just adding some more payments on top of that. there is a real question of whether we should do it here because i asked in the committee the representatives of the administration what jobs are going to be lost as a result of these three agreements, and they couldn't come up with one, but there will be, according to the administration, 250,000 new jobs that will occur -- or at least jobs that will be -- that will occur and will be sustained by these three -- free trade agreements once they are enacted into law. just yesterday my friends on the other side voted down trade promotion authority. i can't imagine why any president would not want trade promotion authority. it's mind-boggling to me that this president doesn't want it. it's the only way you're going to be able to get free trade

agreements done. otherwise you're going to have to do it through the treaty process, which is much more arduous, much more difficult and does not come up with just a, an up-or-down vote. but there's a reason for this process, and that is to be able to do free trade in this country. and yet, every time we turn around there is another roadblock thrown up by our friends on the other side of the aisle. like they don't want free trade. i understand for some unsubstan khaeupbtdry dick -- unsubstantiated reason the unions don't like free trade agreements even though they're going to create 250,000 new jobs. why wouldn't they like those? they have an opportunity to unionize companies that come into existence. by the way, even under the stilted, one-sided national labor relations board that currently exists, that is running away with our

responsibilities and legislating from a regulatory bench, even with that board, unions win 60% of union elections, contested elections. it isn't like they're being picked on or they're not treated fairly. by the way, i'd be one of the first to try to make sure they are treated fairly. i'm one of the few people in this whole body who earned a union body. worked in the building construction trade unions for ten years. i acknowledge the distinguished president sitting there in the chair has a union card. i'm not sure you can call that a union, working with -- just joshing. the entertainment industry unions, they are not like the afl-cio, we're we're tough as nails. on the other hand, i've got to retract that because i've seen some people in the entertainment industry tough as nails, and the

president sitting here is one, no question about it. great admiration for him. he ought to be with me on this. all we're saying is look -- and the most that would happen is a few days, enough to get the free trade agreements passed in the house. so what i'm saying is this, first of all, let's get the president to do what he has blamed us for not doing, and that is send up these three trade agreements, these three free trade agreements to these countries that are so important to us and we're important to them, and we're losing business every day because this is being dragged out so long. send them up so we can vote on them. t.a.a. will pass here, and i believe it will pass over there in the process we have. and all i'm saying is it doesn't become effective, because we shouldn't be paying for people when tkwaoepbt have free trade -- when we don't have free trade agreements. all i'm saying is they don't come into existence, t.a.a. doesn't come into existence in

after these three trade agreements are voted up and down and become law. that's fair. it's an intelligent approach to it. it ends the mystery, ends what some people think is a convoluted process. it ends what some people think is not a good-faith process. and it does it in a way that doesn't hurt anybody. and just says, look, let's do it straight up so there's no more arguing or moneying objector mooning or -- no moaning or groaning. i'm calling for some on the other side to vote for my amendment. it will help this process along. that's one reason why i brought it up. i'm personally not sure that the trade adjustment assistance will pass without my amendment. that's one reason why i brought it to the floor. it's a fair, decent, honorable

way of saying okay, let's get rid of the mysteries here, let's get rid of the arguments, let's get rid of the partisanship. let's vote on these tree trade agreements -- excuse me -- trade adjustment assistance which is going to add a lot of money to the cause of this government. let's vote on them and when they're both voted through by both the house and the senate, then let's bring up the three trade agreements which should pass readily in both houses, and once they become law, trade adjustment assistance comes into being. and that's a fair, responsible way of doing this in a way that does away with the mystery, does away with the partisanship, does away with democrat republicanism and gets this process down the road. for the life of me, i can't understand why anybody would argue against that. and i think that, i'm calling on my democratic friends, let's be

bipartisan about this. let's send a message to the president, we want those doggone trade adjustment process up here. i found it astounding when he said i wish they would pass those three trade agreements when he knows we can't until he sends them up. it's the right thing to do. it may be the only way we're going to get those three free trade agreements done. i would like to hear a really good argument against them, because there isn't any. and i really believe in these free trade agreements. i really believe there will be thousands of jobs created. i'm not sure it will be 250,000 like the administration claims, but i believe there will be many, many jobs at a time when we need jobs. on trade adjustment assistance, there are a lot of sincere

people in this body and the other body who believe that that is absolutely essential, even though there was not one shred of evidence as far as i heard that any jobs would be lost as a result of these three trade agreements. but i'm willing to understand that there may be some lost. even if they aren't, to get these three free trade agreements through, the other side says we've got to pass t.a.a. fine. let's pass it through both bodies. let's make it subject to getting the three free trade agreements passed into law, because it should be subject to that. there's no reason in the world why we would cost more spending from a t.a.a. standpoint, trade adjustment assistance standpoint, unless you have these three free trade agreements. that's the argument for the trade adjustment assistance that our colleagues on the other side and some on our side are making.

i have a feeling this is the way to get this done. it's a smart way to get it done. it's the honorable way to get it done. it's the truthful way to get it done. it's the bipartisan way to get it done. i think people know that i have a reputation for being able to bring both sides together from time to time, and that's what i'm trying to do here. this is not a political game, as far as i'm concerned. i do want these three free trade agreements because i know it would be great for our country. we're losing business. we've got 74% agricultural exports to colombia to 28%. anybody with brains would say we shouldn't have allowed that to happen, and it wouldn't have had we passed these three free trade agreements, or at least the columbian one, last year. but korea's even, is even -- has the potential of being even a

greater trading partner than colombia. although when i look at what president uribe and president santos, the current president, have done to straighten out that country to get rid of the terrorists and to bring down the violence against union members and so forth, they deserve our support. they deserve these agreements. when i look at korea and what an important partner they are in our trade, and we're losing trade to them now. others are taking it away from us because we haven't passed the korean agreement. my gosh, it doesn't take any brains to realize that we're not acting like friends to korea. and then look at panama. panama is one of the financial centers of this hemisphere. it's a great nation. it's important to us, above all people. it's dishonorable for us to not

pass the panamanian free trade agreement that they worked out with us and had to add labor language in each one of these agreements that wasn't there before because of this administration's fealty to organize labor. fine. why don't we do what has to be done to pass these three free trade agreements and to get the support for t.a.a. for those who believe that's the right way to go and get rid of any kind of concerns that one side or the other won't live up to its share of the battle. my amendment will do that. and i hope it's not just a partisan vote here. i hope that we have some democrats who will vote for my amendment. i think if we do, i think it would push this whole process forward in a way that makes

sense. mr. president, let me just dwell a few minutes on one other thing i'd like to get across, and that is people ask me why i spend years working on the leadership of the senate finance committee. the finance committee has jurisdiction over issues that matter not only to the people of utah, but everybody. the bloated tax code that we have, inheritance taxes, health programs such as medicare, medicaid, social security and issues that go to the heart of international trade such as customs and duties, tariff and import quotas and free trade agreements. i could go on and on. it's a very, very important committee. 60% of all spending in this government comes through the finance committee. being the lead republican on the finance committee gives me a unique platform to shape all of these policies in a way that works best for my home state of

utah and i hope the nation as a whole. today i want to focus on international trained why i'm so passionate about opening new markets to our goods and services. it gets repeated ad nauseam that 95% of our potential customers live outside of the united states. and there's no doubt that trade is vital to america's competitiveness. but trade has immediate importance and particular importance to jobs and the economy in my home state of utah as well as overother state. last year alone, companies in utah shipped over $13 billion in merchandise in exports, supporting nearly 93,000 jobs in our state. $13 billion and close to 100,000 jobs thanks to products utah companies sold outside the borders of the united states. my state is only one state. i think every state can tell a

similar story. that doesn't even include our service providers who similarly take advantage of opportunities across the globe. companies in utah exported over -- exported to over 190 foreign markets. companies such as varian medical systems which produces cutting-edge x-ray products that assist with various cancer treatments and industrial security screening and which provide over 700 people with good-paying jobs in our state. by removing barriers to trade, free trade agreements level the playing field for our companies operating in markets abroad. this has an immediate and observable impact on trade. following the implementation of every u.s. bilateral or regional free trade agreement, utah has increased its exports to partner countries. let me just give you two

examples. utah's exports to morocco experienced growth of over 2,000% after the u.s. implemented a free trade agreement with them. and utah's exports to singapore increased by over 800% after we implemented that f.t.a. listening to some of the pundits, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that exports in free trade are only important to large, multinational companies. but nothing could be further from the truth. in 2008, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 86% of utah's exporting companies were small or mid-sized companies. for the entrepreneurs that lead these small and mid-sized companies, international trade is their lifeblood. but exports are only part of the story. thanks to low taxes, family-friendly values and a well-educated, motivated and internationally savvy workforce, utah is a place where people want to live and work.

and it isn't just the greatest skiing in the world, although that certainly is a draw. when foreign companies look to grow their operations or gain a foot hold in the u.s. market, they increasingly look to utah to site their operations. these companies invest significant amounts of capital to open or expand facilities in our state every year. foreign-owned companies employ over 34,000 workers in utah. that's more than 3% of all utah employees in the private sector. these are well-paying jobs. u.s. subsidiaries of foreign companies pay an average compensation of over $68,000 per year. and let's not forget all of the spending by international visitors to our world-class colleges and universities, ski resorts and parks. that's why i have been pushing so hard to get the three f.t.a.'s with south korea, panama and colombia passed and implemented. it's not the only reason but it's certainly a reason. these agreements have been

siding idle for far too long. they were negotiated during the administration of president bush, they were wrapped in a bow for president obama ready to go the day he took office. his own administration has made some changes in them and that these three countries have agreed to, yet president obama still hasn't sent them to congress for a vote, which is astounding to me. the president himself says that these three agreements will create 250,000 new jobs. his burdensome overregulation of business, his pension for taxing and spending to -- quote -- " "redistribute wealth" -- unquote -- all rub salt in the wounds of a difficult economy. we're now left with an unemployment rate of 9.1%. you would think the president would be eager to do something, everyone agrees, would actually create real jobs. not just real jobs, great jobs. but the f.t.a.'s with south korea, panama and colombia remain on his desk.

while the president stands still, the world continues to forge ahead, china continues to pursue policies that boost its growth at our expense. other countries around the world continue to negotiate trade agreements that exclude the united states, putting utah exporters at a serious disadvantage, as well as other states. the consequences of this administration's trade paralysis are real. by way of example, the u.s. share of colombia's structural imports have already fallen from nearly 44% in 2007 to 21% in 2010. the e.u. and canada swooped in to fill this vacuum. both have now negotiated free trade agreements with colombia. during president bush's presidency, we passed trade agreements with 14 countries, providing a significant boost to the u.s. economy. by contrast, president obama hasn't submitted a single trade agreement to congress. it certainly doesn't help that the president has refused to spend any political capital to seek trade-negotiating authority

from congress. the need for it is obvious. without it, we can't pass good agreements to open foreign markets for our exports. that's why every president since f.d.r. has sought this authority. why doesn't this president? i think it's a lack of experience, personally. he's smart enough to understand this. he's a brilliant man. and he's a good human being, but why hasn't he sought this authority? well, every president but one has sought it. the only one that hasn't is our current president. but whether he seeks it or not, i'm going to work to see that he gets it. and when he does, you can be sure that it will be designed to shape his negotiating objectives so that the resulting agreements embody high standards that best serve the economies of the united states and in particular my home state of utah. it is vital to future trade agreements such as the proposed transpacific partnership agreement between the united states and six other nations protect the intellectual

property of our innovators and content creators, level the playing field for our companies which are often forced to engage in lopsided competition with state-owned companies and national champions enable modern day integrated global supply chains and enhanced market access for both goods and services providers. in the months and weeks ahead, we have the opportunity to shape the economic future of our great nation and my own great state of utah. i'm going to do my part to ensure the trade plays a central part in that equation. i hope that everybody in this body realizes how important this is and that we shouldn't keep playing these games just because we have political opportunists. yet again, that's another reason for my amendment. my amendment says the games will be over, both sides will vote on t.a.a., both sides the president will have to submit the agreements. once the agreements are passed

and read -- and passed and made into law, t.a.a. comes into existence, and it shouldn't come into existence until after these agreements are -- are -- after these agreements become law. and what it says to everybody is look, the games are over. this is the way to do it. this is the fair way to do it. this is the bipartisan way to do it. wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get these free trade agreements passed. wouldn't it be wonderful, a wonderful achievement for all of us here, a bipartisan achievement with the president getting lots of credit for it? i think it would be a good thing. if we can't do this, then you can imagine what this place is going to become in the future, and my amendment is the way you get there. i'm hoping my colleagues on the other side listen to this. i hope that they pay attention. i sure hope that they vote for

this amendment because if they don't, i -- i question whether we'll ever have these free trade agreements. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i think we're prepared -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 641

offered by the senator from utah, mr. hatch. and there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. mr. hatch: mr. president, it's my understanding both sides will waive the two-minute debate time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish tpo vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 44. the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 625 offered by the senator from arizona, mr. mccain. and there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to

the vote. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate come to order, please. senate come to order. senators, please take their conversations out of the well, off the chamber. mr. baucus: the senate is still not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. we need the senate in order in order to debate this amendment. we need to give our respect to senator mccain on his amendment. mr. mccain: mr. president, the stimulus -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: mr. president, the stimulus passed in 2009 was purported to be temporary. as part of that massive piece of legislation, we added a, made a

significant expansion and added at least $600 million a year more to the trade adjustment assistance program. this amendment would cut back to the prestimulus number, the t.a.a. it's pretty simple. it will save at least $600 million per year on questionable programs of questionable effectiveness. but the point is that the stimulus was supposed to be a temporary increase in spending and not a permanent one. now the reid package makes that, most of it, at least 65 of p permanent. at least we can cut it back to prestimulus levels supported by the national taxpayers union. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. bow bow mr. president, this

country -- mr. baucus: mr. president, this country has -- mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate please come to order so we can finish the debate on the amendment. senators please take their conversations out of the well and off the floor. the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, this country has extremely high unemployment rate, we all know. a lot of people losing jobs, some losing jobs in a trade. the world's changed even as recently as 2002. in 2002 the law said okay if you lose a job, on account a job goes to a free trade agreement country you're eligible for trade adjustment assistance and has been a manufacturing job. that was changed in 2009 because the country's changed. there are a lot of countries with whom we trade that are not f.t.a. countries, china, india.

