Plain Writing Act for Regulations of 2012

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is always good to see the gallery full, people in town visiting this process, this week in the Senate. We have actually had a pretty interesting week. We have had a chance to talk about the economy and taxes, something I wish we had spent more time talking about in the months since I got elected last year to the Senate. In a few moments, later this afternoon we will have a vote on a

bill that has been called a tax cut bill. The problem with it--and I want people watching here who are maybe not fully familiar with the process, a process I am still learning, to understand--what is going to happen is Republicans had a bunch of ideas we wanted included. We probably were not going to win those votes. We are not the majority. But we wanted those ideas to be discussed, and instead we have been told that cannot happen, that the majority is going to pick which of our ideas they want to listen to and the others will be put aside.

The problem with that is the people of Florida sent me here and, just like there are 99 other people who serve here, they have a right to have their voice heard. Unfortunately some of the ideas we have offered will not get a vote, and therefore we will not be able to move forward on that bill as a result. One of the only things the minority party can do in this process here in the Senate to ensure our voices are heard is ensure we are not going to allow legislation to move forward unless the rights of the minority are respected because, after all, we represent Americans as well who have different ideas than the majority and have a right to have their voices heard. I hope we get back to a point where the Senate works the way it was designed to work--the Senate I ran to be a part of, not the Senate we are part of here today.

I do think what has been good about this week is we have had a chance to talk about the economy. I know people at home are hearing a lot about the economy, about jobs and about the debt, so I am trying to make some sense of it for folks calling our office. One of the best ways to do that is come here on the floor of the Senate and be able to speak about these issues, not just to the people sitting here today but to the folks who are going to watch back at home or later on on YouTube or wherever this video might be available to them.

What I want to talk a little bit about today is the debt and what that means. What it basically means is the Government of the United States borrows money to pay for our costs because we spend more money than we take in. The Federal Government, your government, spends more money every year than it takes in in taxes and other fees. The only way it can get the money to pay for these things is they have to borrow it by selling something called bonds. They sell this debt that we have to pay back over the years. That is how we fund our Government. Unfortunately, almost a third is funded in that way. What has happened over the years is because we have spent consistently more than we have taken in--that is called the deficit. Every year when you spend more than what you take in, the annual amount you owe is called the deficit, but it starts building up something called the national debt. Today we owe about just over $15 trillion of money that we are going to have to pay back. Let me correct that--that you are going to have to pay back through your taxes now and in the future. In fact, your great- grandchildren are going to have to pay it back. That is the national debt. The problem with the national debt is it has become an enormous part of our national economy. It has grown to a very dangerous level as a percentage of our overall economy.

What is the way to solve it? The only way to solve it is growth. The only way to solve this problem is to grow our economy. If our economy grows, then the debt becomes smaller as a percentage of our overall economy. Think of it almost as a pie. If the pie gets bigger, the slice gets smaller if you keep it constant. It is the same thing with the debt. If we can keep the debt constant and we can grow the economy, then our debt becomes less problematic. That is the solution to this problem.

As a point of emphasis, let me tell you, let's suppose we wanted to get back to what our debt was in 2007. We want our debt to be what it was in 2007. In order to do that, we would have to come up with over $1 trillion this year to get us back to what our debt was as a percentage back in 2007. It basically means we would have to come up with that permanently. The functional reality is that to do that we would either have to double everybody's taxes or we would have to cut close to a third of our budget right now.

The point is, we cannot tax our way out, cut our way out of this issue. Definitely there have to be cuts. But we cannot cut our way out of this and we certainly cannot tax our way out of it. If you double the tax rates in this country, which is what you would have to do to get us back to 2007, No. 1, you would trigger a massive recession. I mean the economy would stop. But, No. 2, it would be impossible to collect it. It is unrealistic.

I am citing those numbers to give an example of why we cannot raise taxes. We cannot tax our way out of this problem and we cannot simply cut our way out of it either. The only solution is growth, dynamic growth--not slow growth, big growth. That is the only solution because if the economy grows, more jobs are created. If more jobs are created, you have more taxpayers. If someone is unemployed right now, they are not paying income tax. Now they get a job or get a raise at their job. Even if the rates stay the same, they are paying more taxes. Now the government has more money to pay down the debt--if it doesn't grow the government. And that has been the problem over the last few years. Our revenue has grown. The amount of money coming into the government has actually gone up. But the spending has gone up even more and that is why the deficit grows and why the debt grows. That is how growth would solve this problem. If the economy grows, more people have jobs and they get raises at their jobs. That means people get more money which leads to more growth because they spend that money and invest that money, but it also means they are generating more, but for government, and now the government has more to pay down the debt and they have to borrow less. So that is the solution. Growth is the solution, growing the economy.

