>> congress decided it should be an option. they have federalized airports to have private security done so some members of congress are strongly about that and additional airports have private security. >> that is written into t s a la? >> security parts -- >> i don't have long in the senate but we need to look at these private contracts. i am concerned about the number of private contractors not only in tee as a but other government agencies and dealing with liabilities because i wonder what the liability is going to be if those who feel that they are overscreened, does with the liability would be. in terms of the underwear bomber, would patting down have

caught the underwear bomber in your estimation? >> yes. >> non the machine but the patting down. >> yes. >> the diaper type of arrangement. >> yes. >> in terms of patting down individuals -- >> the pet downs are based on the latest intelligence and the information we have. >> the intelligence on the gentleman on the flight to detroit, he was on the plane. >> that is right. that is what we change policies. >> okay. and our personnel receive -- all personnel receive adequate training? mr. chairman, do we know what will happen, litigation coming out of this because the pilots association and flight attendants association are ready to bring some kind of action

because of patting down flight attendants and pilots, is that the case? >> that has been the case. pilots have not generally gone through this technology because they keep their shoes on and that is a different issue but had a number of conversations with representatives of the pilots' association and we are actively exploring options as it involves pilots because we're using a risk based approach. it begs the question, if you have somebody in charge of the aircraft who can put the aircraft down as would be the case, then why do we have screening for them? in the near future i will be announcing new policies on that. >> there's also a question about

the degree of x-rays these individuals have to go through in the course of their day-to-day work and what that will do to their physical health. if they go through the x-ray machine rather than the excessive pat down. >> that is one of the concerns that has been raised. would rely upon is scientific literature and studies done using the specific machines including the national institutes of science and technology and johns hopkins. they have all done independent assessments of the technology machines, the amount of radiation and several analogy's but one that sticks in my mind is going through one of these machines is similar to receiving -- seconds or minutes? three minutes of radiation you would receive at 30,000 feet on a normal flight. it is very minimal. well within the established scientific standards for safety and we are always trying to and did that with others.

>> how about the protection of the tsa personnel? if i get accused of grabbing a lady's breasts or the female gets too close to the male gentleman. our they protected? >> always same gender security officers would do that hat down. people can request a private -- >> is there a witness? >> a witness can be present. >> so the tsa person -- kenna tsa person request a witness when he is patting him down or she is planning her down? can they have personal with them to protect them? >> that is not current policy but unless it goes into a private screening area, the tv would capture virtually all of that because every checkpoint has tv enable. >> my time is about time also

concerned about tsa personal. the listened to these people. please take care of tsa personnel. some are working part time and i listen to these complaints and as a new administrator i am counting on you to take care of those people who take care of us getting on these airplanes because we can't have disgruntled tsa personnel trying to protect the moneys flights. >> couldn't agree with you more. i appreciate your support. >> senator gerber, senior senator since the o'brien became the senior senator, he becomes not only senior but the oldest member of the delaware delegation and we're going to treat you with a lot more respect. >> thank you, life think. a i just want to second the emotion expressed by our chairman about your service not

only with full committee hearings but terrific subcommittee. i have been privileged to welcome him to our subcommittee hearings for the last three years. almost always present for the least part of the hearings. i enjoyed it. we are going to miss you. i want to put that on the record. >> how are you doing? how long have you been in your job? >> doing very well. thank you. >> any surprises? >> about the challenges and moving parts that have been impressed with the quality of the workforce and the senior leadership team is outstanding and the agency work is outstanding and it is a vital mission that people are very focused on. >> the legislative branch ought to be doing more to help you and the folks that serving under you? >> there have been several issues. i would defer to the legislative affairs folks in terms of getting that to staff and

working at the. thank you. >> good enough. and covering this most recent cargo plot, and failure of attacks over the years it is becoming a recently difficult since 9/11 to exploit the vulnerability is to our aviation system. at the same time some aspects of our response are worrisome. cote cargo from yemen and somalia and printer cartridges may be necessary but there is specific response to a specific failed attack as you know. they follow similar rules put in place a over the years related to electronics and other matters. recognizing that terrorists still targeting aviation, they're constantly adapting and changing. what we doing to make sure we're just as nimble as they are and

not spending too much time responding to the last disaster? flight officer guys talk about fighting the last war and we have tried to learn to fight the current war and the next worse as time goes by. what we doing about making sure we're not spending too much time responding to the last disaster? >> my whole approach since taking over in july is to use risk-based intelligence approach to make sure we are informed by prior actions and attempted attacks but not dwelling on those. we want to make sure there are no other printer cartridges out there. maybe they made it more and maybe they are already in the u.s.. we have to be informed on that. we have to be informed about box cutters on flights or liquids that could be explosives or issue bonds or underwear bombs. we have to be informed by those but we don't want to be limited. we have to be forward-looking to make sure we're not acquiring

technology today that deals with yesterday's threats but trying to anticipate and informed by the intelligence not only by the u.s. community but around the world as to where we should be going and i think we are doing that. >> do you want to share a thought or two with us? >> to add to the administrator's comments, we need to develop a deeper partnership with the private sector. given the number of parcels that we deal with, last year, as i indicated in the opening statement, we dealt with 334,000 flights, fifty-seven million packages. we have to recognize that we cannot do this without the help of the commercial airline that carry the cargo as we have enlisted their support in the passenger context and express carriers that we need to make

the grand bargain with them, that give them earlier release on cargo that is a short and help us deal with smaller percentage that the don't have sufficient information to make a good judgment. >> administrator john pistole, the tsa has been receiving negative attention recently due to the discomfort we have heard of some airline passengers with screening methods used at airports, specifically the full body scanners and pat downs. you have considerable discussion on this already. i don't want to get into specific discussion on how procedures are right now but i want to talk about something that could limit the number of passengers submitted to more intensive screening. my staff and i have learned a

lot in recent months about the tsa spot program which uses agency personnel trained in behavior detection methods to identify passengers who might pose a high risk. before the confirmation hearing we talked about this a little bit to several months ago. the legislation senator brown and i have introduced aimed to build and expand this program. take a couple minutes to discuss behavior detection training and perhaps increase the use of intelligence of transportation security threats, might be better used to target reference at airports. >> the behavior detection, the use of behavior detection is a key component in overall layers of security. no single point of failure in any respect but one of those multiple layers that we use to

try to identify somebody who may be acting suspiciously or something is not quite right. i am a big proponent given my 27 years in the fbi having seen behavior detection in interviews and when somebody is lying and things like that. it is a valuable resource. the question is how do we show outcomes if we have not identified terrorists or the type that is -- we did it because he was sweating or the way he response to question worse of a canine over here so he went this way or they saw somebody standing in line with trace detection on his hands and back out of line. any number of indicators would be helpful as we -- the israelis to quite a bit in terms of how they screen passengers. i am looking to expand program.

