Floor Statements

Today I rise to commemorate the 375th anniversary of the National Guard. As ceremonies are held across the country to celebrate this historic milestone, I wanted to pay tribute to our National Guard for the enormous contributions it has made to our country throughout the course of its proud history. The origin of the National Guard traces its roots back to the militias of the 13 original English colonies. The oldest units were organized on December 13, 1636, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

As the motto of the National Guard so aptly puts it, the force is ``Always Ready, Always There.'' Our Constitution bestows on the National Guard dual State and Federal missions. Whether aiding State law enforcement, responding to a national emergency or catastrophic natural disaster, or serving alongside our Active-Duty Forces overseas, the National Guard has always been and continues to be a force on which we can depend, in wartime and in peacetime.

Rhode Island has a distinguished record of National Guard service, which began in 1638 when the first colonial defensive force was established in Portsmouth, RI. The militia, which was known as the Traine Band, was formed to provide protection and security for the people. The group eventually evolved into the Rhode Island National Guard.

It was the Rhode Island militia that first engaged in offensive action against England during the lead up to the Revolutionary War. On July 19, 1769, members of the Rhode Island militia sunk the British schooner HMS Liberty in Newport. A few years later, on the night of June 10, 1772, Rhode Island volunteers organized under Captain Abraham Whipple, seized and burned the HMS Gaspee in Narragansett Bay. Then, on April 22, 1775, in response to shots fired at Lexington, MA, the Rhode Island General Assembly mobilized a 1,500-man ``Army of Observation'' to serve under the command of BG Nathaniel Greene. This force was sent to Boston to support the Continental Army in its fight for American independence. By the end of the Revolutionary War, more than 22 Rhode Island militia units had contributed to our country's glorious cause.

During the Civil War, more than 23,000 Rhode Island militiamen deployed in support of Union forces, and 16 soldiers received Medals of Honor. During the First World War, more than 3,800 members of the Rhode Island National Guard served in combat as part of the 26th ``Yankee'' Division. Furthermore, over 3,000 Rhode Island National Guard members were deployed to both the European and Pacific theaters to support operations in the Second World War. Rhode Island National Guard units also supported operations during the Korean and Vietnam wars, as well as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.

The Rhode Island National Guard has been particularly active meeting the operational demands of the post-9/11 era. Rhode Island has the second highest per capita National Guard deployment rate of all the States. It has fulfilled over 5,600 deployment requests, and many of its 3,200 members have deployed multiple times. In addition, the Rhode Island National Guard remains an indispensable asset in protecting the lives and property of Rhode Island citizens. The Guard played an instrumental role in 2010 responding to the historic floods in our State, from which we are still recovering. Today, the diverse mission of the Rhode Island National Guard is directed by MG Kevin R. McBride, adjutant general of the State of Rhode Island.

Since September 11, the National Guard has been deployed at unprecedented levels, with over 650,000 soldiers

and airmen mobilized in support of American operations overseas. In addition, thousands of National Guard members have responded to the litany of major disasters that devastated several areas of the country in the recent years. I applaud the National Guard for its vital work in protecting our country at home and abroad and commend its 375 years of dedicated service.

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight important provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act conference report that will counter the serious and growing problem of counterfeit goods entering the military supply chain.

Section 818 of the conference report, which includes these provisions, reflects the leadership of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I applaud their work to keep counterfeit parts out of the military supply chain. As I have said before, our Nation asks a lot of our troops. In return, we must give them the best possible equipment to fulfill their vital missions and come home safely. We must ensure the proper performance of weapon systems, body armor, aircraft parts, and countless other mission-critical products. Section 818 goes a long way toward protecting our troops from the dangers of counterfeit parts and the decreased combat effectiveness they cause.

I am particularly glad that section 818 includes a provision I introduced to increase criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit military goods. That provision, introduced as the Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2011, S. 1228, was reported without objection by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was cosponsored by Senators Graham, Leahy, McCain, Coons, Kyl, Blumenthal, Hatch, Klobuchar, and Schumer. I was very grateful that Chairman Levin and Ranking Member

McCain included it in their anticounterfeiting amendment to the NDAA, and I greatly appreciate their leadership in ensuring that the provision remained in the conference report. I would also particularly like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee, who introduced comparable language in the House. It was a pleasure working with him on the language included in section 818(h). I am very grateful that he was able to clear the provision on the House side, thereby enabling its inclusion in the conference report.

Prosecutors will be able to employ section 818(h) to deter criminals from trafficking in military counterfeits. This will help protect our national security and the safety of our troops. The U.S. Sentencing Commission also has a role to play. It should update relevant sentencing guidelines to ensure that they reflect the seriousness of these reprehensible crimes. I would particularly note that the Obama administration has called for an increase of the minimum base offense level for trafficking in counterfeit military goods to 14. I trust that the Sentencing Commission will give this recommendation substantial weight when it reconsiders the guidelines in light of the changes section 818(h) makes to the Criminal Code. As the administration has explained, a minimum offense level of 14 for trafficking in counterfeit military products would mean that a first-time offender with no criminal history would face at least a 10- to 16-month guideline range without any other aggravated conduct, after taking into account a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Such penalties should be the bare minimum for offenses that put our troops' safety at risk.

I also would like to highlight a second provision within section 818 of the conference report. Our colleagues on the Finance and Judiciary Committees have been working diligently to clarify that Customs and Border Protection agents can share sufficient information with trademark holders to ensure that counterfeit products are stopped at the border. Chairman Leahy, for example, amended his PROTECT IP Act to that end. Section 818(g) includes comparable language, and I applaud the conferees for recognizing the importance of this provision. It reaffirms the executive branch's authority to share necessary information with rights holders without fear of violating the Trade Secrets Act. It thereby will enable Customs and Border Protection to fulfill its responsibility to stop military counterfeits at the border. Under this provision, they will be able to share the same photographs and samples they currently share but with the serial numbers and other identifying information shown, not redacted. This simple change in practice should be implemented immediately, without the delay of unnecessary regulatory processes. Now is the time to protect our troops from the risk of dangerous counterfeit military parts entering our fighter jets, weapons, ships, and countless other mission-critical products.

I am glad to have the opportunity to vote in favor of these important provisions. I look forward to the future reduction in the number of dangerous counterfeit military products that are currently putting our troops' safety at risk and reducing combat effectiveness.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, as Senator Franken has pointed out, despite the efforts to mislead and create doubt, the jury is not out on whether climate change is happening and being caused by manmade carbon pollution; the verdict is, in fact, in, and the verdict is clear, as shown by this group of scientific organizations that signed a letter supporting our efforts to do something about carbon pollution in the Senate back in October of 2009: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the Geophysical Union, the Meteorological Society, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Botanical Society of America.

Virtually every significant scientific organization accepts that these are the facts and that the verdict is in, and, indeed, there is some recent added support. The scientific community continues to examine this question.

A recent report by James Hansen and Makiko Sato says:

Climate change is likely to be the predominant scientific,

economic, political and moral issue of the 21st century. The

fate of humanity and nature may depend upon early recognition

and understanding of human-made effects on Earth's climate.

They continue:

Earth is poised to experience strong amplifying polar

feedbacks in response to moderate global warming. Thus, goals

of limiting human-made warming to 2 degrees Celsius are not

sufficient--they are prescriptions for disaster.

Another recent report, ``Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem Research,'' reads as follows:

There is no doubt that rapid global warming and ocean

acidification are real, and very high confidence that both

are forced by human activities and emissions of carbon

dioxide. Climate change effects are especially evident in the

oceans.

I will get into that later on in our colloquy a little bit further.

Levels of atmospheric CO2 are accelerating.