How do we grow the economy faster? The economy grows because of the private sector, that is how. Real growth comes from businesses, it comes from private sector growth, from small businesses and from big businesses, from dry cleaners, from gas stations, from convenience stores, from the guy who cuts your yard and your lawn--that is growth, private sector growth.

Here is the truth. If you look at the statistics, it is undeniable. The bigger the government the smaller the private sector--because there is only so much money in the world. And the only place government gets its money is either it has to tax or borrow it from the private sector. That is--unless it is going to print more money which has a whole other set of problems we will talk about 1 day--the only way your government can get more money to grow, if it takes it from you, from the private sector. It either has to tax you or it has to borrow the money from you. Either way, it is money that the government has to take out of the private world to grow the government.

Here is what happens when you take money out of the private world. That money is no longer available to save, because if you save it you are putting it in a bank and the bank can now use that money to give you a mortgage. Or that is money you no longer have to spend, which means businesses have fewer customers and the customers they do have are spending less money.

Let me tell you the functional application of that. If you are a waiter or waitress at a restaurant and people are not spending as much because they do not have the money, they are spending it in taxes, this means they are going to restaurants less, which means you are going to make less money in both tips and wages. It may even mean your hours get cut. Millions of Americans know this reality. This is not a theory, this is a reality. If people have less money to spend, they cannot spend it at the place where you work, and if they do not have the money to spend at the place where you work, you will make less money, you will work less hours, and you may even lose your job.

The other thing the private sector can do with this money is invest it, and that is when you get growth in the economy. When a business or business man or woman makes some money and they take the money and decide, you know what I am going to do this with money? I am going to use it to grow my business or I am going to use it to start a new business. The problem is, if government takes some of this money from them, they can't do that. That is

why the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector, and the smaller the private sector, the smaller the growth, which is our only solution. That is not a theory, that is a reality. Statistics prove that the bigger the government, the higher the unemployment rate. I should have brought the chart I have that shows that every time government size and spending go up, the unemployment rate goes up. Why? For the reasons I just explained. That money the government used to grow came out of the private sector. That is money businesses now don't have to invest or spend.

Let me talk about another place where it hurts. The higher the government, the worse the stock market does. Why is that? I will explain why. People buy stock on the hope that they can make a profit on that stock in the future. The problem is that the more the government spends, the higher the taxes will have to be in the future to pay for that. So if people think taxes in the future are going to be higher and therefore their chances for making money on stock are going to be less, they are not going to buy stock.

Here is the problem. When people buy shares of stock, what they are basically doing is investing money in companies. They are investing money in companies so that the company can grow and make more money, and then the company pays back a profit. But if people are no longer willing to invest money in companies, those companies cannot grow. If those companies cannot grow, that is where people become unemployed, that is where people's hours get cut, and that is where new jobs are not created. It is also why kids who are graduating from college can't find a job. The money has to come from somewhere, and the bigger the government, the less that is available in the private sector to grow. These are facts.

Now, what are the arguments around here? Well, the Bush tax cuts are the existing Tax Code. The Bush tax cuts led to this debt. Well, George Bush cut taxes, and as result the government didn't generate enough money, and that is why we have this debt.

That is false. Our government has grown impressively over the last decade. The problem is that the amount of money we spent has grown even faster.

Listen, it doesn't matter if you get a raise. If you get a raise but your spending grows by even more, you are not going to notice the difference. If you get a $10,000 raise but you buy something that costs $20,000 more than what you are spending now, you are going to owe more money. That is what we have done here in Washington--certainly before I got here.

By the way, both parties are to blame. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan debt, and what has happened is that even though the government has generated more money, it has spent even more. So it is not the Bush tax cuts. That is just not true.

The fact is we have a spending problem. Let me explain what is so dangerous about this spending problem. The Federal Government has grown fast in the past. We have had periods like this before. Let me tell you when they were: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. During those four periods, government spending grew really fast. But here is the difference: When the war was over, the war was over. The war happened, we won World War II, and things went back to normal. The difference now is that this is not because of a war, this is because we have grown the government. This is permanent. That is the difference between the spike in spending and the other spending in the past. This spike in spending is permanent. That means it is here to stay unless we change. There is no going back to normal.

We have a serious problem, and I have explained why the debt hurts everyone at home. If you are unemployed, if you are underemployed, if you are working twice as hard and making half as much, the debt is part of the problem because the government has taken money out of the private sector. It is money that used to go to you and is now going to the government now and in the future. So the debt is part of the reason why the economy is not growing and why jobs are not being created.

