Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1197.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the amendment I offered--

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

I yield.

It is. Because the Senator from Maryland spoke to his amendment, I thought that process was over. I apologize.

I would like to thank the Senator from Michigan for thanking me.

Mr. President, the amendment I offered, No. 1197, will help small businesses. Small businesses often serve as subcontractors, or suppliers, to large corporations that have a primary government contract. My amendment would help guarantee that small businesses get paid by these large corporations in a timely way. More specifically, my amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget to issue regulations in the next year to do this.

This amendment sounds simple. There is a reason for that. It is. It is something we can do here today that will offer real and significant help to small businesses. It is going to offer predictability and certainty to them.

Anyone who owns a small business will tell you that they can't hire more people or plan for the future if they don't know when their next paycheck is coming. Getting their money more predictably and quickly will enable them to make the investments they need to grow, thrive, and hire more people.

The administration has recognized that small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, small businesses create an overwhelming majority of all new jobs. Small businesses are also responsible for producing half of the private sector GDP.

Given this, it makes sense to me that we need to figure out how to make sure small businesses are getting paid on

time. OMB recognized this and issued a new policy statement that will require all Federal agencies to make payments to their small business contractors within 15 days of receiving an invoice. But the fact is, a lot of small businesses serve as subcontractors to direct prime contractors. It only makes sense that we should require our large prime contractors to play by the same rules we play by and to pay their suppliers in a timely manner.

When Congress passed the Prompt Payments Act back in 1983, it recognized that the Federal Government needed to lead by example, and that we should be paying all of our contractors in no more than 30 days after the contractor sent an invoice our way. Congress went back in 1988 to create an obligation on construction contractors that they pay their suppliers within 7 days of the government paying them. But no other contractors were under the same commonsense obligation. I think that is a mistake we should correct, especially as we are pouring billions and billions of government dollars into contingency operations overseas--and all sorts of other projects that have nothing to do with construction. All suppliers working with these contractors deserve to be paid on time. I am hoping one day we can tackle this problem for all subcontractors, not just small businesses that are contractors.

For now, my amendment takes a modest approach and focuses on the biggest problem--creating certainty and predictability for small business subcontractors.

The National Federation of Independent Business recently conducted a survey, and they found nearly 40 percent of firms reported that receivables are coming in at a slower pace. I have heard stories from companies that have not been paid in 90 days or 120 days after they have invoiced. This is unacceptable.

These sorts of delays affect cashflow for these small businesses and make it tough for these businesses to meet payroll obligations and pay their other basic bills, such as their rent.

I want to tell a personal story that relates to small businesses and how important it is to them to be paid on time or how important cashflow is. My uncle, Lionel Kunst, was a small businessman. He died in 1994. I went to his funeral. At the funeral were a number of his business associates--people who supplied him. He made fabric, quilting. These were people who supplied him and people whom he supplied. One after another got up and testified how quickly he paid, or how, if they could not pay on time, he would cut them some slack. That is how important this is. That is how important it was to them. My uncle was a mensch. It was a big deal. These guys got up and all talked about this.

This is what we should do. We should do it for these small business subcontractors--make sure they get paid on time. That is all.

This is a sensible, simple solution to a real problem that small businesses are confronting. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. Yet 48 percent of homeless women in Minnesota previously had stayed in abusive situations because they did not have safe housing options available to them. Twenty-nine percent of homeless adult women in my State are fleeing domestic violence, and more than half of those women are living with children. That simply is not acceptable.

This problem is not unique to Minnesota. Far from it. National studies establish an undeniable link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence. By one account, two in five women who experience domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives.

Not surprisingly, once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes vulnerable to further violence and exploitation. In fact, nine in ten homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse. During a hearing last week, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center explained that perpetrators of sexual violence often prey on homeless women.

Of course, we all know that this problem is not about statistics. It is about the real people with real stories who are behind the numbers. It is about the woman in California who was evicted for ``causing a nuisance'' after the police responded to an incident of domestic violence in her Low Income Housing Tax Credit unit--where she was the victim.

It is about the mother of five in Florida who received a termination notice after her ex-husband broke down her door and assaulted her. It is about the 83-year-old woman in Minnesota who was threatened with eviction from her Section 202 housing unit because of disturbances caused by her abuser.

Though the link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. Advocates across the country work tirelessly to ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence have the shelter and support they need. Local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are dedicated to ending the cycle of abuse and homelessness. Property owners, too, often work with victims, advocates, and local authorities to find solutions to the problem.

Here in Congress, we have made efforts to break the link between domestic and sexual violence and homelessness as well. The 2005 Violence Against Women Act included important protections that made it unlawful to deny someone housing assistance under certain federal prorams just because the individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. From conversations with experts in Minnesota, I know that those protections have been invaluable.

The Violence Against Women Act is now up for reauthorization. That occasion provides us an opportunity to build on the successes of the 2005 bill and to address its shortcomings. That is why today I have introduced the Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the police to enforce a protective order because she was afraid that she would be evicted if she did so. The bill rests on the simple premise that a woman should not lose her home just because she is a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

The Violence Against Women Act currently protects tenants of only two federal housing programs--those provided under Sections 6 and 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. These protections were an important first step. But we can do better. A woman's rights should not depend on the type of housing assistance she receives.

So my bill extends VAWA's housing protections to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, the Rural Housing Services program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for persons with disabilities, and five additional Federal housing programs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the bill will cover more than 4 million housing units that are not included in existing law.

In addition, current law fails to secure housing rights for victims of sexual assault. My bill fixes that problem. It makes it unlawful to deny a woman federally assisted housing just because she is a victim of sexual assault. As the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence explains, too many victims become homeless as a result of sexual assault, and, once homeless, they are further to sexual victimization. My bill recognizes that victims of sexual assault require safe housing just as do victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking--groups that already are covered by existing law.

My bill also takes an important new step toward ensuring that victims of domestic and sexual violence do not end up on the streets. It requires managers of federally supported housing units to adopt emergency transfer policies for women who would be in imminent danger were they to stay in their current homes. Under these policies, a victim of domestic or sexual violence could move to safe, federally subsidized housing unit instead of staying in harm's way.

I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski, both of whom are true champions of women's rights. Both are advocates for victims of domestic and sexual vio1ence. In 2005, both cosponsored the Violenc Against Women Act reauthorization bill. They were leaders in this area then, and they have stepped forward to lead again today. I thank them for their help.

The Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act is preventive, proven, and precedented.

It is preventive because it will keep women and children in their homes at a time when they are vulnerable--when they need a roof over their heads the most. It is no secret that shelters and transitional housing programs are overextended. This legislation addresses a victim's housing needs before she becomes homeless and requires those services.

The protections contained in the bill are proven. Advocacy groups from Minnesota and throughout the country--the people most familiar with the problem--have weighed in on this bill. It already has been endorsed by 23 organizations, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Women's Law Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The bill is unprecedented, too. We are not reinventing the wheel here. The bill builds upon housing protections that were incduded in the 2005 VAWA reauthorization bill, which passed the Senate with unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Though many say the political climate here in Washington has changed for the worse in the years since then, I am hopeful that the goals underlying VAWA once again will transcend partisanship.

We have worked together to address the unique housing needs facing domestic and sexual violence victims in the past. We need to do so again today.

Mr. President, nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. Yet 48 percent of homeless women in Minnesota previously had stayed in abusive situations because they did not have safe housing options available to them. Twenty-nine percent of homeless adult women in my State are fleeing domestic violence, and more than half of those women are living with children. That simply is not acceptable.

This problem is not unique to Minnesota. Far from it. National studies establish an undeniable link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence. By one account, two in five women who experience domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives.

Not surprisingly, once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes vulnerable to further violence and exploitation. In fact, nine in ten homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse. During a hearing last week, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center explained that perpetrators of sexual violence often prey on homeless women.

Of course, we all know that this problem is not about statistics. It is about the real people with real stories who are behind the numbers. It is about the woman in California who was evicted for ``causing a nuisance'' after the police responded to an incident of domestic violence in her Low Income Housing Tax Credit unit--where she was the victim.

It is about the mother of five in Florida who received a termination notice after her ex-husband broke down her door and assaulted her. It is about the 83-year-old woman in Minnesota who was threatened with eviction from her Section 202 housing unit because of disturbances caused by her abuser.

Though the link between homelessness and domestic and sexual violence is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. Advocates across the country work tirelessly to ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence have the shelter and support they need. Local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are dedicated to ending the cycle of abuse and homelessness. Property owners, too, often work with victims, advocates, and local authorities to find solutions to the problem.

Here in Congress, we have made efforts to break the link between domestic and sexual violence and homelessness as well. The 2005 Violence Against Women Act included important protections that made it unlawful to deny someone housing assistance under certain federal prorams just because the individual is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. From conversations with experts in Minnesota, I know that those protections have been invaluable.

The Violence Against Women Act is now up for reauthorization. That occasion provides us an opportunity to build on the successes of the 2005 bill and to address its shortcomings. That is why today I have introduced the Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the police to enforce a protective order because she was afraid that she would be evicted if she did so. The bill rests on the simple premise that a woman should not lose her home just because she is a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

The Violence Against Women Act currently protects tenants of only two federal housing programs--those provided under Sections 6 and 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. These protections were an important first step. But we can do better. A woman's rights should not depend on the type of housing assistance she receives.

So my bill extends VAWA's housing protections to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, the Rural Housing Services program, the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for persons with disabilities, and five additional Federal housing programs. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the bill will cover more than 4 million housing units that are not included in existing law.

In addition, current law fails to secure housing rights for victims of sexual assault. My bill fixes that problem. It makes it unlawful to deny a woman federally assisted housing just because she is a victim of sexual assault. As the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence explains, too many victims become homeless as a result of sexual assault, and, once homeless, they are further to sexual victimization. My bill recognizes that victims of sexual assault require safe housing just as do victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking--groups that already are covered by existing law.

My bill also takes an important new step toward ensuring that victims of domestic and sexual violence do not end up on the streets. It requires managers of federally supported housing units to adopt emergency transfer policies for women who would be in imminent danger were they to stay in their current homes. Under these policies, a victim of domestic or sexual violence could move to safe, federally subsidized housing unit instead of staying in harm's way.

I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski, both of whom are true champions of women's rights. Both are advocates for victims of domestic and sexual vio1ence. In 2005, both cosponsored the Violenc Against Women Act reauthorization bill. They were leaders in this area then, and they have stepped forward to lead again today. I thank them for their help.

The Housing Rights for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act is preventive, proven, and precedented.

It is preventive because it will keep women and children in their homes at a time when they are vulnerable--when they need a roof over their heads the most. It is no secret that shelters and transitional housing programs are overextended. This legislation addresses a victim's housing needs before she becomes homeless and requires those services.

The protections contained in the bill are proven. Advocacy groups from Minnesota and throughout the country--the people most familiar with the problem--have weighed in on this bill. It already has been endorsed by 23 organizations, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Women's Law Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The bill is unprecedented, too. We are not reinventing the wheel here. The bill builds upon housing protections that were incduded in the 2005 VAWA reauthorization bill, which passed the Senate with unanimous consent and was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Though many say the political climate here in Washington has changed for the worse in the years since then, I am hopeful that the goals underlying VAWA once again will transcend partisanship.

We have worked together to address the unique housing needs facing domestic and sexual violence victims in the past. We need to do so again today.

Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Texas. My understanding is that Senator Murkowski from Alaska is on her way down. I am scheduled to sit in the chair at 12, and I don't want to step on the opportunity of the Senator from Alaska to speak.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to proceed to the joint resolution of disapproval of Senator Hutchison, which would repeal the FCC's net neutrality rules.

As many of you know, I have repeatedly said net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time. I still believe that is the case, and I am here to state why we need to do everything we can to stop this partisan resolution in its tracks.

But before I get into the reasons we should oppose this resolution, I think it is important to step back and remember what the American people expect of us. I do not need to tell anyone in this body that the approval rating of Congress is at an all-time low. Why is that? I think it has something to do with the fact that we are using our extremely limited, valuable time to debate partisan proposals like this one rather than working together to create jobs, stimulate our economy, and get Americans back to work.

When this resolution of disapproval passed the House back in April, I hoped that would be the end of it. I hoped my colleagues would recognize we should let agencies do their jobs and not employ an arcane procedure to erase a rule the FCC started thinking about in 2004 under Republican chairman Michael Powell, and again in 2005 when a different Republican chairman, this time Kevin Martin, adopted a unanimous policy statement on net neutrality.

When the White House issued a statement indicating the President would veto this resolution of disapproval if it came to his desk, I thought my colleagues would be sensible and would recognize that this was not only unnecessary and foolhardy, but it was also a pointless exercise and would be just a giant waste of everyone's time. Alas, that is not the case and here we are spending valuable time on two resolutions of disapproval when we should be turning to legislation that will get our economy back up and running again.

I hope the votes we take tomorrow will send a strong message that we need to stop these political stunts and work together to create jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

But let's get to the substance of why I am standing here before you today. I am here today to talk about net neutrality. Net neutrality is a simple concept. It is the idea that all content and applications on the Internet should be treated the same, regardless of who owns the content or the Web site. This is not a radical idea. It certainly is not a new one. We may not realize it, but net neutrality is the foundation and core of how the Internet operates every day and how it has always operated.

When scientists and engineers were creating the basic architecture of the Internet, they decided they needed to establish some basic rules of the road for Internet traffic. One of the fundamental design principles of the Internet was that all data should be treated equally, regardless of what was being sent or who was sending it. That is net neutrality. It is the same principle we rely on every day when we use the Internet, and it is the same principle our phone companies must adhere to when they connect our phone calls.

They did not discriminate based on what we say or whom we call, and the founders of the Internet thought the same should be true about data traveling across networks. Everything and everyone should be treated the same.

This principle of nondiscrimination is baked into the DNA of the Internet. This is not radical or new. This is about having a platform that is free and open to all, regardless of whether one is a big corporation or a single individual and regardless of whether one pays a lot of money to speed up how fast their content gets to their customers. Net neutrality is what we all experience today when we log on to our computers, and it is what we have always experienced since the very beginning of the Internet.

I think it is important to focus on that point for a minute because our opponents are telling us something quite different--and they are wrong. Net neutrality is not about a government takeover of the Internet, and it is not about changing anything. Net neutrality and the rules the FCC passed are about keeping the Internet the way it is today and the way it has always been.

We take for granted that we can access Google's search engine as easily as we can access Yahoo or Bing or that Netflix videos download as easily as the videos our friends uploaded onto YouTube last night. We expect that e-mails arrive at their destinations at the same speed regardless of who is sending them, and we take for granted that the Web site for our local pizzeria loads as fast as the Web site for Dominos or Pizza Hut. That is one of the reasons I care so very much about this issue.

This is not just about freedom of speech, it is also about protecting small businesses and entrepreneurs of all sizes. In my mind, net neutrality is and always has been about protecting the next Bill Gates and the next Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook and Microsoft do not need our help today, but the 20-year-old whiz kid working in his parents' garage to develop the app or software or Web site to revolutionize our lives does need net neutrality, and so does the small bookstore or local hardware store that wants their Web site to load just as fast as Amazon or Home Depot.

I have been on the floor of the Senate talking about the beginnings of YouTube because it is such a powerful example of why we need to protect net neutrality. When YouTube started, it was headquartered in a tiny space over a pizzeria and a Japanese restaurant in San Francisco, CA. At the time, Google had a competing product, Google Video, that was widely seen as inferior.

If Google had been able to pay AT&T or Verizon or Time Warner large amounts of money to block YouTube or to make Google Video's Web site faster than YouTube's site, guess what would have happened. YouTube would have failed. But, instead, thanks to net neutrality, YouTube became the gold standard for video on the Internet. YouTube was able to sell its business to Google for $1.6 billion just 2 years after its start. I love that story because it is a testament to the power of the Internet to turn people with great ideas into overnight successes, and it happened because we had net neutrality.

The story of the Internet is a story about the triumph of the little guy over the big, slow-moving corporation. The past 20 years are littered with tales of entrepreneurs starting with next to nothing and revolutionizing the world as we know it. From YouTube's humble beginnings over a pizzeria to Facebook's infamous start in a dorm room in Cambridge, the Web-based products we use every day are a great result of a great idea and the drive to make that great idea a reality.

Here is what we will not hear from our opponents: Facebook and YouTube and countless other Web-based products might not have existed today if it were not for net neutrality. Without net neutrality, Myspace or Friendster--remember them--could have partnered with Comcast to gain priority access or to block Facebook altogether. Blockbuster could have paid AT&T to slow down or completely block streaming of Netflix videos. Barnes & Noble could have paid Verizon to block access to amazon.com. Imagine a world where the corporation with the biggest checkbook can control what we see and how fast we access content on the Internet.

Fortunately, that is not the world we live in today and thanks to the FCC that is not the world we are headed for. The FCC's rules will ensure that no matter how much money or power they have, a young kid working in her parents' basement in Duluth can outinnovate the biggest corporation simply because she has the best idea. This is exactly why top Silicon Valley venture capital and angel investment companies support these rules. These companies are the ones funding the next Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page or Sergey Brin so he can get his product off the ground. They are the ones funneling millions and millions of dollars to entrepreneurs, which is why I think we should listen to them. The CEOs of eBay, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube have joined in a letter supporting the FCC's rules. They say: ``Common sense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global competitiveness.''

I think we should listen to them and companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, IBM, and Qualcomm. These companies also support the FCC's rules because they recognize they could not have grown to be the tremendously successful companies they are today without a free and open Internet, and that is what we are asking for. That is all we are asking for.