A third report, ``The World Energy Outlook for 2011,'' says:

Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached 30.4

Gt in 2010, 5.3% above 2009, representing almost

unprecedented annual growth. In the New Policies Scenario,

our central scenario, CO2 emissions continue to

increase, reaching 36.4 Gt in 2035, and leading to an

emissions trajectory consistent with a long-term global

temperature increase of 3.5 degrees Centigrade.

What does that mean?

The expected warming of more than 3.5 degrees Centigrade in

the New Policies Scenario would have severe consequences: a

sea level rise of up to 2 metres, causing dislocation of

human settlements and changes to rainfall patterns, drought,

flood, and heat-wave incidence that would severely affect

food production, human disease and mortality.

There are also iconic American companies that have made the considered business judgment that climate change is real and we need to prepare. But we can get more on that later in the colloquy.

It is actually quite a good example, because we have some of the phony science that has attacked the science of climate change, which is actually a pretty good comparison to what the Senator described.

Take, for instance, the bogus Marshall Institute, which was founded in 1984 by a physicist who had been the chief scientist behind the tobacco industry's campaign to convince Americans that tobacco is actually OK for you, and that there was doubt about whether it would actually do you any harm. A few years later, he organized something called the Oregon Petition, which denied that climate change was happening. They phonied up the Oregon Petition to look like official papers of the National Academy of Sciences. So the National Academy of Sciences had to take the unusual step of responding that the petition ``does not reflect the conclusion of expert reports of the academy,'' and further, that it was ``a deliberate attempt to mislead.'' So he is an ``expert'' saying that tobacco is OK for you. Suddenly, he turns up as a climate denier, and he phonies up his report to look like----

This is founded by the Marshall Institute. There are others of these out there. The other example is the Heartland Institute, another so-called think tank with backers from tobacco and the fossil fuel industries, founded also in 1984. It has written reports to try to manufacture doubt about climate science and about the risks of secondhand smoke. Heartland received nearly $700,000 from ExxonMobil through 2006. Their bogus policy documents include false claims that climate change is poorly understood, and simply wrong assertions, that there is no consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming.

Picking these two--but there are others in the constellation of bogus science--they are commonly funded by the Bradley Foundation, the folks who brought you the John Birch Society; by the Scaife foundations, which are constantly behind rightwing causes; the Olan Foundation, which is against public health causes; ExxonMobil; and by the Koch brothers. Although it may look like different voices, it is actually the same money speaking through different fronts.

And it is not enough that they have a stable of paid- for scientists to create doubt, to create phony science that raises the level of doubt; they also go out of their way to attack legitimate scientists. You would not think this would carry much weight in a proper debate, but amplified by the corporate money behind it, and designed, as the Senator said, with the purpose not to win the argument but to create doubt so that the public moves on, it is actually worse.

One example of this attack on lifetime scientists has been the phony so-called Climategate scandal, which was an effort to derail international climate science and climate negotiations.

Yes, Climategate-gate. In fact, the real scandal here wasn't what the scientists did; the real

scandal was the phony attack on the scientists.

I believe that is correct.

And it provoked considerable review afterward because of the alarmist claims that were made in this phony attack on the climate science. A number of pretty respectable organizations took a look at this. One was the university itself, and the university itself reached the conclusion on the specific allegations made against the behavior of CRU scientists, ``We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behavior has prejudiced the balance of advice given the policymakers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessment.'' That was the university review.

Not enough? The National Science Foundation also----

That is why we go on to the National Science Foundation, which found no direct evidence of research misconduct and therefore said, ``We are closing this investigation with no further action.''

Parliament looked into it as well, because the university was in Great Britain. And the House of Commons did an investigation. The Commons' investigation concluded that the challenged actions by Professor Jones and others ``were in line with common practice in the climate science community.'' They went on to say:

Insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of

dishonesty, we consider that there is no case to answer.

No case to answer. Finally, they said:

We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to

challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor

Bennington that ``global warming is happening and that it is

induced by human activity.''

So the studies that looked at whether the climate science was phony or whether the climategate scandal was phony have all come down supporting the science and pointing out that climategate should properly be known as climategate-gate because it was the scandal that was phony.

The challenge of climate change being extremely real, one of the things that is so frustrating about this campaign of phony, manufactured doubt is that in real life we are seeing the predictions of climate science come true around us.

Climate scientists predicted the atmosphere would warm, and the atmosphere is warming. Climate scientists

predicted the ocean would absorb heat, and sure enough, the ocean has absorbed heat and ocean waters are warming. Climate scientists predicted the ocean would absorb CO2 and that would then lower the pH level of our ocean waters. The ocean is now more acidic than it has been in 2 million years, threatening coral reefs, shellfish, and the tiny creatures, such as plankton, that make up the base of the entire oceanic food chain.

Climate scientists predicted glaciers and Arctic sea ice would melt and, sure enough, we are seeing record melting. We just saw that notorious leftwing publication, USA Today, report:

Federal Report Arctic Much Worse Since 2006. Federal

officials say the Arctic region has changed dramatically in

the past 5 years for the worse. It is melting at a near

record pace and it is darkening and absorbing too much of the

sun's heat.

Climate scientists predicted ecosystem shifts, and we are seeing ecosystem shifts, such as the million-plus-acre forests in the American West--dead to the bark beetle, gone from being green and healthy forests to just mile after mile of brown and dead trees.

The bark beetle relates to climate change because what was keeping those trees free from the bark beetle was cold winters that killed off the bark beetle larvae. As temperatures have warmed, the larvae lived through the winters, and they attacked the trees. So trees that were protected by cold winters are no longer protected, and there are literally millions of acres of forest lost in the West.

On a smaller scale, but more important to me in my home State of Rhode Island, the preeminent fish that was taken out of Narragansett Bay was called the winter flounder. My wife wrote her Ph.D. thesis about the winter flounder. It was a very significant cash crop for our fishermen and is now virtually gone because the mean water temperature of Narragansett Bay is up nearly 4 degrees.

Scientists also predicted we would be loading the dice for extreme weather with climate change, and we are seeing an unusual amount of extreme weather. The number of billion-dollar disasters has hit a record. A recent press clip noted:

With an almost biblical onslaught of twisters, floods,

snow, drought, heat, and wildfire, the U.S., in 2011, has

seen more weather catastrophes that caused at least $1

billion in damage than it did in all of the 1980s, even after

the dollar figures from back then are adjusted for inflation.

Serious, grown-up corporate entities, like the biggest insurance companies in the world, are noticing this and are concerned. Munich Reinsurance has written the following:

The high number of weather-related natural catastrophes and

record temperatures, both globally and in different regions

of the world, provide further indications of advancing

climate change.

Throughout the corporate world we are seeing this. Here is a list of companies that have gone public with the need for us to do something about climate change: American Electric, Bank of America, Chrysler, Cysco, DuPont, Duke Energy, eBay, Toyota, Timberland, Starbucks, Google, GM, General Electric, Ford, Siemens, PepsiCo, Nike, Nishiland, and John Deere. I am picking these at random, but these are not fringe organizations. These are the core of the American business community, and they recognize what is going on.

I want to single out one company, which is Coca-Cola. I was going to bring to the floor the new can of Coca-Cola as an exhibit to demonstrate this major international corporation--this huge American success story based in Atlanta--has taken probably the most iconic product in America--the Coke can--and has redesigned it to reflect what the climate change is doing in the Arctic and to polar bears. Unfortunately, my Coke can was confiscated by the cloakroom staff because I am not allowed to bring exhibits to the floor unless they are this. I should have snuck it out here, but that is why I don't have it.

Coca-Cola is a serious American business, and here is what they say:

The consensus on climate science is increasingly

unequivocal--global climate change is happening and man-made

greenhouse gas emissions are a crucial factor. The

implications of climate change for our planet are profound

and wide-ranging, with expected impacts on biodiversity,

water resources, public health, and agriculture.

