Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the fastest growing large program we have by far is the Food Stamp Program. It has gone from $20 billion to $80 billion since 2001, grown four times. It has doubled since 2008. This year proposes another $10 billion increase--14 percent. One of the big reasons is that we have a growing utilization of categorical eligibility where if one qualifies for LIHEAP, TANF, counseling programs, and any number of other governmental relationships, one also qualifies for food stamps. CBO scores this as costing as much as $10 billion over 10 years. This is a good-government amendment. You can get food stamps. Nobody would be eliminated. You simply have to go to the office and fill out the form and show that you meet the food stamp qualifications and not get by having met other qualifications that are less stringent. I really believe it is a good amendment and would help us save some money and make this program more effective.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, time has been set aside for the Heather Higginbottom nomination. I hadn't intended to speak tonight, but it has been suggested that we might get started on that to provide more time tomorrow for other business in the Senate. So I will share my remarks tonight for the record, and hopefully we can have more of a good discussion tomorrow. The Constitution makes it very clear that it is the President who nominates. Confirmation does not occur, however, without the consent of the Senate. In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote: To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In other words, the Senate does have a duty to evaluate the President's nominees. Unfortunately, the situation we face today with the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be the Deputy Director for the Office of Management and Budget is one of those cases. I do not know her personally, but let me state from the outset that I have no questions about her character. She has many admirers. Senator Kerry, for whom she worked, is an admirer, and I respect that. The President certainly seeks her appointment and has asked me to try to see that the appointment moves along. I respect his desire to have an up-or-down vote and have agreed that we would have this vote and have so agreed for some time. But my concern is with the nominee's budgetary experience. It is the lack of experience that causes me to voice my opposition. Let me first mention that the Office of Management and Budget has the primary responsibility to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal budget. This is a huge responsibility. In helping the President formulate his spending plan, OMB must evaluate the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assess competing funding demands among all of these agencies, and set the priorities and help the President. OMB is not in charge--the President is--but in reality OMB is the agency that raises the concerns with overspending with the various Federal agencies. They submit their requests, and then the OMB says yea or nay. It is a very serious matter because very important people are asking for money. Sometimes you just have to say no to very prominent Cabinet people. The Cabinet people can appeal to the President, but they don't do it often. They recognize that OMB is the place where most of these matters have to be decided. OMB speaks on behalf of the President. Ms. Higginbottom's experience points to someone who has been on the wrong side, however, of fiscal restraint. Instead of crafting policies to decrease spending, she has been focused on new programs to increase spending. In her Budget Committee questionnaire, she was asked about her qualifications for the job. She cited her legislative and political experience. I believe she worked in a Presidential campaign at one point but cited no direct budgetary knowledge and provided no examples of developing a budget. In one prehearing question, I asked Ms. Higginbottom: Your background is in education and public policy. Outside of your legislative and political experience, have you acquired any budget training, including classes or continuing education? She responded with one sentence: I have not taken any formal continuing education classes on the budget. I asked her whether she was the primary budget staffer during her tenure in the Senate. She essentially gave a nonanswer to that. It doesn't appear that she was deeply involved as a general office Senate staffer in budgetary matters, not the primary staffer and not a staffer whose Senator served on the Budget Committee. In another prehearing question, she was asked whether, as a nation, we needed to focus on deficit reduction rather than new spending. She responded by deferring to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget, stating that it ``begins the challenging but essential process of adjusting spending to achieve fiscal sustainability immediately with a 5-year freeze of nonsecurity discretionary spending.'' Now, this is the same budget that adds to the debt every single year and has substantial deficits every single year. During her confirmation hearing before the Budget Committee, on which I was the ranking Republican, she continued to use President Obama's incorrect formulations. I use that phrase kindly. She testified that President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget--the one he submitted in January--would pay down the debt and ``puts us on a path to stabilize our debt.'' But this is the same budget proposal that, by OMB's own estimate, has a deficit of approximately $800 billion in year 10 of the 10-year budget, and not a single deficit in the 10 years of this budget that was submitted to us falls below $600 billion. I would just note that, for example, $600 billion is larger than any deficit President Bush ever had. So in the 10 years, the lowest budget deficit projected by President Obama's own Office of Management and Budget is $600 billion--the lowest. Surely a more experienced, skilled, and serious nominee, one who is acquainted with the great debt threat we have in America, would recognize that these deficits are irresponsible, and one can't say we are living within our means or we are on a path to stabilize our debt. You cannot say that. Even Treasury Secretary Geithner, when he testified before the Budget Committee, said the President's budget would be ``unsustainable'' if Congress passed it as written. But the Senate Budget Committee was not the only forum in which Ms. Higginbottom was given an opportunity to highlight her experience. She had a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. They asked about her qualifications also, which they indicated were lacking. Senator Collins said in her opening statement: The nominee's background, while impressive in many respects, does not include a great deal of experience in budget process or financial analysis. Senator Scott Brown used his first question to deal with her experience. He said: I notice from your resume you have some great political experience and some really good policy experience. I was wondering if you'd share with the committee, you know, what type of accounting and budgetary experience you have. Well, she first attempted to avoid the question, talking about her general legislative and policy experience. Senator Brown interrupted her and got to the heart of the matter: So I guess my original question is, what type of budgetary and accounting experience do you have? Ms. Higginbottom responded that she was not an accountant and that her goal was to implement the President's policy agenda through the budgetary process. I would note that the President's policy agenda seems to be primarily to continue extraordinary new and expanded ``investments''--spending--in many, many areas of our government. After opportunities to prove she was qualified through prehearing questions and through testimony at two confirmation hearings, she was reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee on a party-line vote. Our Democratic colleagues in both committees voted her out with the majorities they had. Because of her lack of experience, not one Republican voted for her. So now a number of my colleagues have argued that the criticism is based not on a lack of experience but on her age, that somehow she is being unfairly treated because of that. She is young--young for this job--but the age allegation is not correct. After her confirmation hearing in the Budget hearing, I sent her a followup question: Some of my Democratic colleagues, during your confirmation hearing before the Budget Committee, indicated that when some of us questioned your experience, that we were using ``experience'' as a code word for age. The experience I am concerned about is actual budget experience. In a prehearing question, I asked you the following: ``Your background is in education and public policy. . . . have you acquired any budget training, including classes or continuing education?'' You responded in this way: ``I have not taken any formal continuing education classes on the budget.'' I asked if these facts had changed, and she basically said no. She said: ``For over a decade, I have worked at the highest levels of policymaking in the United States Senate and the White House. This work has included, but was not limited to, the budgetary implications of those policies.'' Not budget but policy issues and budgetary implications of those policies. So the answer to the question I asked is no, clearly. She simply does not have the kind of serious budgetary experience to be the Deputy Director at an office that manages a government that is spending $3,700 billion this year and taking in about $2.3 trillion--borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. This is a most august position, and it requires a person who can have the confidence and judgment to say no to people who always want to spend more. Arguably, she would be the least qualified Deputy Director in decades. The last two nominees in this position had a combined 21 years of budget and finance experience. For example, Rob Nabors, the most recent nominee before her, served 8 years on the House Appropriations Committee and 6 years at the Office of Management and Budget. Steve McMillin, the nominee before him, served 3 years on the Senate Banking Committee and 4 years at the Office of Management and Budget. You learn something operating out of the Office of Management and Budget. That prepares you to have a leadership role there. Combined, Ms. Higginbottom does not have 1 year of budget or finance experience. Over the last 20 years, nominees for this position have had an average of 6.5 years of experience. Well, in certain circumstances, in certain times, maybe less experience is OK. But at a time when this Nation has never faced a more serious debt threat, we need real, august, serious leadership. Mr. Erskine Bowles, who cochaired President Obama's fiscal commission, which issued a most serious report to us, warned that if the United States fails to take significant action on debt reduction, the country would face ``the most predictable economic crisis in its history.'' We are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. Our Nation's gross debt is larger than our entire economy. The last thing we need now is someone who does not have the gravitas to say no to those who always tend to want to spend more. That is just one of the jobs OMB has--to say no. When the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Energy comes before the department, asking for approval of their budget which calls for more spending, a responsible OMB Director or his Deputy must be able to say no. Looking at President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget, I am sorry to say this duty has not been met by Mr. Lew, the Director. And I cannot see he is going to get much strength and support for doing the right thing from this nominee. I supported Director Lew, but I have been disappointed in his leadership. When the President submitted his budget to Congress, Director Lew came before the Budget Committee and made some of the most indefensible claims I have heard in public life. He did. Director Lew said the President's budget would allow us to live within our means, begin to pay down our debts, and spend only money we are taking in each year. Not one of those claims was true. Multiple fact-check organizations checked them and found them to be false. Even by OMB's own reckoning, the deficit would never be smaller than $600 billion at any point in the 10-year budget