Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 641. As I explained yesterday, this amendment really is about fundamental fairness.

The President wants TAA and has held hostage three free-trade agreements to get it. Well, most of us want these free-trade agreements and think it is wrong for TAA to move forward while the FTAs languish. My amendment will ensure that all four legislative ships arrive in port at the same time.

It is time for the entire trade agenda to move forward. In August, as he toured the Midwest, the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs. This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, like so many of the President's trade initiatives, his words do not match his deeds.

In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or amended by Congress. In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit these agreements, Congress cannot act under the trade promotion authority. The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which outlines the TPA process, called ``How a Trade Agreement Moves Through Congress Under Trade Promotion Authority.'' This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It clearly shows that Congress cannot act

until the President submits the agreements.

But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it is much easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is, the President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none of the responsibility.

Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and their deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are. In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for submitting the FTAs. Now, despite a clear path forward, the President remains silent to this day.

As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these three free-trade agreement markets to our foreign competitors, and they are taking them over because we are dilly-dallying here instead of doing what is right.

Our economy and our workers are suffering under horrific levels of unemployment. Almost 1 in 10 American workers are out of a job under this administration, and we can't afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is precisely what the President is doing. The President himself has said these three trade agreements, once put into law, will amount to 250,000 new jobs, and that is not something to sniff at.

While our economy remains troubled and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the President. A case in point: The European Union's exports to South Korea increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks. Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act quickly, these trends are likely to continue.

In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups and companies wrote:

If there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem

for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider the

damage that has already been done by the delay in

implementing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Argentina and

Brazil have negotiated trade agreements with Colombia that

have given them preferential access. As a result, U.S.-

produced corn, wheat, and soybeans have been hit hard, with

the combined share of Colombia's imports for these products

falling to 28 percent from 78 percent since 2008.

That is a big drop, mainly because of the dillydallying on this trade agreement.

On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters and our farmers. The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the country, they mean more opportunity and jobs. It is a slam dunk for the President to create jobs by getting these agreements up here and getting them passed.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are delayed. I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration and approval. We have come a long way this year, but we are not yet done.

I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to Congress so we can approve them, but history has shown this President will not act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am offering will continue to put pressure on him to act, and act soon, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt my amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the promised result--submission of three pending free- trade agreements by the President and their quick enactment into law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, nothing of the sort is going to happen. The fact is, we have had nothing but delays by the President. Just a few weeks ago he was accusing us of not passing the free-trade agreements when he knows we cannot even consider them. There have been a lot of games played with us.

I remember last spring in our committee when the Trade Representative said: We have a few more things we have to work out on Panama and Colombia, and we will definitely send these free-trade agreements before the August recess.

We got near the August recess, and they said: Well, we need one other thing. We need trade adjustment assistance.

Now, if they need trade adjustment assistance--and I have no doubt that is going to pass in the Senate if there is a fair process. I do not believe there is any doubt it will pass in the House. The agreement worked out by the distinguished chairman and Chairman Camp over in the House probably will be voted on. I have to vote against it.

The fact is, all my amendment--it does evidence some distrust in this process. All my amendment does is say: Look, we are not going to allow trade adjustment assistance to go into effect until these three trade agreements are sent by the President and passed. Both bodies can pass the trade adjustment assistance on this bill, and that is fine with me. My amendment says TAA does not go into effect until the President submits these three treaties, and they are passed and become law. Then trade adjustment assistance goes.

That is a very fair way of doing this. It is a way of saying to everybody: Let's get rid of the mistrust. Let's do this in a straight- up way. Let's do it so everybody knows what is going to happen. Trade adjustment assistance will ultimately come into effect, but only after the administration lives up to submitting these trade agreements and they are passed.

Why would we want trade adjustment assistance to pass if these three trade

agreements do not pass? It is just another big cost to the government. Keep in mind the people who are out of work are getting unemployment insurance. Trade adjustment assistance adds payments on top of that to their unemployment insurance. Why would we do that if we are not going to have these three trade agreements become law? It just makes no sense. Mine is a practical amendment.

It says let's get rid of the game playing. We will do this if you do this. Frankly, the President promised to do it, and we are still standing here waiting for the three trade agreements to be sent here. To me, it is hard to imagine why the President is not doing this.

By the way, on the trade adjustment assistance a little less than 7 percent of our nongovernment workers are unionized. Yet one-third of these payments will go to union members. I do not blame my colleagues on the other side for wanting to help anybody who is out of work or anybody who belongs to a trade union. But do we always have to do it in a slanted way that helps one small sector of the workers in this country and not the rest of them? It is a problem. We have unemployment insurance to take care of people who are out of work. We should do that. It is important we do that. Trade adjustment assistance is just adding some more payments on top of that.

There is a real question whether we should do it here because I asked the representatives of the administration in the committee what jobs are going to be lost as a result of these three agreements. They could not come up with one. There will be, according to the administration, 250,000 new jobs that will occur, or at least jobs that will occur and will be sustained by these three trade agreements once they are enacted into law.

Just yesterday my friends on the other side voted down trade promotion authority. I cannot imagine why any President would not want trade promotion authority.

It is mind-boggling to me that this President doesn't want it. It is the only way we are going to be able to get free-trade agreements done. Otherwise, we are going to have to do it through other legislative processes, which is much more arduous, much more difficult, and does not come up with just an up-or-down vote. There is a reason for this process, and that is to be able to do free trade in this country. Yet every time we turn around there is another roadblock thrown up by the other side, as though they don't want free trade. I understand that for some unsubstantiated or ridiculous reason the unions don't like free- trade agreements, even though they are going to, according to the administration, create 250,000 new jobs--or jobs, anyway. Why wouldn't they like those? They have an opportunity to unionize companies that come into existence.

By the way, even under the stilted, one-sided National Labor Relations Board that currently exists that is running away with our responsibilities and legislating from the regulatory bench--even with that board, unions win 60 percent of union elections--contested elections. It is not as though they are being picked on or are not being treated fairly.

By the way, I would be one of the first to make sure they are treated fairly. I am one of the few people in this whole body who earned a union card. I worked in the building and construction trade unions for 10 years. I acknowledge the distinguished Presiding Officer sitting in the chair earned a union card. I am not sure we can call that a union, working with the--just joshing. The entertainment industry unions are not like the AFL-CIO. We are tough as nails. On the other hand, I have to retract that because I have seen some people in the entertainment industry as tough as nails, and the Presiding Officer is one. No question about it. I have great admiration for him. But he ought to be with me on this. He ought to be with me because all we are saying is, look--and the most that would happen is a few days, enough to get the free-trade agreements passed in the House.

So what I am saying is, first of all, let's get the President to do what he has blamed us for not doing; that is, to send these three free- trade agreements with these countries that are so important to us and we are important to them. We are losing business every day because this is being dragged out for so long. Send them so we can vote on them. TAA will pass here, and I believe it will pass over there with the process we have.

All I am saying is it doesn't become effective because we shouldn't be paying for people when we don't have free-trade agreements that are the basis for paying people. All I am saying is they don't come into existence--the TAA doesn't come into existence until after these free- trade agreements are ratified, are voted up or down, and become law-- voted up and become law. That is fair. It is an intelligent approach to it. It ends the mystery. It ends what some people think is a convoluted process. It ends what some people think is not a good-faith process. It does it in a way that doesn't hurt anybody, and it just says: Look, let's do it straight up so there is no more arguing or moaning or groaning or accusations that one side is not being fair to the other. Let's just do it this way.

So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to vote for my amendment. They don't lose a doggone thing. In fact, it will help this process along, and that is one reason I brought it up.

I am personally not sure trade adjustment assistance will pass without my amendment. That is one reason I brought it to the Senate floor--because it is a fair, decent, honorable way of saying, OK, let's get rid of the mysteries. Let's get rid of the arguments. Let's get rid of the partisanship. Let's vote on these three free-trade agreements-- or excuse me, the trade adjustment assistance--which is going to add a lot of money to the cost of this government, and let's vote on them. When they are both voted through by the House and the Senate, then let's bring up the three free-trade agreements which should pass readily in both Houses. Once they become law, trade adjustment assistance comes into being.

That is a fair, responsible way of doing this in a way that does away with the mystery, does away with partisanship, does away with Democratism and Republicanism and gets this process down the road.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would argue with this. I am calling on my Democratic friends and saying: Let's be bipartisan about this. Let's send a message to the President that we want those doggone trade agreements up here. He controls that process. I just found it astounding when he came out and said: I wish they would pass the three free-trade agreements when he knows we can't until he sends them.

This agreement is not only fair, it is the right thing to do. It may be the only way we are going to get these three free-trade agreements done. I would like to hear a good argument against them, but there isn't any. With these free-trade agreements, I believe there will be thousands of jobs created. I am not sure there will be 250,000 as the administration claims, but I believe there will be many jobs at a time when we need jobs.

Trade adjustment assistance--there are a lot of sincere people in this body and in the other body who believe it is absolutely essential, even though there was not one shred of evidence as far as I heard that any jobs would be lost as a result of these two free-trade agreements. But I am willing to understand there may be some loss, and therefore-- and even if there aren't, to get these three free-trade agreements through, the other side says we have to pass TAA. Fine. Let's pass it through both bodies. Let's make it subject to getting the three free- trade agreements passed into law because it should be subject to that.

There is no reason in the world why we would add more spending from a trade adjustment assistance standpoint unless we have these three free- trade agreements. That is the argument for the trade adjustment assistance that our colleagues on the other side and some on our side are making. I have a feeling this is the way to get this done. It is the smart way to get it done. It is the honorable way to get it done. It is the truthful way to get it done. It is the bipartisan way to get it done.

I think people know I have a reputation for being able to bring both sides together from time to time, and that is what I am trying to do. This is not a political game as far as I am concerned. I do want these three free-trade

agreements because I know it would be great for our country. We are losing business. We have gone down from 74 percent agricultural exports to Colombia to 28 percent. Anybody with brains would say we shouldn't have allowed that to happen, and it wouldn't have had we passed these three free-trade agreements, or at least the Colombia one, last year. But Korea is such a big, even greater trading partner than Colombia-- although, when I look at what President Uribe and what President Santos, the current President, have done to straighten out that country and get rid of the terrorists and to bring down the violence against union members and so forth, they deserve our support. They deserve these agreements.

When I look at Korea and what an important partner they are in our trade--and we are losing trade to them now; others are taking it away from us because we haven't passed the Korean agreement--my gosh, it doesn't take any brains to realize we are not acting like friends to Korea.

Then look at Panama. Panama is one of the financial centers of this hemisphere. It is a great nation. It is important to us, above all people. It is dishonorable for us to not pass the Panamanian Free Trade Agreement that they worked out with us and which we had to add labor language in each one of these agreements that wasn't there before because of this administration's fealty to organized labor. Fine.

Why don't we do what has to be done to pass these three free-trade agreements and to get the support for TAA for those who believe that is the right way to go and get rid of any kind of concerns that one side or other would not live up to its share of the battle. My amendment will do that.

I hope it is not just a partisan vote. I hope we have some Democrats who will vote for my amendment. If we do, I think it will push this whole process forward in a way that makes sense.

Mr. President, let me just dwell a few minutes on one of the things I would like to get across. People ask me why I spent years working toward a leadership position on the Senate Finance Committee. It is pretty simple. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues that matter not only to the people of Utah but to everybody: the bloated Tax Code we have, the inheritance taxes, health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, issues that go to the heart of international trade such as customs duties, tariff, and import quotas, and free-trade agreements. I could go on and on. It is a very important committee.

Sixty percent of all spending in this government comes through the Finance Committee. Being the lead Republican on the Finance Committee gives me a unique platform to shape all of these policies in a way that works best for my home State of Utah, and I hope the Nation as a whole.

Today I wish to focus on international trade and why I am so passionate about opening new markets to our goods and services. It gets repeated ad nauseam that 95 percent of our potential customers live outside of the United States, and there is no doubt that trade is vital to America's competitiveness. But trade has immediate and particular importance to jobs and the economy in my home State of Utah as well as every other State.

Last year alone companies in Utah shipped over $13 billion in merchandise exports to international markets--$13 billion--supporting nearly 93,000 jobs in our State. Think about that: $13 billion and close to 100,000 jobs thanks to products Utah companies sold outside the borders of the United States. My State is only one State. I think every State can tell a similar story. That doesn't even include our service providers, who similarly take advantage of opportunities across the globe. Companies in Utah exported to over 190 foreign markets; companies such as Varian Medical Systems, which produces cutting-edge x ray products that assist with various cancer treatments and industrial security screening and which provides over 700 people with good-paying jobs in our State.

By removing barriers to trade, free-trade agreements level the playing field for our companies operating in markets abroad. This has an immediate and observable impact on trade. Following the implementation of every U.S. bilateral or regional free-trade agreement, Utah has increased its exports to partner countries.

Let me give two examples. Utah's exports to Morocco experienced growth of over 2,000 percent after the United States implemented a free-trade agreement with them, and Utah's exports to Singapore increased by over 800 percent after we implemented that FTA.

Listening to some of the pundits, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that exports in free trade are only important to large, multinational companies; but nothing could be further from the truth. In 2008, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 86 percent of Utah's exporting companies were small or midsized companies. For the entrepreneurs who lead these small and midsized companies, international trade is their lifeblood. But exports are only part of the story.