it makes eminent sense that if somebody loses a job on account of trade with any country that person should be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. second, we should expand services. 80% of the workers in our country are in the services sector. that issue was also provided for in 2009. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. baucus: this amendment passes it jeopardizes t.a.a. as well as f.t.a. i urge this amendment not be agreed to. the presiding officer: all time has expired. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 56, the nays are 43. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from smoant recognized. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent senator hatch or his designee be recognized to offer amendment number 64 , following the hatch amendment, senator cornyn be recognized for debate only for 15 minutes and senator kyl or his designee be recognized to offer amendment

number 645 any time prior to 5:00 p.m. and that the time until 5:00 p.m. be on the hatch and collins amendments and the time equally divided and controlled by. at 5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to vote on the hatch, there be no points of order to either amendment prior to, other than budget points of order. each amendment be subject to a 60's firm tiff vote threshold, two minutes equally divided prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i send an amendment to the desk and ask its immediate consideration. amendment number 642. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. hatch, proposes an amendment number 642 -- mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. tax reform texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we're talking about trade, how do we create markets for things that americans grow or build and sell abroad which creates jobs here at home. but i'd like to talk about a rather specialized area of trade and that has to do with foreign military sales and particularly i'd like to talk about a topic that senator menendez and i introduced a bill on last week called the antwaan air power modern -- tijuan air power -- this requires the united states government to respond to the request of the government of tiwan for the sale of six firefighter aircraft. that sounds like a mouthful and a big subject and it is, but let me try to put some meat on

the bone and explain why i think this is so important. support. people of twawp has been a bipartisan topic for decades. antwaan supported the treaty in 1954 and democrats and republicans came together and passed the antwaan relations act which was signed by president carter in 1979 and which remains the law of the land today. the act provides it will enable the defenses to enable taiwan to maintain self-defense capabilities in furtherance of peace and stability in the western pacific region. so what does sufficient self-defense capabilities mean?

well, president reagan in a memorandum dated august 17, 1982, laid it out. this is about the time that the third communique between communist china and the u.s. was formally adopted by the united states and china because the chinese wanted to know what exactly does this mean, is this a threat of aggressive weaponry or is this purely for defensive purposes? well, this memorandum from president reagan on august 17, 1982, lays it out. let me read it quickly. it is essential that the quantity and the quality of the arms provided to taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the people's republic of china. both in quantitative and qualitative terms, taiwan's defense capability relative to that of the p.r.c. will be maintained. so this is strictly for the purpose of giving taiwan the ability to defend itself against

potential aggressive actions by communist china. according to james lilly, america's top representative in taiwan at the time, and who later served as ambassador to china under george herbert walker bush, that's what this was designed to do, to crystallize what the nature of the weapons sales to the taiwan government would be used for. and it was directly proportional to and reciprocal to the threat posed by the people's republic of china. ronald reagan was not alone in this interpretation. in fact, both democrats and republicans over the years have supported numerous arms sales to the government of taiwan. including the current request for 66 f-16 c and d advanced fighter aircraft. so far just this year, 47 republicans and democrats have signed a letter -- these are

senators -- to the administration in support of this sale and in august, 181 members of the house of representatives, republicans and democrats alike, have written to the administration endorsing this same sale. why is taiwan asking for these aircraft? and why do so many democrats and republicans join together when the parties seem to be so polarized by so many other issues and come together in a bipartisan way on this issue? well, the answer is simple and straightforward. taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete. while china's air capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. this chart demonstrates the problem. not to right in the red you'll see that china has 2,300 operational military combat aircraft while taiwan has

490 operational aircraft. but air defense is not just a numbers game. quality of those aircraft matter a lot. just as much as quantity. so what about the quality of taiwan's existing forces? according to our own intelligence services, the defense intelligence agency in an unclassified report last year, they said many of taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life, and many require extensive maintenance support. china's capabilities, on the other hand, are clearly newer and clearly growing, and clearly focused on intimidating taiwan and the united states. china's official press agency reported in march that the people's republic of china will increase its military budget this year by 12%. after an increase last year of 7.5%. but the pentagon estimates that

china's official military budget is about $90 billion, far less -- excuse me, i have that backward. that the $90 billion they disclose is actually $150 billion. in other words they only disclose part of their expenditures on national security and not the full amount which is some $150 billion. the question is who does china intimidate with this growing military power? here's what the pentagon had to say in its 2011 report to congress called "military and security development involving the people's republic of china." the defense department observed that china continued modernizing its military in 2010 with a focus on taiwan contingencies. the pentagon also noted that china's air force will remain primarily focused on building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat

to taiwan and u.s. forces in east asia. let me repeat that. the pentagon noted that china's air force will remain primarily focused on building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to taiwan and u.s. forces in east asia. some say that the united states should not look at our policy with taiwan in a vacuum, that we should consider the context of our larger strategic relationship with china. i couldn't agree more. because the strategic situation with china these days is very troubling. many of china's neighbors are concerned about its military buildup and territorial ambitions. last year china claimed the south china sea as a core interest which unsettled vietnam, the philippines, indonesia and other nations in

the region. china also renewed a long running dispute with india over the borders of the iranashah-pradesh region. china continues to be an enabler of the nuclear ambitions of the regime in north korea. this summer google publicly reported that a chinese entity was targeting the email accounts of south korean government employees and pakistan's prime minister discussed the possibility of china building a naval base in pakistan pakistan, which is already home to a strategically important port in the mouth of the gulf of oman. china has also escalated its rhetoric aimed at the united states and particularly the united states senate. a number of my colleagues visited beijing last april where they were reportedly received a

lecture from the chinese officials on fiscal policy and just last week more to the point of this topic, china's top official newspaper used a lot of unnecessary and bellicose trek on -- rhetoric on the subject of the proposed arm sales to taiwan. this official newspaper of the communist party in china said those of us on capitol hill who support taiwan are madmen. they said we're playing with fire and they said if -- would pay a disastrous price if we continued to support our ally, taiwan. as we are obligated to do by the taiwan relations act. mr. president, i suggest that the united states should not give in to this intimidation and these threats, and that we should instead pass this legislation to send a clear message to china that respects only strength, not weakness,

that the real madmen are those who think america will abandon our friends and allies and our principles and our long-standing ing strategic interest in the stability of east asia. supporting this legislation, mr. president, would also greatly reassure our allies friends around the world. many remember what happened when president clinton deployed two aircraft career the battle groups during the taiwan strait crisis in 1996. that crisis developed when china tried to intimidate taiwan on the eve of its first free presidential elections by conducting a set -- a series, i should say, of military exercises that included the firing of missiles just a few miles north of taiwan. president clinton responded by ordering the largest u.s. military force since the vietnam war to deploy to the region

including carrier battle groups led by the u.s.s.nimist z and the u.s. independence. america's show of resolve under president clinton's leadership did not escalate the crisis, it defused it. and it cept a welcome signal to our friends and allies in the region. according to an article in "the washington quarterly" following the crisis the region's confidence in the united states soared. japan, singapore, the philippines and other nations all bolstered their security ties with the united states. the taiwan strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy success stories of the clinton administration. but the authors of this same article conclude that forsaking taiwan now would likely have the opposite effect. mr. president, this bill deserves bipartisan support of

the majority of members in the united states senate based on our long-standing bipartisan consensus on our policy towards taiwan. on the growing gap in military capabilities between the people's republic of china and the people and the government of taiwan. based on china's aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and toward the united states, and america's credibility with our allies and with free peoples everywhere. but i want to conclude by pointing out perhaps something that's obvious but maybe it's not so obvious to everyone. since we're talking about trade, the things we grow and we sell to people abroad creating jobs at home, it's worth mentioning that selling f-16 aircraft to taiwan creates jobs and exports for the u.s.

economy and does not cost one penny of taxpayer money. this map demonstrates that all the states, all these yellow states in which direct and indirect employment from this export sale of f-16's to taiwan is projected to be at least 60 person years of employment which is the equal lent of 10 american workers employed full time for six years. as you can see from this map, 30 state will have that level of job creation or more, as a result of the sale of these f-16's, making the sale of the f-16's to taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. in fact, according to the periman group, the requested sale of f-16-cd's to taiwan would generate some $8.7 billion in output and generate 23,000

jobs. i got is that off by 90 pmplet let me read that again. the requested sale of f-16c's and d's to taiwan would generate some $8.7 billion in output and directly support more than 23,000 jobs. ace pointed out earlier, mr. president, these jobs don't cost the american people one cent. these are private-sector jobs paid for with money coming in from overseas because this is an export-driven industry. the only thing the united states government needs to do is get out of the way and let these americans continue to stay on the job and collect an estimated $768 million in federal tax revenues. yes, not only will we be selling these, creating jobs, we'll be generating revenue for the federal treasury in the process, generated by this private-sector export-driven economic activity.

i'm going to thank the senator from new jersey, senator menendez, for introducing this legislation with me, and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have agreed to cosponsor it, and i hope more senators will join us, and i hope we will pass this bill soon. i hope we can help american workers continue building these aircraft to strengthen our friends, the people of taiwan. mr. president, let me just close on this comment that this is stand-alone legislation that i've discussed here today, but i'll be offering in due course an amendment to the pending bill that would mandate this sale. and so i would ask my colleagues to please join us in a bipartisan way of showing our support for our friends and allies in taiwan in generating jobs right here at home. thank you, mr. president. iryield the floor. -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is

recognized. mr. sanders: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, my state of vermont has been hit very, very hard by hurricane irene. widespread flooding caused a number of deaths. the loss of many homes and businesses and hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion, dollars in damage to property and infrastructure. i have visited many of the most hard-hit towns, and i have been shocked and moved by the extent of the damage that i saw. irene will go down in history as one of the very worst natural disasters ever to hit the state of vermont. let me just share a few facts with you about the extent of the damage. already more than 5,200 vermonters have registered with

fema. remember, we're a state of only 630,000 people and approximately 200,000 households and yet more than 5,200 vermonters have already registered with fema. mr. president, more than 700 homes were severely damaged or completely destroyed -- 700 in a state which has about 200,000 households. between 1,500 and 2,000 families have been displaced, their housing uncertain as we approach vermont's brutally cold winter season -- and it is beginning to gleeget cold in vermont. more than 73,000 homes were left without electricity, a third of all of the homes in our state; tens of thousands of vermonters lost their phone service and in some areas these services still have not been fully restored. mr. president, more than 2,000

roads were badly damaged -- 2,000 roads, including 135 segments of state highways. more than 300 bridges -- 300 bridges -- were damaged. hundreds of roads and bridges remain closed while many others are only open to emergency vehicles today. some towns still have limited access because the roads and bridges that link them to the outside world were destroyed. further, dozens of town libraries, town halls, municipal and volunteer fire departments have been damaged or destroyed. 90 public schools could not open on time. the last one is just now opening for the year. hundreds of businesses and more than 360 farms with more than 15,000 acres of farmland have

been damaged, tearing at the fabric of our rural economy. our amtrak and freight services were completely suspended, as rail beds literally washed into rivers. one amtrak line is still down today. the largest state office complex was completely flooded and is closed until further notice. 1,600 state employees cannot go to work in that building. important files and computer systems have been ruined, disrupting the ability of the state to deliver critical state functions. mr. president, i know that, as in times past, we will pick up the pieces in vermont and restore our homes and businesses. i have to tell you that if there is any silver lining out of that disaster, it is the fact that in community after community, people came out, worked together, and participated in

cleanup efforts, supported each other, people from the northern part of the state, which was hit less severely, came down to the southern part of the state, helped out, strangers helped strangers. it was an extraordinary effort of people coming together. but the simple fact of the matter is that if a state like vermont has communities that are devastated, a state like new jersey has communities that are devastated, we cannot do it alone. the scale of this disaster is too overwhelming for a state of the size of vermont. the federal government has long played an important role in disaster recovery. that's something we have known for many, many years, and we have time after time after time. when our fellow citizens in louisiana and the gulf coast suffered the devastation of hurricane katrina, people in vermont were there for them, and i can tell you -- and i can't

tell you how many people told me that we have got t to got to do everything we can to peopl helpe people. people on the west coast were there for the people of joplin. when terrorists attacked the united states on 9/11, we were all there for new york city. that is what being a nation is about. the name of our country is "the united states of america." united u-n-i-t-e-d. if that name means anything, it means that when disaster strikes one part of the country, and when communities are devastated and when people are hurt, and when bridges and roads are out, and when farmers can't produce the food, we as a nation rally together to support those communities.

