Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business for 2 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we are about to pass unanimously the St. Croix bill. It is something we have been working on very hard--the two Senators from Minnesota, myself, Senator Franken, Senator Johnson, as well as Senator Kohl--to get through the Senate. This bill allows a bridge to be built that has been waiting for 30 years. It is a bridge that exists now and is a beautiful bridge, but it is falling apart. Pieces of the bridge have fallen into the St. Croix River. It is a bridge that is expected to take 18,000 cars a day, and the Department of Transportation and the State of Minnesota believe very strongly we need a new bridge. This legislation allows the bridge to move forward. I appreciate all of the help from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. They have helped me to work on this legislation over the last few months. Senator Coburn had some changes at the end, and we worked with every single Senator to get this done. The bill now moves to the House where it also enjoys bipartisan support, and both Governors of both States support this bill. They will then be allowed to build the bridge they want. There has been questions raised about whether this creates some kind of precedent under the Scenic Rivers Act. This is a very unique situation. It has taken us a year to pass. We are in a situation where any new bridge would need an exemption to the Scenic Rivers Act. We are pleased this bill is getting passed today. I don't believe anyone believed we could have done this unanimously after 30 years of work, but tonight we are getting it done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the importance of sustained funding and support for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, better known as LIHEAP. I know it is something my colleague, the Presiding Officer, cares very much about as well. LIHEAP helps households pay home heating costs and targets funds for those families with the lowest incomes and the highest energy costs. In 2010, nearly 165,000 families in Minnesota used this critical lifeline. As the Presiding Officer knows, our home State may be known as the land of ice hockey and ice fishing and other winter sports, but our tough winters can be downright dangerous to families struggling to pay their utility bills and trying to keep the heat on. Even as Minnesota's economy has weathered the recession better than most, we have seen a great increase in need for assistance with heating bills. From 2008 to 2010, there was a 30-percent increase in families who needed energy assistance. Without sustained funding for LIHEAP at current levels, we risk pushing these 38,000 families out into the cold. This October, I joined with Members from many cold weather States, as my colleague did, in a letter that urged the Department of Health and Human Services to release LIHEAP funds as quickly and at as high a level as possible. We must follow up on this action by fully funding LIHEAP. On October 28, the Department of Health and Human Services released $1.7 billion for LIHEAP. This is a start, but we need another $3 billion to ensure we sustain level funding from last year. Depending on how and what the final appropriations are for fiscal year 2012, it is important to recognize we will need over $1 billion to fully fund LIHEAP. I believe seniors should not have to choose between paying for medication and their heating bills; that families should not have to choose between putting food on the table or keeping their furnaces on at night, and children should always have a warm home to sleep in at night. LIHEAP is targeting those families who are most in need. In fact, the average household served by LIHEAP in Minnesota had an income of $16,000, and 85 percent of the homes served by LIHEAP included at least one senior, a person with a disability, or a child under the age of 18. These families are struggling. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet. LIHEAP is supported by nonprofit organizations such as Community Action of Minneapolis, the Salvation Army, State and local governments, and utility companies. These organizations know the value this program has to ensure that families have the tools they need to stay safe during the coldest winter nights. They also see how it creates economic activity by maintaining demand for utilities when household budgets are under the greatest strain and may be forced to go without. According to economists, LIHEAP is a smart investment. For every dollar in benefits paid, $1.13 is generated in economic activity. As a cosponsor of the LIHEAP Protection Act, introduced by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, I want to commend my colleagues on their leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with them to ensure this legislation is passed and that funding for the critical program is maintained. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the collapse of MF Global. While its demise hasn't triggered the sort of economic turmoil we saw in 2008, let me assure you it is having a devastating impact on the livelihoods and savings of many in my State. Sadly, the story of MF Global is all too familiar. It is the story of another overleveraged financial firm that took on too much risk and did little to disclose its bets. Once again, the folks whom the system was supposed to protect have been left holding the short end of the stick. Three years after the U.S. financial system was nearly toppled by this sort of recklessness, it seems little has changed on Wall Street. Today, Mr. Corzine appeared before the House Agriculture Committee to testify on events that led to the bankruptcy of MF Global--the firm he led--as well as the whereabouts of roughly $1.2 billion in customer funds that remain missing. While taking responsibility for the collapse of the firm in his testimony today, Mr. Corzine chose to use much of his testimony defending the strategy that ultimately led to the firm's demise and that left many in my State with their life savings on the line. In regard to the missing customer funds, he responded that, as CEO of MF Global, he wasn't really in the position to know what happened. If executives at MF Global were willing to steer their ship into dangerous waters, they should be able to account for the safety of their customers' funds held in segregated accounts--something considered sacred within these markets. If anybody still doubts that Wall Street has not learned from its mistakes, I would have you talk with the farmers in my State who can't access their life savings and aren't sure when or how much of it they will ever get back. Dean Tofteland, from Luverne, MN, a town of 4,600 people--his family grows corn, soybeans, and raises pigs on their farm in southwest Minnesota. He currently has over $200,000 in what was supposed to be a segregated MF Global account, which he cannot access and which he may never fully recover. He is not a speculator. He invested to reduce his risk--locking in prices ahead of the growing season so he is protected from price fluctuations that can eat into his profits. Talk to Dennis Magnuson, a pork producer from Austin, MN, who had a substantial amount of money with MF Global that he used to stabilize the cost of feed for his pigs. Both Senators in the Chamber are from States that have livestock, and they know the cost of feed has been escalating. That is why he vested. He knows the risks--price swings, poor crops, bad weather. These are all part of farming. But his account at MF Global was supposed to help manage those risks, not become one. It is not just individual farmers; the effects of MF Global's collapse are rippling through the whole agricultural community. Here is a letter from Philip Deal, who writes: I am the CEO and General Manager of Wheaton-Dumont Co-Op Elevator in Wheaton, MN. Wheaton is located on the western edge of Minnesota by the North Dakota/South Dakota border. Our cooperative has approximately 1,200 active members and a total membership of more than 5,000. So the MF Global situation affects a great number of people here. We employ about 115 people, and we are easily the largest nongovernment employer in all of the communities we operate in. Our business uses a Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Minneapolis Grain Exchange to hedge grain purchases and sales. We do not speculate. We have always relied on the implied fiduciary responsibility of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to safeguard our segregated funds. The impact to our business has been huge. We have been forced to double-margin the missing funds. This has increased our interest expenses and decreased our ability to buy and sell grain. Simply put, we cannot afford to lose any money on this deal. On a local level, the very future of our business is at stake. On a larger level, if segregated funds are lost, market participants will leave the market, open interest will decline, and market liquidity will fall. Everyone loses. Sadly, Philip Deal is correct. The failure of MF Global has caused millions in investor losses, created significant uncertainty in the markets, and has left many in my State confused and angry--and they should be angry. Just 3 years after the 2008 financial collapse, and what has changed? How can ordinary folks trust this system? Who can they trust to protect them? Two weeks after the collapse of MF Global, it was announced the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is leading the investigation into the missing funds, will receive only two-thirds of their budget request for 2012, potentially limiting the agency's ability to do its job at a time when the markets they oversee are expanding exponentially. This is not acceptable. We need to make sure our regulatory agencies aren't allowing Wall Street bankers to go down the street in their Ferraris while those standing up for the middle class--those at the agencies that are supposed to regulate them--are not following behind in a Model T Ford. We don't know with certainty what the ongoing investigations into MF Global will find, but there is little doubt Congress has work to do. Already the CFTC, after our hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee last week, has come up with some changes they are proposing to how these funds can be invested. I think more needs to be done. There are also rules of disclosure being considered and that were discussed today at a House hearing, as well as in our Senate Agriculture hearing, that need to be changed. These changes were made to the CFTC rules in 2000 and in 2005 they loosened the rules and expanded things. They need to go back to where they once were, where they protected investor savings. Investor trust in segregated accounts is vital to market confidence and is the cornerstone of customer protection in the commodity futures market. This trust has been breached. I urge my colleagues to join me in demanding those responsible for the MF Global failure be held accountable for their actions and that steps are taken to prevent this from ever happening again. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in regard to the National Defense Authorization Act, and in particular to certain sections of that bill which target a serious but often underaddressed problem facing the men and women of our Armed Services. This is the issue of sexual assault. I introduced this legislation on this issue in the spring with Senator Susan Collins, and I remain deeply concerned about the subject. Many of our colleagues are aware that sexual assault is a persistent problem within our Armed Forces. In fact, reports of trauma have risen in recent years. In March, the Department of Defense put out its annual report on sexual assault in the military. According to the estimates, there were more than 3,000 reports of sexual assault in the military last year. That includes reports by both male and female victims, exposing attacks perpetrated both by and against members of our military. And those are just the reported attacks. Since the Department of Defense estimates that only 13 percent of victims actually come forward, we can assume the real number of sexual assaults is much higher--upwards of 19,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs has reported similarly disturbing figures: More than 20 percent of female servicemembers seen at VA medical facilities say they were sexually assaulted or harassed during their service. Let me make this clear. We know the vast majority of the men and women serving in our military would never be involved in a sexual assault. They have the toughest jobs out there. They are on the front lines every day. But when we have a problem, we cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening. In 2008 alone, VA medical personnel reported nearly half a million encounters with veterans that focused on sexual assault and harassment. Our servicemembers are already dealing with the stress of battle. They are fighting two wars, and they are responding to other conflicts and needs around the globe. The idea that an American in uniform--who is out there on the front lines, serving our country--may also suffer the physical and emotional trauma of sexual assault is simply unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that the records of that assault would be destroyed. According to the VA, women who experience sexual assault or sexual harassment in the military have a 59-percent higher risk of developing mental health injuries. Sexual trauma does not just hurt the victims. It can also take a huge toll on the soldiers who serve by their sides. It has been shown to severely undermine military cohesion, team morale, and overall force effectiveness. The Department of Defense is well aware of this problem, and over the years it has taken some positive steps to address it. For example, the Pentagon has created positions for personnel specially trained to handle reports of sexual trauma. It has improved counseling services for victims. And it has implemented new training procedures for commanders. But despite these important improvements, the Defense Department continues to fall short in one very key area: ensuring the lifelong preservation of victims' records from reports of sexual assault. As a former prosecutor, I know firsthand how important it is to preserve the data connected to crimes like sexual assault. That is why I am so troubled by the gaps we have seen at the Defense Department. As of now, there is no coordinated, cross-service policy for ensuring the preservation of medical records and other information that is related to sexual assault. In this day and age, it seems a little crazy. Some of the branches have 5 years; some of them have 10 years. There is no policy, and many of these records are destroyed. These are records of sexual assault. Across the board, these policies--or lack thereof--are bleak. In a significant number of cases of sexual assault, the data is destroyed within 1 year. It is simply shredded. The problems this can cause for servicemembers are extensive. Within 1 year, the servicemember loses the proof that he or she experienced a sexual assault connected to their military service. As a prosecutor, if you have someone who is maybe accused of a crime--or maybe no one followed through on it, and then later they go on and they commit an actual crime and there is a trial--you want to be able to access the records from the past. Also, for the individual victim, it means they no longer have access to the evidence necessary for pursuing criminal action against their perpetrator. It also means if the victim experiences depression or any other ailment, either mental or physical, relating to the assault, they may not be able to prove it was caused during their service, meaning they will not be able to seek VA disability benefits. There are far too many examples of this out there--of servicemembers being denied compensation from the VA for disabilities caused by military sexual assault. There are far too many examples of servicemembers who have been told to ``find a witness.'' And when there are no witnesses, they have been told to ``get their attackers to attest to the assault.'' This is not the way we should be treating our servicemembers. This year, my office was contacted by a group of Minnesota women veterans--veterans of all ages--who have bonded together to share their stories of sexual assault