the specter of even more drastic defense cuts should the recommendations of the joint select committee fail to gather enough congressional support.

Secretary of Defense Panetta warned last week that the failure of lawmakers to agree on debt ceiling talks, which would trigger up to $600 billion in additional Pentagon budget cuts, could add 1 percentage point to the Nation's jobless rate. He also called the impact of cuts of that magnitude ``devastating'' to our Armed Forces.

The citizens of my State--and nearly every other State in the Nation--have been struggling through record unemployment rates and unprecedented fiscal pressures. Now, more than ever, they need strong leadership to make tough decisions to restore fiscal discipline and responsibility in Federal spending. I am committed to using every power available to me to ensure the Defense bill for 2012 provides spending for only the most critical national security requirements, as proposed by the President and defense leadership. In this regard, the Defense appropriations bill that has been reported from the Appropriations Committee is sadly lacking.

There is plenty of blame to go around. I do not fault just the appropriators. We have all failed to do our jobs. The answer to this problem is to fix it. We must stop authorizing on appropriations legislation without the agreement of the authorizing committee. The appropriations bills should reflect the will of the authorizing committees. I intend to work with my colleagues to remedy this problem so the will and wisdom of all Senators--not just a select few--is represented when we pass appropriations legislation.

A solution to this problem is long overdue, and I intend to fight to see that it is solved.

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

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 625. I ask unanimous consent that it be made the pending business.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the amendment would authorize the continuation of trade adjustment assistance or TAA for 2 additional years at the level of funding the program maintained prior to the 2009 stimulus package addition. Prior to the stimulus, passed by this body in 2009, the TAA Program cost taxpayers about $1 billion per year.

The passage of the stimulus package, which was advertised to be a temporary injection into the economy--a temporary injection--the stimulus was increased and expanded to the program at a cost of about $2 billion in 2010; according to the Department of Labor estimates, $2.4 billion in 2011, if the stimulus expansions were allowed to remain in place.

I would remind my colleagues that with the stimulus package, these were a one-time deal, and once the money was spent, then those programs lapsed. Apparently not so with the TAA Program. We do not yet have a cost score for the Reid substitute before us, but estimates indicate the TAA agreement may lock in at least 65 percent of the 2009 stimulus expansions for the next several years.

That is approximately, in my calculation, at least a $600 million additional cost per year to the taxpayers for maintaining 65 percent of the stimulus level of TAA. Architects of the agreement will say these provisions sunset at the end of 2014. But we all know sunsets can be fiction. So we are talking about 2012, 2013, and 2014. That is about, roughly, a minimum of $1.2 billion of additional spending on the dubious--at least in my mind dubious--benefits of the TAA Program.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have long insisted that the price of passing trade agreements in Congress is passing TAA and other programs similar to it, domestic spending legislation geared to assist U.S. workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade.

For this reason, in 2002, Congress passed the TAA legislation that provided short-term temporary support for worker retraining and other assistance. Many Republicans, including myself, were skeptical about whether this program and others like it achieved their goals. But we went along for the sake of our national interests and expanding free trade.

In 2009, without any action taken on our three pending trade agreements, the stimulus package dramatically increased the TAA Program as part of the stimulus bill and increased spending on this program annually by approximately $1 billion. In essence, a program that was designed to assist workers who had been adversely affected by free trade was transformed into a domestic spending program for reasons that had nothing at all to do with expanding free trade.

What is worse, after repeatedly claiming it supports the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea, the White House earlier this year announced that the cost of its support was reauthorization of the new TAA with funding set not at the original 2002 level but the 2009 stimulus level.

So we had a program that had been expanded from its original cost under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus, and then we were told this temporary funding increase, which was designed to expire along with the stimulus, should, in effect, be turned into a permanent domestic spending program.

After much discussion and debate, there now appears to be a proposal to reauthorize TAA and fund it somewhere between the prestimulus and poststimulus levels. This proposal is contained in the substitute amendment offered by the majority leader. Some would say this is a good deal and Republicans should accept it. Others say trade adjustment assistance is ineffective and unproven and Congress should kill it altogether.

I am very dubious about the benefits of TAA. But I understand also what is doable around here and what is not. So I am offering this amendment as a matter of principle. As I have said many times on the floor of this body, I am not opposed to TAA nor do I seek to kill it. I read the same media reports as my colleagues, which suggest that the White House is holding hostage the trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama until Congress passes TAA.

Many of us do not like this. Many of us think this is contrary to our national and economic interests. But it is a fact. So I recognize, as in the past, that Congress should reauthorize TAA. The question is, How much of the taxpayers' money should we spend to do it?

That is why I am offering this amendment. I believe Congress should reauthorize it because we are being compelled to do so, but I also believe we should reauthorize this program at its prestimulus funding levels.

Let me explain why. The following are the temporary expansions to TAA that were included in the stimulus, which cost about $2 billion in 2010, and, according to the Department of Labor, was estimated to cost approximately $2.4 billion in 2011 if the 2009 stimulus expansions had stayed in place.

The stimulus expanded TAA to cover workers whose employers shifted production to any foreign country, not just those--as under prior law-- whose jobs were outsourced to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement.

It expanded TAA coverage to the service sector and government employees who lose their jobs because of trade.

It increased the tax credit available to cover private health insurance premiums from 65 percent to 80. It increased the appropriations cap for training from $220 million to $575 million, a 160-percent increase over the previous cap.