and that is what states impacted by irene expect from congress, because that's what being a nation is about. disaster relief funded on an emergency basis is what congress has done for decades, and it is what congress must do now. the senate did the right thing in quickly passing a $6.9 billion disaster relief supplemental appropriations bill, and i want to thank all of the people active in that from senator reid to senator landrieu to senator leahy, all of the people that made that happen. they did a great job. does that bill have everything that i would like to see in a disaster relief bill for the state of vermont? no, it doesn't, quite frankly. but it is a very good bill. it is an urgently needed bill. it is an important step forward in the right direction.

and i want to commend again all of those senators who played an active role in moving that bill along, including ten senate republicans. disaster aid should not be a partisan issue. but it seems the house republicans are intent on making is it one. the disaster funding that the house is likely to pass this week is totally inadequate and will not address the magnitude of the damages inflicted by hurricane irene or to the back sp-- or to the backlog in fema funding that existed before. to my mind, it was an outrage that for the first time in modern american history house americans want to have a budget debate over disaster assistance. they threaten to block urgently needed aid unless the cost of

that help is offset by cuts in other needed programs. they want to use hurricane irene as another excuse for a budget fight. and think about the precedent that that sets. now, what happens if tomorrow there is, god forbid, a disaster in new mexico or a disaster in colorado? does that mean we should be cutting education or environmental protection in order to pay for help to new mexico or colorado or californ california? if there is a major earthquake someplace in this country and communities are devastated, do we cut back on the needs of the children, do we cut back on medicare and have that huge debate in order to pay for disaster relief? historically, what the united states congress has said and

what they said was right, that when disaster strikes, we as a nation come together and we provide the support to those communities who have been hurt to get them back on their feet. that is what we have done in this great country, and i am offended that some of my republican colleagues in the house suddenly start thinking that we need a major budget debate for every disaster that is hitting this country. that is wrong. that is extraordinarily bad public policy. that is, frankly, unpatriotic and not what the united states is about. yes, of course, we must continue to address our deficit problem, but not on the backs of communities in vermont, new jersey, north carolina, or other states that have been devastated by hurricane irene. for those states and communities, we must get them emergency help, and we must get it to them as quickly as

possible. amazingly, i must say this: that this talk about budget offsets for disaster relief comes from some of the same people who repeatedly and conveniently ignore their own actions when it suits them. mr. president, congress provided $800 billion to bail out wall street banks. i didn't hear any discussion about offsets when it came to bailing out wall street. congress extended huge tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest people in this country, driving up the deficit. i didn't hear any call for offsets when we gave tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. the united states is spending today $160 billion a year on the

wars in iraq and afghanistan, including billions to rebuild those countries. i didn't hear any call for offsets when it came to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. mr. president, let me conclude by saying this: this country has its share of problems. we all know that. but if we forsake the essence of what we are as a nation -- and that is we stand together when disaster strikes -- if we forego that, if we no longer live up to that ideal, i worry very, very much about the future of our great nation. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, last week the senate passed three important pieces of bipartisan

legislation. it was really quite a productive wweek. we reauthorized the federal aviation administration, that kept 80,000 workers, including safety inspectors, on the job. we passed a highway bill that keeps 1.8 million people at work, building roads and bridges and dams. we reached a bipartisan agreement to rush relief to communities devastated by floods, tornadoes and wildfires. i was hopeful as this week began it would be productive. i thought congress might be able to set aside party politics to accomplish the important work of this nation. instead the tea party's taken over again. the tea party republicans have once again allowed partisanship to rear its ugly head. now house republicans obsessed with pleasing a group of radicals, tea partyers, they're called are refusing to give fema

the funding it needs to help communities across this country and they're threatening to shut down government if they don't get what they want. it's bad enough we can't agree that victims of flood and fires shouldn't get the help they need without delay. now we can't agree on what we've already agreed to. we spent months this spring and summer negotiating a deficit-reduction agreement that allowed congress to appropriate more than $11 billion in disaster aid for next year. now after an earthquake, weeks of wildfires and a hurricane that slammed the eastern seaboard, we're asking to free up $6.9 billion in emergency funds to help americans in need. there is a reason we've agreed in the past that disaster funding should be set aside from the regular budget process. there's a reason we agreed as part of july's deficit-reduction agreement that it should be set aside once again. farmers who have lost their crops to floods and families who

have lost their homes to hurricanes shouldn't be used as pawns in a budget-bidding war. over the last two decades almost 90% of the money congress has authorized for disaster relief has been done outside the regular budget process, and why, mr. president? because we cannot determine what mother nature's going to do. we do the best we can, but who would ever have dreamed that irene would hit twhe did with the did he have -- hit when it did? who would ever believe a tornado would level the town of joplin, missouri? so we've done the best we can. i ask my republican colleagues: why should today be any different than the past? fema is running out of money. that's the bottom line. on monday, mr. president, they will be broke. the president has declared emergencies in 48 of the 50

states this year. and we've had ten disasters already that have cost more than $1 billion each, spent 30 years -- it's been 30 years since we've had so many large natural disasters. as of this morning fema's disaster fund had almost nothing left. it will be broke on monday. the agency that rushes to help when disaster strikes, as i said, will be out of money in just a day or two. i repeat: monday. and we're still in the middle of the hurricane season. turn on the weather channel and side of the aisle why it's so important we give fema the resources it needs to react quickly to whatever mother nature sends our way. fema has already halted reconstruction projects in 40 states to free up funds to react to immediate needs of communities affected by the most recent disasters. because of these delays, fema will take longer to rebuild

bridges in new hampshire and schools in missouri and homes in texas, all because of republican stubbornness. madam president -- i'm sorry, mr. president. mr. president, i'm stunned that we have senators from states who have been devastated by these disasters. one state, thousands of fires, 2,000 homes burned. why wouldn't people vote to help, people who have had such devastation? it's all politics. fema's been there for people when the crops they have planted and count on to make a living were drowned by floods. the federal government has always been there to help americans in their hour of greatest need, when their homes were being -- homes where their children were raised, spent

holidays and made memories and burned to the ground or have been washed away or blown away. but because of the delays, fema will no longer be able to rebuild the bridges in countries -- for example, in the state of new hampshire, i just heard my friend, the junior senator from vermont talk about vermont. vermont, mr. president, has had almost 200 bridges washed away, gone. texas, we've had those fires. fema's been there when schools they study in and bridges they drive on have been blown away by tornadoes. americans have watched all this that they have go up in smoke or be washed or blown away. but that's what republicans are doing today. they're shortchanging communities that can least

afford the delays of partisan gridlock. senate majority leader george mitchell once said -- quote -- "bipartisanship means you work together to work it out." american families and communities are relying on us to work it out and hold out hope that we won't disappoint them. mr. president, go back just a month. we were struggling, struggling hard to work out an agreement that in years past has been simple. just to raise the debt limit in this country on bills we already accumulated. it took three months, but we got it done. one of the things we did was said we no longer have fights during this next fiscal year on funding the government. we agreed on the numbers. now, what the house could not do in good conscience directly, they're doing indirectly. they're sending a short-term continuing resolution to fund

the government until the middle part of november, but because they have all these extremists in the republican majority in the house, they couldn't do that. they could not do that. they couldn't send us what they already agreed upon. in fact, they put an addition to the bill, a so-called rider to the bill, saying you're only going to be able to raise the debt ceiling if you agree on our number on emergencies, recognizing that their number will only last a few weeks. and here's what they did also that was so mean-spirited. as i outline here in detail, we haven't paid for these disasters because they're emergencies. they're not in the normal budget process. but the house took money for more efficient vehicles. they took that money and said

we're going to pay for $1 billion for the year 2011. the year 2011 ends, the fiscal year ends at the end of this month, just a few days from now. everyone has said we just need a few million dollars to take care of, until the end of this month. as i indicated, we have enough money until monday, but that's all. the end of the month is not monday. they took $1 billion when only a little bit was needed, stripped our ability to create jobs. i spoke to steny hoyer in the house. he said 52,000 jobs, they're taking away from the american people by doing this. they take $1 billion and pay for this. but just to show further meanness, they take $500,000 and rescind it. it doesn't go towards the debt t. goes towards nothing. they just rescind it. then of course for the year 2012, they put in an amount of money that doesn't go very far with all these disasters. a few weeks' worth.

so we'll be back having this same fight again, which is so senseless, so unnecessary. i had hoped that the house of representatives -- there is going to be a vote today around 4:00, 5:00. i know it will be a close vote. but i hope people over here will understand how important this vote is. we're going to have a vote, as we've indicated, on the continuing resolution to strip out the mean-spirited amendment they have in it and put what's already passed here by a substantial majority. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. this amendment, i send an amendment to the desk that is an important amendment. this amendment will constrain the growth of this domestic spending program. my amendment is fairly simple. it tightens the nexus between t.a.a. benefits and actual jobs lost because of trade. it does this by changing the eligibility criteria from one that only requires that trade -- quote -- "contribute importantly" to job loss for a more restrictive criteria that the job loss be -- quote -- "substantially caused" by trade. under the current program a worker only has to demonstrate that imports from or shifts in production to a foreign country, what normal folks would call the ordinary course of business -- quote -- "contributed importantly" to their job loss. so what does -- quote -- "contributed importantly" actually mean? well, the t.a.a. program holds

that the contributed importantly standard is met if trade is the cause which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause of the job loss. that does not sound like a tight nexus to me, certainly not a tight nexus to trade to me. believe me, these fears are not theoretical. let me give a real-life example. i'm sure by now everyone here is familiar with solyndra, the now bankrupt solar firm allotted by president obama as the poster child for his shrus and green jobs -- stimulus and green jobs plan. it turns out now that solyndra is in bankruptcy, many of its employers are applying for benefits through t.a.a. to fully understands, let's look at history. here's how vice president biden described the administration's ill-considered plan to direct over $500 million, taxpayer dollars, to loan guarantees for solyndra -- quote -- "the recovery act is working and

you're going to see it work right on that site." "the loan to solyndra will allow to you build a new manufacturing solyndra and almost immediately generate new well-paying construction jobs. once your facility opens there will be about 1,000 permanent new jobs here at solyndra. and in the surrounding business community and hundreds more to install your growing output of solar panels throughout the country." well, that didn't quite happen. instead, the firm failed, potentially taking over a half billion taxpayer dollars with it, and those quote permanent new jobs, unquote, well not quite. the workers are all unemployed because their -- quote -- "permanent" jobs no longer exist. it gets worse. according to the "wall street journal," the stimulus loans themselves were a major cause of solyndra's bankruptcy. here's the headline -- "loan was solyndra's undoing."

let me just point to this chart here, this first chart where it says "government loan was solyndra's undoing." in selling the half billion dollar loan to solyndra, vice president biden made it clear that these were the jobs of the future saying, and i quote -- " we are journeying in a sense closer and closer to the sun, to a more solar-powered america, and as we do, we're leaving a shadow of a less efficient, more damaging past behind us." we all know or should know what happened to the arrogant icharus when he flew too close to the sun. so despite the vice president's exhortations, what happened to solyndra? solyndra is set to become an even bigger drain on our taxpayers. how is that possible? through the magic of t.a.a., of course, it continues out that the now unemployed former solyndra employees have applied for trade adjustment assistance. the irony here is profound.