and to advocate for stronger protections from the Department of Defense and the VA. These women signed up to serve. They performed well and honorably. And if in the course of their service, they experience an assault--an assault that would not have been experienced if they had not volunteered--then we owe them the basic decency of keeping their records. That is all we are talking about here. We have appreciated that the Department of Defense is open to it, that the leaders of this bill are working with us on this issue. I originally introduced this bill with Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, and Senator McCaskill. We were able to get 23 cosponsors on this bill, including every single woman in the U.S. Senate. The Support for Survivors Act also is endorsed by several key veterans service organizations, including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, as well as the Servicewomen's Action Network. The Support for Survivors Act is straightforward. Quite simply, it requires the Department of Defense to ensure lifelong storage of all documents connected with reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military, while also maintaining full privacy for those involved. Likewise, the purpose and motivation of this legislation is also pretty simple. It is about supporting our veterans. I have always believed that when we ask men and women to sacrifice for us in defense of our Nation, we make them a promise that we are going to give them the support when they come home. As Abraham Lincoln said: We need to care for those who have borne the battle. Well, protecting our servicemembers' personal records, protecting their rights is just about that. This week, Senators are considering a critically important bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. I am happy to say this year the Defense authorization bill already includes a significant majority of the provisions of my Support for Survivors Act. This summer, the Senate Armed Services Committee saw fit to address the issue of military sexual assault during its markup of the bill. I am grateful for the time and effort my colleagues have invested in reviewing this issue. Already, the National Defense Authorization Act requires the Department of Defense to collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs in developing a comprehensive policy for ensuring retention and access to sexual assault records. Importantly, the bill ensures protection of the privacy of the records. It also calls on the Defense Department and the VA to address access to the records not only for victims but also to the VA, law enforcement, and other entities that may need to access them. The bill also seeks to make the policy uniform across all service branches so members of the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marines are given fair treatment. Why would you have records destroyed of sexual assault in one branch after a year and another branch after 5 years and another after 10 years? It is my position they should not be destroyed at all. The one provision which was not included in the Defense Authorization Act, which I believe is vitally important, was the requirement that records be stored throughout the life of the victim. Storing records for a person's lifetime is, in my mind, common sense. All other critical records, such as our health records, insurance records, banking records are stored throughout our lives. So I believe the case should be the same here. Unfortunately, the Defense Authorization Act does not require lifelong storage. Instead it put this question entirely in the hands of the Defense Department, requiring only that the records be stored for 5 years and otherwise allowing the agency to determine its own timing. Five years is not enough. Yes, it is five times the length of time the records are currently stored, and in that respect it is a good step. But it is not enough, not in a modern day where we store records and we have ways of storing records in a way--and certainly the Defense Department knows how to store these records--that is private. That is why I have filed an amendment that would ensure that almost all sexual assault records are stored for an estimated 50 years. This solution is one that I have discussed personally with Senator Levin. It is also something my office has worked on closely with the Department of Defense. Although 50 years is not necessarily the life of the victim, it gets us a long way and is certainly better than what we have now. I thank Chairman Levin for his willingness to work with me on this important issue and for his efforts to include this amendment in the overall bill. I also thank the Republicans, the other side of the aisle, for working with us and the fact that this was a bipartisan amendment from the beginning. Again, the sponsorship on the underlying bill included the sponsorship of all women Senators in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as the strong provisions in this bill that address sexual assault protections for military members. The problems with sexual trauma within the military are broad. But the provisions included in the bill, including my amendment, are important advancements. I intend to monitor the Defense Department's implementation of these provisions. Although I was not able to secure the full lifelong record preservation, I am going to keep fighting this fight. But 50 years for most of the records is a pretty good result given what we have in place right now. This year, the Department of Defense has finally placed a military officer in charge of its Sexual Assault Protection and Responsive Office, GEN Mary Kay Hertog. I believe she has not only a good grasp on the importance of preserving records but also the rank and weight necessary to forge real change in the Department's policy. I intend to continue my communication with General Hertog, and I look forward to finding a policy that ensures that victims have lifelong access to their personal records. When our men and women signed up to serve there was not a line, and there should not be a line when they get back--not for jobs, not for education, and not to receive the medical benefits or health protection they have earned. I see my colleagues, the leaders on this bill, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, are here. I again thank them for working with me on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act 2011, which has been offered as an amendment by my friend from Montana, Senator Jon Tester. This Friday is Veterans Day. On this day every year, Americans join together to honor the men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed for our country. Think of the work we do for our veterans. Some of it is very small. Small to us, but not small to them. We have people call our office all the time when their benefits are messed up, when redtape gets in the way. I will never forget one last year where one of the Patriot guards, who stands on the side and holds the flag during funerals for our servicemembers, came to me in tears and said her son had been badly hurt serving our country. In fact, he had lost his leg. When he came back, he was at Walter Reed. He was fitted with a prosthetic leg, and then he came home. When he was trying to get his benefits, he was told he could not get his benefits for losing his leg--this is a true story--because the records had been lost that showed that he lost his leg. He had no leg. We worked on it. And within a week we got his benefits. Those stories are told all across the country. There is redtape. We must all help them. But it just goes to show, when you see those stories what our young soldiers are doing every single day. This also means fighting for legislation that fulfills American's promise that we will care for our soldiers when they return. When our soldiers signed up to fight for our country, there was no waiting line. And when they come home to the United States of America and they need a job or they need a home or they need medical care or they need an education, there should not be a waiting line. Yet, sadly, when you look at the past decades, too often there is. When I came into the Senate, as my friend from Rhode Island came in in 2006, we all remember the horror stories with our veterans' health care. We remember what had happened at our medical hospitals. We remember the stories of soldiers getting lost in the cracks. That is why we worked so hard to make sure they got the health care they deserve. We provided for historic funding increases to ensure top-quality health care for American servicemembers and military retirees. We also passed a post-9/11 GI bill to expand educational benefits for veterans who have served in the past decade. But there is more work to be done to support our veterans. Consider two shocking facts. The unemployment rate for Minnesota veterans who have served since 9/11 is nearly 23 percent, the third highest in the Nation. Yet our unemployment rate is one of the lower ones in the Nation. Our unemployment rate is two points better than the national average. Yet it is almost double the national average for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and more than three times our State's overall unemployment rate. Second fact. An estimated 700 Minnesota veterans are homeless on any given night. During the course of the year, an estimated 4,000 Minnesota veterans will experience an episode of homelessness or a crisis that could lead to homelessness. This is not right. That is why I am calling on my colleagues today to vote to support the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. This important bill goes a long way in providing our returning veterans the leg up they need in transitioning into the workforce. I will list just a few important provisions of this bill. It encourages companies to hire unemployed veterans by offering them tax credits to do so. The bill provides employers a tax credit of up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months, as well as a $2,400 credit for veterans who are unemployed for more than 4 weeks. The bill also provides employers a tax credit of up to $9,600 for hiring veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months. Second, the VOW Act increases training for returning veterans so that by the time they step out of their uniforms they have the skills and the tools they need to get out there and market themselves to find a job. The bill does this by making it a requirement for returning troops to participate in the Transition Assistance Program, a job-training boot camp coordinated by the Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, that teaches veterans how to get those jobs, write those resumes, apply their military skills to civilian jobs. Third, the VOW Act expands education benefits for older veterans, people who are not eligible for the post-9/11 GI bill. The bill provides 100,000 unemployed veterans of past eras and wars with up to 1 year of additional Montgomery GI benefits to go toward education or training programs at community colleges or technical schools. Fourth, the VOW Act ensures that disabled veterans receive up to 1 year of additional vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits. Last, the VOW Act allows servicemembers to begin the Federal employment process prior to separation, to help them transition seamlessly into jobs at the VA, the Department of Homeland Security, or the many other Federal agencies that could use their skills and dedication. The fact is our returning veterans have battle-tested skills that are valuable to employers in all kinds of fields. Helping our veterans turn the skills they learned in the military into good-paying jobs not only honors our promise to support those who have sacrificed for our Nation, it also helps strengthen our Nation. One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to cut through the redtape and streamline credentialing for servicemembers who have achieved certain skill sets through their military training. I am offering an amendment to the VOW Act that will streamline credentialing for returning military paramedics. I learned about this one time when I was driving around our State and I met a number of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They served as paramedics on the front lines, and they learned incredible skills and how to save lives. Those skills weren't all transferable into becoming paramedics once they returned to the United States. At the same time, we have an incredible shortage of paramedics in our rural areas. So I am going to introduce this as an amendment that would fix this problem by encouraging States to give paramedics credit for the military medical training they have received. Not only does it help veterans, but it relieves the shortage of emergency medical personnel in rural areas. With commonsense solutions like these and those contained in the VOW Act, I believe we can help returning veterans transition into the workforce, not only fulfilling our commitment to them but also helping to lift our economy. Having traveled to the western part of our State in the last few weeks, I cannot tell you the number of job openings right now for welders and tool and die. I have been at companies that literally have dozens of openings--not only starting jobs but for engineers. They want military personnel and they need to connect with them and we need to encourage our employers to hire veterans when they come back. Our State has always been a State that understands the debt we owe to the men and women who have served and sacrificed for us. We literally wrap our arms around them. I want to end with a story from last Veterans Day. After doing our statewide event, I headed up to Wadena, MN, which is an area that was torn apart by a tornado, literally ripped up. Their high school was destroyed. The high school bleachers were three blocks from where they had been. On Veterans Day, they held the annual event, but they could no longer have it at the high school, which was destroyed. They could no longer have it at some of the other places they used to, so they were all in an elementary school the entire time--all the high school kids and all the veterans sitting on old bleachers in that elementary school. I spoke there. What I will never forget is the elementary school kids singing a song that I had never heard before, but I had heard the melody. I remember the Ken Burns movie on World War II. These are the lyrics: All we've been given by those who come before, The dream of a nation where freedom would endure, The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day, What shall be our legacy? What will our children say? Let them say of me I was one who believed In sharing the blessings that I received. Let me know in my heart when my days are through America, America, I gave my best to you. That is what those elementary school kids sang after the whole school had been torn apart--with veterans at their side: ``America, America, I gave my best to you.'' I think that is what we have to remember as we approach this vote on this VOW Act. This vote, to me, is so simple--that we simply give a tax credit so more employers will hire those who have sacrificed for our country, those who gave their best for our country. That is what this vote is about. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the vote that is about to occur in this Chamber on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. Over the past few days, we have been discussing how to best address our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. The cracks in this broken system became tragically clear on a beautiful summers day in Minnesota, August 1, 2007, when the I-35W bridge simply crashed into the Mississippi River, killing 13 people and throwing dozens of cars in the river. As I said that day, a bridge should not fall down in the middle of America, but it did, and an eight-lane highway should not fall down, not a highway that is literally six blocks from my house, a bridge that I drive over every day with my family, but that is what happened. Four years after the I-35W bridge collapsed and was fixed a year later, still 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges have been declared structurally deficient or obsolete--25 percent. Our country has gotten a near-failing grade from the Civil Academy of Engineers. Our construction workers have an unemployment rate that is over 13 percent--more than 4 points above the national average. These are not acceptable realities in this country. Americans spend 4.8 billion hours every year stuck in congestion, stuck in traffic. When you look at what happens in other countries, other countries that are spending 7, 8, 9 percent of their gross national product on infrastructure, we are barely hanging in at 2 percent. Yet we want to be a competitive nation, we want to be a nation that makes things again, that exports to the world. If we do not have the air traffic control system that works, if we don't have the bridges that work, if we don't have the highways that work, if we don't have the waterways to bring our barges down to bring our goods to market, we are not going to be able to compete in this economy. This is simply not an acceptable reality for a country such as America. Think about the Interstate Highway System, built during Eisenhower's Presidency with a Democratic Congress. Think about rural electrification. These things were built during difficult times in this country. Why? Because we didn't think America was about just tinkering at the edges, we believed America was about moving ahead. That is why we need to move forward today on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. All of us recognize the urgent need for new and bold initiatives to fix what is broken and to build the roads, the bridges, and the airports we need to fuel a 21st-century export economy. The infrastructure bank, which is, of course, included in this legislation, is something that has enjoyed bipartisan support from the beginning. It is one of those initiatives that will foster public- private partnership, with the potential to leverage hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure investment. It is about big projects, but it is also about rural projects in States such as Vermont and Minnesota. It is about wastewater treatment plants and water projects and sewer projects--work that has been neglected for way too long. Fixing our Nation's infrastructure will provide a broad range of benefits. We can reduce our congestion, we can better compete globally, and we can create jobs and improve public safety. This is about working to ensure that no bridge ever again collapses in the middle of America. This is our challenge. We cannot put it off any longer. This is the time to act. Traditionally, there had been no such thing as a Democratic bridge or a Republican bridge. In fact, the Transportation Secretary for President Obama is a former Republican Congressman. We have come together on infrastructure. We cannot come apart. This is the time to come together. I urge my colleagues to vote to allow this bill to proceed to a vote. Mr. President, I yield back all the time on both sides, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to discuss the critical need to address our Nation's crumbling transportation and infrastructure system. The cracks in this system became abundantly clear to all of our country and, in fact, the entire world when, on the afternoon of August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the middle of the Mississippi River, taking the lives of 13 Minnesotans and injuring so many more. As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of America, especially not an eight-lane interstate highway which is one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our State, especially not at rush hour in the middle of a metropolitan area, especially not a bridge six blocks from my house that I take my family over all the time to go visit their friends. That is what happened on that day, in the middle of a sunny day in the middle of America. Yet, years after that bridge collapsed and then was rebuilt, 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are still structurally deficient or obsolete. I wish I could say the bridge collapse was the only tragedy my State has suffered because of a broken infrastructure system. It is not. We saw another one just this October in Goodhue County on Highway 52, which connects the Twin Cities with Rochester, home to the Mayo Clinic. Within a 10-day span, one intersection on Highway 52 between Rochester, MN, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota was the site of two fatal crashes that claimed three lives and injured others. Even before these tragic crashes, everyone agreed that an interchange was needed so that drivers weren't forced to risk racing across a four-lane, divided highway, but the county and the Minnesota Department of Transportation didn't have the funds to build an interchange which could have eased the situation and could have saved lives. The worst part is that intersection of Highway 52 isn't even the most dangerous stretch of that road. In fact, local leaders have marked other projects as higher priorities. Yet the funds aren't there, the money isn't there to address these problems. These are just two examples of the impact of our infrastructure and transportation needs in this country. There are tens of thousands more in small towns and big cities from Maryland to Minnesota. That is why I have come to the floor to discuss the Rebuild America Jobs Act, legislation I introduced with several of my colleagues, including Senator Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We have come together as Senators from all corners of the country because we recognize the urgent need for new and bold initiatives to rebuild America. Our legislation would get the ball rolling on desperately needed improvements by establishing an infrastructure bank--something that has long garnered bipartisan support in the Congress--and directing $50 billion toward infrastructure. Both of these ideas, as I have noted, have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In fact, standing there with us this afternoon was Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman who is now the Secretary of Transportation under a Democratic President. We have also said there is no such thing as a Democratic bridge or a Republican bridge or a Democratic or Republican highway. Transportation has always been a bipartisan issue in this country, and it must continue to be. That is why we are continuing to push this legislation. We may not pass it this week, but I know from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there continues to be interest in moving ahead on infrastructure funding. This legislation is about improving public safety so that no bridge ever collapses again in the middle of America, but it is also about creating better opportunities for our businesses and jobs. I say that because if we look back through history, it is clear that many of the major milestones that contributed to America's greatness were rooted in our infrastructure. Whether it was connecting the east and west coasts by rail in 1869 or the WPA in the 1930s or the construction of the Interstate Highway System that began in the 1950s with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--or even the amazing innovations of the early American auto industry, our country did not move forward because our leaders tinkered at the edges of the status quo. America flourished because of innovators such as Henry Ford, who once said: ``If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.'' Then he turned around and built the Model T. If Henry Ford were alive today, he would say that America cannot afford to take a horse-and-buggy approach to infrastructure. That is, in fact, what we have been doing. While other countries are moving full steam ahead with infrastructure investments, we are simply treading water. In an increasingly competitive global economy, standing still is, sadly, falling behind. China and India are spending about 9 and 5 percent respectively of their GDP on infrastructure. Even Europe spends 5 percent of its GDP. Yet how much are we committing right now? About 2 percent. The effects of this shortsighted strategy are increasingly clear. In its 2007 and 2008 report, the World Economic Forum ranked American infrastructure sixth in the world. That was only a few years ago, and yet we have already slipped to 16th place, putting our roads roughly on par with those of Malaysia and far behind those of Germany, Canada, and Hong Kong. This is a huge problem because the strength of our infrastructure is directly tied to the competitiveness of our economy. Just look at the numbers. As our country slipped in the rankings for infrastructure, we also dropped in the World Economic Forum's rankings on competitiveness. Last year we were in fourth place, and this year we are in fifth place. Competitiveness is a huge element here, but it is not just about global bragging rights. Fundamentally, it is about lifting the parking brake that has kept our economy idling and addressing the major inefficiencies we have seen in our infrastructure system. If we want to move to this next-century economy, it is going to be about exports. It is going to be about making stuff again, inventing things, exporting to the world. If we do not have the roads to carry the trucks to bring those goods to market or the waterways and the barges to do it or an air traffic control system that is up to speed on a competitive basis internationally, we are not going to be that economy that so many of our workers and so many of our businesses want us to be. Failing to move ahead will have consequences no one likes. For example, it would not be altogether different from levying a multibillion-dollar tax on American industry. I say that because inefficiencies in infrastructure are expected to drive up the cost of doing business by an estimated $430 billion, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. That is just in the next decade. America spends 4.8 billion hours in traffic--just sitting there in traffic--every single year. When trucks idle in traffic on the highways or wait at port facilities to be loaded and unloaded or when freight trains sit waiting to pass in our congested rail network, our economy hemorrhages dollars, losing roughly $200 billion each year. To put that number in perspective, it is roughly 1.5 percent of our gross domestic product. Increased transportation costs will make it more expensive for companies to ship goods and purchase raw materials. We can only expect that those costs would be passed on to customers. Traffic congestion, as I mentioned, costs us billions. When I said 4.8 billion hours per year, actually, I thought: Did I get that wrong? Is it millions? But, no, it is, in fact, 4.8 billion hours each year stuck in traffic. That is $101 billion in lost revenue. That is $713 per motorist. The bad news is that without action those numbers are only going in one direction--up. By 2020, it is estimated that our crumbling infrastructure will cost our economy more than 876,000 jobs and $897 billion in lost GDP growth. As I alluded to earlier, the public safety aspect of this debate is also incredibly important, and it is something we cannot afford to ignore, particularly in the context of population growth. According to the Census Bureau, the American population is expected to add another 120 million people by 2050. That is a 40-percent increase in 40 years, and it is like adding the entire nation of Japan or more than three States of California. Think about that. We cannot stand still on our infrastructure. That is 120 million more people on our roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and airports--structures that are already insufficient for meeting the needs of today's population. But here is the good news. Addressing this challenge does not just make sense from a long-term competitiveness perspective, it also makes sense because it would be an immediate shot in the arm for our economy. We are still looking at an environment where too many Americans are out of work or have seen their hours cut back. And people who have taken it the hardest are people in the construction industry. In construction, the unemployment rate now is 13.3 percent--more than 4 points higher than the national average. The Rebuild America Act will help get these workers back on the job. Here is how we do it: First of all, we will need to make smarter decisions to stretch our transportation dollars further. This is a compelling case for public- private partnerships--we all know government cannot do this alone-- public-private partnerships for private sector jobs. That is why the infrastructure bank part of the Rebuild America Jobs Act is so important. The American Infrastructure Financing Authority would provide loans and loan guarantees to finance projects that would otherwise be too expensive for any one city, county, or even a State to accomplish on its own. The bank would serve as an incentive for the creation of public-private partnerships and the mechanisms necessary for repaying loans once the projects are completed. This will help ensure the quality of projects too, because no private firm is going to invest in a project that is likely to fail. The infrastructure bank would allow State transportation departments to move more projects off the books and to tackle other critical needs. So the Minnesota Department of Transportation could finally have the resources to focus on fixing Highway 52 and Goodhue County Road 9--or projects in Missouri or projects in Maryland or projects in Oregon. There are needs all over this country. I wish to make an important point here that the American taxpayers need to know; that is, they would be protected as well. Projects would be considered and reviewed by expert staff, separate from the independent and nonpartisan board that would select the projects. There are strong oversight protections, and projects would have to be backed by a dedicated revenue stream. All of this is part of the reason this infrastructure bank has always had bipartisan support. Senator Kerry has worked very hard on this legislation, as have many of my Republican colleagues. They have suggested a similar model in the BUILD Act, many of the sponsors. The BUILD Act has 10 bipartisan cosponsors. Beyond bipartisan congressional support, an infrastructure bank has earned the support of people as far-ranging as from the chamber of commerce to the AFL-CIO. With the initial infusion of $10 billion that the Rebuild America Act proposes, it is estimated it could leverage private investment to generate between $300 billion and $600 billion for infrastructure improvements. The infrastructure bank is the kind of bold and new action we should be taking as a nation. Coming from a State, as I do, where there is a large rural population, I also think it is important to note that rural America-- whether they are in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, or Nevada-- should not be left behind. The infrastructure bank would be structured so that the kinds of projects that are important to rural regions, such as clean drinking water and sanitary sewer systems, could also compete for loans and loan guarantees. Right now, too many repair and replacement projects in our Nation's drinking water and sanitary sewer systems are endangered by a lack of funding. According to the 2008 EPA survey of needs, Minnesota needs $4.1 billion to upgrade our drinking and sanitary water systems. And in 2011 alone, my State has $400 million worth of projects that are just sitting there. Clean water projects are vital to the safety and health of our communities, particularly our rural communities. We all benefit from projects that can promote public health, protect our environment, help create jobs, and support local infrastructure. Let me give you an example. In southwestern Minnesota, we are working on a three-State effort--consisting of Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota--to get water to 20 communities. The region's current lack of water has brought economic development to a standstill in an area where there are all kinds of possibilities for development in an agricultural community. According to the manager of the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System in Minnesota, this lack of clean water has forced the community to turn away businesses that would have otherwise opened in the area, including a large dairy plant, a large cattle-feeding operation, and biofuels plants. That is just in the last 5 years. In other words, the community has lost untold jobs and economic growth because it lacks the water. Importantly, the infrastructure bank that the Rebuild America Jobs Act would create