window. We would not be paying down our debt. We are not going to be spending only money we are taking in each year under the President's budget. What would happen to a CEO of a corporation if they told potential investors: Well, we are living within our means. We will begin to pay down our debt. We are going to only spend money we are taking in each year. Invest in our company. And people invested in the company, and they found out that there was no budget plan in place that showed anything less than huge deficits for the entire next decade and that the company was borrowing 40 cents of every $1 that it was spending? What would happen then? I am telling you, he would be sued, if not prosecuted for fraud. So this is the kind of leadership we have. I am not happy with it. The American people should not be happy with it. They came in to spend, not look the American people in the eye and tell them of the grave financial crisis we are facing in America. Erskine Bowles, heading the commission appointed by President Obama, told us. He told us we are on an unsustainable path. It threatens our economic future; that we are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our history. When asked when that crisis might occur, when might we have economic damage arising from our debt, he said 2 years, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. Alan Simpson, his Cochairman, said: I think it could be less--less than 1 year. This is not a game we are playing here. We do not need government officials spinning that we are living within our means and paying down our debt. We are running up debt in a fashion never, ever, ever before done in this Nation. It is unsustainable, and it is so dangerous because it is systemic, and it is hard to get off this trend. It is demographics. It is a lot of different reasons. But it is very serious, and we need leaders in OMB who are watching every single dime that is being spent, looking for every effort and place that savings can be effected. That is what we need, and I just do not feel as though this nominee fits that bill. She is a good person. She is, apparently, a good staffer, has a lot of friends. But the position of Deputy Director of OMB is a grave position. It has august responsibilities. It requires a most serious person who is willing to take strong stands and say no to people who, all too often, want to spend more and more. When asked about our financial situation, in one of her answers she made reference to the first stimulus bill, the Recovery Act, so-called. This is what the nominee said: Fortunately, Recovery Act spending has been extraordinarily transparent, enabling the public to assess the job impacts of the various programs funded. Overall, the data demonstrate that the Recovery Act has delivered as promised by creating and saving millions of jobs across the country, and has been an essential factor in rescuing the American economy. Well, I know the nominee is a friend and ally of the President, and I am willing to give her a vote, and I suppose she will be confirmed. But I just want to say that I think that is a bit of a Pollyannaish description of the success of the stimulus bill. It just did not meet those standards, and I do feel as though she has been less than rigorous in her understanding of these difficult financial issues that our Nation faces. So I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on amendment number 812, which would prohibit the Patent and Trademark Office from using funds to implement Section 37 of the America Invents Act, more commonly known as the ``Medco Fix.'' The Medco fix was a bailout for a well-connected law firm-- WilmerHale--and its malpractice insurer to the tune of $214 million, and the essence of special interest legislation that will result in increased costs for the government, hospitals and consumers. I offered an amendment to the America Invents Act to strike this special interest fix and it was narrowly defeated by a vote of 51 to 47. This saga began in 2001, when WilmerHale apparently missed a routine deadline for submitting to the PTO a patent term extension (PTE) application on behalf of its client Medco. The PTO denied the application, concluding it was not filed in a timely manner. Legal deadlines like this exist for a reason. They provide certainty not only to the litigants in a particular matter but also to the public. Every day in courts across America where a deadline is missed the result is the same. Claim is dismissed the remedy available to the harmed party is a malpractice claim against the offending attorney. Yet, in the 10 years since WilmerHale's malpractice, Medco never sued the law firm. Instead, in February 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement whereby the firm would pay Medco $214 million, of which $99 million will be paid by the firm's malpractice insurer. WilmerHale also immediately paid $18 million up front to cover Medco's litigation and lobbying expenses over the past decade. The settlement was tied to their success in getting either the PTO or Congress to grant an extension of Medco's patent term before June 2015, when the extension period overturning the PTO decision would otherwise expire. Both the company and its law firm have spent millions of dollars and many years lobbying Congress to change the rules and to politically fix their legal mistake. Unfortunately--in my view--they succeeded. One of the many reasons I oppose this special interest fix is because I believe it is unnecessary, unwise and dangerous for Congress to interfere with ongoing litigation, which is what happened here. It goes against historical precedent and sound policy for Congress to directly interfere with active judicial proceedings on behalf of one party over another. Here, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had already ordered the PTO to ``consider'' Medco's application timely filed and adopt an interpretation of the word ``date'' in the statute that includes a ``next business day'' construction rather than ``calendar day'' as the PTO argued. Although the PTO did not appeal the decision, a generic company, APP Pharmaceuticals, intervened in the case with an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time that Congress was considering the America Invents Act, oral arguments before the appeals court already had been scheduled for just a few weeks later. The court had not even had the chance to hear arguments when some of my colleagues were arguing that the Medco fix merely enshrined in statute the holdings of the courts. However, it is my understanding that APP--the intervening party-- pointed out to the appeals court that even if the Medco fix applied to this appeal, according to the language of the America Invents Act, it would not take effect for one year from the date of enactment. Indeed, the America Invents Act provides that, unless otherwise specified, all provisions are to take effect one year after the date of enactment and no special effective date is provided for the Medco fix. Should we now expect them to come to Congress for a fix for lobbying malpractice? Given this, the Federal Circuit postponed oral argument, ordered the parties to file briefs regarding the impact of the effective date, and then rescheduled the argument for November 15th. I would point out to my colleagues who so forcefully insisted on this fix that the Federal Circuit's actions demonstrate that this is by no means merely technical. The court is reviewing this very question of law, both for effectiveness and to determine whether Congress has the power to revive a patent once it has expired and entered the public domain. As I have said many times before, this body should not be intruding on the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Today, I am offering an amendment to right this wrong and to allow the Federal Circuit, without interruption, to fulfill its constitutional role in deciding a pure question of law. Mr. President, there is no unanimous consent, I know, to bring up amendment No. 812, which I have submitted. It is a very important amendment. It is something I will insist on through every appropriate power an individual Senator has to get an amendment to be voted on. Hopefully it will be coming up tomorrow or the next day. Let me again summarize it briefly. Amendment 812 would prohibit the Patent and Trademark Office from using funds to implement section 37 of the America Invents Act, more commonly known as the Medco fix. When the patent bill moved through the Senate and the House--that took a decade--efforts were made to reverse a decision by the Patent and Trademark Office that had declared a major Boston law firm had failed to file a document in time to preserve a patent for their client Medco and, as a result of that, Medco was to lose its patent sooner than otherwise would be the case. Generic manufacturers would be able to manufacture the drug and it was asserted that it would cost $214 million as a result of this error. If a doctor makes an error, the doctor gets sued for malpractice. If lawyers make errors, they get sued for malpractice. They have malpractice insurance. Apparently they had some insurance. At any rate, it appears millions of dollars, or hundreds of millions of dollars, were set aside for lobbying and other efforts to politically reverse the patent office during a time while the matter was litigated in court. When the patent bill came up a few months ago it was contended that this is the only vehicle to fix this problem and we needed to fix it. The House voted not to put it in their bill. Then somehow a new vote was obtained, and by the narrowest of margins the House put it in and it came to the Senate. I had been objecting for a decade, and I objected and others objected, and we had a vote and by the margin of 51 to 47 it was decided not to amend the patent bill that the House had passed and to pass it just as the House did, although many people told me they agreed with me that this Medco fix intervening in ongoing litigation should not occur, but changing the patent bill would send it back to the House and endanger the passage of the bill. I was disappointed then. But what we discovered is that the litigation continues. It is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is taking arguments on a number of issues that relate to this. It is a very real problem. It is a matter that ought to be decided by the courts, not politicians. If some special relief act is to be utilized--and sometimes those can be--it can't be utilized while a party still has litigation ongoing. Only after the litigation is exhausted can someone appeal for a special relief act. In essence, that is what Medco is asking for. I do not think it is right. I practiced law for a long time. I know how the system works. I know at this fine law firm in Boston, every day the first thing they look at when somebody sues one of their clients is: Did the person file a lawsuit too late? If they did, they will dismiss it. Every judge who sees a motion to dismiss for lack of timely filing objectively looks at it. If it is 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute late, you are out. That is the rule of law in America. It doesn't make any difference if you are the widow lady or if you are the head of some company or if you are a big drug company or a big law firm. That is justice in America. I do not think this is a good thing for us to do. Now that we have this legislation before us, it is germane and appropriate, because it has patent language in it, for us to fix this decision we sort of got forced into making and to have a vote on it as part of this bill. What we know is that the language of the patent act that we passed, the America Invents Act, would not take effect for 1 year from the date of enactment. During that time the litigation continues. Congress ought not intervene. Congress ought to let the courts decide. Then if the only remedy in Congress would be to file for a special relief act, Congress could consider it or not based on the circumstances of the case. I do believe it is a very important issue. I truly believe Congress is unwise, very unwise, to begin to step into ongoing litigation involving highly competent parties with large amounts of money and start taking sides in that litigation. I believe it would be wrong. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be recognized after I complete my remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up Sessions amendment No. 810.

Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from Colorado. I was going to call up an amendment and make some remarks. Is there a procedural matter or something the Senator would be interested in doing before that? If not, I will go forward. I thought maybe the Senator wanted to comment on Senator Pryor's comments.

Mr. SESSIONS. Then I guess I have the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the purpose of amendment No. 810 is to eliminate the categorical eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, or the Food Stamp Program. A categorical eligibility standard has been imposed, and it has been causing a substantial increase in unjustified expenditures in the Food Stamp Program. Let me share briefly the history over the last decade of the Food Stamp Program. Of course, we in America strongly believe that persons ought not to go to bed hungry, if we have the food and the ability to take care of them. We have had a very generous Food Stamp Program for a number of years. But in the last decade, it has shown incredible, amazing increases in spending. As a matter of fact, I think it has increased faster than probably any other significant item in the entire Federal budget. It is probably increasing more even than the interest on the debt, which is one of the most surging expenditures this Nation has. In 2001, we expended $20 billion on the Food Stamp Program. This year, we are projected, under this bill, to spend $80 billion. In 10 years, spending on food stamps would have quadrupled. This year's proposal calls for an increase of 14 percent over last year. This is a stunning amount of money. This country is headed to financial crisis. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who headed President Obama's debt task force, told us in the Budget Committee that the country has never faced a more serious financial crisis than the debt crisis we are now in. One of the reasons is that we have had these incredible surges of expenditures in programs over a period of years. We have not watched them or contained them and, indeed, we have done things to make them less accountable and efficient and more subject to fraud, abuse, and waste. Again, this year proposes another 14-percent increase in the Food Stamp Program. That is $80 billion. The House proposed only a $1 billion increase; theirs comes in at roughly $71 billion for food stamps. So theirs is more level. But it still has an increase. Certainly, it is far less than this. To give some perspective on what we are talking about when we say $80 billion, let me share a few facts. The Federal prison system costs $7 billion. The Department of Justice--the entire Department of Justice, which Senator Whitehouse and I served in--and were proud to do so--gets $31 billion. Federal highway funding for the entire year is $40 billion. Food stamps is twice that of the Federal highway bill. Customs and Border Patrol get $12 billion. The Federal Education Department is $30 billion. $80 billion dwarfs the budgets of, I think, most any State in the country, except for maybe New York or California. Alabama's general fund budget and education budget is less than $10 billion. This is $80 billion and is increased $9 billion this year under this bill. We have to get real. We don't have the money. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. No wonder Congress is in such disrepute. How can we defend ourselves against the charge of irresponsibility to good and decent American citizens when we are spending at this rate and continuing to show increased spending at this rate? I am still amazed at the budget the President submitted to us earlier this year, calling for a 10-percent increase in the Education Department, 10 percent for the Energy Department, and 10 percent for the State Department, at a time we are borrowing money at a rate we never borrowed before, when we have never, ever systemically faced such a substantial threat to our country's financial welfare--as every expert has so told. I know we want to help poor people. I don't want to see people hungry. But do we need to be spending four times as much on food stamps as we were in 2001? Can we not look at this program and think we can make it better and more efficient? We need to get focused on what we are doing here and try to bring this matter under control. We can do better. Federal regulations allow States to make households ``categorically eligible'' under the Food Stamp Program. By the way, States administer the program. They don't get money to enforce it and supervise it. They pay that out of their own budgets. But the food stamps benefit is a 100-percent Federally funded program. So there is a little bit of a conflict of interest. States are benefitting when more food stamps come into their State, right? They are receiving more Federal dollars. They are not paying any money into it. Why spend their money to catch fraud, waste, and abuse and crack down on problems? Why not utilize every possible action that would bring more food stamps to the State? That is what is happening. I know a little bit about that because, unless the Presiding Officer is one, I am probably the only person in this body who actually prosecuted food stamp fraud. They were using it as currency in drug dealing. A lot of fraud is going on, and we need to do better about it. The States aren't stepping up because they don't have an incentive to do so. Again, Federal regulations now allow States to make households ``categorically eligible'' for SNAP--the Food Stamp Program--simply because the household also receives certain other benefits or assistance from Federal programs. ``Categorical eligibility'' is a fancy way of saying ``automatically qualified.'' For example, if you qualify for one, you qualify for the other. Households that receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, or Supplemental Social Security income benefits or assistance are automatically eligible for SNAP benefits in some states. These other programs, however, have looser eligibility standards than the Food Stamp Program. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, a household must meet specific income and asset tests. Households with income above a certain threshold, or savings above a certain amount, cannot qualify for food stamps. If you have a substantial savings, even if you don't have any income, you are not entitled for somebody else to pay for your food. I don't know what the number is, but if you have a savings amount, and if you are above that, you don't get food stamps. Is that irrational? But in 42 States there is no limit on the amount of assets certain households may have to qualify for TANF. As a result, households with substantial assets but low income would be deemed eligible for SNAP benefits even if they have substantial assets. Astonishingly, households can be categorically eligible for SNAP even if they receive no TANF-funded service other than a toll-free telephone number or informational brochure. I kid you not. Receiving the information about TANF or other applicable information can qualify a household to be categorically eligible for SNAP benefits. A 2010 GAO report revealed that one State included information about a pregnancy prevention hotline on the SNAP application, and that was used as a basis to grant categorical eligibility. Other States reported providing household brochures with information about marriage classes in order to confer categorical eligibility for food stamps. According to officials with the Food and Nutrition Service, increased use of ``categorical eligibility'' by States has increased approval of SNAP benefits to households that would not otherwise be eligible for the program due to SNAP income or asset limits. The Food and Nutrition Service, which supervises this, acknowledged that more people are eligible if you use this ``categorical eligibility'' rather than requiring them to comply with explicit requirements of the Food Stamp Program. So my amendment would eliminate categorical eligibility for SNAP benefits, meaning that only those who meet the income and asset requirements under the program would be eligible for benefits. They would have to apply just like anyone else. Is it too much to ask someone who is going to receive thousands of dollars in food benefits from the Federal Government to fill out a form and to honestly state whether they are in need, to the degree they qualify for the program? Automatic eligibility through other income support programs would end under my amendment. Last Friday, the Treasury Department closed the books on fiscal year 2011 and declared the Federal Government ended the year with $1.23 trillion in additional debt. That makes our gross debt now $15 trillion. Our appropriations for the SNAP program have gone from $20 billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2011 and are projected now to go to $80 billion. From 2001 through 2011, there is a huge increase in funding for the program. The percentage of people using food stamps has increased sevenfold since the program's national expansion in the 1970s, with nearly one in seven Americans now receiving the benefit. Meanwhile, food stamp funds have been mishandled and misused, and there are many examples of this. I have seen it in my personal practice as a Federal prosecutor. One recent notorious case was a defendant in Operation Fast and Furious. One of the people who came in, bought a whole host of illegal weapons in Arizona to take back across into Mexico, was a food stamp recipient. According to the report, he spent thousands of dollars on these guns, maybe tens of thousands of dollars on these expensive weapons. He bought 300 high-powered assault rifles. He had money for that. Yet we are buying his food for him. In another case, a Michigan man was able to continue receiving foods stamps after winning $2 million in the lottery--$2 million. He even asked about it. He said: Can I continue to receive food stamps? Guess what they told him. Yes. The lottery winnings are an asset, and we are not checking assets now. It is not income, it is an asset. So he got to keep having food stamps while American working people were paying for it. Categorical eligibility--that flawed practice--allows SNAP recipients to avoid the asset test required to determine need. This is a policy we cannot afford at a time this country is having a huge debt crisis. President Obama has coined a somewhat disingenuous term called the Buffet rule in his push to raise taxes on millions of Americans who have zero in common with Mr. Buffet. Of course, he is one of the President's big allies. I would like to suggest something called the Solyndra rule. Under this rule, before any proposals are offered to raise any taxes, we first put an end to the wasteful, inappropriate spending in Washington. Shouldn't we first clean up our act before we demand the American people send more money up here? Until we do that, raising tax rates will only be funding the continued abuse of the American taxpayer. Raising taxes to bail out Congress is akin to giving money to an alcoholic on the way to the liquor store. It doesn't help matters if the money comes from a wealthy person, if the money is going to be used for an unwise or unhealthy result. It is time for the President and this Senate to get their spending habits under control. These bills before us, I am afraid--and the ones we will be seeing in the future-- don't reduce spending but increase spending, and I thank the Chair for the opportunity to express my concerns about it. Finally, I would just say we are told: We can't do anything about it. We are told we can't fix the food stamps. Food stamps don't count like other appropriations. One might say: Why is that? They say it is an entitlement. What is an entitlement? An entitlement is when there is a law that says if a person's income is a certain level, they go in to the government and they have to give them money whether the government has any money or not; whether it has been appropriated or not. It is an entitlement program. This makes it very hard for those of us in Congress to be able to make the kind of proposals that are appropriate to fix this program, one of which simply would be, in my opinion, to reduce spending back to the level of the House, which is showing a modest increase this year, after surging the spending level for the SNAP program over the last decade. All of us have to grasp something. I don't think the American people are happy hearing excuses. I don't think they are happy hearing us say: We would like to have done something about food stamps, but this is not germane. This somehow, technically, is an entitlement program, it is part of a legislative act and, therefore, we can't do anything about it on an appropriations bill, which we are here to debate. We can't change it. There have been some changes in the food stamp program, so we believe this amendment is clearly germane. But I wish to say, as we wrestle with how to bring spending in America under control--as the person who is now the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee--I wish to say we have to quit using excuses. Every program has to be rigorously analyzed, and if there is waste, fraud, and abuse, we need to crack down on it. We don't have the money. We don't have the money. We can't do what we would like to do. We can't increase spending on program after program. This one is perhaps one of the most dramatic examples in the government, and it can be improved upon if we focus on it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Americans have a right to know how their government is spending their money. If Congress were more open and honest about where their tax dollars were going, I think they would be shocked by what they would see. It is even worse than people think. My commitment as ranking member of the Budget Committee is to fight for honest budget practices. I have joined with Senator Olympia Snowe to introduce the Honest Budget Act, stripping away some of the most outrageous gimmicks that are being used in Congress to advance spending beyond our limits. In fact, I will be filing an amendment today to stop the use of a gimmick called ChiMPs in one of the very bills that is before us this week. We will explain how that leads to improper increases in spending as we go forward. President Obama is taking his bus tour around the country, riding in his taxpayer-funded, million-dollar campaign bus, telling people we must raise taxes to prevent dramatic cuts in Federal spending. What the President does not say is how much spending has increased in just the past few years, including through a number of gimmicks, and how much of that money is being improperly spent and wasted. Indeed, since the President has taken office the first 2 years, we saw a 24-percent increase in nondefense, nonwar discretionary spending--not Social Security, not Medicare, but discretionary spending went up 24 percent at a time when this country has never faced larger deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office this fiscal year, Washington set record high spending levels this year despite our debt-- $3.6 trillion went out the door and $1.3 trillion of that was borrowed. We spent not less but more than last year, a 4.2-percent increase, but we do not have the money. My challenge to the President is this: During his next speech, before he calls for higher taxes on American people, would he be able to look them in the eye and tell them he has cleaned up spending here, that Washington is not wasting their money. Would he be able to look them in the eye and tell them their money is being spent wisely and effectively with strict oversight. Would he be able to look them in the eye and tell them he is reducing spending, not increasing it. I fear the answer is no. I fear any increase in tax rates will amount to nothing more than a bailout for the big spenders here and an incentive to continue business as usual, an excuse to avoid the hard choices that are being made by families all over America when their incomes are down, by cities and counties and States all over this country making the kind of tough choices that eventually will help them be a more productive institution for the taxpayers. Let's consider the situation in the Congress. The Senate Democratic majority has not had a budget plan for over 900 days. Indeed, Sunday was the 900th day this Congress has gone without a budget. The Republican House has produced a historic, effective budget that would change the debt trajectory of our country in a positive way. It would not do everything that needs to be done, but it is a significant, positive historic step. The Senate? Nothing. Hard to remove waste from a budget when we do not even put together a budget plan. We should bring these spending appropriations bills that we have on the floor now through the regular order one at a time, not three at a time, trying to find savings in each and every one of them every place we can. We owe it to the people who send us their tax money that we disburse up here. Cramming three bills through in one is no way to run this government. We, I suppose, are supposed to thank Majority Leader Reid for allowing us to have some amendments on this bill because we have only three appropriations bill in one, rather than all of them in a superomnibus, as we have been having. There is time to move these bills through the Congress. Our leadership would tell us there is not. We have not done much at all this year. We could have passed a budget. We could have been moving appropriations bills long before now, one at a time, brought forth under a full amendment process, under strict scrutiny, with every possible effort to see what we can do to fulfill our responsibilities without running up the debt. I would ask, how can my friends on the other side of the aisle ask anyone to pay more in taxes when they are not even willing to comply with the Congressional Budget Act and produce a budget plan in the regular order? Washington asking for more tax revenue is akin to an alcoholic asking for more cash before a trip to the liquor store. Even if the alcoholic asks a millionaire for the cash, it does not change the fact that the money is not being wisely used. For example, just a few weeks ago, we learned that lawyers at the Department of Justice went to a conference where they were billed $16 apiece for muffins. We all know about the $\1/2\ billion loan guarantee to the now bankrupt Solyndra--yet another big business ally of the White House. President Obama has coined the term the ``Buffet Rule'' in his push to raise taxes. The rule relies on a little sleight of hand, since Buffett pays mostly a capital gains tax. The upper brackets, as we all know, pay the highest income tax rates. That is how our system works. But this debate about taxes is a little premature. That is why I would like to suggest something called the ``Solyndra Rule.'' Under this rule, before any proposals are offered to raise any taxes, we first put an end to wasteful and inappropriate spending in Washington. Until we do, raising tax rates only funds Washington's continuing abuse of all American taxpayers. But the waste is not limited to headline-grabbing controversies. It is pervasive throughout, I am afraid, virtually every aspect of our government. The Food Stamp Program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is the largest item in the agricultural budget. In the appropriations bill before us this week, the Democratic majority would propose to increase this by 9 billion, a 14-percent increase for fiscal year 2012. This $9 billion increase in funding over last year's level would amount to a quadrupling since 2001. In fact, food stamp appropriations have nearly doubled since President Obama took office. Eleven million more Americans are on food stamps now than when the President took office. The size of the benefit has increased 31 percent since 2008. When the Food Stamp Program was expanded nationally in the 1970s, food stamps were used by 2 percent of the population. At the beginning of the last decade, they were used by 6 percent of the population. Today, that figure has risen to 13 percent--one in eight Americans. This sevenfold increase in food stamp usage demands honest examination. It is time to look under the hood of this program. What is going on? A recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Wisconsin food stamp recipients routinely sell their benefit cards on Facebook. The investigation also found that ``prosecutors have simply stopped prosecuting the vast majority of [food stamp] fraud cases in virtually all counties, including the one with the most recipients, Milwaukee.'' In Michigan, a $2 million lottery winner continued to receive food stamps because his winnings were counted as an asset and not income. I kid you not. Apparently, he asked about it and they said it is not income, it is an asset, and you don't count assets. But you are supposed to. Eligibility standards have been loosened across the board. People are getting food stamps that don't fit the program's requirements. We have always had a problem with this program. As a Federal prosecutor, an assistant U.S. attorney for almost 15 years, I personally prosecuted fraud in the Food Stamp Program. They were used as currency among drug dealers in many areas of our country. There are all kinds of problems. We have done little or nothing about it--nothing about it. One glaring example is something called categorical eligibility. This basically means that even if your level of wealth would ordinarily make a person ineligible for the benefit, those assets are not examined and they will still get food stamps simply because they have used another government program. So if they use another program, they can qualify for it. In one State, they have included information for a pregnancy hotline--in other words, if a person uses a pregnancy hotline, apparently, their assets are overlooked and they can qualify for food stamps. They automatically become eligible for it. In many States, all that is needed to become food stamp eligible is to be mailed a brochure by the government--again, regardless of the assets the individual might have. The amendment I am filing today would eliminate categorical eligibility. Only those people eligible under food stamp requirements would be eligible to receive the benefit. It is too much to ask of an applicant for benefits who is worth thousands of dollars to file an application, under oath, that assures that the person is truly in need and truly qualifies under the law to receive a benefit paid for by the taxpayers of this country. Is that too much to ask? The second amendment I will be offering today would set next year's food stamp funding at the same level the House of Representatives passed. Eliminating the proposed $9 billion increase would amount to nearly $100 billion in savings over the next 10 years in the Food Stamp Program assuming no further increases in the program. By the way, I just met an Alabaman who is familiar with the Alabama harbors and the waterway system. That program totally, nationally, comes in at less than $\1/2\ billion. We have had three ships run aground in recent months because we didn't have the money to do the dredging--a few million dollars. This is talking about saving $9 billion a year; $1 billion is $9,000 million--when just a few hundred million dollars would fix our waterways and harbors all over the country. One-half billion dollars would double the current waterway bill in the entire United States of America. So surely Members on both sides of the aisle can agree we need to be focused on making the program more effective before we increase it beyond the 100-percent growth it has experienced already. The greatest danger our economy faces, in my opinion--and I believe that from experts from whom we have had testimony in the Budget Committee--is that the cloud the debt places over our economy is endangering it, costing economic growth, and costing jobs this very minute. The first thing we need to do is see if we can't reduce that debt without raising more taxes on a weakened economy. That is the first responsibility, I believe. Under the President's leadership, the deficits have increased dramatically each year. No one can deny that. Meanwhile, the President's stimulus plans have resulted in not less but more unemployment, actually. To restore prosperity, we need an honest, concrete budget plan that restores confidence, ends waste, and creates private sector growth. Such a plan must reduce the deficit, the experts tell us, by at least $4 trillion over the next 10 years. If our committee of 12 reaches the agreement they have been asked to reach, they would, in effect, reduce the projected deficit increase by $2.4 trillion. But the experts tell us we need to reduce it by $4 trillion. It is bipartisan. Erskine Bowles, who was appointed by President Obama to head his debt commission, said $4 trillion. Mr. Zandi, who has been advising the Democratic majority and who testified in the Budget Committee a couple weeks ago, said you have to have $4 trillion in reduced spending and reduced deficit. We are not getting there. We are not doing the things necessary. I truly believe that we are still in denial in this Congress. We have not realized how serious the threat is and some of the things we are going to have to do. Business as usual cannot continue. I hope that, as we go forward with this legislation, we will get some votes that can actually begin to reduce spending in a number of areas. I hope that, during the course of this debate, the people of the United States will begin to focus on what is happening in their Congress and hold us all accountable, make sure we are managing their money effectively. If we do that, we might surprise ourselves--indeed, we would surprise ourselves on how much could be accomplished in one decade of sustained, smart effort to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, to focus on our spending that can be contained. The defense budget has to tighten its budget, no doubt about it. But you cannot balance the budget all on the Defense Department. Their budget makes up less than half the deficits this year. Our deficit this year will be about $1.3 trillion. The defense budget is about $529 billion. It is way less than half of it. We have to do it across the board in programs not being run well, that are surging out of control, such as food stamps. They need to be brought into control. We may not have enough money for the highway bill. It is about $40 billion. We are now spending twice that on food stamps, having quadrupled it in one decade. I say to my colleagues, we need to get serious about spending. I believe we can do better and we can surprise ourselves if we make a firm determination to do better. I look forward to offering amendments that will help us get there. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few moments on the nomination of Alison Nathan to be the United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York. This is a highly important position. It is one of the more prestigious courts in the country that handles the Nation's most complex cases. It is my observation, having practiced for over 15 years full time trying cases before Federal judges, that this position is of extreme importance and you need good judgment, good experience, good integrity, proven stability before you give a person a lifetime appointment to such a position. It is an important matter. I overwhelmingly vote for the nominees of the President. I believe in giving the President deference in those nominations. However, I do believe we need to hold Presidents accountable and to scrutinize the nominations in a fair way and not hesitate to push back and say no if a nominee does not meet those requirements that are necessary to be a good judge. I believe Ms. Nathan is one of a number of President Obama's nominees who believes that American judges should look to foreign law in deciding cases. She has other indications that suggest she is not committed in a deep and understanding way to the oath Federal judges take. That oath is that you serve under the Constitution and under the laws of the United States. That is so simple and so basic that it goes almost without saying, but it is a part of the historic oath judges take. I believe that oath and commitment to serving under the U.S. Constitution, under the U.S. laws, is critical to the entire foundation of the American rule of law. It is so magnificent. We have the greatest legal system in the world. By and large our Federal judges are excellent and it is a strength both for liberty and civil rights and economic prosperity that we maintain a judiciary at a high level. One of the things that causes me concern--there are several, but this one I will mention--is her belief that American judges should look to foreign law in deciding cases. This is not a little bitty matter. It is a matter of real national import. It offends people. Some people, nonlawyers, get offended. They think they should not do that. They are right, but just because people are upset about it and get angry about it doesn't mean it is not a deep, legitimate concern and can be a disqualifying factor as to whether a person should be on the bench. What law do they follow? The U.S. law or foreign law? In a book chapter published less than 2 years ago, Ms. Nathan suggested that the cases leading up to the Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons, which was a death penalty case, showed legal progress. In Roper the Court held it is unconstitutional to impose a death penalty even for the most heinous crime if the defendant is under the age of 18 years. As a matter of policy, I am not sure we should be executing people under 18, although a lot of people think that certain crimes are so bad they ought to be executed. We can disagree. That is a political decision. The question is, does the Constitution prohibit that? I suggest it does not. But if it does, it ought to be interpreted in light of its own words and the laws of the United States, its own import of the Constitution of the United States. Ms. Nathan seemed to commend the decision, however, on a different basis in her chapter. She commended it for ``elaborating upon relevant international and foreign law sources and defending the relevance of the Court's consideration of those sources.'' When describing Justice Kennedy's change of opinion on the issue--he reversed himself--she said it was ``a change that can be attributed to the international human rights advocacy and scholarship that had taken place outside the courtroom walls.'' She also praised the Roper attorneys for their ``strategic and savvy reference to international norms in litigating the case.'' She asserted that the strategy's ``effectiveness holds promise and lessons for future advancement of international law.'' She went further and suggested the reason the Supreme Court does not look to foreign law more often is because the Justices simply do not understand international law arguments--she has been practicing law about 10 years, or 9 at the time she wrote this, so she knows more about the issues related to international law than the Justices who have been on the bench for decades, many of them constitutional professors--rather than demonstrating a knowledge that the judge must serve under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law and recognizing that foreign law has no place in deciding what our Constitution means. She stated: As these trends [in international law] continue, surely the Court will increase its understanding and `internationalization' of international human rights law arguments. She then concluded: The presence of the Chinese judicial delegation at the Supreme Court on the day of the Roper arguments wonderfully symbolized the rich dialogue between international and constitutional norms. So what she is calling for there is a dialog, presumably between international law and constitutional norms--pretty plain in her writing--not just an off-the-cuff comment but in a serious book expressing her philosophy and approach to law. I am troubled by that. I believe judges have to be bound by the law and the Constitution. They are not free to impose their view. Justice Scalia and others have criticized--devastated--this international law argument. In my view, the debate that has gone forward in circles including the academy and law schools has clearly been a victory for the people who understand it is our Constitution that governs. We didn't adopt the laws of China, if they were ever enforced, which they are not except by the government when it suits them. We didn't adopt laws in France. We didn't adopt laws in Italy or Brazil or Yugoslavia. That is not what binds us. That is not what judges serve under. They serve under our law. I think it is a dangerous philosophy. It strikes at the heart of what the Anglo-American rule of law is all about--that law is adopted by the people of the United States and that is the law judges must enforce-- laws passed by the people of the United States. Reliance on foreign law, I believe, has been shown to be nothing more than a tool that activist judges who seek to reach outcomes they desire utilize. It is a way to get out from under the meaning of U.S. law. Why else would one cite it? If they cannot find a basis for their decisions in American law and legal tradition, they look to the laws and norms of foreign countries to justify their decisions. As Justice Scalia aptly described it--and he has hammered this theory--courts employing foreign law, including his own court--the U.S. Supreme Court--are merely ``look[ing] over the heads of the crowd and pick[ing] out its friends.'' What did he mean by that? He means the law, the foundation principles of deciding cases. If they don't like what they find in the United States, they look out over their heads and they find somebody in Italy or Spain or China or wherever, and they say: We need to interpret our law in light of what they do in Germany. How bogus is that as an intellectual legal argument? Judges who engage in this type of activism violate their judicial oath, I believe. The oath is to serve under our Constitution, our laws. It requires judges to evaluate cases in that fashion--not the laws of other countries. Other countries don't have the same legal heritage we have. They don't value the same liberties and the same fundamental freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution. The decisions of foreign courts have absolutely no bearing on a decision of a judge in a U.S. court, and nominees who disagree with that fundamentally can disqualify themselves from the bench. It is very hard for me to believe I should vote to confirm a nominee who is not committed to following our law, who believes they have a right to scrutinize the world, find some law in some other country and bring it home and use that law so they can achieve a result they wanted in the case. There are a number of other concerns I have with Ms. Nathan's record, not the least of which are her views on an individual's right to bear arms. We have a constitutional amendment on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms should not be abridged. That is an odd thing, compared to France or Germany or Red China. But it is our law and we expect judges to follow it whether they like it or not. That is what our Constitution says. Suffice it to say, I believe her record evidences an activist viewpoint. Perhaps if she had more legal experience, she would have a better understanding of the role of a judge. She only just became a lawyer in 2000--11 years ago--and has had limited time in a courtroom. Evidently, the American Bar Association recognizes this. The ABA gives ratings to judges, and a minority of the members of that committee--not the majority but a minority--rate her ``not qualified.'' Frankly, they are a pretty liberal group, so I don't know if it is so much her views on some of these issues, but probably an actual evaluation of the kind of experience and background she brings and whether she would be qualified to sit on an important Federal district court--the Southern District of New York, one of the premier trial benches in the world, and even in America--and I think it is a matter we should consider. This is a very serious shortcoming for a number of reasons. Litigating in court is valuable experience. It provides insights to someone who would be a judge. It helps make them a better judge if they have had that experience. It gives them a strong understanding that words have meaning and consequences. When we see people get prosecuted for perjury or we see million-dollar contracts decided this way or that way based on the plain meaning of words, we learn to respect words. Some of these people out of law schools, with their activist philosophy, seem to think a judge has a right to allow their empathy and their feelings to intervene and decide cases based on something other than the words of the contract or the words of the Constitution. It is a threat to American law. Indeed, it is what President Obama has said a number of times. He believes judges should allow their empathy to help them decide cases. What is empathy? It is their personal views. Whom do we have empathy for? It depends on whom one likes before they come on the bench. So they are deciding cases based on factors other than the objective facts of the case. I believe the practice of law is a real legal testing ground, in which people can prove their judgment integrity over time. It also provides a maturing experience, where a person learns the import of decisions in how cases turn out and how it impacts their clients. Let me just say that seasoned lawyers develop reputations. When we have seen them in court many times and they have had experience there, people know if they have good judgment. People know if they are solid. We know they are men and women of integrity. They have that opportunity to establish a reputation. Both the short period of time that Ms. Nathan has spent actually practicing law and some of the troubling positions she has taken over the years justifiably raise serious questions about her understanding of the role of a judge in our system. Finally, I would note that Concerned Women For America, the Family Research Council, and the Judicial Action Group oppose this nomination. In a letter sent to all Senators today, Concerned Women For America noted that Ms. Nathan's: . . . biases are so ingrained and so much the main thrust of her career that it is not rational to believe that she will suddenly change once confirmed as a judge. Rather it is reasonable to conclude she would use her position to implement her own political ideology. I have reached the view that the facts as I have noted--her open defense of the idea that judges can use sources other than our law to decide cases and her lack of experience and proven record of good judgment and legal skill, the fact that a minority of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary found her not qualified to serve on the bench, justifies a vote in opposition to this nomination. I will not block the nomination. We will have an up-or-down vote. But I do think in my best judgment--and that is all I have, my best judgment-- after reviewing her resume, looking at how thin her experience is, and her positions on a number of issues, indicates to me that she has the real potential to be an activist judge, not faithful to the law. For that reason, I will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Sanders has raised some questions about our trade policy. I do believe we need to examine our trade policies more carefully. As I have said in the last few days, we need to defend our legitimate interests as a nation, and I have supported legislation that would curtail China's ability to manipulate its currency to gain a trade advantage over us. Trade agreements are not a religious thing with me. I think some of the free traders are accused of believing it is a religious thing--that whatever you do to further trade, even if we are at a disadvantage, somehow it is still better for us to sign these agreements; that we should just do this and not worry about it--cancer will be cured, peace will occur in the world, we will all be better friends, and things will happen good. Things do tend to happen good when you have a trading relationship with a nation. I will support all three of these trade agreements. But I believe it is healthy to have Senators examine and make sure that these are the kinds of agreements that advance our national interest. Is this the kind of trading partner we feel comfortable signing an agreement with? Will they honor it? Do we have prospects for improved trade over the years that could help both our countries? Any business that does business with another business presumes it will be beneficial to them, and the other company that agreed to do business with this other company assumes it will be good for them. Certainly, any kind of contract, any kind of agreement that is a legitimate agreement of value benefits both parties. That is very achievable. It can be achievable in the trade world. I believe that with regard to Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, we have reason to believe they will be good trading partners. Colombia is the longest democracy in South America. They had to go for over a decade dealing with narcotrafficking, a Communist guerrilla force, and we were able to help them defeat their enemy. They are now prospering. They have elections. The Congress is doing a good job. They are honoring their agreements. The people of Colombia are positive about the people in the United States. I have been there and I appreciate that. As a native of Alabama and on the gulf coast, it is a direct shot south to Colombia. We have every reason to believe we can have a positive trading relationship with Colombia. Panama is much smaller, but they have done well. A lot of people doubted their ability to function successfully as a government. I think Panama has been doing very well, and they believe in trade and want to be good trading partners. All of these will have to be watched. South Korea is one of our best allies in the world. We have huge amounts of soldiers there and basing in Korea. We do many things together. Korea has invested billions of dollars in the United States of America. The Hyundai plant that makes the Sonata automobiles--one of the most popular automobiles in America today--is in Montgomery, AL. There are 3,000 workers, plus additional suppliers, many of which are Korean companies that have invested here and hired Alabamans--Americans--to work in their plant, and they do this around the country. They are honorable and when they sign agreements, you can expect them, as well or better than most nations, to adhere to it. They are disciplined people with integrity and they are smart and well educated. They are allies--strategic allies. So in each one of these agreements, it is my best judgment that it will be beneficial to us. For example, with regard to Colombia, under the Andean Trade Agreement, basically, they can import products into the United States with no duty, for the most part. But this agreement is critical to them producing their tariffs on the products that we ship to Colombia. Colombia buys a lot of our products. They are one of the best customers we have in South America. They have a positive view of the United States. I have a very positive view of Colombia. My thought on these agreements would be that, yes, I think each one of these agreements has been negotiated sufficiently well to ensure that we will have a beneficial relationship. It will help us be more economically strong than we would be if we did not have these agreements. We are in a world economy. It makes no sense to me to think we can just build a wall around the United States and stop trade from occurring. That doesn't make sense to me. But I do believe that each and every trade agreement has to be carefully considered, and I expect the USTR to enforce the laws we pass. We need to be sure we have the mechanisms in place to assure that those with whom we agree to trade will follow fair trade, will follow the terms of the contract, and will otherwise follow the requirements of a decent trading partner. I believe all three of these countries will do that. I think all three of these countries represent decent governments. All three of these countries are allies of the United States. With regard to all three of these countries, I believe the signing of these treaties will enhance our economic vitality and will be good for us. I suggest, however, that it is not going to be an overnight boom. Trading is a two-way street. We will have economic advantage, and that is sufficient to me. It will be felt over decades. It has been said by someone--and I see Senator McCain and he can probably remember who said it--that there has never been a war between two countries, both of which have a MacDonald's. Now, I don't know if that is accurate anymore or not, but most of the wars we get into are with countries that are isolated, backward, and insular. Trade can reduce the chance of war and hostile relations between nations. It can build positive relations. So from that point of view, Mr. President, I think these trade agreements are agreements I can support. I believe my colleagues, if they analyze them, will reach the same conclusion. We are showing substantial increases in our exports to all three of these countries, and I do believe our exports would increase more with these agreements if they are ratified. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida and appreciate his work on this issue. We have had a bipartisan effort. I was pleased Chairman Boxer, at the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, joined with us in moving the legislation forward. I think it is time for us to do that now while we have an opportunity to make a decision that is fair to all parties. I believe this legislation is a thoughtful way to do it that would make the gulf a more healthy place. I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am here to share a few thoughts as we move to the final vote on the China currency legislation that I believe we must pass. I find it difficult, almost impossible, to believe there is a universal acceptance of the fact that the manipulation of currency by the Chinese Government--their efforts to keep their currency low, tied directly to the U.S. currency, regardless of the economic forces in the world that would argue for and set a different relationship between those currencies--the net result of that has been to damage the American economy, and I do not think anybody disputes it. In fact, some of my colleagues in this body who have opposed the legislation out of fear of a trade war or something else have all acknowledged that the currency factors set by China are not good. They all acknowledge it adversely impacts the economy of the United States and costs American jobs. It is not right. It is just not right, and we are losing jobs dramatically. The Federal Reserve Chairman--I would ask us to ask ourselves: Is Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a protectionist? Is he somebody who does not believe in trade? Is he somebody who is trying to stop trade? I do not think so. This is what he said last week on the question of jobs in his testimony before the House: Right now, our concern is that the Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a more normal recovery . . . in the global economy. Blocking a normal recovery from a recession. He goes on to say: It is to some extent hurting the recovery. That is the Federal Reserve Chairman. So I do not understand the thought that somehow--when we say we have an obligation to our constituents to defend their legitimate interests on the world's stage in a global economy, to make sure the global economy, where trade is so valuable to us, is conducted in a fair way--it is not a fair system and it has been going on for over a decade. Our leaders--former Presidents, President Obama--all of them, when the chips are down, do not do anything significant to confront this problem. They just allow it to continue, and we are hemorrhaging jobs. Maybe more than a million jobs have been lost as to this one currency manipulation alone. I think it is unhealthy for the country. I am worried about the middle class in America. I do not believe you can have a middle class in America without a vibrant manufacturing base. Many of those supporting free trade say we are going to become a service economy. But I do not see people working in the service industries making the kind of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year salaries that people do in major manufacturing companies. They just do not. There are various benefits from some of those jobs, and some of the people enjoy it, and it fits their skill level and what they want to do, and it is fine to say that. But to acknowledge we no longer are going to be a manufacturing nation does not make sense to me. I believe we have no choice but to develop a sustained, effective policy to raise this question in a way that it cannot be avoided, and to confront our trading partners--China--with this manipulation and to say we wish to have a great, positive relationship here, we are not afraid to trade, we are not trying to hamper your economy, we think the world would be better if China's economy is healthy and growing, but not at our expense, not in a way that unfairly places American manufacturing at a disadvantage. When your currency is 25 to 30 percent under value, it means that when we export a product, the product costs 30 percent more in China than it would otherwise have cost if the currency were right. China is not going to buy it if it costs 30 percent more. If you import a product from China--manufactured in China--to the United States, not only do they have an advantage of lower wages, but they have a 30- percent, a 25-percent currency advantage. We are just going to say: ``Oh, this is just the way of the world. There is nothing we can do about it. We believe in free trade''? Well, as I have said, I believe in trade. I believe in good trade. My record I think will indicate that. But I have told my constituents--and I think most of us in the Senate and in the House talking to our constituents--we say we believe in trade, but we believe in fair trade. We believe in defending our workers from unfair competition. We will stand up and take our lumps and we will take our gains in a fair competition. But we do not sit by and let our workers lose their jobs, have our plants close as a result of an unwillingness on behalf of the government in Washington to defend their interests. How much common sense is that? Mr. Bernanke, the Wall Street Journal, all the others--the Club for Growth--they all acknowledge this is an unfair trade practice. They all acknowledge it hurts us. But they say we cannot do anything about it. Well, we will keep on talking. We will let the administration keep talking and maybe they can work this thing out. But it has been going on for years and it has not been worked out, for reasons I am not able to understand. A major American manufacturer can decide that: Well, China has lower wages and now they have a 30-percent advantage in currency, why, we could close our plant here in New Mexico or we could close our plant in Alabama or Ohio and we will move it to China, and we will make that product over there, and we can import it with a 30-percent currency advantage on top of labor, and we will make more money that way. I think that is how decisions are being made in this country right now. They are being made in that fashion. If you are a stockholder in one of those companies, you would say: That makes common sense to me. But I am not here as a stockholder in a company. I am here as a U.S. Senator, representing 4 million Alabama constituents, really representing the interests of the United States of America, and I do not think it is good for America. It might be good for this company or that company, but it is not good for America. I do not think--in fact, I am confident it is not. It has to end, and we need to defend aggressively on the world stage the legitimate interests of American manufacturing and American workers. We have not done that. It has caused a lot of frustration out there and it has caused a lot of job loss, in my opinion. Well, they say, if you stand up here and you tell the Chinese, look, you have had 9 percent growth last year and are looking for another 9 percent growth this year--you are the No. 2 economy now in the whole world--if we tell them a lot of this has been the result of taking advantage of U.S. trade policy, and they have to stop, this will somehow make them mad and this will make them angry and they will commence a trade war against us. That is what the argument basically is. And they say: Oh, you remember during the Depression the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. That created a tariff war around the world and helped prolong the Depression. And it did. Well, let me tell you, this is not the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It is not. First of all, the United States was a major exporting juggernaut in the 1930s, and we placed tariffs on goods coming into our country to try to give an advantage to our folks, and others retaliated, and we, as an exporting nation, ended up losing more than they did. It was stupid policy and it redounded to our disadvantage. It was a worldwide tariff we placed on all products. Hopefully, there will not be any tariffs imposed under this legislation. Hopefully, as the process goes forward our Chinese trading partners will begin to retreat from their indefensible position, and it will not happen. But, again, it is only targeted where we have major currency manipulation. It is not a worldwide tariff, No. 1; and, No. 2, as Mr. Gordon Chang, writing in Forbes magazine, noted, indisputably: China is the exporting juggernaut in today's world. We are the world's biggest importer. I don't guess there has ever been in the history of the world a larger trade imbalance than between the United States and China. We import, they export. So as he noted, in a trade tariff situation, which is bad for everybody, I acknowledge the nation that is hurt the worst is the exporting nation. That would be China. So why would China, despite their bluster, why would they create a real trade war with the United States? One-third of their exports or more go to the United States. This is a huge part of their growing economy, and I am happy that China is making financial progress. I sincerely hope they will be able to continue to do so, but it cannot be done at our expense. So I would say the Smoot-Hawley argument is not a good one. Neither is the fact that China would execute a trade war with the United States. It just makes no sense for them to do so. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. One thing that is good in a manufacturing economy is that we sell products and we bring home wealth. If we can manufacture and we can export that product, we can bring home wealth, and that wealth can be used to purchase other foreign products and bring those into the country. It is the kind of thing that can, if properly conducted, benefit the entire world. I tease my free-trade colleagues--those for whom free trade is a religion--that they believe that trade, once it breaks out in the world, peace will abound and cancer will be cured. That is all we have to do is eliminate all trade barriers. But the trade barriers are not being eliminated. That is the problem. One of the biggest trade barriers we have is the currency manipulation by China. It is by far--they do a lot of things. They steal our manufacturing copyrights and secrets and techniques in violation of international law. They subsidize domestic manufacturing in many different ways. If we want to do business in China, we have to partner with a Chinese company and give them half the company. They block the sale of rare earth minerals around the world. They do all kinds of things that are not the kinds of things good trading partners ought to be doing, not to mention their foreign policy which buddies up with North Korea, Iran and other rogue nations. China needs to be participating positively in the world community, not trying to take advantage of other countries, making bucks off them, and trying to do things that seem, at times, for no other purpose than to frustrate the legitimate interests of the United States and the world community. So China has some problems. It is time for them to get straight. I urge them to do so. They cannot continue currency manipulation. That is destroying jobs in the United States, and we will not have it. When we have this vote that will be coming up before long, I think it will be more than just a normal vote around here. I believe it will be a vote that says to the whole world: The United States is waking up. We are free traders, all right, but not any trade agreement is going to be good in the future. If you are not complying with your promises under trade agreements, we are going to hold you accountable. We will do what it takes to hold you to the agreement, and we will not trade with you if you manipulate the trade rules. We insist that the world economy operate on a fair and lawful basis, that is healthy for us. If we do this right, we can do it in a way that is not protectionist, not antitrade, but creates the foundations for even more and healthier, better trade for the whole world. That is my vision of where we are today. I think we should move forward and pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues in the House to do likewise. In the long run we will benefit. I thank my Republican colleague, Senator Graham, and others on this side who voted for it, and Senator Schumer and Senator Brown and Senator Stabenow and others on the Democratic side who have been leaders in this effort. I believe it is time for the President to get the message. I think it is time for Wall Street to get the message. I think it is time for the American people to get focused that there are some decisions being made now--without protectionism, without nativism, but legitimate public interests that will create jobs in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I was pleased that earlier today the Senate voted to move forward with the China currency legislation that has been worked on for so many years by Senators Schumer and Graham, and I am pleased to join with them. I supported similar legislation in 2005. I will say a couple things as our Members evaluate what they will do on final passage. I believe in trade. I believe in good trade, and most trade is good trade. Countries do need to compete with the production in other countries. If you have a trade partner, normally both partners, through a relationship, benefit. In a treaty, trade, or business relationship, if one party to that relationship is being damaged by that relationship, then they have to confront the problem and fix it or withdraw from the relationship. That is just the way life is. I see that some of my free market friends--and I have a lot of them-- on trade issues are religious about it. It is a religion with them. They don't want to analyze whether the trading agreement advantages the United States or the other party; they just want to say: If it is a trade agreement, be for it. Anything that promotes trade is good, and peace will break out in the world. Well, that is not right, and that is not what I think conservatives believe. I am a conservative--a conservative who believes in reality. Conservatism is a cast of mind, not an ideology. It is an approach to complex issues. As my friend Bob Tyrrell at the American Spectator said, it is an approach to issues, a cast of mind. How do you approach this matter? We are getting hurt in this relationship. Every editorial I have seen--even those groups who are specifically advocating against this legislation contend and acknowledge that the United States is being disadvantaged by this currency manipulation. They all acknowledge that. When you acknowledge that, you acknowledge that we are losing jobs and losing manufacturing in this country as a result, not of competition, but of unfair competition. Let's be in contact with reality. The People's Republic of China is state-dominated. Those companies are not free to do as they normally would in the United States. It is a state-dominated thing. Every agenda carried out by China--by their companies even--tends to be driven by expanding the national interest of China. That is the way they think and that is the way they operate. Their theory of trade is mercantilist. They believe in maximizing their exports, minimizing their imports, and accumulating wealth. Some of our friends here say: Oh, it is all right. The products that are sold at Walmart are from China and, all right, yes, we closed a factory in the United States. But don't worry, Mother can buy her sneakers or her children's clothes cheaper because it is imported. Don't worry about it. Manufacturing is not that important, they have told us. We have seen that in the writings around the Nation from some of our great economic minds. But I don't believe that is true. I do not believe this Nation can be a strong, vibrant force in the world without a manufacturing sector. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Schulz, the CEO of ThyssenKrupp, a steel company in Germany. He just retired. He is 70 and a very impressive man. He was investing in my home State of Alabama, and he said publicly and to me privately, with great passion, you have to have a renaissance of manufacturing. He said: Germany was criticized for attempting to hold on to its manufacturing base in Europe, people saying they were not part of the modern economy--the service economy. But he said: We did more than most of the Europeans to maintain our manufacturing base, and we are now the healthiest economy in Europe. We have to have a manufacturing base. Wealth is sent abroad every time we purchase imported products. The deficit with China last year was $273 billion. This year it will be the largest in history--$300 billion. There has never been a trading relationship result in deficits as large as those in the history of the world. China is the second largest economy in the world. China is growing rapidly. They have been doing this for a decade. Let me say I celebrate prosperity in China. I would like to see prosperity in all the nations of the world, and they will benefit the United States, not harm us, if China is prosperous. But if their prosperity is driven by disadvantaging the United States to their advantage, as the currency process does, then that is a different story. It is not a fair competition and it is not helpful to the United States. We are told this will not hurt us, that we can move to a service economy, that we don't have to have manufacturing, and the doctrine of comparative advantage is such that if a product can be manufactured cheaper in China, so be it. We will put the American businesses out of business. Let them close their doors. As a conservative, I am not comfortable with that and let me say why. First, this creates too rapid a dislocation in our economy, causing too much damage societally from rapid unemployment and closing of manufacturing in our country. Secondly, we now know with certainty that the manipulation of currency--the 30-percent or 25-percent difference-- is resulting in unfair competition with American businesses and causing the closing down of businesses. We have a chance to rebound, I am convinced, in manufacturing. China's salaries are going up. Salaries around the world are going up. China's utilities and energy costs are higher than ours. Their advantages are not so great as they were a few years ago, and we are becoming more sophisticated. Our businesses are lean and competitive now. I think we have a real chance to get back into the game but not if we have a 25- to 30-percent currency differential, where when we sell a product to China it costs 25 percent more than the competing Chinese production would, and when they sell to our country they have a 25- percent advantage over our manufacturers. When margins are as close as they are in the world economy today, that is too large. Any unfairness is too large. So I would contend we have to act. Thirdly, there is damage being done to the middle class in our country, and a large part of it is arising out of unfair trade practices. We have to be aware that millions of Americans are hurting. Maybe the wife, maybe the husband has lost his or her job and is now unemployed, and families are struggling to get by. Wages are not going up. In fact, wages have trended down just a little bit. Unemployment is not going down. It is maybe going up now for the last several months. Inflation is on the scene. If the wages aren't going up, the number of people employed isn't going up, we get into a situation in which we can't see economic growth occur. There is not extra money to go to the store or market to buy things. As one businessman told me, one of the great marketing chains in the United States--Walmart: People don't have the money to come to the store to buy anything. If a person doesn't have a job, they don't have the money to buy anything. So this is a serious economic problem we are facing. I have come to the conclusion we can no longer borrow money to spend today to try to create a sugar high and jump-start our economy. That didn't work before. We don't have the money and the debt is already too great. We need to look for ways to create American jobs now without costing the U.S. Treasury or raising taxes on an already weak economy. This is one of those things we can do. Senators Schumer, Brown, Graham, and I agree, in a bipartisan way, this is a way to create jobs without harming our economy, without raising the debt of America. It is a bipartisan act to create greater employment by simply eliminating an unfairness that is hammering American manufacturers and American workers. Some say if we insist on this, China will be offended. First, China is a great nation. They have the second largest economy in the whole world. They are bellicose. They attack us aggressively. We don't hide under the table when they say something bad about the United States, do we? Neither are they going to hide under the table if the Senate, the Congress says they have to get their currency correct. Great nations don't wither and crawl away. I was looking at an article in Forbes magazine, written by Mr. Gordon Chang, who talked about this question posed by Chris Chocola, the president of the Club for Growth, who opposes this legislation. Mr. Chocola asked this: ``What do they say to arguments that starting a trade war with China would kill jobs, not create them?'' In other words, Mr. Chocola is saying, if we start a trade war, we are going to lose jobs. First of all, Mr. Chocola's hands are not so clean in this issue. When he was in the House of Representatives a few years ago, he introduced a bill--the China Act--that would have imposed tariffs on China if it tried to manipulate its currency, according to his press release at the time. I guess he has changed his mind. We all have a right to change our minds. But I will just say I am not too impressed with that argument, and I would note that Mr. Chang, in his comments about it, made a very good point. Writing in Forbes, he says: Chocola is correct that a trade war with China would kill jobs--but most of them would be in China. That is absolutely so. A trade war will not occur, in my opinion. But if we had a trade war, Mr. Chocola says it would hurt jobs in the United States. But Chang continues: How do we know this? Last year, the United States ran a deficit in trade in goods with that country of $273.1 billion. In trade wars, it is the surplus countries-- countries that depend on exports--that get hurt. Americans know this because we were the powerhouse exporter in the 1930s when nations fought a tariff war. That was when the Depression hit and trade froze after tariffs and other actions and we were hurt the most because we were exporting goods. In this case, China would be hurt the most. Mr. Chang goes on to note how large China's economy is and its dependence on exports to the United States. He says: And this is a pretty good indication that Beijing, although it will undoubtedly huff and puff and might engage in minor retaliation, will not escalate the fight. China cannot afford more unemployment. Mr. Chang quotes Premier Wen Jiabao as saying, if you change this currency, ``countless Chinese workers become unemployed.'' What does that say? The Premier of China is saying, if we have a fair currency rate, the Chinese would lose jobs. Somebody is going to gain those jobs--maybe it will be in Dayton or maybe it will be in Birmingham or Mobile. As Mr. Chang says, and this puts it on the line: If China manipulates its currency to gain a trade advantage, then Premier Wen is seeking to put American workers on the bread line. Not Chinese workers on the bread line. Quoting the article further: So Donald Trump hit the mark when he tweeted last week that ``China is stealing our jobs.'' I am not here trying to condemn China. I am here saying we have failed to aggressively defend our legitimate national interests, and we need to do that. I believe this legislation puts us on that path. I believe in trade. I expect to support the Colombian trade bill as it comes forward. I think it serves our national interest. The Panamanian trade bill serves our national interest and will help us be more profitable. I believe the trade agreement we have negotiated with South Korea is also in our national interest and will help us. But this deal needs to be fixed. It is time to stop it. It has gone on too long. It is great to see my colleague, Senator Brown. I know he will be ready to talk as we move forward to final passage, but let me congratulate Senator Brown and Senator Schumer and others who have worked on the bill. I believe it is a reasonable piece of legislation, and it provides exits if something dangerous were to occur. It gives discretion to the President to delay, even stop, actions that might occur under this process if it is damaging to the United States, and it gives Congress a chance to be involved in that process. This is the right way to do it. If someone has some better ideas, maybe we can improve the bill. But fundamentally, I think it is a good piece of legislation that will do the job, and I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan effort that has moved this legislation that will help create American jobs without expanding our debt. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the majority leader has agreed that if cloture is invoked, Senator Hatch's amendment will be one that will be voted on. There was an agreement. Other amendments, too, would be allowed. I believe the minority has to protect its right to offer amendments, consistent with other processes that we have had here that I am not happy with. The amendments offered by the majority, I believe, are legitimate. I am a bit offended, and I don't appreciate the view that this is a protectionist piece of legislation. I believe it protects free trade because trade can't exist when one party is manipulating the rules in a significant way that substantially impacts the balance of trade. I will just ask the question: Is former Governor, now Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney a protectionist? Governor Huntsman from Utah, a Presidential candidate and also former Ambassador to China for President Obama, said he would sign this bill if it came before him if he is elected President; and Rob Portman, our fabulous new Senator, President Bush's former Trade Representative, said he supports the bipartisan legislation. I don't think it is protectionism. I think it is an effort to protect trade. There are some who are religious about free trade; it is a religion. They believe that no matter how bad our trading partners act, we should not retaliate because that might cause a trade war. I think that is not against common sense. Trade is not my religion. I think any trading relationship should depend on how well the agreement serves the interests of both parties. It is similar to any other business relationship. Is it serving the interests of both parties? In this trade situation, it is a dramatic factor in the American loss of jobs. It is indisputable, in my opinion. A group of professors from California said our trade imbalance, over the last decade, has cost 10 million jobs. Let me just say we are going to have dynamic changes in our economy. That happens all the time, and there are winners and losers. We can compete with China and we are, in many ways. When we give them a currency advantage as large as this, good companies that are capable of competing and being successful are being hammered. The middle class in this country is being hammered. This has to stop, and we have to ask ourselves: Is this country going to abandon its commitment or belief in a manufacturing economy? Are we going to give up manufacturing entirely? I don't think that is remotely conceivable. We have had brilliant economists tell us we need to be a service economy and we can just deal with computers and e-mails and move paper around and that this creates growth and wealth. We need a manufacturing economy. I see Senator Brown, who has been a strong advocate of this. Senators Schumer and Graham have been at this for years. I voted for the legislation in 2005. I have become energized about this because I believe it is a deep responsibility for every government official to protect our national security and protect our economic security. When we have clear evidence that a predatory trade policy of a major world exporter--the largest exporter in the history of the world is China to the United States. They are abusing their trade privileges, and the administration refuses to act. I say the Congress can and should act. I believe this is a reasonable bill. It allows the administration to negotiate an end to this matter over a period of time, and it will provide the power and the requirement that that happen.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. If a manufacturing company in Dayton is competing with the Chinese company to manufacture a widget, they can, on the currency alone, more than have an advantage shipping the product from China here--a 25-percent advantage. As we know, in modern trade and sales today, margins are very small, and 25 percent is a huge margin that would be provided by the currency alone. Then we have the things that are done in trying to block our companies from moving and selling there. To go beyond currency, it adds to the price of our goods if we attempt to sell them in China. This is not a two-way street. I believe that any rational government should not allow its manufacturing industry and its workers to be subjected to such unfair practices. We have an absolute responsibility to stand up and fix it. The best way to do it is the bill that Senators Schumer, Graham, Brown, and others have offered. It will do it in a rational, effective way. Other alternatives are less effective and will not do the job. It is time for us to do it now. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield the 2 minutes to Senator Schumer.