the administration's now considering whether to grant these solyndra workers because competition from china -- quote -- "contributeed importantly" -- unquote, to their job loss. they wanted to consider whether to grant to these solyndra workers t.a.a. benefits. well, that's just ridiculous. frankly, here's another "wall street journal" article entitled solyndra was always likely to fail. you can see what a beautiful plant it was, with all of your taxpayer dollars. in a letter to the editor in "the wall street journal," the c.e.o. from another solar company, tech solar, explained that everyone in the solar business knew that solyndra's business model wouldn't work and their solar technology was too costly. that didn't stop the white house from giving this country a a $535 million taxpayer loan, money that's basically gone now. this was despite the fact that

the government's own analysts accurately predicted months ago that solyndra would fail in september. well, it did, and look at that beautiful building, built with taxpayer dollars. it's pretty hard to not admire it, to be honest with you. the fact that t.a.a. benefits are even being considered for solyndra shows how tenuous the nexus between job loss and trade can be, and workers can still get these expanded benefits on top of unemployment insurance. how could solyndra workers get t.a.a. when the business collapsed due to a bad business plan and an ill-conceived loan of taxpayer money? what was the cost of solyndra going under? china imports under the current t.a.a. program, however, might be construed by ambitious department of labor bureaucrats to have -- quote -- "contribute ed importantly" -- unquote, to solyndra shutting

down, despite the fact that the primary cause was the business model and the government's intervention. this needs to stop. we can do better. if we're going to continue to fund this domestic program, let's at least make sure that its benefits go to those workers whose job losses actually -- is actually caused by trade. that's what this amendment will do. it will return the t.a.a. threshold standard to the -- quote -- "substantial cause" -- unquote -- level. it would require that trade would have to be a substantial cause of the work dislocation. this standard was included in reforms advocated for by president reagan that were included in the bipartisan omnibus reconciliation act of 1981. that deficit reduction act included the largest package of spending cuts in history at that time. president reagan had noted the unfairness of treating one class of workers who lose their job due to foreign competition better than its neighbor who

lost his job due to domestic competition. so he tightened the criteria to be eligible for the t.a.a. program. by returning to the narrower t.a.a. threshold, this amendment would put reasonable constraints on the program to prevent it from expanding to another out-of-control spending program like solyndra. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment because i think it makes sense, there is no question it will save taxpayer dollars, it will make people act more honestly with regard to the use of taxpayer dollars, and in the end i think -- i think will work a lot better than the current approach that my friends on the other side would like to have. mr. president, i notice that the distinguished senator from north dakota is here, and i will yield the floor. mr. conrad: i thank my colleague, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. conrad: mr. president, i'm here to speak about disaster aid

and the acute need we have in my state for assistance to deal with the disaster that occurred earlier this summer in minot, north dakota. mr. president, these are pictures from the valley in minot, north dakota. north dakota is constructed on two hills with a valley in between, the river flowing through, and we have just had the worst flood ever in history and by a long margin. yesterday, the corps of engineers was in to see me. they tell me they calculate this as a 430-year flood. that is, a flood of this magnitude would only come every 430 years. certainly, it is far beyond anything we have ever seen in recorded history. they say the volume in this flood was three times the previous record, the volume of water three times the previous record. mr. president, these are just a handful of the homes in minot

that were inundated. 4,000 families lost their homes, and these are modest, middle-class families, homes that averaged $160,000 or or $170,000 in value, and yet they are devastated, and they are devastated because all they are eligible for is fema assistance. as the distinguished occupant of the chair knows well, fema was never designed to be a stand-alone program to recover from disaster. fema was designed to work in concert with insurance programs, homeowners insurance, flood insurance. in this case, mr. president, with a flood, homeowners insurance doesn't help you at all. you get nothing on your homeowners insurance. so then the burden falls to flood insurance. mr. president, in this entire town of 40,000 people, there were less than 400 flood

insurance policies. some may say well, why didn't they have flood insurance? that's a reasonable question to ask. the answer is very simple. no one thought they needed flood insurance. flood insurance was not required because they were behind a levee that was supposed to protect against a 100-year flood event, and actually something more than that. in addition, new dams since the last major flood have been built in canada to prevent such flooding. in fact, dams that were in part paid for by the united states. so, mr. president, there was no reason for people to believe they needed flood insurance, and as a result, very few had it. the bottom line is the most these people can get who had their homes destroyed -- believe me, these homes are destroyed. most of the 4,000 families that lost their homes had ten feet of water on their homes for weeks.

i have been there. i have seen these homes. i have smelled them, and it is horrific. to restore these homes, you have to take them down to the studs and start over again, with with $30,000 at the most. now, mr. president, if you're a young couple starting out and you have a $170,000 home and you have a $160,000 mortgage and the house is destroyed and it costs costs $140,000 to rebuild and you have got $30,000, you have got a big problem. or maybe you're like my cousin and her family who had just sold their home and then it was flooded but it flooded before closing. so guess what? they have gone and bought a new home because they had sold their existing home, then their existing home is flooded and of course the person never goes to

closing. so now they have two homes, now they have two mortgages. mr. president, this is a neighborhood of middle-class and lower middle-class families, and they are devastateed, and the question is are we going to help? in the past, we have. in katrina, we not only provided fema disaster funding, we also provided cdbg additional emergency funding. that's precisely what we did in the 1997 flood in grand forks, north dakota, 500-year flood. we provided additional cdbg funding. in fact, in that town alone, we provided over $170 million of cdbg additional emergency funding to help deal with a catastrophic situation there. we have provided much more than that to katrina victims, so what

we're asking for here is not something that's unprecedented, not something that hasn't been done before, and it is absolutely needed. mr. president, this is a headline from the fargo forum, the biggest newspaper in our state, about what was happening in minot, north dakota. 11,000 people forced out of their homes. it may not sound like many in a state like california or new york, but in north dakota, that's 1/60 of the entire state population. that's over a quarter of the population of this city, minot, north dakota. the rising souris moves up evacuation time. 11,000 people forced out of their homes. and when they came back, they found an absolute unmitigated disaster. this headline that ran in "the minot daily news" on june 22 of this year says it all --

"projection: devastation. minot residents evacuate as historic rise in souris river approaches." mr. president, this shows some of the preparations as people tried to get out of town and out of these homes before it hit. and then the headline -- further headline on june 21, "it's a sad day." it's a sad day because the crest was increased in 48 hours by ten feet. in other words, the city was protected to a certain level, and then canada lost control of their major reservoir, lost control of it. their premiere told our governor the floodgates are wide open, there is a wall of water coming your way, and indeed there was, and they increased in a 48-hour period the projection of how high the water levels would be

by ten feet. there is no way humanly possible to build up defenses by ten feet in 48 hours. it cannot happen. there is no possible way. miles and miles of levee. can you imagine trying to build that up ten feet in just a matter of hours? mr. president, it's a sad day. it was a sad day. and here's the result. flooding, massive flooding, flooding that represented an unusual flood in the sense that usually when you have a flood, the water comes and the water goes. in this case, the water came and the water stayed, and, mr. president, this is downtown minot, north dakota. this is home, by the way, to one of the two air force bases that are home to the nation's b-52's. it is also the home to 150

minutemen 3, missiles that are part of an important deterrent for the united states. you can see this downtown area was devastated by floodwaters, and the flood that as i say came and stayed and stayed and stayed and stayed and stayed. and here you can see rooftops, picture taken by brett miller of the north dakota national guard, flying over minot, north dakota. i have been to the schools that have been flooded, and two of them absolutely des tried, absolutely destroyed. they have got to be rebuilt. you can't possibly rehab them in any kind of cost-effective way. you can see in many cases all you can see is the roof because a majority of the 4,000 homes that were destroyed have 10 feet of water on them, and for weeks and weeks and weeks, many of

these homes had 6-10 feet of water on them. and anybody knows what water can do when it sits and is there for weeks and you come back, you've got mold everywhere. and the only possible way to get it out is to take the house down to its studs. mr. president, let me just close on this photo from june 24 of this year. again, "the minot daily news" headline, "swamped" and indeed we were. absolutely swamped. water starts to inundate the valley. the corps says souris flows to double by saturday. these are the kinds of headlines that people were coping with in minot, north dakota. this devastation will not be addressed for months to come. people are already moving into temporary fema trailers, and those fema trailers which are

welcome because without them, people would have no shelter, but it should be understand, those trailers are going to have a tough time against a north dakota winter and the people living in those trailers are going to have a tough time in a north dakota winter. and so we need help. and we need, yes, we need to replenish the fema fund, absolutely. but more than that, we desperately need additional emergency cdbg funding. that's what was used effectively in katrina, that's what was used effectively in the floods, the horrible floods that hit grand forks, north dakota, in 1997. and we're asking our colleagues to do what we have done for them, in disaster after disaster we stood with them, we joined with them, we supported them. and we're asking that for our

people at this time. senator hoeven and i have an amendment for a billion dollars of cdbg funding. we have markup occurring in appropriations committee right now, and i understand they are going to agree to $400 million, but that's nationwide. the need in north dakota alone is $235 million. that, according to our state's governor. the need for emergency cdbg funding in my state alone is $235 million. the appropriations committee is about to agree to a level of funding nationwide of $400 million. mr. president, there is a chasm, a chasm between the need and the resources available. we're going to have to do better than this, mr. president. or these 4,000 families in north dakota that have had their homes destroyed are going to have a pretty miserable christmas and a

pretty miserable new year. mr. president, we're better than that. we've proven it repeatedly. i hope we're able to prove it again. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i ask that we put off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. conrad: i ask unanimous consent we charge time during the quorum call equally between the two sides. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be so determined. mr. conrad: i thank the chair and again note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent

the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized. mr. kyl: i have an amendment, first may i ask unanimous consent that an editorial in "the arizona republic" the subject of which is obama debt cutting plan fails to tell whole story be inserted at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl: my amendment is amendment number 645. but before i describe that amendment which i believe and hope that we'll be able to vote on when we have our series of votes later on this afternoon, i just wanted to respond to one thing that the leader said in remarks after lunch. he was talking about the continuing resolution which we believe ebb will be coming over from the house of representatives later on today, and that continuing resolution of course has funding for the various disasters which have befallen various parts of our country. the leader has indicated i think

that he's going to be attempting to amend that house product with a -- with an increase in that spending. and he asked the question rather rhetorically, why aren't those senators who have disasters in their states willing to vote for his increased spending amendment? and then he answered his own question saying it's all politics. now, mr. president, first of all, as you know, we're not supposed to ever question the motives of fellow senators. and i'm sure that isn't really what the -- what the leader had in mind but i would suggest to the leader that it's not politics that causes people to vote against his amendment. if it were politics, they'd be voting for his amendment. those members that have disasters in their states, we say surely you want even more money so you can be sure to cover all those disasters, and if it were politics, they'd probably be voting yes.

i suggest to you that the reason that they're voting no is because of principle. first of all, because there's plenty of money in the house continuing resolution to cover all of the disasters that have already occurred and those that could be anticipated over the course of the sevens seven or eight weeks which is the period of time covered by the bill, and secondly, that we should never spend more money than necessary. i will stand corrected if i'm wrong here, but i do not believe that the majority leader's amendment has a calculation of why all of the money that he proposes is necessary based upon emergencies or disasters that have occurred. so i just wanted to make sure my colleagues appreciated that if and when such a vote occurs, at least those people with whom i've spoken are going to be voting on principle and the fact there is plenty of money for disasters in there and no reason to put in more money than is needed especially in our time of

very, very difficult deficit situation. mr. president, the amendment as i said is numbered number 645, and i'll be discussing the contents of why i think it should be addressed. let me just recede that with this point: i think that the bill before us, the t.a.a. bill, actually deserved greater scrutiny than the process allowed. there was an opportunity here for some more fundamental changes in the t.a.a. program than occurred. the only changes are pretty rudimentary and i don't think anyone can contend they will save substantial amounts of money or represent fundamental reform. the process of putting this all together was by people who supported t.a.a., not people like me who have a real problem with t.a.a. so it's probably no surprise that the program isn't substantially reformed. the specifically on the t.a.a.