>> thanks so much. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to touch on a couple issues. i know this is basically on air cargo with folks getting into a few other areas, so let me on enhanced imaging, there have been reports in the media that said some religious groups want to be exempted because of religious reasons. can you address that? are you going to allow certain groups to be exempted from that because of their religious beliefs? >> we try to be sensitive to each individual and groups that have particular sensitivities as to whether it is head where or

certain garb without being viewed or anything, we try to be sensitive to those issues. at the same time the bottom line is we have to ensure that each person getting on each flight has been properly screened and so we have options like if somebody does not want to go through, it is optional. they would do the metal detector and have a pat down that would identify any possible items. they respect private screenings. if they don't want to be screened and they can go to a private area. we try to address those concerns in every way possible, recognizing in the final analysis everybody on that flight wants to be assured with a high level of confidence that everybody else on that flight had been properly screened including me and you and everybody. >> i realize this is a difficult question for you, are you going

to make no exceptions? i know you are trying to reasonably accommodate but within those reasonable accommodations, let's just say, my religious whatever does not allow me to be touched by somebody else, does not allow me to go through that screening? >> a very small percentage of people will continue to receive pat downs. of somebody -- they have to at least go through the pat down if not the screening. >> unless there is an alarm in the metal detector or they opt out, in all likelihood they would never receive a pat down. there are very small -- [talking over each other] >> maybe i am not -- if somebody -- random screening. i just got randomly screened at the airport for whatever reason my number comes up quite often.

if that happens, the imaging was one of the options or the parrot down, let's just say i don't want either of them because of religious reasons. >> we respect that person's belief that person won't get on an airplane. >> there will be no exceptions because of religion. that was the answer i was looking for. when it comes to going back to cargo, i know this was addressed to little earlier. i want to go back, when you have cargo planes and passenger planes, that seems to me the biggest potential concern because not as big a target to take down a fedex plane wrote ups plane as it would be a passenger plane. in all reality we all recognize that. it would seem to me, i guess a

better question from what i understand you are working on all cargo eventually being screened, we are not screening all cargo coming in. when will we get to that point? what is the schedule? >> there are two aspect. one is all cargo going on passenger planes. two thirds to 80% coming national into the u. s is screened. i don't have a way of verifying that. all cargo is largely nonregulated. what we have done since the recent events with the printer cartridges is issue rules that limit cargo to the final destination in the u.s. as to what that may be. we differentiate between known shippers at high risk shippers coming from certain areas and

things like that. those are the two areas. in terms of the time frame -- >> i know you're going as fast as you can. >> it comes down to building capacity in certain parts of the world that don't currently have that 100% capacity. >> i understand your dealing with the most difficult issues on security because the terrorists are always looking for way is as soon as we come up with one security session they come up with another. can you address the use of dogs and the bomb sniffing capabilities. from what i understand a lot of dogs have sensitive noses but there are ways to get around those depending on how you wrap the packages. explain a little bit without -- [talking over each other] >> exactly what we are doing. explain the role that k-9s

versus other detection techniques. >> the bomb sniffing dogs do play an important role in the overall screenings in the u.s.. it is uneven around the world. we are the leaders here. there are two types. one can detect the actual explosives in this box and there is vapor so if somebody has been carrying something like the july 7th bombers in london in their backpacks before they got on the london to. do they have explosive in their backpacks? dogs would be able to pick up that trail if you will after they walk by. those are the two main approaches. the challenges have enough jobs and locations worldwide to make a meaningful difference especially in high risk areas where we need only trained dogs

but a trained handler. terrific technology, but the question is scaleability. >> thank you. >> last week and was in afghanistan to visit our troops and i saw a remarkable demonstration of bomb sniffing dogs. these dogs are really extraordinary. saving lives every day. >> it is only because of the outstanding veterinary care they get from my profession. >> i had no idea i was being set up to set you up. i have a few more questions. going on the basis of public reports, this public hearing, it appears the two bombs shipped from yemen last month were

screened and cleared perhaps more than once. i wanted to ask you as a result, folks on t s a reviewing and re-evaluating what types of screening it useds are certified in light of that tough reality? >> mr. chairman, you have been on a key point in terms of specific training done on those two instances and how did that in form actions or judgments, we reviewed the forensics and screening that has been described to us so we are doing that. because of the sensitivity of that, i will be for to a hearing in terms of details. we are informed by and taking actions that were consistent with what we found. >> this is consistent with what

senator brown asked before. in this coming budgetary round, do you feel you need more funding support for r&d or grant programs to develop better technology for screening. don't hesitate to ask us. >> in response to what senator collins mentioned earlier in terms of automated target recognition -- >> please do. >> we are aggressively testing that currently in our immigration facility at reagan airport out there. we are cautiously optimistic as far as being the next generation of advancing technology. basically software modification to our existing hardware. the issue is the high rate of false positives we have seen. i am not ready to request

funding for that until we ensure those are lowered to the effective tool spill if they are high positives and pat downs we are trying to get away from that construct and say this is clearly the best technology for the issue to create efficiency for us. a separate screen in a separate room. we are exploring that. the biggest issue is on security worldwide. that is where we are working with the department and administrations to move forward. >> to try to convince and influence leverage other countries, better job screening cargo. i want to get on the record. this next generation of the imaging systems, in the original

imaging portion of its process, is more protective of privacy. >> basically a stick figure. >> if an alarm goes off it still requires a pat down. >> yes all the specifics with the target recognition, show a box in the area of the body where there is a monopoly. it could be targeted, some place -- >> it may limit of the path down. >> the concern is there may be a higher rate of false positives so there will be more pad downs. keep us posted on that. i know that on november 8th, the t s a issued security directors against emergency amendments designed to reduce the risk to

the aviation network by limiting the ability to transport in or turner and preventing all shipments from yemen and somalia for at least the next month. i know that one of the ways trying to balance what we issued before about the time where you get the manifest, one of the ways to balance the interest in security as against the interruption of commerce is to have higher standards as we do in the movement of people coming with cargo coming from certain countries. the question obviously arises and we watched this with people too. what do we do if the terrorists understand that and start to move their cargo through interim parts of europe or asia?

>> in terms of the risk-management you pointed out it is unlike the passenger context, packages don't carry those characteristics except insofar as we get advance information. what we need to do is get more information, more specific information earlier so there are targeting rules but you are exactly right. the high risk packages could as easily come from europe as the persian gulf as they did in this particular case. we need to adjust the targeting rules to pick up high risk cargo wherever it comes toward the homeland. >> are we intending to do that? >> yes, sir.

>> that puts an emphasis on good intelligence. there's nothing better than having the kind of information we had in this case to target and move those packages. going back to a question i asked at the beginning, we worked very hard in the post 9/11 reform of our intelligence apparatus and we are doing better than before both in gathering information and sharing it. is there anything from the perspective of your two agencies that you have asked of the intelligence community, more general than specific that relates to cargo for instance, information related to cargo. is there something different about intelligence gathering? >> without being specific the answer is yes with regard to informing targeting rules and out of the national targeting

system. >> let me ask this. if i understand this intricate world, cbp gets more information generally about inbound cargo than tsa does. >> to the extent that we get under the 2002 act, cbp posted a four requirement and information comes to the targeting center but it is fair to say it is one of the great developments. we have been fairly seamless and will become even more seamless in terms of that information being able to inform tsa activities. >> are you cooperating and insuring communication between cbp and tsa? >> absolutely. >> you are getting what you

need? >> absolutely. >> final question goes to something i asked at the beginning which is how do we -- this is the imagination, the evil imagination, institutionally, is there somewhere in your two agencies, within the intelligence community, if not, should there be? we are trying to think like the terrorists. this is very difficult in an open society like ours, in a globally connected world both in terms of ease of movement of people and goods, cargo, but still, the record as i stated, we do seem to respond to the last attack, understandably. i am grateful that we do. is there some way we can hear this system so that we get ahead of what they are going to try to

do next? >> the nature of the targeting enterprise requires the attempt to do that. typically better informed when there is intelligence. in thinking about the risks and gaps that exist now, something we haven't talked about at great length but we need to explore, would be international mail for example. and not subject to much of the kinds of safeguards and risk-management techniques that we have. to that extend, yes, we try to keep ahead, recognizing -- >> we will go live to the u.s. senate. they took the day off yesterday for meetings. they start with an hour and a half of general speeches and consider motions to move ahead on a couple of bills dealing with gender paid differences.

the food and drug administration oversight of food safety. live coverage of the u.s. senate on abdulmutallab. c-span2. rule their hearts without a rival guiding their thoughts, words, and works. take possession of their hearts and order their steps by the power of your loving providence. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please

join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, november 17, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to s. 315, the natural gas, electric vehicles act be withdrawn and that at 11:00 a.m., the senate resume the motion to proceed to s. 3772,

immediately vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:30 today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i have spoken to senator hatch, senator men nen des who are the main sponsors of this legislation. this is extremely important legislation. we're going to continue to work to get this done. it is a bipartisan bill. there is some dispute as to what the pay-for should be. hopely we can work it out before the end this year. whether we can do that or not depends on the schedule. it is one of the most important things we could dovment it is job-creating, great for the environment, great for the secure of this nation. mr. president, following any leader remarks, the senate today to turn to a period of morning business until 11:00 this morning. the time until 11:00 will be equally divided between the two

leaders or her designees. at 11:00 a.m., the senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the paycheck fairness act. if cloture is not invoked, the senate will vote to proceed to invoke cloture on the f.d.a. food safety and modernization afnlgt the senate recess from 12:30 until 4:00 p.m. today. mr. president, i'm not going to give a long speech on food safety. i will say, however, how important this is. i read a column today where somebody kind of minimized the importance of this. why shoot senate be working on this? i would invite them to meet a number of people in nevada who had near-death experiences as a result of eating tainted food. that's what this legislation is all about. it's something we should have done before. it is a real shame that we haven't been able to.

i hope we can get this done before we leave here this year. i can't get out of my mind a little girl who was so sick from eating spinach that was tainted. she is -- and hurt so bad for the rest of her life. she is held back in school. her body is not what it should be. it's -- her growth has been stunted. so anyone that minimizes the importance of this legislation doesn't understand how sick these people get and how often they die as a result of these -- this food poissonning. -- poisoning. will the chair announce morning business now? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the senator from iowa, mr. harkin, controlling 15 minutes, the senator connecticut, mr. dodd, controlling 15 minutes, the

senator from maryland, ms. mikulski, controlling five minutes of the majority's time. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask consent the call of the quorum be terminat terminated. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm going to ask that the quorum call be repeated. however, i ask that the time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so order. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. voinovich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator ohio is recognized. mr. voinovich: ask you that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. voinovich: i rise today to discuss the challenges america faces in our relationship with russia and their implications on the senate's consideration of new strategic arms reduction treaty known as the start treaty. a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken about the treaty's impact on global nuclear nonproliferation. and i'd like to use my remarks today to highlight my concerns about the treaty in the broader context of, one, the obama

administration's reset policy towards russia; two, the start treaty's impact on our allies in eastern europe and the bam particular states. i believe these concerns must be addressed by the administration before i can determine my support for the treaty. mr. president, over the last decade, i've been an ardent champion of nato and have worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. i've also been active in improving our public diplomacy in eastern europe through our expansion of the visa waiver program at the qualify our friends and alice in central and eastern europe and that legislation which the president signed on visa waiver was supported by both our state department and by our department of homeland security. in my remaining time in the senate i will continue to work to strengthen that visa waiver program, which improved our image in the world and strengthened our borders through

shared best practices, and enhanced intelligence sharing with our partners and allies abroad. my passion for foreign relations stems in large part from my bringing -- upbringing as the grandson of southeast european immigrants. as an undergraduate at ohio university, my first research paper examined how the united states sold out the central and eastern europe in 1943 and 1945. these states would become the -- quote -- "captive nations" -- suffering under the specter of oppression for nearly 50 years. as a public official in ohio, i remained a strong supporter of the captive nations. during my tenure as mayor of cleveland, i joined my brothers and sis fers in the eastern european deasupraat city hall. we flew their flags, we sang

their songs and prayed that one day people in those countries would know freedom. mr. president, we saw the berlin wall and iron curtain torn, in large part to the leadership of paul john paul 2k-r, president reagan and george h.w. bush. even with the endle of the cold war, i remained deeply concerned that darker forces in russia were reemerging, human rights and religious freedom for the citizens of the newly freed captive nations. worried that history will repeat itself. it always seems to do that. this concern in 1998 during my tenure as governor of ohio and chairman of the national governor's association prompted me to pursue an all-50-state resolution promoting membership. i'm inspired by president george

w. bush's speech on nato expansion in warsaw on june 15, 2001. president bush stated, "we should not calculate how little we can get away with but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom." there was concern at that time because of the debate over -- with russia that we would back off and not support further expansion of nato. i worked diligently from my first day as a member of the senate in 1999 to extend nato membership to my brothers and sissers in in the form of captive nations. i knew nato membership would provide these democracies safe harbor from the possible threat of new russian expansionism. by also knew the process of nato expansion would enhance much more than security in europe. as i noted in a speech on the senate floor on may 21, 2002, while nato is a collective security organization formed to

defend freedom and democracy in europe, we cannot forget that common values that we formed in terms of the alliance. in other words, the foundation of the alliance is based on common values. democracy, the rule of law, minority rights -- these are among the values that form the hallmark of the neigh tee lines. mr. president, one of the proudest moments as a senator was when i joined president bush, secretary of state colin powell, secretary of defense don rumsfeld, richard myers at the nato summit in prague on november 21, 2002. when secretary-general of nato, lord rob inson officially announced the decision to invite bulgaria, romania, lithuania, estonia, latvia, slovakia, and

slovenia to become part of the alliance. that was truly one of the most thrilling days of my entire tenure as a united states senator. later that day my wife janet and i were happy to attend a dinner in honor of the czech president vaclav havel at the prague capital. following that dinner at 1:30 in the morning prague time, i placed a call home. they gathered at the lithuania waneian hall at our lady of per perpetual health to celebrate thatdays historic events. this was truly a capstone to years of effort on all of our parts. mr. president, it is because of my long history and work with the captive nations that i continue to worry about the uncertainties of our future relationship with russia. i have traveled to 19 countries

during my 21 trips to the region as a senator. presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers in eastern europe have told me time and time again that it is comforting for them to know their relationship with nato and the united states, and it serves as a vital hedge against the threat of future potential expansionist russia. yet now there is much talk from the administration about vietnaming the u.s. bilateral relationship with russia. moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. i don't blame them. president obama's may 2010 national security strategy states -- quote -- "we seek to build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with russia based on mutual interests. the united states has an interest in a strong, peaceful, and prosperous russia that

respects international norms." end of quote. i agree with the president. there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. mr. pe key areas where the united states and russia share common cause and concern. number one, russia's a permanent member of the u.n. security council and will continue to be essential towards any effective multilateral pressure on iran to give up its nuclear program. russia continues to have leverage on north korean regime and staeupted a nuclear -- stated a nuclear free korean peninsula is in the interest of both of our nations. until august 2008, invasion -- their invasion of georgia, our government and u.s. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with russia similar to the one that we entered into with india.

i was working on that with senator lugar. i thought that was a good idea. why don't we do the same thing that we did for india, we do it with russia. with the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we can do is break off communication and revert back to our cold war positions. president obama's trip to moscow last year and the reciprocal trip to washington drew opportunities to further engage russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish together for the good of the international community. however, mr. president, i believe our reset policy with russia should not establish a relationship with moscow at the expense of our captive nations -- former captive nations. we simply do not know how our relationship with russia will transpire during the years to come. will russia fully embrace the democratic government, free markets and the rule of law? or will russia seek to reestablish its influence over

the former soviet union whose collapse then-president and now prime minister vladimir putin described in 2005 as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century? this is what putin had to say, was the dissolution of the soviet union. pretty striking comment coming from the former president, now prime minister. this brings us to the topic of the new start treaty which the senate may consider in coming weeks. mr. president, americans' grand strategy towards russia must be realistic. it must be agile. and as i have said, it must take into account the interests of our nato allies. i am deeply concerned the new start treaty may once again undermine the confidence of our friends and allies in central and eastern europe. let me be absolutely clear.

i do not ideologically oppose the administration's nonproliferation agenda. the president's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons is noble, but i believe the senate's consideration of the new start treaty must be considered through a wider lens that include the treaty's implications for our friends and allies in the former captive nation. let's talk about what's going on right now. first, i'm concerned about the uncertainties surrounding russia that could revert back to a country seeking to expand its influence on the baltic states and eastern europe. president medvedev's february 2010 national military doctrine of the russian federation released two months -- two months before the conclusion of the in the start treaty in april of this year explicitly labeled nato expansion as a national threat to russia's existence and reaffirms russia's right to

nuclear weapons if the country's existence is threatened. i'm sure such statements combined with russia's 2008 invasion of georgia sends shivers down the spines of our pwrorgts and sisters in -- brothers and sisters in central and east earn europe. the concern regarding russia are not abstract. they are rooted in blood and tears, and they're rooted in a history of abandonment. my hometown of cleveland, ohio, was once the city with the second-largest population of hungarians after budapest. i remember vividly the stories my hungarian brothers and sisters told me about the hungarian revolution of 1956 encouraged by the implicit promise of intervention from the united states and united nations, hundreds of thousands of hungarians prophet pro tested against the -- protested against

economic reform and the end of political repression. those protests spread throughout hungry. -- hungary and the government was overthrown. but moscow sought to maintain control, took advantage of america's inaction on the rebellion, invaded hungary, crushed the revolution and established a new authoritative government. over 2,500 hungarians were killed in the conflict and 200,000 hungarians fled as refugees to the west. hungary would suffer under repression of the soviet union for nearly another half century. of course there was a similar episode in czechoslovakia during the prague spring of 1968. mr. president, the former captive nations have accomplished so much as free

market democracies and members of the nato alliance. our friends and allies must have absolute confidence negotiations toward the new start treaty did not include side agreements or informal understanding regarding any russian sphere of influence in those captive nations. moreover, i remain deeply concerned, even in the absence of agreements or understanding, that the former captive nations may once again wonder will the west abandon us again. will agreement with russia once again be placed above the interest and concern of our allies? will we forget what happened after yalta and tehran? we cannot -- we cannot -- we cannot let this happen again. conventional forces. second, the former captive nations are also closely watching russia's military activities.

last september -- and nobody makes a big deal of it. last september russia undertook operation west, a military exercise involving 13,000 troops, simulating an air, sea and nuclear attack on poland. not much said about it. these war games, which took place during the 70th anniversary of polish independence, were the largest russian military exercises since the end of the cold war. if you look at the russian military's recent activity, one cannot help but understand our ally's concern moscow may be reverting to the past. i hope president obama will meet with leaders from the former captive nations this weekend during the nato summit in lisbon. the president should provide these leaders public assurance, or reassurance that the united

states remains committed to article 5 of the -l north atlantic treaty, which states an attack on any member of nato shall be considered to be an attack on all. one of the best ways to alleviate the anxiety about the russian military amongst our captive nation allies is for this administration to pursue negotiations with russia towards its compliance with the conventional forces in europe treaty, the c.f.e. mr. president, the senate's potential consideration of the new start treaty cannot be disconnected from russia's prior track record on treaty compliance. russia decided in 2007 to suspend its compliance with the c.f.e. treaty, a treaty signed by 22 countries that placed balanced limits on the deployment of troops and conventional weapons in europe. this unilateral decision by moscow should serve as a reminder to my senate colleagues

about moscow's commitment to its international obligations. russia's compliance with the c.f.e. treaty is essential to sustained security and stability in central and eastern europe, and their compliance -- again complying with it which sends a very great signal to the people that are worried about russia's direction. weaponization of oil and natural gas. mr. president, our friends in central and eastern europe are worried about the uncertainties surrounding a russia that appears at times to be reverting back to an authoritative state, seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on europe and the west.

russia has the largest reserves of natural gas and the eighth-largest oil reserves. moscow turned off the tap to europe in the recent past. they can do it again. we should also be concerned about moscow aougs its control -- using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of nato against each other. i know when i was at the brussels forum this year and last year, i spoke with our friends in the e.u. and encouraged them that rather than unilaterally negotiating with russia in terms of natural gas that they should all come together and negotiate as a team so that they wouldn't be -- one wouldn't be pit off against the other. unfortunately, most of them

ignored that. finally, mr. president, i am deeply troubled that the obama administration has tkpaoe coupled -- decoupled russia's human rights for the record america's bilateral relationship with russia. the united states and russia are both signatories of the 1975 helsinki declaration which clearly states that -- quote -- "participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." in recent years we have seen anything but a respect for human rights in russia. prime minister putin stated during a recent interview with the comersant newspaper that former demonstrators in russia assembling without prior permission will be hit on the

head with batons. it that's all there is to it. end of quote. the actions of the russian government speak hrourdz than words. we have -- louder than words. we have seen protests canceled, activists denied and abused. yet, we've seen little effort by this administration to engage in a sustained dialogue with moscow on its human rights record and commitments under the helsinki declaration. we did more about human rights violations 20 years ago in russia than we're doing today. it's like we have tape over our mouth. as david cramer of the german marshal fund of the united states notes in a "washington post" opinion on september 20 -- here's what he said -- "the human rights situation in russia is bad and likely to get more worse. march 2012 presidential election nears. those in power will do anything to stay in power.

enough already with u.s. expressions of regret about the deteriorating situation inside russia. it's time to call it like it is. condemn what's happening there and consider consequences for continued human rights abuses. end of quote. i believe the obama administration's inaction and reluctance to confront russia on its human rights record sends a dangerous signal to moscow that there are little or no consequences for bad behavior. at a minimum, such coddling of bad behavior by the west only serves tow embolden moscow -- serves to embolden moscow to their resolve to hold russia accountable on international obligations. i want to read that again. at a minimum, such coddling of bad behavior by the west only

serves to embolden moscow as to our resolve to hold russia to account on its international obligations. mr. president, i have fought all my life to secure freedom for my brothers and sisters in central and eastern europe and the former yugoslavia. once they received that freedom, i championed and continue to champion their membership in nato and the e.u., working with senator shaheen right now and the former yugoslavia to see how many of those countries we can get into the european union and how many we can get into the nato alliance. mr. president, i'll be darned at this stage in my life to do anything that would jeopardize their security and economic prosperity. i've seen too many opportunities for the region to slip away

during my lifetime. i will not let it happen again. i will not let it happen again. political expediency should never be an excuse to rush to judgment on public policy, let alone our national security. treaties supersede all laws and acts of congress. the senate's advise and consent are among our most solemn constitutional duties. i cannot in good conscience determine my support for this treaty until the administration assures me that our reset policy with russia is a policy that enhances, rather than diminishes, the national security of our friends and allies throughout europe. moreover, mr. president, i must receive the strongest assurances that this policy does not once

again amount to the united states leaving our brothers and sisters in the former captive nations alone against undue pressures from russia. one of the things i want to do, mr. president, i want to go when i finally cash out - i want to know that these countries that we forth at the end of the second world war were millions of people were sent to the gulag, that that never happens again. i think that this president has an obligation to look at this treaty beyond just the operational side. it is an obles to look at it as vietnaming our relationship with russia and we ought to get some things cleared up before we go ahead and sign this treaty. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, rise today to pay tribute to a legendary kentucky newspaperman who after 39 years is retiring. the commonwealth will certainly be the poorer for it. i'm going to miss my old friend bill bartleman as his service ends this month. bills first day at the "pa youph sun" was january 7, 1972, when the murray state graduate was hired as both a reporter and a photographer. in the four decades since he has covered senators and governors, local lawmakers, and the kentuckians whose names you may not know but who in his words make life happen.