also includes technical assistance to rural communities. Five percent of the initial investment to capitalize the bank would be designated for projects in these very areas. That is $500 million for rural America. As we move forward with this conversation, we cannot lose sight of the critical importance of the multiyear surface transportation bill. This is something we need, and we need it now. The surface transportation bill gives certainty to State departments of transportation so they can make the multiyear planning decisions on how best to spend Federal and State resources. The certainty of a multiyear bill also benefits the private sector. Once States know how much they can put toward infrastructure projects, they can begin contracting with companies--private companies--in engineering, design, and construction. These are companies such as Caterpillar, which employs 750 people at its road-paving equipment manufacturing facility in Minnesota. I visited there in August. Caterpillar's employees are the kind of people who are out there on the front lines of American industry. They are people who make the slogan ``Made in America'' not just a slogan; it is real. They depend on the certainty that only a multiyear Transportation bill provides. We have an opportunity to give them that certainty. I know Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe have been working on this out of their committee, but I did want to keep in mind that as we work on the rebuild America jobs bill, as we work on the Transportation bill we are talking about today that I would like to get passed by the end of this year, that we also are cognizant of the fact that there is a very important 2-year bill they are debating at this very moment. When we look at the state of our Nation's infrastructure, there is no escaping the fact that we are far from where we need to be. Our 21st- century economy depends on a 21st-century transportation network. It is that simple. Fixing our infrastructure is one of the best possible ways to strengthen our Nation's most basic foundation--the channels we use for everything from commerce and exporting to emergency management and disaster response. But I also believe it is about bringing America back to the brass tacks. We know we have to do something about our debt, and I personally believe we can get there with a balanced approach, with spending cuts and looking at closing some of these loopholes. But even then, we must focus on what will move our economy forward in the long term. We simply can no longer base our economy on being a country that just simply churns money and shuffles paper, simply being a country that consumes, that imports and spends its way to a huge trade deficit. That has not worked. What we need to be now is a country that makes things again, that invents things, that exports to the world. The only way we are going to make that happen is if we have the roads and the bridges and the rail and the barges and the airports to carry these goods to market. That is what this is about. We cannot put it off any longer. We must move forward now in a bipartisan manner to get this done for our country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the proposed rules issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, regarding tomato product crediting. I believe we must provide our children with healthy meals and ensure they have access to nutritious foods not only for their own well-being, but for the well-being of our Nation. Given that a significant number of children rely on school lunch programs for meals every day, I am concerned that provisions in the rule regarding tomato paste crediting could have unintended consequences. Tomato paste contributes dietary fiber, potassium--a nutrient of concern for children--as well as Vitamins A and C. It is delivered to kids in popular school menu items they enjoy eating and drives National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program participation. The proposed rule changes a technical crediting issue, effectively mandating the use of three times as much tomato paste or other tomato product. For example, under the proposed rules, the crediting of tomato paste would be based on the volume served as opposed to ``single- strength reconstituted basis'' as outlined in the Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs. To achieve one vegetable serving, an estimated three times the current quarter cup volume of tomato product--like tomato paste, tomato sauce, or salsa--would be required. This increased amount is unrealistic for many single foods and combination foods and would make the weekly vegetable serving requirement more difficult for schools to achieve. Under this rule, a plate of spaghetti with three times the normal amount of sauce becomes more of a soup than a pasta dish, and a slice of whole grain pizza with three times the amount of sauce could be equally excessive. This becomes a problem for schools hoping to feed their students healthy meals that kids like. The Institute of School Meals report does not recommend a change in the way tomato products are calculated. This change does not bring a nutritional benefit, and it was not called for by schools, nutritionists, or the Institute of Medicine. Constituents in Minnesota have said that this would result in increased volumes of foods consumed, increased costs to schools, and the virtual elimination of many foods served in school lunch, because of altered formulas and proper ratios that no longer allows for proper preparation or consumption. I am not suggesting that USDA stop action on the rule--but, I believe we must focus on increasing fruits and vegetables rather than decreasing specific foods that provide an important source of essential nutrients. And because of that, I suggest that USDA refrain from changing the current tomato paste crediting levels. We need to make sure that we promote nutritious meals and recognize that the quality of the meals our kids eat in school plays a major role in their health and well-being. Amendment No. 810 Mr. President, I also wish to speak on Senator Sessions' amendment No. 810. While I support Senator Sessions' efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the government, I have concerns that this amendment will take food away from children and families with the greatest needs. This amendment prohibits the use of any funds from being used to support categorical eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. Categorical eligibility reduces administrative costs, simplifies enrollment, and helps eligible low- income households receive food assistance. I have heard from a number of groups in my State who stressed the importance of categorical eligibility in giving states the option to enroll beneficiaries in SNAP, and I know how important it is to reach out to citizens that are eligible for benefits. While I opposed this amendment, I will work in the farm bill to strengthen and improve the program to ensure that taxpayer resources are spent wisely. Amendment No. 739 Mr. President, I also wish to discuss amendment No. 739 offered by Senator McCain to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. I share Senator McCain's concern that transportation funds need to be spent carefully to address our most critical infrastructure priorities. However, I voted to table the McCain amendment because I believe it needed to be changed to allow States to continue to maintain existing infrastructure projects. The Minnesota Department of Transportation noted that the McCain amendment could have negatively impacted proposed projects to rehabilitate historic bridges that remain in use today as a critical part of Minnesota's road network. Specifically, bridges in Winona and Oslo, Minnesota may have been impacted and possibly Baudette, Minnesota's project as well. The chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee which has jurisdiction over transportation policy also assured me that no funding in this bill would be used to fund transportation museums. Amendment No. 792 Mr. President, I also wish to discuss amendment No. 792 offered by Senator Coburn to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. While I agree with Senator Coburn that Federal dollars should not end up in the hands of property owners that put their tenants at risk, I ultimately could not support this amendment because it could have harmed the very families it sought to help. Before the vote, I was contacted by several affordable housing groups from my home State of Minnesota asking that I oppose this amendment. They were concerned that because of the way this amendment was drafted it could end up forcing the tenants it sought to protect into worse housing conditions, or even onto the street. By suspending payments to properties identified as deficient, it could also have prevented new owners from taking over deficient properties in order to rehabilitate them as they wouldn't have any way of financing the rehabilitation. The Department of Housing and Urban Development already has the ability to enforce physical standards by suspending payments, seeking appointment of a receiver, and pursuing civil money penalties. I will continue to insist that they use these tools to develop responsive strategies for every troubled property while putting the safety of the tenants first.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a serious public health crisis facing our Nation and to highlight some of the important progress we have made to date. We are currently confronting unprecedented shortages of critical medications. These drug shortages have impacted people across our country, forcing some patients to delay their lifesaving treatments, or use unproven, less effective, alternatives. In some cases, drug shortages have resulted in patients not getting the kind of treatment they had gotten or being slow in getting their treatment and being left behind. I have been working to address this problem for over a year since I first heard from hospitals, pharmacists, and patients in Minnesota that they were facing shortages of essential medications, particularly chemotherapy drugs. Their urgency led me to send a letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg, urging the FDA to take action to address this public health crisis. Over the next few months, I continued to receive calls and visits from constituents, asking help to find medications in short supply. I worked with manufacturers, stakeholders, and the FDA to try to find an appropriate solution to ensure that patients continue to receive the care they deserve and they need. I would add, while in several cases the crisis was averted, this took hours and hours of individual pharmacists' time, individual doctors' time. At a time when we are trying to be as efficient as possible in our health care system, the last thing we need is to have a doctor or nurse or pharmacist spend half a day to look for medication because there is a shortage. In February I introduced the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act with Senator Casey. This legislation, which has bipartisan support and a total of 17 cosponsors, would give the Food and Drug Administration the ability to require early notification from pharmaceutical companies when a factor arises that may result in a shortage. Today the President issued an Executive order that adopts this framework for an early notification system. The Executive order will do this: It will push drug companies to notify the FDA of any impending shortage of certain prescription drugs; it will expand the FDA's current efforts to expedite review of new manufacturing sites, drug suppliers, and manufacturing changes; and it will direct the FDA to work with the Department of Justice to examine whether drug companies have responded to potential drug shortages by illegally hoarding medications or raising prices to gouge consumers. This action will help further reduce and prevent drug shortages, protect consumers, and prevent price gouging. This step enhances actions that have already been taken by the FDA and it puts in place additional tools to address drug shortages. This is something we probably didn't hear about a few years ago, but this year we have learned that drug shortages are having a direct toll on families across America. A couple of months ago I met a young boy named Axel Zirbes. Axel Zirbes is a cute 4-year-old boy from the Twin Cities, with bright eyes and a big smile. He also happens to have no hair on his head. That is because Axel is being treated for leukemia. When he was scheduled to start chemotherapy earlier this year, Axel's parents learned that an essential drug, cytarabine, was in short supply and might not be available for their son. Understandably they were thrown into a panic and desperately looked into any available alternatives. They even prepared to take Axel to Canada, where cytarabine is still readily available. Imagine this. You are parents of a 4-year-old, you find out he has life-threatening leukemia, and you cannot get medication which is actually quite commonplace in the treatment of this disease, and you are starting to fly to Canada because our own country somehow has not kept up with the supply of this drug. Fortunately he never had to go to Canada. At the last minute the hospital was able to secure the medication from a pharmacy that still had a supply. But Axel and his parents, sadly, are not alone. There were 178 drug shortages reported in 2010. Keep in mind, these are not individual stories such as Axel's. These are actually drugs, 178 different drugs across the country, basically affecting millions of patients, that had drug shortages in 2010. That is a dramatic increase from 5 years ago. There were 55 shortages 5 years ago. Think of that increase. For some of these drugs, no substitute drugs are available or, if they are, they are less effective and they may involve greater risks of adverse side effects. The chance of medical errors also rises as providers are forced to use drugs they are not familiar with. A survey conducted by the American Hospital Association showed that nearly 100 percent of their hospitals experienced a shortage in the past year. Another survey, conducted by Premier Health System, showed that 89 percent of its hospitals and pharmacists experienced shortages that have caused a medication safety issue or an error in patient care. We want to be doing the opposite. We want to be reducing errors. We want to be giving patients the help they need. It is clear there are a large number of overlapping factors resulting in unprecedented shortages. Experts cite a number of factors that are responsible for the shortages. These include market consolidation, poor business incentives, manufacturing problems, production delays, unexpected increases in demand for a drug, inability to procure raw materials, and even the influence of the gray markets, where people are basically hoarding these drugs when they find out there could be a shortage and then upping the prices, as if things were not bad enough. Financial decisions in the pharmaceutical industry are also a major factor. Many of these medications are in short supply because companies have simply stopped production. They decided it was not profitable enough to keep producing them. Instead of low price, and lower profit, generic drugs, companies are looking at more expensive brandname drugs. Mergers in the drug industry have narrowed the focus of product lines. As a result, some products are discontinued or production is moved to different sites, leading to delays. When drugs are made by only a few companies, a decision by one drug company can have a huge impact on the market. To help correct a poor market environment or to prevent gray market drugs from contaminating our medication supply chain, we must address the drug shortage problem at its root. The early notification system that would be established under the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act and the President's Executive order that is advanced today will help the FDA take the lead in working with pharmacy groups, drug manufacturers, and health care providers to better prepare for impending shortages, more effectively manage shortages when they occur, and minimize their impact on patient care. Just so you know, the FDA already does this with orphan drugs. When there is only one drug and the drug manufacturer thinks they are going to run out of the drug they do tell the FDA