training, which is part of what i'm focusing on here, no work was done to reform the training funding to reflect the fact that there are already over 40 programs dedicated to worker training. one of our colleagues, senator coburn, has done some great work in this area to highlight the problem. but instead the substitute just increases overall training funding and does very minimal reform. more broadly, there's little evidence that the t.a.a. programs are actually effective and that's what i'll speak to with regard to the piece that i'll be eliminating hopefully with the amendment i'm proposing. we are going to spend over a billion dollars on the so-called enhanced t.a.a. provisions in the substitute, and another $7 billion on the base line program. so a billion on the enhanced provisions, $7 billion on the base line program and we don't even know whether it actually helps our citizens. i have filed other amendments that i may or may not bring up depending upon what our schedule

is but at a minimum i would hope the word of the t.a.a. supporters can be relied upon as we move forward. for example, the substitute is intended to terminate base line t.a.a. after 2014 but due to c.b.o. scorekeeping, could be estimates -- c.b.o. estimates the congress could spend another $7.4 billion for the years 2015- 221, years after all the t.a.a. is scheduled to be terminated. so i plan to work with the could could to ensure these savings are actually extracting from the base line. the amendment i speak of repeals the t.a.a. for firms program. it would repeal that as of october 1 of 2011, in other words the end of the fiscal year. the amendment would only save about $16 million a year, but i think it serves as a test of one's real commitment to reform. you see, i propose eliminating

this small piece of the t.a.a. that president barrack barack oa proposed be eliminated in his budget. the president's budget recommendations for this year specifically recommends term nation of the t.a.a. for firms program. and i thought we've all talked about how our constituents keep telling us they want us to come together and work together to get things done. here's an opportunity where the democratic president, a republican senator have proposed something and it's an opportunity for colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get together and say yes, this is at least one program, it's a small one, $16 million, but it ought to be eliminated. one of the reasons for the president's request that this program be dropped, according to his terminations reductions and savings submitted as part of the fifl year -- fiscal year 12 budget, here's what the budget

says, the administration believes it is more effective to direct funding towards programs that make investments to promote globally commemorative regions rather than to assist specific firms that have been harmed by trade, end of quote. the budget also made the point that the centers are too expensive and they're poorly selected. here's what the president's budget said. "the nonprofit trade adjustment centers that administer the program are chosen noncompetitively and have high overhead rates." end of quote. the first point is the president's budget says let's get rid of this program. it's not run well and it's not centered properly on where we should be centered. second reason for elimination of this proposal is that the e.d.a.'s own budget request to congress for fiscal year 2012 clearly shows that other programs are more effective and less costly than this program t.a.a. for firms.

and i'll quote. "the economic adjustment assistance program which is the most flexible tool in e.d.a.'s toolbox and provides a wide range of technical, planning and public works and infrastructure assistance and can get money out more quickly and with far lower overhead costs, meaning more help for the communities that need it." the third reason that i propose eliminating this small program is that the t.a.a. for firms program doesn't require any kind of significant trade impact for eligibility. in fact, according to the program's own web site that outlines frequently asked questions, here's what it says. "question, are only firms seriously affected by imports able to participate? answer, no. we work with a variety of manufacturers and for some,

imports represent only a minor challenge. regardless of the degree of impact a firm may be eligible if it has experienced -- experienced sales, employment declines at least partially due to imports over the last two years." end of quote. so that's the third problem. the fourth problem: obviously there are always bound to be some success stories, but the program's 2010 annual report raises serious questions about its effectiveness. for example -- and this annual report, by the way, was required by the stimulus bill -- it highlights that only 56% of the firms in 2010 actually completed the program. that means a whopping 44% quit for various reasons. the annual report also shows that firms that started the program in 2008 had little marketed success. after one year firms that completed the program had average employment decrease by

10%, an average productivity increase of 11%, which is only slightly better than the bureau of labor statistics average, a decrease of 13% and and increase in productivity of 14%. after two years program graduates' average employment dropped by 16%, and average productivity increased by 3%. while the national average for manufacturing firms saw employment drop only 12% and average productivity increase by 6%. in other words, after two years, firms not in the program were doing better than firms in the program, despite all the money we're spending on them. the fifth reason: while it's just authorization language here, repeal does save money. the t.a.a. for firms centers will close and its employees will be reassigned. we've got to reduce the cost and

reach of government if we're going to prevent fiscal collapse. that's the primary reason i'm focused on this program here. it's not a huge amount of money. under the substitute, the program will be continued under 2002 levels, or $16 million a year. but the program doesn't have to continue, because this program doesn't work well and in effect, as i'm sark wastes this taxpayer money. so if we can't eliminate a program like this, a program the administration wants to terminate, one that e.d.a. says could be done with other programs better, that doesn't require any great connection or impact by trade imports, that has a questionable track record with high failure rates and outcomes at least no better than firms that don't participate, then i am greatly discouraged about the senate's ability to effect any kind of actual reform. so, mr. president, i urge my

colleagues' attention to this. i know some will say, well, we can't make any amendment to this whatsoever or it won't be accepted by the house. you ask my house colleagues whether they would support this amendment. my guess is they'd be happy to support this amendment. so, mr. president, i hope we will be able to vote for this this afternoon, and that my scheetion will support amendment number -- my colleagues will support amendment number 64. and, mr. president, i would also ask that this amendment be made pending. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. kyl, proposes amendment numbered 645 to amendment numbered 633. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to come to the floor and join my colleagues who were here just a few minutes ago talking about the importance of

funding -- robust funding and immediate funding for disaster relief in our country. the senator -- the leader reid came to the floor to explain the importance of this issue, followed by the senator from north dakota, senator conrad, who has himself helped to lead portions of his state back literally from the brink of destruction several times. so when a member like senator conrad speaks, we really should listen. he has been through, excuse me, hell and back in parts of his state. and he really does understand what is at stake here. and some members who think they know about disasters and have not really quite experienced them in their state would be well-advised to listen to his plea to get this done right now.

i want to address three specific statements that have been made on the floor of the senate by my friends on the other side of the aisle that are, with all due respect, patently false. leader mcconnell came to the floor either last night or this morning -- because it was reported in "the washington post" -- and said -- quote -- "we don't have to worry because 'congress always does what is appropriate when it comes to disasters'." mr. president, i don't even know where to begin to say how false that statement is. and i know that the leader didn't mean to mislead anyone. he just made a comment, like "don't have to worry about this." we always do the right thing. mr. president. i was there for katrina and

rita. this congress did not always do the right thing. there are still things that congress should have done in the aftermath of katrina and rita that have not yet been done and there are a whole list of things that were done by this congress, but two years too late or three years too late. so let me be very clear with people following this debate: congress does not always dot right thing had it comes to as does terms of the and we're about ready to make another mistake, and it is so unnecessary and so unfortunate. number two: there is a disagreement going on about whether this is politics or principle, and i know that our side has said -- and we believe -- there's got to be politics involved because there's no other reason to explain why the house republican

leadership continues to throw a wrench into this when it is completely unnecessary. what is the principle that they're fighting for, if it is a principle? the only principle i could think of is the principle of when things are going smoothly, blow it up. because that's what they're doing. what do i mean by that? let me take a minute to explain. as the republican house leadership knows full well, the senate and the house have already agreed -- we agreed 30 days, we agreed before hurricane irene, before tropical storm lee, before these storms ever happened -- the leadership, republican and democratic leadership, agreed in the big

fight we had not over the government but of the shutdown of the economy -- you remember that, the big fight we had? -- the leadership of both houses, republicans and democrats, already agreed in anticipation that we would be running short of fema money because we have been running short of fema money now for eight months -- in anticipation of this, they said in that agreement, we are going to carve out an $11 billion approximate not o pot of money p adjustment so that when we come to ask for disaster aid we won't have to fight again. why do we like to fight so much? i mean, i can fight. i do fight. but i choose not to. what is the principle the house republicans are fighting for? it only must be when things are going smoothly, let's blow it

up. that's why i'm so frustrated. it's an unnecessary fight to be having. again, we've already made provisions for $11 billion. so the leader puts a $6.9 billion -- well-below, well within the range of this $11 billion allowance -- and lo and behold, the house leadership says, absolutely not; we're not doing that; we're not even going to consider the $6.9 billion; what we're going to do is just continue last year's level of funding, which was inadequate then -- that's why we're we've run out of it. so they're going to take the inadequate level that we had last year before all these storms happened and extend it for six weeks and claim victory?

and then come back after the fact and require for one of the first times -- not "the" first time in history but in one of the few times in history to then grab back and say, to finish up the disaster money for 2011, you've got to go gut a program that's very important to some members, more important to some than others, but an important prarnlg the house is insisting we cut $1.5 billion, a program that's creating jobs in michigan and other parts of the country. so why are we destroying jobs when we don't have to? so, again, it must be the principle of, when things are going smoothly, when things are working, when the leadership is has actually agreed for the house republican leadership to just throw a wrench and really, really mess things up. thank goodness there are ten republican senators in this chamber that don't follow that

principle. -- of throwing a wrench when things are going smoothly. they follow the principle of common sense and compassion and being forward-leaning when it comes to helping americans who need our help: senator blunt, senator rubio, senator snowe, senator collins, senator murkowski, senator brown from massachusetts, senator heller from nevada, senator hoeven from north dakota, senator toomey from pennsylvania, and senator vitter from louisiana, many of whom have experienced disasters in their state in the past and remember those terrible days or they're experiencing them now. and they said, we don't follow the "throw the wrench in the gears principle," we're going to follow the "let's get it done principle." let's get the work done. let's move forward. let's stop fighting and let's provide immediate and robust funding to help our communities.

and so they voted across party lines -- i've done that before; i've been elected now three times. i mean, you can sometimes cross party lines to do the right thing, find middle ground. so they did. they found middle ground and we came up with a $6.9 billion package. now, let me say to answer specifically the senator from arizona, who i have a lot of respect for, we did not pull this sum out of the air. this $6.th.9 billion, which is h more robust than the $2.6 billion that the house wants to provide, is a much more accurate estimate based on actual numbers given to the appropriations committee, which is a committee of authority here, by the agencies who, who are the

agencies in chancht disasters from agriculture -- who are the agencies in charge of the disasters from agriculture to the corps of engineers. so our number, the $6.9 billion that's being ridiculed as just being pulled out of the air -- no, contraire. it was given to us by the agencies. the number that came from absolutely nowhere, that has no bearing on any sense of reality today, is the number the house pulled up, which is last year's number, which was the estimate before the storms even hit. so if you want to argue which number is more accurate, please put your money on our number, because you will lose this bet. our number is based on actual estimates that have already been a made of disasters that have already occurred. in fact, it doesn't even -- our number, because we don't have the estimates in, we don't even have estimates yet for tropical

storm lee or for irene. when i say the $6.9 billion is 67 better than the $2.6 billion, and more accurate, that's triewvment is it the real actual number that might take us all through next year? even i can't say that and i'm the chairman of the committee. i have more in fact on this than anyone else. it's much better than $2.65 billion and at least it's based on realistic estimates. so when people say we don't -- when people on my side over here say we don't even understand what the house of republicans -- the republicans in the house are fighting about, it's the truth. they picked a fight, they didn't need to pick. they're arguing over something that was already decided. they are rejecting their own government estimates of what these disasters cost because of what?

on principle? what is the principle? the only thing i can think of -- and i've said it five fipples, game to say it six -- must be the principle of let's throw a wrench when things are working well. and i think the american people are tired of it. it's exhausting. so we have now projects -- if i could show the projects that are stopped. we have a list -- here it is -- a list that's literally too thick to put into the record, and i'm not going to ask for it to be in the record because somebody will have to stay here like for days to type it in and i'm not going to ask the clerks to do that. but i want to hold it up so people can see. just pages and pages and pages of projects that are stopped right now. and i want to say directly to the senator from -- i mean the

house member from alabama, the chairman, my counterpart. there are pages of projects here in alabama, in his own district, that are stopped. and he is not helping by supporting last year's number for this year's disasters. and hoeup that he would rethink and start arguing not for his party but for his state. and sometimes we have to put our parties aside and fight hard for our districts and our state. i've done that before. i think it's the right thing to do. now, these are pages and pages of projects that have been stopped. okay, they're finished. they're not finished forever, we hope, but they're stopped. roads, libraries, bridges. talk about jobs, most of these are small businesses. as you know, mr. president, there's not any, like,

government agency that swoops in to redo all these projects in small towns. they are local contractors that get contracts from fema or the corps of engineers. they go to work. they're issuing pink slips right now for these projects. you'd think that would motivate people. if compassion doesn't motivate you. if moral rightness, if the morality of the situation doesn't motivate you, maybe thousands of jobs would motivate you. that doesn't seem -- none of those seem to be working here. i'm running out of enticements so all these projects have been stopped. will the $2.6 billion that the house is offering start these projects up again? yes, they will. and their offer that they put on the table, that they're really pushing us to accept, which we're fighting hard -- we don't want to accept it but we will not shut the government down over this, but we're pushing back as hard as we can without shutting the government down

because they keep holding the economy hostage over there, then they hold the government hostage over thr-fplt but i'm saying as -- over there. but i'm saying as strongly as i can these projects will get started up again. they'll go for six weeks and then we'll be back right where we are now, which is no place. so, again, when you have a chance to fix a problem, there's already an agreement that it should be fixed, already the leadership has agreed how to fix it, and there is an allocation of the money set aside, you still can't do it? why? because we want to come back here in six weeks and have this fight again? how much time is wasted here? do you know what tom ridge said about this, who is a republican, the first guy who ran the homeland security, first secretary? he said never in the history of the country have we worried

about the budget around emergency appropriations for natural disasters. and frankly, in my view, we shouldn't be worried about it now. we're all in this as a country. when mother nature devastates a community, we may need emergency appropriations and we ought to just deal with it and then deal with the fiscal issues later on. that's former secretary of the department that's in charge of this. this was a statement he made last week. governor christie, and i spoke with him yesterday on the phone, he said last week you want to figure out budget cuts, that's fine. you expect the citizens of my state to wait? they're not going to wait. i'm going to fight to make sure they don't do it. our people are suffering now. they need our support now. we need the support now here in new jersey. this is not a republican or a democratic issue. that is from governor chris christie, a very popular republican, i might say. and then governor bob mcdowell from virginia, another republican.