he interviewed a president of the united states and he's written -- ridden a hot-air balloon over the ohio river. he's been ken kens longest-running legislative reporter. he's led quite a life of accomplishment. i wish him well in the next stage of his career. i first met bill when he covered my initial race for the united states senate in 1984 and he's covered every one of my races since that time. for my last election campaign in 2008, bill moderated a debate between me and my opponent that was broadcast on c-span so the whole nation got a chance to see bill hard at work. he was fair, honest, and professional, as always. after 39 years, it would be easy for some reporters to make the mistakes of thinking that they are the story, but not bill. this veteran journalist has

words of wisdom for young reporters. this is what bill had to say: "remember the responsibility of what you do." he went ton say, "bill bartleman isn't important but what he covers is important. you need to represent the public and report what happens fairly. you can't send people tainted water and you can't send tainted news." now, those words are well-said. those of us in public life will always have a close relationship with members of the press. sometimes its eats a bit challenging and sometimes it's frustrating. sometimes the politician and the reporter don't always see eye to eye. i can't say bill bartleman and i agree on everything. but i can say that bill always had my respect. for 39 years kentuckians have benefited from his incisive political coverage. now, as he moves on to a

position with midcontinent university in mayfield, kentucky, i know i speak for many kentucky kenyans when i say thank you, bill. thank you for your dedicated service. you certainly will be missed. bill's own newspaper recently published and article about his life and career and i would ask unanimous consent that the full article be -- appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, on another matt matter, both republicans and democrats in the senate held many meetings this week to assess the priorities of our respective conferences. i'm extremely proud of the clarity of my republican

colleagues about what our priorities must be and that we have listened to the american people. last night republicans expressed the need to cut spending, reduce the debt, shrink the size and scoapt of the federal government and help spur private-sector employment. in short, change the way washington is doing business to get our economy going again. there's no question that it is a sentiment shared by the american people. i'd be remiss if i didn't also express some dismay with the priorities that are being put forward on the other side of the aisle. that is lame-duck session. they have an opportunity to respond to the american people before we quinn for the 112th congress. but there is no reason why we can't get to work on their behalf beginning today. let me share with you what i believe our priorities need to be during the lame-duck session. first and foremost, preventing massive tax increases on families and small businesses.

and stopping the washington spending spree. it's critical that we send a message to job creators that congress won't raise taxes on january 1. in september i offered a bill that would make the current tax rates permanent. in other words, nobody -- nobody in america -- would get a ha tax hike at the end of the year. the white house didn't like that idea. they are preference was to raise taxes on small businesses. i think it is safe to say that the american people clearly preferred our proposal. no tax hikes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. we should be creating gorks not killing them. it is my hope that starting today democrats will turn to the priorities that reflect the priorities of the american people. f. they choose that route, i know republicans will be happy to work with them to get those things accomplished. if not, i'm confident republicans will be eager to chart a different course on behalf of the american people.

when we return from the thanksgiving break, republican and democratic leaders will have the opportunity to discuss these priorities with the president in a meeting at the white house. i'm looking forward to the meeting and to the opportunity to share with the president again the areas where we agree. i believe that we can work together to increase opportunities for job growth here at home, through increased trade opportunities abroad. i agree with the president that we should increase our exploration for clean coaltecnology and nuclear energy, and americans feel strongly that we need to reduce spending and our national debt. we can work together on all of those items and the white house meet something a good opportunity for congressional democrats to join us in those efforts. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that bill mcconaughey, a detailee in the senate health committee, be

granted floor privileges for the duration of s. 510, the f.d.a. food safety modernization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i know that my colleague, senator harkin, will be on the floor shortly to speak about the food safety modernization afnlgt i want to thank him personally. tom march kin has been not only a great colleague and a great friend, he's been such an exceptional leader when it comes in this important issue. it is no surprise, for those of house know tom harkin's congressional and senate career, he has always been an extraordinary leader. the americans with americans with disabilities actamericansws opened doors for the disabled across our nation is not only one of the most dramatic steps forward when it comes to human rights and civil rights in my time, it was led by senator tom harkin of iowa and senator robert dole, republican of kansas, who then served in the united states senate. so tom harkin has really been

our conscience and our leader when it comes to issues involving safety, human rights, and expanding the reach of freedom in our nation to those who otherwise might have been denied. i'll tell you why i am passionate about the food safety issue. it goes back to a note i received as a congressman. it was almost 16 years ago. it was a note from a woman who didn't live in my congressional district. she was from chicago and i was 200 miles away. her name was nancy donnelly. she told the story of her 5- or 6-year-old son alex. she brought some hamburger home to fix it for her son. she fixed dinner, he ate it and then he got circumstance terribly sick. in mast a few hours he was in the hospital. in a mast a few days he has passed away. he was a victim of e. coli. trust me, his mom would never

have done anything to harm him and she thought she was doing the right thing, cook his meal and bring it to him at the dinner table. unfortunately, that family decision, which is made millions of times across america every single day, was a fatal decision. nancy donnelly, heartbroken, her life shattered by the loss of that little boy she loved so much, could have shrunk away in despair and anger over what had happened but didn't. she made it her passion and her crusade to gather others like her in behalf of the cause of food safety. she started an organization called safe tables are a priority, or "stop" and started lobbying congressmen to do what they could to make our laws better and saferrer across america. i've kept in touch with nancy. we are close friends now. i have to tell you that in my pantheon of heroes, nancy

donnelly is right up there for what she's done with her life. if we're fortunate enough today and successful in passing this bill, at least moving this forward procedurally, i want to say that i'm doing that in her name and in the memory of her son alex, and the thousands -- tens of thousands, maybe even more, across america who are victims of contaminated food. for some people it's just a simple case of indigestion or diarrhea that goes away after a few days, may even be mistaken for flu. for others it gets more serious. the number of americans that die or become severely ill due to preivelt foodborne illness is unseem nl high. every year 76 million americans suffer from preventable foodborne illness. 325,000 of our family members, friends and neighbors are hospitalized each year because of food confamiliar nation. -- contamination.

5,000 disci. 100 a week. that means that every five minutes three people are rushed to the hospital because the food they ate made them sifnlgt at the end of each day, 13 will die. throughout the debate on this bill, i've shared the heartbreaking stories of victims like alex donnelly and his family. some of these victims who were courageous to share their stories will suffer chronic symptoms that don't go away nor a long, long time, if ever. the victims who have died can only wish they were lucky enough to be alive even with these long-term ill unless. today as we vote to move to this bill, i will be thinking about how much it meanings to so many of us. i talked about nancy doneland her son alex. they antst aren't the only ones. there are people all across america who understand that when you go shopping in the food store and buy groceries or buy produce, there is a sort of built-in assumption that it's

safe. would our government let things be put on the shelves in a store that haven't been inspected that aren't safe in most people assume that if the government is doing its job looks like it is supposed to, they shouldn't stro worry about those things. well to great extent they're right. we have extraordinary resources in the federal government dedicated towards food safety but the simple fact of the matter is, there are wide gaps when it comes to food safety in america. and those gaps need to be closed by this bill. the vast majority of americans understand this. according to a recent poll commissioned by pew, 89% of americans want us to modernize our food safety system. thanks to the leadership of senators harkin and enzi, his republican colleague, our food safety bill passed the health, education, and labor committee unanimously more than a year ago. this bill has substantial bipartisan support. 20 republican and democratic senators already committed to it. it's supported by a broad group

of consumer protection interests as well as those who -- the grossry manufacturers association anded food marketing institute and other places that thrill market the products that are willing to accept the new legal burdens of this bill in order to give their customers peace of mind in terms of what they're going going to buy and consume. the f.d.a. mood safety and pho tkerpbdzation act will provide the f.d.a. with the authority it needs to protect and respond to food safety problems. the bill will increase the frequency of reaction to problems. one of the things we have to be aware of spa global economy -- is a global economy means food is moving across the border more frequently and it is rare we have the resources in place to make sure what is in that can or package is safely prepared. this bill moves us toward this goal. we pick the things that are most dangerous when it comes to food imports and say they'll be the