so the FDA can step in and maybe look internationally for another drug. You saw that happen with the H1N1 virus. When we had a short supply they went to other countries. They are allowed to do that now, but manufacturers are not required to do it in some of the situations we are encountering now with those 178 drug shortages. That is what our bill does. It basically says if you see a drug shortage coming down the pipe because one or a number of these factors is present, you have to let the FDA now know. You have to work with the FDA because they have successfully averted dozens of drug shortages this year. We do not pretend this is going to solve everything, but at least it is something we can do right now which will give the FDA the power to go in there and work with the drug manufacturers and try to find other sources so the person who is doing that is not the parent of a 4-year- old kid with leukemia or a pharmacist who is trying to serve customers at his pharmacy, or a doctor trying to treat patients and she has to get on the phone and call a bunch of hospitals to try to find a drug. It simply does not make any sense at all. This is a national problem, not a problem for a 4-year-old boy. Our legislation would also direct the FDA to provide up-to-date public notification of any actual shortage situation and the actions the agency would take to address them. Additionally, the bill requires the FDA to develop an evidence-based list of drugs vulnerable to shortages and to work with the manufacturers to come up with a continuity of operations plan to address potential problems that may result in a shortage. The bill would also direct the FDA to establish an expedited reinspection process for manufacturers of a product in shortage. This would allow them to get inspected sooner so we can get the drugs to market. With manufacturers providing early notification, the FDA's drug-shortage team, which already exists, can then appropriately use their tools to prevent shortages from happening. As I mentioned, in the last 2 years the FDA, with early notification and more information, has successfully prevented 137 drug shortages. So this is something that actually works. While the President's Executive order takes steps toward advancing these goals, he has made it clear we must pass this bill in order to protect patients and ensure consumers they have access to the lifesaving medications they need and deserve. So the Executive order helps, but we still need to pass this bill. I understand this may be a short-term solution to a long-term problem. That is why I have also been working with several of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come up with a broad, permanent solution, one that includes methods to address the root causes of drug shortages. This includes Senator McCain, Senator Corker, and Senator Burr. I also see Senator Blumenthal here, who has been working on this issue. We have Senators--including Senator Casey and others--working with the HELP Committee who have been working to get this done. At the urging of this bipartisan working group, the FDA held a public workshop in September that brought together patient advocates, consumer groups, health care professionals, and researchers to discuss the causes and the impact of drug shortages and possible strategies for preventing or mitigating future shortages. In addition to the working group, I have been speaking with a broad range of stakeholders to try to discover why we have seen such a large number of drug shortages that we have not seen in the past. The facts don't lie, and the numbers don't lie. There has been an enormous increase in the number of drug shortages. This current explosion of shortages appears to be a consequence of a lack of supply of certain products to keep up with a substantial expansion in the scope and demand for these products. Due to the complex nature of these drug shortages, there is no single or simple solution that would solve all problems. A solution will require everyone involved to play a role in mitigating future drug shortages. We must ensure we have the manufacturing capabilities to keep up with demand. One solution may be to provide tax incentives to manufacturers to continue to make drugs that are on the shortage list or to provide other market incentives, such as including exclusivity pricing similar to that which we give to manufacturers that make orphan drugs. In addition, I have urged the FDA to improve its communication with patients and providers. This will ensure patients and doctors are not the last to know when there is a shortage. I also favor permanent reimportation of drugs from safe countries, such as Canada. Not everyone involved in this issue thinks that is a good idea, but I can tell you, if we were to allow that, that little 4-year-old boy would not have to look at flights to Canada. One thing is clear: This is a national public health crisis that must be addressed. The President's actions today will provide additional tools to address drug shortages, but more must be done. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the bipartisan working group for a broad permanent solution. I will also continue to work with Senator Casey, with the Presiding Officer, and with all of the other Senators involved in this, including Senator Susan Collins, to get our legislation passed. It is common sense. It is not over the top. It simply takes a tool that is used now to avert drug shortages for orphan drugs and expands it so that other drug manufacturers, when they have drugs that are going to experience a shortage, are required to notify the FDA. It gives the FDA that little extra time, whether it is 1 month, 6 months, or 1 year, to look for the drug in other locations. I think it would give us some insight into what is actually going on here so we can fix this. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk on behalf of Commerce Secretary nominee John Bryson. Mr. Bryson testified before our Commerce Committee. I was impressed by his background and by his ability to answer the questions and by his understanding of business. I think everyone knows we are facing difficult economic times in this country and we need someone in that job that understands business. Mr. Bryson has strong and broad support within the business community, and his nomination has been endorsed by such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National Association of Manufacturers. Six former Commerce Secretaries, from the George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Nixon administrations, have also joined in strongly supporting his confirmation. Mr. Bryson, as we know, was reported favorably to the entire Senate by the Commerce Committee. But let's look at what some of the groups have said about Mr. Bryson. The Business Roundtable says: John Bryson is a proven, well-respected executive who will bring his private sector experience to the Commerce Department's broad portfolio. The National Association of Manufacturers says Bryson has ``a strong business background . . . which gives him the advantage of having exposure to the difficult issues manufacturers face in today's global marketplace.'' The President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jay Timmons, said: Mr. Bryson has a strong business background and serves on the board of many manufacturing companies, which gives him the advantage of having exposure to the difficult issues manufacturers face in today's global marketplace. I believe the way we get out of this downturn is manufacturing, it is making things in America again, it is inventing stuff, and it is exporting to the world. These business groups know that Mr. Bryson understands their issues. The Chamber of Commerce says Bryson has ``extensive knowledge of the private sector and years of experience successfully running a major company.'' From Edison International we hear that Bryson was ``a visionary leader of Edison International, and we know that he will bring that same leadership to the Department of Commerce.'' Boeing says this: John Bryson's global business experience and strong leadership skills are a great match for the position of Secretary of Commerce. The Acting President pro tempore serves on the Commerce Committee, as I do. I head the Subcommittee on Competitive Innovation and Export Promotion, and I have seen firsthand the need to make sure the Commerce Committee is thinking every single day--as the Commerce Department should--about how we get more jobs in this country, how we make sure we are working with business as partners, how we make sure we get through the redtape, and that we put forward a competitive agenda for this country. That is why I am supporting Mr. Bryson for Commerce Secretary.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act. Rarely is our economy discussed without mention of the more than 14 million Americans who are currently out of work and searching for jobs, but this statistic is really only the beginning of the story. Two years after the recession officially ended or at least was at a place of stability, unemployment remains stubbornly high at 9.1 percent. When you factor those who are working part time because they can't find a full-time job and those who have stopped working altogether, that number quickly climbs. In my home State, it is 2 points better, at 6.9 percent, but there are still too many people out of work. It is my firm belief that the role of Congress is to promote the interests of the American people, and the American people have said loud and clear that we need to focus on initiatives that are about jobs, private sector jobs, jobs that pay people so they can support their families, jobs that strengthen our economy. At a time when enormous budget shortfalls plague our States, many States have been forced to make tough choices, including cutting the jobs of those individuals on our front lines, law enforcement and educators. In Minnesota, we have seen more than our fair share of crises in recent years, but we have also seen the value of effective emergency response. We all witnessed the critical work of public safety personnel during the minutes and hours following the 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis. That was just a few blocks from my house. During that emergency, the Minnesota first responders reacted swiftly and effectively, and they were aided by a strong local public safety network. What we saw that day was a true show of American heroism, a window into the courage, skill, and selflessness first responders practice day in and day out. They did not run away from this major bridge collapse--an eight-lane highway in the middle of the Mississippi River--they ran toward it. They dove in and out of that water, rescuing people from dozens of cars in that water. Thanks to their selfless efforts, while we lost too many lives, literally hundreds were saved because of that work. These men and women dedicate their lives to protecting our families, supporting our children, and serving the public. They perform critical jobs in our communities, jobs we cannot afford to lose. I saw it again in Wadena, MN, a smaller town than Minneapolis, up in northern Minnesota. They had a tornado there that literally flattened a mile of their town. I was standing there in complete wreckage, a big high school where the bleachers were a block away, where there was nothing left of a public swimming pool. But not one person died in that town even though this was in a completely residential neighborhood. Do you know why? They got their siren out early. The teenage lifeguard at that pool, which had a dozen kids, got their parents there within 10 or 15 minutes, and she got the remaining kids in the basement across the street. When I visited that town a few days later, I hugged a man whose entire agricultural business had been flattened. He saved his employees in a safe. He had always joked that since he didn't have a basement, they could go in the safe. That is what I remember. What I remember most is the mayor and the sheriff and how people-- despite being blocked from their houses, having their houses completely flattened, losing everything they owned in the world, all they could do was hug those public officials and cry because they knew the planning they had put in place and the acts of the sheriff and the police and the emergency system had saved their lives. That is first responders at their best. That is public servants at their best. That is why we need to pass the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, which would support the hiring, rehiring, and retention of career law enforcement officers and first responders. I know State and local budget cuts have forced thousands of police officers and firefighters off the beat. This bill provides $5 billion to keep police and firefighters on the job by creating or saving thousands of first responder jobs across the Nation through competitive grants to State and local governments. The Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act also saves or creates jobs through critical investments in education. A good education should be the basic right of every child. I know you know that in Maryland, Mr. President, as I know it in Minnesota. It is one of the very best investments we can make in our future as a nation. My mom taught second grade until she was 70 years old. She had 30 second graders in her public school class. We lost her last summer, but what I will never forget is all of those students, who are now grown up, who came to the visitation, came to the funeral, and told me all those stories. I always knew my mom had dressed up as a monarch butterfly when they had the unit on metamorphosis. She would wear a butterfly outfit, and she would hold a sign that said ``To Mexico or bust.'' What I did not know was that she would go to that local grocery store, Cub Foods, and shop. When I first heard that story, I thought that was pretty funny and something that she would do. But what I finally realized was why she went to that store. Because I met the parents of this young man who had taken her class in the second grade. He had some pretty difficult disabilities. He went on and graduated from high school, and his job was to bag groceries at that store. She would go back every year to see that kid in her butterfly outfit so that he would remember that class. That is a public servant. That is what teaching is all about. It is something bigger than yourself. Given the enormous budget shortfalls across the Nation, States and local school districts have been forced to cut back on education programs and services, often laying off needed teachers and other critical staff or raising additional revenue to cover the shortfall. As a result, two-thirds of States were forced to slash funding for K-12 education programs and services and are now providing less per-student funding than they did in 2008, and 17 States have slashed funding by at least 10 percent since 2008. In my State alone, since 2008 we have lost 1,200 education jobs. Cuts such as these hurt our children, but they hurt our communities too. We have to compete on an international stage. We are going up against countries that are actually upping their education funding, countries that are making sure their kids are learning incredibly difficult concepts in science and math and technology. We are not going to be able to accomplish that if they don't have schools they can learn in that work, if they don't have teachers with the expertise who can teach them these difficult ideas. That is why we need to pass the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, which would offset projected layoffs, providing for nearly 400,000 education jobs and offering a much needed jolt to State economies. It would also provide funding to support State and local efforts to retain, hire, and rehire early childhood, elementary, and secondary school teachers. It is a time when we recognize that educating our children is a shared responsibility. Americans overwhelmingly support funding for teacher and first responder jobs. One poll showed that 75 percent of Americans support providing funds to hire police officers, teachers, and fire fighters. But passing this bill is not right to do just because it is popular. It is right to do because it will have a positive impact on our children. As we know, we pay for this bill, and we pay for this bill in a way that shares the responsibility with those who can afford it the most. This