my concern is that we help people in need for the fema money that's going to flow. it's up to them on how they get it. i don't think it's time to get into a deficit debate. why are we fighting over this? why does the house republican leadership think that last year's number that was inadequate last year is good enough for this year when, as my staff just reminded me, we've had ten disasters, each one over $1 billion this last year? this is mother nature. this wasn't caused by some conspiracy of the democratic party. this is just what happened. why do you want people to have to worry whether their money will be there or not when you can so easily fix this? on what principle are you standing? it can't be fiscal responsibility. it's already provided for in the

budget. and if this is be conservativism, i don't think america likes that. i don't think they will accept that. it's not their vision of conservativism. it's their vision of foolishness. and i also think, as patrick leahy, the senator from vermont, has said many times, many people are starting to think why is it that some people in congress rush out to fund programs in afghanistan and iraq and never want to debate when we went to war how we were going to pay for that. we just literally did it in 30 days. nobody even questioned how we were going to pay for it. literally. i was here. maybe a few people raised the issue, well, this is going to be expensive. but nobody on the other side d. to go to war twice. and yet, after a hurricane and tornado, we now have to have a knock-down, drag-out, full-fledged debate on how we're

going to pay for every single penny before we can give a green light to these governors and mayors and county commissioners. i think it's outrageous. it's unnecessary, and it is so terribly unfair. so i don't know what's going to happen, because we sent a bill over to the house that has $6.9 billion. it's, like i said, it may not be enough but it is much better than $2.56 billion from last year that he wasn't sufficient then -- year that wasn't sufficient then. we send a bill over. it's a stand-alone bill. the house could just -- if they think the number is too high, take it down a little bit, or tell us they don't think this item is worth funding. say something. we could negotiate on that number. it's not written in the scripture. but, you know, it's the best estimate we had of what we actually need right now. but, no, they won't even look at

the bill. they just send us a $2.6 billion on a continuing resolution, so basically, senate, you just take our old, tired, inadequate number, and we're going to go home and then you can just shut the government down if you don't like it. what kind of way is that to treat disaster victims? it's no way at all. now, senator hagan just told me she got out of a meeting today. some of her people are living literally in tents. i know when i went down to cameron parish, some of my people were sleeping on open air, on concrete. tphoeu what these scenes -- i know what these scenes are. they roll in my head. i remember. unfortunately i have lots of memories about people sleeping on the street, 500 people sleeping under an overpass waiting for the federal government to provide or the state or local government to set up a trailer or rental unit.

and, again, if we didn't have the provision for this already decided, if this isn't the way we had operated in the past, i could understand it. but everything moves us. the agreement that's already been raised, the precedent of history, the accurate estimates of the disaster. but yet, the republicans want to fight about it. i think it's a bad fight for them to have, let me just say. and it is really a shame. but it is, we're going to do our best to get immediate and full funding. and if we can't, we'll be back here in six weeks talking about it again, which is very unfortunate, because you can't rebuild tuscaloosa, alabama and joplin, missouri, and parts of north dakota, minot, north dakota, and small towns in alaska and alabama six weeks at

a time. you just can't do it. and when we have the money, we have the provision, we have history and precedent on our side and the need is so great for the republican leadership to throw a wrench just because they like to keep things stirred up is really a shame. so, that's where we are. we're going to do our best. this is what republican leaders say. this is what the pictures look like on the ground. you know, when it's not on cnn every night, people don't really think it's happening. but the fact of the matter is there are fires burning. there's rubble in towns that look like this. the water may have receded from this particular farm, but the damage is still there. the water, i'm sure, has recedeed from this scene, but this family is still wandering around their lot looking for spoons and forks and things that might remind them of what they once had. and the republicans have decide ford whatever reason to just --

decided for whatever reason to just throw a wrench in this whole thing and make a big fight when it was absolutely not necessary. with that, mr. president, we're going to keep working and see what we can do to bring relief to a lot of this misery. thank you, and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, september 17 was an anniversary with double significance for our country. on september 17, 1787, delegates to the constitutional convention in philadelphia held their final meeting and signed the constitution they had crafted. on september 17, 1986, this body voted unanimously to confirm justice antonin scalia's appointment to the supreme court of the united states. today 25 years later he is the senior member of the court. these events are profoundly related because justice scalia is literally helping us rediscover the real constitution. his approach to doing the work of judges is helping rediscover

the work of judges the founders gave us, the constitution that is powerful and solid, the constitution that belongs to the people, protects our rights, limits government, and makes liberty possible. antonin scalia was born in trenton, new jersey, in 1936. after graduating first in his high school class, valedictorian from georgetown university and from harvard, he embarked on a law career that would include stints in private practice, the leal academy and finally the judiciary. president reagan nominated then professor scalia to the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit in july, 1982. he appeared before the senate judiciary committee on august 4, 1984 -- excuse me, august 4, 1982, another date with constitutional significance. the hearing began just minutes after the senate voted 69-31 to

approve a balanced budget constitutional amendment, the only time this body has done so, at least so far. i was an original cosponsor of that amendment. i mention that because cru justice scalia's approach to the constitution means that the people and the people alone have authority to change it through the amendment process outlined in the constitution. the senate's vote on that balanced budget amendment was part of that process. professor scalia told the judiciary committee that if he were appointed to the bench his days of being able to comment on the wisdom of laws enacted by congress would be, quote, bygone days, unquote. sips the judges are doing something fundamentally different than private citizens, fundamentally differences than legislators defines his judicial philosophy. the same theme dominated his confirmation hearing four years later when president reagan nominated judge scalia to be an associate justice of the supreme court. as that hearing opened, i

quoted from "the chicago tribune" that the nominee was determined "to read the law as it has been enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his own preference upon it." and when justice scalia took the oath of judicial office, president reagan said the judiciary must be independent and strong but confined within the boundaries of the written constitution. public officials must swear to uphold and defend this written constitution. it declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. more than 90% of americans say that it is very important to them. what exactly is it and what are judges supposed to do with it? the answer to that question defines justice scalia's career and its lasting impact on all of us. the constitution is a document, the oldest written charter of government in the history of the world. professor steven calibresi at

northwestern university law school who once clerked for justice scalia writes when americans think of liberty, they think of documents, especially of the constitution. three statements at the turn of the 19th century tell us what we need to know. first, the supreme court in 1795 literally asked the same question, what is the constitution? and here's their answer. "the constitution is fixed and certain. it contains the permanent will of the people and is the supreme law of the land. it is paramount to the power of the legislature and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it." second, president george washington echoed this theme a year later in his farewell address. he said, "the basis of our political system says the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government, but the constitution which at any time

exists till changed by explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacred obligatory on all." third, the supreme court in its 1803 decision marbury versus madison wrote that through the constitution the people establish certain limits for the federal government. "and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written." there you have it. the constitution is the means by which the people express their will and set limits on the government. the people alone have authority to change the constitution and until they do, it is fixed and certain. one obvious way to alter you constitution is to change its words but a more subtle and even more effective way to alter the constitution is to change its meaning. words themselves are just the forum, but the meaning of those words is the substance. the real constitution is its words and their meaning

together. whoever controls the meaning of the constitution controls the constitution itself. when we say that only the people may alter the constitution, that simply must mean that only the people can change the words or their meaning. for the constitution to be what it is supposed to be, both its words and their meaning must remain fixed and certain until the people choose to change them. justice scalia delivered the 1997 riston lecture at the manhattan institute. its title was simply "on interpreting the constitution." he described this topic as, quote, "what in the world we think we're doing when we interpret the constitution of the united states." this is why it is so important to clarify just what the constitution is in the first place so that we know what judges are supposed to do with it. justice scalia believes the only proper way to interpret the constitution is to find the

meaning it already has, the meaning given to the constitution by the people who alone had authority to establish it. justice scalia calls this approach originalism. in his lecture, he said that the constitution, quote, "means what it meant when it was written." no one is more candid than justice scalia that this approach is not easy. but no one is more certain than justice scalia that this approach alone is legitimate. this approach alone preserves both the people's control of the constitution and the constitution's control of judges. in 2005, justice scalia delivered a speech at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars titled "constitutional interpretation the old fashioned way." he described originalism as beginning with the text and giving it the meaning it bore when it was adopted by the people. with all due respect to justice

scalia, he did not vint this approach but he is helping us to return to those principles. in his service on the court and his speeches and writings, justice scalia is helping us rediscover what america's founders told us to do from the start. i have to emphasize that justice scalia has for 25 years implemented the very same approach that he described in his hearing before the senate judiciary committee. vice president biden was the ranking member at the time and his very first question was about original meaning as a means of interpreting the constitution. justice scalia explained later that the starting point is "the text of the document and when it meant to society that adopted it. i am clear on the fact that the original meaning is the starting point and the beginning of wisdom." unquote. this body knew that justice scalia would take this approach when we unanimously confirmed him and he has stayed true his word throughout his judicial

career. in addition to instructing us about the principles that we should once again follow, justice scalia has been sound the alarm about failing to do so. he condemns as -- quote -- "power judging" the modern trend of judges substituting their own constitutional meaning for that of the people. this amends the constitution as surely is change its very words. judges continually find creative ways to mask their power judgi judging. they speak of deeply embedded social or cultural values, involving standard of decency, and what the constitution should mean in our time. one of justice scalia's former colleagues even said that the constitution is -- quote -- "a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual." all of these evolving standards and sparkling visions are different ways of saying the same thing: that judges have taken control of the constitution by

controlling what it means. justice scalia will have none of it. in a 1996 dissent he rejected this for what it really is; namely, the court's constitution-making process. he wrote -- quote -- "the court must be living in another world. day by day, case by case it is busy design ago constitution for a country i do not recognize." unquote. and one of the many things i like about justice scalia is that he applies his principles across the board. he has often pointed out that judges amend the constitution by changing its meaning in ways that liberals like but also in ways that conservatives like. all of it he says, is wrong. judges have no authority to design a new constitution, no matter what it looks like. sometimes we wonder how anyone could think otherwise. how could anyone believe that unelected judges may take a constitution that opens with the words "we the premium" and turn it into something else. why would anyone tolerate judges

who change the very constitution that judges are supposed to follow? justice scalia believes that no one should, and he challenges us to live up to the principles that define our system of government and that make our liberty possible. the real constitution is solid and fixed. it was established and can be changed only by the people. that constitution, the real constitution, is strong fluff to limit government and protect liberty. but that constitution is being repleas placed by a very different one. since the 1930's the real constitution controlled by the people has been replaced in some measure by a fake constitution controlled by judges. the constitution is weak, pliable, and shifting, according to them. it morphs and modifies, it shivers and shakes. this constitution is a figment of the judicial imagination and it is written in disappearing

inc. thomas jefferson warned that a judge is controlled by the constitution is "it would become a mere thing of wax in the hands of judiciary which they may twist and shape in any form they please." doing so, jefferson said, would make the constitution nothing but a blank paper. this is not just an academic exercise. if you think that the latest judicial mod swing is strong enough to limit government, think again. if you think that a lump of wax or a piece of blank paper is firm enough to protect your liberty, think again. the constitution that can be changed by nothing more than a judge's imagination is no constitution at all. this struggle over what the constitution really is affects not only what judges do with is it but also how judges are chosen in the first place. if judges can change the constitution by change its meaning, then the judicial selection process will inevitably focus on the

constitution that a judicial nominee is likely to create. it will inevitably focus on the form to which a judicial nominee can be expected to shape and twist the constitution. speaking stie state university of new york school of law in 2002, justice scalia warned that if the constitution's meaning is determined by judges rather than the people, the selection of those judges becomes -- quote -- "a very political hot potato." every time you need to appoint a new supreme court justice, you are going to have a mini plebiscite on what the constitution means." in his 2007 speech at the jesse helms center, justice scalia similarly compared the judicial confirmation process to a mild -- excuse me to a minimum -- to a mini constitutional conventi convention. if judges may write a new constitution through their

rulings, he said, the process will be about finding a nominee who will -- quote -- "right the constitution -- write the constitution that you want." justice scalia is also affecting how we do things here in the legislative branch. the more that judges are willing to do our work for you the less of it we are likely to do ourselves. on the other hand, if judges insist that we legislators say what we mean and mean what we say, then we are likely to draft laws differently. the law that we enact after all is the text of our statutes and not the speeches, reports, comments, thoughts or other things that consume the legislative process. knowing that judges who have to interpret and apply our statutes will look only at the law is an incentive for us to make sure that if it is to be the law, it must be in the statute. that approach is more transparent, more accountability and more reliable, and we have

justice scalia to thank. for pushing news that direction. justice scalia seems to be the justice that liberals-to hate. if this were a harry potter movie, liberals would put justice scalia none a water poster as "undesirable number one." and yet they just can't seem to look away. the principles on which he stands are so compelling and his way of wielding them so powerful that whether you love him or hate him, you simply must a deal with him. those who think judges make it up as they go along may have a hard time figuring justice scalia out because he does not follow their game plan. only a few terms into his first term on the supreme court, "the washington post" reported that though he was expected to be a hard-charge #-g conserve tirvetion he was voting with william brennan almost two-thirds of the time. several weeks later a another

