Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his very strong comments and also for his support for this important bill. As you know, this has come through the Judiciary Committee. Senator Kyl is a member of that committee, as I am, as well. We appreciate Senator Leahy's leadership on this bill, as well as all the other Senators who have worked so hard on a difficult bill where there are so many interests. But in the end, what guided us to get this America Invents Act on this floor was the fact that innovation is so important to our economy, that the protection of ideas in America is what built our economy over the years. So I want to thank Senator Kyl. Before we hear from Senator Bingaman, who is here on another matter, I just want to support Senator Kyl's statements about the need to transition to the first-inventor-to-file system. As I noted before, we have heard from many small inventors and entrepreneurs who support this transition. Independent inventor Louis Foreman has said the first-to- file system will strengthen the current system for entrepreneurs and small businesses. We have heard from nearly 50 small inventors in more than 20 States who share Mr. Foreman's view. I ask unanimous consent that a list of those supporters, as well as Mr. Foreman's letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of the America Invents Act, be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we have heard also on the floor that there is, as Senator Hatch mentioned, strong support throughout the Senate for this change. In fact, Commerce Secretary Locke emphasizes that support in a column appearing in the Hill newspaper today. He states: [P]atent reform adopts the ``first-inventor-to-file'' standard as opposed to the current ``first-to-invent'' standard. First inventor to file is used by the rest of the world and would be good for U.S. businesses, providing a more transparent and cost-effective process that puts them on a level playing field. . . . I could not agree more. Small businesses, independent investors, and stakeholders across the spectrum support this important transition. I wish to mention one other aspect of this system. With the current first-to-invent system, when two patents are filed around the same time for the same invention, it also creates problems. It means 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 that can spend more money. We believe this needs to change. There was a recent article about this in the Washington Post in which David Kappos, the Director of the Patent Office and Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, described the current system is similar to parking your car in a metered space and having someone else come up and say they had priority for that space and then having your car towed. Instead, we need a system in which, if you are the first to pull in and pay your fee, you can park there and no one else can claim it is their space. The America Invents Act would create that system. It transitions our patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. By simply using the file date of an application to determine the true inventor, the bill increases the speed of a patent application process, while also rewarding novel, cutting-edge inventions. A first-to-file system creates more certainty for inventors looking to see if an idea has already been patented. 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. Mr. President, I know Senator Rockefeller is here to discuss a very important issue.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, first, I commend Chairman Leahy and the entire Judiciary Committee for their work on this bill. The chairman has endured so many ups and downs and different versions, and we would not be here today if not for him. I rise to speak in support of the America Invents Act, a bill to overhaul our patent system, which plays such a critical role in our economy. It is one of the main reasons America has been able to maintain its competitive edge. The Commerce Department estimates that up to 75 percent of the economic growth in our Nation since World War II is due to technological innovation--innovation made possible by a patent system that protects the rights to that innovation. I have seen the importance and success of the patent system firsthand in Minnesota, which has brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note. In Minnesota, we know how important the patent system is to our economy. We rank sixth in the Nation in patents per capita and have the second highest number of medical device patents over the last 5 years. Companies such as 3M, Ecolab, and Medtronic are well-known leaders in innovation, but Minnesota also supports innovative small businesses such as NVE Corporation and Arizant Healthcare. We are now first per capita, in fact, for Fortune 500 companies in our State, and that is in large part because of innovation. So many of these companies started small, invented products, and got patents which were protected. People weren't copying their products, and they were able to grow and produce jobs in our country. Having a patent system that works for small business is particularly critical to creating jobs in America. But our patent laws haven't had a major update since 1952. The system is outdated and has become 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 and too often issues low-quality patents. One of these 700,000 patents may be the next implantable pacemaker or new therapy for fighting cancer, but it just sits in that backlog. Our current system also seems stacked against small entrepreneurs. I have spoken to small business owners and entrepreneurs across our State of 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 interference 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 in which we live. In 1952, back when the patent bill came about, the world wasn't as interconnected as it is today. There was no Internet. People didn't share information the way they do in this modern age. They had party telephone lines then. In 1952, most publicly available information about technology could be found in either patents or scientific publications. So