bill will move our economy forward without adding to the Federal deficit. With our economy struggling and 14 million Americans still out of work, the people in my State want Congress to put the politics aside and come together to move our economy forward and ensure that our communities stay strong and that our children remain safe. That is what they want. It is time to step up and show some leadership. I believe we need to bring this debt down. I am one who believes we need to bring it down by $4 trillion in 10 years, and I believe there is a way to do it with a balanced approach that doesn't do it on the backs of these kids in school and that doesn't do it on the backs of our people who need protective services, who need our police, who need our firefighters. What would we have done when that 35W bridge collapsed if there had not been firefighters and police officers there ready to dive in and save people? What would we have done if there had not been emergency workers ready to take them in after they were injured? What would we have done in Medina if we did not have a proper public siren system in place? Hundreds of people would have been killed. What would we have done for that kid I talked about with disabilities if my mom had not been his teacher and cared about him and went back to visit him again and again? These are people who devote their lives to public service, and we have to show America that Washington is not broken; that, instead, we are willing to put the politics aside, we are willing to do something smart on the debt and bring it down to the place where we need to bring it, but we are going to do it with a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. It is the decent and right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the three pending agreements that the Senate will be considering later today. But before I address these agreements, I first want to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Three weeks ago I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in passing an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to support workers in Minnesota and across this Nation who have lost their jobs or seen their hours reduced as a result of global exchange. I made clear then that I believed it was essential that we act on trade adjustment assistance before turning to the pending agreements and--with the House passing this legislation today--that is exactly what we have done. As chair of the Senate subcommittee on export promotion, I have long been a proponent of increasing U.S. exports and helping U.S. producers reach new markets overseas. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside our borders. So it is without exaggeration that I say our future prosperity hinges on our ability to reach those customers. As we continue to work to move our country out of this current economic downturn, we must take every available step we can to increase the competitive edge of American producers, farmers, and workers in the global economy. I will therefore be voting for both the South Korea and Panama agreements. While these agreements are not perfect, after hearing from Minnesota farmers and businesses, I believe they can help open new overseas markets for Minnesota producers and increase U.S. exports. The South Korea agreement is projected to increase U.S. exports to South Korea by an estimated $10 billion and increase U.S. GDP by $11 billion. The agreement will have key benefits for my home State of Minnesota. Of Minnesota's top 10 exports to South Korea--such as machinery and electronics, medical equipment, and animal feed and meats--9 are expected to gain under the agreement. Many of those gains are expected to be in our State's agriculture industry, where South Korea is the fifth largest trading partner for Minnesota farmers. This agreement will reduce tariffs on dairy, corn, soybeans, pork, and other food products, allowing our Minnesota producers increased access to Korean markets. The Korea agreement will also eliminate tariffs on processed food, helping to increase exports and promote job growth for Minnesota's processed food producers like General Mills, Schwan's, and Hormel. The Korea agreement will also benefit the workers in our state's strong medical device industry. South Korea is currently the fifth largest market for U.S. medical equipment exports. Under the pending agreement, South Korea will immediately eliminate tariffs on 43 percent of medical equipment exports and eliminate tariffs on 90 Percent of the remaining medical equipment products in 3 years. Finally, I support the Korea agreement because it includes unprecedented provisions to defend intellectual property rights, promote transparency in Korea's trading and regulatory systems, and ensure full and equitable protection and security for American investors in Korea. Unfortunately, too many foreign nations engage in illegal trade practices, and too often they get away with it. I have long said that in order to ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses and workers in an increasingly competitive global environment, we need enforceable standards in our agreements and we need to hold other nations accountable to those standards. Over the years, I have consistently fought to expose these illegal behaviors and worked hard to support several Minnesota industries such as our coated paper producers, steel producers, honey producers, and alternative energy producers. And just this week the Senate came together on a bipartisan basis to crack down on China's currency manipulation that is undermining our businesses and workers. As we move forward, I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that the standards included in the Korea agreement--and all other agreements--are strongly and fairly enforced. I would also like to briefly discuss the Panama Free Trade Agreement. Like the Korea agreement, I believe the Panama agreement will promote U.S. exports and strengthen market access for Minnesotan and U.S. companies. The United States already runs a trade surplus with Panama. Through the immediate elimination of tariffs on 88 percent of U.S. exports to Panama, and the elimination of remaining tariffs within 10 years, that surplus will only increase. The Panama agreement presents new opportunities for Minnesota manufacturers and their workers and, like the Korea agreement, also promotes greater transparency and enforcement in Panama. Finally I will oppose the Colombia agreement which does not do enough to address the country's endemic corruption and violence directed toward labor. Increasing U.S. exports will bring many opportunities to our businesses and workers, and implementation of the Korea and Panama Free Trade Agreements, as well as the Trade Adjustment Assistant Program, will help our Nation stay competitive in the global economy.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the American Jobs Act. Rarely is our economy discussed these days without mention of the 14 million Americans who are currently out of work and searching for a job. But as you know, I am from your home State. This is not just a statistic. It is real people--people who are struggling, people who have had their hours cut, people who may have worked at a job for a very long time and, poof, it is gone away. That is what this is about. Two years after the recession officially ended, unemployment is still stubbornly high, at 9.1 percent--9.1 percent. When we factor in those who are working part time because they cannot find a full-time job, that number goes much higher, up toward 16 percent. Now, my home State, the State of Minnesota, is much better. We have an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent. But there are still too many people out of work or who are struggling with reduced hours at their jobs. While no group of workers has been spared by the high rates of long-term unemployment, the hardest hit have been older workers, those with a high school diploma, and then those I am sure you have seen in the construction trades. They have been hit very hard. We also have had issues with our timber industry in northern Minnesota. We have had some trouble in our iron ore mines, but they are bouncing back. The biggest problem I have heard of is for those in the construction industry. It is my firm belief that the role of Congress is to promote the interests of the American people, and the American people have said loudly and clearly that we need to focus on initiatives that stimulate job creation--in particular, private sector job creation. In fact, the majority of Americans want us to pass the American Jobs Act that we are debating today. When Americans are asked about specific provisions in the bill, that message is even clearer: 74 percent say they support providing money to State governments to allow them to hire teachers and first responders; 65 percent say they support cutting the payroll tax for all American workers; 64 percent say they support increased spending to build and repair roads, bridges, and schools. Of course, no one knows that better than me and my State. I live just a few blocks from that bridge that collapsed in the middle of a summer day. I said that day: A bridge should not just fall down in the middle of America. But that is what happened. So, obviously, people in my State understood the need to continue funding bridges and roads. Fifty-eight percent of Americans say they support cutting the payroll taxes for all American businesses. But passing this bill is not the right thing to do just because it is popular. It is the right thing to do because it will have a positive impact on our economy. Economists from across the political spectrum agree that steps taken in this legislation would increase economic activity and add jobs. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's: The plan would add 2 percent points to GDP growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point. That is an economist's words, not mine. It would accomplish this by initiating targeted measures, many of which have garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the past. The employee payroll tax cut that would be extended under the American Jobs Act was originally introduced by my friends, Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch. It was ultimately included in the HIRE Act, which ultimately passed the Senate by a 68-to-29 vote early in 2010. Just over a year ago it was extended again. This time, 139 House Democrats and 138 House Republicans joined to support it. In the Senate, 37 Republican Senators joined 43 Democratic Senators in voting for the extension. Cutting the payroll tax for all American businesses is another idea that has gained strong bipartisan support. In fact, it has been the centerpiece of several jobs packages put forward by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We all know the neglected state of our Nation's infrastructure. Crumbling infrastructure just does not threaten public safety, as it did in Minnesota when that bridge collapsed, it also weakens our economy. Congestion and inefficiencies in our transportation network limit our ability to get goods to market. We all know one of the main ways we are going to get out of this downturn is with exports. Well, to truly have the kind of exports we want to see in this country, we have to be able to get our products on a truck or get them on a train and get them to a port and get them across the sea or get them on an airplane. The only way we are going to do that is if we have a transportation system that matches the economic system we want to have. The congestion, the inefficiencies in transportation exacerbate the divide between urban and rural America. They constrain economic development and competitiveness. They reduce productivity as workers idle in traffic. Americans spend a collective 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic--4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic--at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion or $710 per motorist. Think about that, over $700 per motorist simply because of people waiting in line on our highways. What better way to get our struggling economy back on track than to build the 21st-century transportation network our economy demands, while creating jobs in the construction industry, which, as I mentioned, has been one of the hardest hit industries. The American Jobs Act would establish the infrastructure bank as a new financing authority to help address some of our Nation's most important transportation projects. Roads, freight rail, and water projects in my State of Minnesota and across the Nation would benefit from access to loans and loan guarantees from this public-private partnership. This approach has bipartisan support in the Senate, as do the other proposals I discussed. In March of this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue endorsed the idea saying this: A national infrastructure bank is a great place to start securing the funding we need to increase our mobility, create jobs and enhance our global competitiveness. So pieces of this bill have been supported by the chamber; pieces of this bill have been supported by my Republican colleagues. In fact, the major provisions of this bill have been supported on a bipartisan basis. There are other great ideas in this bill as well, such as an extension of the bonus depreciation, which would allow businesses to continue to immediately write off the cost of investments in new property and equipment. I have to say this was the one thing--when I met with our small businesses over the last few years, this was the one thing they kept mentioning, that this was very helpful for them and would create an incentive for them to invest in equipment. This bill includes a returning heroes tax credit for veterans, which would provide a tax credit up to $9,600 to encourage companies to hire unemployed veterans. At a time when the percentage of unemployed veterans of Iraq stands at 11.7 percent, the importance of a provision such as this is clear. There is no reason that those people who have served our country should have to come back to the United States and not have a job. When they signed up to serve our country, there wasn't a waiting line. When they come back to America and they need a job or they need college or they need health care, there should not be a waiting line. I am glad this provision is included in the bill to create an incentive to hire returning veterans. The post-9/11 time period is most important when you look at the unemployment rate. With our economy struggling and 14 million Americans still out of work, Minnesotans want Congress to put the politics aside and come together to move our economy forward. It is time to step forward and show some leadership, and it is time for us to work together to show the American people that Washington isn't broken--that, instead, we are willing to put aside politics to do what we were elected to do, to do what is right for America. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important piece of legislation that would put Americans to work and help our struggling economy get back on track. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank very much the Senator from Delaware, and I appreciate the ability to go ahead. I know the Senator from Arizona is waiting as well. I rise to speak in support of the America Invents Act, a bill to revamp our patent system. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I worked on this bill. I was one of the cosponsors, and I also helped manage the bill the last time it was on the floor. I am here to make sure we get it over the finish line. It is without dispute that intellectual property is one of our Nation's most valuable assets, and our patent system plays a vital role in maintaining the value of our intellectual property. In fact, the Commerce Department estimates that up to 75 percent of economic growth in our Nation since World War II is due to technological innovation-- innovation that was made possible, in part, by our patent system. I see firsthand the importance of success of a robust patent system whenever I am visiting Minnesota companies and talking with business leaders in our State, as I did many times over the past month. Minnesotans have brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-It-Note. These innovations would not have been possible without the protection of the patent system. This strong commitment to innovation and development is why our State ranks sixth in the Nation in patents per capita, and we are No. 1 per capita for Fortune 500 companies. Companies such as 3M, Ecolab, and Medtronic need an efficient patent system. But it is also medium-sized companies, such as Imation in Oakdale and Polaris in Medina, that rely on patents to grow their companies and create jobs in America. In fact, from 1980 to 2001, all the net job growth in our country came from companies that were less than 5 years old. It is the person in the garage building a mousetrap or, in the case of Medtronic, the first battery-powered pacemaker who drives our economy forward and creates the products Americans can make and sell to the world. I truly believe, to get out of this economic rut, we need to be a country that makes stuff again, that invents, that exports to the world. That is why it is so critical we pass the America Invents Act. Unfortunately, our patent laws haven't had a major update since 1952. The system is outdated, and it is quickly becoming a burden on our innovators and entrepreneurs. Because of these outdated laws, the Patent and Trademark Office faces a backlog of over 700,000 patent applications. Many would argue that all too often the office issues low-quality patents. One of these 700,000 patents may be the next implantable pacemaker or a new and improved hearing aid. Our current patent system also seems stacked against small entrepreneurs. I have spoken to small business owners and entrepreneurs across Minnesota who are concerned with the high cost and uncertainty of protecting their inventions. For example, under the current system, when two patents are filed around the same time for the same invention, the applicants must go through an arduous and expensive process called an interference, to determine which applicant will be awarded the patent. Small inventors rarely, if ever, win interference proceedings because the rules for interferences are often stacked in favor of companies with deep pockets. This needs to change. Our current patent system also ignores the realities of the information age we live in. In 1952, the world wasn't as interconnected as it is today. There was no Internet and people didn't share information, as they do in this modern age. In 1952, most publicly available information about technology could be found either in patents or scientific publications. So patent examiners only had to look to a few sources to determine if the technology described in the patent application was both novel and nonobvious. Today, there is a vast amount of information readily available everywhere we look. It is unrealistic to believe a patent examiner would know all the places to look for this information. Even if the examiner knew where to look, it is unlikely he or she would have the time to search in all these nooks and crannies. The people who know where to look are the other scientists and innovators who also work in the field. But current law does not allow participation by third parties in the patent application process, despite the fact that third parties are often in the best position to challenge a patent application. Without the benefit of this outside expertise, an examiner might grant a patent for technology that simply isn't a true invention, and those low-quality patents clog the system and hinder true innovation. Our Nation can't afford to slow innovation any more. While China is investing billions of dollars in its medical technology sector, we are still bickering about the regulations. While India encourages invention and entrepreneurship, we are still giving our innovators the runaround--playing red light, green light, with stop-and-go tax incentives. The truth is, America can no longer afford to be a country that simply exists on churning money and shuffling paper, a country that consumes imports and spends its way to huge trade deficits. What we need to be is that Nation that invents again, that thinks again, and that exports to the world, a country where we can walk into any store and pick up a product and turn it over and it says ``Made in the USA.'' That is what our country needs to be. It is what Tom Friedman, who writes for the New York Times and is a Minnesota native, calls nation building in our own nation. As innovators and entrepreneurs across Minnesota have told me, we need to rejuvenate our laws to ensure that our patent system supports the needs of a 21st century economy. The America Invents Act does just that. First, the America Invents Act increases the speed and certainty of a patent application process by transitioning our patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. This change to a first-inventor-to-file system will increase predictability by creating brighter lines to guide patent applicants and Patent Office examiners. By simply using the filing date of an application to determine the true inventors, the bill increases the speed of the patent application process while also rewarding novel, cutting-edge inventions. To help guide investors and inventors, this bill allows them to search the public record to discover with more certainty whether their idea is patentable, helping eliminate duplication and streamlining the system. At the same time, the bill still provides a safe harbor of 1 year for inventors to go out and market their inventions before having to file for their patent. This grace period is one of the reasons our Nation's top research universities, such as the University of Minnesota, support the bill. The grace period protects professors who discuss their inventions with colleagues or publish them in journals before filing their patent application. The grace period, along with prior user rights, will encourage cross-pollination of ideas and eliminate concerns about discussing inventions with others before a patent application is filed. This legislation also helps to ensure that only true inventions receive protection under our laws. By allowing third parties to provide information to the patent examiner, the America Invents Act helps bridge the information gap between the patent application and existing knowledge. The legislation also provides a modernized, streamlined mechanism for third parties who want to challenge recently issued, low-quality patents that should never have been issued in the first place. Eliminating these potential trivial patents will help the entire patent system by improving certainty. The legislation will also improve the patent system by granting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office the authority to set and adjust its own fees. Allowing the office to set their own fees will give them the resources to reduce the current backlog and devote greater resources to each patent that is reviewed to ensure higher quality. The fee-setting authority is why IBM--one of the most innovative companies around, that has facilities in Rochester, MN, and in the Twin Cities--was granted a record 5,896 patents in 2010 and why they support this bill. They want to bring even more inventions and more jobs to America. As chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion, I have been focused on ways to promote innovation and growth in the 21st century. Stakeholders from across the spectrum agree this bill is a necessary step to ensure the United States remains the world leader in developing innovative products that bring prosperity and happiness to our citizens. Globalization and technology have changed our economy. This legislation will ensure that our patent system rewards the innovation of the 21st century. I know this is not the exact bill we passed in the Senate earlier this year, but the major components of that earlier bill are in the one on the floor today. Those components are vital to bringing our patent system into the 21st century and unleashing American ingenuity as never before. Sometimes it is obvious how one can get a job, but sometimes it is harder to see, such as when one has to get an invention developed and get it approved and get the patent on it and get it to market. That is the hard work that goes on in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield the floor to my colleague and friend from Arizona, Senator McCain.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the debt ceiling agreement that was reached last night. Over the past week I have heard from countless Minnesotans who want Congress to come together and reach a compromise on the debt ceiling. They did not want their interest rates to rise, the value of the dollar to fall, or to see their retirement savings decimated again because some in Washington believe that if they refuse to compromise, the resulting crisis will score them political points. I would like to share with you some of the comments I received from Minnesotan's throughout the State. Judy from Rochester writes: As senior citizens, we understand where our country is compared to where it has been in the last 50 years or so, and we appreciate that sacrifices must be made. It is almost too far back to remember when people all pulled together, including congress, to solve our corporate issues. . . . all the American people want is for you to represent us and make the best decisions for us . . . using your best judgment. Not prejudice or narrow viewpoint, but the best judgment. Paul from Rochester writes: This is not the place for partisan political stubbornness. It is the time for our elected officials to work together for the good of the United States. Louis from Lakeville writes: It is time for all you legislators to put your political affiliations aside and act as Americans and do what is right for all Americans not just those who voted for you. We have a tremendous fiscal mess in this country and we cannot waste time blaming each other. It was jointly created and must be jointly resolved. Bonnie from Osseo writes: Please put your ideologies aside and work in a collaborative effort to restructure our debt and to give the USA the opportunity to continue to prosper. Marla from St. Paul writes: It is so frustrating to see the same game of political budgetary chicken playing out at the national level that happened in the state level in Minnesota. Tom and Mary from St. Paul write: If you wanted to wake us up as citizens, you certainly have. We've been told that if you allow a default, that will cost our 401K to lose $9,000. Our stock portfolio and retirement savings will likely take a 6 percent hit. If ever a situation called for compromise, this is it. Raise the debt ceiling, and not just for 6 months, (Reagan did it many times) but make real promises to deal with the debt, and then make the real fight where it belongs, over the next budget, not paying for our current obligations. Do you really want the Chinese to call in all our debts now? Have a phased, sane plan for bringing down the debt, not a forced/ false crisis. We're just hard working Americans trying to go on with our lives. We never write these kinds of messages. This is scary and we won't forget. Get it done please. Jake from Minneapolis writes: In these upcoming days, as you are faced with difficult decisions, I implore you to work with your colleagues on both sides of the isle to finalize the budgetary issues facing the United States at this time. As a husband who is supporting his wife as she attends a graduate program at the University of Minnesota, I am very concerned about what a default of United States loans would mean in regards to our finances. I am faithfully paying down student loans and my wife and I will begin to pay down the student loans that she has incurred to pay for her education as she finishes her program in May. Paying off loans is never fun; it means cutting some things out of our budget (things that we like such as going out to eat or to the movies) and compromising on difficult decisions. I hope that as decisions are made regarding the financial situations facing the United States you will be a person who reaches across the aisle, with a willingness to compromise and to make difficult decisions. Marilyn from Buffalo writes: As an independent voter I am asking you to compromise on the budget issue. I am also asking you to use a balanced approach to reduce the budget deficit. Jay and Bonnie from Moorhead write: We would like to see a timely resolution to both the debt limit issue and deficit reduction by means of genuine negotiation resulting in a nonpartisan compromise which will keep our country financially solvent. Kim from Duluth writes: I am writing to add my voice to the growing number of citizens worried about Washington's inability or perhaps unwillingness to get done the work you were elected to do. In my opinion as a working class American, I believe we ALL are expected to compromise in hopes that we can further the good work of our nation. I firmly believe all of America needs to be accountable to the economic disaster we have known was approaching these many long decades. So please, in the vernacular, ``suck it up'' and get the job done! While no one feels the agreement we will soon vote on is the perfect solution, we are in the bottom of the ninth here, the time has come to break through the partisan stalemate and pass something to provide certainty so we can move our country forward. This is why I plan on voting for this agreement as it will ensure our country does not default on our obligations--something that would have caused real pain for Minnesota families and businesses--while also providing a down payment on deficit reduction. Unfortunately, this debate has once again shown we need to change the way Congress conducts its own business. I come from county government and I can tell you local governments do not operate this way. Minnesota is home to more Fortune 500 companies per capita than any other state. After fielding many calls over the past few weeks from business leaders from the biggest businesses in our State, like General Mills, to the smallest, one, two, three-person operations, they do not run their businesses this way. And there is no doubt, this is not how families balance their budgets. The sooner we can come together to agree on the next stage of this package, the better for our economy and the better for our country. I believe we should look at things such as closing the loopholes for oil subsidies. I believe we should look at things such as tax cuts on the wealthiest expiring at the end of 2012. These are things that should be in the mix as we move forward. It is time to put our political differences aside to work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness. If we insist on using the debate as a vehicle for rhetoric only, we will not just be doing ourselves a disservice, we will be cheating our children and grandchildren out of knowing the America in which we grew up. We already know much of what will need to be done. Our failure to act has not been because we lack solutions but because, too often, Congress has lacked the political will to get behind a consensus proposal. In the Senate, we have had this work going on. We have had bipartisan groups of Senators, including the Gang of 6, working together to find a solution. We need to now take that work and make sure that gets included in the consideration by this committee. It is time for us to work together and tell the American people what they need to hear. We need to show them that Washington isn't broken; that, instead, we are willing to put aside our partisan politics to do what we were elected to do--to do what is right for America. Passing an FAA Extension Mr. President, I will turn to another issue I hope we can resolve before the end of this week, which is to pass an FAA extension. I rise today to speak about the urgent need to pass a Federal Aviation Administration extension. The Federal Aviation Administration not only keeps our airways safe but it also ensures that our air transportation runs effectively by overseeing grants for critical construction projects at our airports. As you know, Congress allowed the FAA's most recent extension to expire on July 22. This has resulted in a partial shutdown of the FAA. While the current partial shutdown of the FAA is not affecting the safety of our airways, it is still having some detrimental effects on our country's air service. The lack of an extension means the FAA doesn't have the authority to collect the fees and taxes the aviation system needs to fund ongoing construction and improvement projects at our airports. This