At the end of the day, we cannot tax and simply cut our way out of this. Let me be clear. There are places to save money. I promise, the Federal Government wastes money. We should find that, and we should eliminate it. It is never a good idea to waste money. But we can't just cut our way out, and we certainly can't tax our way out of this debt problem. We have to grow our way out of this debt problem. We have to grow our economy out of it, not our government out of it. The only way to grow our economy is for the private sector to grow, but the evidence is clear that the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector. So therein lies the answer.

When we talk about holding constant and lowering the size of government, it is not some ideological talking point. This is not some conservative-versus-liberal talking point. This is evidence-based. This a fact, and the statistics are clear that the bigger the government, the higher the unemployment rate. The bigger the government, the worse the stock market performs. The bigger the government, the less money there is available to create jobs in the private sector, start new businesses, or grow existing businesses. That is why we have to shrink the size of our government. The sooner we do it, the better we are going to be, and that is what I hope we will work on here in a bipartisan fashion. Both parties helped to create this situation, and now I hope both parties will help to work to solve it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Should we go to the bill?

Mr. President, I find it ironic that we are debating a bill called the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act when that bill does absolutely nothing to address the death tax, one of the biggest threats to our small businesses in our country.

Again, while Republicans are being accused of not wanting to move legislation to help grow the economy and develop jobs, it was interesting to read this morning that my Democratic friends still do not have any agreement among themselves on how to proceed on a number of tax issues--including the death tax. They need to get moving over there.

Next year, unless Congress does something, the death tax will come roaring back at a much higher rate of 55 percent and a much lower exemption amount of $1 million next year, though those who promote the death tax characterize it as impacting only Daddy Warbucks, the Monopoly Man, and Montgomery Burns. The data does not bear out this cartoonish characterization.

The death tax does not just hit those at higher income tax brackets; it has an effect well beyond small business owners and adversely impacts middle-

class jobs and wages. Call it what you will, the estate tax or the death tax, but in the end it is a tax that is antismall business and antijob creation and antiwage increase.

We are in the midst of another Senate floor show of pursuing legislation that will give the President and his allies campaign talking points but will do absolutely nothing to spur economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the Senate has failed to take action on estate tax reform. This is beyond irresponsible.

I have been a long-time proponent of repealing the death tax. Not only is it double taxation and a deterrent to savings, but it also sucks up capital in the marketplace. To be clear, this is capital that could be used to hire more workers or expand small businesses or any business for that matter. This is a basic economic concept that seems lost on our current President, President Obama.

During last year's deficit reduction talks, President Obama argued on behalf of tax increases saying:

I do not want, and I will not accept a deal in which I am

asked to do nothing, in fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of

thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need.

Income that I don't need? This is a point that could only be made by a person with a very loose understanding of how business and entrepreneurs operate. The President seems to think this so-called excess income does no good. In fact, however, it will be invested or it would be invested in new business ventures, new hires, and better wages.

If these entrepreneurs with all this excess income did nothing but put that money into a savings account, it would benefit individuals looking to buy a house, buy a car or start their own business, but the President does not seem to grasp this. So it is no surprise that he and his Democratic allies have done nothing to address this job-killing death tax increase looming on the horizon.

The President claims he is interested in job creation. He certainly should be after last month's anemic jobs report. Well, he need look no further than death tax repeal. I know his liberal base might not appreciate it, but the rest of the country, which is less interested in class warfare talking points and more interested in getting the economy moving again, would embrace it.

The death tax adds inefficiency to our economy. It is what economists refer to as deadweight loss. In other words, it creates another burden on our free market system and prevents the full potential of economic growth.

For instance, many small businesses have to purchase insurance in order to prepare for paying the death tax so they do not end up having to sell the business just to pay the death tax. This added cost is embedded into the cost of goods when sold. In other words, American consumers, American workers, or Americans looking for work are those who will ultimately have to pay the death tax.

Consider also that heirs are often forced to sell an asset of the business or the business itself in order to meet this arbitrary tax due date. These assets are likely generating revenue and could be a vital part of the business. But because the tax man cometh, small businesses are forced to sell these assets to pay the death tax.

We ought to repeal the death tax, plain and simple. We actually don't get that much revenue from the death tax to justify its existence. It has been a pain in the neck from the beginning.

In 2010 the death tax was temporarily repealed, but in a few months the law will take a sharp turn for the worse. Back in 2010 Senators Kyl and Lincoln offered a compromise that gained bipartisan support which eventually became law. Under title III of the Tax Relief Act--a law signed by President Obama--the death tax and the gift tax are unified with a $5 million exemption amount and a tax rate of 35 percent. Under current law, however, in 2013 we will once again have a 55-percent estate tax due within 9 months of death, and in some cases the tax will reach 60 percent. The exemption amount could be as low as $1 million.

That is not right. How does it benefit our economy to have small businesses and farmers wondering whether they have to sell their business or literally sell the farm to pay for an uncertain amount of taxes? It creates an accounting and financial nightmare.