patent examiners only had to look to a few sources to determine if the technology described in a patent application was both novel and nonobvious. Today, as we all know, there is a vast amount of information readily available everywhere you look. It is unrealistic to believe a patent examiner would know all of the places to look for this information, and even if the examiner knew where to look, it is unlikely he or she would have the time to search all of 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 doesn't 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--it is simply not an actual invention--and these low-quality patents clog the system and hinder true innovation. Our Nation can't afford to slow innovation anymore. While China is investing billions in its medical technology sector, we are still bickering about regulations. While India encourages invention and entrepreneurship, we are still giving our innovators the runaround, playing a game of red light/green light with the R&D tax credit. America can no longer afford to be a country that churns money and shuffles paper, a country that consumes, imports, and spends its way through huge trade deficits. We need to be a nation that makes things again, that invents stuff, that exports to the world, a country where you can walk into any store on any street in any neighborhood, purchase the best goods, and be able to turn it over and see the words ``Made in the USA.'' In the words of New York Times columnist and Minnesota native Tom Friedman, we need to be focusing on ``nation building in our own Nation.'' Well, as innovators and entrepreneurs across Minnesota have told me, our country needs to spawn more of them. The America Invents Act would do just that. First, the American Invents Act increases the speed and certainty of the 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 inventor, the bill increases the speed of the patent application process, while rewarding novel, cutting-edge innovations. 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 a year for inventors to go out and market their inventions before having to file for their patents. This grace period is one of the reasons our Nation's top research universities, such as the University of Minnesota, support this 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 will encourage cross-pollination of ideas and eliminate concerns about discussing inventions with others before a patent application is actually filed. Moreover, this legislation 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 potentially trivial patents will help the entire patent system by improving certainty for both users and inventors. 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 its own fees will give it the resources to reduce the current backlog and devote greater resources to each patent that is reviewed to ensure higher quality patents. The fee-setting authority is why IBM, one of the most innovative companies around--by the way, the host of the ``Jeopardy''-winning Watson--well, the IBM facility there that actually developed Watson was in Rochester, MN. In fact, IBM, which has its facilities in Rochester and the Twin Cities, as well as many other places in this country, was granted a record 5,896 patents in 2010. IBM supports this bill. It allows the Patent Office to set its own fees and run itself like a business, and that is good for companies such as IBM, as well as for small entrepreneurs. Mr. President, 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 that this bill is a necessary step to ensure that the United States remains a world leader in developing innovative products that bring prosperity and happiness to those in our country. Globalization and technological advancement have changed our economy. This legislation will ensure that our patent system truly rewards innovation in the 21st century. Our patent system has to be as sophisticated as those who are inventing these products and those who at times are trying to steal their ideas. That is what this is about. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn until Monday, February 14, Valentines Day, as under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 48 submitted earlier today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The vote on the Graves nomination will be by voice vote. The vote on the Davila nomination will be a rollcall vote.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, February 14, 2011, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 1 and Calendar No. 5; that there be 1 hour for debate, equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 1 and Calendar No. 5, in that order; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order for any of the nominations; that any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 223, the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill, and at 4:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session, as provided under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on Monday, we will continue to work through amendments to the FAA bill, and we will also consider two executive nominations. Under a previous order, at 4:30 p.m., the Senate will debate for 1 hour the nominations of James Graves of Mississippi to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit and Edward Davila of California to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California. At 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Senators should expect a voice vote on the confirmation of the Graves nomination, a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Davila nomination, and additional votes in relation to amendments to the FAA bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I also commend these two great leaders, Senator Kerry and Senator McCain, for coming together on this resolution. A lot of people try to bring us apart in this institution. But they were counted here today with one voice. I was in Vietnam with Senator McCain. I couldn't get over all the people who came up to him and still talked about the work he and Senator Kerry had done together, with POWs and other issues, how they had gone to Vietnam together. Well, once again, they have come together at a time of great crisis to have the Senate tell the people of Egypt that we are there with them and we are behind them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I also ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the resolution.