Thanks to low taxes, family-friendly values, and a well-educated, motivated, and internationally savvy workforce, Utah is a place where people want to live and work. And it is not just the greatest skiing in the world, although that certainly is a draw.

When foreign companies look to grow their operations or gain a foothold in the U.S. market, they increasingly look to Utah to site their operations. These companies invest significant amounts of capital to open or expand facilities in our State every year.

Foreign-owned companies employ over 34,000 workers in Utah. That is more than 3 percent of all Utah employees in the private sector. These are well-paying jobs. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies pay an average compensation of over $68,000 per year. And let's not forget all of the spending by international visitors to our world-class colleges and universities, ski resorts, and parks.

That is why I have been pushing so hard to get the three FTAs with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia passed and implemented. It is not the only reason, but it is certainly a reason. These agreements have been sitting idle for far too long. They were negotiated during the administration of President Bush. They were wrapped in a bow for President Obama, ready to go the day he took office. His own administration has made some changes in them that these three countries have agreed to. Yet President Obama still has not sent them to Congress for a vote, which is astounding to me. The President himself says these three agreements will create 250,000 new jobs. His failed stimulus, his burdensome overregulation of business, his penchant for taxing and spending to ``redistribute wealth'' all rubbed salt in the wounds of a difficult economy. We are now left with an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent. You would think the President would be eager to do something everyone agrees would actually create real jobs, and not just real jobs, great jobs. But the FTAs with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia remain on his desk.

While the President stands still, the world continues to forge ahead. China continues to pursue policies that boost its growth at our expense. Other countries around the world continue to negotiate trade agreements that exclude the United States, putting Utah exporters at a serious disadvantage, as well as other States. The consequences of this administration's trade paralysis are real.

By way of example, the U.S. share of Colombia's agricultural imports has already fallen from nearly 44 percent in 2007 to 21 percent in 2010. The EU and Canada swooped in to fill this vacuum. Both have now negotiated free-trade agreements with Colombia.

During President Bush's Presidency, we passed trade agreements with 14 countries, providing a significant boost to the U.S. economy. By contrast, President Obama has not submitted a single trade agreement to Congress.

It certainly does not help that the President has refused to spend any political capital to seek trade negotiating authority from Congress. The need for it is obvious: Without it, we cannot pass good agreements to open foreign markets for our exports. That is why every President since FDR has sought this authority. Why doesn't this President? I think it is a lack of experience, personally. He is smart enough to understand this.

Every President but one has sought it. The only one who has not is our current President. But whether he seeks it

or not, I am going to work to see that he gets it. And when he does, you can be sure it will be designed to shape his negotiating objectives so that the resulting agreements embody high standards that best serve the economies of the United States and, in particular, my home State of Utah.

It is vital that future trade agreements--such as the proposed Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement between the United States and six other nations--protect the intellectual property of our innovators and content creators, level the playing field for our companies which are often forced to engage in lopsided competition with state-owned companies and national champions, enable modern day integrated global supply chains, and enhance market access for both goods and services providers.

In the months and weeks ahead, we have the opportunity to shape the economic future of our great Nation and my own great State of Utah. I am going to do my part to ensure that trade plays a central part in that equation.

I hope everybody in this body realizes how important this is and that we should not keep playing these games because we have political opportunism. Then again, that is another reason for my amendment. My amendment says the games will be over. Both sides will vote on TAA. The President will have to submit the agreements. Once the agreements are passed and made into law, TAA comes into existence. And it should not come into existence until after these agreements become law.

What it says to everybody is: Look, the games are over. This is the way to do it. This is the fair way to do it. This is the bipartisan way to do it.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get these free-trade agreements passed? Wouldn't it be a wonderful achievement for all of us here--a bipartisan achievement, with the President getting lots of credit for it? I think it would be a good thing. If we cannot do this, then you can imagine what this place is going to become in the future. My amendment is the way you get there.

I am hoping my colleagues on the other side listen to this. I hope they pay attention. I sure hope they vote for this amendment because if they do not, I question whether we will ever have these free-trade agreements.

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

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

My understanding is both sides are waiving the 2 minutes of debate time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. President, earlier, I sent an amendment to the desk. This amendment will constrain the growth of this domestic spending program. My amendment is fairly simple. It tightens the nexus between TAA benefits and actual jobs lost because of trade. It does this by changing the eligibility criteria from one that only requires that trade ``contribute importantly'' to job loss to a more restrictive criteria that the job loss be ``substantially caused'' by trade.

Under the current program, the worker only has to demonstrate that imports from or shifts in production to a foreign country--what many folks would call the ordinary course of business--``contributed importantly'' to their job loss.

So what does ``contributed importantly'' actually mean? The TAA Program holds that the contributed importantly standard is met if trade is a cause, which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause of the job loss.

That does not sound like a tight nexus to me, certainly not a tight nexus to trade to me. Believe me, these fears are not theoretical. Let me give a real-life example. I am sure, by now, everyone is familiar with Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar firm that was lauded by President Obama as the poster child for his stimulus and green jobs plans.

It turns out, now that Solyndra is in bankruptcy, many of its employees are applying for job-training benefits through TAA. To fully understand this lunacy, let's take a look at recent history.

Here is how Vice President Biden described the administration's ill- considered plan to direct over one-half billion taxpayer dollars for loan guarantees for Solyndra:

The Recovery Act is working and you're going to see it work

right on that site. The loan to Solyndra will allow you to

build a new manufacturing facility and with it almost

immediately generate 3,000 new well-paying construction jobs.

And once your facility opens, there will be about 1,000

permanent new jobs here at Solyndra and in the surrounding

business community and hundreds more to install your growing

output of solar panels throughout the country.

Well, that didn't quite happen. Instead, the firm failed, potentially taking over a half billion taxpayer dollars with it. Those ``permanent new jobs''? Well, not quite. The workers are all unemployed because their ``permanent'' jobs no longer exist.

It gets worse. According to the Wall Street Journal, the stimulus loans themselves were a major cause of Solyndra's bankruptcy. Here is the headline on the chart: ``Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing.''

In selling the half billion dollar loan to Solyndra, Vice President Biden made it clear that these were the jobs of the future, saying:

We are journeying, in a sense, closer and closer to the

sun, to a more solar-powered America. And as we do, we're

leaving a shadow of a less efficient, more damaging past

behind us.

We all know--or should know--what happened to the arrogant Icarus when he flew too close to the Sun.

Despite the Vice President's exhortations, what happened to

Solyndra? Solyndra is set to become an even bigger drain on

our taxpayers.

How is that possible? Through the magic of TAA, of course. It turns out that the now-unemployed former Solyndra employees have applied for trade adjustment assistance. The irony here is profound. The administration is now considering whether to grant these Solyndra workers TAA benefits because competition from China ``contributed importantly'' to their job loss. That is ridiculous, frankly.

Here is another Wall Street Journal article, entitled ``Solyndra Was Always Likely to Fail.'' You can see in the photo what a beautiful plant it was--with all of your taxpayer dollars.

In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, the CEO from another solar company--tenKsolar--explained that everyone in the solar business knew Solyndra's business model would not work and their solar technology was too costly.

That didn't stop the White House from giving this company a $535 million taxpayer loan--money that is basically gone now. This was despite the fact that the government's own analysts had predicted months ago that Solyndra would fail in September. Well, it did.

Again, look at the photo of that beautiful building that was built with taxpayer dollars. It is pretty hard to not admire it, to be honest with you.

The fact that TAA benefits are even being considered for Solyndra shows how tenuous the nexus between job loss and trade can be--and workers can still get these expanded benefits, on top of unemployment insurance.

How can Solyndra workers get TAA, when the business collapsed due to a bad business plan and an ill-conceived loan of taxpayer money? That was the cause of Solyndra going under. China imports, under the current TAA program, however, might be construed by ambitious Department of Labor bureaucrats to have ``contributed importantly'' to Solyndra shutting down--despite the fact that the primary cause was the business model and the government's intervention.

This needs to stop. We can do better. If we are going to continue to fund this domestic spending, let's at least make sure its benefits go to those workers whose job loss is actually caused by trade. That is what this amendment will do. It will return the TAA threshold standard to the ``substantial cause'' level. It would require that trade would have to be a ``substantial cause'' of the work dislocation. This standard was included in reforms advocated for by President Reagan that were included in the bipartisan Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981. That deficit reduction act included the largest package of spending cuts in history--at that time. President Reagan had noted the unfairness of treating one class of workers who lose their job due to foreign competition better than their neighbor, who lost his job due to domestic competition, so he tightened the threshold criteria to be eligible for the TAA Program.

By returning to the narrower TAA threshold, this amendment would put reasonable constraints on the program to prevent it from expanding into another out-of-control spending program.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because I think it makes sense. There is no question it will save taxpayer dollars and make people act more honestly with regard to the use of taxpayer dollars and, in the end, I think it will work better than the current approach that my friends on the other side wish to have.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, September 17 was an anniversary with double significance for our country. On September 17, 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia held their final meeting and signed the Constitution they had crafted. And on September 17, 1986, this body voted unanimously to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Today, 25 years later, he is the senior member of the Court.

These two events are profoundly related because Justice Scalia is literally helping us rediscover the real Constitution. His approach to doing the work of judges is helping us to rediscover the Constitution that America's Founders gave us--the Constitution that is powerful and solid; the Constitution that belongs to the people, protects our rights, limits government, and makes liberty possible.

Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, NJ, on March 11, 1936. After graduating first in his high school class, valedictorian from Georgetown University, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he embarked on a legal career that would include stints in private practice, government service, the legal academy, and, finally, the judiciary.

President Reagan nominated then-Professor Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in July 1982. He appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 4, 1982--another date with constitutional significance. The hearing began just minutes after the Senate voted 69 to 31 to approve a balanced budget constitutional amendment, the only time this body has done so, at least so far. I was an original cosponsor of that amendment. I mention that because Justice Scalia's approach to the Constitution means that the people, and the people alone, have authority to change it through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution. The Senate's vote on that balanced budget amendment was part of that process.

Professor Scalia told the Judiciary Committee that, if he were appointed to the bench, his days of being able to comment on the wisdom of laws enacted by Congress would be ``bygone days.'' The sense that judges are doing something fundamentally different than private citizens, fundamentally different than legislators, defines his judicial philosophy.

The same theme dominated his confirmation hearing 4 years later, when President Reagan nominated Judge Scalia to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. As that hearing opened, I quoted from the Chicago Tribune that the nominee was determined ``to read the law as it has been

enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his own preference upon it.''

When Justice Scalia took the oath of judicial office, President Reagan said that the judiciary must be independent and strong but confined within the boundaries of a written constitution.

Public officials must swear to uphold and defend this written Constitution. It declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. More than 90 percent of Americans say it is very important to them. But what exactly is it and what are judges supposed to do with it? The answer to that question defines Justice Scalia's career and its lasting impact on all of us.

The Constitution is a document, the oldest written charter of government in the history of the world. Professor Steven Calabresi, who teaches at Northwestern University Law School and once clerked for Justice Scalia, writes that when Americans think of liberty, they think of documents, especially of the Constitution.

Three statements at the turn of the 19th century tell us what we need to know. First, the Supreme Court, in 1795, literally asked the same question: What is the Constitution? Here is their answer:

The Constitution is fixed and certain; it contains the

permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the

land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and

can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.

Second, President George Washington echoed this theme a year later in his Farewell Address. He said:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the

people to make and to alter their constitutions of

government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,

till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole

people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Third, the Supreme Court, in its 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, wrote that through the Constitution, the people established certain limits for the Federal Government.

[A]nd that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten,

the Constitution is written.

There you have it. The Constitution is the means by which the people express their will and set limits on the government. The people alone have authority to change the Constitution and, until they do, it is fixed and certain. One obvious way to alter the Constitution is to change its words. But a more subtle, and even more effective, way to alter the Constitution is to change its meaning. Words themselves are just the form, but the meaning of those words is the substance. The real Constitution is its words and their meaning together. Whoever controls the meaning of the Constitution controls the Constitution itself. When we say that only the people may alter the Constitution, that simply must mean that only the people can change the words or their meaning. For the Constitution to be what it is supposed to be, both its words and their meaning must remain fixed and certain until the people choose to change them.

Justice Scalia delivered the 1997 Wriston Lecture at the Manhattan Institute. Its title was simply ``On Interpreting the Constitution.'' He described his topic as ``what in the world we think we're doing when we interpret the Constitution of the United States.'' This is why it is so important to clarify what the Constitution is in the first place, so we know what judges are supposed to do with it.

Justice Scalia believes the only proper way to interpret the Constitution is to find the meaning it already has, the meaning given to the Constitution by the people who alone had authority to establish it. Justice Scalia calls this approach originalism.

In his Wriston Lecture, he said that the Constitution ``means what it meant when it was written.'' No one is more candid than Justice Scalia that this approach is not easy, but no one is more certain than Justice Scalia that this approach alone is legitimate. This approach alone preserves both the people's control of the Constitution and the Constitution's control of judges.

In 2005, Justice Scalia delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars titled ``Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way.'' He described originalism as beginning with the text and giving it the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. With all due respect to Justice Scalia, he did not invent this approach, but he is helping us to return to those principles.

In his service on the Court, in his speeches and writings, Justice Scalia is helping us rediscover what America's Founders told us to do from the start. I have to emphasize that Justice Scalia has for 25 years implemented the very same approach that he described in his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Vice President Biden was the ranking member at the time, and his very first question was about original meaning as a means of interpreting the Constitution. Justice Scalia explained later in the hearing that the starting point is ``the text of the document and what it meant to the society that adopted it. . . . I am clear on the fact that the original meaning is the starting point and the beginning of wisdom.''