The estate tax is not about making the Tax Code more progressive. The estate tax is not about more redistribution. It is not about deficit reduction. It is class warfare, and while it might stir up some votes, it has an outsized and detrimental impact on our economy.

Many do not realize the enormous impact the death tax has on rural America. I am not only talking about farmers and ranchers; I am also talking about small family-owned businesses that generate economic growth in smaller towns--and even larger towns. If we do not address the death tax, some businesses with assets over $1 million could be susceptible to the death tax.

I know for a small business $1 million in assets is a pretty low threshold. That is why I care about this death tax debate: because of real people, real Utahans, in real communities, who will be upended if this tax increase is allowed to go into effect.

When we hear about the number of individuals impacted by the death tax, that statistic actually understates the sweep of this intrusion by the Federal Government. The estate tax return is filed by the representative of the deceased. That return does not take into account the dead person's family, employees, or neighbors. All of those folks are affected if the death tax burdens that particular family business or farm.

There seems to be a strategy by the Democratic leadership to drag its feet in coming up with a resolution to this impending problem. What they fail to realize is this strategy is only adding to the cloud of uncertainty--economic uncertainty--over our country and over our economy. Will Congress keep the rates and exemption amounts the same? Will Congress increase them? What do I need to do as a small business owner to better prepare my business from withstanding a tax increase?

These are the types of questions more and more small business owners and farmers are continuing to ask. The uncertainty these questions generate is holding back investment, job creation, and wage growth. Yet policies to promote economic growth have, unfortunately, taken a back seat to Presidential talking points that campaign advisers think will generate votes. Attack the rich. Promise more spending.

As a candidate, President Obama promised in 2008 that Washington needed to spread the wealth around. That is one promise the President has kept. In spite of an economy that demands a focus on job creation, the President and his liberal allies have spent the last year coming up with even more intensive redistributionist schemes.

Recently, the Joint Committee on Taxation released an estimate on how many more taxable estates, farming taxable estates, and small business taxable estates would be affected by the increase in the death tax over the next 10 years. The numbers are truly astonishing. If Congress does not act, we will see more than a 1,000-percent increase in the number of taxable estates, a 2,300-percent increase in the number of farming taxable estates, and a 1,000-percent increase in the number of small business taxable estates. The reach of the death tax is growing, and it is going to hit not just the so-called rich but current employees and, for that matter, entire communities.

Let's take a look at the tax year of 2013. It arrives in a little over 7 months, by the way. Under current law, 46,700 estates will be taxable. If we extend the Lincoln-Kyl compromise, 3,600 estates would be taxable. Now, let me refer to the Joint Committee on Taxation estate tax data chart. It is the second column on the chart. When we think about it, under current law the path on which we seem to be slow- walking means more than 10 times the number of estates will be hit by the tax. The Lincoln-Kyl compromise means only the top 10 percent--the wealthiest estates--would be hit by the death tax.

If we project out the 8 years of current law over 10 years, we will find that roughly 570,000 estates will be taxable over that period. Under the Lincoln-Kyl compromise, which is the current estate tax regime, roughly 41,000 estates would be taxable over that period. So 570,000 estates under the law that many Democrats would want or only 41,000 estates would be taxed under the Lincoln-Kyl compromise.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan described an epidemic of sorts that is hitting our farmlands across the United States. She did not talk about rising fuel prices or droughts. Instead, Secretary Merrigan discussed how our country's farmers and ranchers are getting older, and fewer young people are taking their places. I have heard time and time again that the death tax is the No. 1 reason family farms and businesses fail to pass down to the next generation.

If Congress does not act soon, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that another 2,000 farming estates will be hit by the death tax next year. Keep in mind farmers sometimes carry debt. That would reduce the value of the farm, but on the other hand farmers have other farm-related assets such as combines and other equipment that are not included in the figures I cited.

This data shows the failure to address the estate tax cliff will undermine many family farms. For those folks who are working this land, this is an unwelcome uncertainty. As I indicated earlier, the tax is an impediment to passing on the family business, in this case the family farm. A much higher death tax, apparently supported by many Members on the other side, will undermine many family farms and small businesses. Yet these family farms and small businesses form the economic backbone of their communities.

Do we really want to send the signal that those who work hard, save, and want to pass something on to their families exist solely to fund bloated Federal programs? Why work hard? Why save? Why not work less? Instead, if the President is just going to spread the wealth around, it might just be easier to go into debt and live beyond one's means.

There is something fundamentally unjust about the estate tax. Contrary to the claims of the President and his most liberal supporters, a person's wealth is the result of his or her labor. When one builds a business, one puts their sweat and ingenuity into it. To then be punished for this--to have it taken away at the moment of death by the Federal Government--is an assault on personal liberty and freedom.