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wish to commend Senator Wyden, Senator Grassley, and Senator McCaskill for their incredible determination to get this done. We thought we did it when our class of Senators came in. We thought we had gotten rid of the secret hold, but lo and behold, people found a way to work around it, and their determination has meant we are finally going to do this and we are going to do it right. Secondly, I wish to thank Senator Alexander as well as Senator Schumer of the Rules Committee for negotiating a number of these changes, as well as Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. When I think back over the last few months and what has happened, we had an incredibly productive lameduck session at the end of the last Congress. We all know there is a lot of work to be done, but in the closing months of this year, we showed people--I think to their surprise--that we could truly get some things done on a bipartisan basis. When the American people unite and see a clear issue--whether it was the nuclear arms treaty, whether it was the vote on the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, or whether it was the first responders after 9/11--and they see what is happening in this Chamber because they actually see a debate, they see someone standing up and making their points as the Presiding Officer does so well on so many issues, then they can make a decision. That is all we are talking about, when we talk about these sometimes complicated and convoluted rules changes, is getting things out in the open. Obviously, the first thing is to get rid of the secret holds and permanently end them. The second important thing is filibuster reform. It is a longstanding tradition in the Senate that one Senator can, if she chooses, hold the floor to explain her objections to a bill. We always think of Jimmy Stewart's character Jefferson Smith in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' This is where Senator Udall--and by the way, I always think his voice sort of sounds like Jimmy Stewart--and Senator Merkley have done such a tremendous job of pushing these filibuster reform issues, as well as Senator Tom Harkin, who has been working on this long before our group ever came to the Senate. A group of us got together with the smart proposals made by Senators Harkin, Udall, and Merkley to determine the best reforms and what are the ones we can truly get through; what is a package we can go to the other side of the aisle with and talk about what we need to do to get it done. The agreement that has been reached includes some of the important changes we want. The first I mentioned is to get rid of secret holds, but of course critical reforms to the filibuster are still necessary as far as I can see. One of the things I hope we reconsider as we go down this road is the idea that we could actually make people stand to filibuster, so that they are in this Chamber, they are discussing why it is so important that they hold up something, whether it is a judge, whether it is the assistant secretary of Oceanic Affairs, whether it is a major bill or a minor bill. People should be able to hear the arguments and then make their own decision. By the way, if they have a good argument for filibustering something or if a group of Senators has a good idea, the American people will say OK, I can understand why this is happening. If they are just doing it for reasons that don't make any sense to the people of this country, then they are going to be seen for what they are doing, and that is slowing down the progress of this country at a time when there are so many major issues we need to deal with in this Chamber. So I am happy we have been able to reach agreement on a number of these important issues. It would not have happened without the determination of the people who are here today, and I look forward to more changes and agreements in the future. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership. Madam President, as we begin the 112th Congress, I first congratulate my colleagues on how we ended the 111th Congress. We had an incredibly productive lameduck session, ensuring that taxes were not raised on the middle class during an economic downturn, ratifying the START treaty, among other things. We worked together to solve problems. This was not always the case during the last Congress. But we ended on a high note. As our work begins today anew, we all know there is still a great deal of work to be done. We have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that American workers can find jobs, to get our private sector economy back on track, to find long-term solutions to our mounting deficit. Because of the urgent business that is in front of us, I am hopeful that my fellow Senators and my colleagues across the aisle will agree that it is time for change, that it is not time for business as usual. We have heard from so many of my colleagues who have been working on this issue--Senator Udall from New Mexico, Senator Merkley, Senator Harkin, Senator Wyden, Senator McCaskill, and also Senator Grassley, which is important work on the secret holds. The elections on November 2 sent a message to every Member of Congress that the American people are not interested in partisan bickering or procedural backlogs or the gamesmanship and gridlock that prevents elected officials from doing their job. We were not hired by our constituents to hide behind outdated Senate rules as an excuse for not accomplishing things or not taking tough votes. That is just what the current Senate rules are allowing us to do. I heard a lot from my friend from Tennessee about how we should use the current rules. But the problem I have is that too many people have been abusing the current rules. First, as Senator Wyden, Senator McCaskill, Senator Grassley have