This body knew Justice Scalia would take this approach when we unanimously confirmed him, and he has stayed true to his word throughout his judicial career. In addition to instructing us about the principles we should once again follow, Justice Scalia has been sounding the alarm about failing to do so. He condemns as ``power judging'' the modern trend of judges substituting their own constitutional meaning for that of the people. This amends the Constitution as surely as changing its very words.

Judges continually find creative ways to mask their power judging. They think of deeply impeded social or cultural values, evolving standards of decency, and what the Constitution should mean in our time.

One of Justice Scalia's former colleagues even said that the Constitution is ``a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual.'' All of these evolving standards and sparkling visions are different ways of saying the same thing: that judges have taken control of the Constitution by controlling what it means.

Justice Scalia will have none of it. In a 1996 dissent, he rejected this for what it really is; namely, the Court's Constitution-making process. He wrote:

The court must be living in another world. Day by day, case

by case, it is designing a Constitution for a country I do

not recognize.

One of the many things I like about Justice Scalia is that he applies his principles across the board. He has often pointed out that judges amend the Constitution by changing its meaning in ways that liberals like, but also in ways that conservatives like. All of it, he says, is wrong.

Judges have no authority to design a new constitution no matter what it looks like. Sometimes I wonder how anyone could think otherwise. How could anyone believe that unelected judges may take the Constitution that opens with the words, ``We the People,'' and turn it into something else? Why would anyone tolerate judges who change the very Constitution that judges are supposed to follow?

Justice Scalia believes no one should, and he challenges us to live up to the principles that define our system of government and that make our liberty possible. The real Constitution is solid and fixed. It was established and can be changed only by the people. That Constitution, the real Constitution, is strong enough to limit government and protect liberty.

But that Constitution is being replaced by a very different one. Since about the 1930s, the real Constitution controlled by the people has been replaced in some measure by a fake constitution controlled by judges. The Constitution is weak, pliable, and shifting, according to them. It morphs and modifies. It shivers and it shakes.

This Constitution is a figment of the judicial imagination, and it is written in disappearing ink. Thomas Jefferson warned that if judges control what the Constitution means, it would become ``a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.''

Doing so, Jefferson said, would make the Constitution nothing but a blank paper. This is not just an academic exercise. If you think the latest judicial mood swing is strong enough to limit government, think again. If you think that a lump of wax or a piece of blank paper is firm enough to protect your liberty, think again.

A constitution that can be changed by nothing more than a judge's imagination is no constitution at all. This struggle over what the Constitution is affects not only what judges do with it but also how judges are chosen in the first place. If judges can change the Constitution by changing its meaning, then the judicial selection process will inevitably focus on the Constitution a judicial nominee is likely to create. It will inevitably focus on the form into which a judicial nominee can be expected to shape and twist the Constitution.

Speaking at the State University of New York School of Law in 2002, Justice Scalia warned that if the Constitution's meaning is determined by judges rather than the people, the selection of those judges becomes ``a very political hot potato. Every time you need to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, you are going to have a mini-plebiscite on what the Constitution means.''

In a 2007 speech at the Jesse Helms Center, Justice Scalia similarly compared the judicial confirmation process to a miniconstitutional convention. If judges may write a new constitution through their rulings, he said, the process will be about finding a nominee who will ``write the Constitution that you want.''

Justice Scalia is also affecting how we do things in the legislative branch. The more that judges are willing to do our work for us, the less of it we are likely to do ourselves. On the other hand, if judges insist that we legislators say what we mean and mean what we say, then we are likely to draft laws differently. The law that we enact, after all, is the text of our statutes and not the speeches, reports, comments, thoughts, or other things that consume the legislative process.

Knowing that judges who have to interpret and apply our statutes will look only at the law is an incentive for us to make sure if it is to be the law, it must be in the statute. That approach is more transparent, more accountable, and more reliable. We have Justice Scalia to thank for pushing us in that direction.

Justice Scalia seems to be the Justice liberals love to hate. If this were a Harry Potter movie, liberals would put Justice Scalia on a wanted poster as ``Undesirable No. 1.'' Yet they just cannot seem to look away. The principles upon which he stands are so compelling and his way of winning them so powerful that whether you love him or hate him you simply must deal with him.

Those who think judges may just make it up as they go along have a hard time figuring out Justice Scalia because he does not follow their game plan. Only a few months into his first term on the Supreme Court, the Washington Post reported that though Justice Scalia was expected to be a hard-changing conservative, he was voting with liberal Justice William Brennan almost two-thirds of the time.

Several weeks later another Post headline read: ``Newest Reagan Appointee Joins Liberals,'' and the percentage of agreement with Justice Brennan seemed to be going up.

Conservative George Will's column at the end of the 1986-1987 Supreme Court term bore the title, ``Good Grief, Scalia!''

Not to worry, though, because a Post headline just 1 year later read: ``Scalia May Be Successor as Conservatives' Chief Advocate.'' The real way to know Justice Scalia, you see, is to know his principles. They are principles drawn directly from America's founding from the nature of limited government under a written constitution. No one works harder to articulate and apply those principles day in and day out than Justice Scalia.

Research in the last several years has demonstrated that he is the funniest Justice in oral argument and the most cited in law reviews and journals. His lectures around the country are consistently standing room only. His interview on the University of California's ``Legally Speaking'' television program has been viewed at least six times as often as any other guest.

No doubt some of this popularity, this buzz, comes from his engaging personality, his wit, and his sense of humor. People enjoy being with a person like him. But it also comes from the substance, the sheer magnitude of the message he delivers in that unique way. People like a witty, engaging person. But they also respect powerful principles and a message that weighs more than a passing intellectual fad.

I have so far spoken today about Justice Scalia, the jurist; I cannot close this tribute, however, without a few comments about Antonin Scalia, the man. The hearing on his Supreme Court nomination 25 years ago took place in the Judiciary Committee's regular hearing room, which is much smaller than where we hold such hearings today. His hearing lasted just 2 days, including testimony by witnesses.

I can still remember that Justice Scalia's family occupied more than one row in the audience. As Justice Scalia introduced them, including all nine of his children, he said, ``I think we have a full committee.''

Media cameras went crazy every time his youngest daughter Meg would lean her head on her mother's shoulder. Meg was just 6 years old then. But as I remember, she held up very well as we lawyers talked about all sorts of jurisprudential minutiae.

That sight impressed on me Justice Scalia's deep love for family and the sacrifice that family makes when someone like him is so devoted to public service. He is also a man of deep faith and love for our country and the values on which it was founded.

Five years ago, I marked Justice Scalia's 20th anniversary in a speech on the Senate floor. At that time I put into the Record letters from some of his former law clerks. I want to do the same today.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after my remarks letters from some of the following former law clerks.

Edward Whelan, who clerked during the October 1991 term and later served as my counsel when I was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and is now president of the Ethics in Public Policy Center; Paul Clement, who clerked during the October 1993 term and later served as Solicitor General of the United States, and he is now a partner in the Bancroft law firm; Mark Phillip, who also clerked during the October 1993 term and later served as a U.S. district judge, and is now a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago; Brian Fitzpatrick, who clerked during the October 2001 term and is now an associate professor at Vanderbilt Law School; and Brian Killian, who clerked during the October 2007 term, and is now an associate at the Bingham McCutchen law firm in Washington.

In closing, all Americans owe Justice Antonin Scalia a deep debt of gratitude. Every day he serves on the Supreme Court Justice Scalia gives a gift to all of us. He is reintroducing us to the principles and to the document that make our liberties possible. He invites us, in the words of the Kellogg's Corn Flakes commercial, to try it again for the first time.

I return to the scene of his first judicial confirmation hearing in 1982. The constitutional amendment process was underway that day, but it was rightly happening on the Senate floor rather than in the confirmation of a Federal judge. Keeping clear the principle that only the people have authority to change the Constitution will give us, as Justice Scalia often puts it, an enduring rather than an evolving constitution. We must step up and govern ourselves rather than look to judges to do it for us.

I hope we see this opportunity for what it is, following Justice Scalia's lead, grasping again the principles of liberty and resolving never to let them go.

Finally, I have been around here a long time. I have had a role with regard to every current member of the U.S. Supreme Court and a number of those who have gone on. I have to say that one of the most respected men in this country is Justice Scalia. I count him as a friend. I count him as a mentor. I count him as a teacher and professor. I count him as one of the all-time greatest Supreme Court Justices, a man who, without question, is as good a person as you can find.

He is a terrific human being. His life has been a life of service to his fellow men and women. His wife is a terrific person, and as far as I know the kids are all great too.

We have been fortunate that he has been willing to serve as he has. We are

a greatly strengthened country because of Justice Scalia. There are a number of Justices in the history of this country we have to look up to. He is one of them. I think we should revere all of them, but he is one of the greatest. I suspect that he will be quoted, he will be written about, he will be talked about for a long time because of the genuine intellect of the man, the tremendous personality he has, the brilliant mind that we see on display every time he writes an opinion or gives a speech or lectures to us or gives a talk.

This is one of the truly great people in our country today. I do not care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative or somewhere else, this is a man we ought to all respect with every fiber of our beings, and his family as well.

Exhibit 1

Ethics and

Public Policy Center,

Washington, DC, September 9, 2011.

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,

U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: Thank you for commemorating the 25th

anniversary of the Senate's unanimous confirmation of Antonin

Scalia to the Supreme Court in 1986--fittingly, on

Constitution Day. As someone who has had the special

privilege of working both for you and for Justice Scalia, I

am particularly grateful to you for inviting me to take part

in this celebration.

Over the past twenty-five years, no one has done more than

Justice Scalia to promote fidelity to our Constitution. As

the most prominent proponent of the interpretive methodology

of ``original meaning,'' Justice Scalia has forcefully argued

that genuine fidelity to the Constitution requires that its

provisions--including, of course, its amendments--be

interpreted in accordance with the meaning they bore at the

time they were adopted. His intellectual triumph over

advocates of the so-called ``living Constitution'' approach--

under which judges are free to look to their own values or

sense of empathy in determining what the Constitution means--

has been so devastating that his opponents have largely

abandoned the term ``living Constitution'' and some have even

tried to rebrand their positions as originalist.

Justice Scalia's clear ideas are made all the more potent

by his distinctive writing, which combines a sparkling prose

and a logical rigor in a manner that is especially accessible

and appealing.

Time has a way of vindicating Justice Scalia's judgments.

Virtually everyone, for example, now recognizes the soundness

of Justice Scalia's brilliant solo dissent in Morrison v.

Olson, the 1988 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that

the independent-counsel statute did not violate the

Constitution's separation of powers. Precisely because

Justice Scalia's jurisprudence reflects the genius of the

Framers and an abiding faith in, and fidelity to, American

constitutional principles, there is ample reason to expect

that his wisdom on other hotly contested issues of the era

will ultimately prevail.

I am personally grateful to Justice Scalia for the

opportunity to serve as his law clerk for a year, for all

that I learned about the law and about legal reasoning from

working with him, and for his friendship and support during

my ensuing career. But, like all Americans, I am also deeply

indebted to him for his years of tremendous service on the

Court. May he enjoy many, many more!

Sincerely,

M. Edward Whelan III.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

As I understand it, we are prepared to vote.

Amendment No. 642

Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 642. It is fairly simple. It tightens the nexus between TAA benefits and actual jobs lost because of trade by requiring a stricter standard to receive TAA benefits. The expanded TAA benefit offered by my friends across the aisle continues the ``contributed importantly'' standard that says if trade is a cause which is important, but not necessarily more important than any other cause of the job loss, TAA benefits can be provided. That is not a tight nexus.

As a result, many workers are eligible for TAA benefits even if their job loss was not caused by trade. My amendment requires that trade would have to be a ``substantial cause'' of job loss for TAA benefits to be available. This standard was established by President Reagan when he constrained spending on TAA.

By returning to the stricter TAA standard, this amendment puts reasonable constraints on the program to stop it from expanding into another out-of-control spending program.

I ask my colleagues to help the American taxpayers and constrain TAA spending by supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, if it is all right with the distinguished Senator from Ohio, the former Trade Representative, the other distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, be allowed to give his remarks.

I apologize to Senator Brown, but Senator Portman was promised he would be able to speak at 11:45.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the TAA amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from Montana, Chairman Baucus. Before I get into the specifics, I think it is important to put this debate in context. For years I have been working to ensure that our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea receive fair consideration in the Senate. Unfortunately, while I worked to get these agreements approved, others placed obstacles in the way. As a result, days, weeks, and months passed. Eventually those months turned into years. Now 4 years later, we are taking out the sixth renewal of trade adjustment assistance in the time these trade agreements languished. To me, it is highly ironic that we not only passed but expanded legislation to help workers who are allegedly harmed by trade agreements five times over the last 4 years, while we have yet to pass a single trade agreement.

This March President Obama made himself perfectly clear: Unless Congress agreed to spend more money for this pet trade priority, he would never send a trade agreement to Congress and U.S. workers would never benefit from these agreements. Basically, the President held U.S. exporters hostage while he squeezed more spending out of Congress.