So we put against that the core business community--iconic companies such as Coca-Cola, putting their very label behind the need to address climate change--and the phony-baloney-paid-for scientists who are creating this doubt, and it is time to close this episode.

If the Senator doesn't mind, if I change elements from fire to water since I represent an ocean State, another place where climate change is creating dangerous consequences is in our oceans. Let me cite a few reports that have come out recently.

Climate Change & European Marine Ecosystem Research says:

Close to one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by humans

from burning fossil fuels and other sources has been absorbed

by the oceans since the beginning of industrialization, and

that has buffered the cause and effects of climate change.

A resulting lowered pH--

When carbon goes into the ocean, it acidifies it. It lowers the pH.

A resulting lowered pH and saturation states of the

carbonate minerals that form the shells and body structures

of many marine organisms makes these groups especially

vulnerable. The growth of individual coral skeletons and the

ability of reefs to remain structurally viable are likely to

be severely affected. Continuing acidification may also

affect the ability of the oceans to take up CO2.

So they will not be absorbing the one-third that they have absorbed any longer. It will stay in the atmosphere and atmospheric concentrations will increase even faster.

The Annual Review of Marine Science reports that:

Growing human pressures, including climate change, are

having profound and diverse consequences for marine

ecosystems. These effects are globally pervasive and

irreversible on ecological time scales. Direct consequences

include increasing ocean temperature and acidity, rising sea

level, increased ocean stratification, decreased sea ice, and

altered patterns of ocean circulation, precipitation, and

fresh water.

The context for this is a pretty astounding one; that is, when we look back through history, we don't look at changes in terms of decades or even generations. We look at changes in terms of millions of years.

There is a special issue of Oceanography with a feature on ocean acidification, and it is called ``Ocean Acidification in Deep Time.''

We have now an atmosphere that already contains more carbon

dioxide than at any time in the last 800,000 years of earth

history and probably more than has occurred in several tens

of millions of years.

We have had agriculture as humans for about 10,000 years, to give you an idea of what 800,000 years or several tens of millions of years means. The report goes on:

There are no precedents in recent earth history for what

will be the immediate and direct consequences of the release

of CO2 into the atmosphere and its concurrent

dissolution in the ocean's waters.

But we are playing with very dangerous effects when we ignore climate change at the behest of a tiny minority of scientists and their polluter industry funders behind them.

We had similar testimony in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The witness who testified before us released his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee and very much the same conclusion:

We judge that global climate change will have wide-ranging

implications for U.S. national security interests over the

next 20 years.

The factors that would affect U.S. national security interests as a result of climate change would include food and water shortages, increased health problems, including the spread of disease, increased potential for conflict, ground subsidence--the Earth lowering-- flooding, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, increases in the severity of storms in the Gulf of Mexico, disruptions in U.S. and Arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource- scarce regions of the world.

There are probably climate deniers who say: That is all part of the conspiracy. The Defense Department is in on it. All those companies are in on it. The intelligence community is in on it.

But if there is a hoax, what is more mainstream than National Geographic? Is National Geographic in on it too? They would have to be because they did a special report a few years ago on climate change and they showed a polar bear stranded on the melting ice. Here is what they said:

It's here. Melting glaciers, heat waves, rising seas, trees

flowering earlier, lakes freezing later, migratory birds

delaying their flight south. The unmistakable signs of

climate change are everywhere.

How do we know this? We know this because of the science. What do they say about the science?

How do we know our climate is changing? Historical records,

decades of careful observations and precise measurements--

As the Senator said, with things such as thermometers--

around the globe along with basic scientific principles.

If you think National Geographic is in on it and you can't have faith in the Defense establishment and you can't have faith in the corporate establishment and you can't have faith even in National Geographic, perhaps you can have faith in the Pope, who said recently:

I hope that all members of the international community can

agree on a responsible, credible, and supportive response to

this worrisome and complex phenomenon, keeping in mind the

needs of the poorest populations and of future generations.

The press release from Catholic News Service then quotes one of his bishops, Cardinal Rodriguez, who says:

Our climate is changing. Urgent action is necessary.

He called on our political leaders around the world ``to curb the threat of climate change and set the world on a path to a more just and sustainable future.''

We are proud of what is going on in Rhode Island as well. We plan to meet 16 percent of our energy needs through renewable energy sources by 2020, and that is on top of a goal to cut energy use by 10 percent. So we will cut energy use by 10 percent and, of the remaining 90, get 16 percent of that out of renewable energy sources. Everybody is getting involved--utilities, towns, the State, the private sector. One of our cities, East Providence, is right now converting a brownfield which has been vacant for 40 years, nearly, into New England's largest solar institution. As my colleague says, there will be a payback and they will earn money on that for their taxpayers.

Our State of Rhode Island has been the national leader at how you map and prepare for offshore wind development. In the State and Federal waters off the coast of Rhode Island we are positioned to lead the country in offshore wind siting, with all the jobs that building those giant wind turbines and assembling them and erecting them offshore creates.

We have exciting companies such as BioProcess Algae, of Portsmouth, RI, which opened a spectacular facility in Iowa, which takes the exhaust from ethanol plants and runs it through algae farms and creates biofuels. They are at the cutting edge of that technology.

When you see these great technologies and these great opportunities-- in this colloquy, we are ending on what I hope is a very strong, positive note for the economy. If we can pull away from the lies and the phony science and the polluter-paid nonsense that has so far distracted us from doing our duty as a nation, we can get into the race that is going on in this world for the energy future. The economy of this century is going to be driven by the $6 trillion clean energy industry. We do not want to fall out the back of that race and leave it to the Chinese and the Europeans. We want to be winning that race and the jobs and the economic success that can bring that not only can power our homes and our factories, it can power our economy back to security for all Americans.

I thank Senator Franken for inviting me to join him in this colloquy. I think our time is coming close to expiring, so I yield the remainder of our time to you, and I ask unanimous consent Senator Franken be allowed as much time as he needs to conclude. This has been a wonderful opportunity for me.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, the statement my colleague has made is truthful and important, but there is absolutely more to this story even than that. At another time I will discuss at greater length the oceans dimension to what is happening to our planet as a result of the carbon pollution we are emitting at literally unprecedented levels in human history. But for now let me say it is very severe, very dire, and to everyone who is listening and paying attention, the ocean is emitting warning signs that we disregard at our peril.

In addition to the threat of environmental harm, connected to the problem of carbon pollution is a huge opportunity and that is the opportunity of clean energy. Clean energy will drive the decades to come. Clean energy jobs can and should be powering our economic recovery.

We are in a race right now. We are in a race for dominance and for preeminence in the clean energy economy that is emerging. All around the world, other countries see it. They are competing in that race. They are putting everything they have into winning that race. But because we have a political system that is still listening to the dirty, polluting energy industry and using the politics of Washington to interfere, we are constantly having to fight to stay even. One of the things we are fighting right now to preserve is the section 1603 Treasury grant program, which will expire at the end of this year if we do nothing. This program has been vital for our renewable energy industry. It has leveraged nearly $23 billion in private sector investment, supported 22,000 projects which collectively power more than 1 million homes. This is big. This is no longer some tiny little cottage industry. The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates the 1603 program has supported up to 290,000 U.S. jobs.

If we look more largely at the renewable energy sector, renewable energy is more labor intensive, creates more jobs than fossil fuel energy per dollar invested, creates more jobs than fossil fuel energy per megawatt generated, and the clean economy as a whole, including renewable energy and energy efficiency and environmental management, employs 2.7 million workers in this country. It is more than the fossil fuel industry, but the fossil fuel industry owns this town and they keep stepping on this larger, growing, clean energy industry.

We are seeing it, unfortunately, out there in real life. Americans invented the first solar cell in 1995. America had 40 percent of the global manufacturing volume. We are now down to 7 percent of the global manufacturing volume of solar cells.

China is investing $20 billion more in clean energy every year to accelerate ahead of us. European countries have feed-in tariffs so investors can know what their clean energy product will sell for and that is attracting capital and growth there, and we simply are not keeping up. We are now, in the United States of America, the home to only 1 of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers. This is an unhealthy place to be and we need to get back into this fight. The mature industries that America leads have demonstrated the important role of government intervention at their early days. Our commercial aviation industry has been the envy of the world through its entire history. The United States of America subsidized airmail to help support this fledgling industry. They purchased planes for military purposes to help support it and supported it with aeronautics R&D.

The same thing should be happening in clean energy, and we need to work very hard to make sure this 1603 Treasury grant does not die on the cutting room floor as we come to the end of this year. If it does, jobs will go with it. There will be an immediate response. Projects will be terminated, people will be laid off, divisions of companies and smaller companies will close, and it is an unnecessary, self-inflicted injury we should avoid.

Let me bring it home. In Rhode Island this project has facilitated solar panel installation on three new bank branches. The TD Bank has opened in Barrington, East Providence, and Johnston, RI. Those projects created jobs, put people to work, and lowered the costs of their electrical energy. Step by step it gets us off foreign oil and these foreign entanglements to defend our supply.

The city of East Providence, RI, is in the middle of planning a 3- megawatt solar project on an old landfill, land that had gone out of use effectively but now will be generating power for that city. Construction has also begun on three wind turbines at the Fields Point wastewater treatment facility in Providence. The turbines will meet more than half of our big water utility's energy needs.

A company called Hodges Badge--if your child has ever won an award in a track meet, in a horse show, or in a school production, they probably got a ribbon for it, and that ribbon was probably made by Hodges Badge. It is a great Rhode Island company. It has 95 employees. They have gone completely clean energy, and they are doing that to protect those 95 jobs. They are doing it to lower their energy costs, and they are doing it to do the right thing.

I salute Senator Sanders for his eloquence on the real problem of climate change and the campaign of lies and propaganda that has interfered with our ability to deal with what is a real and emerging problem, and also to

point out that the second step in this is that there are jobs and there is economic success behind the clean energy industry that will lead us out of the predicament we are creating for ourselves because people here are in the thrall of the polluting industries.

I thank Senator Sanders very much.

I yield the floor.

We had over 30. The number is still climbing retroactively--but more than 30 Democratic Senators.

I thank Senator Sanders. Senator Cardin has arrived so I will hand off to him in a moment. But to the Senator's point about the imbalance between support for the fossil fuel energy industry and the renewable energy industry; the first being one that hurts our national security, pollutes our air and costs a fortune and

is phasing out and the second being one that is growing, that is clean, and that is the way of the future.

According to the Environmental Law Institute, the U.S. invested almost six times more in subsidies for fossil fuel from 2002 to 2008 than we did in renewable energy. So by a factor of six times, we have our thumb on the scales supporting the old dirty industry against the new, rather than supporting the new the way our international competitors are doing.

I ask unanimous consent that a response from Secretary Chu to a letter Senator Sanders and I and other Senators wrote to him about the status of and success of our clean energy investments be printed in the Record.

I yield to Senator Cardin.

I thank Senator Sanders. I wish to go back to this question of the jobs and the economic value we get from clean energy. The Department of Energy reports that the clean energy sector alone directly employs nearly 1.6 million people in the United States. So nearly 1.6 million families are depending on the paychecks they get from the clean energy sector.

Within that, it is growing. The United States has created over 100,000 solar-focused jobs--100,000 solar-focused jobs--and at least 75,000 jobs related to wind energy installation in 2010. In Rhode Island, we are seeing that coming on. The newspaper today, the Providence Journal, reported on a permit application for the cable that will connect an offshore wind facility that is going in off Block Island back to the grid onshore to bring the power from that installation back and into the New England energy grid.

But when it gets going, think of the jobs that are going to be involved in that. Senator Reed and I worked very hard to shore up--get money to shore up the waterside, the side of the pier at Quonset so it would be capable of dealing with very heavy-duty installation barges and things such as that.

So the Quonset Point facility is now ready for this construction. We have the trains and new highways that bring in the pieces of those big turbines. The turbines are so big you cannot build them in China, in Europe. We have to assemble them onshore and put them right on the barge. So the assembly of them will take place in Rhode Island, right at Quonset, and that will mean a lot of jobs.

Then we have to barge them out and we have the barge operators and the barge captains and the tugs. Then we sink the base, and we have to have divers and builders and people who are experts in that kind of marine construction.

Then we put them up. We have to operate them. We have to maintain them. What they do is they contribute clean energy to the grid. They are a constant supply because of the wind over the Atlantic being such a powerful resource, and it is kind of a win-win situation. So we see the need to get behind this in an immediate way in Rhode Island.

It would be one of the great tragedies if we let the Chinese and the Belgians and the French and the Dutch and whoever else get ahead of us in this competition. We do not need to. It is wrong. We are taking ourselves out of a race we should be winning when we do that. I commend Senator Sanders for his effort to bring us together to continue to make this point. There are jobs here. There is an energy industry that is going to lead the economy of the next decades of this world, and we want America to be at the front of it and not to have sand thrown in our gears by the dirty, polluting energy industry that is on its way out as its last contribution to the damage it is now doing to our economy and to our environment.

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

I thank the Chair.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, which I am pleased to cosponsor today. As attorney general of Rhode Island, I saw firsthand the good work the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has done to protect victims of domestic violence, to provide crucial services to those in need, and to hold batterers accountable. The VAWA Reauthorization Act builds on that record of success and makes important updates to strengthen the law, while cognizant of the challenging budget circumstances we face. I congratulate Senators Leahy and Crapo for their hard work and leadership on this bill.

I am particularly appreciative that Senators Leahy and Crapo have included the Saving Money and Reducing Tragedies through Prevention Act of 2011, or the SMART Prevention Act, which I previously introduced, within the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Far too many teens suffer abuse at the hands of a dating partner. According to the Centers for Disease Control, for example, 1 in 10 teenagers reported being hit or physically hurt on purpose by a boyfriend or girlfriend at least once in the past year. The SMART Prevention Act will support innovative and effective programs to protect our children from this dangerous abuse.

Earlier this year, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, I held a field hearing in my home State on ``Preventing Teen Violence: Strategies for Protecting Teens from Dating Violence and Bullying.'' With hundreds of students from Tolman High School in Pawtucket, RI, in the audience, prominent advocates and experts testified about the importance of educational and community programs in preventing dating violence among teenagers.

The witnesses explained that teen dating violence remains a serious problem, but that we can take important preventive measures. Ann Burke, a leading national advocate, explained that school-based teen dating violence prevention programs, especially those focused on middle schools, have proven effective in changing behaviors. The Lindsay Ann Burke Act, named in memory of Ann's daughter, a victim of dating violence, supports abuse education programs for teens in Rhode Island. Since its passage, physical teen dating violence rates in our State have decreased from 14 percent in 2007 to 10 percent in 2009.

These preventive measures are most effective when part of a community-wide approach. As Kate Reilly, the executive director of the Start Strong Rhode Island Project, explained at the hearing, effective prevention programming should not be limited to schools alone, but should ``meet kids where they live and play.'' That requires involving parents, coaches, mentors, and teen and community leaders, as well as using new technology and social media in innovative ways.

One group of children needs particular attention: children who have witnessed abuse in their home. Deborah DeBare, the executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, explained at the hearing that ``growing up in a violent home may . . . lead to higher risks of repeating the cycle of abuse as teens and young adults.'' By supporting robust services for children exposed to domestic violence in the home, we can help break the intergenerational cycle of violence.

The SMART Prevention Act builds on each of these insights. It would create a new grant program within VAWA to support dating violence education programs targeting young people, with a particular focus on middle school students. The bill would also support programs to train those with influence on youth, including parents, teachers, coaches, older teens, and mentors. The new teen dating violence prevention program would be coordinated with existing grant programs focused on prevention, including a program directed at children who have witnessed violence and abuse. By requiring coordination with these programs, and focusing resources on prevention, the SMART Prevention Act is also smart policy fiscally. Abuse that is prevented reduces the strain on our already overburdened health and education systems.

New laws in several States, as well as innovative and hard-working organizations such as the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund and the Katie Brown Educational Program in New England, have demonstrated how effective such prevention programs can be, so now is the time for Congress to act.

I again thank Senators Leahy and Crapo for their leadership in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I look forward to working with them and other Senators from both sides of the aisle toward a country that is free from dating and domestic violence.

Mr. President I come to the floor to speak in support of President Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray, from Ohio, to be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He is a former attorney general, former solicitor general, and former State treasurer of Ohio.

He is unquestionably well qualified to take on the position for which he has been nominated. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a Republican filibuster of Mr. Cordray's nomination. Sometimes there is a hidden ulterior motive around here. In this case, there is a stated ulterior motive: to weaken the new agency's power to protect consumers.

Republican obstruction of Mr. Cordray's nomination has nothing to do with Mr. Cordray himself. Former Republican Senator and current Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine has called Mr. Cordray very well qualified for this job. Just last month, eight Republican attorneys general colleagues of his joined 29 Democratic attorneys general in writing to Leaders Reid and McConnell with their support for Mr. Cordray's nomination.

Mr. Cordray has been endorsed by groups as varied as the AFL-CIO, the Credit Union National Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and the AARP. But notwithstanding widespread bipartisan support on Main Street, Senate Republicans are seeking to prevent Mr. Cordray from taking office as a service to Wall Street.

As one Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee said: ``My colleagues and I stand by our pledge that no nominee to head the CFPB will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate regardless of party affiliation without basic changes to the Bureau's structure.''

What are these basic changes? The basic changes the Republicans have demanded include: making the agency subject to the budgetary influences of Congress, which given the way Congress is behaving is a way of allowing the influences of Wall Street to come through and control it, and also replacing the Director's position with a board that would ensure that Wall Street is represented.

These are not constructive changes. These are an attempt to weaken a regulator designed to protect consumers. I hope my Republican colleagues will reevaluate their filibuster of Mr. Cordray's nomination. But in the event they do not, let's take a moment to review the consequences for the American people.

As many of our constituents know, in Rhode Island and in Minnesota, we established the CFPB in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as a new agency to protect American consumers from misleading and potentially ruinous financial products. After the subprime mortgage catastrophe, the logic behind that is pretty clear. We designed this new agency to be for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, debt collection, credit reporting--what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is for toaster ovens, toys, baby strollers, batteries, and swimming pools.

Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren first proposed such an agency, and I was very proud to cosponsor Senator Durbin's original Financial Product Safety Act of 2009, which was the first bill to bring Professor Warren's idea to the Senate.

We designed the CFPB to investigate consumer financial products and gave it the power to make rules ensuring that financial products are transparent and fair, including, for the first time, providing Federal oversight of previously unregulated loans and financial services from nonbank financial institutions. Those institutions are often the ones that get regular Americans in deep and unexpected trouble because of tricks and traps in those contracts.

When you look at the length and the amount of fine print in consumer contracts and when you look at the extent to which different traps and tricks get hidden in all that fine print in order to catch consumers in things they weren't aware of and would not accept if they had been aware of them, the reason for this oversight is obvious to most Americans. Indeed, it is my contention that Americans in today's society are the most bedeviled group of humans in history by fine print. Everywhere you go, you find fine print filled with tricks and traps that fool you, that kick up your interest rate or give away rights that you have. So what we want is a little bit of a fair shot and a straight deal for the American consumer.

Under the temporary direction of the Treasure Secretary, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is actually already up and running. It is now regulating the largest banks in the country--those with over $10 billion in assets--as well as credit unions. Unfortunately, its authority to protect consumers from these other financial products will be unclear until there is a Director, which may be another motive for blocking a Director.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is already out there looking out for American consumers to make sure big banks and credit unions are playing by fair rules, but it has not yet been able to regulate the nonbank companies, such as mortgage services, the private student loan lenders, debt collectors, payday lenders, and credit reporting agencies. While the Senate Republicans filibuster this nominee--a very qualified nominee, an indisputably qualified nominee--some of the worst financial actors in the country remain unaccountable for their deceptive and harmful practices. Predatory lenders near military bases continue to charge our servicemembers effective interest rates of up to 800 percent. Private student lenders continue to withhold clear information about repayment terms from young students taking out these loans. Debt collectors continue to bully and harass those who are on the edge of bankruptcy. So-called payday lenders continue to dupe senior citizens into taking out loans bearing triple-digit interest rates.

This is the status quo Senate Republicans are preserving by blocking Mr. Cordray's nomination. Consumer protection against these kinds of practices should not be a partisan issue. I really hope our colleagues across the aisle at least allow us to have an up-or-down vote on this nomination. The majority rules, so let's vote and let's go.

Every day that Republicans continue their obstruction, Americans from all walks of life--from students, to senior citizens, to our men and women in uniform--will continue to be subjected to unchecked and unregulated deceptive financial products. They will continue to be prey for predatory loan instruments.

Abusive lending practices that strip wealth from communities and purchasing power from consumers continue to hold back our struggling economy. Let's confirm Mr. Cordray so that he can begin the hard work of leveling the playing field for the American consumer and help ordinary Americans get a straight deal in our increasingly complex economy. I hope we will be able to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Turning the Investigation on the Science of Forensics.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drug Shortages: Why They Happen and What They Mean.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities Inside the United States.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in

room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Promoting Job Creation and Economic Development in American Communities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Enhanced Supervision: A New Regime for Regulating Large, Complex Financial Institutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``From Earthquakes to Terrorist Attacks: Is the National Capital Region Prepared for the Next Disaster?''

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011, which I am introducing today with Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Bennet, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Pryor.

This bipartisan bill is an important step in protecting American consumers and businesses from injuries caused by defective products manufactured outside the United States. Those products hurt American consumers--they lead to serious injuries, and even death--and they hurt the American businesses that must deal with angry customers, product recalls, and unusable inventory.

The list of recent examples of Americans injured by defective foreign products is shocking. Sadly, the situation is no better than when we first introduced this legislation in 2009. A recent rash of cases involving children's toys is particularly chilling because children are so susceptible to the effects of defective products, and because there is no worse nightmare as a parent than seeing harm befall your child, particularly when that harm is preventable.

The following are just a few of the many examples of defective and dangerous toys and children's products that are being sold to unknowing parents:

On October 27, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a settlement with a foreign toy maker because a line of its craft kits contained beads that were, unbelievably, coated with the chemical GHB, also known as ``the date-rape drug.'' Children who swallowed the beads became comatose, developed respiratory depression, or had seizures. Over 4.2 million of these toys were sold.

A week earlier, a line of wooden peg toys made by a foreign manufacturer were recalled for having small parts that could choke toddlers.

Earlier this year, there was a recall of jewelry marketed to children 12 years old and under because it contained cadmium, which can cause cancer. The cadmium levels in these products were as high as 2,300 times the legal limit in California, where the jewelry was distributed.

Foreign toys have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. In 2007, a major toy company was forced to recall 18.6 million foreign- made toys for containing lead or dangerous magnets. The same year, another major company had to recall more than 1.6 million foreign-made toys for containing lead. In 2006, a foreign-made, lead-tainted charm bracelet claimed the life of a 4-year-old. The autopsy demonstrated that the charm was 99 percent lead, 1,650 times more than the 0.06 percent lead limit specified in enforcement guidelines for children's jewelry.

However, it is not just toys and other children's products that pose risks. In 2008, a contaminated blood thinner from a foreign manufacturer caused severe medical reactions and contributed to numerous deaths. Imported food products from seafood to honey have been contaminated with unthinkable chemicals, including veterinary drugs banned in domestic production, potentially harmful antibiotics, and unapproved food additives. Tens of millions of packages of pet food contaminated with tainted wheat gluten have been recalled. Substandard tires have failed, leading to fatalities. Defective drywall imported from China has been found to contain excessively high levels of sulfur, causing houses to smell like rotten eggs, corroding copper wiring, making expensive appliances fail, causing respiratory an other health problems, and making homes unlivable. Thousands of homes have been affected. I am very pleased that tomorrow Senator Pryor will chair an important hearing of the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, focusing on this contaminated drywall, and its awful consequences.

At a hearing that I chaired in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts explored the legal hurdles facing consumers who are injured by defective foreign products and by businesses that find that their foreign partners refuse to honor their contracts. These hurdles allow foreign manufacturers to injure American businesses and consumers with impunity. They also put American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage since they allow foreign manufacturers to offer cheaper products that do not comply with American safety requirements.

Two major hurdles to proper accountability are the inability to serve process on the foreign manufacturer and the ability of that foreign manufacturer, even if served, to evade the jurisdiction of American courts. Legislation to address these issues is both necessary and appropriate. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act addresses both concerns.

The first problem, the inability to serve process on a manufacturer, essentially means that it is difficult for an American to give a foreign manufacturer the legally required notice that it is the subject of a lawsuit. This sounds like a simple step, and it should be. Unfortunately, however, it is very hard to serve process on foreign companies abroad. Service abroad is complicated by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, to which the United States is a signatory. Under that convention, a complaint must be translated into the foreign language, transmitted to the Central Authority in the foreign country, and then delivered according to the rules of service in the home country of the defendant. This can cause months and even years of delay, not to mention great expense for Americans.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow Americans to overcome that procedural hurdle by serving legal papers inside the United States on registered agents of foreign manufacturers. The bill requires the heads of Federal Government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to pass regulations requiring that foreign manufacturers of products regulated by their agencies register an agent who will accept service of process. It allows regulators to exclude manufacturers who only import a minimal amount of products into the United States. It imposes a minimal burden on foreign manufacturers, since they would only have to appoint one agent to accept service of process for all State and Federal regulatory and civil actions anywhere in the United

States. The bill allows the manufacturer to choose any location for that agent with a ``substantial connection to the importation, distribution, or sale'' of their products. This clear and straightforward system will allow Americans to commence their lawsuits fairly and promptly, and ensure that foreign manufacturers have proper and fair notice of the proceedings brought against them. It will not conflict with American obligations under the Hague convention, since that convention applies to service of process on foreign manufacturers in their home countries, not in the United States.

The second hurdle, the inability to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, can end a lawsuit against a foreign manufacturer before it even begins. Think about how unfair this is. A foreign manufacturer sells its defective products in the United States, injures American consumers and businesses, and then argues that it is not subject to the courts in the state where the American was injured-- in legal parlance, that the courts do not have personal jurisdiction over it. Foreign manufacturers raise this technical legal defense to avoid liability even when serious injuries or even death have been caused by their products--their defective tires, fireworks, exercise equipment, bikes, and toys.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will enable injured Americans to surmount this hurdle. It will make clear to foreign manufacturers that by importing their products into the United States and by registering an agent in the United States, they are consenting to the jurisdiction of the courts in the state where their agent is located. By consenting to jurisdiction, the manufacturers will be unable to engage in unnecessary and expensive legislation about technical legal issues and allow courts to settle the merits of disputes. This approach is fair to foreign manufacturers since all American manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of at least one state. This bill therefore complies with the trade principle that we should not subject foreign manufacturers to burdens not already imposed on domestic manufacturers.

Indeed, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act is ultimately about fairness. We all know American manufacturers comply with regulations that ensure the safety of American consumers and businesses. When they fail to do so, they must answer to regulators and are held accountable through the American tort system. Unfortunately, foreign manufacturers are not being held to the same standards-- injuring American consumers and businesses, and putting American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. We must level the playing field for all manufacturers and provide justice for American consumers and businesses. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow us to make a major step in that direction. It covers major product categories including consumer goods, drugs, cosmetics, and chemicals, and it requires relevant agencies to study workable approaches to ensure that foreign food producers also are brought within the ambit of the American legal system.

Because of its benefits to consumers, this legislation has the support of several leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Protecting Americans and holding foreign manufacturers accountable when their products harm American consumers and businesses is a bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees that we should do what we can to keep Americans safe from defective products. So too, I think, do we all agree that American companies should not be at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act builds on those fundamental agreements. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Sessions, and the bill's other cosponsors, for their hard work on this bill. I know that they all feel the impacts of harmful, defective foreign products in their home states, just as we feel it in Rhode Island.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this important legislation passed into law.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011, which I am introducing today with Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Bennet, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Pryor.

This bipartisan bill is an important step in protecting American consumers and businesses from injuries caused by defective products manufactured outside the United States. Those products hurt American consumers--they lead to serious injuries, and even death--and they hurt the American businesses that must deal with angry customers, product recalls, and unusable inventory.

The list of recent examples of Americans injured by defective foreign products is shocking. Sadly, the situation is no better than when we first introduced this legislation in 2009. A recent rash of cases involving children's toys is particularly chilling because children are so susceptible to the effects of defective products, and because there is no worse nightmare as a parent than seeing harm befall your child, particularly when that harm is preventable.

The following are just a few of the many examples of defective and dangerous toys and children's products that are being sold to unknowing parents:

On October 27, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a settlement with a foreign toy maker because a line of its craft kits contained beads that were, unbelievably, coated with the chemical GHB, also known as ``the date-rape drug.'' Children who swallowed the beads became comatose, developed respiratory depression, or had seizures. Over 4.2 million of these toys were sold.

A week earlier, a line of wooden peg toys made by a foreign manufacturer were recalled for having small parts that could choke toddlers.

Earlier this year, there was a recall of jewelry marketed to children 12 years old and under because it contained cadmium, which can cause cancer. The cadmium levels in these products were as high as 2,300 times the legal limit in California, where the jewelry was distributed.

Foreign toys have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. In 2007, a major toy company was forced to recall 18.6 million foreign- made toys for containing lead or dangerous magnets. The same year, another major company had to recall more than 1.6 million foreign-made toys for containing lead. In 2006, a foreign-made, lead-tainted charm bracelet claimed the life of a 4-year-old. The autopsy demonstrated that the charm was 99 percent lead, 1,650 times more than the 0.06 percent lead limit specified in enforcement guidelines for children's jewelry.

However, it is not just toys and other children's products that pose risks. In 2008, a contaminated blood thinner from a foreign manufacturer caused severe medical reactions and contributed to numerous deaths. Imported food products from seafood to honey have been contaminated with unthinkable chemicals, including veterinary drugs banned in domestic production, potentially harmful antibiotics, and unapproved food additives. Tens of millions of packages of pet food contaminated with tainted wheat gluten have been recalled. Substandard tires have failed, leading to fatalities. Defective drywall imported from China has been found to contain excessively high levels of sulfur, causing houses to smell like rotten eggs, corroding copper wiring, making expensive appliances fail, causing respiratory an other health problems, and making homes unlivable. Thousands of homes have been affected. I am very pleased that tomorrow Senator Pryor will chair an important hearing of the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, focusing on this contaminated drywall, and its awful consequences.

At a hearing that I chaired in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts explored the legal hurdles facing consumers who are injured by defective foreign products and by businesses that find that their foreign partners refuse to honor their contracts. These hurdles allow foreign manufacturers to injure American businesses and consumers with impunity. They also put American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage since they allow foreign manufacturers to offer cheaper products that do not comply with American safety requirements.

Two major hurdles to proper accountability are the inability to serve process on the foreign manufacturer and the ability of that foreign manufacturer, even if served, to evade the jurisdiction of American courts. Legislation to address these issues is both necessary and appropriate. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act addresses both concerns.

The first problem, the inability to serve process on a manufacturer, essentially means that it is difficult for an American to give a foreign manufacturer the legally required notice that it is the subject of a lawsuit. This sounds like a simple step, and it should be. Unfortunately, however, it is very hard to serve process on foreign companies abroad. Service abroad is complicated by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, to which the United States is a signatory. Under that convention, a complaint must be translated into the foreign language, transmitted to the Central Authority in the foreign country, and then delivered according to the rules of service in the home country of the defendant. This can cause months and even years of delay, not to mention great expense for Americans.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow Americans to overcome that procedural hurdle by serving legal papers inside the United States on registered agents of foreign manufacturers. The bill requires the heads of Federal Government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to pass regulations requiring that foreign manufacturers of products regulated by their agencies register an agent who will accept service of process. It allows regulators to exclude manufacturers who only import a minimal amount of products into the United States. It imposes a minimal burden on foreign manufacturers, since they would only have to appoint one agent to accept service of process for all State and Federal regulatory and civil actions anywhere in the United

States. The bill allows the manufacturer to choose any location for that agent with a ``substantial connection to the importation, distribution, or sale'' of their products. This clear and straightforward system will allow Americans to commence their lawsuits fairly and promptly, and ensure that foreign manufacturers have proper and fair notice of the proceedings brought against them. It will not conflict with American obligations under the Hague convention, since that convention applies to service of process on foreign manufacturers in their home countries, not in the United States.

The second hurdle, the inability to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, can end a lawsuit against a foreign manufacturer before it even begins. Think about how unfair this is. A foreign manufacturer sells its defective products in the United States, injures American consumers and businesses, and then argues that it is not subject to the courts in the state where the American was injured-- in legal parlance, that the courts do not have personal jurisdiction over it. Foreign manufacturers raise this technical legal defense to avoid liability even when serious injuries or even death have been caused by their products--their defective tires, fireworks, exercise equipment, bikes, and toys.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will enable injured Americans to surmount this hurdle. It will make clear to foreign manufacturers that by importing their products into the United States and by registering an agent in the United States, they are consenting to the jurisdiction of the courts in the state where their agent is located. By consenting to jurisdiction, the manufacturers will be unable to engage in unnecessary and expensive legislation about technical legal issues and allow courts to settle the merits of disputes. This approach is fair to foreign manufacturers since all American manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of at least one state. This bill therefore complies with the trade principle that we should not subject foreign manufacturers to burdens not already imposed on domestic manufacturers.

Indeed, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act is ultimately about fairness. We all know American manufacturers comply with regulations that ensure the safety of American consumers and businesses. When they fail to do so, they must answer to regulators and are held accountable through the American tort system. Unfortunately, foreign manufacturers are not being held to the same standards-- injuring American consumers and businesses, and putting American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. We must level the playing field for all manufacturers and provide justice for American consumers and businesses. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow us to make a major step in that direction. It covers major product categories including consumer goods, drugs, cosmetics, and chemicals, and it requires relevant agencies to study workable approaches to ensure that foreign food producers also are brought within the ambit of the American legal system.

Because of its benefits to consumers, this legislation has the support of several leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Protecting Americans and holding foreign manufacturers accountable when their products harm American consumers and businesses is a bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees that we should do what we can to keep Americans safe from defective products. So too, I think, do we all agree that American companies should not be at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act builds on those fundamental agreements. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Sessions, and the bill's other cosponsors, for their hard work on this bill. I know that they all feel the impacts of harmful, defective foreign products in their home states, just as we feel it in Rhode Island.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this important legislation passed into law.

Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from New Hampshire. I will not speak long. I know she is here waiting to speak, as we go back and forth across the aisle in sequence.

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Levin and his ranking member, Senator McCain, for the work they have done on this detention issue. I think they have made a lot of progress, and I look forward to continuing to work on the Senate floor to try to conclude what I hope will be a successful agreement for everyone.

Amendment No. 1092

But I am here to speak about amendment No. 1092 to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the piece that has been put in that responds to the serious and ever-growing problem of counterfeit parts that appear in our military supply chain.

Our Nation asks a lot of our troops. We send them far away. We send them into danger. We ask them to suffer prolonged separation from their families. We ask them to put their life and limb in peril. In return, we have a high obligation to give them the best possible equipment to fulfill their vital missions and come home safely.

In order to assure the proper performance of our weapons systems, of our body armor, of our aircraft parts, and of countless other mission critical parts, we have to make sure they are legitimate and not counterfeit parts.

That was why I introduced the Combating Military Counterfeits Act, which was reported without objection by the Judiciary Committee on July 21 of this year. It is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Graham, whom I see on the floor; by the ranking member, Senator McCain--again, my appreciation to him--Senator Coons; the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy; Senator Kyl; Senator Schumer; Senator Hatch; Senator Blumenthal; and Senator Klobuchar. I thank all of those cosponsors for their support and leadership on this important issue.

I particularly want to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for including this legislation in their amendment No. 1092, which was offered earlier today.

Senator Levin and Senator McCain led an in-depth investigation in the Armed Services Committee into this problem of military counterfeits, and they have drawn on that investigation in making these important reforms that will protect military procurement from counterfeit parts. I am very glad they believe, as I do, the enhanced criminal penalties in my bill would provide a useful complement to those important changes.

Prosecutors have an important role to play in the fight against military counterfeiters. The criminals who sell counterfeit military products should not get off with light sentences. They knowingly sell the military, for instance, counterfeit body armor that could fail in combat, a counterfeit missile control system that could short-circuit at launch, or a counterfeit GPS that could fail under battlefield conditions.

The Combatting Military Counterfeits Act of 2011 makes sure appropriate criminal sanctions attach to such reprehensible criminal activity, first, by doubling the maximum statutory penalty for an individual who trafficks in counterfeits and knows the counterfeit product either is intended for military use or is identified as meeting military standards; and, second, by directing the Sentencing Commission to update the sentencing guidelines as appropriate to reflect our congressional intent that trafficking in counterfeit military items be punished seriously, sufficiently to deter this kind of reckless endangering of our servicemembers.

The administration has called for these increased sentences for trafficking in counterfeit military products. In the private sector, this legislation is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Semiconductor Industry Association, DuPont, the International Trademark Association, and the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. I thank all of them for their work and leadership on this issue.

One semiconductor manufacturer, ON Semiconductor, which has a development center in East Greenwich, in my home State of Rhode Island, has written a letter of support explaining that military counterfeits are a particular problem since ``[m]ilitary grade products are attractive to counterfeiters because their higher prices reflect the added costs to test the products to military specifications, specifications that include the full military temperature range.'' So it is a target area for counterfeiters.

I will say, without going on at any great length, the examples are shocking. The Defense Department, for instance, has found out in testing that what it thought was Kevlar body armor was, in fact, nothing of the sort and could not protect our troops the way proper Kevlar can. In another example, a supplier sold the Defense Department a part that it falsely claimed was a $7,000 circuit that met the specifications of a missile guidance system.

A January 2010 study by the Commerce Department quoted a Defense Department official as estimating that counterfeit aircraft parts were ``leading to a 5 to 15 percent annual decrease in weapons systems reliability.'' The investigation, led by Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, revealed countless other grave and sobering examples.

I am glad we are responding to the serious and ever-growing threat posed by counterfeit military parts. Again, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their great work to eliminate counterfeit parts from the military supply chain, and I hope all my colleagues will support their amendment No. 1092.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Madam President, I wish to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, and I have unanimous consent to engage during majority morning business time in a colloquy.

We have just passed through a very significant landmark in this country which is that student debt, the burden of college loan debt Americans have to carry, broke through $1 trillion. That is $1 trillion in debt. And because of the laws that have been set up to favor the banks, in particular in this Congress, the debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That is a $1 trillion burden on folks who required loans to get through college that they can never shake off that is going to stay with them for their lives, for as long as it takes to pay it down even when things don't work out for them. So it is a very significant milestone when it hits $1 trillion of this particular kind of very onerous debt.

One of the responses to it is the Pell grant.

The Pell grant helps people who can't afford college have the chance to go to college. It helps them pay their way through college, and it does so without leaving that burden of debt behind. It is named after Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, a Senator and a man who was very important to me in my life and in my development as a political figure in Rhode Island. He was a very dear friend and went almost inexplicably out of his way for me on many different occasions. I am deeply indebted to him. But I am also extremely proud to represent Rhode Island in the Senate and to represent a State that produced Senator Claiborne Pell and, particularly as we face this massive burden of debt, to come to the floor to participate in this colloquy in support of the Pell grant.

I will turn to my colleague, Senator Tester, in one moment. First, I wish to say how important this is to individual people who wouldn't have the chance otherwise. I was at the University of Rhode Island just a few weeks ago. I met a woman named Amber, who is 29 years old. She is not the standard ``come out of high school and go on to college'' student. She is actually a mom. She has two kids. She works full time and she goes to school full time and she is the mother of two kids. This is a very busy person and a very energetic and capable person. The only way she can make things work in her life and enable her to be a full-time mom, a full-time employee, and a full-time student is because the Pell grant that she gets bridges the gap between what she can earn, what she can borrow, what she has to pay, and gives her the chance to move into the college-educated status.

As we know from looking at this recession we are in right now, there are two economies in America. There is an economy for college-educated people--an economy in which the top unemployment rate is below 5 percent--and then there is the economy for people who have not had the benefit and the good fortune of a college education, for whom unemployment is nearly twice as high and for whom the suffering brought on by the Wall Street meltdown and the subsequent recession has been much more acute.

I will turn now to Senator Tester. I appreciate so much that he has come to join us today to help our colleagues, I hope, come to the realization that cutting Pell grants as we face our debt and our deficit problem would be a wild mistake, a terrible mistake, would undercut the progress we are trying to make, and would be one of the worst places to go for spending cuts. Even though I admit we need to make them, the Pell grant is the wrong place to look.

I yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Tester.

I thank the Senator. As my colleague knows, we have a very distinguished colleague from the Senate who has now gone on to be the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Ken Salazar. I see former attorney general and now Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut has joined us for this colloquy, and he knows Ken Salazar was the attorney general of Colorado, an attorney general with both of us. Ken grew up on a farm in Colorado that, until his generation, didn't have running water and didn't have electricity. His generation was the first generation to go to college. When I got here, he was a Senator and his brother was a Congressman. It never would have happened if it hadn't been for the Pell grant. It was the Pell grant that allowed those boys, from a faraway corner of Colorado, who were eighth-generation Americans, to be the first generation that got their foothold in college and were able to propel themselves from that to remarkable leadership of our country. It shows what ordinary Americans are capable of when the Pell grant gives them that launching pad.

I appreciate that the Senator from Montana brought up the effects on Indian Country as well.

I know Senator Blumenthal wishes to say a few words.

I say to Senator Blumenthal, one of the things that has taken place is that the value to the individual student of the Pell grant has actually declined quite a lot over the years since it was first initiated.

When the first Pell grants came out, they paid for nearly three- quarters of the typical 4-year public college tuition; 72 percent of that tuition. Now they are down to 32 percent; less than one-third. So there is a lot of room to increase what we can spend on Pell grants. I think it is pretty clear from what the Senator has said and from what Senator Tester has said that once someone is college educated, they step into a different economy with a top unemployment rate through this awful recession of below 5 percent, they step into a whole new set of opportunities, and they step into opportunities that have a higher income potential for them, all of which redounds back to the benefit of our country in higher revenues, in a stronger economy, and in more innovation and economic development.

So we are going in the wrong direction is the way I would respond, and it is time, instead of doing what the Republicans in the House have suggested, which is to go even further in the wrong direction, even potentially eliminating this grant, calling it welfare, for Pete's sake--remember Amber. This is a woman with two children, working full time and going to school and what enables her to tie that together--the last piece, the keystone in the arch--is the Pell grant. You call that welfare? This is a welfare recipient? I do not think so. But that is the kind of attack these things are under, and it is not just institutions like Connecticut is famous for and Rhode Island is famous for--super high-end institutions that are internationally renowned--but it is also basic community colleges and technical colleges, places where people can get a solid career.

I know Senator Tester wants to say a few words about that and then Senator Landrieu.

Yes. That is a great point, I say to the Senator. One of the unfortunate aspects of the current condition we have in Washington, DC, is that a party that has long supported Pell grants--it has long enjoyed bipartisan support--has suddenly, after--what has it been, 30 years of support for the Pell grant--has suddenly walked away from it, has suddenly decided: No, we have a new agenda. Helping people who cannot otherwise afford college to have a chance to go to college, without carrying that trillion-dollar burden of debt and to be able to move up into the college-educated economy and into the opportunities and potential that creates, that is not what we are interested in any longer. We are interested in other things.

Clearly, they are interested in protecting the tax breaks for people making over $1 million. We tried to get jobs legislation through here. It was paid for with a tiny tax only on the dollars over $1 million that people earning over $1 million earn. On the first million dollars, there is no difference. The second million dollars is where it started to kick in. No, no. We stopped jobs legislation over that. But when it comes to a kid who cannot afford college, that is a program they suddenly want to take a whack at. I think it is regrettable because there is a long history of very honorable, sincere, and enthusiastic Republican support for the Pell grant. Frankly, there is nothing Democratic or Republican about an American young person having the chance to begin to climb the ladder of success. That is a common American dream. That is common to both parties. Yet now, in this strange environment we now have to inhabit in Washington, this other party has decided: No, we are walking away from that.

In the House, they tried to knock more than $1,750 out of the average grant. They would have put nearly 5,800 students in Rhode Island off the Pell grant. When we hear from people such as Amber, who would not be able to do it but for that--this group I spoke with at URI was so impressive. We had regular students who were right in line. We had the nontraditional students, such as Amber, who had their kids. We had faculty who years ago had gotten their Pell grants and now they are teaching others. They have made a career in academia as a result of that first foothold they got in higher education through the Pell grants. How one would want to cut it at that point by that much, when we have these people--it is just enough to make it possible for them. When we cut it by over $1,750 for a lot of those kids, for a lot of those working moms, it means: No, we are pulling, as the Senator said, the rug out from under them. They do not get that chance.

We all win when young Americans step forward. Everybody in America wins when young Americans reach their full potential and create industries and do a great job and save lives as surgeons or nurses or EMTs and pay revenues through their taxes through their successes to support our great country.

Madam President, I will yield the floor with appreciation to my colleagues, Senator Landrieu, Senator Tester, and Senator Blumenthal, for coming together to urge our colleagues to support the Pell grant.

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