is approximately $200 million a week. The fees and taxes have nothing to do with the current debt issues we have been debating over the past few weeks. These fees and taxes go into a trust fund that is self-funded and separate from the budget that has been in the news. The trust fund pays for construction projects such as a new terminal at the Duluth Airport in Minnesota. This new terminal is critical to the Duluth area. The terminal will allow more flights in and out of the airport, which is vital as more and more businesses are moving to Duluth. Unfortunately, the airport at this time is waiting for a $5.2 million grant that has already been awarded from the FAA. For each day that the airport waits to receive its grant money, the risk is higher that the airport will be forced to delay the terminal project for 1 year. Why is that? Why can't they go through constructing things in December and January in Duluth? It is pretty cold in Duluth then, and it is hard to do the construction, if not impossible. That is why it is so critically important that we get this money in Duluth immediately. Such a delay will not just be inconvenient, it will cause the cost of the project to significantly increase. Duluth is not the only airport suffering. Construction projects are being halted throughout the country. The Associated General Contractors estimates that 70,000 construction workers in related fields have been affected by this shutdown. I know there are political issues surrounding Congress's inability to pass an FAA extension. However, these issues have nothing to do with the construction projects such as the Duluth terminal, the 4,000 furloughed FAA employees, or the 70,000 construction workers just trying to make a living. I appreciate the bipartisan work that has gone on in the Commerce Committee and in this Chamber with Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas. I continue to support them in their efforts to get this FAA extension done. I urge my colleagues to pass the FAA extension. The lack of one is hurting our aviation system and our economy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from Louisiana for her passionate remarks. There is a reason she has that passion, and it is because we are in the ninth inning. This is it. The time for political posturing is over. There is no more time to say we are not going to talk to each other. There is no more time to pretend we can have one plan and then another plan. It is time to get an agreement. Look at what has happened in just the past week. The markets have gone down more than they have in over a year. We have seen realtors-- and this is a study that just came out a few days ago--people backed away from one out of six deals this past month. If you look at the month before, it was only 1 out of 25. People are feeling the uncertainty in this economy, and it is time to come to a bipartisan agreement. Last week, I held a call with business leaders from across my State to update them on the status of negotiations, to hear their thoughts and their concerns, and to answer their questions. Their message back to me was clear and unified: If we fail to act, the consequences for our economy are real and serious. I will be honest. They don't care what combination of votes--Democratic, Republican--it takes to get us across the finish line. Many of them may prefer Republican plans, and some would prefer a Democratic plan. What they want is consistency. They want us to get this done. They want us to not default on our debt. They want a deal to be passed by August 2 that prevents the United States from defaulting on its financial obligations and provides some long-term certainty. Now, make no mistake, they see our debt crisis as real and serious and something that must be addressed. But while failure to bring the national debt under control is threatening America's future, the danger of default is already harming our economy. We must address both. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called the possibility of default unthinkable and unacceptable, arguing it will have real, immediate, and potentially catastrophic consequences. As economists and experts from across the ideological spectrum have said, if this continues, interest rates will rise for everyone. That is what they say. This will mean higher rates for American consumers and the small businesses that drive our economies. Car loans, mortgages, businesses, and student loans will all be more expensive. Higher borrowing costs and a falling dollar means slower economic growth and slower job creation. That is the last thing we need right now. Just an hour ago I received in my office an e-mail from a major employer in my State saying the commercial paper market nearly seized up yesterday, and by the afternoon only overnight rollovers were possible. That is what they were seeing, and that is identical to what happened to capital markets in September of 2008, according to this major company. They said this in the e-mail: The sooner the debt limit issue can be resolved, the sooner this market can begin functioning as it should and the sooner lenders will begin lending for longer than overnight. Here are some things I heard from business leaders in my State. This is from Hubert Joly, the president and CEO of Carlson Companies, headquartered in Minneapolis. It owns and manages over 2,000 hotels and restaurants across this country and across the globe. He writes this: As one of the largest private family owned companies in the United States, Carlson would like to highlight how critical it is for Congress to reach a constructive compromise before August 2 to ensure that the U.S. does not default on its debt obligations. The ongoing uncertainty-- Note that word-- and lack of resolution of the debt ceiling debate is not healthy for the global financial markets or for consumer confidence. It is highly detrimental to the overall economy and to the travel and hospitality industry which millions of families in the U.S. depend upon for their livelihood. We therefore urge congressional leadership to act in the best interests of the nation and deliver a compromise agreement that avoids default and demonstrates the nation has a credible plan to reduce the federal deficit. A short-term fix is not sufficient, as we must not allow or accept prolonged uncertainty, which will only create volatility and instability for the globe and the U.S. economy. I have multiple other letters--from snow mobile manufacturers, etc., which I will later put in the Record. Since we are having dozens come in every hour, I want to get them all gathered for tomorrow. But one gentleman said this: In regard to the current debt ceiling situation, default is not an option and reasonable compromise is what we need to add certainty that will lead to growth for American manufacturers. Certainty and growth. Another one: The current debate over the debt ceiling has serious implications for American business. For example, the impact to my company will be felt not only by 3,300 U.S. employees, but by suppliers, customers, and, consequently, shareholders. Just in case you do not draw the connection, these are major businesses that are in small towns throughout my State--sometimes the only major employer in those towns. That is what they are saying. Let me tell you, these are not Democrats who are writing those letters. They are not siding on one particular plan or the other. They are just saying: We need a compromise, and we need it by August 2. Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills, a major Fortune 500 company, writes: We think it is critically important for the entire country--both at the business and individual level--that Congress come to an agreement on this issue and move forward. An individual from a major financial institution that manages the savings and retirements of over 2 million individual business and institutional clients writes this: I urge the U.S. Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt ceiling and return the country's focus to economic growth and job creation. None of us in this Chamber wants to see our economy damaged. Democrats do not want it. Republicans do not want it. As these letters show, the business community in this country knows we cannot have this happen. What they want is for us to work together to show the American people and the world that Washington is not broken; that instead we are willing to put aside our politics to do what we have been elected to do and get this done. That is what is right for America.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the urgent need to act on the debt ceiling before the August 2 deadline. While I believe we have reached a defining moment as a country, which has not been wasted--we need to reduce our debt--we also can't afford to play Russian roulette with our economy by toying with the debt limit. We have had months to work this out. Yet less than 6 days from a possible default that would plunge this country into a serious crisis, here we stand in opposite corners of the boxing ring. The markets are jittery, investors and businesses are deeply concerned, but, most importantly, the people of this country are fed up with this political stalemate. They do not want their interest rates to rise, the value of the dollar to fall, and they do not want to see their retirement savings decimated again because some in Washington believe if they refuse to compromise, the resulting crisis will score them political points. Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have sat down at their kitchen tables to make the tough choices about what they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. We all know those conversations. They have to end with compromise. A poll released Monday by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 68 percent of Americans say lawmakers who share their views on this issue, on either side, say those lawmakers should compromise. So people who actually share a view with a particular lawmaker, 68 percent of them say lawmakers should compromise, even if it means striking a deal they disagree with. Just 23 percent say lawmakers who share their views should stand by their principles even if it leads to default. My colleagues and I don't need polls to tell us that. We have all had our offices flooding with calls and e-mails in the last few days from well-meaning constituents with advice and from those who are mad and asking us to work it out. Just this morning I received this e-mail from Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN. This is what it says: Dear Amy, The political positioning and wrangling over the Federal Budget and debt ceiling limit has gone on long enough! It's time for our elected leaders to step up and resolve the debt ceiling and budget crisis in a mature, adult fashion. We realize that this is easier said than done, but after experiencing the shutdown of the State of Minnesota, it is unconscionable to even have the possibility of the crisis that we will face as a nation if we don't raise our debt ceiling and begin reducing the deficit. We urge you and your colleagues to do all it takes to resolve this issue prior to the deadline. There has to be some compromise that can be identified. Each side will need to give to make this happen-- let's focus on the art of compromise and get this wrapped up. It's time to show the world that we are still a truly great nation and can step up to resolve the challenges placed before us. The greater good of the nation has to be placed as a top priority. Hoping and praying for successful resolution to the outstanding issues. That is Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN--just citizens who sent an e-mail today. I wish everyone in this Chamber and everyone over in the House would listen to this today. I think it sums it up very well. Outside the Halls of Congress there isn't much disagreement over the urgency to act or the consequences of failing to do so. There also isn't a lot of disagreement over the importance to our economy of a long-term extension. Who seriously believes dragging this country through this again in 5 or 6 months will help our economy get back on track? Economists and experts from across the political spectrum have warned that a short-term approach would likely lead to a downgrade of our credit rating, which would cost us billions of dollars more in interest payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit. For families and businesses, it would mean a spike in interest rates, making everything from mortgages, car loans, and credit cards more expensive. I think the most common refrain I hear from the business community in Minnesota when we talk about what it will take to spur investment and create jobs in this country is a need for certainty--certainty in the Tax Code, certainty in expenses, certainty in our government's budget. Let's provide some certainty. After months of debate, it is clear what sort of plan is needed to garner the support necessary to get us across the finish line. We will all ultimately have to accept things with which we don't necessarily agree. It is time to get serious about advancing a deal that is both fair and achievable. On August 2, the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted. No one benefits if we are unable to reach an agreement by this deadline. Every day that passes without a deal only increases uncertainty in the markets and puts the brakes on economic activity. Failure to bring the national debt under control also threatens America's future, but the danger of default threatens our economy today. We have two options: We can either set a precedent of holding our debt hostage to political maneuvering, raising the cost of borrowing and increasing our deficit at the same time or we can show the world we are serious about working together to address our fiscal challenges to reduce the debt, reduce the cost of borrowing, and strengthen our financial outlook. I believe the choice is clear, and I believe a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that. The sooner we can agree on a long-term package, the better for our economy and the better for our country. It is time to put our political differences aside and work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness because if we refuse to have an honest conversation, if we insist on using the debate as a vehicle for rhetoric only, we will not just be doing ourselves a disservice, not just be doing this institution a disservice, we will be cheating our children and grandchildren out of knowing the America in which we grew up. If we are committed to our country and not to unmoving ideologies, we will get this done. Last month, I received a lesson in what commitment as a public servant means when I attended the funeral of Jack Murray, who was the former mayor of International Falls, MN, right on the Canadian border. It is a town where they often test cars to show that they can withstand the cold, but it is a hardscrabble, thriving town. Mayor Murray was a decorated marine who served for 14 years as a member of the city council and for 14 more years as mayor. He figuratively and literally wore ``I love International Falls'' on his sleeve with a button he was never without. At his funeral--and he was 89 years when he died--we heard countless stories of his commitment to his city that didn't end when he retired. The priest at the funeral told this story. He said that every morning, including the morning Mayor Murray died, he would rise early and walk the streets of International Falls. He would wear his orange highway vest to keep him safe, at 89, and he would have a cup of coffee and a bag for trash, and he would walk the streets of his beloved town collecting trash up until the day he died. He was a public servant to the end. He believed in his town, in his State, and in his country. And that is an example for all of us now. We are all public servants. We must have a commitment to the larger good, to our country, and to the people we represent. None of us wants to see our economy crippled. Democrats don't want it. Republicans don't want it. So what are we waiting for? It is time for Congress to step forth and show some leadership. It is time for us to work together to show the American people that Washington isn't broken; that, instead, we are willing to put aside our politics to do what we were elected to do, to do what is right for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.