Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act

Mr. President, we are awaiting the conference report on the stimulus package. The papers and the airwaves are full of the fact that this will be the largest expenditure we have made in peacetime perhaps in our history.

I think it well, as we wait for the details of the package, for us to pause for a moment and take a longer look, beyond the recession, beyond the financial circumstances we are facing at the moment, and look down the road at what we are facing as a nation as a whole.

So I am going to make a historic pattern today and then introduce, at the end, a bill I believe is necessary for us to deal with our financial problems. Let's go back a moment in history to the year 1966. Why do I pick 1966? Because that was the year we significantly expanded the entitlement spending in the United States. That was the year we adopted Medicare as a Federal program.

As you see from the chart, at that time the mandatory spending constituted 26 percent of the budget. By ``mandatory,'' I mean spending that we have to do. People are entitled to receive that money whether we have the money or not; it is mandatory under the law.

The largest portion of the mandatory spending in 1966 was Social Security.

We were paying roughly 7 percent of our budget for interest. We had nondefense discretionary spending which was 23 percent. The big item, the big ticket item that dominated the budget in 1966 was defense. It constituted 44 percent of Federal spending in 1966.

Let's see what has happened since that time. Let's see where we are today. In fiscal 2008, this is where we are. The mandatory spending has grown from 26 percent to 54 percent. Interest costs are roughly the same. They were 7 percent; now they are 8. Nondiscretionary spending has shrunk to 17 percent. Defense discretionary, even though we are in a wartime, is 21 percent. It is clear the mandatory spending is taking over control of the Federal budget. And interest costs, of course, are mandatory. We owe those interest costs.

If you add the two together, 54 and 8, you get 62 percent of the Federal budget beyond the control of Congress. That is, when we pass the appropriations bills, when we make our decisions what to spend money for, we are spending money in the minority; whereas, 62 percent majority is out of our control. When you take away the defense spending and assume that has a semimandatory aspect to it and put defense spending in the mix, that means the Congress only has control of 17 percent of the budget, an amazing change in the roughly 40 years from 1966 until today.

What does the future look like? I must make the point that every projection we make around here is wrong. Every projection is an educated guess. But the educated guess of what will happen 10 years from now is that mandatory spending will have grown to 61 percent and interest costs to 10 percent. That is 71. The Congressional Budget Office won't make a guess as to the divide between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. So all discretionary spending will be 29 percent, if we divide it in half, as it has historically been. That means the Congress, just 10 years from now, will only control 10 percent of the Federal budget. All the rest of it will be on automatic pilot. That is a startling thing to look forward to.

So as we talk about the stimulus package, we need to pause and pay a little attention to the entitlement spending that will go on and the kind of spending that will be built up, and we are adding to that with this stimulus.

Here it is in the projections of what it will be. It constitutes a wave. Indeed, it has been referred to almost as a tsunami of spending. It is broken down into the three primary sources of mandatory spending, the three biggest entitlements. At the bottom is the one that is the biggest now, and that is Social Security. But Social Security does not grow as fast as the next one, which is Medicare. And then on top of that is Medicaid. One can see this tsunami of spending will take our mandatory spending, which at the moment is less than 10 percent of GDP, up to more than 20 percent of GDP.

Let me show another chart that illustrates the same point in a slightly different way. You have the same entitlements. We have added in this chart discretionary spending. The solid line across is the average revenue of the Federal Government. It is recorded in percentage of GDP. We have historically had a revenue average of 18.4 percent of GDP. As we can see in 2007, the expenditures were slightly above that line. The largest portion of the expenditure was the combination of defense and nondefense discretionary spending. But the projection, as you go out, you see that at some point the entitlements will take over every dime we take in. The largest portion of it will be Medicare. Social Security will still be there. Medicaid will still be there. Discretionary spending will shrink even further as a percentage of what we are dealing with.

Why is this happening? Is this some kind of a plot that somebody is involved in? No. This is a result of the demographic changes that are occurring in our country. This chart summarizes it with the headline: ``Americans Are Getting Older.''

If you go back to 1950, the percentage of Americans who were age 65 or older was about 7 percent. It grew, the percentage, at a relatively slow level and then actually began to shrink. Why did it begin to shrink, the percentage of Americans 65 and over? This is a reflection of the Great Depression. People had fewer children in the Great Depression. So it follows that 65 years later, there were fewer people who were of retirement age. But following the Great Depression, you had the Second World War and then, when people came home from war, you had what historians refer to as the baby boom. All of those who came as a consequence of that are called the boomers.

Starting in 2008, which is now history, the line started upward in a dramatic fashion. In the next 20 years, we are going to see something happen that has never happened in American history. In the next 20 years, the percentage of Americans who are over 65 is going to double. That is what is driving all the numbers I put up before, all the changes in entitlement spending. These people are already born. This is not a projection that depends on guesses. This is something we can be sure of because the demographics of these folks are already there.

Now the projection is that 20 years from now, when the baby boomers finish retiring, the rate of increase will slow down again and go back to the somewhat gentle rate it was before we got into this situation. But that is the reality we are dealing with. In the next 20 years, the percentage of Americans who are 65 or over is going to double.

Let's look at some of the detail behind these demographics. Seniors are living longer. Not only are we going to get more of them, but they are living longer. That is why that trend is not going to turn down once the baby boomers have been absorbed. If you go back to 1940, after you reached 65 in 1940, if you were a male, your life expectancy was another 12 years, female 13. The chart shows how it has changed. Now if you are male and you reach 65, your life expectancy is another 16 years. If you are female, it is another 19 years. And roughly a short decade away, a male will go to 18 and female to 21. That means all the entitlement programs geared toward our senior citizens are going to be tapped into for many more years than was the case when they were put in place.