so eloquently stated, we have to permanently end the practice known as secret holds, which basically allows one or two Members of the Senate to prevent nominations or legislation from reaching the Senate floor without identifying themselves. We thought we had this done, as Senator McCaskill pointed out, with the ethics bill we passed when we first came into this Chamber. But, unfortunately, once again, those rules were abused. There are some Senators who are playing games with the rules. They are following the letter but not the spirit of the reforms we adopted. Look at the kind of secret holds we have seen, secret holds preventing the President from assembling the team he needs to run the executive branch. This summer, for example, secret holds were placed on two members of the Marine Mammal Commission for months. The Marine Mammal Commission--held secret in a hold while the Deepwater Horizon oilspill was continuing to play out in the gulf region. A second example of what we have to get done is filibuster reform. It is a long-standing tradition in the Senate that one Senator can, if he or she chooses, hold the floor to explain objections to a bill. We think of Jimmy Stewart's character, Jefferson Smith, in ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' as a shining example of how individual conscience can matter because an individual can stay on the Senate floor to the point of exhaustion in order to stymie a corrupt piece of legislation. Well, that is not how the filibuster works in practice today. Today, an individual Senator virtually has the power to prevent legislation from being considered by merely threatening a filibuster. At that point, the majority leader must file a cloture motion in order to move to that piece of legislation. This adds a great deal of time to an already crowded Senate calendar. This is not governing. This is not how we do the people's business. This is not how we come together to find practical solutions to our common problems. Our current system is a far cry from Jimmy Stewart. That is why a group of us have been working to get some legislation passed to change the rules going forward. When you think about the history of the Senate--and I listened with great respect as my colleagues talked about the tradition and the importance of the rules of the Senate, about protecting the rules of the minority. None of these proposals will interfere with the rights of the minority to filibuster any piece of legislation. But when you look at the history of the Senate, it is about tradition. As time goes forward, there have been changes to the Senate rules. Every few decades there are changes to the Senate rules. Look at my former colleague, Vice President Mondale, a great leader who made significant changes to the Senate rules. This is all about transparency and accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from Oregon.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those of my colleagues as we commemorate an extraordinary milestone for a remarkable woman. Today, Senator Barbara Mikulski becomes the longest serving woman Senator. For anyone who has had the privilege of working with or for Senator Mikulski, this milestone comes as no surprise. She is a devoted public servant and a dogged advocate for her constituents. She has spent the vast majority of her life in public service as a social worker, as a member of the Baltimore City Council, then as a Member of the House of Representatives, and finally as a Senator. With each step, her constituency got larger and she worked even harder to fight for the people of Maryland. Senator Mikulski is no stranger to celebrating firsts or milestones. She was the first Democratic woman to be elected to the Senate in her own right without succeeding a spouse or a father. She was also the first woman to serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is also worth reflecting on how far we have come in the 24 years since Senator Mikulski was first elected. She was one of only two women in the Senate in 1987. In the next Senate, as in the last Senate, we are now up to 17 female Senators, meaning that they can no longer call us ``Sweet 16.'' As the dean of women Senators, Senator Mikulski has always been ready to help women who are thinking about running for the Senate and then help newly arrived women Senators when they get here. Her wise counsel is absolutely invaluable. Senator Mikulski has always reached across the aisle to bring women Senators together. As she puts it: ``Women in the Senate understand issues not just on the macro level, but on the macaroni and cheese level.'' Two years ago around this time, I went to the Senate floor with several of my women colleagues to speak about the importance of passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Senator Mikulski had championed the bill for years. I remember Senator Mikulski bringing us all together and I will always remember her words. She would say: To the women of America: Suit up, square your shoulders, put your lipstick on. We're ready for a revolution. Senator Mikulski has always been a master of words and quips. She did it again, and we passed that bill. On that issue, as on so many others, the cause that Senator Mikulski championed was victorious due in large part to her tremendous work ethic and her devoted advocacy. Senator Mikulski, today we salute you for suiting up and squaring your shoulders for 24 years and counting, and we look forward to so many more. I see my great colleague Senator Stabenow from the State of Michigan is here. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to recognize today's achievement of the passage of the landmark bipartisan Food Safety Modernization Act out of the Senate. The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens. Ensuring a rapid response to outbreaks of contaminated food is critical to maintaining public trust in our food supply. This bill will make necessary changes to help keep consumers safe, and I look forward to passage in the House and the bill being signed into law. This food safety legislation is going to be a tremendous benefit to our Nation, and to protecting our citizens from foodborne illnesses, as well as potential acts of terrorism aimed at our food supply. I urge the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to work very closely with the business community in the rulemaking process to be sure that we are not adding additional regulations that may already be covered and regulated under other areas, such as the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act and the Bioterrorism Act. I want to thank my colleagues for their efforts to make this legislation strong, and to protect the American people while balancing the legitimate concerns that businesses have that do not over reach or over legislate in this bill. The rulemaking process must not be duplicative or attempt to regulate areas that already protect public safety in other areas of law, statute and regulation. It is my hope that the FDA will be practical in applying this legislation to manufacturers of ingredients such as food processing aids, and will direct their resources where the real food safety dangers occur and are occurring. The use of indirect food additives and processing aids have not been determined to be the source of food borne illness outbreaks and I believe it is important that the FDA continue to focus its scarce resources on the key elements that this legislation hopes to address in the Food Safety area.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts allowing me to speak for a few minutes. I wish to lend my strong support as a cosponsor of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I have always believed the commitment of our top military leaders is critical to successfully implementing the repeal of this policy. Since February of this year, we have heard testimony from Defense Secretary Gates as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. To this day, both support the repeal of the policy. Admiral Mullen outlined his concern with the policy pretty succinctly. He said: No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. Our country is literally asking our servicemembers to lie. Earlier this year, Secretary Gates called for a study of the repeal. That study involved comprehensive polls of the U.S. military. After the December release of the report on the implementation of the repeal, we know the majority of our military members--70 percent of Active-Duty military and National Guard and Reserve--have said this change will not have a negative impact on their ability to perform their duties. So what we have is this: We have the support of the top brass of our military of the United States--something that was incredibly important to implementing this policy change. We have checked that box. We have the support of the majority of our soldiers in the field, who basically said they can live with this policy change or they can live with serving with a soldier who admits they are gay. The last thing we have is this body, this Chamber, and today is the day we checked that box. Today is the day we voted for the repeal. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I also want to acknowledge the new Senator from Illinois and thank him for the time. But I also want to acknowledge the senior Senator from Illinois who is here, who just spent the last few months serving honorably on the debt commission on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. They came out with some recommendations. A number of us in this Chamber, while we may not support every one and disagree with some of them, think that is something we must pursue. As they wrote in their report, ``Every modest sacrifice that we refuse to make today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and opportunity upon the next generation.'' They are right. The longer we wait, the more wrenching the choices become. And guess who is going to have to make those painful choices. It is our children and our children's children. But you know what else. It is ourselves. As the Senator from California pointed out about an hour ago, 6 percent--6 percent--of our spending is interest on that debt. So there are some commonsense suggestions in that report. That is what we have to do next year. When you look at this idea, people making over $250,000, the fact that going back to the Clinton levels--the Clinton tax levels--when our country was incredibly prosperous, that that would bring in $700 billion to bring down the debt, that is why the majority of the people in this country, the vast majority of the people in this country, want to see it as one of the options for the long term. For the short term, we know that our country is still in a fragile state. We know we cannot sock the middle class with a $3,000 tax increase. We know that we have 200 million who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, who are still looking for work. That is why we are passing this bill tonight. But beyond that, as we go to the next year, we must work together, as you see what is going on today in a bipartisan way, to put a plan in place. Because the markets will respond to that. It will be good for our economy. We will show we mean business, and we will not turn into one of those countries overseas that is experiencing what they are experiencing now because they did not make that long-term commitment. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the amendment offered by the senator from Oklahoma that would prohibit congressionally designated spending items from being included in any authorization, appropriations, or other bill for 3 years. I firmly believe the appropriations process needs to be changed. I have supported strong reforms to increase transparency and accountability, and have pushed hard for these necessary reforms while ensuring that my State of Minnesota is not put at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, before being sworn in as a U.S. Senator, I promised Minnesotans that I would fight to fund their priorities in an open manner and pledged to include these requests on my official Web site. At that point in time, the posting of requests online was not a rule of U.S. Senate. Since arriving in the Senate, I have supported several important reforms to how Congress directs spending. I have voted for limitations on earmarks, including voting to ensure that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds would be competitively bid. I also voted to rescind funds directed to certain transportation projects that have not been spent. Clearly, there is more we can do to improve this process and I will continue to push for necessary reforms. However, I believe that congressional appropriations help provide much-needed resources for important programs and projects across my State. All of the projects I sponsor are based on Minnesota constituent requests and are available for the public to review. Many of the requests I receive come from my visits to all 87 counties in Minnesota every year. A local mayor will show me a busy road that children in the community must cross many times a day to reach their school and baseball fields. And the mayor will ask me to request funds to help build an underpass that will allow these kids to safely get to school and their games. Or a sheriff will show me how the local law enforcement's outdated communications equipment interferes with emergency response and endangers lives. And the sheriff will ask me to earmark funds to upgrade the department's radios. In my State of Minnesota, we remember all too well how on August 1, 2007, the I-35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed without warning. After we mourned the loss of 13 lives and the shock of the disaster had subsided, we got to work with enormous task of constructing a new bridge. I worked hard with my colleagues in the Senate, especially Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Transportation Appropriations Chairman Patty Murray and Senator Norm Coleman, to provide up to $195 million in funds to help with the cost of constructing a new bridge. Under Senator Coburn's amendment, this funding would be considered an earmark, and Minnesota would have been left looking for other ways to recover from this tragic event. Earmarks have done more than build bridges in Minnesota. Earmarks have provided critical funding to the Minnesota National Guard's groundbreaking ``Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program,'' which is nationally recognized for the assistance it provides our service men and women who bravely served our nation and are now transitioning to civilian life. Congressionally directed projects protect communities against annual flooding across my State from Roseau in the north to Moorhead in the west to Owatonna in the south. And congressionally initiated spending funds an innovative program in Stearns County, Minnesota to help protect women and children who have been the victims of domestic violence, provides much-needed resources to improve law enforcement communication and interoperability, and is building a new highway interchange in Blue Earth County, MN, that will improve safety and ease congestion while helping generate economic development. Congressionally initiated spending cannot be discussed without also considering the grave financial situation we face as a nation. It is clear that we will need to make very tough decisions in the coming years to restore fiscal responsibility and get our nation on a path towards strong growth. Yet the Coburn amendment would not direct any savings from the elimination of earmarks to be used for deficit reduction. We need a serious commitment to deficit reduction, and I believe we need real reforms. I look forward to the report by the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and others who are taking a comprehensive look at government spending. It is my hope that we can come together to consider these recommendations carefully and reduce our nation's debt. I am committed to serious fiscal discipline, and will continue to support real reforms to increase transparency to the appropriations process.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to underscore the need to invest in homegrown energy and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Our Nation's ability to produce a reliable low-cost domestic source of energy is both an economic issue and a national security issue. Two years ago, our Nation got a wake-up call. Gas prices exceeded $4 a gallon, even $5 in some places. It was a chilling reminder that the United States spends more than $400,000 per minute on foreign oil. That money is shipped out of our economy, adding to our enormous trade deficit and economic woes, and leaving us reliant on unstable parts of the world to meet our basic energy needs. Some of our colleagues have called for the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit--known as VEETC--to expire at the end of December. This tax credit was created 5 years ago to help bring ethanol from our farms to our gas pumps. It has helped us start to invest in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. My colleagues talk about how we need to let the free market solve our dependence on foreign energy. Well, I wholly support free markets, but I say: Let's have a level playing field and let the best ideas succeed. I would like to know if my colleagues truly think there is a level playing field for those trying to compete with the oil industry. We have an oil industry that has received decades of government support. Yet we have an emerging biofuels industry, powered by American farmers, that is starting to grow the crops, to improve the ethanol that is finally displacing our demand for oil. Over the last few decades, more than $360 billion worth of taxpayer subsidies and loopholes have lined the pockets of oil companies. This is nearly 10 times greater than the investments we have made in homegrown biofuels. Meanwhile, in just the last 5 years, the top five oil companies recorded $560 billion in profits. Since the ethanol tax credit was first adopted, it has helped the renewable fuels industry grow and grow not just with the same kind of renewable fuel but to begin to expand--as you know, from our home State of Minnesota--into cellulosic ethanol, into using water and, a better part of the process, into conserving water and into using all kinds of new ideas. But to pull the rug out from under this new growing industry, when it is competing against the big guys--against big oil-- is the wrong thing to do. In our State alone, employment and economic output from the ethanol biofuels industry has doubled. This year's biofuels production in Minnesota is expected to exceed 1 billion gallons, employing nearly 8,400 people and creating an economic impact of more than $3 billion. Instead, do we want to give all those jobs to the Mideast, to give them to countries we don't even want to be doing business with? Nationally, homegrown ethanol displaces about 5 percent of our oil consumption or about 350 million barrels. The ethanol industry employed nearly half a million Americans to produce the ethanol right here in our country. Letting this tax credit expire would almost certainly put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and would also increase our dependence on foreign oil, thereby hurting our national security. The oil spill in the gulf was a poignant reminder. Our addiction to oil comes with serious cost and it is time our Nation gets serious about investing in alternatives. We didn't see a windmill blow up in the middle of a corn field. We didn't see an ethanol plant blowing up in the middle of a corn field. Senators Conrad and Grassley have called for a 5-year extension of the ethanol tax credit, and I support their bipartisan legislation. Senator Johnson and I have introduced the Securing America's Future with Energy and Sustainable Technologies--the SAFEST Act--with similar provisions calling for an extension of the tax credit, but it also includes a strong renewable energy standard--something we need in this country and something Senator Snowe and I have worked on. I see Senator Kerry of Massachusetts is here. I was devoted last year to focusing on alternative energy and ways to focus on our homegrown energy industry. I know this ethanol tax credit will not always be necessary. That is why I have also been working to develop a new more cost-effective tax credit that would replace the existing VEETC credit and would more directly benefit and focus on the farmers who are growing our transportation fuel. No one is denying we can improve the tax credit to make it even more effective with investments in alternative fuels, but the ethanol industry, the biofuels industry, and private investors with billions of dollars in capital need to know our Nation is serious about supporting alternative fuels. Are we going to pull the rug out from under them? Are we going to put our heads in the sand and send all that money instead to the Mideast? Allowing this tax credit to expire before we can come up with a long- term agreement about how to continue to invest in homegrown energy would send the wrong signal to investors. Letting this tax credit expire with no replacement would say America is not serious about finding alternatives to oil and we are not serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Our Nation has an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. To meet our basic fuel needs, we continue to send $730 million a day to foreign countries, many of which have been known to funnel money to terrorists. Now is not the time to pull that rug out from underneath the largest, most established domestic alternative to petroleum fuel. Now is not the time to put in jeopardy tens of thousands of jobs. Now is the time to extend the biofuels tax credit and invest in those farmers in the Midwest instead of those oil cartels in the Mideast. Now is the time to increase our support for alternative energy. These investments will help us to lower the unemployment rate, reduce the amount of money we send overseas to meet our energy needs, and these investments will help make our Nation less reliant on unfriendly nations--on those we don't want to be doing business with. I hope my colleagues will listen to this argument and look at these numbers--at how much money the oil industry is getting. I note the Senator from Massachusetts is here, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to first acknowledge the Senator from Maryland and to say I appreciate her work in reforming the system of congressionally initiated projects. I also wished to mention, before I get to my main topic today, which is the expiration of the volumetric ethanol excise tax, the important vote we are having this evening on food safety. As the Chair knows, coming from the State of Minnesota, we had three people who died during the last foodborne illness tragedy--the salmonella in peanut butter episode. One of those individuals included Shirley Ulmer, mother of Jeff Ulmer, who has worked so hard to get this bill passed, and we are hopeful we have finally gotten the votes to improve our food safety system, which hasn't been improved since the 1930s. Clearly, we have seen a lot of changes to our food supply since then, and so this is long overdue.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to highlight the urgency of passing the legislation to overhaul our Nation's food safety system. The last time the FDA's law related to food was changed in any substantial way was 1938. Think of how things have changed since that time: food coming in from all over the world. We think about all of the new producers and the new processing plants and the new kinds of food we have that weren't available in 1938. An overhaul of the food safety system is long overdue, and so is the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Food safety reform should have passed Congress and should have been signed into law months ago. I have stood in this Chamber many times saying the same thing. Each time, each month, something new comes up where people get hurt or people die. Whether it is jalapeno peppers or peanut butter or more recently eggs, these outbreaks of foodborne illness and nationwide recalls of contaminated food highlight the need to better protect our Nation's food supply. We need to fix it. The good news is we know how we can do it and we have legislation sitting right here on the table that could go a long way toward helping families at their own kitchen tables. The bad news is this legislation has been stalled in the Senate since last November. This legislation is, first of all, comprehensive. It covers everything from ensuring a safe food supply at the front end to ensuring a rapid response if tainted food gets into the supply chain. I wish to respond to a few points my colleague from Oklahoma raised. First he noted that somehow the FDA didn't need the authority to recall. In fact, right after the last outbreak, the egg issue, the eggs in Iowa, the FDA Commissioner came out and said she needed additional authority to do a recall. So let's set the record straight on that. That was wrong. Secondly, I would point out that this legislation is bipartisan. It has both Democratic and Republican sponsors and it passed through the committee, the committee on which the Presiding Officer serves, last November with bipartisan support. Food safety is not a partisan issue and it shouldn't be. It is a national issue of public health and public safety. Do my colleagues know what else? It is a business issue. So when I heard my colleague from Oklahoma talk about how somehow it was going to hurt the bottom line, I wish to know why the grocery stores of America support this bill. Does anyone think they are not worried about their bottom line? I would like to know why companies such as General Mills support this bill, and why companies such as Schwan's in Marshall, MN, one of the biggest frozen producers in the country--the No. 1 issue they raised with me was passing this bill. Do you think Schwan's is a company that doesn't care about the bottom line? You haven't met their business executive, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. Their focus is on jobs, making money, and producing a good product. So why do these businesses that are so clearly concerned about their bottom line care about passing this bill? Guess what. These bad actors--whether it is the peanut butter factory in Georgia or whether it is the egg place that had rats in it--these bad actors hurt all the good actors out there, the good food producers and good farmers and all of the companies that put in safety measures. That is why the companies, the grocery stores, SuperValue, and these kinds of companies want to get this bill passed. They think having bad food out there is not only bad for consumers when they get sick or die, but it is bad for their bottom line. That is why there is industry support for the bill. Finally, this legislation addresses a very serious issue--and this was the most difficult thing to hear from my friend from Oklahoma. You all know in our State about the case of Shirley Ahlmer, a grandmother. She fought cancer and survived it. She was ready to go home for Christmas, and she ate a little piece of peanut butter toast. That grandmother died because of that peanut butter toast. I don't want to hear about how it is not worth it for the people of America, that it is going to cost the people of America, until you talk to Shirley's son Jeff and find out what it cost his family because there wasn't an adequate food inspection system in this country. That is what this is about. One other thing that was not true was when my colleague from Oklahoma talked about the tomato recall. That was true, and it was misdiagnosed. They said the wrong thing. It was actually jalapeno peppers. They said it was tomatoes. Why should we keep the same food system in place now if people are out there calling the wrong card and saying tomatoes caused this and tomato prices go down and people who produce them get hurt and instead it is jalapeno peppers? Meanwhile people are getting sick across the country. Why would the answer be that we have a great system and let's not change it? The answer is we have to change the system. The other thing is, both the peanut butter contamination and the jalapeno peppers, do you know who called it right? The State of Minnesota. It was the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Health Department. None of it got identified until people got sick in the State of Minnesota. That makes us proud of our State. But we would have rather not lost three people in the peanut butter crisis and said: Guess what, we got it right. What we can do is take the system we have in Minnesota, which is common sense, and instead of just having this problem sit on a county nurse's desk, we have graduate students who can work together and make calls and figure out what caused this when people got sick, and ask: What did you eat yesterday? It is that simple. The part of the bill which Senator Chambliss and I sponsored is to use that model--not make every State do it but say, let's look at the best practices in four regions of the country and see if we can improve the system so we can catch these illnesses quicker and respond better and have less people die or get sick. When I look at all of the issues raised by my colleague, the bottom line for businesses is this: Businesses in this industry support this bill. When I look at the issue of consumer safety, all you have to do is go and look at what happened to Shirley Ahlmer. When I look at the issue of what is better for the consumers of this country, I don't think anybody wants to get sick from eggs that have Salmonella. It is unacceptable, Mr. President. I hope anybody who was listening to my colleague from Oklahoma has also listened to this because it is very easy to make these claims. Let me tell you, one, the people who do this work say they need more authority to do recalls and to do it right. The businesses that are affected by the food safety outbreaks need a better system. They don't want to get stuck in one from back in 1938. The people hurt by this, or family members killed by this, say we need improvement. That is why this bill has bipartisan support and why three-fourths of the Senate supported moving forward on the debate. I hope this delay will end and that we will get this done so that when families sit down for Thanksgiving dinner, they will at least know there is hope in the future that we are not set back in the inspection system that we had in 1938. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.