It created the Community TAA Program, which authorizes $230 million for trade-affected communities to assist in strategic planning grants up to $5 million, sector partnership grants up to $3 million over a 3- year period, and community college and career training grants up to $1 million.

It gave $17.5 million to States for employment and case management. It lengthened the amount of time workers could receive trade readjustment allowance assistance by 26 weeks.

Finally, it revived the TAA for farmers and the wage insurance program, estimated by CBO to total about $100 million for 2 years.

So we had a program that had been expanded from its original intent, with benefits going to government employees, service sector employees, TAA benefits going to communities, TAA benefits going to farms, TAA benefits going to firms, under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus.

This is what the White House and the other side in Congress were telling us had to be reauthorized in order to pass the free-trade agreements. My amendment also addresses the claim made by some that the agreement in the majority leader's substitute amendment not only reduces TAA from stimulus levels but also much lower in several years.

However, according to a recent Heritage Foundation analysis, this may not be accurate. This is important, so let me read this analysis at length. This is from the Heritage Foundation report:

Instead of cutting TAA back to pre-stimulus levels, the

proposal restores and solidifies the most alarming aspects of

the stimulus expansion at a yet unknown cost.

It keeps the 2009 stimulus expansion for service sector

workers. TAA was originally intended to provide income

maintenance and job training to workers from the

manufacturing sector. The stimulus bill expanded eligibility

to include workers from the service and public sectors. This

expansion expired in February, but the proposal restores TAA

eligibility for service sector workers.

It restores stimulus expansion of benefits for job losses

unrelated to FTAs. The proposal retains the stimulus

expansion of providing TAA benefits to any workers who lost

their jobs to overseas production, not just TAA-certified

jobs that were lost to FTAs.

It reinstates the stimulus's 161 percent increase in TAA

for workers' job training spending. The proposal cements the

stimulus spending expansion of TAA for workers' job training

at $575 million per year from $220 million--an increase of

$355 million per year.

It continues the stimulus's creation of a new and

duplicative job training program.

The proposal keeps the TAA Community College and Career

Training Program, which has appropriations authorizations of

$500 billion per year from fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

This new job-training program is just one of the 47

employment and training programs operated across nine

agencies by the federal government.

Let me repeat that. This is another proposal that spends $500 million for job training, even though we already have 47 employment and training programs operated across 9 agencies by the Federal Government.

It partially reinstates the stimulus increase in Health

Coverage Tax Credit. . . .

It solidifies the wage subsidies for older workers as a

permanent program. The pre-stimulus Alternative TAA was a

temporary five-year demonstration program that paid 50

percent of the difference between new and old wages of

displaced older workers. It subsidized the wages of older

workers earning less than $50,000 per year for up to $10,000

over two years. After changing the program's name to

Reemployment TAA, the stimulus expansion increased the wage

subsidy to $12,000 over two years for displaced older workers

earning less than $55,000 and made the program permanent.

While the proposal reduces the wage subsidies to pre-stimulus

levels, it also cements into law the permanency of the wage

subsidy program.

It retains the stimulus expansion of the union VEBA

handout. Despite having nothing to do with international

trade, the stimulus expansion of TAA extended the HCTC to

Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (VEBA). A

bankruptcy court can allocate a portion of an out-of-business

employer's assets to a VEBA, which assumes responsibly for

retirees' health coverage. This expansion primarily benefits

unions. Under the proposal, the federal government would

cover 72.5 percent of the cost of retiree health benefits at

bankrupt companies. This coverage occurs regardless of

whether the bankruptcies are related to free trade.

Let's look at an example of excess created in the ``temporary'' stimulus expansion of the TAA Program that taxpayers are still on the hook for. According to a February 2011 study by Senator Coburn, entitled ``Help Wanted: How Federal Job Training Programs are Failing Workers'':

Taxpayers may have a case of indigestion when they learn,

nearly two years after the stimulus was enacted, their money

is paying lobstermen, shrimpers and blueberry farmers $12,000

each to attend job training sessions on jobs they are already

trained to do.

The stimulus reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance

for Farmers program administered by the USDA, a program that

provides subsidies to producers of raw agricultural

commodities and fishermen so they can adjust to import

competition. Under the stimulus, TAA benefits were enhanced

to focus more on employment re-training.

While the Reid substitute includes a compromise to ``pare back'' some of the expansions in the ``temporary'' stimulus spending legislation of 2009, it still expands TAA benefits and eligibility beyond the prestimulus levels--by approximately, by my calculations, at least $600 million a year.

I acknowledge that expanding trade temporarily puts some of our workers at a disadvantage. I remember being roundly criticized during the 2008 Presidential campaign when I had the audacity to tell Michigan workers the truth--that many of the jobs that had left their State for cheaper labor markets overseas were never coming back. So I understand that trade can create difficulties for some American workers. I am not opposed, in principle, to supporting those workers temporarily so they can develop new skills and find new jobs. That said, let's look closer at how the Federal Government has been going about programs such as this.

Earlier this year, the GAO released a study entitled ``Multiple Training and Employment Programs: Providing Information on Collocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies.'' Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and retraining programs, including the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program:

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that

only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess

whether the program is responsible for improved employment

outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the

effects of participation were not consistent across programs,

with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to

be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

So not only are many of these worker employment and training programs duplicative, the GAO has found very little empirical evidence to support whether these programs are even accomplishing their intended goals--and what empirical evidence they have they found is, I repeat, `` . . . small inconclusive, or restricted to short term impacts.'' TAA is among these programs.