If we go back to the history of Social Security, we realize Social Security was something of a lottery. When Social Security started in the 1930s, roughly half of American workers did not survive until they were 65. So it was a lottery with 100 percent of the people paying in and only 50 percent taking anything out. Those who paid in got nothing for having done so. Those who survived to 65 got the benefit of their survival. Now you see they are living longer today, something like 75 or 80 percent of workers who join the workforce at age 20 are still alive at 65, so the lottery doesn't work anymore. Instead of half the people paying into the lottery, not getting anything out, you have more than three-quarters of the people who pay into the lottery getting something out. Then, once they get it, they get it for longer. The life expectancy of Americans is going up, as was shown in the last chart. This

shows the trend lines for male and female.

Again, in 1940, the life expectancy of Americans who had reached 65 was, for males, about 75. When we get out into the future, it will be 86. Put those two facts together. More people survive to 65 and, then, more people who get into the pool over 65 stay there for more years.

All this means that the financial structure of Social Security is simply unsustainable. Social Security cannot deal with these demographic changes. This is not a Republican plot or a Democratic plot. This is the demographics of the reality of the fact that Americans are healthier, living longer, and surviving to older age. So you get this reaction to the Social Security situation.

We go to the next chart that shows how Social Security works, in terms of the lottery I was discussing. In 1945, the program was still in its infancy. So this is a bit of a distortion. There were 42 people working and paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out. As the program matured and more and more of the workers retired, this number very appropriately came down. By 1950, there were still 17 workers paying into the program for every one retiree drawing out. Today there are three workers paying into the program for every one drawing out. With the demographic realities I described in the previous charts, we are looking at a time when there will be two workers for every retiree. That means, if the retiree is going to take out $1,000 a month, each worker has to be putting in $500 a month in order to make that happen and for a long period of time. This is how we have dealt with this demographic change throughout our history. We have dealt with it by raising taxes. Every step along the way, as the number of workers to retirees has gone down, the amount of taxes every worker pays has gone up.

Here is the history of the payroll tax increases: In 1937, you paid taxes on $3,000. That was it. Now it is $106,000. It has gone up and up all the way through.

This is unsustainable. You cannot continue to deal with the demographic changes in Social Security by simply ratcheting up the taxes. You have to do something to stabilize Social Security in a way that it will be there for our children and our grandchildren.

There is a reported survey--I have seen it many places, but I have never seen the source--that says a poll shows that among the young people in America, more believe in the existence of UFOs than believe Social Security will be available for them when they retire. I have grandmothers come up to me spontaneously on the streets in Utah and tell me how concerned they are their children and grandchildren will not have Social Security. I have people entering the workforce who come to me and say: Senator, my biggest question is, Will Social Security be there for me? And, increasingly, people are sure it is not.

The legislation I introduce today is geared to make sure Social Security will be there for our children and our grandchildren and that it will be there at roughly the same level it is for us; that is, they will not have to accept significantly less than we accept in order to make this program work.

How do we do that in the face of this demographic challenge? How is that possible? Well, one of our colleagues in the Senate for many years, Senator Pat Moynihan of New York, had the answer. Senator Moynihan looked back on how Social Security benefits were calculated, and he said: We calculate the increase in Social Security benefits on the wrong base. I do not want to get too technical, but the term that applies is ``wage-based'' increases for cost of living. Senator Moynihan pointed out the cost of living is not going up as rapidly as wages are. So if we would just adjust the base from wage base to cost- of-living base, a true cost-of-living base--that means we would slow down the rate of growth in benefits, and in slowing down the rate of growth in benefits in that fashion, we would solve the problem. It would become solvent.

That is fine. But what if you are someone who depends upon Social Security as your sole source of retirement? It was never intended that would be the case when it was put in place, but it has become that way for too many Americans. If they were to give up the benefit that comes from an overpayment--that is the form of wage-based adjustments--to go to the true payment of cost of increasing, which is the cost of the Consumer Price Index, it would hurt them. They would give up significant benefits. On the other hand, if you look at people such as Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey, they do not really need to have Social Security go beyond the true increase in cost of living.

So the solution is to say, for those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder, we keep Social Security benefits exactly as they are. For Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey and those who are at the exact top end of the economic ladder, we take Senator Moynihan's idea and we put it in place and say: You will have to struggle by with a Social Security plan based on the actual increase in cost of living rather than an inflated increase in cost of living.

What about those of us who are in between, the people at the bottom and the people at the very top? For those of us who fall in between those two areas, we get a mix, a blend, if you will, of wage base or cost-of-living base. It is called progressive indexing. All of the details are available in hearings that have been held on this subject which I chaired when I was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and in other publications that have addressed this question.

What will this do to the actual benefits of the people in Social Security? We have asked the Social Security Administration to tell us. Now, again, these are projections, and as projections, they are subject to some kind of challenge. But they are the best analysis that people can make.

We start out with people who are currently 55; that is, only 10 years away from the 65 retirement date, although Social Security, by the time they get there, will be at 67. But what is going to happen to them under the bill I am introducing?

As shown on this chart, the dark bar is what a 2009 retiree will get. The red bar is what a 2019 retiree will get. These are in constant dollars; that is, an adjustment has been made for inflation. You see in every instance, the 2019 retiree will get more than the 2009 retiree.

Now, this is for the low earner. These are the people who are at the bottom third of our economic structure. Then the medium earner, and the high earner. So you see, in every case, people are made whole and protected.

This last chart is for the max earner, the maximum earner, who, quite frankly, probably does not exist. That would assume that somebody entered the workforce at age 20, earned $106,000 a year the first year, and continued to earn that level going on up through his entire career. The maximum he could possibly draw from Social Security: that would be that one.

But 82 percent of Americans fall in these two categories. So for someone age 55, under this bill, they come out just fine. They have nothing they should worry about.

Well, what about somebody who is 45, a little bit younger? What happens to them? Again, these are the estimates made by the Social Security Administration. Once again, the low earners, they do better under the Bennett plan. The medium earners, they do better under the Bennett plan. The high earners, virtually the same under the Bennett plan.

We can make the statement that we are going to hold everybody harmless. We will adjust Social Security in a way that makes it solvent, while at the same time preserving the same level of benefits we have for those of us who are currently drawing Social Security benefits, and we can see the same level of benefits would be available to those who come after us.