John Locke, the great philosopher, understood this. America's Founding Fathers understood this, and they would no doubt be appalled to know that behind the Grim Reaper now stands an IRS agent waiting to collect and deliver the government's share. But today's so-called liberals have abandoned this classical liberal philosophy--the philosophy of natural rights and liberties upon which our Nation was founded--in favor of a redistributionist philosophy that undermines rights and undermines our economy.

Time is running out. We cannot continue this cycle of passing temporary tax relief and then waiting until the very last minute to decide what to do next. We owe it to family farms and small businesses to figure out a way to pass a permanent solution so each year businesses are not left wondering whether they will have to shut their doors in order to pay the death tax.

Also, for those who love to raise taxes on small businesses, keep in mind these small businesses pay a lot of income tax each year into the Treasury's coffers. Do we want to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs? If we are serious about providing true tax relief that will help small businesses grow, we can sit here and debate whether a bandaid will be the cure to our ailing economy, or we can begin the debate over how to prevent historic tax increases from hammering our small businesses and farms.

I urge my friends in the Democratic leadership to put the death tax on the Senate's radar screen.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. President, this body for 50 years has passed the National Defense Authorization Act, and for 50 years, after conference, it has reached the President's desk and been signed by the President of the United States.

There are many pressing issues that confront the Senate, the Congress, and the Nation. But I don't think we should forget that our first obligation is to secure the safety of our citizens, and that can only be done by training, arming, and equipping the men and women who are serving in the military.

Mr. President, a couple of months ago, through the Senate Armed Services Committee, we passed the National Defense Authorization Act, and it has some very important components in it to continue to support the men and women who are serving, and their families, and to provide them with the equipment and training they need to defend this Nation.

We are still in conflict in Afghanistan. We are on the brink of a crisis with Iran over nuclear weapons. We have adjusted our presence in Asia in response to the rising influence of China. The uprising in Syria threatens to spill over into neighboring countries. And, of course, the situation in Egypt is clearly one of significant question as to how the Egyptian Government and people will progress. Some would argue that in many respects the State of Israel is under more threat than at any time since perhaps the 1973 war. So we live in a dangerous world. We live in a very uncertain time. And it seems to me our priorities should be to bring the national defense authorization bill to the floor.

The bill received a unanimous vote in committee by both Republicans and Democrats. I am proud of the relationship the chairman and I have developed over many years of working together. I am confident that despite the fact there will be hundreds of amendments filed, we can work through those and work through the process, as we have in the past, and bring the Defense authorization bill to a conclusion and to conference with the House and then signed by the President of the United States. We owe this to the men and women who are serving in the military. It is not our right, it is our obligation to get the authorization bill to the President's desk.

We may have significant disagreements, but for 50 years this body has passed the Defense authorization bill and it has been signed by the President of the United States. We are in some danger of not getting this done this year when we look at the remaining weeks we have in session and the number of challenges that are before us. So I think it is time we step back and look at the requirement to pass this legislation.

I have some sympathy for the majority leader in that there is great difficulty in the way we are doing business nowadays. But I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will all recognize the importance of this legislation. We must urge Members on both sides to set aside their own personal agendas and do what is necessary for the defense of this Nation.

The bill provides $525 billion for the base budget of the Defense Department, $88 billion for operations in Afghanistan and around the world, and $17.8 billion to maintain our nuclear deterrent. The bill authorizes $135 billion for military personnel, including the cost of pay, allowances, bonuses, and a 1.7-percent across-the-board pay increase for all members of the uniformed services--something I think all of us would agree is well-earned. That is, by the way, also the President's request. It improves the quality of life for the men and women in the Active and Reserve components of the All-Volunteer Force and helps to address the needs of the wounded servicemembers and their families.

As we and our NATO partners reduce operations in Afghanistan, the importance of transitioning responsibility to Afghan forces increases, as does the need to provide for the protection of our deployed troops. This legislation provides our service men and women with the resources, training, equipment, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. It enhances the capability of U.S. forces to support the Afghan National Security Forces and Afghan local police as they assume responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the year 2014.

Weapons systems modernization is essential to the future viability of our national security strategy, and this legislation provides for substantial improvement of legacy ships, aircraft, and vehicles, while authorizing research and development investments to ensure our troops remain the best equipped in the world. The bill authorizes the President's request for missile defense and accelerates support for our allies, including the joint U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, such as the Arrow weapon system and the David's Sling short- range missile defense system. It also provides multiyear procurement authority for the Chinook helicopters, V-22 aircraft, Virginia-class submarines, and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, reflecting estimated savings of more than $7 billion over 5 years. And none of this can take place unless we pass the authorization bill.

The committee also sought to improve the ability of the armed services to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I believe the key battlefield of the 21st century will be cyber warfare, and I am concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain. To improve the Defense Department's cyber capabilities, this legislation consolidates defense networks to improve security and management, which will permit personnel to be reassigned to support offensive cyber missions, which are understaffed.

The issue of nuclear proliferation is addressed, and other programs to counter the flow of improvised explosive devices and curtail the trade of worldwide narcotics are authorized in this bill.

Especially important are provisions to enhance the capability of the security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat al-Qaida, its affiliates, and other violent extremist organizations. The Armed Services Committee extended the Defense Department's authority to train and equip forces in Yemen to counter al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and forces in east Africa to counter al-Qaida affiliates and elements of al-Shabaab.

To ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with law and regulation, the bill promotes aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department's programs and activities. This includes adding funding for the Department of Defense inspector general. The Department of Defense inspector general reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 billion in savings in 2011--a return on investment of more than $8 for every $1 spent. The committee mark also codifies the 2014 goal for the Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources.

Further, it improves the cost-effectiveness of DOD contracting by limiting the use of cost-type contracts for the production of major weapons systems. In addition, the bill includes a series of wartime contracting provisions drawn from the McCaskill-Webb bill implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. In that vein, the bill enhances protections for contractors that blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracts.

Finally, this legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report to Congress on the impact budget sequestration will have on military readiness and national security. Similar legislative language has been passed twice by this body and by the House of Representatives. The Congress does not yet have an accurate understanding of the implications of sequester beyond an assertion that the cuts would be ``devastating,'' which is the word used by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and nearly every other defense official we have queried. We must have this information as we begin the work of developing a balanced approach to deficit reduction that replaces sequestration with a responsible plan for getting our Nation's finances in order.

I want to repeat, Mr. President, that for 50 years, I am proud to say--and in the years I have been in this, obviously--we have successfully authorized the programs and policies of the Department of Defense. I am proud of what this committee has done. I am proud of what the Senate has done. I am proud of what the Congress has done and the Presidents these pieces of legislation have come before for their signature. Let's not allow the anticipation of an election to hinder our ability to act in the interests of the men and women who are so bravely serving our Nation.

I hope the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, will come to an agreement so that we can have a date certain. And I can assure the leadership on both sides that Senator Levin and I will again be able to expedite this process, allowing amendments and debate as they are called for and at the same time come to a successful conclusion and make this the 51st year we have succeeded in doing what is necessary to fulfill our most solemn and important obligation, which is to do everything within our power to ensure the security of this Nation.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his comments. I must tell the Senator, listening to him account to the people in Connecticut, to the individuals who are struggling in this economy, I can tell the Senator we have the same exact circumstances happening in Maryland.

This past weekend I was with some small business owners who were telling me their plans for opening a new restaurant and opening a new gasoline station, telling me of the struggles they are having in getting financing. There are community banks that have money, but they cannot make the loans because of the new rating system, and it is very difficult to get the capital to get the type of expansions they need today to start a new business.

In my State of Maryland, the high-tech and cybersecurity areas where we have small companies that are starting up to help our country, to help our country answer the problems of cybersecurity, help our country develop the type of biotech discoveries that will make our health care system more cost effective, are having a very difficult time putting together the capital in order to be able to move forward with job creation.

The Senator and I know 60 percent of our job creation will come from small businesses. We also know innovation is more likely to come from small companies that find ways to work more cost effectively. Today in this economy it is a challenge for small business owners to be able to put together the business financing to create the jobs we need for our economy.

The Senator also understands if we are going to balance our budget, if we are going to be able to move forward, we have to have more people working. A lot of people are looking for work and cannot find a job. We want more people working to fuel our economy. Also, by the way, they also pay taxes and help us bring our budget into balance.

So I could not agree with the Senator more that we need to get Democrats and Republicans working together. Here we have a bill on the Senate floor that helps small businesses. Let's not filibuster this bill. Let's at least bring it up for an up-or-down vote. I thought in a democracy majority rules. Let's bring it up. Let's have a vote. Let's keep it to the small business issues.

We all talk about our support for small businesses. Let's keep it to the issue before us: to create jobs, to help small businesses do that.

The underlying bill--and I thank Senator Reid for the underlying bill--says to small businesses: If you add to our economy, if you create more jobs, if you increase your payroll, then we have tax help for you to do that.

I must tell you, I think this is exactly what we need. We know businesses cannot get all the financing they need. They need some help in order to be able to put together new job opportunities. This bill provides that with a 10-percent credit on the cost of a new hire. That gives an incentive for the small business owner. It may be the difference between setting up that new restaurant or moving forward to add that employee that will not only help our economy but will help that company discover the way in which we can deal with the cyber threats to this country. So it helps our country, it creates the jobs, and this underlying bill should be discussed on the floor of the Senate without filibusters that deny us that chance.

I also thank Senator Landrieu. Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee, has put forward a series of amendments. I am proud to have worked with her on the amendment she has brought forward that adds some provisions that are extremely important.

I know in the underlying bill, working with Senator Landrieu, we have also the expensing provision. That is an important provision. As I am sure the Senator from Connecticut understands, that provision allows a business owner to go out and make a capital investment, to buy a piece of equipment. Rather than having to write it off over 3 years or 5 years or 10 years, they can write it off immediately, having the ability to buy that piece of equipment, to grow their business, and to be able to then write off the cost. It is just a timing issue for the businessperson, but it is the difference between making the investment or not making the investment, creating a job or not creating a job.

By the way, by buying that piece of equipment, that business owner is also helping another business owner who is selling that piece of equipment, to get our economy back moving again. It is those types of commonsense provisions that have always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate--always. These are provisions we have had Democrats and Republicans working on together. We need to do that today.

Let's move on with the bill. We have had it on the floor of the Senate now a couple days. Let's move on and start voting, but do not filibuster. Let's vote on relevant amendments. Can't we just stick with the small business issues and vote on that in order to help our economy grow?

I am also pleased about another provision that is in the Landrieu amendment and the underlying bill now that we could have a chance to vote on that increases the surety bond limits for small businesses. This was passed by the Senate and incorporated into law in February 2009. I was proud to be the sponsor of this amendment that increased the surety bond limit from $2 million to $5 million.

The reason this becomes important is, for a small business owner to be able to get a government contract of over $100,000, they need to have a surety bond. In order to get that surety bond, the small business owner has to take, usually, for security, some of their assets and pledge them for the surety bond rather than using them for the credit of the company, which is really a catch-22 situation.

Increasing the limit from $2 million to $5 million frees up some of that ability because the government comes in, the Small Business Administration comes in and helps them with that surety bond. So if you are a construction contractor trying to get a Federal contract, the difference between $2 million and $5 million is a huge difference in the type of contracts that you can compete for.

It is interesting that when we looked at it, we had projected it would generate about $147 million in additional bonding activity for projects of over $2 million, and we found that, in fact, it increased activity by $360 million.

So the need was there. It generated strong activity. Democrats and Republicans supported it. I was proud of the support of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe.

This is not a controversial issue. The only way we are going to get that increase--that expired in 2010. It is no longer part of the law. We are back to $2 million. So small business owners are at a disadvantage. We just have not had a chance to extend that. It is not controversial. It brings money into the economy. It is not scored.

So we need to be able to get that done. If we cannot get to this bill, I do not know when we will get that increase in the surety bond limit. So that is another reason I urge my colleagues to let us vote on this bill to help small businesses in our community. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support.

Here is what we are asking. My colleagues, we all talk about we want to create more jobs. We all talk about supporting small businesses because we know small businesses are the growth engine of America. We all know small businesses create more of the new patents, more of the new innovations per employee than the larger companies do. Let's put our action where our words are. We can do that today by allowing the Senate to move forward to consider amendments on the Reid bill that is before us--the Landrieu amendments. Let's move forward with that bill. Let's take up relevant amendments that deal with small business

issues. Let's vote them up or down by a majority vote of the Senate. And then I am sure, at the end of the day when we put that bill up for final passage, it will enjoy broad support by the Members of this body. And it gives the American people confidence that we indeed are focused on job creation for America.

I urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this bill. Let's take up the Landrieu amendments, take up the underlying bill. Let's do something that can help small businesses, help job growth, help our economy, and restore confidence to the American people that we are indeed dealing with the agenda they want us to do--moving our country forward, moving our economy forward by creating more jobs in our economy.

I thank my friend from Connecticut.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask to be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate the University of Kansas on its prestigious designation as a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

I do regret I can't be at the KU ceremony today to mark this designation by the NCI because of anticipated votes in the Senate, but I am certainly there in spirit.

This designation of `` cancer center'' is such an important development for my state and others in our region because it means that many Kansans and their families who have faced frightening diagnoses-- and trying treatments--will no longer have to seek cures all the way down to Texas or up to Minnesota.

They can, and will be able to, stay closer to home and their support systems. Simply put, it's great news for Kansas cancer patients in the region.

I am personally gratified by this designation because it represents more than a decade of work with so many outstanding partners. It has truly been a team effort to achieve this important Federal designation.

When I was first elected to this body in 1996, I created a blue ribbon committee of Kansas leaders in government, academia and the private sector to advise me on the State's science and technology needs. The goal was to make us more competitive in a global marketplace increasingly reliant on research and technology and to provide economic opportunity to stop out-migration of our best and brightest young people.