highest priority. we'll start the inspection now on food imports coming into the united states. the f.d.a. doesn't currently have the resources or statutory mandate to inspect more frequently. and what they do inspect in terms of imports is very limited. we expand that to the most high-risk, dangerous food products that might come in. most facilities are inspected by the food and drug administration, though, only once every ten years. think about it. the u.s. department of agriculture is in place every day at meat and poultry production facilities with the inspectors in place to do the job. when it comes to the f.d.a., an agency with as broad a responsibility -- in fact, much broader -- one inspection every ten years. if it's your son or daughter, your bakers someone you -- your baby, someone you love, is that enough? i don't think it is. this bill increases the

frequency of inspections at all domestic and foreign food production facilities according to the risk they present. the bill gives the food and drug administration long overdue authority to conduct mandatory recalls of contaminated food. it's hard to believe today, but if we know that something is contaminated and has been sent out to the grocery shelves across america, our government has no legal authority to say bring it in. the best we can do is advertise the fact that it's dangerous and hope that the manufacturer, the distributor and the ultimate retailer will get the message and move on it and do the right thing. it's voluntary. it's not mandatory. even if we know that something is dangerous. this bill gives that authority to the food and drug administration. that means that if a company refuses to recall contaminated food, the most expedient action the f.d.a. can take is to issue a press release right now, and we've got to get beyond that. we've got to give them

authority. many companies do cooperate with the f.d.a., and i salute them. it's not only the sensible thing to do. it certainly maintains the reputation of them as food producers. some like the peanut corporation of america, which distributed thousands of pounds of peanuts and peanut paste contaminated with sam knell larks didn't fully or -- salmonella, didn't quickly recall the food that made people sick. the modernization act will change that by ensuring the f.d.a. can compel a company to recall food that can present serious health consequences or death. experts tkpwrau individual businesses are in the -- agree individuals or businesses are in the best position. people who run a facility know which hazards their foods are most susceptible to. that's why our bill requires each business to identify the food safety hazards at each of its locations and then implement a plan that addresses those hazards and keeps the food safe

and free of contamination. the bill gives the f.d.a. the authority to identify and hold companies accountable. i see the chairman of the committee on the floor, and i'm going to end in a moment here. our bill gives the f.d.a. the authority to prevent contaminated food from other countries from entering the united states. if a foreign facility refuses u.s. food safety inspection, the f.d.a. has the authority to deny entry to their imports. think about that. this is now going to be put into the law, that if you're producing food overseas and you will not allow us to inspect your facility, we can stop exports to the united states. is there any member of the senate, any family that doesn't think that's a good idea? and that's what this bill is all about. i want to thank senator harkin for his extraordinary leadership on this bill. i can't tell you how many times we've come together, democrats and republicans, trying to work out differences. you know, we're very close. i think there's one item of

disagreement going into it. that's pretty good for senate work: only one item of disagreement. i say to my friends bring this bill to the floor. let's vote up that particular item that's senator tester is concerned, up-or-down. but let's not go another day without providing the protection that families across america expect and deserve when they buy food. let's do this on behalf of nancy donnelly, moms and dads all across america who ran the risk -- and in her case went through the bitter experience of losing her little six-year-old boy, alex, because of contaminated food. this is something that should be totally, totally nonpartisan. i urge my colleagues, let's give a strong vote today to move forward on this important bill and help ensure that the food on america's tables is safe. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is

recognized. a senator: mr. president, i intend to defer to senator harkin for, i understand, 15 minutes. i'd like to offer a brief unanimous consent request that following senator harkin speaking for up to 15 minutes that i be recognized for 5 minutes and any remaining time on our side be reserved for senator enzi, the senator from wyoming. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, i thank the senator from texas for that. mr. president, i want to thank senator durbin for all of the work that he has done on food safety for so many years. he really has been the leader on this. he has prompted us, prodded us to get to this point. and we have a good bill, a good bipartisan bill. and i just want to take a few moments to talk about it before the vote that will be coming up within the next hour. the aim of the food safety modernization act as it is called is very simply to bring our nation's antiquated and increasingly inadequate food

inspection service into the 21st century. it takes a comprehensive approach to reforming the current system. and i'm pleased to report that the product of this bill is the product of strong bipartisan collaboration on the health, education, labor, and pensions committee. again, i want to particularly thank senator durbin and senator gregg who have worked together for many years to fashion and to produce this excellent bill. i also want to thank our ranking member, senator enzi, for his leadership in helping to bring this bill to the floor. and to also my good friend, senator dodd, who has been working on this bill also from the beginning and adding his expertise, especially on food allergies. and also senator burr, who has been personally involved in this entire process. mr. president, senators often talk about the importance of addressing kitchen table issues here in the senate. the practical, everyday concerns of working americans and their

families. well, food safety sake chen table issue, and it -- safety sake chen table issue. it's shocking to think that the last comprehensive overhaul of our food safety system was in 1938, more than seven decades ago. think about about how our food system has changed in those 70 years. on the whole, americans enjoy safe and wholesome food. we know that. but the problem is on the whole is just not good enough any longer. as you can see from our first chart here, you can see that recent foodborne outbreaks in america have been wide in scope and have had a devastating impact on public health. when people get sick from eating bagged spinach, we have a problem. when we have peanut butter, when kids take their peanut burt sandwiches -- peanut butter sandwiches to school and get sick from it, we have a problem. we have nine deaths and 647 sick

cases. salmonella in tomatoes, pe peer -- peppers. how about cookie dough. when families have salmonella in that, we have a problem. recently the salmonella outbreak in eggs. it's widespread. it's not just in bagged spinach, not just in eggs. it's in peanut butter, cantaloupes, tomatoes. it's widespread. we know that we have a real problem here. the centers for disease control and prevention estimate that foodborne illnesses cause approximately 76 million illnesses a year. 325,000 americans every year are hospitalized because of food born illnesses. 325,000. 5,000 americans die every year because of a foodborne illness. these are not my figures. these are from the centers for disease control and prevention.

according to a georgetown university study, the cost to our society is about $152 billion a year in medical expenses, lost productivity and disability. so, the numbers are staggering. not only the number of people that get sick, the number of people who die and the cost to our society. the cost -- i just checked in my own state of iowa. the cost alone in iowa, we have over 800,000 cases every year. each iowan has to spend about $1,800 in annual health related expenses and $1.5 billion in total related costs just in my own state of iowa. you can look in your own state and see the impact of this. these are really intolerable but somehow we tolerate them. no longer can we do that. our current regulatory system is broken. it does not adequately protect americans from serious widespread foodborne illnesses. our meals have grown more

complex, more varied ingredients, diverse methods of preparation and shipping. by the time raw agricultural products find their way to our dinner plates, multiple intermediate steps and processes have taken place. food ingredients travel thousands of miles or as senator durbin just said, from other countries here to factories, to our table, they are intermingled, mixed along the way. yet despite all these changes, our food safety laws have not changed in 70 years. so what we need to do for starters, we need to improve processes to prevent the contamination of foods, methods to provide safe foods to consumers. to achieve this, more testing and better methods of tracking food can be utilized to verify that the processes are working. mr. president, here's some interesting figures. 30 years ago we had 70,000 food processors in this country. the f.d.a. made 35,000 visits a year. we had 70,000 food processors.