We will reach out all the way to 2075 and see what the estimates are from the Social Security Administration. These are people who will be born in 2010. It is a little hard to make a projection as to how much money they will have when they are not alive yet, but the projections are made.

Once again, under the bill I am introducing today, in 2075, the people at the bottom will do substantially better comparing today's benefit of $800 to the potential benefit of nearly $1,300 because they are the ones who are held harmless in the way Social Security benefits are currently calculated. So

they will get a significant position of significantly greater benefit than they do under current law. The medium earner--well, they also will do better. The high earner also will do better. Even the max earner will come out essentially the same.

Now, I cannot guarantee these numbers. You cannot guarantee with any certainty what the numbers are going to be in 2075. But the fact is that the Social Security Administration, looking over a past version of this bill I have introduced, has said everyone can look forward with some certainty--this is my description of it, not their words--everyone can look forward with some certainty to seeing that his or her Social Security benefits will be roughly the same as the benefits that are being paid to retirees today, and the system will be solvent, not requiring any increase in taxes throughout the life of the system.

We have had a lot of debates about Social Security, and we have had a lot of proposals about Social Security. To my knowledge, this is the only one that can say the two things I have just said; that is, that everybody's benefit, wherever they fall on the economic continuum, will be held at roughly the same level as today's benefit--in the case of the low earners, substantially better--and it can be done without raising any taxes. That is why we call this the Social Security Solvency Act.

Let me go back to the charts I put up in the beginning to stress once again the importance of bringing entitlements under control.

As shown on this chart, this is where we were in 1966 before entitlements started to get out of control. We in the Congress controlled 23 percent of the budget in nondefense discretionary spending and 44 percent of the budget in defense spending. So we controlled the majority. Today, we have shrunk that to the point where we control only 17 percent of the Federal budget, with 21 percent for defense spending, and the mandatory and interest costs have grown to a majority--a significant majority. Looking ahead just 10 years, if we do not do something about the entitlements, the mandatory spending will be 61 percent, 71 percent when you add interest costs. If you divide defense and nondefense in this historic pattern, we will only have 15 percent of the entire Federal budget under our control for nondefense discretionary spending.

We are talking about the largest single expenditure in our peacetime history. As we adopt it, we should do so against the backdrop of what we are looking at in mandatory spending down the road and realize if we are going to be able to afford this stimulus package, we have to have the courage to tackle mandatory spending at the same time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon for his kind words. He was not here when I put up one chart which has now been taken away that showed the tsunami of entitlement spending, consisting of a band of three programs. The largest portion of that tsunami band was made up of health care spending. I will confess to having taken the easy route. Social Security is the easiest one to fix because we can make the kinds of changes I described here that go back to the effort started by Senator Moynihan.

Here is the chart. We can see Social Security is the easy one and eventually the small one. Medicare and Medicaid are the ones that are going to overwhelm us. They are the most difficult ones to fix.

So I am honored to have the Senator from Oregon say what he has to say because he has been the leader in recognizing that this challenge; that is, the challenge of dealing with the health care costs, is the tougher challenge, but, as with most tough challenges, it is also the one that will produce the biggest reward. It is where the biggest opportunity lies.

As I have said many times and repeated here on the floor of the Senate, one of the things I realized while working with the Senator from Oregon is that the best way to get all of these costs under control and turn these lines downward is to get quality going in our health care program. The bill I have had the honor to cosponsor, along with the Senator from Oregon, is focused on getting proper quality into our health care system.

If the Senator from Oregon is successful, with whatever help I can give him along with those others who have joined us, he will have made a significant contribution to our country, not only in terms of the benefits that come from having done health care right but from the economic impact of having done health care right. He will have made it possible for us to even consider such expenditures as a target in the stimulus package because this is the backdrop against which we are going to have to pay for those. So I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind words, but I thank him even more for his valiant effort and his leadership on the whole issue of trying to deal with the health care challenge.

Mr. President, I again stress how grateful I am to the Senator for his leadership and how happy I am to be one of his cadre of loyal followers on this issue.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, EDA. EDA works with partners in economically distressed communities to create wealth and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to attract private investment and encourage long-term economic growth. Authorization of EDA's programs expired on September 30, 2008. I originally introduced this bill in July 2008 so that we could avert this lapse in authorization. Unfortunately, my bill was never enacted, so I am reintroducing it today.

Unlike the majority of the spending in the so-called ``stimulus'' bill passed by the Senate earlier this week, EDA investments actually provide economic benefits. In fact, studies show that EDA uses federal dollars efficiently and effectively, creating and retaining long-term jobs at an average cost that is among the lowest in government. Knowing that, I was pleased to see some funding for EDA included in that massive spending bill; I only wish more of that bill had been legitimate economic stimulus.

Last year, I was disappointed to see an Obama campaign document refer to EDA as wasteful and ineffective government spending and propose cutbacks in funding for the agency. While I, too, am committed to eliminating wasteful spending, I couldn't disagree more with that characterization of EDA.

In my home State of Oklahoma, for example, EDA has worked long and hard with many communities in need to bring in private capital investment and jobs. Durant, Clinton, Oklahoma City, Seminole, Miami and Elgin are just some of the Oklahoma communities that have made good use of EDA assistance. In fact, over the past six years, EDA grants awarded in my home state have resulted in more than 9,000 jobs being created or saved. With an investment of about $26 million, we have leveraged another 30 million in State and local dollars and more than 558 million in private sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful success story.

Particularly in these difficult economic times, we should be doing all we can to ensure the continuation of such successful programs, and reauthorization is an important step. I hope now-President Obama reconsiders the rhetoric of then-candidate Obama and recognizes the effectiveness and importance of this agency. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as in the House of Representatives, to reauthorize the programs of the Economic Development Administration as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I am introducing today a joint resolution, S.J. Res. 10, with Congressman Trent Franks introducing the identical joint resolution in the House, which sets a minimum baseline for defense spending.

By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4 percent, this country can achieve two critical needs--national security and economic growth.