The Roberts advisory committee set out to implement policies and secure Federal investments to further the research goals of Kansas State University in plant and animal science, Wichita State University in composite and aviation research and the University of Kansas in life science research.

I personally took this goal to the Kansas legislature in 2001 and again in 2002 encouraging my colleagues in the Kansas State legislature to help promote State investment in research infrastructure--to be part of it.

At the time, I spoke about how the statistics showed that Kansas was lagging behind other States in the race for Federal and private research dollars.

In response, the Kansas legislature more than stepped up to the plate with special thanks to leaders like Representative Kenny Wilk, Senator Kent Glasscock, Representative Nick Jordan and Senator Dave Kerr.

The legislature voted in favor of bonding authority--and we constructed and invested in buildings at the KU Cancer Center and the Biosecurity Research Institute at K-State. Likewise, Wichita State's work in composite research is now revolutionizing industries from aircraft to health care. And about this same time, Stowers Biomedical Research Institute came into existence, which provided a key private source of research excellence.

Our Kansas motto is ``To the stars through difficulty.'' Well, in short, the stars aligned.

KU's then-Chancellor Bob Hemenway and I sought out other opportunities to help raise KU's research profile.

In 2004, we invited then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni to KU for a tour and discussion about KU Medical Center's research facilities.

Dr. Zerhouni recognized--as many Federal research directors do--that there is great promise in research conducted at Kansas universities.

Chancellor Hemenway and I worked in concert to design congressionally directed programs to supplement KU's internal NIH cancer research successes. This included those won by Dr. Jeff Aube, who leads one of four NIH drug discovery centers.

Furthermore, this coordinated effort with Chancellor Hemenway and his leadership team also provided KU with the flexibility to recruit new cancer research faculty who brought considerable expertise and NCI cancer research programs to KU.

In 2006, with the critical mission of the National Cancer Institute in mind, from my post on the Senate Health Committee, we fought to reauthorize funding for National Institutes of Health which oversee the National Cancer Institute.

This reform bill reaffirmed the various centers of NIH including the Cancer Institutes and reauthorized their funding.

In fact, this was a continuation of Congressional efforts from 1999, when we were successful at doubling NIH funding over 5 years, at a time when many wanted to divert Federal funds to other research.

My then-partner in the Senate, Sam Brownback, now our State's Governor, and I worked together to advance this push.

In 2009, Senator Brownback and I secured $5.5 billion in Federal investments for the University of Kansas to purchase equipment needed to further its cancer research. Sam's leadership, both then and now, is immeasurable.

Over those 10 years, there were many other excellent team members supporting this effort who should be recognized. I apologize I will not be able to name everyone who played such a big and important role.

First, Dr. Howard Mossberg, dean emeritus of the KU School of Pharmacy. He was the force behind the regular meetings of our Science and Technology Advisory Committee. Howard, who lives in Lawrence, home of KU, did this work for free because he recognized the opportunity to use the advisory committee to provide us with key facts to support our research and technology initiatives. KU, in fact, hosted many of our advisory committee meetings down through the years. I truly appreciate that.

Riding shotgun back in Kansas on this effort has been my tireless staff member Harold Stones. Harold provided the hard work of collecting and then distilling and providing to everyone concerned the valuable contributions among our technology leaders for more than a decade, helping me turn them into policy and progress.

Credit must also go to former KU research directors Dr. Bob Barnhill and Dr. Michael Welch. They were instrumental in my research about the KU Cancer Center. Jim Roberts, who sadly passed away from cancer himself, was a valuable KU adviser to me, as is Steve Warren today.

I have appreciated getting to know Dr. Roy Jensen, who leads the KU Cancer Center. I know Roy will continue to stay in close touch with me and the entire Kansas delegation about the KU Cancer Center as it continues to progress. Our work is ongoing. It is not done.

I would also be remiss not to mention the contributions of my former legislative director, Mr. Keith Yehle. Keith was the point person for KU to contact, whether it was about the KU Cancer Center, the advancements in special education or the Hoglund Brain Imaging Center, where we also secured $1.8 million in Federal investment for renovation and equipment. Keith went on to work at KU for Chancellor Hemenway to help him and our current Chancellor Gray-Little navigate the corridors of Capitol Hill.

My former chief of staff Leroy Towns, former deputy legislative director Jennifer Swenson, and my current

senior health care policy adviser Jennifer Boyer round out the list of the Roberts team who spent countless hours working on behalf of the University of Kansas--whether it is the cancer center designation or any other of KU's initiatives.

Let me stress that my current colleagues in Congress, Senator Jerry Moran, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, and Congressman Kevin Yoder, have each carved out important initiatives to promote this designation and have helped make this day possible. This partnership will continue for