Despite my deep disappointment in the President's failure to make these agreements a priority, I am pleased we are having this debate today. Earlier this summer the administration tried to jam the domestic spending program into the Korea Free Trade Agreement implementing bill. I strongly opposed this move. I believe it violated longstanding trade rules and seriously jeopardized approval of the South Korea agreement.

I strongly encouraged the White House to reconsider so we could have a robust debate with TAA considered solely on its merits. After all, if there is such a strong bipartisan support for the program, it should not be shielded from a debate and vote in an open forum. It appears the administration realized their position was untenable in the face of unequivocal Republican opposition. Thankfully they chose to heed my advice and today we have an opportunity to consider and fully debate

Madam President, I wish to talk about an amendment I intend to offer linking TAA expansion to enactment of the three pending free-trade agreements.

I will send an amendment to the desk in the near future for consideration. This amendment makes the effective date for additional TAA funding contingent upon the enactment of our free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

It is unfortunate this amendment is necessary. Supporters of this trade adjustment assistance bill tell us that TAA is a necessary precondition to submission of our pending free-trade agreements--a necessary precondition of the President. The President and his supporters say if TAA does not pass, the free-trade agreements will never be sent to Congress for our consideration.

I find this logic disturbing. It basically boils down to this: Spend more taxpayer money on one of our pet trade priorities or we will refuse to allow Congress to vote on trade agreements that we know will create jobs. The administration has said it will create 250,000 new jobs. By the way, at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent, I simply can't understand why the President continues to hold up these FTAs and their consideration.

Even today, we don't know if the President will actually send the FTAs to Congress if we pass TAA. So my amendment is very simple. It allows TAA to be approved, but it will only go into effect once the President submits the trade agreements to Congress, they are all approved, and when they are signed into law.

To me, this amendment is about fundamental fairness. If we are to meet the President's demands, we can at least ensure our top priorities are addressed as well.

I think it is worth taking a moment to review how we got here.

In December 2010, the President announced he had finally reached agreement with South Korea to renegotiate parts of that trade agreement. Touting the benefits of these changes, the President seemed poised to immediately begin working with Congress

toward its quick implementation; that is, the implementation of the Korean Free Trade Agreement.

In February, Senator McConnell and I wrote to the President commending him for his strong support for the South Korea agreement but also expressing disappointment we did not see the same level of commitment to our pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. At that time, we warned that further delay would mean lost market share and alienation of key Latin American allies. We also made it clear each agreement would receive broad bipartisan support once the President submitted them to Congress for approval.

Three days later, the President responded when Ambassador Kirk testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the President had directed him to immediately intensify engagement with Colombia and Panama to resolve the administration's outstanding issues with these two agreements.

Senator Baucus and I welcomed that development when we wrote to Ambassador Kirk on February 14 and asked that he be prepared to provide testimony regarding what additional steps the administration believed Colombia and Panama should take and to provide a clear and expeditious timeline for moving both agreements through Congress.

Shortly thereafter, in early March, Ambassador Kirk notified Congress the administration was ready to begin technical work on the South Korea implementing bill with the intent to seek approval in the spring of this year. Senator Baucus and I welcomed this development but again called for a specific timeline for resolution of the outstanding issues with Colombia and Panama.

During our March 9 hearing on the administration's trade agenda, I made it clear that consideration of the South Korea agreement, without a clear path for the Colombia and Panama agreements, was simply not acceptable and that should the President ignore the will of Congress and send the Korea agreement without Colombia and Panama, I would do everything I could to make sure those two agreements were considered at the same time as Korea.

Shortly thereafter, in early April, the President finally took steps to fully engage with the Government of Colombia, announcing an agreement on a labor action plan that would enable the administration to begin working with Colombia to achieve benchmarks that, if met, would then enable the President to submit the agreement to Congress. A few weeks later, Panama met one of President Obama's preconditions for consideration of their FTA when they approved a tax information exchange agreement and finalized additional modifications to Panama's labor laws.

So there we stood in May, on the cusp of victory. Months of intense congressional pressure appeared to have finally resulted in an opportunity for Congress to consider our trade agreements with these important allies. But alas, it was not to be.

I would be happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Madam President, on the cusp of victory, the President sacrificed it by demanding more government spending on a controversial domestic training program.

After first asking Colombia, Panama and South Korea to take unprecedented steps to solve our President's concerns with each agreement, the administration held a press conference and, with no prior cngressional consultation or notice, announced that they would not submit our pending trade agreements to Congress unless Congress first agreed to continue funding a domestic spending program at near stimulus levels.

This was an astounding development. Instead of working with Congress to seek approval of these job-creating trade agreements the President chose to try and force Congress to agree to additional domestic spending first. In an opinion editorial, the Wall Street Journal called this move ``extortion.''

Weeks of intense negotiations followed between the White House, Senator Baucus and Chairman Camp to develop a package that would expand and renew trade adjustment assistance through 2014.

Meanwhile, committee staff worked with the White House to prepare the implementing legislation for quick congressional consideration. It appeared that we were once again close to successfully considering these important trade agreements.

But yet again, it was not meant to be. Upon reaching an agreement on the substance of a trade adjustment assistance package with Chairman Camp the White House again changed course, turning its back on a willing Congress and instead trying to force through consideration of trade adjustment assistance by including it in the implementing bill for the South Korea FTA.

And, once again, this was done with virtually no notice or consultation with Congress.

The reaction by the Republican caucus was predictable. We fought the administration's efforts to abuse trade promotion authority for its own narrow purposes and pushed for consideration of trade adjustment assistance on its own merits.

Our position was made clear in a letter--signed by every Republican member of the Finance Committee--to the President, in which we expressed our united opposition to inclusion of expanded trade adjustment assistance in an implementing bill submitted to Congress under trade promotion authority.

The administration ignored our concerns, and pushed forward on a partisan path to force a vote in the Senate Finance Committee.

As a result, while the implementing legislation for the Colombia bill and Panama bills received strong bipartisan support, the South Korea implementing bill moved through committee on a strict party line vote-- the first time a trade agreement has done so in over 25 years.

The administration then vowed to move forward on this path within days.

After that we heard remarkably little from the administration about their intentions regarding these trade agreements. Until August, of course, when the President repeatedly called upon Congress to take the agreements up ``right now'' to help create jobs.

This hollow call for action typifies the President's approach to the trade agenda. By calling upon Congress to act, he appears to be embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval. But, like so many of the President's trade initiatives his words do not match his deeds.

In reality, Congress cannot take up these agreements ``right now.'' President Obama is relying upon a trade law called trade promotion authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or amended by Congress.

In order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not Congress but the President who must take the first step and submit each agreement for consideration. If the President does not submit them, Congress cannot act under trade promotion authority.

The President and his team know this. In fact, here is a chart which outlines the TPA process called ``How A Trade Agreement Moves Through Congress Under TPA.''

This was taken directly from the Web site of the Office of the United States Trade Representative. It clearly shows Congress cannot act until the President submits the agreements.

But why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it's much easier to blame their continued delay on Congress? The fact is the President wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none of the responsibility.

Once they were called out on the mismatch between their words and deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are.

In the meantime, Republicans continued to push for consideration of the three pending FTAs. Back in July, a group of Republican Senators signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for submitting the FTAs. Despite a clear path forward the President remains silent to this day.

As the President continues to delay, our country cedes each of these markets to our foreign competitors. Our economy and our workers are suffering under horrific levels of unemployment--almost one in ten American workers is out of a job under this administration. We can't afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs. Yet this is precisely what the President is doing.

While our economy remains troubled, and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the United States lets other countries take over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the President.

A case in point: the European Union's exports to South Korea increased almost 45 percent in the first 20 days since that agreement went into force on July 1. Their share of Korea's import market increased from 9.5 percent to 10.3 percent in just 3 weeks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. share of Korea's import market dropped from 10.5 percent to 8.4 percent. Unless we act soon, these trends are likely to continue.

In an open letter to the President and Congress, over 120 food groups and companies wrote that ``if there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem for U.S. agricultural exports, one need only consider the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the Colombia FTA.

``Argentina and Brazil have negotiated trade agreements . . . with Colombia that have given them preferential access . . . as a result, U.S.-produced corn, wheat and soybeans have been hit hard, with the combined share of Colombia's imports for these products falling to 28 percent from 78 percent since 2008.''

On August 15, 2011, an agreement between Canada and Colombia entered into force, which will only make the problem worse for U.S. exporters.

I appreciate the President's goal of doubling exports. Having goals is great. But we all know that, if you don't do the work or take action, goals become little more than false hope--they never become reality.

The President and his cabinet admit that these agreements are key to their goal of doubling exports. Yet the action necessary to reach that goal, submission of the agreements, still remains in the distant future. Instead, we watch the days slip by, and with each day our overseas markets erode.

The fact is that each of these agreements is critically important to our economy. For my home State of Utah and for workers across the country they mean more opportunity and jobs.

The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that U.S. workers lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day these agreements are delayed.

I for one stand ready to continue to fight for their consideration and approval. We have come a long way since January of this year, but we are not done yet.

I hope the President will heed my call and submit these agreements to Congress so we can approve them. But history has shown that this President won't act unless he is forced to. This amendment I am offering will continue to put pressure on him to act and to act soon.

The time for dithering and deliberation is over. Let's adopt this amendment and ensure that our work in moving TAA forward leads to the promised result--submission of the three pending free trade agreements by the President and their quick enactment in to law.

Amendment No. 641 to Amendment No. 633

Madam President, I send amendment No. 641 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Madam President, I am prepared to proceed.

Mr. President, I ask the Record to reflect that if I would have been present for today's vote, I would have voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2832, to extend the Generalized System of Preferences.

I would like to express my continued support for the extension of the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP. As the GSP expired on December 31, 2010, I am quite happy to see the Senate finally poised to take up this much overdue extension of this valuable trade program.

I am also hopeful that this process will finally lead to quick consideration of our pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

These agreements are long past due. Unfortunately, they have been delayed because the President has made it clear that his most important trade priority is to spend more money on a domestic worker retraining program of dubious effectiveness. He has also made it clear that, unless Congress accedes to his demands, he will never submit these job creating trade agreements to Congress. It is a travesty that the President cares more about spending money than creating jobs.

Yet now that we have this trade vehicle on the floor, I am hopeful we can find a way to allow a full and fair debate on TAA--and in doing so, finally remove what we hope is the last obstacle in front of these three free trade agreements.

The GSP bill itself is important to our economy. The 2-year extension of GSP will provide greater certainty for both U.S. businesses and developing country exporters who are able to utilize the benefits of the program. The program has secured strong bipartisan support for over three decades, and I only expect this trend to continue.

The GSP allows for nonreciprocal, duty-free tariff treatment of certain products from designated developing countries. In fact, some of the top GSP beneficiary developing countries in 2010 were Angola, Indonesia, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, the Philippines, and Turkey. In order to be designated as a beneficiary country, nations must adhere to an extensive criteria list. In turn, GSP is not only a trade program, but can also be seen as one of our effective foreign policy tools.

For starters, beneficiary countries must protect intellectual property rights, recognize workers' rights, commit to the elimination of child labor, and prevent the seizure of property belonging to U.S. citizens or businesses.

GSP continues to promote trade, rather than aid, to nations that are advancing their economic development; it has worked to stimulate U.S. exports in these markets; and encourages the elimination of trade barriers in developing countries.

What does this mean for the United States? This means our Nation not only has an opportunity to assist developing countries to promote economic growth in their nations, but we also have an opportunity for our American businesses to thrive, while lowering costs for American consumers. Across our Nation, U.S. manufacturers and importers benefit by receiving goods and raw materials at a lower cost. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, approximately three-quarters of U.S. imports that rely on the GSP program, use raw materials, parts and components, or machinery and equipment, to manufacture goods in the U.S. for domestic consumption or for export.

So, although the GSP program was initially created to assist with economic growth in the developing world, it now provides great assistance to our businesses here in the United States.

In 2010 the United States imported $23 billion in GSP-eligible goods from 129 countries around the world. This includes 4,800 eligible products. And, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, GSP saved American importers $682 million in duties in 2010. These numbers cannot be overlooked--they represent millions of dollars in savings for our manufacturers, retailers, farmers and families. GSP is particularly helpful for our small businesses. The savings on duties by these small businesses allows them to compete with larger companies.

During these uncertain and challenging economic times, we must give our businesses the necessary tools to compete not only in the global market, but also here at home. Unfortunately, the 9 months that the program has not been operational has negatively affected the competitiveness of thousands of American businesses that rely on duty- exemptions. For these companies, GSP is an integral component of their business model.

In fact, according to the Coalition for GSP, from December 31, 2010, when the

GSP program expired, U.S. companies have paid an additional $1.8 million a day in new duties. To date, this amounts to nearly $480 million in unnecessary additional costs for companies. Businesses in every state in the Nation have been affected by the expiration of GSP and have a vested interest in the renewal of the program.

For example, in my State of Utah--the only State in the country to import Indonesian steam and vapor turbine parts--tariffs have exceeded $235,000 for these goods in the months following the expiration of GSP. Components such as mountings for buildings imported from Thailand, cost Utah businesses an additional $178,000 in tariffs through July of this year. And the total amount of Utah imports of GSP-eligible goods from January until July 2011 exceeded $26.2 million, of which an additional $1.1 million in unnecessary import taxes were paid.

I have heard from Utah manufacturing companies, like Black Diamond Equipment, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City and employs more than 475 people worldwide. That company develops, manufactures and distributes a broad range of products including those used for mountain climbing, camping, and skiing. As of June 2010, they incurred more than $40,000 in tariffs for goods imported from the Philippines--goods that otherwise would have been covered under GSP.

If GSP is not renewed, Black Diamond is projected to pay over $100,000 in unnecessary tariffs by the end of the year. As if that was not enough, because of these duties, Black Diamond is faced with reduced sales, competitiveness issues, and a limited hiring ability for their Utah office. To help companies like Black Diamond succeed, we must act now to renew GSP.

I have shared just a few examples of the additional costs incurred by businesses in my State, and unfortunately, there are many other similar scenarios across the Nation due to the expiration of GSP.

These Utah companies and other businesses around the country are left with difficult decisions about downsizing, hiring freezes, and employee layoffs--this at a time when our economy needs more than ever to be adding jobs. We must lift this additional burden on our small businesses, manufacturers, and farmers, by renewing GSP today, and making sure we provide retroactive application.

I urge my colleagues to come together and extend the Generalized System of Preferences until July 31, 2013, and provide the much-needed retroactive benefits to our U.S. companies.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I want to explain my vote of the FAA extension.

As I have said many times, I share House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Mica's frustration, and the frustration of Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate, that favors to organized labor have overshadowed the prospects for long-term FAA reauthorization.

Last year the National Mediation Board changed the rules under which employees of airlines and railroads are able to unionize. For decades the standard has been that a majority of employees would have to agree in an election to form a union. However, the new NMB rules changed that standard so that all it takes to unionize is a majority of employees voting. The NMB wants to permanently impose unionization with less than majority support.

The House passed long-term FAA reauthorization bill includes language I strongly support that eliminates this favor for big labor.

The enactment of a long-term FAA reauthorization bill is very important and is something we need to accomplish. However, the NMB issue needs to be resolved for long-term FAA reauthorization to occur. I will work with my colleagues on a resolution, but they should be on notice that avoiding the issue through 22 short-term extensions is no longer an alternative. I hope my friends have a restful weekend, but they shouldn't feel too relaxed even though we just extended the FAA for 4 months. We need to get back to work on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill right away.

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

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make my remarks immediately thereafter.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is one of the more prescient people in this body, and we all care a great deal for him. I appreciate his leadership in this great body.

Mr. President, I remember September 11, 2001, as if it were yesterday. I was here in my office at my desk when the unthinkable happened. I remember driving to the Senate that morning thinking it was such a beautiful day. It was a crisp fall morning with a remarkable blue sky. Over the years, I have often wondered how such resplendence could occur amid such evil and suffering. I take solace in knowing that nearly 3,000 innocent victims, including 3 Utahns, hopefully touched the face of God that day.

Yet since that horrible day, Americans have once again risen to the challenge. As President George W. Bush said 3 months after the attacks:

Our enemies have made the mistake that America's enemies

always make. They saw liberty and thought they saw weakness.

But 10 years on, Americans have shown, once again, our resolve can never be broken. When confronted by evil, we will not yield.

I remember on that day I came over here to the Senate, and we were told to evacuate the Capitol. As we walked out--some running as fast as they could--and walked down the steps of the Senate side of the Capitol, I turned around and saw that Senator Helms was back up on the veranda, and he was having difficulties, as he did in his later years, with ambulation, and I walked back up the steps, and he leaned on my arm as we came down the steps and were among the last to leave the Capitol at that time. We were warned there might be a plane flying into the Capitol or into the White House, and it was a matter of great concern to everybody.

But 10 years later, as I have said, Americans have once again shown the

resolve that is necessary. We have confronted evil, and we will continue to do so, and we will never yield.

We, as a nation, continue to stand up to this threat and we have done much to overcome it. But we should never become complacent.

As the 9/11 Commission's recent report card on the implementation of its recommendations clearly shows, we have made important advances in securing the homeland, but a lot of work needs to be accomplished.

Some of the most profound changes, and also some of the least understood, have occurred in our intelligence community. For example, the 16 different agencies which constitute our intelligence community are collaborating as never before. Part of that is because of the PATRIOT Act, which requires that type of collaboration. The PATRIOT Act has worked very well, and even though there are some on the far right and the far left who do not accept the PATRIOT Act, I have to tell you it has worked amazingly well in helping us to protect our homeland.

As the Commission pointed out, collaboration in the intelligence community was essential to the success of the raid which killed Osama bin Laden. That was 10 years later, but it sent a message to the world that we are not going to quit until we find these people, root them out, and get rid of them.

In addition, I also believe our Nation is much safer due to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The Terrorist Surveillance Program enables our intelligence agencies to monitor international communications from al-Qaida. This initiative has been the subject of much debate in Congress. However, the legislative compromise which was reached, I believe, strikes a proper balance by permitting our intelligence agencies to operate in an efficient manner while strengthening the oversight role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has worked amazingly well.

However, the need for improvements still remains. The Commission notes that over the past 6 years we have had four Directors of National Intelligence. As many managers would agree, such leadership changes will disrupt the implementation of any organization's modernization strategy. Yet in the realm of counterterrorism, the slightest misstep could be exploited by our foes to launch another attack.

Other areas which require immediate attention include securing our borders. An important tool in helping us verify the identity of visitors to the United States is our biometric entry system, called US- VISIT. Unfortunately, the security offered by this system is incomplete. As the Commission pointed out, US-VISIT does not yet have a fully operational system to record when visitors leave our Nation. Such a capability is not only useful in tracking terrorists but is also an important capability in stemming illegal immigration.

That is why I have introduced S. 332, the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. This bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to our country, the United States of America. Unfortunately, my optimism regarding Afghanistan, the planning ground and safe haven for those who plotted the attacks of September 11, has somewhat receded.

The surge of forces has led to great gains in the southern Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. This is the heartland of the Taliban. According to GEN David Rodriguez, who until recently was our Deputy Commander in Afghanistan, the Taliban ``enjoyed near total control'' of these areas as recently as 2009. Moreover, our additional forces enabled the implementation of a robust counterinsurgency strategy. This means we had sufficient forces not only to clear an area of the Taliban but to hold it. As a result, we were able to provide security to the local population, assist in the development of the primarily agrarian economy, and train Afghani security forces.

Unfortunately, the President's arbitrary decision to reduce the number of our forces deployed to Afghanistan by approximately a third, and instructing the reduction to be completed by next summer, only adds to the burden of our forces that remain.

In fact, this summer I was fortunate to host former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Hayden, at a speaking event in Utah. I found his insight on this matter most illuminating. General Hayden did not quarrel with the notion of reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan. However, he was troubled by the timing of the drawdown. Specifically, the general stated he would have kept the troops in place until the conclusion of the 2012 summer fighting season.

That being said, I have absolute confidence in our new commander, GEN John Allen. He succeeds General Petraeus, with whom I met over there in Afghanistan, and have met on other occasions, and who has done a tremendous singular service for our country. I have great respect for him. But I expect General Allen to be just as good. General Allen was one of the vital catalysts in the Sunni awakening in Iraq. The Sunni awakening and our counterinsurgency strategy are considered by many to be the driving forces for our success during the Iraqi surge. And, of course, we all remember what General Petraeus did there as well. I am confident General Allen will maintain the hard-won momentum our forces have achieved in Afghanistan, despite the reduction in resources.

In addition, our troops will be assisted by an even greater number of Afghan troops. In this month's edition of Foreign Affairs, General Rodriguez wrote that the Afghan Army by the end of 2010 had increased in size to 143,000, which surpassed that year's goal by 9,000 troops. In addition, the Afghan Army ``has quickly become one of the country's most respected institutions.'' The general also writes:

In 2011, 95 percent of all Afghan army units have been

partnered with coalition forces, and they are showing steady

improvement in providing security and in their ability to

independently thwart insurgent attacks.

In conclusion, much has been accomplished, but more remains to be done. The memory of that day--and those we lost--will be forever with us. We must never forget the hard lessons we learned on September 11. We must not become complacent or believe the threat is over or has gone. We have done much to mitigate the threats posed against us, but we always must be on guard for anything in the future.

The hallmark of our democracy consists of the principles of liberty and equality, cherished by our citizens. The terrorists who attacked us on September 11 saw the civic virtues of our peaceful Republic and wrongfully concluded that we were weak. As others have been reminded in the past, it is a mistake to underestimate the courage and resolve of Americans when our constitutional ideals come under attack or when our lives and liberties are threatened.

Even on that first day, the example of police and firemen charging into burning buildings at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and civilians fighting back above the skies of Shanksville, PA, showed to the world that America had not lost its resolve. To this day, we remain vigilant in our commitment to protect the natural rights to life and liberty announced in our Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our beloved Constitution.

Ten years have followed since that day, but I remain proud of the example that America has set for the world as it continues its relentless pursuit of those who would kill innocents and plot mass terrorist attacks on civilian populations.

President Roosevelt called the attack on Pearl Harbor ``a date which will live in infamy.'' Similarly, September 11, 2001, remains a day of remembrance and resolve. We will always remember those who were killed that day and the loved ones they left behind, and we resolve to secure justice for those victims by bringing justice to those responsible for the attacks and who continue to plot against us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to express my continued support for the America Invents Act. We have been working on patent reform legislation for several years now--in fact, almost the whole time I have been in the Senate--so it is satisfying to see the Senate again voting on this bipartisan bill.

It is important to note that this bill before us is the same one that was passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in June. I commend House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith for his leadership on this monumental legislation. He has worked hard on this for many years, and I wish to pay a personal tribute to him.

I also wish to recognize the efforts of my colleague from Vermont, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy. Over the years, he and I have worked tirelessly to bring about long overdue reform to our Nation's patent system, and I personally appreciate Pat for his work on this matter.

I also wish to recognize the efforts of Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley of Iowa, as well as many other Senate colleagues who have been instrumental in this legislative process.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the shortest operating Constitution in the world. America's Founders put only the most essential provisions in it, listing the most essential rights of individuals and the most essential powers the Federal Government should have. What do we think made it on to that short list? Raising and supporting the Army and maintaining the Navy? No question there. Coining money? That one is no surprise. But guess what else made the list. Here is the language: The Founders granted to Congress the power ``To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for . . . Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writing and Discoveries.''

In other words, the governance of patents and copyrights is one of the essential, specifically enumerated powers given to the Federal Government by our Nation's Founders. In my view, it is also one of the most visionary, forward-looking provisions in the entire U.S. Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson understood that giving people an exclusive right to profit from their inventions would give them ``encouragement . . . to pursue ideas which may produce utility.'' Yet Jefferson also recognized the importance of striking a balance when it came to granting patents-- a difficult task. He said:

I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the

things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an

exclusive patent and those which are not.

As both an inventor and a statesman, he understood that granting a person an exclusive right to profit from their invention was not a decision that should be taken lightly.

This bill is not perfect, but I am pleased with the deliberative process that led to its development, and I am confident that Congress followed Jefferson's lead in striking a balanced approach to patent reform.

There can be no doubt that patent reform is necessary, and it is long overdue. Every State in the country has a vested interest in an updated patent system. When patents are developed commercially they create jobs, both for the company marketing products and for their suppliers, distributors,

and retailers. One single deployed patent affects almost all sectors of our economy.

Utahns have long understood this relationship. Ours is a rich and diverse and inventive legacy. In the early 1900s, a young teenager approached his teacher after class with a sketch he had been working on. It was a drawing inspired by the rows of dirt in a potato field the teenager had recently plowed. After examining the sketch, the teacher told the young student that he should pursue his idea, and he did. That teenager was Philo Farnsworth, a Utah native who went on to patent the first all-electronic television.

Farnsworth had to fight for many years in court to secure the exclusive rights to his patent, but he continued to invent, developing and patenting hundreds of other inventions along the way.

Another Utah native developed a way to amplify sound after he had trouble hearing in the Mormon Tabernacle. His headphones were later ordered by the Navy for use during World War I. His name was Nathaniel Baldwin.

William Clayton, an early Mormon pioneer, grew tired of manually counting and calculating how far his wagon company had traveled each day. So, in the middle of a journey across the plains, he and others designed and built a roadometer, a device that turned screws and gears at a set rate based on the rotation of the wagon wheel. It worked based on the same principles that power modern odometers.

John Browning, the son of a pioneer, revolutionized the firearm, securing his inventions through a patent. He is known all over the world for the work he did.

Robert Jarvik, who worked at the University of Utah--a wonderful doctor whom I know personally--invented the first successful permanent artificial heart while at the University of Utah.

These and countless other stories illustrate the type of ingenuity that was required by the men and women who founded Utah, the type of ingenuity that has been exemplified in every generation since.

Last year, Utah was recognized as one of the most inventive States in the Union. Such a distinction did not surprise me, especially since the University of Utah recently logged the university's 5,000th invention disclosure and has over 4,000 patent applications filed to date. This impressive accomplishment follows on the heels of news that the University of Utah overtook MIT in 2009 to become America's No. 1 research institution for creating startup companies based on university technology.

A group of students at Brigham Young University recently designed a circuit that was launched with the shuttle Endeavour, and another group developed a prosthetic leg that costs $25 versus the $10,000 a prosthetic leg may typically cost. Utah inventors contribute to everything from electronic communications, to biotechnology, to computer games.

Like my fellow Utahns, citizens across the country recognize that technological development is integral to the well-being of our economy and the prosperity of our families and communities. As technology advances, it is necessary at times to make adjustments that will ensure Congress is promoting the healthy progress of science and useful arts.

The America Invents Act will improve the patent process, giving inventors in Utah and across the country greater incentives to innovate. Strengthening of our patent system will not only help lead us out of these tough economic times, but it will help us maintain our competitive edge both domestically and abroad. Take, for example, the transition to a first-inventor-to-file system and the establishment of a post-grant review procedure. These changes alone will decrease litigation costs so that small companies and individuals will not be dissuaded from protecting their patent rights by companies with greater resources.

This bill provides the USPTO with rulemaking authority to set or adjust its own fees for 7 years without requiring a statutory change every time an adjustment is needed. Providing the USPTO with the ability to adjust its own fees will give the agency greater flexibility and control, which, in the long run, will benefit inventors and businesses.

The legislation enables patent holders to request a supplemental examination of a patent if new information arises after the initial examination. By establishing this new process, the USPTO would be asked to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent.

Further, this provision does not limit the USPTO's authority to investigate misconduct or to sanction bad actors. I am confident this new provision will remove the uncertainty and confusion that defines current patent litigation, and I believe it will enhance patent quality.

The America Invents Act creates a mechanism for third parties to submit relevant information during the patent examination process. This provision will provide the USPTO with better information about the technology and claimed invention by leveraging the knowledge of the public. This will also help the agency increase the efficiency of examination and the quality of patents.

This bill would create a reserve fund for user fees that exceed the amount appropriated to the USPTO. I prefer the language in the Senate- passed bill, which created a new revolving fund for the USPTO separate from annual appropriations. Certainty is important for future planning, but the appropriations process is far from reliable.

While conceptually I understand why our House counterparts revised the Senate-passed language--and I am in agreement about maintaining congressional oversight--I believe this is one area that should be reconsidered. It is just that important. That is why I support Senator Tom Coburn's amendment. If passed, his amendment will preserve congressional oversight and give the USPTO the necessary flexibility to operate during these critical times.

The House-passed compromise language is a step in the right direction, especially since the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has committed that all fees collected by the USPTO in excess of its annual appropriated level will be available to the USPTO. However, I remain concerned that the budget uncertainties that exist today may negatively impact the USPTO and its ability to implement many of the new responsibilities required by the America Invents Act.

I remain concerned about some provisions the House either expanded or added. On balance, however, the positives of this legislation far outweigh the negatives, and I am confident it will contribute to the greater innovation and productivity our economy demands. It provides essential improvements to our patent system, such as changes to the best mode disclosure requirement; expansion of the prior user rights defense to affiliates, with an exemption for university-owned patents; incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions; restrictions on false marking claims; removal of restrictions on the residency of Federal circuit judges; clarification of tax strategy patents; providing assistance to small businesses through a patent ombudsman program and establishing additional USPTO satellite offices.

We all know every piece of legislation has its shortcomings. That is the reality of our legislative process. However, taken as a whole, the America Invents Act further builds upon our country's rich heritage of intellectual property protections--a cornerstone provided by article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

Passage of the America Invents Act will update our patent system, help strengthen our economy, and provide a springboard for further improvements to our intellectual property laws. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this monumental undertaking, and I appreciate those who have worked so hard on these programs. Again, I mentioned with particularity the Congressman from Texas, Lamar Smith, and also my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, and others as well, Senator Grassley especially. There are others as well whom I should mention, but I will leave it at that for this particular time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the passing last month of Mark Hatfield, a former colleague of mine in the U.S. Senate whose service to the people of our great Nation and his beloved State of Oregon is truly noteworthy and continues to inspire public servants today, 15 years after his retirement in 1996 from the world's greatest deliberative body.

Indeed, service is the hallmark of Senator Hatfield's legacy; I know because I had the pleasure of serving alongside him for many years. Senator Hatfield served the people of Oregon as a State legislator, as their secretary of state, as their Governor, and as a U.S. Senator. The only election he ever lost was for student body president for his beloved alma matter, Willamette! Although that is a record any statesman can envy, it is more importantly, an example of public service we can all admire.

As a Senator, Mark Hatfield served the people of Oregon for 30 years--longer than anybody in the history of the State--and he served them well. He was an Oregonian through and through, and you could tell he loved his home State. He worked tirelessly for all Oregonians, regardless of their background or political persuasion.

As a young naval officer, Mark Hatfield experienced the battle of Iwo Jima and the aftermath of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. These experiences had a profound and lifelong effect on Senator Hatfield. He hated war, but he always had respect for our servicemen and women. Senator Hatfield was also deeply religious, and relied upon his religious convictions and love for this country to guide him. He believed in America as what some call it, ``a miracle of light.''

Senator Hatfield and I did not always agree on everything, but we respected each other's views. I admired that Senator Hatfield always tried to find common ground with his fellow Senators. This made him a successful statesman and a respected individual on both sides of the aisle.

Today, I am honored to have the privilege to add my voice to the chorus of praise for this outstanding public servant whose service will long endure in the heads and hearts of all Americans, especially those who knew and had the pleasure of serving with him. My thoughts and prayers are with his family as they mourn the loss and celebrate the life of this great man.

Will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to give my remarks immediately following the Senator.

Madam President, I compliment the senior Senator from Kentucky for his good remarks on the floor and for allowing me that unanimous consent request.

We are coming down to the wire here. We will soon be voting on a proposal that would couple some deficit reduction with an increase in the statutory debt limit. There are some positive features in this legislation, and the Senate's minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and conservatives throughout the country should be commended for insisting on them.

First, the President asked for a clean debt limit increase, and conservatives refused. They held the line and made clear that any increase in the debt limit required matching deficit reduction.

Second, having lost the fight over a clean debt limit increase, the President insisted on a balanced approach to deficit reduction, by which he meant reducing the deficit by raising taxes. But conservatives again fought this back. They knew that the primary driver of our debt is spending. Regardless of the President's talking points, nondefense discretionary spending is at historic levels. We are set for our third straight trillion dollar deficit. We have a national debt of $14.5 trillion, and the President's budget would give us $13 trillion more in debt. The answer to this is not giving the government more money to spend.

And third, conservatives resisted the effort by the President's allies to push most of the deficit reduction in this package down the road.

So there are some achievements in this proposal that conservatives can hang their hat on.

But I regret to say that I will not be able to support it, because it does not sufficiently provide us with the solution to the debt crisis that the markets are demanding. Last week, Moody's made clear that the real threat to America's Triple A rating is not default, which even the administration now acknowledges was never going to happen. The real threat of a downgrade comes from a failure of will. It comes from a failure of presidential leadership in getting federal spending under control.

There is a solution to this spending crisis. It is cut, cap, balance, which I was an early supporter of. In addition to providing short term relief by cutting and capping spending, it provides for a long-term solution through passage of a strong balanced budget amendment.

This proposal falls well short of cut, cap, balance, and I cannot support it.

I would like to address a technical point about this package that raises concerns for me--whether the President is looking to the deficit reduction committee as an opportunity to raise taxes. He says that he is, as have some of my colleagues in the Senate.

I do believe that it will be very difficult, given the committee's charge to reduce the deficit, to raise marginal tax rates. However, I worry that some Democrats will be looking at tax expenditures in order to hit the committee's required deficit reduction targets.

This would be a mistake for a number of reasons. The President has referred to tax expenditures as ``spending through the Tax Code.'' But rhetoric aside, tax expenditures are an opportunity for individuals and businesses to keep more of the money that they earn. And getting rid of tax expenditures, without corresponding reductions in tax rates, will result in a net tax increase on the American people.

The President would have you believe that getting rid of tax expenditures is acceptable, because they only impact the rich. That is why he talks about bonus depreciation for jets and yachts used as second homes. Yet in a series of speeches, I have attempted to show that this rhetoric of class warfare might work politically, but as a description of tax reality it is lacking. The fact is, the largest tax expenditures, those that the President and Democrats would have to look to in order to raise revenue for deficit reduction, benefit middle class itemizers the most.

Consider the example of the home mortgage interest deduction. Since adoption of the 16th amendment to the Constitution in 1913--98 years ago--the United States has had an individual income tax. And for that entire time home mortgage interest has been deductible in calculating taxable income.

Most of our fellow Americans, when buying a home, do not pay cash for the entire purchase price. Rather, they typically pay a certain percentage in cash and borrow the rest. It is common that the money borrowed is repaid in monthly increments over the course of 15 or 30 years. Those payments from the homeowner to the lender to compensate for the borrowing of money are interest payments. If you itemize your deductions, you get to subtract home mortgage interest from adjusted gross income--or AGI--in arriving at taxable income.

The most significant of the itemized deductions available to taxpayers is the home mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction is the second largest tax expenditure identified by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and it is not primarily a benefit for the wealthy. Thirty percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest tax expenditure goes to taxpayers over $200,000. Taxpayers with income below $200,000 receive 70 percent of the benefit of the mortgage interest deduction. By a ratio of almost 2 to 1, taxpayers under $200,000 benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Since $200,000 basically fits the definition of rich used by my friends on the other side of the aisle, we can see that the nonrich or middle income group disproportionately benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.

There have been proposals over the decades to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction, but none of them have succeeded. In 1986, during the last major tax reform effort, there were active proposals to get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction.

President Clinton attacked some of the tax benefits associated with home ownership back in the 1990s. Specifically, President Clinton proposed taxing the imputed income associated with home ownership. A homeowner by living in his home enjoys a certain benefit--the ability to live in his home. That is, he could have rented the home out for a certain amount of money, but he instead decided to live in the home. It is as if he received the rental money for the home, and then spent it on rent so that the owner himself could live in the home.

As policy this is somewhat convoluted. Generally, Congress has been reluctant to tax people when they have

received no cash. In addition, those on a fixed income would have found it difficult in many cases to get the cash to pay the tax. Finally, there would be significant administrative concerns--just what would the rental value of a home be? How would that be determined? It would be quite difficult. Thus, in a bipartisan fashion, Congress rejected the President's proposal to tax imputed income arising from owner-occupied housing.

Now President Obama is taking another crack at it because he wants to raise money to reduce the deficit. President Obama has proposed, reproposed, reproposed again, and reproposed yet again to reduce the benefit of the home mortgage interest deduction. I am speaking of President Obama's proposed 28 percent limitation on itemized deductions. President Obama has proposed to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent. This is meant to lessen the benefit to higher income taxpayers of itemized deductions--the home mortgage interest deduction being the most significant of the itemized deductions. The Joint Committee on Taxation says that this provision would mean the Federal Government would collect an additional $293 billion in taxes over 10 years.

To understand this provision, allow me to tell you about two taxpayers: William and Spencer. Let's assume that William is in the 15 percent tax bracket, and that Spencer is in the 35 percent tax bracket. Under current law, an additional itemized deduction of $100 is worth $15 to William, and $35 to Spencer. That is, an additional itemized deduction of $100 will reduce William's tax bill by $15, but Spencer's tax bill would go down by $35. If the President's 28 percent limitation proposal were to go forward, however, although the itemized deduction would still be worth $15 to William, it would now be worth only $28 to Spencer.

Of course, one may think--well why should high-income Spencer get a more valuable tax benefit from an itemized deduction than low-income William? But that mischaracterizes things. First of all, high-income Spencer, even under current law, still pays significantly more tax than low-income William. That is not only true in absolute dollar terms, but also in terms as a percentage of their respective incomes. Furthermore, the 35 percent bracket was set by Congress with an understanding and realization that itemized deductions would allow a significant tax benefit. That is, had Congress known that higher income taxpayers would be disallowed some of their itemized deductions, as the President now proposes, undoubtedly Congress would have created a lower maximum tax rate bracket than the current 35 percent tax bracket. So, to take away some of the benefit of itemized deductions to higher-income taxpayers but leave the high-income tax rates at their current high levels is to upset the balance struck by prior Congresses. Obviously, Congress is allowed to do that. But let's not pretend that current law is somehow an oversight, or unintended consequence, from prior legislation.

Some of the President's advisers defend the proposed 28 percent limitation on the grounds that 28 percent was the tax benefit one would get during the later Reagan years. Yes, that is true. But it is only true because 28 percent was the highest tax bracket after the Reagan tax reform!

The larger point is this, however. To the extent that the home mortgage interest deduction, or any tax expenditure for that matter, should be addressed by Congress, it should be addressed through the context of a comprehensive, revenue neutral tax reform that lowers rates. These tax-expenditures should not be cherrypicked by the President and his liberal allies to pay for the checks that his administration has written.

I have made this point many times, but today, it is important to make it again. To the extent that any tax expenditures are taken away, tax rates should come down, so that the net effect to government revenues on a static-score basis is neutral. That's what tax reform is all about-- getting rid of tax expenditures so as to reduce tax rates. By reducing tax rates, we will unleash the free-market. By unleashing the free market, we will grow the economy. By growing the economy, tax receipts will increase, even though on a static-scoring basis, tax reform would be revenue neutral. If we get rid of tax expenditures without an offsetting tax-rate reduction, then we have simply made the task of tax reform that much harder. We have squandered an important opportunity.

I would like to make a last procedural point about where we go from here. Even if Congress passes, and the President signs, this deficit reduction package, we are going to be back at this again before the year is out. The President will be asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling again. Given that, I would like once again to address the failure by the Treasury Department to respond to repeated requests I have made over the past week about Treasury's short-term cash position, and the failure by almost every member of the so-called Financial Stability Oversight Council--or, F-SOCK--to provide Congress with information about their contingency plans in the event there is a ratings downgrade on U.S. debt in the future.

Does Treasury still think it will run out of cash by midnight tonight? I have been given only limited information. Treasury continues to say we will run out of cash today and will not be able to pay our bills, the same date they estimated way back in May. But, Treasury won't show me how they are arriving at that estimate. I have not been informed, Congress has not been informed, and Americans counting on timely Social Security payments have not been informed. Almost every member of the F-SOCK, including Treasury and the Federal Reserve, has refused to provide me with any information about their contingency plans for ratings downgrades. Even if the debt limit is raised, there is no assurance that we won't face a downgrade. We need to know the government's plans.

As I have said repeatedly, this is unacceptable. I want to be clear about two things. First, Congress will have to look into this matter very carefully, and investigate whether Treasury and most of our major financial regulators have been deliberately withholding information from Congress, and if so for what purposes.

Second, assuming that down the road Treasury will present Congress with another default date, I want to put them on notice that this fall I will be demanding timely substantiation of Treasury's assessment and the government's cash position. Absent this cooperation, I will stand in the way of any debt limit increase demanded by an unsubstantiated Treasury-determined deadline.

In closing I want to be clear. I cannot support the outcome of these negotiations. But my opposition is not owing to the failure of conservatives or the Republican leadership in the House and Senate. It is owing to what is clearly amounting to the failed presidency of President Obama. He and his allies are ideologically committed to more spending. Fortunately, the American people will have the final verdict on this economic philosophy in 2012.

Mr. President, over the last several weeks, we have been debating the increase in the debt ceiling. For the time being, that debate is coming to an end. But I would like to address briefly some revisionist fiscal history that we have heard repeated during that debate.

We have heard this historical account often over the past decade. You hear it from our friends on the other side whenever the Senate discusses spending policy and tax policy. I have noticed that the arguments boil down to two points. My friend and colleague, the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, came up with this thumbnail description of this creative historical account.

First, all of the ``good'' fiscal history of the 1990s was derived from the partisan tax increase bill of 1993.

And second, all of the ``bad'' fiscal history taking place within the past 10 years is because of the bipartisan tax relief plans originally enacted during the last administration and continued under the present administration.

You could go one step further and, as a policy premise, refine that thumbnail description to two short sentences. First sentence--lower taxes are bad. Second sentence--higher taxes are good. Not surprisingly, these revisionist historians support higher taxes and higher government spending. And not surprisingly, the revisionists oppose cutting taxes and cutting government spending.

Since time is short today, I direct folks to Senate floor remarks I made on February 14, 2011. They are available on the Senate Finance Committee under the Ranking Members Newsroom tab for that date. But it is important to reiterate the main point of those remarks. Basically the assertion by our friends on the other side that raising taxes is the key to all good fiscal history can be summarily dismissed.

Let's take a quick view of the 1990s data. According to the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget--or OMB--the impact of the much-bragged about tax hike bill of 1993 was minimal. The Clinton administration's OMB concluded that the 1993 tax increase accounted for only 13 percent of deficit reduction between 1990 and 2000. Thirteen percent puts the 1993 tax increase behind other factors such as defense cuts, other revenue, and interest savings. The data show that tax increases did not drive deficit reduction.

So as a matter of fact, only 13 percent of the positive fiscal history of the 1990s is due to the partisan 1993 tax increase? That is it. Thirteen percent.

Well, what about the last decade? The period of 2001-2010 saw a lot of deficits. From what you hear from our friends on the other side, those deficits

are owing to the tax relief that benefitted virtually every American taxpayer. Yet CBO data tell us a different story.

On May 12, 2011, CBO released a recap of the changes over the past decade. At the start of 2001, as everyone agrees, CBO projected a surplus of $5.6 trillion. Over the decade, deficits of $6.2 trillion materialized. That's a swing of $11.8 trillion. What did CBO say were the causes? My friends on the other side might be surprised to learn.

Higher spending accounts for 44 percent of the change. Let me repeat that. Higher spending was the biggest driver of the deficits of the last decade. Economic and technical changes in the estimates accounted for 28 percent of the change. So all tax relief, including the tax relief passed by Democratic Congresses and tax relief signed into law by President Obama, accounts for 28 percent. The tax relief legislation, much maligned by our friends on the other side, accounts for less than half of the fiscal change attributable to tax relief. Specifically, the bipartisan tax relief bills of 2001 and 2003, including the AMT patches in those bills, accounted for 13.7 percent of the fiscal change of the last decade. That is not Orrin Hatch speaking. It's the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, CBO.

So how much of the bad fiscal history of the last decade is attributable to tax relief? Twenty-eight percent. That is it. And that includes partisan bills like the stimulus. If you isolate the bipartisan bills that are the object of sharp criticism by our friends on the other side, the 2001 and 2003 legislation, you'll find that those bills account for only 13.7 percent of the fiscal change in the last decade.

Abnormally low levels of spending contributed significantly to the surpluses of the 1990s. Abnormally high spending drove the deficits of the past decade. Abnormally high spending is driving our current deficits, and it will drive our future deficits as well.

To my friends on the other side, if we focus instead on hiking taxes way above their historic average, we are misreading and mistreating the problem. The reason for our previous surpluses was low spending. And the reason for our current deficits is high spending. We cannot tax our way to fiscal health.

But that said, for those of my friends on the other side who think that raising taxes is the key to our economic recovery and deficit reduction, I urge them to come to the floor and tell us how high they want to raise rates. What will do the trick? If higher taxes are the cure to our economic woes, do we want to go back to the pre-1986 reform rates of 50 percent? Or how about the Carter era rates of 70 percent? Or maybe even the pre-Kennedy rates of 91 percent? How high should rates go in order to bring down the deficit and spur our economic recovery?

I want to know and America wants to know.

Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute today to a remarkable woman, quintessential wife and mother, and superb first lady for the State of Utah--Colleen Monson Bangerter. Sadly she passed away on the evening of Friday, July 29, 2011, from the effects of Alzheimer's disease. She was at home, the place she loved to be with her husband former Utah Governor Norman H. Bangerter.

Colleen was a wonderful human being who was always willing to serve others. She served as Utah's first lady from 1985-1993, while her husband Norman H. Bangerter was the Governor. During her years as first lady she undertook many causes close to her heart, including teenage drug use, and challenges facing women and families. She hosted a yearly drug awareness conference for teens and took First Lady Nancy Reagan's Just Say No Program to every corner of the State. Additionally she hosted an annual conference on strengthening families to address the important challenges affecting the health and well-being of families across our great State.

She stood by her husband's side as he led Utah through a very important time in our State's history. They advocated for economic development and she was a tremendous ambassador for Utah as they met with leaders throughout the Nation and even overseas encouraging new business development.

Colleen not only excelled at the initiatives she undertook for our state, she also served in many capacities as she raised her children including the PTA, and in many important positions for her church--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Colleen and Norm presided over the Johannesburg, South Africa Mission from 1996-1999. In this role she was a kind, and loving asset to the many missionaries who joined them in the work in South Africa.

Colleen and Norm raised six children and one foster son. They now have 30 grandchildren and 18 great grandchildren. She was the light of her family and could always be found in the middle of the fun. She enjoyed spending time at their cabin in beautiful Utah, as well as their second home in St. George. She always made people feel welcome and embraced many who crossed their paths.

Colleen Bangerter will be very missed by her wonderful husband Norm and their family. There was a special warmth and goodness about this lady and I will never forget her twinkling eyes and bright smile. She was kind to all she met, and was a partner in every sense of the word to her husband. Elaine and I love Norm and Colleen very much, and hope that Norm and his

family will find some peace and comfort in the wonderful memories they share with this remarkable woman. Her life's work touched many lives and she will be forever remembered as someone who truly cared about others, and in doing good for her family and community.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, which if enacted, will establish a framework for global cooperation on the fight against cybercrime. As the United States continues to work on combating cybercrime here at home, we must simultaneously direct our attention to the international arena. With bipartisan support and valued input from affected industry, we have worked together on drafting a bill that encompasses reporting measures, action plans, and multilateral efforts in support of government cooperation to dismantle this global threat.

This bill increases the U.S. Government's focus on combating cybercrime internationally by requiring the President, or his designee, to annually report to Congress on the assessment of the cybercrime fighting efforts of the countries chosen by key federal agencies in consultation with private sector stakeholders. The countries to be reviewed are those with a significant role in efforts to combat cybercrime impacting U.S. Government, entities and persons, or disrupting U.S. electronic commerce or intellectual property interests.

Cyberspace remains borderless, with no single proprietor. Accordingly, the United States must take the lead on maintaining the openness of the Internet, while securing accountability. If a country is a haven for cybercrime, or simply has demonstrated a pattern of uncooperative behavior with efforts to combat cybercrime, that nation must be held accountable. The government of each country must conduct criminal investigations and prosecute criminals when there is credible evidence of cybercrime incidents against the U.S. government, our private entities or our people.

With so many U.S. companies doing business overseas, we must do our part to safeguard their employees, their jobs, and their clients from cyber attacks. Our objective is simple: We need international cooperation to increase assistance and prevention efforts of cybercrime from those countries deemed to be of cyber concern. Without international cooperation, our economy, security, and people will continue to be under threat.

Cybercrime is a tangible threat to the security of our global economy, which is why we need to coordinate our fight worldwide. Until countries begin to take the necessary steps to fight criminals within their borders, cybercrime havens will continue to flourish. Countries that knowingly permit cybercriminals to attack within their borders will now know that the United States is watching, the global community is watching, and there will be consequences for not acting.

Mr. President, after a contentious several months navigating the increase in the debt ceiling, Congress will be returning home in the next few days. I think many of us are anxious to go back to the States, where we will hear from our fellow citizens about their thoughts on what we are doing well and where we are falling short.

Getting out of Washington and returning to our States will be a relief, but I am fully aware that after this brief respite, we will come back to Washington in the fall with many more contentious issues still on our plates.

Our Nation is still on an unsustainable fiscal path, even with today's temporary resolution of the issues surrounding the debt ceiling. In addition, we have a government that has grown far too large and has taken on far too many obligations.

Today, with all these concerns in mind, I am joined by Senator Tom Coburn in introducing the Federal Workforce Reduction and Reform Act of 2011. If enacted, this bill will go a long way toward reducing the size of the Federal Government and helping to get our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Specifically, our bill would extend the current pay freeze for Federal civilian employees for another 3 years. Bonuses paid Federal employees would also be frozen during that time. Currently, Federal workers receive an automatic cost-of-living adjustment every year and are eligible for relocation, retention, and performance bonuses as well.

While I don't begrudge government employees their compensation, these automatic increases come with significant costs and far outpace those typically offered in the private sector. By simply extending the current pay freeze for another 3 years, we will save the Federal Government roughly $140 billion over 10 years.

In addition, our bill would require the President, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, to reduce the size of the Federal workforce by 15 percent-- roughly 300,000 employees--over the next 10 years. This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time.

The bill would require a similar reduction in the Federal contract workforce as well. We have nothing against Federal agencies contracting services out to private venders. However, the significant increase in this practice

over the last several years has masked the size of the Federal Government. Indeed, when you include the contract workforce, the Federal Government is even larger than it appears.

Our bill would require that the President work with OMB and OPM to count the number of employees working on Federal contracts and reduce that number by 15 percent over the next 10 years. This would provide an even greater reduction in the size of the Federal Government and save taxpayers another $230 billion over the next decade.

Finally, this bill would reduce the travel budgets of Federal agencies by 75 percent over time. All told, the Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year on travel expenses. Most businesses respond to difficult financial times by reducing or eliminating unnecessary expenses. Most private sector leaders would tell you that travel expenses are one of the first things on the chopping block. Furthermore, improvements in teleconferencing technology and web-based communication have made much of the government-sponsored travel that was required in the past unnecessary.

Our bill would cut Federal travel expenses in half for the first 2 years, and then by three quarters thereafter. This will save American taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $40 billion over 10 years.

Mr. President, our Nation is currently in the midst of a fundamental debate over the constitutional limits on the Federal Government. The President and his allies see no bounds for a living Constitution, while conservatives like myself believe that Federal power has far exceeded the Founders' limits and is a genuine threat to personal liberty.

While this debate will likely not be resolved anytime soon, most of us can agree that we need to take immediate steps to address our Nation's looming fiscal crisis. The deal that was approved today was a step in the right direction, but it was only one step. We must do more, and we can do more, to right our fiscal ship. Some may see things differently, but I don't see any way that we can restore the integrity of the Nation's fiscal position without significantly reducing the size and cost of the Federal Government. The bill we are introducing today would be an important and measurable step toward that goal.

According to the numbers and methodology used by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, these changes combined will save American taxpayers more than $600 billion over 10 years. These are significant numbers. They represent more than half of the deficit reduction required in the first part of the deal agreed to today, and they could easily be realized if we enact this small handful of relatively simple reforms.

I want to thank Senator Coburn--who continues to be a leader in the fight to bring us back to fiscal sanity--for his help and support on this bill. His has been a tireless voice against government excess and I am proud to join with him in this fight.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Federal Workforce Reduction and Reform Act of 2011.

Mr. President, today I have introduced the Employee Rights Act, a comprehensive workers' rights bill that would address many issues plaguing America's workers.

Our Nation's labor laws were designed to preserve the rights of employees to join labor unions and engage in collective bargaining. Contrary to what some may think, I am not anti-union and I do not want to stand in the way of unionization if the decision to unionize is truly the will of the employees. However, I believe that the right not to join a union is equally important. It is this right that far too often goes overlooked under our current laws, and particularly under policies implemented by unelected bureaucrats at various administrative agencies.

I am under no illusions that this legislation will be noncontroversial. There will most certainly be opposition. Indeed, I fully expect the unions and their supporters to come out against the Employee Rights Act, and characterize it as a radical, anti-union bill.

But, that just isn't the case. There is not a single provision in this bill that will empower employers at the expense of the union. The only parties whose position will be improved by the Employee Rights Act are employees. Anyone whose real concern is preserving the rights of individual workers should support this bill.

Let me take a few minutes to go over the specific provisions.

First, the bill would conform and equalize unfair labor practices by unions with those of employers under the National Labor Relations Act. Currently, under Section 8 of the NLRA, employers face penalties if they ``interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees'' in the exercise of their rights under the Act. The same section punishes labor organizations only if they ``restrain or coerce'' employees in the exercise of those same rights.

There is no reasonable or logical justification for this difference, and workers should have the benefit of equal protection against abuse from both sides. That is why, under the Employee Rights Act, both sides will be held to the higher standard.

Next, my bill would ensure that employees are guaranteed a right to a federally supervised, secret ballot vote before a union can be certified. According to the NLRB, 38 percent of all unions certified in 2009 did not have to go through a secret ballot election. Instead, these unions were able to use card checks to unionize employees. True enough, in such cases, employers voluntarily opted to recognize the union without demanding a secret ballot election. But what about the workers who wanted a secret ballot vote?

There is, of course, a long-standing debate over the integrity and appropriateness of card check elections. But even the most committed union supporter must admit that the card check process is unregulated and less reliable than a secret ballot vote. Indeed, that's exactly why the unions prefer it. Anyone who claims otherwise is either lacking in common sense, on a union's payroll, or both.

We have all heard the accounts of unions obtaining signatures through deception and intimidation. And, we've all heard about union organizing campaigns and boycotts that have all but forced employers to give up their right to demand a secret ballot vote. Well, Mr. President, under the Employee Rights Act, that right will belong to the employees, and it will be guaranteed.

For the record, the American people agree with me on this issue. Earlier this year, the Opinion Research Corporation conducted a poll of 1,000 adults that addressed a number of these issues. All told, 75 percent--three out of every four--were somewhere between strongly supportive and somewhat supportive of a rule requiring that all employees be given the right to a secret ballot election when deciding whether to join a union.

There is no way around it. If you are pro-worker, and not just pro- union, you have to support the right to a secret ballot.

Next, my bill would require every unionized workplace to conduct a secret ballot election every three years to determine whether a majority of employees still want to be represented by the union.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 10 percent of current union members voted for the union at their workplace. Most union members simply took jobs at sites that were already unionized, many of which require union membership as a condition of employment.

Under current law, if any of these employees want to decertify a union, they must go through an arduous process. It is a nearly impossible task. In addition to overcoming the many procedural hurdles provided by laws and regulations, they are required to speak out publicly against the union and subject themselves to public criticism, if not outright intimidation. Not surprisingly, very few even make the effort.

As a result, millions of American workers belong to unions they never voted for and will never get to vote for. No one who claims to support the rights of workers can argue that this is a good thing. Every citizen is guaranteed an opportunity to vote out their representatives in State, local, and Federal Government. Yet, a union, once certified, is in place for perpetuity. This just shouldn't be the case.

Once again, I am not alone in my thinking. In the same survey I cited earlier, 75 percent, again, 3/4 of those polled, supported a change that would require unions to be periodically recertified.

This proposal is not outlandish or punitive. It is simply common sense. It is fair to both employers and unions, and,

far more importantly, it is fair to workers.

Another provision of the bill would put a stop to the NLRB's current proposal to shorten the required length of time between the filing of a union certification petition and an election, commonly referred to as the quickie or snap election proposal.

With this proposed rule, which is set to be finalized later this year, the pro-union NLRB hopes to help unions catch unwitting employers unprepared. Although there is no specific timeline in the proposal, experts have concluded that, if the regulation is finalized, union elections could occur within 7 days of a union filing a petition. Even worse, the proposal would eliminate many of the pre-election opportunities to appeal the petition and to resolve fundamental issues, like the size and scope of the bargaining unit.

There is no need for this new rule. According to the NLRB, the average time between the filing of a petition and an election is 39 days. This gives both the union and the employer an opportunity to communicate their perspective on union membership to employees and ensures that workers are able to make informed decisions.

Though the current rule is eminently reasonable and appears to be working well for everyone, including the unions who already win the majority of elections, the Obama Administration can't risk losing the support of Big Labor. Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, recently remarked that this and other similar so-called reforms are effectively consolation prizes for the Democrats' loss in the fight to pass the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act.

Indeed, the Obama administration, for obvious reasons, has consistently been all too eager to stack the deck in favor of the unions. Since they haven't been able to do it through the legislative process, they're trying to do so via regulation.

Sadly, employees are caught in the middle. The NLRB doesn't care if they have enough time to consider all their options. They simply want to make sure the unions win more elections. To combat this, the Employee Rights Act would preserve substantive and procedural protections in the election process and ensure that workers have an opportunity to make informed decisions.

The bill would also prevent a union from ordering a strike or work stoppage unless it obtains the consent of a majority of the affected workforce through a secret ballot vote.

This is important because the rules governing when and how a union can order a strike are not uniform. They are determined by each union's constitution. There is no federal rule whatsoever requiring that unions obtain majority support before they can force members into unemployment and possible replacement.

Many would be surprised to learn that union strike funds, kept to provide financial assistance for striking union members, rarely pay more than 20 percent of an employee's salary during a work stoppage. And, more often than not, a member cannot receive any compensation for lost wages unless they participate on a picket line.

Isn't it only fair to give workers an opportunity to weigh in before a union orders a strike? Most people seem to think so. According to the same poll I mentioned earlier, 74 percent of Americans support this proposal.

Another provision of the Employee Rights Act would prevent an employee's union dues or fees from being used for purposes unrelated to the union's collective bargaining functions--including political contributions and expenditures--without that member's written consent.

Exit polls have shown that America's union members are almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, yet more than 90 percent of union political contributions go to Democrats. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, the reason why I expect strong opposition to this bill.

However I would like anyone who would oppose this provision to explain to me why it is fair to force workers to contribute to political campaigns at all, regardless of the party on the receiving end. Once again, the only people who would object to empowering individual workers in this way are those who have a vested interest in the status quo.

When asked about this issue, 78 percent of those polled agreed with this idea.

The Employee Rights Act would do several more things. It would make unions liable for lost wages, unlawfully collected union dues, and even liquidated damages if they coerce, intimidate, or discipline workers for exercising their rights under the NLRA, including the right to file a decertification petition. Any union found to have unlawfully interfered with the filing of a decertification petition would be barred from filing objections to the subsequent decertification vote.

The bill would also strengthen prohibitions on the use or threat of violence to achieve union goals, overturning an egregious Supreme Court decision that all but exempted unions from Federal racketeering statutes.

It would allow all affected workers, union and non-union alike, the same rights as union members to vote to ratify a collective bargaining agreement or to begin a strike.

These are not outlandish proposals. They would simply introduce some long-overdue common sense into our labor laws. Not surprisingly, polls have demonstrated that each of these ideas has broad support among the public.

We have had many fierce debates in this chamber about the role of labor unions in our nation's economy. In fact, I have been on the floor several times in the last week decrying the steps taken by the Obama Administration when it comes to helping out Big Labor.

But truthfully, I'm not interested in stopping unions from organizing or preventing collective bargaining. I simply want to protect the rights of individual workers and ensure that, if they do opt for union representation, that choice is freely made and fairly determined.

For too long, American workers have been treated by union leaders as little more than human ATMs. They claim to be progressives, supportive of equality and democracy and the working man. This bill is consistent with those principles, providing working men and women with a real and meaningful voice in decisions regarding unionization. It is supported by the National Right to Work Committee, and I am proud to have Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina introducing companion legislation in the House.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Employee Rights Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, which if enacted, will establish a framework for global cooperation on the fight against cybercrime. As the United States continues to work on combating cybercrime here at home, we must simultaneously direct our attention to the international arena. With bipartisan support and valued input from affected industry, we have worked together on drafting a bill that encompasses reporting measures, action plans, and multilateral efforts in support of government cooperation to dismantle this global threat.

This bill increases the U.S. Government's focus on combating cybercrime internationally by requiring the President, or his designee, to annually report to Congress on the assessment of the cybercrime fighting efforts of the countries chosen by key federal agencies in consultation with private sector stakeholders. The countries to be reviewed are those with a significant role in efforts to combat cybercrime impacting U.S. Government, entities and persons, or disrupting U.S. electronic commerce or intellectual property interests.

Cyberspace remains borderless, with no single proprietor. Accordingly, the United States must take the lead on maintaining the openness of the Internet, while securing accountability. If a country is a haven for cybercrime, or simply has demonstrated a pattern of uncooperative behavior with efforts to combat cybercrime, that nation must be held accountable. The government of each country must conduct criminal investigations and prosecute criminals when there is credible evidence of cybercrime incidents against the U.S. government, our private entities or our people.

With so many U.S. companies doing business overseas, we must do our part to safeguard their employees, their jobs, and their clients from cyber attacks. Our objective is simple: We need international cooperation to increase assistance and prevention efforts of cybercrime from those countries deemed to be of cyber concern. Without international cooperation, our economy, security, and people will continue to be under threat.

Cybercrime is a tangible threat to the security of our global economy, which is why we need to coordinate our fight worldwide. Until countries begin to take the necessary steps to fight criminals within their borders, cybercrime havens will continue to flourish. Countries that knowingly permit cybercriminals to attack within their borders will now know that the United States is watching, the global community is watching, and there will be consequences for not acting.

Mr. President, after a contentious several months navigating the increase in the debt ceiling, Congress will be returning home in the next few days. I think many of us are anxious to go back to the States, where we will hear from our fellow citizens about their thoughts on what we are doing well and where we are falling short.

Getting out of Washington and returning to our States will be a relief, but I am fully aware that after this brief respite, we will come back to Washington in the fall with many more contentious issues still on our plates.

Our Nation is still on an unsustainable fiscal path, even with today's temporary resolution of the issues surrounding the debt ceiling. In addition, we have a government that has grown far too large and has taken on far too many obligations.

Today, with all these concerns in mind, I am joined by Senator Tom Coburn in introducing the Federal Workforce Reduction and Reform Act of 2011. If enacted, this bill will go a long way toward reducing the size of the Federal Government and helping to get our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Specifically, our bill would extend the current pay freeze for Federal civilian employees for another 3 years. Bonuses paid Federal employees would also be frozen during that time. Currently, Federal workers receive an automatic cost-of-living adjustment every year and are eligible for relocation, retention, and performance bonuses as well.

While I don't begrudge government employees their compensation, these automatic increases come with significant costs and far outpace those typically offered in the private sector. By simply extending the current pay freeze for another 3 years, we will save the Federal Government roughly $140 billion over 10 years.

In addition, our bill would require the President, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, to reduce the size of the Federal workforce by 15 percent-- roughly 300,000 employees--over the next 10 years. This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time.

The bill would require a similar reduction in the Federal contract workforce as well. We have nothing against Federal agencies contracting services out to private venders. However, the significant increase in this practice

over the last several years has masked the size of the Federal Government. Indeed, when you include the contract workforce, the Federal Government is even larger than it appears.

Our bill would require that the President work with OMB and OPM to count the number of employees working on Federal contracts and reduce that number by 15 percent over the next 10 years. This would provide an even greater reduction in the size of the Federal Government and save taxpayers another $230 billion over the next decade.

Finally, this bill would reduce the travel budgets of Federal agencies by 75 percent over time. All told, the Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year on travel expenses. Most businesses respond to difficult financial times by reducing or eliminating unnecessary expenses. Most private sector leaders would tell you that travel expenses are one of the first things on the chopping block. Furthermore, improvements in teleconferencing technology and web-based communication have made much of the government-sponsored travel that was required in the past unnecessary.

Our bill would cut Federal travel expenses in half for the first 2 years, and then by three quarters thereafter. This will save American taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $40 billion over 10 years.

Mr. President, our Nation is currently in the midst of a fundamental debate over the constitutional limits on the Federal Government. The President and his allies see no bounds for a living Constitution, while conservatives like myself believe that Federal power has far exceeded the Founders' limits and is a genuine threat to personal liberty.

While this debate will likely not be resolved anytime soon, most of us can agree that we need to take immediate steps to address our Nation's looming fiscal crisis. The deal that was approved today was a step in the right direction, but it was only one step. We must do more, and we can do more, to right our fiscal ship. Some may see things differently, but I don't see any way that we can restore the integrity of the Nation's fiscal position without significantly reducing the size and cost of the Federal Government. The bill we are introducing today would be an important and measurable step toward that goal.

According to the numbers and methodology used by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, these changes combined will save American taxpayers more than $600 billion over 10 years. These are significant numbers. They represent more than half of the deficit reduction required in the first part of the deal agreed to today, and they could easily be realized if we enact this small handful of relatively simple reforms.

I want to thank Senator Coburn--who continues to be a leader in the fight to bring us back to fiscal sanity--for his help and support on this bill. His has been a tireless voice against government excess and I am proud to join with him in this fight.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Federal Workforce Reduction and Reform Act of 2011.