For the past few weeks, this Congress has been debating an economic stimulus plan. Defense spending, along with infrastructure spending and tax cuts, has a greater stimulative impact on the economy than some of the provisions in there. In fact, I had amendments, which I will describe in a minute, that would have increased the percentage in this huge bill, so that you would have maybe up to 10 percent for transportation infrastructure and then defense--I will explain that in more detail later.

Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to meet current and future needs. In order to provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a not less than baseline in defense funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained multiyear program investments. Guaranteeing a

baseline budget, not including supplemental, that sets the floor based on our GDP is the best way to accomplish this.

At this point, I acknowledge that I had an experience back during the first hearing we had for the confirmation of then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I asked the question at that time: We have serious problems. We don't know what our future needs are going to be. We may think we know what they are going to be today--and we have a lot of smart generals who will tell us, but they are going to be wrong. I remember at that time I said that in 1994 someone testified and said in 10 years we would no longer need to have a ground force, that everything would be done from the air in a precision, clean way. That would be awfully nice, but that is not the way it happened. I said, recognizing that we need to have the best of everything, what would be your recommendation? He said that he made a study of this--it was not his, but he said that if you will go back and study it over the last 100 years, the average amount of defense spending has been 5.7 percent of GDP. That was all during the 20th century, for 100 years.

Now, we went down at the end of the 1990 to as low as 2.9 percent, and now we are at 3.6 percent. The problem is the predictability. It is not there. We don't know in these systems what we can rely on. We know the cost of closing down a manufacturing line, but we don't have the predictability we need.

There are some who think by cutting unnecessary weapons systems along with reforming DOD's procurement process, we can reduce defense spending and still maintain a military level that could defend our Nation and reach the minimum expectations of the American people. The problem with that is that it doesn't happen that way. Yes, we need acquisition reform, I agree. But the overall budget outlays and the problems we have--this alone will not rebuild our military.

We could eliminate weapons systems that are called low-hanging fruit. That has already been done several years ago. I think we all remember-- and some would rather forget--that after the Cold War, there were so many in this Chamber who said we were in a position then where we did not need the military because the Cold War was over. We talked about all kinds of schemes that would transfer previous military spending into current spending for social programs. This is the way people were thinking at that time, that the Cold War is over. They had this euphoric attitude that we didn't need to continue a strong defense.

We have been trying to get past a bow wave created in the 1990s. As a result, the amount of defense spending actually appropriated during that 8 years, the 1990s, was $412 billion above the budget request. In other words, the budget request was $412 billion below what was sustained at the beginning of that 8-year period. This is what we are paying for now. Little did we know at that time that 9/11 would come, and that while we are trying to rebuild our military in terms of modernization, force strength, we would be attacked and have to start defending America and prosecuting a war.

I believe we should spend only as much as we need to ensure our national defense--no more, no less. This joint resolution sets a minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum defense budget of 4 percent, this country can achieve two critical needs--national security and economic health.

First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next generation of weapons and equipment. This is something we have been concerned about--weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain our national security over the next 40 years or more. The age of the last KC-135R, when it retires, will be 70 years old, and the B-52 will be even older than that. We are still doing this. We need this contribution for more heavy equipment. Right now, we have gotten into a problem of not developing them. They say the old KC-135R--we have a few more years on that. If we started today on a new lift vehicle to replace that, it would be several years before we would be able to have these replaced.

The second thing is it will create and maintain jobs across America and sustain our military industrial base. Investing in our Nation's defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides for our national security at the same time. Experts estimate that each $1 billion in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs.

Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the United States with our aerospace industry alone employing 655,000 workers spread across 44 States. The U.S. shipbuilding industry supports more than 400,000 workers in 47 States.

Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the Department of Defense and the services to plan for and fund acquisition programs based on a minimum known budget through what we call our FYDP program.

We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition programs in 3 to 5 years. The KC-X will take over 30 years to complete once its contract is awarded. We will still be flying these up until that time.

Programming from a known minimum budget for the outyears will translate to less programming and more stability for thousands of businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.

This week, I voted against this massive Government spending bill that provided plenty in the way of more wasteful Government spending and little in the way of stimulative opportunities such as defense spending.

I offered two amendments. One would have increased defense spending, and without changing the top line of the bill that was before us, it would change within it to have more defense spending and provide jobs. At the same time, in this entire $900 billion--or whatever it ends up being--bill that we are prepared to vote on out of conference, only $27 billion was in roads, bridges, and the things that Americans know we need.

If we had that along with the additional amount or percentage that would go to defense spending, it would equate to an increase of an additional 4 million jobs. This is what we have heard President Obama talking about for quite some time. That is one way to do it. At the same time, we have something that is lasting.

We--and certainly the Chair knows this because she sits on the same committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we are going to be doing a reauthorization of the highway bill. There is more we could have done in this particular bill that is totally inadequate in terms of putting people to work. The amendments we offered were defeated.

Today Congressman Trent Franks and I are simultaneously offering a joint resolution to keep this country safe, restore our military to the level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand, and provide for sustainable jobs in almost every State in the country.

By voting for this joint resolution, we send a clear signal to our military, to our allies, to our enemies--all alike--that we are committed to the security of this Nation and that we will not have to go through something like we went through during the nineties.

One of the great heroes of our time is GEN John Jumper. Before he was Chief of the Air Force, he stood in 1998 and made a very courageous statement. He said now the Russians are cranking out through their SU- 30s, SU-35s, a strike vehicle better than anything we have in this country. The best ones at that time were the F-15 and F-16. Had it not been for his statement as a wakeup call to the American people, China, that bought a bunch of SU vehicles from Russia would have better vehicles than we were sending up with our fliers in potential combat. All of a sudden, we were able to turn around and start programs such as the F-22 and F-35 so we could be No. 1.

The American people assume all the time we are No. 1, and obviously we are not. When the American people find out the best artillery piece we have right now, which is called Paladin--it is World War II technology. You have to get out and swab the breach after every shot. It is outrageous. Prospective enemies in the field would have better equipment than we would have.

The best way to do this and ensure this in the future is to have a baseline. I am hoping we will get the support of enough Senators to get this passed in both the House and the Senate since it is a joint resolution.