"post" headline rea head -- conservative george will's column at the end of the 19 e8 5-1987 supreme court term bore the title "good grief scalia." not to worry, though. because the "post" headline one year later read "scalia may be successor as conservative chief advocate." the real way to know him is to know his principles. they are principles drawn directly from america's founding from the nature of limited government under a written constitution. no one works harder to articulate ands ply those principles day in and day out than justice scalia. research in the last several years has demonstrated that he is the funniest justice in oral argument and the most cited in law reviews and journals. his lectures around the country are consistently standing-room

only. his interview on the university of california's legally speaking television program has been viewed at least six times as often as any other guest. no doubt, some of this popularity, this buzz comes from his engaging personality, his wit and his sense of humor. people just enjoy being with a person like him, but it also comes from the substance, the sheer magnitude of the message that he delivers in that unique way. people like a witty, engaging person. they also respect powerful principles and a message that weighs more than a passing intellectual fad. i've so far spoken today about justice scalia the jurist. i cannot close this tribute, however, without a few comments about antonin fiscal lee yacht man. the horring on his supreme court nomination 25 years ago took place in the judiciary committee's regular hearing room which is much smaller than where we hold such hearings today.

his hearing lasted just two days, including testimony by witnesses. i can still remember that justice scalia's family occupied more than one row in the audience. justice scalia introduced them, including all nine of his children. he said that -- quote -- "i think we have a full committee." media cameras went crazy every time his youngest daughter may would lean her head on her mother's shoulder. may was just six years old then but as i remember, she held up very well, a we lawyers talked about all sorts of jurisprudential minutia. that sight impressed on me justice scalia's deep love for family and the sacrifice that family makes when someone like him is so devoted to public service. he's also a man of deep faith and love for our country, and the values on which it was founded.

five years ago i marked justice scalia's 20th verse in a speech here on the senate floor. i put into the record letters from some of his farmer law clerks and i want to do the same today. i ask consent to place in the record after my remarks letters from some of the following former law clerks: the presiding officer: without objection. hatch edward whalen who later served as my counsel when i was rank #-g member of the judiciary committee, is now president of the ethics in public policy center. paul clement who clerked diewrpg the october 1993 term and later served as solicitor general of the united states, is now partner in the bancroft law firm. mark phillip, who also clerked during the october 1993 term and later served as a u.s. district judge, is now a partner at kirkland and he will list in

chicago. brian fitzpatrick, who clerked diewrpg the october 2001 term, is now an associate professor at vanderbilt law school. and brian killian who clerked diewrng the october 2007 term is now an associate at the bingham mccutcheon law firm in washington. all law clerks owe antonin scalia a deep debt of grat dude. every day he serves on the supreme court, he gaffes gift to all of us. he is reintroducing us to the principles and document that make our liberties possible. he invites us in the word of the kelloggs cornflakes commercial, to try it again for the first time." i return to that scene of his first judicial confirmation hearing in 1982. the constitutional amendment process was under way that day, but it was rightly happening on the senate floor rather than in

the confirmation of a federal judge. keeping clear the principle that only the people have authority to change the constitution will give us, as justice scalia often pots, an enduring rather than an evolving constitution. we must step up and govern ourselves rather than look to judges to do it for us. i hope that we see this opportunity for what it is, following justice scalia's lead, grasping again the principles of liberty and resolving never to let them go. finally, let me just say one or two words that i'd like to say at the end here. i've been around here a long time. i've had a role with regard to every current member of the united states supreme court, and a number of those who have gone on. i have to say that one of the most respected men in this country is justice scalia, and i

count him as a friend, i count him as a mentor, i count him as a teacher and professor, i count him as one of the all-time greatest supreme court justices, a man who, without question, is as good a person as you can find. he's a terrific human being. his life has been a life of service to his fellow men and women. his wife is a terrific person. and, as far as i know, the kids are all great, too. all i can say that we've been really fortunate to that he's been willing to serve, as he has. we are a greatly strengthened country because of justice scalia. there are a number of justices in the history of this country to whom we have to look up.

he's one of them. he's one of the greatest. and i suspect that he will be quoted, he will be written about, he will be talked about for a long, long time. because of the genuine intellect of the man, the tremendous personality he has, the brilliant mind that we see on display every time he writes an opinion or gives a speech or lectures to us or gives a talk. this is one of the truly great people in our country today. i don't care whether you are a democrat or republican other liberal or conservative or somewhere else. this is a man we ought to all respect with every fiber of our beings and his family as well. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: my hope is we are moving into the homestretch of being able to pass the trade adjustment assistance legislation. i strongly support efforts to promote more exports. the president has set a laudable goal of increasing exports. we know that in the export sector, there's an opportunity to make things here, to grow things here, to add value to them here and then ship them around the world. and to promote these export markets and to generate the economic growth that our country wants, we've got to make sure that our workers have the latest, most updated skills to make sure that they can get those jobs in exports and get american products around the

world. as i indicated yesterday, madam president, there's no doubt that the american brand is a hit around the world. 90% of the consumers are outside the united states, and they want our products. and my hope is, as i indicated, that we're moving towards being able to pass this legislation, the trade adjustment assistance, pass legislation to increase the exports. and because some pretty astonishing comments have been made were with respect to the te adjustment assistance program, i want to take just a few minutes this afternoon and make sure that we can get some facts out to combat some of the rhetoric. for example, one comment that i've heard repeatedly is that the trade adjustment assistance is a sop to organized labor.

the argument here is that trade adjustment assistance is really just a give-away to labor unions. they are the people that want the program. it's something that is part of the labor priority list. i can tell the president of the senate, and i'm sure she hears the same thing that i hear at home, and that is folks who are members of labor unions don't come up to you and say what they want is the trade adjustment assistance. they come up and they say, "senator, what i want to do is have a good-paying job. i want a job where i can support my family, where i've got a living wage. that's what i'm really concerned about right now." madam president, what i'm concerned about is china, for example, with their low-interest loans. in some areas like solar manufacturing, where i've written the obama administration, the chinese are

undercutting our solar manufacturers because they're basically giving out free money now. that's what workers come up to senators and say, is "senator, i want to have a good job, one i can make sure that when i go to bed at night i'll know that when i wake up in the morning i'll be able to support my family." so the labor union folks don't come up and say this is what i want from unionized state, senate folks, the trade adjustment assistance program. the fact is, as has been documented by mathematic policy research, less than half of the participants in the trade adjustment assistance were members of a union. let me repeat that. less than half of those who participated in trade adjustment assistance were members of a union. in fact, this is a program that's available to all american workers who qualify. when you're talking about

applying in effect a trade adjustment assistance petition can be filed by any of the following groups: a group of three or more workers, an employer, a labor union, a state workforce official, a one-stop operator or partner, or any other person who is designate add duly authorized representative. now, this is to me the bottom line, madam president. in 2009, more than nine out of ten petitions for trade adjustment assistance relief were filed by nonunion firms or groups. and i want to repeat that, madam president, because we have heard so frequently that this is somehow a give-away to labor, a sop to the labor unions. madam president and colleagues, in 2009 more than nine out of ten t.a.a. petitions were filed by nonunion firms or groups.

more than two-thirds of the eligible population for the trade adjustment assistance program were not members of a union. so i hope at this point in the debate we can make it clear, we can make tu understandable that -- we can make it understandable that t.a.a. is not a program only available to labor unions. it is not true the trade adjustment assistance is only available to labor unions. t.a.a. is for all americans. and for senators who hear as this debate, as i indicated hopefully moves into the homestretch, i hope they'll remember that in 2009 more than nine out of ten t.a.a. petitions were filed by nonunion firms or groups. the second area that i wanted to touch on, madam president, in terms of trying to rebut some of

these criticisms about the trade adjustment assistance program is the argument that there is no need to extend eligibility to those in the service sector. now, in 2009, the congress expanded the trade adjustment assistance program so that service workers that are displaced by trade would be eligible for assistance. now, there has been criticism of this expansion, and i want to make sure, again, that senators and those who are listening to this debate actually get some of the key facts. now it's important to remember that 82% of employment between 2006 and 2010 was in the service sector. and to argue that workers in computer programming, finance, accounting and insurance do not

face foreign competition is just simply to put your head in the sand. the forthcoming paper by bradford jensen find americans employed in business and professional services face more international competition than workers in the manufacturing sector. so, again, when senators hear this argument that there is no case for extending trade adjustment assistance eligibility to service workers, i hope that they'll really think through the implications of international competition that our workers face in this sector because those in computer programming, in finance, in accounting, in insurance, those are important workers in the american economy. they played a big role, particularly in the export sector. and i think to just arbitrarily

say that they shouldn't be eligible for the trade adjustment assistance program, given what many of them are facing in terms of international competition, just isn't right. now, the third argument that i'd like to take on directly, madam president, is the argument that in some way the trade adjustment assistance program is a special, almost duplicative program. again, the facts show that this argument doesn't stand up. a mathematic policy research report from last year makes clear that workers who lose their jobs due to increased imports, surging imports is the way we ought to appropriately characterize it, madam president, those folks who are, therefore, eligible for the trade adjustment assistance program because of surging imports tend to be older, often

have less education, and have higher pre-layoff earnings compared to other unemployed americans. so that's why the trade adjustment assistance program is different than the unemployment insurance program. it is tailored to meet the distinct needs of a critical portion of the labor force. the workers are older. often they have less education. the transition, as the president of the senate knows, can be gut-wrenching because a lot of these individuals before their layoffs were making good wages. and now they're wondering how they're going to be able to get the skills, how they're going to be able to pick up the knowledge to tap the latest opportunities that are available in american business that's looking to export. this is a program that doesn't

duplicate any other. it's a program that is designed to serve a unique population. madam president, i'm sure we're going to continue through the rest of the discussion about trade adjustment assistance to see a lot of back and forth between senators with respect to the merits of the program. i continue to believe that we ought to start as we analyze it by remembering that this has always been a bipartisan program, number one. and, number two, petitions, t.a.a. petitions have been approved by labor departments in both democratic and republican administrations. this has roots in the bipartisan effort to support expanded trade. one study after another, madam president, shows that expanded trade, particularly

tapping export markets, can generate hundreds of thousands of jobs. but there is no question that as we try to make sure we don't lose a single job in america, even short-term, that some workers can end up needing some help during a transition from one job to another. and if they have been harmed by surging imports, the trade adjustment assistance program is there for them. that's why we ought to reauthorize it. i think we also ought to recognize that it is knit together with the effort to pass the free trade agreement, because the free trade agreements are about more exports. and to have all the workers we need for the potential export markets, we've got to make sure that workers who have been laid off have a chance to upgrade

their skills. we will come back to this topic, i'm certain, madam president. but i hope that in the last few minutes we've been able to at least offer some concrete documented facts that make clear that the trade adjustment assistance program is not a sop to organized labor, since in 2009 the vast majority of those granted relief had nothing to do with a labor union. second, that we made the case for why service workers facing very aggressive international competition ought to be eligible for the trade adjustment assistance program. and, third, i hope we've been able to lay out how this program doesn't duplicate any others because this is a unique group that disproportionately uses the program that's older, often with less education and the transition can be particularly

gut wrenching because very often they have higher pre-layoff earnings compared to other unemployed americans. i think we understand, madam president, that the biggest challenge for this senate is creating more good-paying jobs. in my state, about one out of six jobs depends on international trade. the trade jobs tend to pay better than do the nontrade jobs. that's why i consider it such an honor when chairman baucus asked me to chair the subcommittee, the finance subcommittee on international trade, because i saw this as an opportunity to grow the oregon economy and to grow good-paying, family-wage jobs. oregon has a very good record in terms of manufacturing. we face a whole host of dramatic challenges right now, madam president. for example, i'm particularly concerned about where our

country is headed in terms of manufacturing in the renewable energy sector. the chinese are engaged in very aggressive and, i think, questionable practices with respect to the chinese development bank and the fact that in effect they're giving free money to companies who could manufacture and undercut the american market. i have asked the obama administration to investigate this. if they don't, i'm certainly going to be looking legislatively at pursuing trade remedies. much of what we're faced with in terms of the renewable energy sector, particularly generating jobs in manufacturing in that sector deals with making sure that we have a rules-based trading system. we enjoy the fact that china is a trading partner. our state gets a significant amount of jobs from exporting

goods to china, but the chinese, like everybody else, has to comply with the rules, and there is a substantial amount of evidence that the rules aren't being complied with as it relates to manufacturing in the solar sector, and that's why i'm using my position as chairman of the trade subcommittee to get on top of it. we have already lost some solar manufacturers and we shouldn't sit idly by and lose more. that's the kind of challenge we ought to be working on. we ought to be working on together on a bipartisan basis, mr. president, not coming to the floor of the united states senate and blocking a piece of legislation that gives our workers an opportunity to get ahead, to get ahead in the private sector, to get ahead in the export market, to be in a position to get the good-paying jobs that are going to be available in the years ahead if we pass legislation to remove trade barriers.

