overtime. the kind of long-term debt stabilization reforms we are talking about which ought to come out of the select committee will not damage the economy in the short run. we do need more job creation and things that will widen the deficit a bit but they will help get us on track to stronger growth. .. >> peter, they want to --

>> let me pick up on something that you all have touched on, but the elephant in the room, the debate in washington right now. to go big you have to put revenue and entitlement programs on the table. senator crapo, i will start with you. this'll be a tough choice for your republican colleagues. though sitting on the super committee, what happens to revenue? how do you sell your fellow republicans on revenue as a component? do you talk about the same as president obama? >> you put your finger right on the biggest issue that has to be handled between the two parties if we were resolve it. i personally think they can be resolved. and a number of ways. to me the easiest way for us to address it is to deal with the way that congress scores various proposals, and as bowles-simpson commission recommended allow us to become more effective and accurate is going the impact of various policies. what am i talking about?

in shorthand it's utilizing dynamic scoring rather than static scoring. if you do that, the impact of various tax proposals can be understood to generate the kind of economic growth that teach you the revenue piece of the equation without raising taxes. in fact, what the bowles-simpson commission did was literally to reduce tax rates, flattened the code and something would pay more taxes under that kind of a system, some people would pay less but the bottom line is that we then were able to debate over whether an intimate if any of that should be allocated to get retirement as opposed to rate reduction. and i believe that's the area where we can get the most progress. but we can't get past that if we assume that there is just a static response of the economy to any of the decisions that are made of the proposals are put on the table. the key things that need to be done is that we need to accept the notion of analyzing the impact of various tax proposals

with a static, excuse me, with a dynamic model. and then from that point we can analyze the kinds of revenue impact that we need to generate for the economy come from different proposals. >> erskine bowles, that's not a conversation that most people are having right now. >> actually it's a conversation that i that any number of times in the last several weeks with almost all of the members of the super committee. i'm actually relatively hopeful. i wouldn't say optimistic, but i am for a couple of reasons. first of all i think we came out with our plan in december of last year, the politics have changed quite a bit. i think most people here in town have actually understood the economics and the need to do 4 trillion over 10 year period. but the politics got in the way because it was tough. it's politically tough for either side to make decisions.

but this old debt default fiasco that we just went through, i think for all the pain associated with doing nothing to the forefront of the minds of the american people, and they get educated on what can happen if we do have a default in this country. so i think the politics changed. if you look at the polls, the majority of republicans, majority democrats and majority of independents want to see a sensible deal done. they want to see this country move forward. secondly, in water -- in order for something to pass this committee, instead of having to get a super majority as we did, they can only have to get a simple majority. that's a lot easier to ask. we actually got a single majority. we get 60% of the members of our commission to vote for the plan. as senator crapo said, we have 60 senators honor committee,

three republicans, three democrats, five of those senators voted just. i think getting a simple majority is possible. third, in this case doing nothing involved in a lot of pain. because you're going to have across the board cuts. you're going to have to sequester. u.s. $600 billion of additional cuts to the military budget and $600 billion worth of cuts in nondefense budget. so doing nothing is not without its own pain. we can do it a lot smarter. and lastly, our experience with the commission was that a more comprehensive we made it, the more support we got. people didn't want to do this. it's just their own offices going to be gored. but everybody had to get in again, if everybody was going to make some sacrifice, then by golly everybody was willing to get aboard and we got over 60% of the members of the

commission, a majority of republicans and democrats vote just. so i'm hopeful. >> something you want to add to that? you have seen the congressional process. there's not a lot of time for these folks, the super committee, between now and thanksgiving. you all asking them to double down. >> we really are. and i think the 1.5 are the sequester, either way, sequester is worse, but if they only do that, then they really will have failed because they will not have stabilized the debt or shown that we can solve the long run problem and they wanted anything about the short run problem either. so the only way you do that is to go big. i wanted to come back to tax reform because i think the potential there is for a real win-win, you mentioned the president, and as senator crapo it is plan was the same as the president. you wisely didn't answer that.

but what the president emphasized in his speech was higher contributions from upper income people. now, when you look at a thoroughgoing tax reform of the sort that we did in dementia prevalence, or in simpson-bowles, liberals often look at it and say, i don't like that. lowering the tax rates and that's easier on rich people. no, it isn't. you have to look at what happens to the deductions and exemptions and exclusions. because those benefit upper income people disproportionately. and you can do tax reform that i believe will be very progrowth. and no less progressive than our current system. >> do you have a thought as to what the breakdown should be between, again revenue on one side and spending reductions on the other? what's the right -- >> oh, there's no right next. the big point is we have to do

something. and that's where our task force in the simpson-bowles group and everybody who studied this problem says you can't get there on the spending side alone. you can't get on the revenue side alone. >> do you want to weigh in? >> yes. first of all i think we got right on the simpson-bowles also. and i voted for it for that reason. and i think erskine said it right. it affected everybody. we tried to think about things particularly. spending reductions but we tried to do it thoughtfully. there was additional revenue, but again i think we did that by saying let's take time to rethink the tax code so that everybody wins in this, even if you pay more there's a way to win in this because you end up with a better economy, simple system, something everybody understands. i'm a big advocate of just continuing that path and thinking about it that way. i've been asked a number of times after having spent time on

this commission and spending more time down here what are some of the observations. and i've got a couple i will share. one is i say that every conversation here is ruled by the three ages. hysteria, histrionics and hyperbole. [laughter] everything. guys like senator crapo, i don't know how you get your job done. i can't believe the ridiculousness of the conversations, to the point where there were meetings were i would look at someone and say you can't possibly believe what you just said. it's totally illogical. and a tickle look at the spending reductions that we had in simpson-bowles. and you hear words like drastic, draconian and destroyed, pick whatever your favorite group is, you're destroying them. so i did a little math to get a sense for it and found that okay, if you did nothing, the average annual growth rate in spending was 5%.

if you enacted simpson-bowles, the average annual growth rate in spending was 4%. the difference is five and four, yet it is drastic, it's draconian, you are destroying things. i've never seen such ridiculousness in language put around something that idea as an american competitiveness issue. in terms of doing things something can happen, one of the things, having spent time, i'm not it political salon, so i can't predict that when, but one of the things that has struck me, is that growing up in new hampshire and running companies, one of the things i always learn is what i thought, what i said, what i did, all had to be the same thing. where as here that's three different things. [laughter] so what people are saying isn't necessarily what they are thinking, is it necessary what they're willing to do, and i'd like to think that everybody can

understand the magnitude of the problem that we are dealing with, recognizing the whole system as opposed to gear up to compromise, we can accomplish what's going to be an important fundamental for the country's growth. >> what i would like to do is give members of the audience a chance as questions, if there are any. if people would like to weigh in, hold up your hand and we'll get you a microphone, otherwise i have plenty of questions i can ask. yes, right there. microphone is coming to you. >> i'm nitze. one of the things that struck because i'm also a c-span addict, is that there's not enough detail. so when you say you want to cut something, what are you talking about? what is this new tax plan look like? the devil is in the detail and you want us to just emotionally lead to a new space. and i just come and i'd like it to be not only in the words but more importantly in pictures

because it's so complex, you can't see it otherwise. you don't understand it. and make it easy for all of us to find it. >> i do actually that is a fair criticism of what we did. we had a staff of exactly two, for our commission work on which i consider to be one of the most important habits of my life and for my generation. so i think from a marketing viewpoint we probably did a pretty poor job. however, the information is there as an example, people -- i was hit when i watch the sunday shows and u.s. people, your document cutting the budget, what would you cut? and they would say, they don't have any specifics. we detailed every single cut. as a matter of fact, we gave more cuts than we actually had to use in order to meet our recommendations. and we were very specific

whether it was for defense or nondefense, or an ton of programs. and i think that's what you deserve. >> but people have to dig for it. one thing i learned -- she needs the microphone. thanks. spent the one thing i learned from mike mullen, is if it takes more than five minutes for him to look at it and understand, he won't look at it. i think it's a lesson you will need to learn. the narrative really matters. and i haven't been able to understand your narrative beyond the first layer, and i actually care. but i don't have time to do the digging, it's like doing research reports at these think tanks, they are nicely written and they go on a bookshelf. >> this is a little bit different. that's not a fair criticism. i think you go back and read our report, it's not like 700 pages. there are a lot of appendixes to

it. it's written in very, very plain english, and i guarantee you, you can understand it. >> that's ask one of the presents i notice briefly went people are talking about this, they're trying to things that would make it worse or they were just talking about principles. principles are sound really nice. one of the things about the fiscal commission and also domenici-rivlin commission is even when they said this is a framework for how something could work because indiscretion spending you do it through caps. they then proceeded to put a luster to the examples of how you would fill in all the savings. so you do have to dig somewhat but if you go and look for the fiscal commission of the domenici-rivlin report, there's so many policies out there that have been fully developed, flushed out, i think that's one of the vintage i is a super committee head is the work has been done. they have these wonderful starting point, these comprehensive reports with details of reforms that in both cases have been supported in a bipartisan way. so now it's time for the political discussion on how to

work out the details and how to come up with a compromise. >> that's one of the things that gives me comfort they can do this by september 23. so some work has been done. >> david? >> well, there's too much agreement here. >> you must identify yourself. >> david stockton. i would like to cause some dissension. it's obvious you're spending 24%, taking a 15%, you need a massive new source of revenue. we vetted thirty-year referendum on spinning. we're going to cut but not much. that should be either a setback, because -- they are not doing anything that's very important or interesting. for the economy right now. but what we hear and did is the great white hope is tax reform. i'd like to suggest to this group, and see your reaction, that tax reform at the end of tax reform is a massive swap at

the end of the achieve goals which will lead to political conflict and result in even worse polarization than we have today. supposedly there's a trillion tax expenditure. 200 million of that is for capital gains and dividends. 180 billion of that is a preference for retirement. employer plans, et cetera, et cetera. 170 billion is medical and all is different. 120 billion is home own and all its different pieces. you put that together, $700 billion, and which part of that i going to blast away? how much revenue i going to get out of the lower tax rate that you might be able to trade off? i think it's the wrong direction but it will not solve the revenue problem. it will immerse the system and conflict for a long period of time. meanwhile, the red ink continues to build. the bonds will continue to be issued and we will be tempting

fate. so, i would, fill that out because there's too much consensus about tax reform. it's a great idea, but i don't see it is a productive route to go, even though it sounds great. >> let me take the first stab at that because i will have to disagree with you. you got your conflict now. you certainly are right that reform the tax code is an incredibly difficult task, and getting into the weeds of doing that is a complicated and difficult thing. but just use the bowles-simpson model as one example, and when we were delivering in the bowles-simpson we had before us a number of different tax proposals that have been very well thought out by a number of very prominent analysts. different kinds, ranging from a consumption type text of an income tax, or mixtures of the two. and admittedly they didn't get

that into the weeds to the kind of detail you say will cause a political strife. but the bowles-simpson commission basically did. they get what each of the examples that you talked about in their a luster to the option. and, in fact, did it down to the numbers. and by doing so were able to show on the specific tax expenditures as well as the others which they propose to eliminate how you could then compensate by reducing the rates. many people say to me, this special committee can't deal with tax reform because it's just too complicated to get it done by december. it may be true that it is too complicated to write every, cross every t. and dot every i. but it's not too competent to statutory put into place the parameters of a tax reform package and didn't ask congress to do it. and i think they can do it whether it's simpson-bowles model or some different model, i think they can get done. one thing i will agree with you on because i everybody here on the panel have experienced it, and that is when she proposed it, the knives come out.

every single special interest group in america i think was activated when we put our proposal on the table. and i felt it from the front and back. and still am. so i will admit to you that it is a ferocious fight out there, but i will take that at the same time i got an equal number, maybe not even more, compliments from people saying you know what? we've got to do this. and it's time for america to take this opportunity and move forward. >> david, we did look at a consumption tax, as you probably know. and we spent a lot of time talking about it. and many of us on the commission prefer a consumption tax to attacks on work or tax on capital, as a better way to finance the operations of the country. and you can do a consumption tax although it's not as progressi progressive.

however i thought there were two reasons we didn't do it. one, there was a sense of the senate that passed while we were meeting that i think past, was it 87 or 93 do nothing. i thought that was -- [inaudible] but more importantly i thought the republican members of our commission a very good argument. and that was in less you're going to eliminate the income tax, if you have an income tax and a consumption tax, then what you have created is to engines of revenue. and over time those two engines will hit heads and you end up taking too much revenue out of the economy. and, therefore, we set it aside. we then looked at other alternatives, and i was personally amazed to see that we have about $1 trillion worth of revenue that comes into the country in corporate and

individual income tax. that's the debt number. that's after $1.1 trillion of the tax expenditures. and all these tax expenditures are is spinning in the tax code. it's just been invited another name. so we said in our zero option, as an example which is one of the options we put out there, what if we just eliminate all of these tax expenditures? what could we do with rates? what if we use 90% of it, or around 90%, i think using 92% of that money, to reduce rates, and 80% of it to bring down the deficit. under that approach we could reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years, and we could take income tax rates to 8% of the $70,000, 40% up to 210,000, and the maximum marginal rate of 23%. you could take the corporate rate to 26%, and we did put in a

system so that the trillion dollars was not captured overseas to be brought back to this country to create jobs over here. we thought that would create dynamic growth for the country. it would bring down the deficit, and it could be done at a very progressive manner. we did an analysis on our work, and doing it as alice said earlier, was just as progressive as our current tax code so we thought that was a viable way to move forward. spent i think the short answer is, there's a potential bipartisan coalition for simplifying the tax code, broadening base and bringing down the rate. it appeals to both democrats and republicans. there is no such coalition in favor of a consumption tax. in the domenici-rivlin report we did have a broad-based consumption tax, but we came to think that was not really feasible. because everybody is against it.

that democrats are against it because they think it's regressive. and republicans are against it because it's a new tax and might raise too much money. so you have a negative coalition. spent wasn't that always the famous larry summers thing we always did when they realize the opposite, then everyone would come to rally around it? [laughter] >> that's true. >> just to build on erskine's point on that, i would have to say that i would into this thinking i should be open-minded about it, take a look at it, read a book about and talked a number of people. and this is kind of one of the other learnings when erskine explained the concern about to engines of growth. we were having a conversation one day, one of the committee meetings, and i immerse myself with details, and the extent of talking about caps, triggers, sequesters, and i was having a

real difficult time swallowing all of this stuff. and i finally turned to someone and said you know, this sounds to me like you're congress is trying to protect itself against commerce. and they said yeah, that's exactly right. and when you start thinking about it that way saying throw in this whole new dynamic with a bat, it made me nervous, cause me to start thinking the other way. in terms of the conflict, the conflict will be there anyway. you are talking about four to $8 trillion over the next 10, 15 years, the conflict will be there. and i thought, i was at a meeting with senator blunt this morning, and i thought he gave us an interesting american history lesson, kind of going through over the last 230 years the various points in time where there were major times of controversy, followed by big decisions that put the country on the right path or develop the path for the country over the

next 20 or 30 years. he pointed out jefferson, jackson, lincoln, lyndon johnson, teddy roosevelt, fdr, reagan being the last one in his view. but he said, and i thought it was interesting is that given what we're facing right now we're at another one of those times. when you put in the context of the 1 billion participants i was talking about, now 4 billion participants in the global economy, to me that brought that comment home. this is one of those times, and we need to have this discussion. we can't avoid it. if we really want to be the kind of global economic power that we are today and we want to have that same kind of position for our kids and grandkids, we need to be having these conversations now. >> real quick if i could. senator crapo, mr. cody says this is the time, or some here in washington when the time was back in december when you're came out with your plan. now we are too close to a presidential election. there's no way to get a big deal

now. >> well, first of all the closer we get to an election, particularly presidential election, the harder it gets. that's just a political fact of life. i refuse to accept the so-called political wisdom that we just have to wait until after the next election. for one thing, it's pretty much everybody on this panel has said, we don't have that long to wait. i think if we wait another 18 months, we lose a critical time. both in terms of being able to create the adequate solutions and in terms of being able to get the political momentum. secondly, the detail work has been done, not only by the commissions we talked about here but by many others. it's not a problem tried to figure out how to do a different solutions in the discretionary budget or entitlement budgets or in the tax reform. it's a problem of building the political consensus. and i personally believe that now is the time, it is doable if we will not tell ourselves that we can't do it.

we have the capacity to do it. in fact, the reason we're all here today is to tell the congress, i hope, to tell the american people that we have an incredible opportunity out of this crisis that we face to build, as dave said, to put america on the kind of half that we all know we want to be on. >> the american people are far better educated about the perils of this today than they were back in december. nobody believed back in december we could get a majority to ots for our plan, and we got a super majority vote. >> we will move onto the next panel but i just want to close wasn't -- with an observation. one more question for erskine. so much of this band ended up focusing on tax reform which is interesting because taxes is one of the biggest hotspots in this whole thing. are we going to come are not going to? i think there are ways to get around that which is progrowth form.

that is a bipartisan consensus about how that could work, how it's good for the economy, its amplifies the tax code. at the other piece of that is that really only goes hand-in-hand with fundamental entitlement reform. i think that's another reason that people have been hesitant to put in a new revenue stream because what you really want to make sure is that the drivers of the problem our health care and retirement programs actually are reformed in a way that are sustainable and you want that to be paired with attacks afford it and i think one of the things of erskine, when i listen to you and senator simpson talk on the road and all around this, is that the more you brought all those pieces onto the table and the more impact on the commission you win big, much to your surprise instead of losing people you get getting more people coming on. if you would mind posing with that observation. >> simply, the more comprehensive we made it, the more standard everybody had to gain. the more people were willing to support. the answer to this whole question is, look, the problem

the nation faces are real. they are big. and the solutions are all going to be painful. dick durbin said when he voted yes, there were things in the plan that he hated more than the devil hated holy water. [laughter] but he voted yes, because he didn't believe that they should get any other choice. the problems are real. the solutions are painful, and there is no easy way out. we said we have to face up to it and go big or go home. >> all right. thank you. i would like to thank this panel. while the second panel comes up, thank you so much. [applause] >> you can see this event in its entirety online at c-span.org. >> we go live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate is convening today. today on the floor we expect the senate to finish a bill that helps american workers hurt by foreign trade with votes this

afternoon. legislation is part of an agreement to vote on trade deals on the panama and south korea. over in the house, today's agenda includes a bill that would require president obama to establish a committee to analyze the effects of some epa rules. the clock is running down on congressional approval of money to keep the federal government operating. the house voted down a temporary measure yesterday when it's applied money for government operations until november 18. the senate can only take up that legislation after house prar wil approval. and out of live coverage innocent here on c-span2. dr. silvester s. beaman senior pastor of the bethel african methodist episcopal church in will mipgton, delaware. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and god of glory, as this great hall prepares to open for another session of deliberations, we humbly submit our minds, energies, gifts, and

graces to you that we may be men and women sensitive to the concerns of a nation in great expectation. use the collective resolve of our united states senate as your instrument, bringing wholeness and peace in an age where injury, indifference, uncertainties, and deficiency swirl as an immobilizing specter. show us a glimpse of your radiance, removing all doubts and fears; liberating and inspiring, till hope and possibility become a living reality. we are forever yours and forever faithful. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag

of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 21, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i would yield to my friend, the junior senator from delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president, thank you, leader reid. i rise simply to give honor and gratitude that this morning our opening prayer was offered by the reverend dr. silvester s.

beaman of a.m.e. zion on the east side of wilmington, a great voice for justice in my home state. it is a critical part of our nation's tradition that we begin every session with prayerful reflection. i'm thrilled that today he's able to be joined by his wife, renee, a registered nurse, and to be able to comment for a moment that reverend dr. beaman, born in niagara falls, new york, who started his mission work and his service in hamilton, bermuda with his wife. early on saw the challenges of h.i.v.-aids and the risks and opportunities for worship and for mission that this pandemic provides to our community. he's been with us now 19 years in delaware, and the two of them have been recognized far and wide in our state and region for the beautiful gate crowd reach ministry which they launched. i think it was dietrich bonnhoffer who said it is the charge of ministry to afflict

the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. in partnership with his wife renay, they have provided exactly that sort of challenging and effective leadership, that great and prophetic voice for our community in wilmington,-to-air. mr. president, i'm grateful for the opportunity to have his prayer reflections begin our deliberations today. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in morning business for an hour, republicans will droll first half and the joasht the final half. following morning business senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2832. later today, the senate will complete action on the gsp and t.a.a. bill. there will be up to five roll call votes on this bill. i'll work with the republican leader to set a time that's convenient to do that. i think more importantly, mr. president, now that we've arrived at an agreement on how to move the trade adjustment

assistance out of here, is what's going to happen -- excuse me. in the house. last week something all too rare these days happened here in this chamber. we had some bipartisanship. ten republicans joined democrats in voting to give the fema, the federal emergency management agency, the money they need to fund their important operations for the foreseeable future. their bill would have jeopardized the agency's ability to help americans affected by tragedy to put their lives back together. that is what the house did.

the house, what they did last night was so wrong. mr. president, we passed a bill a few months ago that would take care of funding for the rest of this year. from october 1 to october 1. rather than doing what we had agreed upon and the american people saw us work for months to agree upon, they reneged on that deal. they tried last night to send a continuing resolution for a few weeks, and they attached to it which they shouldn't have attached anything to it because we'd already agreed on it, attached to it a very, very unfair fema funding matter. they -- to show how spiteful they were, we've done great things in this country with doing things with modern

vehicles. we have, i had an energy summit at the end of august in las vegas, they had all these electric cars lined up that they can show us. this is the result of money that we have given here, taxpayers' money, to stimulate that part of our manufacturing sector and it's worked out great. it's been wonderful. as steny hoyer, one of the democratic leaders in the house, said, what the house did is try to legislate away 53,000 jobs. they took money that was in the pipeline to do more of those electric cars and other kinds of new vehicles, they took that money and stripped it away. they -- they applied that towards something we haven't done around here, and that is fund emergency situations around the country. and to rub salt in the wound,

they not only took that, a billion dollars' worth, but they took $500 million worth and just rescinded it, wiping out jobs and not applying it to the deficit, just doing it i guess to show that they're in control of the house. but that fell apart last night. it fell apart because republicans and democrats would not support that issue. now, we don't know what they're going to do over there today. there are all kinds of rumors floating around, we don't foe, i haven't spoken to the speaker or the majority leader over there. i haven't talked to them. there are all kinds of rumors as to what they might do, they might try to send it back to us again. but the one thing i heard loud and clear and my colleagues have to understand that, the republicans have announced in the house they may in session this weekend. i hope that's not the case. i've spoken to the republican leader here, if they send us something, we'll do our very,

very utmost to move as quickly as we cannon that to take action on whatever they send us. but i want to send this message to them. they should not renege on the agreement that was legislationed here ledge slated here, just a few short weeks ago, that is funding the government for the next year. we've agreed upon that and whatever they send us they should send us a continuing resolution until we work on getting the appropriation bills done, send us a continuing resolution with nothing attached to it. if they disagree with what we did over here, they have over in the house side our bill which passed here on a bipartisan basis. if they don't like that, send us back something else. we think that the overwhelming support of the nation is for something that we did but don't tie it to the c.r. that's simply not the right thing to do. we're going to be alert and wait for the house to act. we really are at an impasse here, not because of what we're

doing, but because of what they're doing, and we'll wait and see what action they take. it's important that they act as quickly as they can. we know that we had scheduled next week to be off, we hopefully -- we hope we can do that. we have an important holiday next wednesday that is the reason we're taking next week off, but i look forward to working with my colleagues here in the senate, both democrats and republicans, to move forward as quickly as we can. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: over the past week president obama has been traveling around the country trying to set a record for the number of times he can say the words "pass this bill right away." the number of times he can say it actually in a five-minute speech. and today he'll bring his act to a 50-year-old bridge that connects my own state of

kentucky with ohio. now, the purpose of this visit is perfectly clear. the the, the president's plan is to go out to this bridge and say if only lawmakers in washington would pass his second stimulus bill right away, then bridges like this one would get fixed. and that the only thing standing in the way of repairing them is people like me. well, i would just like to paying a couple of points about all of this. first, i find it hard to take the president's moaj all that seriously -- message all that seriously when his own communications director is over at the white house telling people he's no longer interested in legislative compromise and when the leaders of the president's own party in congress are treating this bill like an afterthought. we'd be more inclined to look at this so-called jobs bill if the president's own staff and members of his own party in congress started taking it a little more seriously themselves.

now, second, i remind the president that the people of kentucky and ohio have heard this kind of thing before. don't forget, the president made the same promises when he was selling his first stimulus, it's the message he brought to ohio repeatedly. here's what he said two years ago this week at a stop in warren, ohio. "all across ohio and all across the country, rebuilding our roads and our bridges, that's what the recovery act has been all about." now, the recovery act is the stimulus bill, the first one. yet 2 1/2 years later what do we have to show for it? politically connected companies like solyndra ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars provided by the taxpayers and bridges like the one the president is attending today still need to be fixed.

it's worth noting in fact that this one company blew through more taxpayer money than the first stimulus allocated for every road and bridge in the entire state of kentucky combined. now, the president told ohioans and kentuckians the first stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% as well. yet 2 1/2 years later, unemployment in both states is still above 9%. so we've heard these promises before. and i don't think the president should expect anybody to fall for them again. i mean how many stimulus bills do we have to pass before these bridges get fixed? how many? how many solyndras do we have to finance? how much money do we have to waste before the president paiks good on the promises that he has already made? if a bridge needs fixing, by

all means, let's fix it. but don't tell us we need to pass a half a trillion-dollar stimulus bill and accept job-killing tax hikes to do it. don't tell the people of kentucky they need to finance every turtle tunnel and solar panel company on some bureaucrat's wish list in order to get their bridges fixed. and don't patronize us by implying if we pass the second stimulus that bridges will get fixed right away. the american people heard the same thing when the administration was selling the first stimulus. only to turn on their television sets 2 1/2 years later to see the president having a big laugh over the fact that all these shovel-ready projects weren't quite as shovel-ready as they thought they were. so i would suggest, mr. president, that you think about ways to actually help the people of kentucky and ohio instead of

how you can use their roads and bridges as a backdrop for making a political point. if you're truly interested in helping our state, if you really want to help our state, then come back to washington and work with republicans on legislation that will actually do something to revive our economy and create jobs and forget the political theater. mr. president, i yield the floor. under the previouofficer under s order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in 00 period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the senator from nebraska is recognized.

mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to address the palestinian efforts to gain statehood at the united nations, all of that occurring this week. as most of us are aware, palestinian authority president abbas has signaled that he intends to ask the united nations for acceptance as a full-member state. several of my colleagues, and i might add, from both sides of the aisle have expressed grave concern over this palestinian initiative. president obama has indicated that if this initiative is brought to a vote before the security council, the united states plans to veto it. i support that. however, even if the veto occurs, president abbas may then choose to ask the general aseemly to upgrade palestinian

status to that of a nonvoting observer state. if allowed to become a nonvoting observer state, palestinians could then participate on u.n. committees and bring allegatio allegations, bring allegations against israel to the international criminal court and international court of justice. recognizing a palestinian state in this manner could also lead to further isolation of israel within the middle east, and these are outcomes that we simply can't tolerate. israel, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a stalwart friend and ally of the united states. they share our core values as a nation. they are a thriving democracy in a part of the world where democracies are very hard to find.

and, importantly, they stand strong with us in the battle against international terrorism. thus, it is imperative -- it is absolutely imperative that we stand with israel and do everything we can to send a very clear and straightforward message. that message is this: the united states stands with our friends, and we will not allow an international organization to undermine this important and valued friend. congress has been very clear on this imperative. our strong bipartisan commitment was reinforced earlier this summer when both the senate and the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed regulations reaffirming the

united states' commitment to direct negotiations between the realize anisraelis and the prin. the resolution included opposition to this palestinian bid for u.n. statehood and a palestinian government that includes hamas. in light of this unwavering bipartisan support from congress, it is crucial that our president continue to make it absolutely clear that the united states stands firm in our opposition to this effort. we have an opportunity, and we must signal to the rest of the world that a lasting peace, which we all want to achieve, will only result from direct negotiations between the israelis and the palestinians, not through parliamentary procedure at some international

organization. while the united states supports a two-state solution, we will not tolerate actions by international organizations to drive a wedge into the israeli-palestinian peace process. although president abbas claims this initiative is a peaceful approach to resolving the conflict, the palestinian authority has refused time and time again to come to the negotiating table and to deal directly with israel. setting up roadblock after roadblock after roadblock, president abbas has demanded preconditions that have not applied to previous negotiations. this bid for u.n. statehood also violates the 1993 oslo peace agreements signed by the

palestinian authority, which require the peace process to continue through direct negotiations. the u.n. statehood bid is counterproductive to a two-state solution, as it will further damage israel's confidence in the palestinian authority as a legitimate negotiating partner. but, unfortunately, president abbas intentioned to form a unity government with hamas does not signal support or pursuit of a lasting peace. hamas has made its intentions clear, that they have no intention of endin ending attacn palestinians or israelis working toward a two-state solution. let me be very clear. if the palestinian authority continues to associate with

hamas and refuses to negotiate directly with israel, of course there's consequences. i can assure you that the senate and the house of representatives will stand together to make our disapproval known. u.s. aid to the palestinian authority is not on cruise control. congress will not walk away from supporting an appropriate way forward in the peace process that respects the equal and i inalienable rights of all people. we will not, we cannot stand idly by while others attempt to use the united nations not to bring about peace but to undermine our closest ally and friend. as president obama and his administration continue efforts to resolve this issue before it

is brought up to the security council, i ask them to do all they can to relay the disapproval of congress in what president abbas is trying to do and to stand without equivocation, shoulder to shoulder with our friend, the state of israel. it is our best chance of bringing peace to the region. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the

senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. pryor: are we in in morning

business? the presiding officer: we're are in a quorum call. mr. pryor: i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with. and my understanding is we may be still this the republican time but they've allowed me to speak now. i've heard are many arkansans and businesses, particularly small businesses which are struggling to meet an increasing regulatory burden. each year federal agencies issue more than 3,000 final rules, many of which have significant economic impack. in executive order 13-563, president obama family sized that our regulatory system should promote, quote, "economic are growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation." i agree. we need a 21st century regulatory system that promotes future prosperity. however, there are some rules where that goal appears to have

been ignored and as a result our economy suffers. experience suggests that improvements in the regulatory process are necessary to ensure that all agencies pay close attention to the impact their regulatory actions have on jobs and on the economy. for example, the e.p.a. is currently considering more stringent regulations of dust as part of the national ambient air quality. from county roads to farm fields, dust is an unavoidable reality in rural areas. imposing strict dust regulations on these communities would hurt family farmers and rural economies across arkansas and our nation. another example comes from a county judge in arkansas. he was rightly concerned about a regulation stemming from the bush administration that would have cost municipalities and counties and states across the

country tens of millions of dollars to replace their street signs. the burden of paying for hundreds of thousands of new signs that cost ranging anywhere from $30 to $110 would have fall tone state and local governments which that means state and local taxpayers. fortunately as part of the administration's review of regulations, transportation secretary ray lahood has decided that a specific deadline for replacing street signs makes no sense and local and state transportation agencies are best equipped to determine when they need to replace these signs in the course of their daily work. in his executive order, president obama remarked that the regulatory system, quote, "must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends." last month, cass sunstein the

administrator of the office of regulatory affairs wrote in "the wall street journal" that cabinet secretaries were instructed to minimize regulatory costs, avoid imposing excessive regulatory burdens, and prioritize regulatory actions that promote economic growth and job creation. i applaud the administration's new directive. one difference in what the administration is doing versus what we're doing in our -- in the portman-pryor legislation is that the president is looking retrospectively, he's doing a review of regulations that are on the books now, which is good, i welcome that, but the portman-pryor legislation will be prospective, it will go forward and we'll talk about that more as we go. i think it is time that congress reviewed several of the laws that form the basis of our federal regulatory system. we need to find ways to make these laws more fair, reasonable, and effective in meeting the duel challenges of

protect -- dual challenges of protecting the public while making our economy stronger and more competitive. that's why i've teamed up with senator portman on this important legislation. done right, i believe regulatory reform can lead to better, cheaper, faster rule making, specifically agencies should, one, propose or adopt a regulation only when the benefits justify the costs. two, write regulations so that they impose the least burden on society, and three, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those that strike the right balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. portman-pryor amends the administrative procedures act to place greater emphasis on early engagement between agencies and parties subject to high-impact rules costing a billion dollars or more per year in major rules

costing $100 million or more. these expensive rules are where our focus should be. in fact, as an historical footnote, the administrative procedures act was written in 1946 and has not really been revised and updated since that time. now that it's 65 years old, i think it's time to look at it and update it. portman-pryor makes better use of two existing regulatory tools. it requires an advance notice of proposed rule making for high-impact and major rules to enable agencies to solicit written data, views, or arguments from interested parties. second, although the administrative procedures act already allows for formal hearings, agencies rarely use this option. portman-pryor requires an agency to conduct a formal rule making hearing for high-impact rules and in some cases major rules so that data and information can be debated on the record. here again, on the record.

we're trying to make this process more transparent. portman-pryor strikes a balance between minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. the bill makes clear that the agencies are encouraged to choose the least cost alternative that would achieve the objectives of the statute or authorizing rule. however, the bill also makes clear that the agency may choose, may choose a more costly rule so long as it does two things. one, explains why it's done so based on policy concerns addressed by the statute authorizing the rule, and two, shows that the added benefits are greater than added costs. which is by definition a push toward maximizing benefits. today, the length of rule making varies widely from a few months to several years. after this reform, times will

still vary in about the same amount, but the final rule should be more stable and more credible. the principal goal of portman-pryor is the bill may shorten the rule making process because the final rule will be based on more sound, thorough information, and that fewer high-impact and major rules will be vacated by courts and sent back to the agency. finally, the bill reinforces that agency's must access the cost and benefits of their rules. however, the bill requires the administrator of oira to establish guidelines so cost benefit analysis can be commensurate with the economic impact of the rule. regulatory reform is not an exciting subject, i know, but it is vitally important to our nation's economic recovery. i look forward to working with senator portman on this important legislation and i also

look forward to working with other colleagues to try to get them interested and possibly cosponsoring and helping us get this through the process. my final point is this before i sit down: this is a piece of legislation that not only is bipartisan but it's bicameral. we have two members of the u.s. house of representatives that announced this legislation with us today. lamar smith who is chairman of the judiciary committee, collin peterson, ranking member on the agriculture committee in the house. so it is rare when we get bipartisan, bicameral legislation coming in this congress. so i hope -- i sincerely hope that i'll have colleagues on both sides of the aisle that'll look at this legislation. i hope that we will get broad, bipartisan support and will be able to move it through the committees and get it to the floor in a timely fashion. mr. chairman, with that, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i

wanted to call 0 the attention of the senate in the aftermath of having passed the health care reform bill, there was a great deal of consternation at the time while we were deliberating that medicare was going to be cut. you'll recall that $500 million was cut out of medicare over the course of a ten-year period. it was actually much more than that, but the amount that was being cut was considered to be a threat to medicare. as a matter of fact, the fact

is that when we passed it, the medicare cuts came from providers, often providers that stepped up and offered to have greater efficiencies and therefore medicare savings over the decade. and for example, the hospitals of america came forth and said that we will save $150 billion. it was actually -- i said $500 million. i meant $500 billion, mr. president. so one of the considerations in medicare was that we were going to have to lean out the medicare h.m.o. program called medicare advantage. if you'll recall, back in 2003 when we passed what was then

called the prescription drug bill, medicare advantage, the medicare h.m.o., was actually given a bump up in medicare reimbursement, some 14% over and above medicare fee-for-service. and as a result, you had the great incentive to go into a medicare h.m.o. because the insurance companies, the h.m.o., were getting so much more per medicare beneficiary. but the fact is that we saw on a long projected basis over time that it was going to be unsustainable financially for the u.s. government to keep giving a 14% differential to insurance companies over what

the average medicare recipient would get in medicare fee-for-service. and so that was one of the reforms of the health care bill. it was to take that 14% differential and lean it down over time, but at the same time make it more efficient, make the health care benefits better by having a greater percentage of the actual delivery of that premium dollar go to health care instead of all the administrative costs and all of that of an insurance company. well, i'm happy to report to the senate that the centers for medicaid and medicare services came out last week with their new results on medicare

advantage, the medicare h.m.o. program as a result of the new health care bill. nationally, the premiums for seniors on medicare advantage have gone down 4%. and the enrollment is up 10%. now, that's a significant little victory coming out of the new incentives that are put in the health care reform bill, new incentives to insurance companies to improve their medicare advantage. nationally, 4% down in premiums, but they're becoming more attractive, so the enrollment has gone up 10%. so, mr. president, i'm happy to tell you in my state of florida, where there is more medicare

advantage enrollees than any other state -- over a million -- you know what the savings are to the beneficiaries? the premiums are down 26% in florida, and the enrollment is up 20% because of the incentives. because of the health care reform bill. now, what in this bill, in this reform bill, has given new life to insurance companies to want to improve their medicare that causes the premiums to come down and the enrollment to go up? because c.m.s. has now instituted a series of incentives, financial

incentives, for the insurance company. and that is, if the insurance company boosts the quality of the service to its medicare enrollees, then it will get a bonus per medicare enrollee. and so, if it is rated as a three-star or higher, each additional star gives more of a bonus and incentive to the insurance company to be able to respond to the fact that they have increased the quality. that's a really good thing. and, you know, the insurance companies that are only rated two and a half stars, now they have the financial incentive to get to three stars.

and so what you have is a win all the way around. you have a win, clearly, for the enrollees, which are the medicare beneficiaries, because they're getting better quality and their premiums have gone down in florida by 26%. you have a second win for the insurance company because now the higher quality that it has, it's getting reimbursed for medicare all the more as a reward for having a highe higher-quality plan. and the third win is to the u.s. taxpayer. it lowers the overall amount that the u.s. taxpayer is going to have to pay as a result of the greater efficiencies in the medicare program. and so, mr. president, i wanted to come and share with the

senate this win-win-win -- triple win as a result of us having passed the health care reform bill a couple of years ago. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. ms. landrieu: i'd like unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i wanted to get here a little bit earlier this morning and was chairing a panel and was unable to get here, so i know i only have, i think, 10 or 15 minutes or so before the senator from texas speaks. so i really appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words about our disaster recovery and the debate going on between the house and the senate about that. yesterday the house was unable to find the votes to pass the continuing resolution, and one of the issues of debate is how and when to fund our disasters. so i wanted to -- there are a lot of people following this debate, so i wanted to bring a few people up on a couple of recent developments.

first, the chamber of commerce has submitted a letter to us strongly objecting to the house using the alternative advanced technology vehicle manufacturing as an offset to fund disasters. and i'd like to submit this to the record. it is a position that the democrats and some republicans have taken that this is not the right way to go about funding disasters, by requiring offsets. it's not necessary. it has hardly been done in the past. it has been, but it is not routine. it is not recommended for any number of reasons that i've tried to explain on the floor. but adding to that debate now is the chamber of commerce saying, that is not the right offset to use if you're going to insist on finding one. secondly, i want to push back on

the argument that the house position will fund -- will provide enough funding to just getting through the next couple of weeks. that is only partially correct, and i want to be very clear. when people say, well, we can just go ahead and pass the $2.65 that they have in for 2012, which is an extension of last year's number, and then the extra $1 billion for 2011 and that'll sort of get us by the next couple of weeks. let me be clear. it will get fema by. it will fill up the disaster relief fund, which is running on fumes today. we're now down to $227 million in the fund, the lowest balance in recent memory. it will provide a small amount of money relative to the core budget, $226 million. but i want to be clear. there's no money in the house

approach for agriculture, there is no money in the house approach for community development block grants -- zero, and there is no money for the economic development grants that chambers of commerce all over the country, in areas, in counties that have been hard hit use to help their communities and their businesses get back. i just left a small business hearing, and the fact is that after disaster, whether it is in north carolina or california or florida or louisiana -- and, mr. president, this is very sad, particular any these economic times -- about 70% of small businesses never make it back. so at a time when we're trying to create jobs in america, help americans get back to work and strengthen their business, the house wants to pass a continuing resolution with zero money for these economic development grants, that the chambers of commerce and other conservative

organizations, as well as nonpolitical organizations, believe are very effective. so please, if you're going to vote for the house position on this, please don't go home and try to pat yo yourself on the bk and say, you took care of disaster victims. you might have filled up the fema fund temporarily, but you have not left here doing the job that i think that we need to do. and the third point -- and i know my time is running limited here. but i want to really push back on this house comment last night by several that we've offset disaster relief before. yes, we have. but not, to my knowledge, in the immediate aftermath, you know, of the storms. as these things have gone on over years -- for instance, like four years after katrina we were trying to find money to rebuild

one of our big military bases that collapsed. we funded that through defense and we found an offset. but that wasn't within the first couple of weeks of katrina sms that was after four years and we couldn't find the money, and we really wanted to find it. sondes $and so there are ways that you can -- and so there are ways that you can offset it sometimes in the distant future. but i'm going to remind people that after katrina, in the first three weeks, the federal government funded $66 billion without an offset. after the collapse of the twin towers, we funded $40 billion sent to new york after the collapse of the twin towers. and after 2004, which was a very terrible year for florida, this congress sent $2 billion within a few weeks of four hurricanes hitting florida. and had we not done that, that state would be in a very serious

economic downturn now, never could have recovered from four hurricanes in one year. they didn' didn't hit louisianay didn't hit texas, all four hit florida. did we bellyache about it? did we run up to washington and say, let's find a $2 billion program that's not woshing and cut it out so we can go help the people in florida? absolutely not. we sent the money to florida and i know they were grateful for it. that might be one of the reasons why senator rubio has voted for this position because he knows, he remembers. so i don't know what the house is going to do. and i most certainly don't think we need to shut the government down over this debate. but it is a very important debate to be having. and i'm proud to be leading the effort along with many democrats and some republicans saying that after -- and in the aftermath of a year that was onc one of the t

on record, why some of the republicans on the house side believe that we have to find the offsets now, and i hope that the house will stand strong and beat back that position because it's not right today, it's not going to be right tomorrow and it's not right for the future. i just hope that we can prevail. later on when we're looking how to pay for all of this, we are have time over the next year or year and a half or two or three or even four years as we work on moving our deficit down, all of this is going to have to be paid for eventually. i believe very strongly that we must not think that it is okay to get into a pattern of when disaster strikes instead of opening up shelters, instead of giving people immediate relief, the first thing that the leadership of this country does is run up to washington and try to gut several other programs overnight or quickly or without

thought before we can fund disasters. it's just not the way we should operate. so i thank the chair. you've been very considerate giving me this extra time or a little extra time, and i appreciate my colleagues. i know others want to speak. but again, we have a whole document here that i've shown before of projects in all of our states that have been absolutely shut down because we've run out of money. the only programs that are being funded are real emergencies on the east coast. everything else in missouri, louisiana, california, texas have all been shut down to find what's happening on the east coast. this is no way to run a railroad. thank you very much and let's get disaster relief now. i hope the house will reconsider their position. i thank the chamber of commerce for coming out strongly to remove that offset and again, let's see if we can find some money for usda, agriculture,

community development block grant, if they insist on doing it six weeks at a time which i don't agree with, at least put a little bit more money for these other programs so we're not shut down and we'll come back in six or eight weeks and figure it out. i thank the chair. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2832, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 166, h.r. 283 , an act to extend the generalized system of preferences and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. i call up my amendment number 634 and ask for its immediate consideration.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn proposes amendment number 634. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i came to the floor and spoke about my intention to offer this amendment, which is now pending before the senate, which would require the united states government to sell 66 f-16 aircraft to the government of taiwan pursuant to our responsibilities under the taiwan relations act of 1979, passed with bipartisan support of the congress and signed into law by president jimmy carter. under this law, it is a responsibility of the u.s. government to provide our ally, taiwan, with sufficient defensive weapons in order to defend itself against any possible aggression by communist

china or from any other source. i spoke at some length about this yesterday and i won't reprise all of those arguments, but i would, mr. president, at the outset ask unanimous consent to make part of the record three letters, one signed by 45 senators supporting this sale of f-16's to taiwan and two separate letters from senator lugar, the ranking member of the foreign relations committee and senator lisa murkowski of alaska for a total of 47 senators who are on -- on record as supporting this sale. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i said yesterday i spoke about the legislation that senator menendez and i had offered, that's a stand-alone bill, this is an amendment to this pending

trade bill. i do believe it's appropriate for us to consider this matter in the context of this trade bill because, of course, we all recognize i think and common sense would tell us that selling foreign customers the things that we grow here in america or that we manufacture in america sustains jobs right here at home. and indeed we've circulated among various offices what the impact on jobs would be all across the country when it comes to -- comes to the sale and manufacture of these f-16's. a lot of jobs would be created here in america at the time when unemployment is intractably high and unacceptably high, but that's not the main reason why i believe that this --this amendment is so important. let me back up to say yesterday

the president did announce that he approved military assistance to taiwan but i want to address first the insufficiency of the response. yesterday congress was officially notified by the defense security cooperation agency that the administration had approved a retrofit for 145 f-16 a's and b's aircraft that taiwan already owns. so this is not unprecedented. we've already sold taiwan a and b version of the f-16 but as the administration acknowledges by saying that these need to be updated and retrofitted, these are older aircraft and need to be modernized in order to be effective. there's no question that this -- that these upgrades on existing 145 f-16 aircraft is necessary, but it's not sufficient to deal with the air power needs of our taiwanese

allies. and you can see by this chart that the disparity between what china has, the people's republic of china, about 2,300 operational combat aircraft versus 490 operational combat aircraft owned by the taiwan government. but what i think the president's -- what i think the president's decision fails to acknowledge is the fact that many of the aircraft being flown now in taiwan by the taiwan air force are french mirage aircraft which are some 20 years old or american f-5 aircraft which are -- were first delivered in 1975 through 1985, but which are now virtually obsolete. and it is for that reason why the sale of these additional 66 f-16 c and d version aircraft is

so important to row place those obsolete french mirages and f-5's. taiwan's request had been as i indicated earlier, not for the retrofit or for new aircraft but they wanted both. and the administration should have approved both, and that is exactly what 47 members of this senate, a bipartisan letters that i have admitted into the record, that would -- that would encourage the administration to make the right decision and to do both. but since the administration shows only -- chose only to go to the retrofit route for existing aircraft, i think it's important for us to send a message and to exercise our authority under the constitution to compel that sale. but there's a bigger point that i'd like to make here as well.

america's credibility in east asia and beyond is at risk by the administration's decision yesterday. the president spoke at the united nations earlier this week and addressed many priorities of u.s. foreign policy and i'm not going to respond to each one of them because it was a 40-minute speech, but my point is the success of u.s. foreign policy in every region of the world depends on the credibility of the united states government. whether or not we stand by our friends and whether or not we keep our commitments. or whether we will abandon our support for other democracies like taiwan. the answer to that question is of enormous interest, not only to the people of taiwan, who we've pledged in this 1979 law, the taiwan relations act that i mentioned earlier, but also to

the people of israel, the people of eastern europe, to the people of japan, and south korea, and to the pledgeling democracies now in iraq and the people of afghanistan. to people who are suffering from oppressive regimes all across the world who want the same basic freedoms we do and who share our values in self-government. what kind of message does it send from america to these friends of freedom? what kind of message has the administration sent by denying our ally, taiwan, the military assistance that they need and that they've requested? and what message can the united states senate send to reassure our allies in taiwan as well as people watching everywhere around the world with our credibility on the line? i just want to reiterate, mr. president, this is a bipartisan

matter. this is not a partisan issue at all. republicans and democrats alike have supported the mutual defense treaty signed by president eisenhower in 1954 and the taiwan relations act was supported with bipartisan support and independent signed by president jimmy carter in 1979 and it remains the law of the land. that states specifically that the united states will provide to taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities in furtherance of maintaining peace and stability in the western pacific region. now, we know that the united states military has been stressed by repeated deployments in afghanistan and iraq and commitments around the world. so why in the world wouldn't we want to improve the capacity of the taiwan -- taiwanese

government to defend itself and reduce any potential burden on the united states in the process? well, i want to remind my colleagues what sufficient defense capabilities means. this is part of a memorandum from president ronald reagan in 1982 and i think it's worth reading. "it is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the people's republic of china. communist china. both in quantitative and qualitative terms, taiwan's defense capability relative to that of the p.r.c. will be maintained." that was the understanding of congress, that was president reagan's understanding, and that was our explanation to the chinese government to reassure them about the purpose for these military sales, to provide a defensive capability.

not an offensive capability but a defensive capability. why is taiwan asking for these aircraft? well, as i indicated earlier, taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete. while china's military capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. but air defense is not just a game of numbers. it's about the quality of the aircraft as well. so what about the quality of taiwan's existing forces? well, according to the defense intelligence agency in an unclassified report last year, many of taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life, and many require extensive maintenance support. so china's capabilities are

clearly newer, and they're growing, and focus clearly on intimidating taiwan and yes, even 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 more than 12%. that's on top of an increase last year of 7.5%. but the pentagon estimates that china is not being frairntz with regard to its military spending -- transparent with regard to its military spending. in fact, china's official and public budget of $90 million is far -- excuse me, $90 billion is far less than the $150 billion that they actually spend. so who does china intend to intimidate by 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 contingents. the pentagon also noted that china's air force will remain primarily focused on, quote, building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to taiwan and u.s. forces in the middle east. close quote. some say we shouldn't look at our policy with taiwan in a have --in a vacuum, and i agree with that. we should look at it in a larger context. we know that many of china's neighbors in that region are concerned about the military buildup and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric from the government. last year china claimed the

south china sea as a core interest, which unsettled the philippines and indonesia and other nations in the region. china has renewed its long-running border dispute with india and continues to be an enabler, as we know, of the nuclear threat frankly in north korea. we know that pakistan's defense minister publicly discussed the possibility of china building a naval base in pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically important port at the mouth of the gulf of oman. so it is important to look at the impact of china's growing military strength and its bellicose rhetoric on the whole region because, frankly, the disparity that i pointed out earlier between the people's republic of china's capability when it comes to air power and that of taiwan is a

destabilizing influence in the region. and why in the world would we want to create a destabilizing condition in that region as opposed to a stable one? that's in our best interest and that's in the best interest of our allies. well, you can tell that the communist chinese government is getting -- is trying to intimidate the united states, frankly, from living up to its responsibilities. last week china's top official newspaper use add lot of unnecessary language on the subject of the arms sales to taiwan. they called those of us on capitol hill who are supporting this "madmen." and said we were playing with fire. said there would be a disastrous price if we continue to support our allies in taiwan. well, they would like nothing better than for us to turn our back on our allies in taiwan, just like other bullies around the world would love for america

to retreat and to pull back in our support for self-governing peoples everywhere. but i don't think we want to send the message -- i know i don't want to send the message that the united states will give in to this kind of intimidation. we should pass this legislation to send a clear message to china and other nations around the world who are beating their chest and growing in military strength and posing destabilizing risks that the real mad men are those who think that america will abandon our friends and allies, and our principles and our long-range and long-standing strategic interests in the stability of east asia. as i indicated earlier, there are a lot of people watching what we do on this. it would greatly reassure our allies and partners around the world if we acted in a responsible way consistent with

our legal obligation under the taiwan relations act, but which apparently the administration has declined to do. many of my colleagues remember what president clinton did in 1996. he deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during the taiwan strait crisis then. that crisis developed when china tried to intim date taiwan, once again on the eve 6 its first free presidential elections by conduct ago series of so-called 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. nimitz and the u.s.s. independence. america's show of resolve and strength did not escalate that crisis; it defused it, exactly

what would happen here if we made this sale to taiwan, and it would serntiondz as that did then, a welcome signal to the region. according to an article in the current issue of "washington quarterly," following that crierkz the region's confidence in the united states soared. confidence, singapore, and the philippines and other nations in the region all bolstered their security ties with the united states. isn't that with a we want? if america is going to be an undependable ally, there's no real benefit to people aligning their interests with ours and joining with us in these sorts of strategic security ties. the taiwan strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy successes of the clinton administration. but the authors of that same article conclude that forsaking

taiwan now will likely have the opposite effect. and, mr. president, i want to return to a subject that i brought up earlier. in addition to our other interests, which are many, in having us seen as being a dependable ally to our friends and keeping our commitments, this bill deserves the support of the united states senate for other reasons as well. in addition to our long-standing bipartisan consensus on taiwan, the growing gap in military capabilities between taiwan and china, china's aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and the united states, and america's credibility with our allies and free people everywhere, this is a jobs bill. this is a -- this is a policy that creates jobs. if we sell this american-made product to our friends and

allies who are willing to pay for it, and it won't cost one dime in taxpayer dollars, it creates jobs here at home. this chart shows in yellow all of the states where jobs would be created and sustained as a result of these sales. this map shows every state 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 equift lent of 10 american workers employed full-time for six years. as you can see from this map, 30 states will have that level fl job creation or more, making this f-16 sale to taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. in fact, according to a report by the perryman group, the requested sale of f-16c and d

models to taiwan would generate some $8.7 billion in output. isn't that something that the american economy could use now? and, furthermore, it would directly support more than 23,000 jobs. that's surely something we need now. as i said, these jobs don't cost the american taxpayer a dime. apart from the paperwork and processing necessary to approve the deal, these are private-sector jobs and it is exactly the private sector that we need to take off again. the one thing that the federal government, the u.s. government needs to do, perhaps more than anything else, is to simple plea get out of the way and let meese americans continue to stay on the job and collect in addition an estimated $768 million in federal tax revenue. that's something else we could use is more tax revenue coming in from more employed workers so

we can close the gap in our $1.5 trillion annual deficit and begin to work our way toward reducing the debt, which is more than $14 trillion. i want to thank, on a bipartisan basis, the senators who have supported this legislation. i would note that of the 47 signatories on the letters that have been made part of the record supporting this sale, that 13 are from our democratic friends across the aisle. so this is truly a bipartisan effort. and for all the reasons that i've mentioned, i hope we will vote "yes" and pass this important amendment to this bill. mr. president, i would yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, the book of ecclesiastes contained which is come that should guide us today. i ai am paraphrasing this. "for everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under the sun." or to state it more colloquially, there is a time and place for everything, sometimes better than others, some place places other than ot. my colleague from texas offered an amendment that would require the president to sell f-16 fighter jets to taiwan. i respectfully note that the debate on this trade adjustment assistance bill is not the appropriate time or season or place to raise this issue. this is a trade bill. this is not sales of f-16's to taiwan or to any country.

it is a wholly different surkts has nothing to do with what we're trying to debate here and focus our attention on, so we can get this legislation passed. the adoption of an amendment on an unrelated and controversial issue of taiwanese armies sales would derail the carefully negotiated and bipartisan agreement on trade adjustment assistance. it would derail it. if this amendment would pass, by itself, irrespective o it woulde adjustment assistance. it would be an amendment that would go over to the other body, work with it, maybe other amendments would come back here again. we have an agreement here, mr. president, between the house and the senate and the white house, that we pass both trade adjustment assistance and then we can pass the free trade agreements and then most everybody wins. this amendment ultimately would imperil passage of the three

pending trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. i know my good friend from texas, i suspect -- this is a bit pr presume shoves me -- buti suspect my good friend from texas is in favor of those three trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. i know a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also support the sale of f-16's to taiwan. but this is an issue for another time. just nine days ago senator cornyn introduced legislation on the f-16 issue that tracks the substantive language of this amendment. that legislation has been referred to the senate foreign relations committee, where it belongs. and that is in fact the appropriate way to deal with this issue, by considering by the committee of jurisdiction. in the spirit of ecclesiastes, i therefore urge my colleagues to

save this issue for another day where it's vigorously discussed and debated, look at the merits, see what makes sense what does not make sense. that is for another day so that we should vote against that amendment at this time. it can be a very meritorious issue. i am not passing judgment on it. this is not the time and place. if it were adopted, it would affect the passage of trade adjustment assistance. i would like to speak about two other matters. t.a.a. -- that is, trade adjustment assistance -- for firms -- excuse me. mr. president, i'd like to speak on another matter and that's the thune amendment of the thune amendment looks backward to the past and we should be looking forward to the future. i understand senator thune will

offer his amendment very soon today. the bill before the senate restores urgently needed job training for american workers impacted by trade. it also clears the path for congress to approve our job-creating trade agreements with colombia, panama, and south korea. the bill reflects an understanding among the senate, the house, and the president about how to move the trade agenda forward. with the thune amendment -- but the thune amendment looks not forward it looks backward. it calls for a new government report on the harm from delaying the pending free trade agreements. no one disputes the harm. that's not the issue. the issue is how quickly can we adopt them? harm -- that is, dlairks is well-documented. there's blame all the way around. so we should not waste scarce resources to score political points. that is not worth the time to try to find the finger of blame anywhere t makes much more sense

to get the job done. that is, pass the free trade agreements and passage of today ament assistance will -- and passage of trade adjustment assistance. we should help small businesses succeed in global markets and we should monitor whether our trade partners are abiding by the rules. so let us look forward, not to the past. let us avoid further delay of our trade agreements, and let us defeat this amendment and send the house a clean bill to the trade adjustment assistance. mr. president, speaking on another amendment, first is the cornyn, second is the thune amendment. this is now the rubio amendment, which will be voted upon soon. i urge my colleagues to vote against senator rubio's amendment. it would limit trade adjustment benefits only to workers who lose their jobs as a result of

imports from the country with which the united states has a free trade agreement. the united states has only about 17 free trade agreement partners. we do not limit our trade just to those countries. there's a lot of trade, mr. president, around the world. the united states trades with virtually every country around the world. in fact, we export to nearly 200 countries around the world. remember, we have only 17 free trade agreements, but we export to nearly 200 countries around the world. under this amendment, the rubio amendment, workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade with 8 of our top 10 trade partners, including china and japan, would not receive t.a. benefits. why? because there's no free trade agreement with those countries. it makes no sense whatsoever. in fact, what the rubio amendment would say to workers around the country if you lose

your job on accounts of trade with china, you're out of luck. if you lose your job on account of trade with india, you're out of luck. only if you lose your job, the kind of job lost to a country with which we have a free trade agreement do you get assistance. the rubio amendment would significantly limit the number of workers who get help under trade adjustment assistance. why would we want to do that? why would we want to do that at a time when 14 million americans are looking for work? trade adjustment assistance helps americans get the important retraining they need, find good-paying jobs, and now is not the time to shut those americans out. so for these reasons and also because passage of this amendment, the rubio amendment would also jeopardize passage of the trade adjustment assistance and jeopardize passage of the free trade agreement, i urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment as well. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from florida is recognized. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i would like to call up rubio amendment number 651 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. rubio, proposes an amendment numbered 651 to amendment numbered 633. on page 5 of the amendment, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following: section 212, requirement that to be eligible for trade adjustment assistance, workers be laid off because of imports from or a shift in production to a country which the united states has a free trade agreement in effect.

mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask further reading of the amendment be dispenseed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rubio: thank you. we've had this important discussion about trade policy in the united states. clearly one of the great things that will help grow our economy in the years to come is further free trade. as we have these pending free trade agreements, which most everyone i run into say they're in favor of, including the president. the one with korea, south korea, the one with panama, colombia, there's been a prerequisite put in place and that is that we deal with the t.a.a. issues. that's why we're on this issue today, clearly been lynched the year -- clearly been linked free trade and free trade law. on that line -- talk a little bit about the free trade agreements for a minute because we're continuing to wait for them to be sent down to us. these agreements would increase u.s. exports by billions of dollars and creating jobs here in the united states and about, the numbers that are out there,

exports are about $12 billion annually, for example, adding about $14 billion to the u.s. economy. these are real numbers. the south korea agreement alone is estimated could add as many as # 0,000 american -- 70,000 american jobs. these benefits are not being realized because the president has not yet submitted these for approval to this body or to the congress. and so the debate we're having today is not a new one. in fact, the trade adjustment assistance, or t.a.a., has been a policy of the united states, for better or for worse, since the trade expansion act of 1962. this policy was first proposed by senator john f. kennedy when he introduced it and aptly titled it the trade adjustment act. in essence you enter into a trade policy with another country, american workers may lose their job in the short term but you create a fund to help them transition to what you hope will be the new job being create bid free trade.

as you create this new relationship with new countries, new economies, the effect of it is is that while some jobs may be lost those jobs are replaced with new opportunities and new jobs. in the process of that transition between the job you once had and the job you hope to have in the future as a product of free trade you create the transition for workers to get from point a to point b. that is why it has been included in the trade act of 1974, ushered in with the north america free trade agreement with president clinton, also in the last trade promotion so vital to the united states. t.a.a. has been linked to free trade, to basically an understanding that when you enter into free trade agreements with another country there are short-term disruptions and you need to have a fund available to help workers transition during that disruption. very simply put, you have a job, maybe it goes overseas in the free trade agreement. but a new job is created in america as a result of that

agreement, and we're going to help you transition there through this fund. that was always the purpose of it until 2009 when under the stimulus bill that was changed and has been vastly expanded. now basically in order to qualify for it, all you need to prove is that somehow your job or the company you work for has now moved operations potentially overseas. that's a big problem in america. it's a big problem in florida. you go and you talk to people and they'll tell you we're losing our jobs. other countries are taking our jobs or having jobs go overseas. there is a lot of reasons for that. the first is unfair trade practices and this body should address that beginning with china and other nations that unfairly deal with the united states, whether it's manipulation of their currency, whether it's dumping, whether all sorts of things they do in their country that is unfair, not to mention these countries have no environmental regulations, no protection for their workers or wages, incredible amounts of head wind we face in regard to that and that should be dealt with.

that is not a temporary issue. that is a permanent thing. that is something that's ingrained and entrenched. unless we deal with the issues involved with that and those unfair trade practices, no temporary measure like t.a.a. is going to help us with that. we have to deal with that on a permanent basis. that was not the purpose of the t.a.a. the second thing we need to deal with is some of the impediments we're creating ourselves. i'm encouraged when i hear bipartisan talk of tax reform, things that will make it easier for people to build things in the united states and open businesses here. regulatory reform. let there be no doubt that while there are significant currency manipulation problems and significant trade i am pedestrianments in terms of unfair -- i impediments, some of the wounds are self-inflected. through a regulatory and tax code that makes it difficult for people to do business in the united states. i'm always encouraged when i hear bipartisan talk of regulatory reform and tax reform because these are the kind of things that can deal permanently with a permanent and entrenched problem. that's not the purpose of

t.a.a., and especially today as we stand here considering this as a gateway issue where we have been told that the reason why we have to pass this bill first before we can get on the free trade agreements and so clearly links the two. if we're going to link the two, we have to make it very clear that this sort of assistance existed and was created for the defined purpose and specific purpose of helping people to transition because of a disruption created in their job status as a result of a free trade agreement. this is a pretty simple amendment. what it does is it basically says this assistance is only available to those workers who lose their jobs to a country that we have a free trade agreement with, because this is designed to deal with the unintended consequences and the disruptions, the short-term disruptions, the temporary disruptions that might be created by a free trade agreement with another country. that's what the amendment does and i'm hoping to have the support of as many of our colleagues as possible in putting this program back into its historical purpose. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: mr. president, i want to speak generally about the matter that's before the senate on trade adjustment assistance. i especially appreciate the work that's been done by the presiding officer from ohio over many, many years in his time in the house of representatives and here in the senate as well. i just want to make two comments. one about the, one of the amendments that we will consider today by the senator from florida. but also to speak more broadly about this legislation. when the senate is considering legislation, we don't every day do a good job of trying to put ourselves in the position of other people, workers and people who are suffering through a tough economy.

but when the senate is doing its best work, part of the way we get there is by trying to figure out and trying to understand as best we can what it's like to lose a job or suffer from -- we're dealing with natural disasters and disaster assistance this week as well, but try to understand as best we can the people we represent. i know we can't do that with full knowledge, because many of us have never, never, ever had to suffer through that kind of experience. but i think it's important we try our best to understand what this legislation is all about. this is legislation which basically says that the american people, through our government, are going to do everything possible to help folks when they lose a job, and especially when you lose a job as a result of unfair foreign competition. our workers, our communities,

i've seen it in pennsylvania for decades, we've been getting hammered because we haven't often stood up for our own workers. we haven't fought battles to help them get through the horror of job loss because of unfair competition. all we're saying is we're going to try to help them from crossing that bridge from losing that job, in many cases that they have had for years or decades. number one, we're going to try to help them in that crisis. number two, we're going to do everything we can to retrain them. they have to go to the training. this is not something we can just hand to them. they have to work at the training. they have to go and prepare themselves. i think most americans believe when someone is in crisis, you have to help them. but you want to believe they're going to help themselves through training and retraining. i think we should consider here what it would be like for one of us. each of us has a salary and have

health care here in the senate, and we have a pension plan. so we're doing pretty well here in the united states senate. just imagine what it's like, though, to work in a plant for decades, doing the same work, and you do that work with pride and dignity, you take care of your family, you work in a job that has a sustaining wage. and you do that for decades. the same job virtually every day, every year. you've got two things. you've got the ability to provide for your family and you've got some dignity. then just imagine when a hurricane of unfair foreign competition, which our government hapbt done enough to fight against, that sweeps through your factory and wipes you out before you can even think about it. it wipes out every job or a lot of jobs. sometimes physically they lift the equipment off the floor and move it to another country.

that's what we're talking about here. someone who has been doing this work for decades in some cases, and all of a sudden they are not only without a job; that's bad enough. but they're faced with the prospect of not being able to transition because they have been in the same job and they haven't had access to education that would allow them to transition. it would be nice if we had an economy where everyone could transition, that you could get an enabler level -- this is -- an educational level, this is what it should be, by the way -- that we have an educational level and an exposure in an emergents and skills and other advantages that will allow you to absorb that shock, allow to you pivot when unfair trade wipes out your job. that's the ideal. that's what we hope we can develop in our education system, our training system, training

strategies. that's why workforce development is so important, so people who have a broad-based skill level and they can absorb those shocks. a lot of people can't. all we're saying with trade adjustment assistance is we're going to help you with what we hope will be a short-term crisis for you and your family, and we're going to try to provide the training opportunities so you cannot just get a new job, but maybe you can get a job, because you've developed a skill that will allow you to have the same income for your family that you are used to. but at least, at least provide some short-term help for folks and then give them skills for the long term. that's what this is all about. it isn't complicated. it's all about that. and -- and i understand that we have a lot of folks here that have concerns about the legislation, they have concerns about one or other aspects of it, but i hope that we -- we wouldn't limit our horizons here

to helping all the folks that are adversely impacted. i mean, for example, if you look at the -- one of the provisions -- and this is where i want to get to the amendment itself that we're talking about. here's what it does. the amendment covers workers whose firms shift production to any country, any country including china or india, not just to countries with which the united states has entered into a free trade agreement. look, i don't think we should be treating workers who we're trying to help under trade adjustment assistance any differently if they don't fall within that category of only the 17 countries with which we have free trade agreements. so i think we should make sure that -- and, of course, this is one of the changes that the amendment will validate, that we're trying to help anyone in

that category who has been so adversely affected. so i don't think we should limit it to just 17 countries. we trade with countries all over the world, and we should do our best within the limits of this legislation to make sure that it applies to a lot more than 17 countries. and that's the effect of the amendment. it would only cover the workers who lose their jobs due to trade with those 17 countries with which we have a trade agreement. in some ways, -- it is my own opinion on it, but it puts the burden on the workers to somehow prove that they are in the right category. when the burden should be on us to make sure we're doing everything possible to help them. again, short-term help for the crisis, long-term help by way of skill development. we have 14 million people in the country out of work.

14.4 million is what i saw at last count. of the 14.4 million, almost 4.5 million have been out of work for a year or more. just imagine that. that's bigger than the population of a number of states. pennsylvania, we have 12.5 million people. you consider that more than a third -- if you just consider more than a third of the state population being out of work for more than a year. so we have got a lot of people that have been out of work for a long time, and they are especially disadvantaged if they happen to work in those -- those industries that are particularly sensitive to or adversely impacted by trade with countries that are -- that aren't playing by the rules. we're going to have a discussion today as well about the introduction of currency legislation as it relates to china where a number of us, including the presiding officer -- and it's a bipartisan bill, we think we have got to

get much tougher as it relates to china's currency policy. if china cheats, that costs us jobs. so we should be very tough in those instances, and i think we can be and do it in a bipartisan way. but i would hope that with a program that works, that we would be doing everything possible to keep it -- to keep it expanded for countries beyond just those 17. and -- and i know that the senator from florida is concerned about those workers, and i just hope that we can keep this -- the provisions in place that protect all our workers as best we can and not just be -- not just start to limit it to 17 countries at a time when we really need help for folks short-term with the crisis but longer term with skill development so they can -- they can transition and start a new work life even if they are 45 or

50 or 55 years old. and a lot of these folks are in that age category. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. demint: mr. president, i'd like to speak in support of senator rubio's amendment and thank him for helping us to focus on the original intent of trade adjustment assistance. obviously, we want to help folks that are unemployed or displaced because of trade, but we have to realize that where we are with our country right now, we're using borrowed money and sometimes printed money in order to help people, so we have a responsibility to taxpayers and some form of fiscal sanity as well to those that lost their jobs. what senator rubio is trying to do is to restore those original responsible boundaries of trade adjustment assistance to make

sure that this program is focused on those who are really hurt by trade agreements. now, the discussion is somewhat odd in the first place in that for several years the president has been telling us that these trade agreements are actually going to increase jobs in our country, expand exports, which i believe they will, but to use this as an excuse and to hold these trade bills hostage for several years in order to fund a program which really duplicates many other programs, because we need to remember that those who are put out of work in our country today have not only regular unemployment benefits but have been extended much beyond what we have done before, and that there are dozens of state and federal training programs now that duplicate each other. unfortunately, many of them have been found to be ineffective, but for us to lay another layer of duplication on top of that under the guise of showing compassion, i think we also have

to make sure that we are being responsible. so we want to help folks who are unemployed, but we do need to make sure that we're being responsible to the taxpayers here. as i said, the trade adjustment assistance was originally designed to help those who were put out of work, and believe me, coming from a textile state like south carolina, trade with china and other countries displaced a whole lot of textile workers. retraining is very important. the new jobs that moved in required more technical capabilities, but what we found is we have seen how our good intentions have hit the ground in south carolina and around the country, is even our own office of management and budget rated t.a.a. as ineffective, and the program cost taxpayers taxpayers $1.3 billion in just this year, in 2011, and we are finding that what it was intended to do, it's not doing.

it's not well managed. it's not helping the people that it's supposed to help. and since its inception, the program has gone from those -- a focus on those that lose their jobs because of trade to all kinds of institutions, training groups and frankly fraud, duplication and not helping the folks that it's intended to help. you know, if you want to know how far out of bounds the program has gone, we all know the support of solyndra, a solar company that got almost -- over half a billion dollars from american taxpayers and then went bankrupt and we lost our money. the workers now at solyndra are applying for t.a.a. benefits. not because trade pus them out of business but, frankly, a coordinated effort of our government and solyndra

management have put these people out of work. but you can see if they are now using a program called trade adjustment assistance to add to their unemployment benefits, the program is no longer within the bounds that it was intended. and if we're going to tell the taxpayers this program is intended for one thing, we need to make sure it is. and what we're talking about now are trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. no one has come and told us that these agreements are going to cost american jobs, yet we have to pass more spending programs, add on to a program that has been proved ineffective in order to add jobs here in america. that's -- that's not good policy. i don't think it's good politics. so i'm thankful senator rubio has taken the leadership here to shine a spotlight on the need to help people while naiment being

responsible to taxpayers. we don't need to be funding additional unemployment for every company that goes out of business and is not properly managed. if we keep this program focused, it will help the people we need to help while again being responsible for hard-working americans who are paying the taxes. i encourage my colleagues to take a look at this, federal programs to continue to expand and expand and expand. they become less and less effective. they cost more and more money. if we're going to continue this program, let's do it responsibly. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. and i 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 texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to speak briefly again on the -- my amendment, the sale of f-16's to taiwan and respond to the distinguished chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus' comments, saying that this was not the right bill -- neither the right bill nor the right time. and i think -- i understand that every manager of a bill wants a clean bill. in other words, they don't want amendments. they would like to bring it here and have the senate pass it without any changes whatsoever, but that's not the way our system works, and indeed it's actually urgent that we get this matter settled in a positive way, because as i mentioned earlier there are jobs in america that depend 2,300 of them in the production line in texas, but there are jobs all

over the united states that depend on this. and i would ask unanimous consent to make part of the record this document entitled "projected nationwide employment impact in production of 66 f-16's c's and d's for taiwan." the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: this is really a very interesting document because what it does is it breaks down on a nationwide basis the -- where the jobs would come from or be affected by a refusal to sell these f-16's. california, for example, 11,399 job years. and if you were wondering like i was wondering what a job year is, that's one person employed for one year. so that's -- that's pretty significant. connecticut, 5,876 job years. and ohio, i know the current occupant of the chair, the distinguished senator from ohio,

will be interested to know that ohio would be 10,577 job years as a result of this sale. so as manufacturing is important in the state of ohio, it's important in the state of texas, and why would we not want to see these jobs created by this sale? i would ask -- mr. president, i have another document here which is a letter signed by 181 members of the house of representatives to the president of the united states endorsing this sale. i would ask that it be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: and i see the distinguished senator from oklahoma here, and i will defer to him momentarily, but i want to just say that we need to understand what would happen if this production line of f-16's was shut down. the people that work on that production line would have to be let go or reassigned