This is bad enough, but what is worse, we have not even been told how much this expansion of TAA will cost the taxpayers. We are told the legislation includes ``offsets,'' but we know they are not real. Offsets allegedly include: rates for merchandise processing fees, changes to the ``time for remitting certain merchandise processing fees,'' unemployment compensation program integrity provisions to create a ``mandatory penalty assessment on fraud claims, prohibition on non-charging due to employer fault, reporting of rehired employees to the directory of new hires.'' That is supposed to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars.

I cannot say what most of these mean, but I can say they are not real.

Even while extending the TAA prestimulus program, we need to analyze whether the TAA Program is doing what it was intended to do. The following are some of the questions and concerns we must consider:

Does the TAA Program provide overly generous benefits to a narrow population?

According to analysis from the Heritage Foundation, based on statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, only 1 percent of mass layoffs were a result of import competition of overseas relocation.

Is there evidence that TAA benefits and training help increase participants' earnings?

An analysis by Professor Kara M. Reynolds of American University found ``little evidence that it (TAA) helps displaced workers find new, well-paying employment opportunities.'' In fact, TAA participants experienced a wage loss of 10 percent.

The same study found that in fiscal year 2007, the Federal Government appropriated $855.1 million to TAA Programs. Of this amount, funding for training programs accounted for only 25 percent.

In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget rated the TAA Program as ``ineffective.'' The OMB found that the TAA Program failed to use tax dollars effectively because, among other reasons, the program has failed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of achieving its goals.

Let me close by reminding my colleagues how we got to our current predicament. It is mid-September of 2011, 2\1/2\ years since President Obama took office, and we still have not received these important trade agreements that were finalized half a decade ago--all because of the White House's insistence on making a ``temporary'' stimulus program-- the dubious extension of TAA--into a permanent domestic spending program.

This is how George Will summed it up, writing in the Washington Post on June 8, 2011. The piece is as appropriate now as it was then:

President Obama is sacrificing economic growth and job

creation in order to placate organized labor. And as the

crisis of the welfare state deepens, he is trying to enlarge

the entitlement system and exacerbate the entitlement

mentality. . . .

On May 4, the administration announced that, at last, it

was ready to proceed with congressional ratification of the

agreements. On May 16, however, it announced they would not

send them until Congress expands an entitlement program

favored by unions.

Since 1974, Trade Adjustment Assistance has provided 104,

and then 156, weeks of myriad financial aid, partly

concurrent with the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation to

people, including farmers and government workers, and firms,

even whole communities, that can more or less plausibly claim

to have lost their jobs or been otherwise injured because of

foreign competition. Even if the injury is just the loss of

unfair advantages conferred, at the expense of other

Americans, by government protectionism.

This process should be appalling to the average American who is looking for an improving economy, not special favors to certain special interest groups.

At a time when our national debt has reached unsustainable levels, at a time when Congress and the American people face some truly painful choices about how to cut our Federal budget, at a time when some are even considering enormous and dangerous cuts to our defense spending as a way to get our fiscal house in order, this is no time to throw more money than we did before the stimulus at a Federal program that, as the GAO points out, is duplicative and possibly ineffective.

I am prepared to reluctantly support TAA if it were funded at the prestimulus level, as a recognition of reality that some form of this program is required in order to pass our existing trade agreements. But we should authorize it at prestimulus levels and not one dollar more. That is what this amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the stimulus passed in 2009 was purported to be temporary. As part of that massive piece of legislation, we made a significant expansion and added at least $600 million a year to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. This amendment would cut back to the prestimulus number of the TAA.

It is pretty simple. It would save at least $600 million per year on questionable programs of questionable effectiveness. But the point is, the stimulus was supposed to be a temporary increase in spending and not a permanent one. The Reid package makes most of it--at least 65 percent of it--permanent. The least we can do is cut it back to prestimulus levels, which is supported by the National Taxpayers Union. I know that will be very persuasive to my friends on the other side of the aisle.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask the majority leader--I need about 2 minutes for the chairman and I to have a colloquy.

Mr. President, I wanted to inform the majority leader, I was going to have a brief colloquy with the chairman who, I think, will be back in a few minutes.

In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, the original Jackson-Vanik amendment was offered to the Trade Act of 1974, and it was led in this body by the great Democratic Senator of Washington, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson. That amendment prohibited the United States from entering into Permanent Normal Trade Relations with any country that placed restrictions on the freedom of emigration and other human rights of its people. This law was later expanded to cover countries with non-market economies. The major impact of the Jackson-Vanik restriction was that it prevented the United States from granting ``most-favored nation'' trading status to the Soviet Union, which at the time was placing awful restrictions on the ability of its Jewish citizens to emigrate and flee the persecution they experienced behind the Iron Curtain.

Jackson-Vanik applied to Moldova when it was part of the Soviet Union, and it remained in place following Moldova's independence 20 years ago. This made sense at the time, because the country continued to be ruled by communist governments, which ensured an unfortunate continuity with Moldova's Soviet past at a time when the country's neighbors were reaping the benefits of liberation.

But Mr. President, the situation in Moldova is now fundamentally changed. In August 2009, a coalition of democratic and reformist parties managed to win power in what international organizations deemed a free and fair election. For the first time in two decades, Moldova had a noncommunist government, and with it, the potential for real reform. The goal of this coalition is reflected in the name that they have given themselves: the Alliance for European Integration. Their platform is to deepen Moldova's democratic institutions, pursue free market reforms, fight corruption, and work on integrating Moldova into Euro-Atlantic institutions. This is a new generation of leaders, and they represent the great hopes of their citizens.

I visited Moldova in June. I met at length with their Prime Minister and other senior leaders, and I can tell you firsthand this government is committed to leading Moldova toward a future of political and economic freedom.

Yes, major challenges remain to the realization of this vision, but for the first time in Moldova's history as an independent nation, its current government is on the right track. They are pursuing the right goals and policies. Their intentions are good and admirable.

In the face of continued opposition from elements in Moldova that want to drag the country back to its troubled past, the current government is trying to move the country forward. They are taking on the hard challenges. When I asked how we in the United States could best support their efforts, all they asked of me--all they asked of us in Congress--is one thing: It is not additional foreign assistance. It is not more of our taxpayers' dollars, although that assistance is important too. It is the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, so Moldovans can develop their own country, grow their own economy, and deepen their own free market reforms through normal trading relations with the United States. Nothing we could do would provide greater moral and material support for Moldova's reformers.

I wish to thank Senator Baucus for his continued support of the people and the country of Moldova. I understand that any amendment to the legislation that is pending would be harmful to the progress of the trade agreements, and I appreciate that fact and hope the chairman can perhaps--hopefully before the end of the year--take up the repeal of Jackson-Vanik as it applies to the country of Moldova, a country that is very much in need of it.

I want to read a statement made by Vice President Biden during his visit to Moldova this year.

He said:

We will work with the Congress and with your government to

lift the Jackson-Vanik amendment and establish permanent

trade relations. We believe that will be good for Moldova and

for the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Council on Soviet Jewry concerning Moldova.

I again thank the chairman for his consideration and for his continued support for the people of Moldova.

I thank the chairman. I know he has an incredibly heavy schedule, with the legislation before us today and other matters before the committee, but I also know he knows--and I want to assure him--when the people of Moldova hear of his commitment, this will be a happy day in Moldova. I thank the chairman.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, when poor children in low performing schools need help, what options are available to their parents to give them a chance to improve their learning achievement? Sadly, very few options exist to give children in low performing schools a chance.

I am pleased to introduce legislation that will protect and enhance the right of parents to have final say in their children's education. In order to create better outcomes for our nation's youth, we must restore power to parents. We must ensure that parents have real choices to raise their child's achievement level when schools fail to do so. The Tutoring for Students Act, furthers this critical goal by establishing a state-level grant program to give low-income parents the ability to provide their children high quality academic tutoring.

Low-income parents should have the same opportunities to help their children achieve as families with greater economic means.

Tutoring is as much a part of education in America as the yellow school bus or the neighborhood school building. If your child is struggling academically, and you have the financial means to do so, you get your child a tutor. Tutoring is time proven and common sense. Equally, while there are many ideas about how to improve education in America, one thing upon which everyone agrees plays a critical role in any child's education: the active involvement of their parents.

The Tutoring for Students Act encourages the active engagement of parents by giving them a say in helping their child's education. Parents can drive schools to apply for tutoring grants. Parents choose to enroll their children. Parents pick which tutoring provider they send their child to. Parents receive progress updates on their child.

For too long in this country the debate about education has been more about the institutions--the institution of powerful unions, the institution of the school bureaucracies. Make no mistake about it, strong leadership in the classroom and in school administration is important. However, education is not about protecting and preserving union contracts and the jobs of bureaucrats. Education is about our children. If they aren't getting what they need in the classroom, we need to work with schools to help them improve. At the same time, we must provide students in struggling schools with the help they need to ensure they receive a quality education.

The foundation for success in education is setting high expectations for our schools and holding them accountable to develop our most precious resource--our children. Every child, no matter what their economics, deserves not only a chance, but has an absolute right, to a good education. If students can't get what they deserve in the classroom, then we must empower parents with educational support tools and the ability to make meaningful choices about what is best for their children.

When Congress passed No Child Left Behind, embedded in that landmark legislation were certain programs specifically designed to recognize the importance of parental empowerment and parental participation. Supplemental Education Services is a program specifically designed to give low-income families the ability to access educational support opportunities just like families with more financial freedom, to shop for the best tutoring services for their child.

Thoughtful education reform means building upon successes and lessons learned. We have learned a great deal since passage of No Child Left Behind. That includes our experience in providing tutoring services to low-income children. One of the most important lessons we learned is that tutoring works. In March, the U.S. Department of Education released a study stating that the tutoring program led to significant gains in math and reading student achievement. Studies by respected organizations like the Rand Corporation and school districts like the Chicago Public schools have come to similar conclusions.

Another important lesson from NCLB is the cynical lengths to which some low performing schools districts are willing to go in order to avoid accountability and deny parents the opportunity to access tutoring services for their children. Far too often these districts gamed the enrollment process for tutoring services, making it difficult, if not impossible for parents to exercise their right to take advantage of the SES program and get their children the educational support services--tutoring--they desperately needed. Similarly, due to poor oversight, there have been cases where tutors failed to meet their responsibility to provide high quality tutoring.

These problems are addressed in this legislation by establishing a state-administered grant program. Any school can elect to participate, allowing low-income parents with children attending participating schools to take advantage of high quality tutoring services. The Tutoring for Students Act requires strict oversight of tutoring service providers, from certification to evaluation, in order to ensure that parents can rely upon qualified tutoring service providers to help their children.

I do not favor more Federal control over education. That is why the Tutoring for Students Act is not a Federal mandate. Rather, it is a guarantee that parents will have the right to stand up for their children and give them the opportunity for a better education and a better life. Empowering parents with the ability to positively impact their child's education is not a mandate. It is common sense. Freedom is not a Federal mandate. It is an individual right. The best use of Federal dollars in education is to make them more accessible to parents, empowering them to look out for the needs of their children. High quality tutoring is a commonsense, academic lifeline.

In my home State of Arizona, organizations like the Education Breakthrough Network to Literacy Volunteers of Tucson and the Arizona Chapter of Campfire USA have voiced their strong support. Nationwide, organizations such as the United Farm Workers of America, the National Urban League, the Commonwealth Foundation and the John Locke Institute continue to stand up for the rights of parents to have more tools and choices to help their children achieve. There is strong support for this program among communities across America, particularly among the parents who so often do not have a voice representing their needs and interests here in Washington.

I look forward to working with Senator Enzi, Senator Harkin, and the rest of my colleagues to secure passage of meaningful education reform that includes protecting and strengthening the ability of parents to make educational choices for their children, choices that include high quality tutoring.

Mr. President, when poor children in low performing schools need help, what options are available to their parents to give them a chance to improve their learning achievement? Sadly, very few options exist to give children in low performing schools a chance.

I am pleased to introduce legislation that will protect and enhance the right of parents to have final say in their children's education. In order to create better outcomes for our nation's youth, we must restore power to parents. We must ensure that parents have real choices to raise their child's achievement level when schools fail to do so. The Tutoring for Students Act, furthers this critical goal by establishing a state-level grant program to give low-income parents the ability to provide their children high quality academic tutoring.

Low-income parents should have the same opportunities to help their children achieve as families with greater economic means.

Tutoring is as much a part of education in America as the yellow school bus or the neighborhood school building. If your child is struggling academically, and you have the financial means to do so, you get your child a tutor. Tutoring is time proven and common sense. Equally, while there are many ideas about how to improve education in America, one thing upon which everyone agrees plays a critical role in any child's education: the active involvement of their parents.

The Tutoring for Students Act encourages the active engagement of parents by giving them a say in helping their child's education. Parents can drive schools to apply for tutoring grants. Parents choose to enroll their children. Parents pick which tutoring provider they send their child to. Parents receive progress updates on their child.

For too long in this country the debate about education has been more about the institutions--the institution of powerful unions, the institution of the school bureaucracies. Make no mistake about it, strong leadership in the classroom and in school administration is important. However, education is not about protecting and preserving union contracts and the jobs of bureaucrats. Education is about our children. If they aren't getting what they need in the classroom, we need to work with schools to help them improve. At the same time, we must provide students in struggling schools with the help they need to ensure they receive a quality education.

The foundation for success in education is setting high expectations for our schools and holding them accountable to develop our most precious resource--our children. Every child, no matter what their economics, deserves not only a chance, but has an absolute right, to a good education. If students can't get what they deserve in the classroom, then we must empower parents with educational support tools and the ability to make meaningful choices about what is best for their children.

When Congress passed No Child Left Behind, embedded in that landmark legislation were certain programs specifically designed to recognize the importance of parental empowerment and parental participation. Supplemental Education Services is a program specifically designed to give low-income families the ability to access educational support opportunities just like families with more financial freedom, to shop for the best tutoring services for their child.

Thoughtful education reform means building upon successes and lessons learned. We have learned a great deal since passage of No Child Left Behind. That includes our experience in providing tutoring services to low-income children. One of the most important lessons we learned is that tutoring works. In March, the U.S. Department of Education released a study stating that the tutoring program led to significant gains in math and reading student achievement. Studies by respected organizations like the Rand Corporation and school districts like the Chicago Public schools have come to similar conclusions.

Another important lesson from NCLB is the cynical lengths to which some low performing schools districts are willing to go in order to avoid accountability and deny parents the opportunity to access tutoring services for their children. Far too often these districts gamed the enrollment process for tutoring services, making it difficult, if not impossible for parents to exercise their right to take advantage of the SES program and get their children the educational support services--tutoring--they desperately needed. Similarly, due to poor oversight, there have been cases where tutors failed to meet their responsibility to provide high quality tutoring.

These problems are addressed in this legislation by establishing a state-administered grant program. Any school can elect to participate, allowing low-income parents with children attending participating schools to take advantage of high quality tutoring services. The Tutoring for Students Act requires strict oversight of tutoring service providers, from certification to evaluation, in order to ensure that parents can rely upon qualified tutoring service providers to help their children.

I do not favor more Federal control over education. That is why the Tutoring for Students Act is not a Federal mandate. Rather, it is a guarantee that parents will have the right to stand up for their children and give them the opportunity for a better education and a better life. Empowering parents with the ability to positively impact their child's education is not a mandate. It is common sense. Freedom is not a Federal mandate. It is an individual right. The best use of Federal dollars in education is to make them more accessible to parents, empowering them to look out for the needs of their children. High quality tutoring is a commonsense, academic lifeline.

In my home State of Arizona, organizations like the Education Breakthrough Network to Literacy Volunteers of Tucson and the Arizona Chapter of Campfire USA have voiced their strong support. Nationwide, organizations such as the United Farm Workers of America, the National Urban League, the Commonwealth Foundation and the John Locke Institute continue to stand up for the rights of parents to have more tools and choices to help their children achieve. There is strong support for this program among communities across America, particularly among the parents who so often do not have a voice representing their needs and interests here in Washington.

I look forward to working with Senator Enzi, Senator Harkin, and the rest of my colleagues to secure passage of meaningful education reform that includes protecting and strengthening the ability of parents to make educational choices for their children, choices that include high quality tutoring.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted

to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, last night we gathered in the House Chamber for a joint session to listen to President Obama speak about our Nation's dire need to get our economy growing more strongly, to create jobs, and to get millions of Americans back to work. All Americans share this goal, even as we may have some disagreements over the best way to do it.

I think one way to create jobs most of us would agree on is opening new markets overseas to American workers, products and trade. U.S. products are the finest in the world, and we must lower barriers that impede free trade. To that end, we heard the President repeat, as he has previously on numerous occasions in speaking to Congress and the American people, that we must lower barriers that impede free trade. To that end, we heard the President say last night that he wants Congress to pass the three free-trade agreements, with Korea, Colombia, and Panama, that were concluded many years ago. I could not agree more.

Indeed, the International Trade Commission estimates that passing these three trade agreements could increase U.S. exports by $13 billion, creating approximately 250,000 new jobs.

So Republicans in Congress and many Democrats are ready to pass these trade agreements. I believe if we had a vote on the merits of those agreements they would pass with strong bipartisan support just as previous trade agreements have. The problem is, they continue to sit on the President's desk where they have been since the day he took office. Until he sends those agreements to Congress, there is nothing we can do to pass them.

Why does the President continue to urge Congress to pass agreements that we cannot pass until they are submitted to Congress?

Considering that the President wants these agreements passed, and considering that Congress has the votes to pass them, and considering the overwhelming benefits that each of these free-trade agreements would bring to our workers and our economy, the obvious question, then, is, Why hasn't the President chosen to send these agreements to Congress for final approval?

The answer, I am afraid, has much to do with electoral politics. My friends on the other side of the aisle have long insisted that the price of getting trade agreements through Congress is passage of domestic spending bills geared to assist U.S. workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade. For this reason, in 2002, Congress passed the trade adjusted assistance legislation that provided short- term support for worker retraining and other assistance. Many Republicans were skeptical about whether this program and others like it achieved their goals. But we went along for the sake of our national interest in expanding free trade.

However, in 2009, without any action taken on our three pending trade agreements, my friends on the other side of the aisle dramatically increased the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program as part of the stimulus bill, raising spending on this program annually by more than $\1/2\ billion.

I might add that the stimulus bill was supposed to be a temporary stimulus. Now my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make that increase permanent. In essence, a program that was designed to assist workers who had been adversely affected by free trade was transformed into a domestic slush fund for reasons that had nothing at all to do with expanding free trade.

What is worse, after repeatedly claiming it supports the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea, earlier this year the White House announced that the cost of its support was reauthorization of the new trade adjustment assistance, with funding not set at the original 2002 level but the 2009 stimulus level.

So here we had a program that had been expanded from its original cost under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus, and then we were told this temporary funding increase, which was designed to expire along with the stimulus, should, in fact, be turned into a permanent domestic spending program.

My friends, this is why Americans are so angry with Washington and with Congress. It is this mentality that has led to the explosion of government spending and national debt in this country, and it is unsustainable.

I acknowledge that expanding trade does temporarily put some of our workers at a disadvantage. I remember being roundly criticized during the 2008 Presidential campaign when I had the audacity to tell Michigan workers the truth--that many of the jobs that had left their State for cheaper labor markets overseas were never coming back.

So I understand that trade can create difficulties for some American workers. I am not opposed in principle to supporting those workers temporarily so they can develop new skills, find new jobs. I don't oppose, nor do I seek to kill, trade adjustment assistance--just to restore it to its original 2002 levels. That said, for a minute let's look closer at how the Federal Government has been going about employment and worker training programs such as this.

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office released a study entitled ``Multiple Training and Employment Programs: Providing Information on Co-Locating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies.'' A translation from the bureaucrats is, How is the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program working out? Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and retraining programs, including trade adjustment assistance:

The number of employment and training programs and their

funding have increased since our 2003 report when we last

reported on them. For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47

employment and training programs administered across nine

agencies. Together, these programs spent approximately $18

billion on employment and training services in fiscal year

2009, according to our survey data. This is an increase of 3

programs and about $5 billion from our 2003 report. Adjusting

for inflation, the amount of the increase is about $2

billion.

They went on to say:

We estimate, based on survey responses, that this increase

is likely due to temporary funding from the Recovery Act for

14 of the 47 programs we identified. In addition to

increasing funding for existing programs, the Recovery Act

[the stimulus package] also created 3 new programs and

modified several existing programs' target population groups

and eligibility requirements, according to agency officials.

For example, the Recovery Act modified the Trade Adjustment

Assistance program by expanding group eligibility to include

certain dislocated service workers who were impacted by

foreign trade.

So, according to the GAO, many of our multiplying employment and training programs are duplicative of other such programs funded by the Federal Government. But that is not all. The GAO continues:

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that

only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess

whether the program is responsible for improved employment

outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the

effects of participation were not consistent across programs,

with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to

be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

I will repeat that last sentence:

The five impact studies generally found that the effects of

participation were not consistent across programs, with only

some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small,

inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

Not only are many of these employment and training programs duplicative, the GAO has found very little empirical evidence to support whether these programs are even accomplishing their intended goals, and what empirical evidence they have found is, I repeat, ``small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.''

Trade adjustment assistance is among these programs. So my question is simple: At this time of crushing Federal debt and increasing fiscal austerity, why should we increase spending on a program that is likely duplicated by other Federal efforts and of which we cannot even say for sure it is working?

The real tragedy is, because our trade agenda has ground to a halt over this disagreement, the people who are suffering most are our workers and America's international economic leadership. The United States may not be

doing much to advance free trade, but that is definitely not the case with other countries which are vigorously competing to get their workers and businesses into new overseas markets, often to the detriment of the United States of America. While we stand still, the world is moving past us.

In the 5 years we have failed to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, U.S. companies have paid more than $3.2 billion in Colombian import tariffs. That would disappear under the free-trade agreement. Since 2008 the United States has lost more than $800 million in agricultural exports to countries that trade freely with Colombia. Although less stark, the same story is true with Panama.

The people most disadvantaged by our failure to ratify these trade agreements are U.S. workers. What is more, Colombia, Panama, and Korea are not waiting on us. Our allies are not dependent upon us. They are confidently pursuing their own interests--with us if possible but without us if necessary. Colombia and Panama and many other Latin American countries are concluding their own trade agreements often at our expense. Since 2006 U.S. exporters lost 10 percent of their market share in Panama. From 2008 to 2009, our main agricultural exports to Colombia declined by more than 60 percent. These jobs are going to Europe, Canada, and China, but not because their workers are outcompeting ours but because Washington is forcing our exporters to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.

Indeed, Colombia recently began implementing its trade agreement with Canada, further disadvantaging our workers and what should be a natural market for us. Just this summer, South Korea's free-trade agreement with the European Union took effect.

We are losing ground and we need to get moving on trade immediately. I recognize the cost of doing so again will be Republicans' acquiescence to a vote to reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance. The Senate minority leader has repeatedly said he will support holding such a vote. So there is literally no reason why the White House should not send our trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea to Congress for an immediate vote. But as the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has correctly insisted, these trade agreements should not be linked to a reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance at their artificially inflated stimulus funding level.

I would remind my colleagues that in the first speech the President gave to Congress in early 2009, he advocated the passage of free-trade agreements. Again, last night, he mentioned the importance of the passage of free-trade agreements and called on Congress to pass these agreements. Our message back is: Mr. President, send us those agreements. Let us have open and honest debate. Let us have amendments. Let us have votes. But let us move forward. I am confident we can pass these free-trade agreements, but they have to be submitted to Congress. It seems fairly simple. Please, then, Mr. President, don't call on Congress again to pass these agreements unless you send them over to the Congress so we can ratify these agreements.

It is terrible what has happened in Colombia--losing billions of dollars we have had to pay in import tariffs for our goods going into Colombia, which should not have happened. By the way, Colombian goods come into the United States free of tariff because of the Andean trade preference agreements. So we are now at a disadvantage, where we pay tariffs on American goods going into Colombia but no tariff on Colombian goods coming into the United States. It makes no sense. South Korea--I believe it was last July--ratified a free-trade agreement with Europe. We are losing market share, and we are losing billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs because we have not ratified these agreements.

The only way we can ratify them is for the President to send them over. Send them over, Mr. President. Send them over. Last night, he said: Pass these bills now. I am saying: Send the free-trade agreements over now. I will be glad to debate, amend--with time limits--and pass these free-trade agreements. I am confident there will be an overwhelming majority of bipartisan support for these agreements. We can work out the Trade Adjustment Assistance issue. We can debate and vote on it. But we have to have the agreements before us so we can move forward on it.

The people in my State are hurting. People all over America are hurting, as the President acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks last night. We can act. This is one area where I am confident we could move forward. So let us have those agreements sent over, and let us take them up as our first and most important priority in the coming weeks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sessions amendment which seeks to remove an egregious example of corporate welfare and blatant earmarking, to benefit a single interest, in the otherwise worthwhile patent reform bill before the Senate. Needed reform of our patent laws should not be diminished nor impaired by inclusion of the shameless special interest provision, dubbed ``The Dog Ate My Homework Act'' that benefits a single drug manufacturer, Medicines & Company, to excuse their failure to follow the drug patent laws on the books for over 20 years.

The President tonight will deliver another speech to tell us that unemployment is too high and that we need to get America back to work to turn around our near stagnant economy. While it may end up being more of the same policies that have not worked for the last 2\1/2\ years, I look forward to hearing what he has to say. But, look at what is going on here today, just a couple hours before the President tells us how he proposes to fix the economy, there are 14 million Americans out of work and a full day of the Senate's time is being spent debating a bailout of a prominent law firm and a drug manufacturer. I think the American people would be justified in wondering if they were in some parallel universe.

Patent holders who wish to file an extension of their patent have a 60-day window to make the routine application. There is no ambiguity in this timeframe. In fact, there is no reason to wait until the last day. A patent holder can file an extension application any time within the 60-day period. Indeed, hundreds and hundreds of drug patent extension applications have been filed since the law was enacted. Four have been late. Four!

Why is this provision in the patent reform bill? One reason: special interest lobbying to convince Congress to relieve the company and its law firm from their mistakes. Millions of dollars in branded drug profits are at stake for a single company who will face generic competition much earlier than if a patent extension would have been filed on time.

Let me read from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page today:

As blunders go, this was big. The loss of patent rights

means that generic versions of Angiomax might have been able

to hit pharmacies since 2010, costing the Medicines Co.

between $500 million and $1 billion in profits.

If only the story ended there.

Instead, the Medicines Co. has mounted a lobbying offensive

to get Congress to end run the judicial system. Since 2006,

the Medicines Co. has wrangled bill after bill onto the floor

of Congress that would change the rules retroactively or give

the Patent Office director discretion to accept late filings.

One version was so overtly drawn as an earmark that it

specified a $65 million penalty for late filing for ``a

patent term extension . . . for a drug intended for use in

humans that is in the anticoagulant class of drugs.''

. . . no one would pretend the impetus for this measure

isn't an insider favor to save $214 million for a Washington

law firm and perhaps more for the Medicines Co. There was

never a problem to fix here. In a 2006 House Judiciary

hearing, the Patent Office noted that of 700 patent

applications since 1984, only four had missed the 60-day

deadline. No wonder critics are calling it the Dog Ate My

Homework Act.

The stakes are also high for patients in our health care system. Let me read an excerpt from the Generic Pharmaceutical Association letter dated July 20, 2011:

The Medicines Company amendment adopted during House

consideration of H.R. 1249 modifies the calculation of the

60-day period to apply for a patent term extension and

applies that new definition to ongoing litigation. We are

deeply concerned about the precedent of changing the rules of

the patent extension process retroactively, which appears to

benefit only one company--The Medicines Company, which missed

the filing deadline for a patent extension for its patent on

the drug Angiomax.

If enacted into law, this provision would change the rules

to benefit one company that, by choice, waited until the last

minute to file a simple form that hundreds of other companies

have filed in a timely manner since the enactment of the

Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984. In doing so, the amendment would

ultimately cost consumers and the government hundreds of

millions of dollars by delaying the entry of safe, affordable

generic medications. . . .

The rules and regulations that govern patents and

exclusivity pertaining to both generic and brand drugs are

important public policy. While it is Congress's prerogative

to change or clarify statutory filing deadlines, we strongly

urge you to do so in a manner that does not benefit one

company's litigating position. GPhA urges you to strike

section 37 from H.R. 1249.

Passing the Sessions amendment and removing the provision from the bill is not detrimental to passing the patent reform bill. The bailout provision was not included in the Senate-passed patent bill earlier this year. It was added in the House. The provision can and should be stripped in this vote today. The House can easily re-pass the bill without the bailout provision and send it to the President.

Support the Sessions amendment and send a loud signal to the American public, who are watching what we do, that laws matter and that this kind of business has no place in Congress.

Mr. President, today I voted against passage of the patent reform bill because it contained an egregious example of corporate welfare and blatant earmarking. Unfortunately, this special interest provision was designed to benefit a single interest and was tucked into what was otherwise a worthwhile patent reform bill. As I noted earlier today when I spoke in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, needed reform of our patent laws should not be diminished nor impaired by inclusion of the shameless special interest provision, dubbed ``The Dog Ate My Homework Act'' that benefits a single drug manufacturer, Medicines & Company, to excuse their failure to follow the drug patent laws on the books for over 20 years.

Again, as I said earlier today, patent holders who wish to file an extension of their patent have a 60-day window to make the routine application. There is no ambiguity in this timeframe. In fact, there is no reason to wait until the last day. A patent holder can file an extension application anytime within the 60-day period. Indeed, hundreds and hundreds of drug patent extension applications have been filed since the law was enacted. Four have been late. Four.

I remind my colleagues of what the Wall Street Journal had to say about this provision:

As blunders go, this was big. The loss of patent rights

means that generic versions of Angiomax might have been able

to hit pharmacies since 2010, costing the Medicines Co.

between $500 million and $1 billion in profits.

If only the story ended there.

Instead, the Medicines Co. has mounted a lobbying offensive

to get Congress to end run the judicial system. Since 2006,

the Medicines Co. has wrangled bill after bill onto the floor

of Congress that would change the rules retroactively or give

the Patent Office director discretion to accept late filings.

One version was so overtly drawn as an earmark that it

specified a $65 million penalty for late filing for ``a

patent term extension . . . for a drug intended for use in

humans that is in the anticoagulant class of drugs.''

. . . no one would pretend the impetus for this measure

isn't an insider favor to save $214 million for a Washington

law firm and perhaps more for the Medicines Co. There was

never a problem to fix here. In a 2006 House Judiciary

hearing, the Patent Office noted that of 700 patent

applications since 1984, only four had missed the 60-day

deadline. No wonder critics are calling it the Dog Ate My

Homework Act.

This bailout provision was not included in the Senate-passed Patent bill earlier this year. It was added by the House of Representatives. The provision should have been stripped by the Senate earlier today. The fact that it wasn't required me to vote against final passage.