the reality is in virtually all of these areas, madam president, our tariffs are low, which means that around the world, countries get to send their products to us and get almost totally free access to our market, and around the world when we try to ship our products to them, we face very substantial tariffs. that's what we're trying to change here on the floor of the united states senate, to level the playing field, because if we level the playing field, madam president, our workers get more out of it than do the workers of other countries. that, to me, ought to be particularly appealing to the united states senators now when our folks are hurting, when there is so much pain in communities across this country. when i'm home, i'm consistently seeing workers who are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bills against their fuel bills and their fuel bills against their medical costs, and they go to

bed at night wondering if they are going to have a good-paying job in the morning, giving -- given what's being reported every day in the newspaper in terms of layoffs and the kinds of challenges our companies are facing in tough global markets. that's why legislation to promote exports makes sense. it's an opportunity to provide a new measure of economic security to hard-working american families. to tap those export markets, we have got to make sure that our workers, all of our workers can get the skills and those kinds of opportunities to make sure that they can qualify for those export markets. this legislation, passing trade adjustment assistance, is a key component of our ability to generate more jobs in the private sector through exports. i certainly hope that we are in the homestretch of being able to

pass this legislation, move on to the agreements, move on to the opportunity to generate more exports because that means more work, good-paying work for our people. madam president, with that, i would yield the floor at this time. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i also believe profoundly that increasing our exports, improving our trading opportunities for businesses in this country can do a lot to get americans back to work. it employs a lot of people across this country today, and it's really important that we get these trade agreements done. i couldn't agree more with what my colleague from oregon had to say about that in terms of its

impact on the economy. what's unfortunate in my view is the fact that we have had to wait for so long to get to where we are. we have had trade agreements now that have been teed up, literally signed back in december of 2006 for colombia, panama and south korea in 2007, and it strikes me at least that we have lost a tremendous amount of opportunity and a tremendous amount of market share as a result of the delay. now, i would have hoped that yesterday we would have passed trade promotion authority because that allows us at least to be at the table to negotiate trade agreements in the future. we have been locked out basically of that since trade promotion authority lapsed back in 2007, and this is a global economy, madam president, and the world is passing us by. every single day that we are not engaged, that we are not out there negotiating trade agreements with countries around the world, somebody else is, and every single day, we're losing opportunities for american business to export and to grow

our economy and to create jobs here at home. and so what i want to speak to today is an amendment that i filed earlier this afternoon that deals with what i believe is a very important topic, and that is the high cost of delay when it comes to the pending free trade agreements. now, much attention has been paid in this debate to the pros and cons of trade adjustment assistance, and that's certainly a debate we ought to have, but we should not overlook the fact there has been a real cost to america's economy and to american business associated with the president's strategy to link passage of the free trade agreements to the renewal after an expanded trade adjustment assistance program. it's very unfortunate, especially considering even what the white house acknowledges, and that is that passing the trade agreements is one of the best things we can do in the short term to create jobs. according to the business roundtable, the passage of the trade agreements will support 250,000 american jobs. the u.s. chamber of commerce estimates this figure could be

as high as 380,000 u.s. jobs. you would think that passage of these trade agreements which were signed in 2006 and 2007 would have been a priority and an early priority for the obama administration, yet here we are more than two and a half years into this administration and the president still has not made a commitment to send us the trade agreements so that we can consider them. now, i hope that what we're doing today puts in place a process whereby that will happen, but as of right now, we have yet to see those trade agreements notwithstanding the president's assertions that he is committed to growing trade and to getting these trade agreements passed. that can't happen until they are submitted to the united states congress for ratification. i'm hopeful that the trade bill that's before us now will allow us to get to a full and fair debate on the trade adjustment assistance, and in so doing, we will finally get to where we have removed what i hope is the last obstacle blocking passage of the three fraiments -- free

trade agreements. under the current procedures, the international trade commission must prepare a report that is submitted to congress no later than 90 days after a trade agreement is signed. however, there is currently no requirement that the i.t.c. conduct a study to assess the negative impact on u.s. businesses when we delay implementation of an agreement, as we have with korea, colombia and panama. my amendment would simply require that the international trade commission assess the negative impact to u.s. businesses if a trade agreement is signed but has not been considered by congress within two years. the i.t.c. study would focus on lost u.s. exports, how the delay has impacted u.s. trade objectives as set forward under t.p.a., as well as how the delay impacts the protection of u.s. intellectual property overseas. the study would also estimate the impact on u.s. employment if

the trade agreement in question continues to languish. finally, the i.t.c. would be required to update this study in every year subsequent that the trade agreement is not considered by congress or if it is not entered into force. my amendment follows a basic principle. if we -- if the president, i should say, believes the trade agreement is in america's national and economic interests, he needs to submit it to congress. the three pending trade agreements that hopefully will be considered soon are a good case in point. consider that united states companies have paid more than than $5 billion in tariffs to colombia and panama since the trade agreements with these nations were signed more than four years ago. that's $5 billion that american companies have had to put out in the form of tariffs to these countries because these are trade agreements which were signed more than four years ago haven't entered into force. more importantly, u.s. businesses have lost countless business opportunities in korea, colombia and panama.

without trade agreements to ensure similar treatment for our exporters, american businesses will continue to face high tariff and nontariff barriers abroad. consider just one example, madam president. the market for agricultural products in korea which is the world's 13 largest economy, korea's tariffs on imported agricultural goods average 54% compared to an average 9% tariff on these imports into the united states. passage of the korea free trade agreement will level this playing field, yet the administration continues to delay sending these agreements to congress. at a time of near-record unemployment and slow economic growth, this delay is unacceptable. this ongoing delay is having a real impact on american businesses, and it will only get worse. the colombian market for agricultural products is another good example of the high cost of delay. in 2010, for the first time in the history of u.s.-colombia trade, the u.s. lost to

argentina its position as colombia's number one agricultural supplier. consider the story of the three crops, main crops that we grow in south dakota, soybeans, corn and wheat. the combined market share in colombia for these three u.s. agricultural exports has decreased from 78% in 2008 to 28% in 2010 a decline of 50 percentage points. we are living in a global economy where america cannot afford to stand still and to stay on the sidelines when it comes to trade. in 1960, exports accounted for only 3.6% of our entire g.d.p. today, exports account for 12.5% of our g.d.p. exports of u.s. goods and services support over 10 million american jobs. it is long past the time, madam president, that we get back in the game by passing the three

pending trade agreements and then to work aggressively to make sure that our administration is in a position with trade adjustment assistance to promote new agreements that will open up new market opportunities for american business. america's manufacturers, america's farmers, america's service providers cannot afford to wait any longer. and so what this amendment does, madam president, very simply, is requires us to weigh and to evaluate and to analyze the impact of delay when it comes to implementing these free trade agreements. we have seen in these examples of colombia and panama and south korea with great clarity the impact, the economic impact, the loss of market share that has occurred to many of our exporters as a result of this delay. it's important that we know, that american business know, that the american people know what we're losing when we delay these agreements, as has happened here with these three particular agreements. so it's a straightforward

amendment, madam president, and i raise it to raise what i think is an important issue, and that is that when we get signed agreements, we need to take action on those. they need to be submitted, ratified and enacted on by the united states congress or we are going to continue to lose out to critical important opportunities for american exporters. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, before he leaves, i -- i simply want to say to the distinguished senator from south dakota, he is the ranking republican on our subcommittee, that i very much enjoy working with him and have listened carefully to his remarks, and it seems to me what we ought to be addressing here in the senate is that our country is about opportunities, it's about opportunities, trade agreements present an

opportunity for more exports, something as the senator from south dakota touched on is particularly promising for areas like agriculture, south dakota and oregon, huge opportunities. america is about exports, free trade agreements are about opportunities and exports. the trade adjustment assistance program is about opportunities for our workers to update their skills, and in a sense, american business is only as competitive as their workers, and that's why in my view we have always had this tradition, a bipartisan tradition which i have tried to highlight this afternoon of making sure that we would look at every possible opportunity to advance trade. i think before the senator came to the floor, i talked and you and i have talked about this, our tariffs have historically been low compared to the rest of the world. they have got, you know, big

tariffs. we have trade agreements to level the playing field. our side gets more out of it than everybody else. part of the bipartisan approach to trade. and it seems to me we have a chance and i hope we're heading into the home stretch because i think the senator from south dakota has correctly noted it is certainly time to get this done, to get it to the president's desk, that we can resolve this by saying that this is an opportunity for the congress, the senate, at its best, because we can be in the opportunities business. trade agreements generating opportunities for exports that are clear winners for the american economy when we have high unemployment, economic insecurity, surging imports from japan, we need opportunities for our businesses to export. but we also need opportunities for our workers, and i hope as we move into the home stretch of

this discussion we can see the trade adjustment assistance is an opportunity for our workers to update their skills as they update their skills, that's going to make american businesses, particularly our exporters, more competitive because they will have workers that can take the job. i make a unanimous consent request, madam president, but i did want to express my appreciation to the senator from south dakota. he and i have worked very closely on a whole host of issues, in fact, some that i think are going to be a big part of the future debate, the senator from south dakota and i want to make sure that those who manufacture digital goods in our country and offer digital services get treated fairly in international markets. this is also a promising opportunity, digital goods, software, for example, digital services like cloud computing, under the legislation the senator from south dakota and i have offered, we can break down some of the barriers to those kinds of products, looking

forward to working with him on that and a number of other issues. and madam president, i would just in closing, these remarks ask unanimous consent that the following members of the finance committee staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the generalized system of preferences act, joseph skovec and daniel dellerson if they could. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: madam president, i yield the floor at this time. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i just wanted to say i appreciate the senator from oregon, and he and i have worked together on a number of issues, not the least of which is some of these trade issues and i look forward to continuing that collaboration. i do believe the senator from oregon is someone who really understands the value of opening up export opportunities for american businesses, and has worked and advocated on their behalf in his time here in the senate. i think the senator would

understand the frustration, perhaps felt by him and others, that these things have languished so long. i understand the issue of trade adjustment assistance is very important to him and many other members on his side of the aisle, as well as to some on our side, but it strikes me at least that could have been at this a lot sooner, and not have relinquished and given up so many of the lost market opportunities i mentioned in my remarks and it certainly impacts in agricultural state like mine, many other members represent agricultural areas of this country and you look at the loss of market share that's occurred in the last few years since we've sort of been locked out and other countries have moved in to fill that vacuum, it is very frustrating to many of us to have witnessed that. and that's why this amendment is sort of -- sort of gets at the idea that we need to know what the impacts are, what the

economic impacts are when these trade agreements don't get dealt with. one way or the other, these agreements need to be dealt with and here we are almost five years later with regard colombia, over four years later with regard panama and south korea. that's way too long for us to be out of the game, so to speak, and it has cost us mightily. i hope we can get this done, he's right, we have a process in place that i hope will enable us to finally accomplish this, but we ought to make sure that doesn't happen again in the future. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. wyden: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: