Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator Carper and Senator Casey to introduce the Startup Technical Assistance for Reemployment Training and Unemployment Prevention Act of 2011, or the STARTUP Act. This bill would allow unemployed Americans to use the unemployment insurance, UI, system to create jobs for themselves and for others.

In too many cases, the current unemployment assistance programs allow the experience and expertise of America's unemployed workers to sit on the sidelines. The STARTUP Act promotes an alternative approach that gives the unemployed the ability to start their own businesses and get in the game, self-employment assistance, SEA.

In Oregon, we have got this program up and running and think other states should be encouraged to do the same. By failing to take advantage of self-employment assistance, we are missing an opportunity to not only help currently unemployed workers but also to help our economy grow and create more jobs. I know this program works, its record in Oregon is strong and can be found in letters and testimony from individuals who have used the program.

Take, for example, software developers Adam Lowry and Michael Richardson who joined the ranks of the unemployed when the tech startup they worked at went under in 2009. With little capital, they turned to Oregon's self-employment assistance program which allowed them to draw unemployment benefits while they and two friends launched the mobile software development company Urban Airship, which is now one of the best-known technology startups to emerge in Oregon in recent years. Just yesterday, Urban Airship announced $15.1 million in strategic investment from Salesforce.com and Verizon, among others. Last week an additional acquisition brought the company's total payroll to 51 employees and an additional 22 open positions. At the root of Urban Airship's success are four entrepreneurial-minded individuals and a jump start from self-employment assistance.

Expanding self-employment assistance is a creative way to use the current unemployment insurance structure to create new businesses and additional jobs beyond that of the immediate beneficiary. We often talk about the benefits of small businesses in this country, yet our unemployment insurance programs actually prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from putting their ideas to work. Under the unemployment insurance systems in most states, if you stop looking for a job or you turn down a job, you lose your unemployment benefit even if you are working to start your own business. States with active self-employment assistance programs, like Oregon, allow a small percent of the unemployed to focus full time on starting their own business while drawing down their unemployment benefits in the form of self-employment assistance. Anyone who has started a new business knows that getting it off the ground is a full time job in and of itself, and allowing would-be UI recipients to focus full-time on their new business vastly increases their likelihood of success. Rather than rely on others to create jobs for them, self-employment assistance allows determined entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves and others.

The President's proposal in the American Jobs Act is a step in the right direction; it allows states to quickly enter into an agreement with the Department of Labor and allow the long-term unemployed, those on extended unemployment compensation, to draw down their UI benefits in the form of self-employment assistance. However, this does little to encourage states to make self-employment assistance a part of their permanent strategy. We must be more far-sighted. We ought to provide states with a little assistance so that they can start self-employment programs of their own, not just for periods of extended unemployment compensation.

I want to be clear: this is no giveaway. In order to get this benefit, unemployed workers have to meet the same wage and hour requirements as they would to receive UI and they must prove they have a viable business plan. The beneficiaries of self-employment assistance really have something to offer, they have solid work experience and solid ideas; and put into action, that combination can snowball into a successful business with multiple employees.

There are 2.5 million micro businesses in the U.S., representing 88 percent of all businesses. They generate $2.4 trillion in receipts, account for 17 percent of GDP, and employ more than 13 million people. If one out of every three of these businesses hired just one additional employee, the U.S. economy would achieve full employment. Expanding self-employment assistance helps us get there.

A study by the Department of Labor found that self-employment participants were 19 times more likely than eligible non-participants to be self-employed at some point after being unemployed. Moreover, they were four times more likely to obtain employment of any kind. The average cost to create each of those jobs is $3,350. According to estimates from Princeton economist and former Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Alan Blinder, it takes about $93,000 worth of garden- variety fiscal stimulus to create an average job. It is not hard to see that job creation through SEA is an incredible bargain.

This program has been creating jobs and businesses in Oregon for nearly two decades. Earlier this year, Pat Sanderlin, who coordinates Oregon's program, conducted an informal ``census'' of enrollees since 2004. He found that 77 percent of businesses started by SEA beneficiaries are still up and running. According to Mr. Sanderlin, the companies' combined annual payroll totals $7,888,210.

Despite widespread support for self-employment and entrepreneurial programs, only a handful of states offer SEA, and those that do take advantage of it typically administer benefits to a small share of the unemployed. Only about 2,400 Oregonians have used the program since its inception in 1995. Though states currently have the option of taking advantage of self-employment assistance, the administrative costs to start a new program often prevent them from doing so. Because Federal law prevents self-employment benefits from being paid out while an individual is in a period of extended unemployment, the long-term unemployed cannot take advantage of the program.

The STARTUP Act encourages states to utilize self-employment assistance by: allowing the long-term unemployed who remain eligible for regular or extended unemployment benefits to draw down those benefits in the form of self-employment assistance; providing technical assistance and model language from the Department of Labor for states that create new self-employment programs; and providing financial assistance to aid states in establishing, implementing, improving and/ or administering self-employment programs.

Self-employment benefits can serve as a guaranteed source of startup capital for businesses. And unlike traditional unemployment insurance, workers who successfully exit this program by starting their own business can create more new jobs as business expands. When unemployment is high and workers face extended periods of joblessness, this is exactly the type of program we should embrace.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to expand self- employment assistance programs so that more unemployed workers have an opportunity to create jobs for themselves and for others.

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

I ask to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about creating more good-paying jobs in America and how tax reform can play a key role in job creation if it is done right. As we all know, no Member of Congress has a piece of machinery on their desk that is a job creation device. We cannot just start something like this, press a button, and then after it whirs around a bunch of times it creates a lot of new jobs. New jobs do not just come shooting out that way. Nobody has a contraption like that in the Senate, and the reality is the President does not have one nor does anybody else in America.

But there are policies that are relevant to how we create more good- paying jobs, and those involve first looking at what has worked in the past and, second, what hard, objective data is relevant to the future. Nobody can know the ideal, sure-fire way to create jobs, but we can document what has worked in the past.

In the case of comprehensive tax reform, what we know is that after the 1986 Tax Reform Act where Democrats and Republicans cleaned out scores of tax preferences to hold down marginal rates and keep progressivity, our country created 6.3 million new jobs in those 2 years after that tax reform was enacted. I am not going to say on the floor of the Senate that each and every one of those jobs was the result of tax reform, but certainly independent authorities point to that tax reform effort as a key factor in creating those jobs. With at least 14 million Americans out of work in our country right now, it would be legislative malpractice for Congress to ignore the facts that document the results of the last tax reform effort in job creation.

When we look at the possibilities should we not pay special attention to what has worked in the past? The reality is, as the Presiding Officer knows, our country has tried just about every other tool in the economic toolbox. We have seen the Recovery Act. We have seen that the Fed is essentially all in with its program of quantitative easing. We have had a whole host of other initiatives in the housing area and in the automobile area and a whole host of other areas. The fact is, the one tool in the economic toolshed that nobody has picked up is fundamental tax reform. It is my view that it is time for the Congress, working with the President, to pick up on a proven model that a host of progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans, led by a conservative Republican President, deployed 25 years ago to spur economic growth and create millions of new jobs, which I think we all understand our people in our economy need desperately.

Given that success, it is no wonder that Democrats and Republicans, as well as economists and think-tanks and bipartisan commissions, are again calling for the Congress to take up the cause of tax reform. We are very hopeful the bipartisan Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction can also bring together Democrats and Republicans as part of their work to lay out the strategy for moving ahead on tax reform.

There is no shortage of good reasons for Congress to look at this particular approach to job creation. It is bipartisan, it has been proven before, and certainly the basic principles--simplifying the Tax Code, cleaning out the clutter, and holding down rates across the board--make just as much sense today as they did a quarter century ago.

It has been argued that since the last change in our tax law there have been close to 15,000 tax changes--one for almost every working day year in and year out. So what we have on our hands now is a dysfunctional antigrowth mess. That is why I think it is particularly important that we look at moving now rather than waiting until another election or taking a detour to reform only the corporate Tax Code while, for example, leaving small businesses and working families stuck with the same broken Tax Code they have today.