Lastly, let me address some of the points that were said by the Senator

from Florida. I agree with all his comments. He is a little nicer about it than I am, I guess. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a stimulus bill, not a spending bill. But it is a spending bill.

We had people analyze what in this bill will stimulat the economy. There are two things that can do it: the right types of tax relief. We know this is true. We remember what happened during President Kennedy's term and the recommendation he made when he said we have to have more revenues to run our Great Society programs. The best way to increase revenue is decrease marginal rates. He decreased marginal rates. Between the years 1961 and 1968, our revenues increased by 62 percent. Unbelievable.

In the year 1980, the total amount of money that came from marginal rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled in the decade when we had the greatest reductions in capital gains rates, in marginal rates, inheritance tax rates.

There are only two very minor items in this bill that address the tax situation. One has to do with accelerated depreciation. Another is with loss carryback, increasing it from 2 years to 5 years, I believe it is. If you add that together in terms of the cost that is in the bill, this $900 billion bill we are going to be passing, we have to keep in mind that is a very small part. It amounts to about 3\1/3\ percent. The other way you can stimulate is to increase jobs.

I mentioned we had an amendment to increase jobs. It is outrageous that there is only $27 billion worth of highway construction, road construction, and bridge construction that we desperately need in this country in this bill.

We have right now $64 billion worth of shovel-ready jobs that we could actually produce in this country, and all we have is 3\1/3\ percent of the entire amount of $900 billion going to that type of program. That is where I come up with the conclusion that this bill is 7 percent stimulus and 93 percent spending.

I have to tell you, back when the first $700 billion program came along in October, yes, that came from our administration, a Republican administration, a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. But also the Democrats were all very enthusiastically behind it. I opposed it at that time and said there are two problems with it. No. 1, this amount of money, $700 billion, is more money, it is the largest expenditure, largest authorization in the history of the world, and we are giving it, No. 2, to a guy with no guidelines, without any kind of oversight.

We have seen now that has not worked. Now we have the second half of that, and we find out yesterday the current Secretary of the Treasury is going to use it any way he wants. Again, no oversight. This was a horrible mistake. That was the $700 billion last October.

Now we are faced with something far greater than that. I know it is going to go through. It is a Democratic bill. It is not a bipartisan bill. It is not a compromise. It is a Democratic bill. They took the House bill and the Senate bill and something will come from that. Whether it is closer to the House bill or the Senate bill, it does not matter. It is going to be close to $900 billion, something we should not have had.

We are thinking in new terms now. I used to say back during the $700 billion, if you take the total number of families in America who are filing tax returns and do your math, it comes to $5,000 a family. That was bad enough. This bill comes to $17,400 a family over a 10-year period. That is what we have to start thinking about.

I am hoping the American people will look at this bill and realize this gigantic spending bill follows a philosophy that you can spend your way out of a recession. It has never happened before. It is not going to happen with this bill.

We want to do the very best we can. I know President Obama did not want to go as far this way. I think the House and the Senate have steered this into a bigger spending bill than he would have liked. I think he would have liked more stimulants in this bill.

Let's do the best we can with it and then let's get busy and try the things we know have worked in the past and will work in the future.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish a Federal renewable electricity standard. Before I talk about what that will do, let me tell you a little bit about the people it will help.

Luna County, NM has a double-digit unemployment rate. More than half of its children live in poverty. It was in recession before our current economic crisis. If nothing changes, it will be in recession long after the rest of the country recovers. Now, let me be clear. Luna County deserves help, but I'm not looking to spend a lot of money. We usually think of economic development as something you pay for. But the proposal I am introducing today does not spend a dime. In fact, my plan will generate tax revenue.

Luna County has something else worth noting. When you look at the United States on a map that measures solar thermal energy, Luna County is red hot. Like hundreds of small communities across our country, Luna has immense untapped potential for renewable energy. If Luna can find a way to sell its sunlight, its future will be secure. But Luna has a problem. America's energy markets do not value Luna's sunlight the way they should. These markets ignore three critical things. First, growing demand and stagnant supply mean rising prices for fossil fuels. The price of natural gas has more than tripled since 1995. Unless we act, we can expect more price spikes in the future, spikes that threaten the economy. But it is easier for utilities to buy a little more natural gas than it is to invest in clean technologies. The result is that we are moving forward as if our energy use is sustainable, when we know it is not.

In most markets, this would be bad enough, but our energy markets have two other problems. Americans care whether our energy comes from farmers in Iowa or mullahs in Iran, but our markets do not. When we buy solar energy from Luna County, we keep our money in this country, and we make ourselves less dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran, countries that have shown their willingness to use our dependence against us. America's energy markets also ignore global climate change. Right now a clean electron produced by the sun costs as much as an electron produced by burning carbon. Our markets don't care whether the energy we consume is leading to fewer farms and more forest fires. They don't care whether our grandchildren will be able to live comfortably on this Earth. They just don't care. And we are paying the price. Even the most conservative economists will tell us that energy is a classic case of market failure. The energy market ignores our economic security, our national security, and the future of our world. Economists call these things externalities. I call them the basis of our way of life.

So what do we do? I am proposing that we demand a little bit more from our utilities. Let's require that they produce 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Thanks in large part to Senator Bingaman, the Senate has already passed a similar proposal three times. Last year I was proud to help pass a proposal such as this in the other body.

Renewable electricity standards have succeeded at the State level. In fact, more than 28 States have renewable standards, including the State of New Mexico. But a national RES has never become the law of the land. It is time for Congress to make it so.

There are many reasons to support this plan. To start, it is good for consumers. Scientists looking at a 20-percent standard concluded that it could save utility customers $31.8 billion. A 25-percent standard would save even more. A renewable energy standard would also strengthen rural communities and provide new income for farmers and ranchers.

This plan will make America safer. The billions of dollars it will generate are dollars that cannot be used to hold our foreign policy hostage.

Most importantly, a national renewable standard will create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, jobs that cannot be outsourced. Study after study shows that shifting capital to renewable energy increases job creation. Not only will this plan stimulate job creation today, it will put us on a path toward dominance in the industries of the future.

Some of my colleagues will probably say a renewable standard makes sense for sunny New Mexico, but it won't work for their States. I urge them to take another look at their States. Scientists predict that Florida could one day meet one-third of its energy needs by tapping the power of the gulf stream. Louisiana has wind energy potential offshore, and New Orleans has already begun to rebuild its economy by creating jobs developing solar energy. Alaska has wind energy potential all over its coast and geothermal potential in the south. The State of Tennessee concluded its existing investment in renewables could yield 4,500 jobs and additional investment could yield 45,000.

Everywhere we look, America has untapped renewable energy potential. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Louisiana might have to import some energy from Florida under a national renewable standard. Louisiana already

imports a big chunk of its energy. As consumption rises, more and more of Louisiana's energy comes from imports. Today those imports come largely from natural gas, and 43 percent of the world's natural gas is under Russia and Iran. So Louisiana is bidding up the price of a commodity that is largely controlled by countries that don't like us. I would rather buy hydropower from Florida than fossil fuels from Iran.

The choice is not between importing and not importing. It is between Charlie Crist and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is not a tough choice.

Of course, some people say they support a renewable standard, but not yet. They say America cannot afford to reduce our contribution to climate change because the growth of China and India will drown out the impact of our emissions reductions. This concern is very real, but it represents a failure of our moral imagination. If we are to have a future as a country and as a global community, we cannot see the world's aspiring middle class as potential threats. We have to see them as potential customers. And we should be racing to develop the technologies they will need.

Waiting for China to address its emissions problem before we address ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start to lace up.

Right now, the world is engaged in a high-stakes competition; America just does not always admit it. As the world's citizens see the impact of climate change, we are demanding energy supplies that do not endanger our collective future. That means soon clean energy will not be an alternative, it will be the standard. When that happens, whichever country dominates the clean energy industry will be able to create jobs on a grand scale.

Do not take my word for it. The CEO of GE Energy has testified before the Congress that ``wind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest sources''--largest sources--``of new manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century.'' Think about what he said:

[W]ind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest

sources of new manufacturing jobs. . . .

We hear a lot of discussion on this floor about new manufacturing jobs and us losing manufacturing jobs. Well, this is where the new manufacturing jobs are going to be.

A growing chorus of economists and business leaders agree with what this GE Energy CEO has said.

America cannot afford to let another country become the world's clean energy leader. But right now we are falling behind. Countries that have done much more to shape their energy markets have already created thriving green energy industries. With a population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more than twice as many workers developing wind energy technologies. Spain has almost five times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as America. China has more than 300 times as many.

America is not falling behind because our scientists are not smart enough. Some of the big ideas now powering the economies of Europe originated right here. From 1970 to 1996, Los Alamos National Lab developed a technique for cleanly and efficiently using the Earth's heat to generate electricity. Estimates indicated the technique could eventually power the Earth for hundreds of years. But without market incentives to encourage continued development, progress stagnated. Germany took that technology and brought it to market in just 3 years. They now have 150 geothermal plants nearing completion. Think of the jobs that will create. Those could be our jobs. Those should be our jobs.

A renewable electricity standard would let America catch up and take the lead. We still have the world's most productive workers. We still have the most creative entrepreneurs. Our culture encourages individual initiative to solve tough problems. But if we want to win, we have to act now.

The American people are ready for this. I have driven to every county in New Mexico, and everywhere I saw innovation. I saw wind turbines going up in Little Texas. I saw the spot in Deming, NM, where the world's largest solar plant will sit. At Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari, NM, I saw a classroom in a wind turbine hundreds of feet over the desert. Even Luna County is starting to develop its resources. They just need help.

The Federal Government is late to the party. We should be leading the clean energy revolution. Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Mr. President, it is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. As I said earlier, he has passed a renewable standard in the Senate three times. I introduced this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior Senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together. And much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to his proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Instead, our constituents are leaving us in the dust. The private sector is working hard, but they need us to create a market that supports their efforts. They need a market that values our economic security, our national security, our environmental security.

Is time for us to lead.

Now, you might have noticed that we New Mexicans are passionate about renewable energy. As I said earlier, Jeff Bingaman has led on this issue for years. I introduce this legislation today because I want to help Senator Bingaman win this fight. I look forward to working with him and with all of you to get a renewable electricity standard signed into law.

I am also pleased to be introducing this legislation with another Senator, a Senator with a very distinguished last name: my cousin, the senior senator from Colorado. We spent a decade in the other body together, and much of that time was spent working to pass a renewable electricity standard. We were both attracted to this proposal because it reflects the kind of Western pragmatism that people in Colorado and New Mexico like. I know this issue is important to both of us. I want to thank the Senator for continuing this effort with me, and for his support through the years.

Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago, Americans voted. They voted for more jobs, for less spending and, of course, for smaller government. As you know, I have come to the Senate floor week after week to give a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. Polling shows that 58 percent of Americans voting on election day still want to repeal and replace the President's new health care law.

Americans have made it clear they oppose this new policy that put Washington between patients and their doctors. The day after the election, President Obama was asked about his health care law's impact on the election. He didn't seem to understand the message from the American people. It appears to me that the President continues to believe the American people liked his policy but just didn't like his sales pitch.

Well, in the President's first year alone, he participated in 42 press conferences, gave 158 interviews--including 5 Sunday shows all in 1 day--held 23 townhall meetings and had 7 campaign rallies. In fact, there were only 21 days in that entire first year when the President had no public or press events. Clearly, the American people heard the President's sales pitch; they just didn't want to buy his product. Nevertheless, the President and this Congress proceeded to force this new health care law upon the American people, and they paid a heavy price in the 2010 elections when Americans voted for candidates who vowed to overturn the President's new law.

Republicans have listened to the American people and are committed to ensuring that America's health care system continues to remain the best in the world. As a physician, as well as a Member of the Senate, I listened carefully to the discussions and the debate during the entire campaign season. I listened to what candidates had to say on both sides of the aisle, I listened to what Americans had to say all over the country, and I put together something called United Against Obamacare. It is a compendium of comments and statements made by the 13 newly elected Republican Senators to this body who will take office within the next 2 months. Let me read sentences taken from statements each of them made about health care.

I view the health care bill as the single greatest assault

to our freedom in my lifetime.

The thing that worries me the most about this bill, 2,000

pages of all kinds of mandates, huge new government control

of health care, is that in time--and it won't be much time--

the government is going to intervene between patients and

their doctor.

That first sentence was by Senator-elect Johnson and the next sentence was from Senator-elect Toomey.

I don't want the government to tell me what is acceptable

and unacceptable about my health care options. I want my

doctor to tell me what's best for my care.

That statement was made by Senator-elect Boozman.

It is not supported by the American people. They do not

want one size fits all health care.

A statement made by Senator-elect Coats.

Government control of health care will reduce competition,

limit personal choices, and increase overall costs.

A statement made by Senator-elect Hoeven.

I think premiums will rise, and as people begin to deal

with the penalties of Obamacare, we will have more loss of

jobs.

That was Senator-elect Rand Paul. Next:

We're becoming less competitive every time government

increases the cost of being in business--and if it's a

problem for a large business, my small business men and women

will have even greater struggles to overcome.

That was Senator-elect Moran. Next:

I do not think that 12 new taxes and cuts to Medicare are

in the interest of the people.

That was Senator-elect Kirk.

It's going to bankrupt America, it adds $2.5 trillion to

our debt in the long term.

That is Senator-elect Rubio.

That's why it's important to keep the repeal effort alive.

What we owe is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue.

It is an American issue.

Senator-elect Ayotte.

Every possible means must be applied within Congress as

well as through the application of the Constitution and the

law to stop full implementation of this legislation.

Senator-elect Lee.

I have proposed over a dozen health care solutions to help

reduce the cost of health care.

Senator-elect Blunt. And in conclusion:

I can tell you at least one thing coming . . . When it

comes time to vote to repeal health care, I vote yes.

Senator-elect Portman.

That is United Against Obamacare and statements made by the men and women who were recently elected to the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle.

We will fight to repeal the law and replace it with legislation that will help patients and providers and taxpayers.

During his recent press conference, President Obama also said that if Republicans have ideas for how to improve our health care system, he would now be happy to consider them. Well, it would have been nice if he had considered our ideas during the last 2 years but better late than never. Since the President was sworn in, Republicans have proposed a host of proposals that will improve health care in America. Today, I wish to walk through some of the Republican ideas that are strongly supported by a majority of the American people.

First, if Congress wanted to truly demonstrate that it got the message--if it truly wanted to demonstrate that it got the message--the House and the Senate would immediately repeal the President's new health care law. Senator DeMint currently has a bill that would repeal the health care law in its entirety. By passing this law, we could ensure that the American people will get the reform they want.

It is unlikely that Democrats will vote for a straight up-or-down repeal bill, and even less likely that the President would sign it into law. So I wish to talk about other Republican proposals that would eliminate some of the most egregious portions of the President's new health care law.

Senator Hatch of Utah proposed the American Job Protection Act. It repeals the health care law's job-killing employer mandate. It strikes relevant sections in the health care law forcing employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty.

Senator Hatch has also introduced the American Liberty Restoration Act. It repeals the health care law's individual mandate--the mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance. The Federal Government has never before forced the American people to purchase a product, a good, or a service they may not want. We should overturn this unconstitutional mandate.

Senator Johanns introduced the Small Business Paperwork Elimination Act. It repeals section 9006 of the health care law. Section 9006 requires business owners to submit separate 1099 reporting forms for each business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600 over the course of a year. Small business owners now, with this law, have to file 1099 forms for basic business expenses, such as phone service, Internet service, shipping costs, and office supplies. This only serves to increase the cost to own and to operate a business. Why? Because, according to the law, they will then be able to provide $17 billion more in taxes to pay for this unwanted health care law.

Senator Cornyn introduced the Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act. It repeals the health care law's Independent Payment Advisory Board. This bill would remove the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from their position of making Medicare payment and reimbursement decisions.

Senator Enzi offered the grandfather regulation resolution of disapproval. This resolution overturns a new Obama administration health care law regulation. President Obama repeatedly promised: If you like what you have, you can keep it. This so-called grandfather regulation breaks that promise. The new regulation was supposed to spare businesses already providing health insurance to their workers many of the higher costs of new mandates imposed by the health care law. If businesses lose this so-called grandfathered status, then they will be required to comply with all the new insurance mandates in the law. This includes requirements to offer a Federal minimum benefit package and to waive copayments for certain services. This will force our small businesses to change plans and increase costs.

In fact, the regulation--and it is a regulation where they took two pages of the law and blew it into 121 pages of regulations--the regulation estimates that fully 80 percent of small businesses can expect to lose their grandfathered status based on the extensive regulations the administration wrote. This is a job-killing, wage- cutting regulation. Certainly, this is not the reform the American people were promised.

Also, just this week, Leader McConnell is filing an amicus brief regarding the health care litigation that is currently pending in Florida's Federal court. His brief argues that the individual mandate is not authorized by Congress and that the Government cannot use the commerce clause to force citizens to buy a product.

This list of ideas represents only a fraction of the Republican ideas currently on the table. If the President is serious about working with us, he will consider our constructive proposals. If not, he will continue to see the American people strongly speak out against his expensive, overreaching, and ideological agenda.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know Senator Barrasso is relatively new in Washington, House or Senate. I appreciate his words. I am not talking about him. But there are so many opponents of this health care legislation.

First of all, regarding some of the partisan opponents of this law-- the American people do not want to see us relitigate and redebate the health care legislation. They want some focus on job growth. But what strikes me as a bit hypocritical--again, I am not singling out Senator Barrasso because he has not been here very long--there are so many Members in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who have enjoyed government health care for a decade or two or three, where taxpayers paid for their health care. Those conservative Members did nothing, zero, to help those people without insurance, to help those people who had preexisting conditions, to help those people close the doughnut hole, help senior citizens to get help on their drug costs.

Now they want to repeal the health care bill. In other words, they want to keep their government insurance for themselves, but they don't seem to want to help anybody else out there. It just sickens me.

More important, I don't think the public wants us to continue debating health care. The public wants us to work on job growth, to focus on things like I did in Ohio Monday where I gathered 300 small businesses, people who make things, who want to sell to major aerospace manufacturers, in this case Airbus in my State, putting people to work--because that is what it is all about.

Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about food safety. It is tempting to take the safety of our food supply as given, but it is actually more a goal, one that continues to elude us. Each year in the United States 76 million people contract a foodborne illness. Some get mildly sick, some get very sick, a few actually die. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than a few, 5,000 people a year, die from foodborne illness. These are mostly not people in their thirties who are healthy. It is the very young, very old, those whose health may be frail, whose health may not be as strong as others'. Nonetheless, 5,000 people die a year.

Over the last few years we faced melamine in infant formula, harmful seafood from China, tainted peppers from Mexico, E. coli in spinach, Salmonella in peanuts. Sometimes it is international problems. Sometimes it is domestic problems. International problems mean we ought to be looking at

trade policy closer than we have, but that is a debate for another day.

A few months ago we had a nationwide recall of eggs due to Salmonella contamination. Just this week we saw a recall of smoked turkey breast products because of Listeria contamination. The safety of Americans is threatened by a regulatory structure that has failed to keep pace with modern changes in food production, processing, and marketing.

We have at our grocery stores a wonderful thing. We have all kinds of selections: fresh fruits and vegetables and fish and all kinds of foods we didn't have when I was growing up in the 1960s in Mansfield, OH. We did not have that kind of selection in food stores, especially in the winter months. Now we do. That is a great thing, but we don't do what we need to do to guarantee its safety.

It is time to fix this broken system once and for all. The time has come for Congress to pass legislation that will in fact improve our country's food safety system. America's families should be able to put food on the table without fearing any kind of contamination. We shouldn't worry that the food in the school cafeterias, ballparks, grocery stores, or local restaurants will send a child to the hospital and spread panic throughout the community.

That is why I am so pleased we are considering the Food Safety Modernization Act. This legislation will address--I will talk briefly about it and then yield to my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper-- some of the problems with our current food safety system. It will require facilities to conduct an analysis of the most likely food safety hazards and design and implement risk-based controls to prevent them. It would increase the frequency of plant inspections. It would strengthen recordkeeping requirements and food traceability systems so we know where the food came from before it gets to the grocery store. It provides the FDA with the authority to mandate food recalls, something that is voluntary now.

Most companies step forward and do it. Some do not. Some delay before they do, imposing health risks. It would ensure further study by the FDA on enhanced safety and sanitary methods for the transportation of foods, and we must ensure this includes an examination of the pallets on which our food is shipped.

At home you don't use the same cutting board for chicken that you use for vegetables, or at least you should not, because of potential food safety problems. It is the same thing with these wooden pallets because they can collect--especially wooden pallets--way more bacteria than you can imagine. We require more extensive provisions for heightened security of imports which account for an increasing share of our fresh fruits and vegetables, an increasing share of U.S. food consumption.

This bill is here today because of the strong work especially of Senator Durbin of Illinois and Representative John Dingell of Michigan. Also, I commend Ranking Member Enzi on the HELP Committee and Chairman Harkin and Senators Dodd, Burr, and Gregg for their work.

I also commend the Kroger Company based in Cincinnati, OH, for the work they and other grocery store chains and other food processing companies have done collectively to make sure this legislation works for them on the traceability issue. Many of them, many of these companies, have already set up good traceability provisions by themselves without government involvement. I think Kroger is especially to be commended for doing that. The best way to ensure the FDA can decisively respond to foodborne outbreaks is to authorize a comprehensive food tracing system, as I mentioned.

Earlier this year I introduced S. 425, the Food Safety and Tracing Improvement Act. It would improve the ability of Federal agencies to trace the origins of all contaminated food. I am very pleased that important components and goals of my legislation are included in the managers' amendment. With the addition of these stronger traceability provisions, the FDA will be tasked with establishing a tracing system for both unprocessed and processed food, such as peanut butter. The 2008-2009 peanut butter Salmonella outbreak which sickened more than 700 people and resulted in 9 deaths demonstrates exactly why the FDA needs expanded authority to trace foods.

One victim of the peanut butter Salmonella outbreak was Nellie Napier of Medina, OH. Ms. Napier was an 80-year-old mother of 6 children, 13 grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren. She got ill in January of 2009, almost 2 years ago, after eating a peanut butter product tainted with Salmonella. When she got sick, doctors told her family there was nothing they could do and she died shortly thereafter.

The FDA was able to identify the source of the outbreak in a short period of time, but it was incredibly difficult and time consuming for the FDA to determine where all the contaminated peanut butter ended up. The source company sold to 85 other companies. They sold to another 1,500 companies, and many of those companies sold to other companies. There were no trace-back provisions to be able to help and warn others of potential contamination.

Last year, the Inspector General released a report entitled ``Traceability in the Food Supply Chain.'' This report identified significant and unacceptable difficulties in tracing food through the supply chain. The report attempted to trace 40 products through each stage of the food supply chain. They were able only to trace 5 of the 40. That is why we know how important this legislation is. We required the FDA to establish a product tracing system and develop additional recordkeeping requirements for foods the FDA determines to be high risk. We require the Comptroller General to examine and provide recommendations regarding how to further improve the product tracing system. We don't know everything yet that we need to do. This gives the FDA and the Comptroller General guidance and leadership and the authority, in addition to what we have done, to do it in the right way.

I thank Senators Harkin, Enzi, Durbin, Burr, Dodd, and Gregg for the work they have done, and Representative Diana DeGette from Denver and Senators Merkley and Franken, who have been particularly strong advocates working with me.

The goal is to make food safety a foregone conclusion. It is what Americans expect. It is what we have had through many years. We have moved away from that. This puts us right on course to do it right.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.