we made 35,000 visits a year. today a full decade into the 21st century, we have 150,000 food processors -- over twice as many. but today, f.d.a. inspectors make just 6,700 visits each year. one-fifth as many as they did 30 years ago with twice as many plants. is it any surprise then that we're getting more and more foodborne illnesses throughout this country? and to respond to what senator durbin said earlier, more and more of our food coming from other countries. all we're saying in our bill is you have to adopt the same kind of food safety processes and prevention methods that we have in this country to be able to ship your food in. i don't think that's unreasonable to say that their processes and their safety procedures have to be at least the same as ours, or adequate as ours. as this chart shows, our bill

overhauls our food safety system in four critical ways. first of all, prevention. we've had some success on our agriculture committee in the past on what's called a program of finding out where are the points where contamination can come in and then address those points in a preventive manner. well, we're now kind of extending that beyond meat and poultry to all of our food, to get the prevention in place. we have wee kpwraouft detection -- improve the detection responses, with better detection services, better response times. we have a mandatory recall in here that the department has not had ever. we enhance the u.s. food defense capabilities. and we increase the f.d.a. resources in order to take care of this. this bill today will dramatically increase f.d.a. inspections at all food

facilities. it will give f.d.a. the following new authorities. it would require all food facilities to have, as i said, preventive plans in place. and the f.d.a. can have access to those plans. so they have to have preventive plans that the f.d.a. gets access to. we have better access to records in case of a food emergency to try to find out what happened. it requires, as senator durbin said, importers to verify the safety of imported food. it strengthens our surveillance systems. it requires the secretary of the department of health and human services to establish a pilot project to test and evaluate new methods for rapidly tracking foods in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak. as i said, it gives the f.d.a. the authority to order a mandatory recall of food. a lot of people don't know this, that if there is an outbreak of illness because of foodborne diseases, pathogens, the f.d.a.

does not have the authority to recall that food. you might say the companies do that. well, they do. and most of them see it in their best economic interest to do that. but you might have some fly-by-night operators out there that will take the money and run. or you might have some foreign-based companies, you might have companies that are offshore, and they may have some food in this country that have foodborne illnesses. they may not want to recall it, and we can't really go after them. and f.d.a. does not have the authority itself to recall that food. this bill will give them that authority. it is a bipartisan bill, strongly supported by consumer groups and industry. i've got letters from the grocery manufacturers association, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national restaurant association, the pew charitable trust, consumers union, the center for science in the public interest, trust for america's health, to name just a few. i think it is a rarity when i

can say both the chamber of commerce and the center for singes in the public interest are on the same page and that is true here. i have all these letters, mr. president. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that these letters be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i have observed many times to say that food safety in this country is a patchwork is giving it too much credit. food safety has too often become a hit-or-miss gamble with parents obliged to kind of roll the dice when it comes to the safety of their kides h.s' food. it is frightening and unacceptable. it is past time to regulate our food safety laws. we need to give f.d.a. the resources and authority it needs to cope with the risk that threatens today's more abundant and diverse food supply. we need to act and we need to act now. so i urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan sponsors in passing this important

legislation voting for cloture this afternoon on the motion to proceed and hopefully that we can get on the bill and pass it as soon as possible so that the families of america will have more assurance that the food that they eat, no from what source or where it comes, has more safety procedures attached to it, that we have a new process for prevention in place for all facilities in this country and in foreign countries, and so that we can raise the bar, we can raise the bar and say to our families that you can have more assurance in the future, thatte that the foot you buy, whether from chile or argentina or wherever, mexico, guatemala mall la, or the fresh fruits that you get in the summertime from california, walkinwashington state, canada,r

that the lettuce or bagged spin am a much that you get is going to be more safe for you and your families. it is about protecting our families and making sure that our food safety laws are adequate to the 21st century and not to the 18th century. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to briefly draw attention to a resolution that the conference of republican senators and senators-elect adopted yesterday, one that i think fits the times that we are living in, one which has seen historic levels of federal spending and debt and deficits as well as unsustainable debt that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren unless we take responsibility for it. and this resolution i think would demonstrate the serious

seriousness that we would have as a congress to get our nation's fiscal house in order. this resolution reads, "it is resolved by the united states senate republican conference that a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution is necessary to restore fiscal discipline to our republicment, that a balanced budget amendment should require the president to submit to congress a proposed budget prior to each fiscal year in which total federal spending does not exceed total federal revenue, that a balanced budget amendment should include a requirement that a supermajority of the both houses of congress be necessary to increase taxes, and that a balanced budget amendment should include a limitation on total federal government spending." mr. president, i want to thank the 20 republican senators and senators-elect who cosponsored this resolution and the members of the conference who voted to

adopt t but let plea just share waw few fact oids that i think -- factoids that i think will demonstrate the compelling nature of this joint resolution and constitutional amendment. in fiscal year 2010, our deficit was $1.3 trillion or 8.9% of the gross domestic product. that's actually down from 9.9% in fiscal year 2009 but certainly nothing to celebrate. 8.9% of gross domestic product. the congressional budget office baseline estimates that federal deficits will average $605 billion each year through 2010, and the budget that the president submitted to us last year itself, if implemented, would call for $1 trillion of deficit each year for the next ten years. we know that the budget act

passed by congress, signed by the president, requires the president of the united states to submit his budget by the first monday in february. and i can tell you that i'm anxiously waiting to see if n. that budget proposal submitted by the president by the first monday in february his commitment to fiscal discipline, now particularly since the american people have spoken so loudly and so clearly about their concerns over reckless spending and endless debt. we know that a balanced budget amendment actually works because virtually every state in the nation has one, including my state of texas. only the federal government -- only the federal government -- has really no requirement of a balanced budget and can spend huge deficits, borrowed money it does not have. no family in america, no small business, when income goes down,

can continue to spend at the same level. they have to live within their means, and so should the united states government. we also know that a balanced budget amendment is popular with the public. a recent poll of florida voters showed 71% approved aof a nonbinding resolution supporting a balanced budget amendment. and we've actually had votes in the united states senate on this not that long ago. well, it was 1997. i will leat you judge whether that was long ago or not. actually at the time 66 senators voted in favor of a balanced budget amendment, one shoul shye two-thirds necessary, including 11 colleagues on the other side of the aisle demonstrating support for a balanced budget amendment. but, mr. president, it is important to note at that time when 66 senators voted 0en a bipartisan basis for a balanced budget amendment the deficit was only 1.4% of gross domestic product. today it is 8 boy .9%.

i think if a balanced budget amendment was a good idea, at least in the minds of 66 senators in 1997, it is an even better idea today. so i hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join with me, and i with them, to offer ideas on drafting of this joint resolution. of course, as you know, under article 5 of the constitution of the united states, a constitutional amendment can emanate from congress itself with two-thirds vote or it can be the result after constitutional convention. under either circumstance, three-quarters of the states would be necessary to ratify t but i think if republicans and democrats can listening to the voice of the american people and get behind a joingts resolution, it will restore some of the public's lost confidence in our ability, in our willingness both to heed their voice but also to live up to our responsibilities.

i think a balanced budget amendment would be a big step forward in the cause of fiscal discipline but of course not the only step. as the cochairs of the president's debt commission have already indicated, we need other measures, like they called for -- one that caught my eye -- an intervent committee charged with cutting waste and tarkting investment they noticed actually a good example at the state level in my state of texas where we have a sunset commission which requires every ten years for every state agency to go through a process to determine whether the programs and the agency itself continues to have good reason to exist at the spending levels authorized. we need something like that which will provide tremendous ability for us to have additional tools to contain cost and to avoid wasteful spending. to that end, i've introduced the

model of the bill in the model of the texas sunset commission called the united states authorization and sunset commission act, and i urge my colleagues to take a look at that, as i can ashire you that come -- as i can assure that you come january when we have a new congress i will reoffer that legislation again. mr. president, thank you very much, and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on paycheck fairness, a bill that we will be shortly voting on -- cloture. the paycheck fairness bill picks up where the famous lilly ledbetter bill left off. i was so proud to lead the fight on the senate floor two years ago under a new congress and a new president to ensure that we righted the wrong of a supreme court decision where lilly

ledbetter in behalf of american women everywhere sued to be sure that she could get equal pay for equal or comparable work. the congress responded well, and that legislation is now the law of the lafnltd land. but the paycheck fairness bill picks up where ledbetter left off because ledbetter left the courthouse door open to sue for -- kept the courthouse door open to sue for discrimination. but paycheck fairness makes it more difficult to discriminate in the first place. it increases penalties for discrimination, it prohibits the employer retaliation for sharing pay information, and it closes a loophole which allows for a broad defense in equal pay cases. let me go this one by one. it improves remedies where discrimination has occurred. current law now says women can only sue for back pay and fixed

damages. the paycheck fairness bill would allow women to get additional compensatory damage, which makes up for the injury or harm suffered based on discrimination. ledbetter had no provisions regarding damage. also, so crucial is it prohibits employer retaliation, and, wow, does this go on in the workplace. under current law, employers can sue or actually punish employees for sharing salary statements and information with coworkers. this is usually the way that employees find out that they're being discriminated against, and in the famous supreme court hearing, some of our supreme court justices, who brag that they don't know what a blackberry is, gave women the raspberry when they said, well,

you can't even -- women should know they're being discriminated against, but you can't even talk at the water cool ker watercooln the office gym and say, i'm getting paid this. what are you getting paid for the same job? what paycheck fairness will now do is prohibit employers from taking action against employees who simply -- simply -- share information about what they're getting paid. this was not included in the ledbetter act and it clarifies that any factor other than sex defense. right now an employer can assert a defense that the pay differential is based on a factor other than sex. courts have interpreted this very broadly and a number of factors are limitless. what paycheck fairness bill does is tighten that loophole by requiring that differential is

truly caused by something other than sex or gender, is related to job performance and is necessary for the business. ledbetter did not address that loophole. by the way, i know that the specter small business is always raised but i say to my colleagues, small businesses with revenue less than $500,000 are exempt from the equal pay being a. that means pa paycheck fairness maintains that exemption. that's that bill -- that's how it takes ledbetter one step farther. it really gives women the tools to be able to know what they're being paid, people of ethnic minorities, et cetera. and why is this important? well, first of all, mr. chairman -- excuse me, mr. president, it's fundamental fairness. you ought to be paid equal pay for equal or comparable work.

it is fundamentally fair. if the same people are doing the job with the same skills and background, they ought to get the same pay. and it affects a family's paycheck, and it affects their pension, and it facts their -- it affects their whole way of rife. right now equal pay is one of the ways that we can make sure the family checkbook is increased based on merit. this is why, oh, well, why do you need another bill, senator bar? some people say that women already have enough tools to fight discrimination. well, we haven't fixed everything. and here, i think this bill is simple, achievable with the small business exemption that will do that. when the equal pay act was passed in 1963, women earned merely -- excuse me -- 59 cents

on every dollar earned by men. we've made progress. in 47 years, we've now come up to 77 cents for every dollar that men make. it only took us 43 years to get an 18 cent increase. well, i think times are changing. women are now more in the workplace, and women are now often the sole or primary source of income. creating a wage gap is not the way to improve the help of a family or the health of our community. i can go through a lot of statistics about what that means, but what i want to say, i urge my colleagues that with many americans already earning less, we need to make sure that the family budget is based on people being able to get paid

for what they do and make work worth it and make work -- wage compensation fair. mr. chairman, i think the facts speak for themselves on why this bill is necessary. i think the bill itself is a very specific, achievable, narrowly drawn bill, and i urge the adoption by my colleagues. i urge that we vote for cloture. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. chambliss: i thank senator stkeu for allowing me a couple -- senator enzi for allowing me a couple seconds. i'm the original cosponsor of s. 510, food safety bill, and certainly hoped we would be able to come together in a bipartisan way to support that bill. unfortunately, the bill with the

substitute that's now been filed is not the same bill that i originally cosponsored. and i will speak more about this after the vote. but it's my intent to vote against cloture on this bill. and with that, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: mr. president, i want to talk about the paycheck unfairness bill that's before us. a better title for this bill should be the jobs for trial lawyers act. i'm confident that there is no member this have senate who would tolerate paying a woman less for the same work simply because she's a woman. as husbands, fathers and mothers of working women, i believe we all recognize the gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on gender. congress has put two laws on the book to combat such discrimination. title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964 and the equal pay act of 1963. these are both good laws that have been well utilized to combat discrimination where it exists.

and i support full enforcement of these laws. businesses that discriminate against a female employee because of her gender must be corrected and penalized. but what the majority is trying to push through here today is a very different nature. the so-called paycheck fairness act is actually a jobs for trial lawyers act. the primary beneficiary of this legislation will be trial lawyers. they'll be able to bring bigger class action lawsuits which usually result in coupons for the people that were disadvantaged, without even getting the consent of the plaintiffs. and they'll have the weapons of uncapped damages to force employers to settle lawsuits even when they know they've done nothing wrong. the litigation bonanza this bill would create would extend even to the smallest of small businesses, only further hampering our economic recovery. there are a number of other concerning provisions of this legislation, such as authorizing government to require reporting

of every employer's wage data by sex, race and national origin. had this bill gone through committee markup under regular senate order, we may have been able to address some of these concerns. but this bill, like so many labor bills in the "help" committee jurisdiction this have congress circumvented regular order. i'd like to insert some letters at this point. i have 44 letters in opposition to this, and a little of them. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent to have four letters --d op-eds put in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. enzi: one of them is by "the boston globe." another is by "the chicago tribune." another is by "the new york times." and another is by "the washington post." i don't think any of these would

be considered to be conservative newspapers. but they've taken a strong stand in the same direction and position that i've been speaking here. the bottom line is that this legislation will insert the federal government into workplace management decisions like never before. this intrusion will benefit trial lawyers and harm job growth and employment which will affect both women and men. supporters of this bill cite wage data that the bureau of labor statistics says do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earning differences. in fact, studies show that if you factor in observable choices, such as part-time work, seniority and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5% to 7%. that's part-time work, seniority and occupational choice, which reduces the pay gap to between 5% and 7%. some of these choices are

personal prerogatives and i would not question the choices of anyone who makes that in regard to family obligations or job security and the quality of fringe benefits such as health, retirement and child care. but to a large extent this remaining gap is due to occupational choice. it's unfortunate this congress has not done more to foster a job growth environment and improve job training programs hraoeubgt workforce -- like the workforce investment act which trains people to be hired in skilled jobs. instead of being a waitress, they might be a brick mason. we've had that example in the hearings and that produces significantly higher wages. that would prepare more women to enter higher paying occupational fields. this would be a more reasonable solution than a trial lawyer bonanza sure to disadvantage all employers and depress job growth to the disadvantage of the employees and wind up with the employees that are disadvantaged

getting coupons while the trial lawyers get a lot of money. i urge my colleagues to oppose this money. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time and ask it be equally divided between the two sides. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration the motion to proceed to s. 3772, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 561, s. 3772, a bill to amend the fair labor

standards act 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of section and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on on the motion to proceed to calendar number 5661, s. 3772, the fair paycheck act. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the negotiation proceed to s. 3772, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the bases of sex and for other purposes shall be brought to a close.

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the electric will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 41. three-fifths of the senators duly sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 247, s. 5150, the f.d.a. food safety modernization act. signed by 18 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 510, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act, with respect to the safety of the food supply, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 74, the nays are 25, three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for -- -- for i note committees to meet -- for committees to meet, i ask unanimous consent that the requests be agreed to, and the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senatosenator from georgia's recognized. mr. chambliss: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. chambliss: i am a cosponsor on s. 510, the bill that we voted cloture on, i was going to vote against cloture and i was going to speak after the cloture, and why is because we were up against a timeline. i want to say i regret to vote against cloture. now that cloture has been invoked we'll go to the bill rap hopefully make the