Let me point out to those who say we cannot do tax reform in a divisive climate, a divided Congress and White House, as we move into an election, the fact is fundamental tax reform was passed on the eve of an election a quarter century ago--passed on the eve of an election. I say that because I know one of the fundamental architects of that tax reform, Senator Packwood, whose seat I now hold in the Senate, was not available for the bill signing because he had a community event back home.

The fact is, there is an opportunity now to move ahead with comprehensive tax reform. We have good people who have expertise in tax law on the supercommittee--Chairman Baucus, Senator Kerry, Congressman Camp, Senator Portman--Democrats and Republicans who have been involved in budget and tax issues for years and years with great expertise on these issues.

I want to take just a minute this afternoon to discuss some eye- opening new information on an issue that I know is being debated in the Congress, and my sense is the supercommittee is looking at it as well; that is, the question of splitting tax reform into separate corporate and individual pieces.

Last week, the Joint Committee on Taxation issued an important report that all Members ought to pay close attention to as Congress looks at tax reform as part of either a potential debt deal or other legislation. The reason I want to discuss it this afternoon is we all understand as part of the legislative process just about everything is negotiable, but there is one thing that is not negotiable--that is the accuracy of the numbers.

When the official number cruncher for taxes says they cannot make the numbers add up, Members of the Senate and the Congress have to pay attention. The new report by the Joint Committee on Taxation says--and, of course, they are the official scorekeeper for tax policy--the Congress essentially has a choice to make. We can either provide all American companies significantly lower tax rates or we can allow multinational companies to continue to avoid paying taxes on their overseas income. But the Joint Committee on Taxation says it is really not possible to do both. There is not enough money in the corporate Tax Code to do both without further increasing the budget deficit.

The Joint Committee was asked to provide its estimate of the lowest corporate rate that could be achieved by eliminating corporate tax expenditures, the various credits, deductions, and exemptions that lower the actual amount of taxes our businesses pay. In response, the joint committee estimated that 28 percent is the lowest possible corporate rate that could be achieved from eliminating corporate tax breaks and still not increase the deficit--in effect, be revenue neutral.

Mr. President, 28 percent is certainly lower than the current top rate, but it is higher than what--certainly many in the business community and the Congress have argued--is needed for U.S. companies to be competitive in the global economy. Most in the business community want to lower the top rate to 25 percent or even lower. The joint committee has determined that 28 percent is the lowest the corporate rate can be reduced to without adding to the deficit.

This new report by the Joint Committee on Taxation ought to be a real wake-up call in Washington, DC. For

example, many companies not only argue that Congress can get the corporate rate down to 25 percent or even lower, but they also want to keep many of the tax breaks they now get under the current Tax Code. The joint committee's report makes clear that cannot be done without increasing the Federal deficit. And even the Joint Committee's 28- percent rate estimate was filled with all sorts of caveats, little kinds of ``look out, there may be more to the story'' kinds of warnings about the difficulty of limiting tax breaks now available to all businesses so they can no longer be claimed by corporations.

If tax breaks are eliminated for corporations but not for other businesses--remember, most businesses, as we know, are sole proprietors or limited partnerships and LLCs and the like--corporations may end up converting their businesses into other types of tax structures. If that happens, the savings from eliminating corporate tax rates would be less so that the corporate rate could end up even higher than 28 percent. That is one example of how it is very hard to repeal tax breaks just for corporations and not for other businesses.

In making their estimate, the Joint Committee looked at repealing literally scores of corporate tax breaks--everything from research to specific breaks for energy, housing, transportation, education, training, and others. But there is one important tax break that was not considered as part of the Joint Committee's analysis, and that is the ability of U.S. multinationals to avoid paying taxes on their overseas income as long as they keep that money overseas. This is the tax break that is known as deferral. Significantly, the Joint Committee has done a separate analysis of the amount of revenue that could be generated by repealing deferral. If you repeal deferral and impose related limits on foreign credits to prevent gaming, you take that step and the total comes to an eye-popping $568 billion over 10 years. That comes from an estimate the Joint Committee has done for a bipartisan group of us who have been working on this issue for the last 5 years.

I initially started working on this with our former colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and most recently with Senator Coats and Senator Begich. The four of us have worked very closely on this over the last few years. If you make the changes we have made in deferral and related foreign credits that you ought to change to prevent gaming, it is possible to slash rates for all of our businesses so you can get down to 24 percent, particularly for the corporate rate, and have additional relief for small businesses. We have some ideas for how you could drive the rate lower than 24 percent. That is something I think could be a real shot in the arm to businesses in Connecticut, Oregon, and across the country. It surely would do something about creating red, white, and blue jobs so we would have more jobs here in the United States so we could put our people back to work in the manufacturing sector and the other parts of our economy that are so important. So that is the choice.

According to the Joint Committee's estimate--these are the official scorekeepers for taxes--there are two alternative ways to lower corporate tax rates. One keeps deferral, this break for doing business overseas, and then the lowest rate, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, would be 28 percent. The other takes away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, eliminates deferral, and dramatically drives the rate for our businesses down 24 percent.

As I have indicated, our bipartisan coalition has some ideas for getting it even lower. So it is important to point out that the lower 24-percent rate would apply to every U.S. company, whether it has overseas operations or not. U.S. manufacturers and retailers and other domestic businesses all would benefit from this kind of approach, lower tax rates. All U.S. businesses would have more money to invest in new equipment and hiring workers here in our country--in Connecticut, in Oregon, and all of our States. By contrast, while all businesses would get some help from a 28-percent rate, the biggest winners are those with significant operations overseas, thousands and thousands of miles from our shores. By continuing deferral, those businesses that operate overseas, those companies pay a zero rate on their overseas income. With that rate differential, there would still be a strong incentive for some of those very large businesses to target their investments, to lower tax overseas operations at the expense of investment and job creation here at home. So it should be obvious that the last thing the Congress ought to be doing in this current economic climate is to take actions that will hurt job creation. With so many people out of work, we obviously need to focus on steps to create jobs, not reward those that, in effect, ship the jobs overseas, ship the investments overseas, the investments in the jobs we need so much here at home.

We can do more for all U.S. businesses, workers, and their families through comprehensive tax reform than just by going forward with corporate-only reform. In fact, it is possible to do more for businesses, get a lower rate--I want to emphasize this--for all our businesses in America, significantly lower so they will be more competitive in tough global markets. I am not saying that tax policy is the only consideration in terms of creating jobs. I chair the International Trade Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee, and I have long taken as my major objective to do more to grow things here in America, to make things here in America, to add value to them here, and to ship them somewhere. There is a whole host of trade and regulatory policies that factor into this. But certainly we ought to agree that at a time when comprehensive tax reform is the one tool in the economic toolshed that has not been used--and there is a chance to take away tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas so we can get more tax relief for Americans here at home--we ought to be picking up on that opportunity.

I hope all my colleagues who are going to be part of this tax reform debate over the next few weeks--and I think it is inevitable because more and more debate is focused on tax reform, whether it ought to be corporate only--look at how you would go about pursuing it in a bipartisan way. I hope those colleagues will take a look at the new report done by the Joint Committee on Taxation. What they have made clear is that there is not enough money in the corporate tax code to get the lower rate companies want as long as some of these multinationals can continue to keep the money overseas and avoid paying U.S. taxes. Having worked on this issue with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for about the last 5 years, and watching as the economic debate goes forward, with our people hungry for new jobs, I hope colleagues will see, No. 1, there is a real lesson to be learned from what was done in 1986 where progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans came together on the eve of an election--by the way, the 1986 election. I think it is also fair to say that after tax reform, both sides did pretty well. Both sides did pretty well in the Congress and in terms of controlling the White House.

The fact is this is a chance to take a big step to help our people who are hurting now. There are 14 million people out of work. I hope colleagues will look at that new report prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation and look at the history of how in 2 years a quarter century ago we came together, Democrats and Republicans, and passed fundamental tax reform based on the same kind of principles Senator Gregg, Senator Coats, Senator Begich, and I have worked on for the last 5 years, cleaning out special interest breaks, special interest preferences, cleaning out scores of them and using that money to hold down marginal rates and keeping progressivity so we have a sense of fairness. Everybody wins.

Many of our colleagues feel passionately about economic fairness. I certainly do. I know the President of the Senate does as well. Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have focused on economic opportunity. With fundamental tax reform, we can have both and do it in a bipartisan way. It means picking up on the one tool in the economic toolshed that has not been used.

I will be back on the floor of this Senate to talk about this again. It is one of the reasons why I wanted to serve on the Senate Finance Committee, to tackle these fundamental

issues of taxes and health care. We have had a very constructive set of hearings on tax reform chaired by Chairman Baucus and ranking minority member Senator Hatch. I am very hopeful that at a time when our people are so hungry for new jobs, good jobs, high-paying jobs, that we will pick up on this opportunity to bring Democrats and Republicans together, as we were on this issue a quarter century ago in enacting fundamental tax reform.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts. He has said much this afternoon that I certainly agree with.

I also want to touch on one other point about the Senator's work--the Senator from Massachusetts--in this area. The public, perhaps more than anything else, is talking about why people in Washington, DC, cannot work together, why we can't come up with ways to build coalitions. I am not sure people picked up on it in the Senator's remarks, particularly with respect to China. They are investing far more than we are. But he has pulled together the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO for an infrastructure package. That doesn't happen by osmosis or because somebody puts out a press release. He put in the time to try to build that coalition, which, of course, is key to getting bipartisan support up here. I want the Senator to know I very much appreciate it. I know he brought exactly the same approach to his work on the supercommittee, trying to find common ground on some of the most challenging issues so that we will generate growth and deal with health care costs.

I have some remarks to make, but I am glad I had a chance to listen to the Senator from Massachusetts because I thought the point he made about bringing people together was important. And I hope people will say, as we look at this transportation package--I just want to get on the bill, frankly, so we can open other kinds of ideas. The Senator has put in a lot of time, and it paid off with coalitions such as the chamber of commerce and the AFL-CIO. That is the kind of approach that will solve some of these big problems.

Mr. President, my sense is that if you tune in on the Senate today--and, of course, the ways of the Senate are always hard to follow. The occupant of the chair is involved in changing the rules of the Senate and has a sense of what I am talking about. You try to figure out what the Senate is up to, and at this point you have learned that today the Senate is working on infrastructure. You hear that word again and again. You roll your eyes and you say: Wake me when the potholes get fixed.

What I want to do for a few minutes this afternoon is try to tie this to what I believe is first and foremost on the minds of the American people, and that is jobs. That is what we hear about morning, noon, and night.

The fact is that we cannot have big-league economic growth in America with little-league transportation systems. It is not possible. If our bridges and roads are falling apart, we simply cannot have the growth we need, and job growth is the No. 1 issue for our people, and literally infrastructure improvement--roads, bridges, and transportation systems and jobs are two sides of the same coin. They go hand in hand. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 is on the question of how we stack up to some of our competitors worldwide. If we can't move goods and services efficiently in this country, our businesses are practically in the position where they have to put up a sign and say: We cannot compete with China because when China is making

these kinds of investments that we heard Senator Kerry and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about in the last few days, you know what we are up against.

Transportation is the key to moving goods and services efficiently. We have bottlenecks, for example, in my part of the country, in the metropolitan area and, frankly, in rural areas where people could not have dreamed there would be a traffic jam even a few years ago.

Point No. 3 is there is no economic multiplier in our country like transportation. When you make well-targeted investments in transportation, you create jobs for the folks who are building those projects, you create jobs for the people who are selling the equipment, you are creating jobs for folks such as the people in the restaurants who make the ham sandwiches for the workers who are out there building the projects and trying to find ways to help our people avoid traffic and save gas as they try to get to and from work. So this is a big economic multiplier.

And, No. 4, Mr. President, as you know from your experience as a westerner, the history of our part of the world is that private investment has always followed well-targeted public investments. You look all over the West and the great distances our folks have to travel, and you will see again and again the key to getting more private sector investment. In my view, the key to economic recovery is the private sector job growth that is behind the tax reform bill I have with Senator Coats--the first bipartisan tax reform bill. We need private sector job growth in the West. The history of our region is that private sector employment has traditionally followed well-targeted public investments.

What I want to see us do--and what the vote that is coming up is all about--is to have a chance to move to the bill. If we move to the bill, I believe there are all kinds of opportunities for Democrats and Republicans, through amendments and a variety of opportunities, to exchange ideas and to come up with bipartisan approaches. I have had a chance to be part of those kinds of discussions in the last few years.

Look, for example, at the common ground that has developed between Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe on the Environment and Public Works Committee. They are making a lot of progress in reauthorizing a transportation bill. That is only one example here in the Senate of Democrats and Republicans coming together.

Let me cite two others. In the Economic Recovery Act, I had a chance in the Senate Finance Committee to advance an idea I have been working on for more than 5 years. There was a very large and bipartisan group of us who worked on it. Former Senator Talent was the original Republican, but Senator Thune was involved, Senator Wicker, Senator Collins, and a very large bipartisan group working with colleagues on our side of the aisle. The Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, is one who comes to mind, who has been a very thoughtful advocate of improvements in transportation. So in the Senate Finance Committee, as we moved forward with the Economic Recovery Act, Chairman Baucus and then ranking minority member Senator Grassley, in effect, said: Well, we have been hearing about some of these ideas this bipartisan group has been advancing. Let's give them a chance to make their case. I offered the proposal to create something called Build America Bonds. This was a chance to, for the first time, move the Federal Government into the bonding area. It has long been done, of course, at the State and local level, and it received good reviews from the private sector.

I recall the day when Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley asked me what I predicted in terms of the results of the Build America Bonds. I said: We have gotten basically about a year and a half. As you know, the Recovery Act was passed in the winter of 2009, and the IRS had to implement the rules. But when we wrapped up the period for which we issued Build America bonds, more than $181 billion worth of Build America bonds had been used all across the country for capital infrastructure projects. They had been used in big projects on the east coast of the United States--the New Jersey Turnpike was one--and they had been used for roads in southern Oregon.

If you want to talk efficiency, look at the Web site of our State treasurer, Ted Wheeler, who said they were saving in our State 10 percent by issuing these Build America bonds.

I see my friend from California is here, Senator Feinstein, and I believe California was one of the largest users of Build America bonds. To have a program that was envisioned as perhaps selling $5 billion or $36 billion worth of bonds selling more than $180 billion is an example of what we can do on a bipartisan basis that will put people to work and will actually save money.

The savings we found in Oregon can also be illustrated by the analysis done by the Department of the Treasury that finds the same sort of savings we found in Oregon.

With respect to the Build America bonds, in some respects they were too successful. People said: Oh, perhaps they are being used for more kinds of projects than was acceptable to some people. So once again we said, we are going to come back and try to find a way to generate bipartisan support. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, and I got together and we put forward another proposal--a different version--that we call the TRIP program--the Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Program. Our plan would allow State infrastructure banks to issue bonds to pay for transportation projects, once again having a small supportive role from the Federal Government. The folks who run the numbers at the Joint Committee on Taxation say that with this bipartisan proposal--a Republican from North Dakota, a Democrat from the State of Oregon--it would be possible to get $50 billion worth of transportation projects with this model, with only $12 billion worth of cost over 10 years.

I only illustrate this fact to suggest that if it is possible to get on the bill, I think we are going to see colleagues on the Republican and the Democratic side look to try to cooperate and find some common ground. Senator Kerry made the point about the infrastructure bank, how we got the support of the Chamber of Commerce, Senator Graham and Senator Hutchison and others. I have gone through some of the history of other transportation efforts--that progress is being made now with Senator Boxer and Inhofe on the transportation bill; and the Build America bonds effort, which produced a thirtyfold increase over what was anticipated, literally revolutionizing the municipal bond market and was utilized for big projects, such as the New Jersey Turnpike, and small projects, such as roads in southern Oregon; and now if we can go to this bill--and that is what the vote is all about, whether we actually get on the bill--we will be able to offer alternatives and ideas. Frankly, the provisions that are in the bill in its current form, I don't see how anybody can be against them. The question of highway repair is about as fundamental a function of government as anything one can imagine. So there is plenty in this bill I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle could support.

I have cited a number of examples of bipartisanship in this area, where we can do more in the infrastructure field while we save money, and I hope colleagues will vote--I gather the vote will be tomorrow--to move to the bill and give us a chance to get serious about what I think is central to growing the American economy and at well-targeted investments in transportation.

To me, the question of job creation and infrastructure are literally two sides of the same coin, so I hope the Senate moves to this legislation tomorrow and begins to beef up our effort to deal with a fundamental part of job creation in this country. It is so fundamental that in much of the country, if we don't make the investments, it will literally be the equivalent of saying to our businesses: Put up a sign that says you are not going to be in a position to compete with China right now; come back another time. That is unacceptable to me and to Oregon businesses and Oregon workers. That is why I hope my colleagues will vote to go to the bill.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Ayotte, Begich, Heller, Merkley, and Shaheen to submit a simple but important bipartisan resolution. Our resolution simply expresses a sense of the Senate that the government should not sack small online businesses with any new tax collecting mandates that would hurt their competitiveness, hurt economic recovery, hurt competition, and harm consumers.

The Internet is transforming the way that commerce is conducted. It is leveling the playing field so that the marketplace--whether for goods and services or for ideas--is less and less dominated by the big and by the powerful. The Internet is democratizing information, speech, and making it easier to exchange ideas as well as goods and services.

The legal regime that the United States currently has in place, which facilitates e-commerce, must be protected. Our Constitution and laws such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which I championed and protect e-commerce platforms from litigation and small e-commerce businesses from being crushed by layers and layers of state and local taxes, are the pillars that support America's e-commerce platforms and online entrepreneurs' ability to compete.

Everyone in this body recognizes that small businesses are the engines of our economy. They are responsible for the bulk of innovation and job creation in this country--job creation that is so desperately needed right now. In this difficult economic period, however, many State and local governments are facing budgetary shortfalls. It is a difficult challenge that I am sure all of my colleagues recognize, but State budget gaps should not be filled by imposing new tax collecting mandates on the very types of businesses that we rely on to innovate and create the new jobs of tomorrow. But that is what some people are suggesting that Congress allow. I am opposed to that right now, especially given the economic challenges that we face.

Let me give just one example of why we shouldn't upset the legal regime that is currently working to foster innovation, encourage e- commerce and interstate economic activity and which supports jobs. Without the regime that we have in place, a small online retailer, whether it is someone that is selling new merchandise or used merchandise, would be responsible for collecting sales tax for up to 15,000 different sales tax jurisdictions. That is just not a reasonable thing to expect. That is not a reasonable thing to expect particularly, say, from a stay-at-home parent who sells household goods online to supplement the family's income. Or a college student who buys and sells used merchandise online to help finance the increasingly higher costs of attending college. We don't want to saddle online entrepreneurs like these with new tax collecting responsibilities that will, in effect, put them right out of business.

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to build support for this resolution and to ensure that we keep the policies in place that enable small businesses, including online businesses, to have a policy environment that allows them to innovate and create good American jobs.

Mr. President, on November 4, one of the Oregon National Guard's most remarkable military leaders will retire: BG Charles Yriarte.

General Yriarte has served the citizens of Oregon, and the United States, in the Oregon National Guard for over 40 years. He joined as a private and has held numerous positions, including troop commander, battalion commander, brigade commander, and is ending his service as an assistant adjutant general.

Oregonians hold the men and women of our National Guard in high regard, and General Yriarte is one example of why. While serving as a model citizen soldier, he has raised his children, maintained a civilian career as a U.S. Forest Service civil servant and also assisted his family with their cattle ranch in Burns, OR. His dedication to his family runs deep. When General Yriarte was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, the ceremony was held at St. Charles Hospital in Bend, Oregon, so his father, who was undergoing treatment, could be present. But, when duty has called, General Yriarte has always answered, many times at great sacrifice to himself. Joining the Forest Service in 1974 was his dream job, but after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he took on a number of critical full-time assignments in the Oregon National Guard.

General Yriarte deployed to Iraq shortly after the war commenced and was placed in charge of Joint Base Ballad, in an extremely hazardous environment, with the duty of making the base functional for U.S. and allied soldiers. General Yriarte worked to improve relations with local leaders to lessen the daily mortar attacks and reduce the threat to his soldiers and the base in the early stages of the war. This outreach was a tremendous success and led to a strong relationship and enduring friendship with many of the local community leaders. His tireless effort to secure the base ensured the safety of several thousand servicemembers on base and reduced the attacks and violence outside the perimeter. General Yriarte accomplished this

mission in spectacular fashion and he successfully returned his unit to Oregon with no casualties.

In each command, the units under him excelled in every way. His mentorship of young officers and noncommissioned officers has been truly exceptional. The soldiers that he has taught are now serving in the most important positions in the Oregon National Guard. These soldiers will have positive impacts on the institution for decades to come. General Yriarte's legacy will be lasting and profound within the Oregon National Guard.

To understand General Yriarte's ability to inspire, here is what he said during his unit's homecoming event:

Every person in this room has sacrificed. I wouldn't be

here today without your sacrifices. You did this country

great, and I applaud you. This room is filled with heroes

both past and present. I went to Iraq because I love my

country. I found out that the Iraqis are good people and like

everyone are looking for safety for themselves and their

families. I already knew, but it was proven that American

soldiers never quit. They do their job. You are this nation's

greatest generation, and you became leaders when you came

home. Our soldiers are doing that now. Our nation is great,

we remain great. . . .

These words also say an enormous amount about him.

So, if I can use the general's own words, let me say that general, you have sacrificed. Your country is better because of your many sacrifices. You have done your State and Nation proud. You are a giant to all you have touched and your love of home and country are an inspiration. You have protected everyone in your charge. You have always given your best. Our Nation will remain great because we have men and women like you in every generation. Like the great military leaders before you, your words and action will positively influence our Nation far into the future.

Therefore, it is my honor and great privilege to commend BG Charles Yriarte, assistant adjutant general, Oregon National Guard, for his more than 40 years of service to our country. Mr. President, today, I join my fellow Oregonians in recognition and celebration of the great achievements of Brigadier General Yriarte, as he begins this new chapter in his life with his beloved wife Christine.

Mr. President, I rise today to advocate for increasing Medicare efficiency and effectiveness by introducing the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers, SMART, Act of 2011 with my colleagues, Senators Portman, Ben Nelson, and Burr.

The SMART Act initiates common sense changes to the Medicare Secondary Payer, MSP, system, as a means of achieving that efficiency and effectiveness. This system kicks in whenever a Medicare beneficiary is injured and another party accepts responsibility to pay for the costs associated with that injury, making Medicare the ``secondary payer.'' For example, if a Medicare beneficiary is injured when she slips in a store the store reimburses her for the costs of the injury. In this scenario the store becomes the party responsible for paying the costs associated with the injury, and if Medicare pays any of the costs associated with the injury, it has to be reimbursed. The purpose of this system is to ensure that Medicare does not pay claims that a third party is liable for. Although seemingly obvious, the system currently on the books is set up in manner that is unnecessarily burdensome to all parties involved in these claims.

At the heart of the problem is the lack of financial disclosure by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Under the current MSP system, CMS does not calculate the MSP amount owed to the Trust Fund until after a claim has settled, making it impossible for the parties to factor that amount into the settlement process. Even after the claim has been settled and reported to Medicare, it can take months for the parties to find out how much money is actually owed in reimbursement.

Does this make any sense at all? Of course not. The beneficiary has no idea what portion of the settlement will be left after the payment is made to Medicare, the third party responsible for the bill has no way of knowing whether or not the amount settled upon will be sufficient to fully reimburse Medicare, and the Medicare Trust Fund is denied much needed funds because of the uncertain settlement process.

It is clear that the repercussions of our inefficient MSP system are widespread. Individual beneficiaries and businesses large and small are left in the dark. On top of that, State and local governments that settle personal injury and worker compensation claims also fall victim to these long, drawn out settlements which costs a significant amount of money at a time when budgets are especially tight.

The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today provides a straightforward and commonsense solution. The SMART Act would create a more effective and efficient MSP process for all parties involved, while speeding the return of Medicare Trust Fund dollars. This legislation will improve the flow of information so that beneficiaries and companies may determine how much money is owed to the Trust Fund before they settle a claim. This change will enable parties to calculate the MSP amount they owe and reimburse Medicare directly, and it will provide CMS with tools to ensure that Medicare is fully reimbursed.

Medicare beneficiaries and businesses will no longer be forced to play this real life version of ``Price is Right,'' where Medicare plays the Bob Barker/Drew Carey role and the other parties are forced to guess at how much is owed.

The SMART Act will also preserve taxpayer resources by ensuring that Medicare does not spend more money pursuing these cases than the claim is actually worth. There have been reports of MSP demands as low as $2--CMS should not be spending more money on postage than the Medicare Trust Fund will receive in reimbursement. Surely we can create a sensible threshold that will protect Medicare's interest and prevent parties from gaming the system without wasting government money chasing down elderly beneficiaries to collect a handful of quarters.

In addition to streamlining the MSP system the SMART Act will protect consumers by eliminating the requirement for businesses to collect Social Security Numbers or Medicare numbers during the claims process. This is in line with a recently launched Medicare campaign which encourages beneficiaries not to give out these numbers as an important tool in fighting health care fraud and identity theft. We should not be sending seniors mixed messages or punishing businesses that are unable to obtain this information, despite their best efforts, from understandably reticent seniors.

The SMART Act will provide much needed clarity to the MSP system and will relieve the burden that is currently placed on all parties involved in the process.

I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.

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

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

Madam President, international trade has always been controversial. That has been true since the days of the Smoot-Hawley effort--Hawley, by the way, was an Oregon Congressman--and it continues to be true today. It is important to our country and important to my home State that I made a special priority, when I was given the honor of serving on the Senate Finance Committee, to queue up to be able to chair the Subcommittee on International Trade and Global Competitiveness, because I think it important that we continue our work here in the Senate to keep pushing to keep our trade policy on the right track.

I wish to describe today three aspects of this debate that are indisputable. In other words, we have lots of differences of opinion with respect to past agreements--did they create jobs, did they not create jobs, and how did they affect various parts of the country--and suffice it to say reasonable people can differ with respect to these analyses. But I have been able, as the chair of this subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee--the Subcommittee on International Trade and Global Competitiveness--to dig deeply into this issue.

I believe there are three indisputable positions with respect to the agreements we will be voting on tonight that the Senate ought to take into consideration that are at the core of why I will be voting later this evening in favor of the agreements.

The first position is there is a huge appetite all around the world for American goods and services. We are the gold standard. People around the world want to buy Brand USA. They want to display it. They want to feature it. There is no question that we have an opportunity to feed this huge demand for American goods and services. I think we ought to go forward and tap this opportunity. The bottom line is if we don't take this opportunity to burnish this Brand America and get our goods and services around the world, we can be very sure that somebody else will be right there, and it is most likely to be China. That is point No. 1. I think it is indisputable.

Point No. 2 is the challenge today in global markets is to capture the entire supply chain. That means everything from raw materials to component parts to the finished good. When I talk about this opportunity to capture the global supply chain, what it means to me in Oregon, and I think it means the same thing in North Carolina or South Dakota--I see my friend and colleague, who is the ranking member on the trade subcommittee, and it has been a pleasure for me to work with him--and I think all over the United States, capturing this supply chain in the global economy means the same thing, and that is what we ought to do--what I say at home in Oregon and I am sure my friend in South Dakota says exactly the same thing, let us grow it in Oregon, let us make it in Oregon, let us add value to it in Oregon, and then let us ship it somewhere. It is a huge opportunity we have in front of us to tap this global supply chain where, once again, if we walk away from this kind of opportunity, we can be very certain that China will be right there to fill the void.

The third issue involves the question of tariffs. I have heard people say, well, these agreements have lots of other things in them, lots of other provisions that are unrelated to tariffs. There is no question that is accurate. But at the end of the day, if American import tariffs are in low and American goods are faced with very high tariffs when they arrive into foreign markets, that is a very substantial advantage for our trading partners. As I highlighted yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, when we want to send our beef, Oregon beef, to Korea, we sometimes face a 40-percent tariff. When Korea sends their beef to us here in the United States, it can be as low as 4 percent. That is a tenfold difference.

I could go through a whole host of other products.

Oregon wine faces a tariff in Korea that is fifteen times higher than wine that is imported into the U.S.

Value-added wood products. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina, cares an awful lot about wood products. Well, the fact of the matter is, if we want to send finished wood into Korea--not the raw materials. We all know what we want to do, again, is add value to wood products, a key component of the Pacific northwest's economy, of the southern economy. We want to add value to it. Well, the fact is, the tariffs are four times as high for finished wood products in Korea as they are here in the United States.

These are indisputable facts: the question of the tariffs, the question of the global supply chain, and the Brand USA opportunity I have described as this huge appetite for American goods and services that exists around the world that I think we will be making a grave mistake to pass up an opportunity to level the playing field by dismantling foreign trade barriers to U.S. goods and services, whether they are tariffs or otherwise. The free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama provide us an opportunity to level the playing field for U.S. producers who would like to feed the appetite for American goods and services in Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

There are a lot of other issues associated with the votes we are going to have to cast. I feel very strongly about the trade adjustment assistance program because I want to make sure, in an economy that is constantly changing, our workers have a trampoline, in effect, to get the training and the skills they need to succeed, which may mean moving into new careers. People think the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is just about workers. This is a crucial program for employers, and that is why it has so much support among employers. Employers need workers with the types of skills that enable them to be competitive in global markets, and trade adjustment assistance helps in this regard.

By the way, one of the concerns business is continually citing, and increasingly so, is the mismatch they often face where they need workers who have one sort of skill but the workers in their community do not have what they need. So, with the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, we can close that skills gap, we can do more to ensure businesses can get the type of workers they can rely on to be efficient and competitive. So, the idea that trade adjustment assistance is just for workers is a mistake. It is a major plus to our employers. Oversight over trade adjustment assistance is going to be one of the things that the subcommittee on trade, which I chair, is going to zero in on.

Worker issues: Another one we will be looking at on the subcommittee involves issues relating to workers rights under the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. There, our concern is violence--demonstrable, serious violence against Colombian union members and the impunity the perpetrators of such violence have enjoyed.

This situation does seem to be getting a bit better. The Santos administration understands the concern. There is an agreement with Colombia on an action plan on labor that sets in motion a series of steps the Colombian Government is taking to provide workers with more adequate labor rights and protection from violence. But there is a lot more to do, and I intend to conduct meaningful oversight over the labor situation in Colombia and Colombia's adherence to its commitments to the Obama administration. As far as I am concerned, that is going to start as soon as these agreements have been voted on. Senator Stabenow, Senator Cardin, and Senator Menendez will be joining me, and we are all going to be doing more to make sure the Obama administration provides the Congress with annual reports on the labor situation in Colombia and the impact of the labor action plan that was reached by the Obama administration and the Santos administration.

I have mentioned trade adjustment assistance. I have mentioned labor rights. I want to close in terms of future work that is related to this topic by talking about China because certainly these trade agreements and the ability to tap the opportunity, particularly in our country, for family wage employment through more exports is going to require tougher enforcement of our trade laws and, particularly, the Obama administration getting serious about enforcing the laws on the books.

We have had a series of investigations looking at cheating--cheating, Madam President. I use that word specifically. I guess you could call it merchandise laundering because some foreign producers, when they are faced with U.S. trade remedy laws, like anti dumping and countervailing duties, instead of doing the right thing and coming into compliance, decide to ship their U.S.-bound merchandise through another country in order to falsify the country of origin import documents. This is going to be an even more important challenge when the trade agreement with Korea goes into force. Fortunately, we have bipartisan legislation in order to stop this type cheating, to strengthen the enforcement of our trade laws. It is going to be even more important to pass that effort to eliminate this kind of cheating because

with respect to the agreement and Korea, Chinese suppliers have a long history of laundering their goods through Korea in order to avoid U.S. trade laws by suggesting the Chinese merchandise is from Korea.

On the question of cheating, we have documented the problem in our hearings of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. And we have a bipartisan bill with, I believe, four Democratic Senators and four Republican Senators. It's called the Enforce Act and we are ready to move it forward. I was very pleased, in the discussion in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch, the ranking minority member, said this effort to fight these practices, this kind of cheating--which potentially could get worse unless you strengthen enforcement--Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch said it was going to be a priority for them, and they wanted to make our anticheating legislation a must-pass effort before the end of this year, that they would attach it to a must-pass piece of legislation.

I could go on.

Even today, the administration is going forward with the anti- counterfeiting trade agreement, or ACTA, without doing it with the approval of the Congress. I think that is a mistake. I think that may be misreading of the law that the executive branch can do it of its own accord, and many legal scholars agree. We are going to tackle that in the days ahead because those issues are important now. They will be even more important, given the expansions of trade and commerce when these agreements are approved.

So there is a lot to do to keep the country's trade agenda on track. Level the playing field for U.S. producers. Ensure we have a competitive workforce. Advance labor rights, and enforce the trade laws to combat unfair trade. At the end of the day, if we miss one opportunity to do more to market our brand around the world in order to enable Americans to make things here and grow things here and continually add value to them, dominate that supply chain--which I think is going to be the overriding issue for global competitiveness in the days ahead--if we walk away from those issues, and enabling U.S. producers to export--to feed the foreign appetite for our goods and services--we are walking away from the opportunity for American workers to get the good-paying jobs in the private sector that they need.

In my home State, international trade is a very significant barometer of our economy, with estimates even being that one out of six jobs in Oregon depends on international trade, and the trade jobs pay better than do the nontrade jobs. I want America to be the leader in seizing the opportunities that exist to sell goods and services in foreign markets. I want Oregon producers of high-value goods and services to benefit from our efforts here in the Senate to level the playing field in global markets. These trade related jobs that we can help create--I call them red, white, and blue jobs--these are the kinds of jobs I want for this country that I know the Presiding Officer wants, where we do allow American productivity and American ingenuity to continually innovate and compete.

There are other issues. I know the Presiding Officer cares a great deal about tax policy, global tax policy. Senator Coats and I have a bipartisan tax reform proposal. We look forward to working with the Presiding Officer on that issue.

But today is a chance to expand our opportunity to get the American brand, the USA brand for goods and services, in markets that are growing, in markets that you can bet China wants.

I know this is controversial. Trade policy always is. But I think, for our workers to get the chance to get our goods and services into growing markets--growing markets that China wants--that my colleagues support the trade agreements that are before us today.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I just wanted to commend Senator Bennet for the outstanding work he is doing on the budget issue, and particularly cite the fact of the cooperation of the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, which illustrates how important it is to try find some common ground. That is what I am going to be trying to do on the health care issue coming up. But I wanted to commend the Senator from Colorado for his good work.

As the Senate focuses on the budget, and certainly the American people hear the discussion about health care and particularly what is going on in the supercommittee, I want to take a few minutes to talk about how there is an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way, particularly with older people, to show that it is possible for them to get more of the care they want, particularly care at home, for a price that is lower for taxpayers, reduced costs for the taxpaying public.

This all came to light through an extremely important hearing that was held in the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve. Chairman Baucus took the time to look at the care of those who are some of the neediest and most vulnerable in our country. They are the older people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

In the fancy jargon of American health care, they are called the dual eligibles. But I think anybody looking at the American health care system knows that these are some of those who are most vulnerable and most harmed when they fall between the cracks in the health care system. The fact is, the ball game as it relates to Medicare--I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has spent a lot of time on those budget issues--is all about chronic disease. That is where the Medicare dollars go. It goes into the treatment of heart and stroke and diabetes. That is where the money really goes.

Millions of those who suffer from these devastating illnesses are those folks I am speaking about, the dual-eligible people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Millions of them are eligible for alternative services, particularly services at home. But right now, a disproportionately large number of them get their care in the most expensive kind of setting, a place where they do not want to be--the hospital and the hospital emergency room.

The fact is, all over the country--in the State of Ohio, in the State of Missouri--every single day these folks are going in ambulances to hospital emergency rooms. Often they end up having to go on a life flight, essentially in the air to these facilities. As of today, even though we have more than 9 million of these individuals who are on both Medicare and Medicaid, according to Dr. Don Berwick at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, only about 100,000 of them are being taken care of at home.

So, of course, the Congress worked on the health reform issue, and it was possible in that legislation to move to take a few thousand more, a few thousand more than the 100,000 that are now being taken.

As Chairman Baucus highlighted just a few days ago, we ought to get serious about this and do a lot more because older people, if we come up with approaches that allow them to get cared for at home, will feel better about our health care system and better about the decisions that are being made here, and taxpayers are going to save money.

Anybody who questions whether this is possible ought to look at the latest information that is coming from the Veterans' Administration. They have 250 locations--locations all around the country--for the program they use called the Home-Based Primary Care Program. The only difference between that VA program and essentially what is being done on the Medicare and Medicaid side is that the VA patients are even sicker than those who have been treated in the Medicare and Medicaid studies.

The latest information shows that caring for older veterans in the home has reduced hospital stays by 62 percent, nursing home stays by 88 percent, and cost by 24 percent. Let's just for a moment focus on that number--a cost savings of 24 percent--while the older veteran gets more of what they want, which is to be at home for the care they need rather than in these institutional settings, whether they are hospitals, hospital emergency rooms, what have you. We have new information, specific, concrete information.

So that colleagues know, those who are specialists in this area at the University of Pennsylvania who have looked particularly at the model that was recently included in the affordable care act have said that if that model was fully implemented for caring for these individuals at home, it is their judgment that it would be possible to save in the vicinity of $30 billion a year.

These are enormous sums of money, and to be able to make those savings while we say to older people in Missouri, in Oregon, and around the country: You are going to get more of what you want, which is care at home, at a price lower than the alternative--that looks like a pretty good opportunity.

As the supercommittee goes forward with its work, there are some questions about whether they need additional legislative authority to do their work. If they do, I think certainly the supercommittee, in conjunction with both the full Senate and the House, ought to give it to them. My own sense is that they probably don't need additional legislative authority, but certainly there will be support in the Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senators Baucus and Hatch, both of whom have done very good work on this issue, to move legislatively, whether it is in the supercommittee or through the full Senate, legislation that would allow us to dramatically expand this program.

I know the Senator from Minnesota cares a great deal about seniors and these issues. Just a little bit of history. As I sat in the Senate Finance Committee a few days ago listening to how we ought to have some more pilot projects and some demonstrations and some studies, I thought about the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, about three decades ago. I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and all of that kind of thing. We were talking then in much the same way I heard the discussion going in the Senate Finance Committee--about demonstrations and pilots and the like. To a very good person at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Melanie Bella, and in conversations later with Chairman Baucus and Senator Hatch, I basically said: We have to change this because if we don't, my prediction is that 10 years or so from now, they will be back in the Senate Finance Committee having pretty much the same discussion. They will be talking about a few pilot projects, demonstrations, and a few more studies, and by that time, the number of those who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid will be lot more than the 9 million who are eligible today. It will be many times that, and we will have wasted many billions of dollars more. So now is the time to do it.

I would like to close simply by picking up on a point Senator Bennet made about trying to find common ground. This question of independence at home has strong bipartisan support. In the other body, the principal sponsor, Congressman Ed Markey, worked with

Chris Smith of New Jersey, Michael Burgess of Texas--two very strong conservatives--over the years, and in the Senate, I have been honored to have Senator Chambliss, Senator Burr, and a number of other colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that this makes sense both for older people and for taxpayers.

In the next few days, Senators are going to hear from about 100 health care groups around the country making the case for the Congress--starting with the supercommittee, going through our work in the Senate and the House--to get serious about dramatically expanding, massively expanding the number of older people who are cared for at home, where they want to be, which will result in savings to the taxpayers at the same time.

This is something that should not be allowed to be delayed or put off any further. After decades of talking about how it makes sense and studying it and having some pilot projects and some demonstration projects, I think it is time when doctors come to the Senate President's office and patients come to the Senate President's office and say: I am very concerned about these cuts. I am convinced it is going to reduce access. The providers say: I am not going to be able to serve the same number of people. Older people, we know, are calling our office saying they are frightened about how it is going to affect them.

It is time for us to be able to come together in the Senate in the kind of spirit Senator Bennet was talking about, Democrats and Republicans, to say: Look, here is something that works. We know it works; it was proven by Chairman Baucus's recent hearing. We now know, based on the VA's important new study with respect to how you can care for older people at home, that we have an opportunity to significantly expand care for older people at home and generate significant budget savings. It will be bipartisan. It is something that ought to be picked up by the supercommittee. It ought to be picked up by the full Senate and the full House, and we need to do it now.

If we don't do this now and if it is put off again, after Chairman Baucus's important hearings to once again open the door to major reform, as sure as night follows the day, Congresses 5, 10 years from now will be debating the same thing. I don't think that is right.

Holding down health care costs doesn't have to mean benefit cuts or cuts to reimbursements. We have a chance, with this Independence at Home Program, to secure for older people more of the care they need in the comfort of their own homes, and employers are actually rewarded with shared savings for delivering the kind of quality care they have always wanted to provide. These ideas, by the way, are voluntary. No older person, no senior citizen is required to participate in it.

We are going to get around to every Senator's office the findings of this new VA study. It comes from 250 locations in each State and DC. There are cost savings of 24 percent, hospital stay reductions of 62 percent, and nursing home stay reductions of 88 percent. These are documented savings for older people who are even sicker than those who would be served by programs outside the VA.

This is the time. We have talked about it long enough. If the government needs additional legislative authority, it will be possible to give that through the supercommittee. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to pick up on the strong bipartisan support that exists for independence-at-home services, particularly for those who are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. They are the most vulnerable in our society. Those individuals and the programs they rely on, paid for by taxpayers, deserve better. We now have the opportunity to ensure they get it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Independence at Home: Better Health Care at Lower Cost.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Congressional Joint Resolution to prevent the sale of $53 million worth of arms to the Government of Bahrain.

As I witness the series of extraordinary events that are sweeping across the Arab world, I am reminded of our own history, and America's struggle that led to the ideas that are enshrined in our Constitution. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. The Arab Spring, reminds us that these freedoms are indeed universally sought.

The United States should stick up for individuals seeking such freedoms. not reward those who violently suppress such aspirations.

Selling weapons to the Government of Bahrain right now is about as backwards as a teacher giving the playground bully a pair of brass knuckles instead of putting him in detention. When the rulers of Bahrain are committing human right abuses against peaceful protesters, should we really be rewarding this type of behavior?

First, some context. Protests erupted in Bahrain on the heels of protests in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, as part of what is being called the Arab Spring. For many years the Shiite majority of Bahrain has been ruled by a Sunni royal family that has excluded most Shiites from political power and economic opportunity. When the people of Bahrain went to the streets to protest, the government responded with crushing force. Police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing seven and seriously wounding hundreds. Protestors and dissident leaders were rounded up and arrested.

It is estimated that 30 people have been killed by government security forces since the start of these largely peaceful protests. Government agencies also fired more than 2,500 people suspected of sympathizing with the protestors and their democratic demands. A special military court was established by decree and has convicted over 100 people on dubious grounds.

Recently, 20 doctors who were caught treating wounded protestors were sentenced to prison terms as long as 15 years. One of the doctors said she was tortured and threatened with rape while in custody. In explaining the reason for her offense, the doctor said ``My only crime is I did my job; I helped people.'' Amnesty International has pointed out that an increasing number of cases involving civilians arrested are now being primarily tried in military court, without due process.

Human Rights Watch also reports that four people have died in custody. Their suspected cause of death is torture, and medical neglect. Leading political opposition figures who are demanding democratic reforms have been sentenced, in some cases, to life in prison, solely for their role in organizing peaceful protests.

Life in prison just for trying to hold their government democratically accountable. Just because they want the same opportunities as their Sunni neighbors. Just because they want to petition their government for a redress of grievances. I read these reports and I ask myself what our own constitutional framers would have to say about such actions.

So what's the Administration's response to Bahrain's actions? What's our government's response to these human rights violations? Well, Mr. President, the Administration has publicly called for an end to the violence. Secretary Clinton has said that the murder of unarmed protesters must stop.

However, at the same time, the Administration formally notified Congress on September 14 of its plans to sell the ruling regime of Bahrain 44 Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, over 200 anti-tank missiles and 50 bunker buster missiles, 48 missile launchers, spare parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, technical and logistics support services, among other things, all for 53 million dollars. The State Department also notified Congress that it is preparing to send $15.5 million in Foreign Military Financing to Bahrain.

Like I said we are giving the bully brass knuckles--and then some.

Should our country really reward a regime that has stifled its citizen's freedom of speech; a regime that has openly fired on peacefully assembled protestors; a regime who has tortured doctors for simply treating their fellow citizens?

I cannot support this sale while these abuses continue. That is why I, along with my colleague Congressman McGovern in the House of Representatives, am introducing this Congressional joint resolution. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending a message to Bahrain that we will not reward human rights abuses.

To quote from the President's address to the United Nations General Assembly last month: ``Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Technology is putting power in the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, religions and ethnicities do not desire democracy.'' Well it is clear that the people of Bahrain desire greater democracy and opportunity and we should not be rewarding their oppressors with an arms sale at this time. Colleagues, please join me in cosponsoring this Congressional joint resolution.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Congressional Joint Resolution to prevent the sale of $53 million worth of arms to the Government of Bahrain.

As I witness the series of extraordinary events that are sweeping across the Arab world, I am reminded of our own history, and America's struggle that led to the ideas that are enshrined in our Constitution. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. The Arab Spring, reminds us that these freedoms are indeed universally sought.

The United States should stick up for individuals seeking such freedoms. not reward those who violently suppress such aspirations.

Selling weapons to the Government of Bahrain right now is about as backwards as a teacher giving the playground bully a pair of brass knuckles instead of putting him in detention. When the rulers of Bahrain are committing human right abuses against peaceful protesters, should we really be rewarding this type of behavior?

First, some context. Protests erupted in Bahrain on the heels of protests in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, as part of what is being called the Arab Spring. For many years the Shiite majority of Bahrain has been ruled by a Sunni royal family that has excluded most Shiites from political power and economic opportunity. When the people of Bahrain went to the streets to protest, the government responded with crushing force. Police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing seven and seriously wounding hundreds. Protestors and dissident leaders were rounded up and arrested.

It is estimated that 30 people have been killed by government security forces since the start of these largely peaceful protests. Government agencies also fired more than 2,500 people suspected of sympathizing with the protestors and their democratic demands. A special military court was established by decree and has convicted over 100 people on dubious grounds.

Recently, 20 doctors who were caught treating wounded protestors were sentenced to prison terms as long as 15 years. One of the doctors said she was tortured and threatened with rape while in custody. In explaining the reason for her offense, the doctor said ``My only crime is I did my job; I helped people.'' Amnesty International has pointed out that an increasing number of cases involving civilians arrested are now being primarily tried in military court, without due process.

Human Rights Watch also reports that four people have died in custody. Their suspected cause of death is torture, and medical neglect. Leading political opposition figures who are demanding democratic reforms have been sentenced, in some cases, to life in prison, solely for their role in organizing peaceful protests.

Life in prison just for trying to hold their government democratically accountable. Just because they want the same opportunities as their Sunni neighbors. Just because they want to petition their government for a redress of grievances. I read these reports and I ask myself what our own constitutional framers would have to say about such actions.

So what's the Administration's response to Bahrain's actions? What's our government's response to these human rights violations? Well, Mr. President, the Administration has publicly called for an end to the violence. Secretary Clinton has said that the murder of unarmed protesters must stop.

However, at the same time, the Administration formally notified Congress on September 14 of its plans to sell the ruling regime of Bahrain 44 Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, over 200 anti-tank missiles and 50 bunker buster missiles, 48 missile launchers, spare parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, technical and logistics support services, among other things, all for 53 million dollars. The State Department also notified Congress that it is preparing to send $15.5 million in Foreign Military Financing to Bahrain.

Like I said we are giving the bully brass knuckles--and then some.

Should our country really reward a regime that has stifled its citizen's freedom of speech; a regime that has openly fired on peacefully assembled protestors; a regime who has tortured doctors for simply treating their fellow citizens?

I cannot support this sale while these abuses continue. That is why I, along with my colleague Congressman McGovern in the House of Representatives, am introducing this Congressional joint resolution. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending a message to Bahrain that we will not reward human rights abuses.

To quote from the President's address to the United Nations General Assembly last month: ``Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Technology is putting power in the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, religions and ethnicities do not desire democracy.'' Well it is clear that the people of Bahrain desire greater democracy and opportunity and we should not be rewarding their oppressors with an arms sale at this time. Colleagues, please join me in cosponsoring this Congressional joint resolution.

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

Mr. President, today I want to recognize and honor Postmaster Shauna D. Andrews, of Hereford, OR, for her exceptional service to her customers and dedication to her neighbors.

Located in eastern Oregon, Hereford is a highly rural, unincorporated community in Baker County. Although Hereford is unincorporated it has a post office that serves approximately 100 postal patrons. Like many rural postmasters, Shauna knows her customers well and connects with them on a regular basis; especially older folks who don't have access to the Internet, cell phones, and other conveniences that are driving down the traditional use of post offices. In Hereford, the post office is a place where people send and receive packages, including mail order prescriptions and vote by mail.

Over the years, Shauna, who is also a first responder, has demonstrated a strong commitment to the folks she considers customers and neighbors. During the week of September 19, 2011, she became concerned when an 85-year-old patron who lives alone on a rural route failed to collect her mail. After 2 days, she grew worried and decided to go to the patron's home. When Shauna and her 19-year-old son arrived at the patron's house, they discovered the woman lying incapacitated on the floor. Shauna immediately called Baker City for transport to the nearest hospital, located 38 miles from Hereford. As of last week, the patron remained in the hospital in Baker City. It is more than a possibility that by taking the time to check on her postal patron, Shauna saved this woman's life.

Shauna has displayed exceptional service and dedication to her customers and neighbors. The Hereford Post Office is on the national closure study list and as we address the future of the Postal Service, it is absolutely imperative that we examine the function of post offices in rural communities. As Shauna has demonstrated, many rural postmasters know their customers well and having a post office is central to a town's identity and vitality.

I recognize Shauna Andrews for her exceptional service to the community of Hereford. Her example is one from which we can all learn.

Mr. President, today I want to recognize and honor Glenn Vanselow and wish him well upon his upcoming retirement from his position as executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association of Portland, OR.

Glenn has served as the executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association since 1989. His 22 years of service to Oregonians and all the residents of the Northwest have been invaluable. His advocacy on behalf of infrastructure projects in the region has been key to ensuring that Oregon's ports remain a vital component of our economy and laid a foundation for them to grow and flourish in the future.

He has been critical to helping build and maintain the locks, dams, hydropower and irrigation projects on the Columbia/Snake River system that have been so important to commerce in our region. He brought experience, know-how, leadership, and vision to critical navigation projects like the Columbia River Channel Deepening and the lock gate replacements just this past winter. And a few years ago, we were able to celebrate the completion of repairs to the Tillamook north jetty together.

Glenn has made many stops along the way in serving the Northwest. He is on the board of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, he cochaired the Bi-State Water Quality Study for the Lower Columbia and served as chair of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Program in developing a management plan for ecosystem restoration. Past board memberships have included the Oregon Governor's Council of Economic Advisors, Regional Maritime Security Coalition-Columbia River, and University of Idaho College of Mines Advisory Board.

The legacy of Glenn's time with PNWA will be the permanent and long- term investments in Oregon that he helped move forward, the jobs those projects helped to create, and the families who have benefited from the great work the PNWA has done during his tenure. I know my home State of Oregon owes Glenn a great debt.

I congratulate Glenn on his significant contributions to the growth and development of the economy of the Pacific Northwest, and I wish him well in retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, which this Chamber adopted late last night by unanimous consent. The bill demonstrates that improving the lives of vulnerable children remains a national priority. In the midst of deficit panels and continuing resolutions and fear of government shutdown, Congress came together to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation and that is illustrative of our concern for the needs of children.

This legislation also reinforces our recognition of the need for flexibility and accountability. We must enable public agencies to be responsible stewards of public funds, manage performance, innovate and enhance their ability to achieve positive outcomes. The underlying law we reauthorized could not be more aptly named: Promoting Safe and Stable Families. I am particularly pleased that this bill continues to stress the importance of kinship care. This is something I know a little bit about. In the 1996 welfare reform bill, I successfully fought for the inclusion of an amendment with, Senator Coats, to ensure that relatives be given preference over stranger caregivers when the state determined where to place a child who had been removed from the home. Having worked with senior citizens and with the Gray Panthers before I came to Congress, I often heard the frustration of grandparents whose grandchildren--as far as they knew--disappeared into the state child protection system and literally vanished from their families' lives. I realized the immense potential in making it easier for grandparents and other family members to care for children and introduced legislation to recognize that. We ought to have policies that make it easier, instead of more difficult, for families to come together to raise their children. And as we continue to rethink our child welfare system, we need to rededicate ourselves to looking to families, including extended families, for solutions. When children are separated from their parents, it is usually a painful and traumatic experience. Reading over the Record from that fight in 1996 reminded me just how far we have come since then to recognize that fact.

The following year, in 1997, other provisions of my kinship bill were included in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. And subsequent bills passed by this Chamber, including the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, furthered our progress promoting kinship care by allowing relative caregivers to receive foster care payments just as a stranger would. We know that sometimes, all the goodness in a grandparent's heart can't buy their grandchild basketball shoes or school books. And I am grateful to Senators Baucus and Hatch for continuing to draw attention to the value of kinship care. The bill we passed last night again moves the ball forward by rewarding States for operating kinship guardianship programs as well as kinship navigator programs that help brothers and sisters stay connected should they enter the child welfare system.

Slowly but surely, we are learning what works--and we are learning it from States. Through innovative approaches like kinship care, we have dramatically reduced the number of children in foster care. In roughly a decade, the number of children in foster care has declined about 20 percent, and that's something to be proud of. But we must continue our goal of safely reducing the number of youth in care, while constantly asking ourselves, ``what comes next?''

Earlier this year I introduced the Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act, legislation that took a number of ideas from the States and from the advocates and from experts in Oregon and around the country for ways to improve the well-being of all vulnerable children and their families, just like we did last night. And one thing we can all agree on is that our Federal spending must drive positive outcomes. It is time we develop some consensus as to what those outcomes are, though. When we talk about child welfare, we typically measure success in terms of reducing the number of days a child spends in foster care. But what about those children who never enter foster care but still are involved in the juvenile justice system? Or aren't attending class regularly? Or don't have access to health care? And what about the child that, for one unfortunate reason or another, spends the majority of her childhood in foster care and ages out of that system at age 18? How do we gauge whether we have lived up to our responsibility, as a society, of preparing that child for adulthood?

My bill gets at these very issues. It seeks to improve the well-being of all at risk children and their families by tracking outcomes on the individual level. Importantly, it asks States to be the pioneers by telling us what will work, and then proving it. If we don't check up on vulnerable kids until they are in foster care, or worse--until they are in the emergency room or in prison--we are missing opportunities not only to save the government money, but missing opportunities to save lives and preserve families. My bill also asks for a report to Congress on recommendations on how to update Federal foster care financing so that eligibility is no longer tied to the obsolete AFDC program.

When the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act passed out of the Finance Committee earlier this month, I withdrew two amendments to ensure its passage move quickly. And I was pleased to have the assurances of Chairman Baucus that we could work together to further explore this idea of child well-being through a roundtable in the Finance Committee as well as take the lead on a request to the GAO asking for policy options to modernize Federal child welfare financing. I commend the chairman and ranking member as well as congressional leadership for their hard work to ensure passage of this bipartisan bill and I look forward to continuing to work together to improve the lives of vulnerable children and their families.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Our exporters face major challenges in global markets. We are faced with surging imports from China. China has a regime in place that is cheating American innovators and forcing them to share their intellectual property.

Instead of dedicating the scarce resources of the International Trade Commission to look into these issues and to identify other foreign trade barriers that impede our exporters, we would essentially task the International Trade Commission to tell us what we already know.

For example, we know that in the case of the pending agreements, we had an opportunity to get a better deal for our companies that export automobiles and to promote human rights in Colombia by reducing violence.

We are on the precipice of considering these agreements. Let's not turn back the clock. Instead of using scarce resources to have an armchair debate about what we already know, let's dedicate the resources of this agency to help workers and businesses.

I yield the floor.