When our opponents get up and tell us these rules will stifle innovation and halt growth, I want everyone to think about what they are saying. I want us to ask ourselves: Why would so many of the leading technology companies over the last two decades support what the FCC is doing if they think it will hurt innovation? It doesn't make any sense because it isn't true. Net neutrality and the FCC rules will protect the innovators and entrepreneurs who have made the Internet what is it today and what it will be tomorrow.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the experts from Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch, and Raymond James. These companies have all stated they do not believe the FCC's current rules will hurt investment. Citibank said the FCC's rules were ``balanced,'' and Goldman Sachs said they were ``a light touch'' and created ``a framework with a lot of wiggle room.''

What is even more telling is that investment in networks that support wired and wireless Internet has jumped since the announcement of the FCC's rules. In fact, investment is more than 10 percent higher in the first half of 2011 than in the same period last year. Venture capital firms poured $2.3 billion into Internet-specific companies in the second quarter of 2011. I think these numbers speak for themselves. They tell a story of surging investor confidence following the FCC's vote on these rules and not the doomsday portrayal we will hear from our opponents.

Protecting innovation in this country is particularly important given the state of the telecom industry today. I don't need to tell you that telecom corporations have grown larger and fewer. We know, in part, because we have seen our cable, Internet, and telephone bills rising and rising. What else have we seen? Customer service that has gone straight out the window. When we are angry we wasted another day waiting for a Comcast repairman to come and install a cable Internet line in our house or we have been put on hold by Verizon for the fifth time in a single call and we finally decide to switch companies, we may realize we don't have another choice.

Seventy percent of households in this country have one or two choices for basic broadband Internet service. The majority, 60 percent, of the households only have one choice for high-speed broadband.

This is appalling for many reasons. It affects prices, quality of service, and choices for customers, but it is ultimately why we need net neutrality. We need to make sure companies play by the rules. As control of the Internet has shifted into the hands of a smaller and smaller number of corporations, we need to make sure those companies are able to dictate the speed of traffic based on how much a content provider can pay or prioritize their own content over other companies' content.

Of course, as I said before, there is nothing wrong with maximizing shareholder profit since that is what corporations are obligated to do. Minnesota is home to many great corporations, including 3M, General Mills, and Medtronic. These companies create thousands of jobs and produce fantastic products. Other corporations should not be able to prevent others from competing. Competition is what net neutrality is all about. It is about ensuring that the next breakthrough product has the opportunity to reach consumers through a free and open and equal Internet.

In addition to protecting innovation and small businesses in this country, net neutrality is also about speech. The Internet is not just where we go to shop for local products and services; the Internet is where we go to find political campaign information and read local news stories. The Internet is what helped fuel the Arab Spring, in large part because it has become the soapbox of the 21st century. Organizers and advocates are no longer stapling posters to bulletin boards to get their message out there. They are now posting their message on Twitter and Facebook. The

Internet is not just responsible for an upheaval in how campaigns and advocacy occur; it is also responsible for an upheaval in the print media world because the Internet is also the printing press and library of the 21st century.

This is why it is so important we make sure the corporations providing Internet service play by the rules and are not able to profit by speeding up or slowing down our access to certain news Web sites or other places we go to access information. We would not want the Libyan Government to shut down access to Facebook in the middle of protests in that country for the same reasons we do not want a corporation controlling what information and Web sites we are able to access in order to benefit their bottom line.

You know I have been a proponent of net neutrality for a long time. You have heard me over and over on how net neutrality is about keeping the Internet the way it is. But the truth is, the FCC rules, while a step in the right direction, are very conservative. I wish the FCC had done more, but the FCC wanted to reach a consensus, and they made a concerted effort to address many concerns of telecommunication companies, large and small, when they drafted these rules. For my opponents to now claim the FCC ignored public opinion or failed to consider the impact these rules would have on businesses is not true.

First, I think we could all stand a bit of history on the bipartisan nature of this rule. Net neutrality is something that two Republican chairmen of the FCC, Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, championed in 2004 and 2005. Chairman Powell first articulated a set of net neutrality principles and Chairman Martin, 1 year later, achieved unanimous Commission endorsement of the FCC's open Internet policy statement.

In 2006, 11 House Republicans voted in favor of net neutrality on the floor. The Gun Owners of America, the Christian Coalition, and the Catholic Bishops joined with the ACLU, moveon.org and leading civil rights groups to advocate for the same principles for openness and freedom on the Internet.

This debate started 7 years ago, and only after reviewing more than 100,000 public comments and holding 6 public workshops did the Commission finally issue a rule. To claim this was premature, rushed or not carefully considered is just plain wrong. I also think it is completely inaccurate for my opponents to claim the Commission never analyzed the costs and benefits to this rule.

In fact, there is an entire section of the rule entitled ``The Benefits of Protecting the Internet's Openness Exceed the Costs.'' I urge my colleagues to read this section of the Commission's order. It covers four pages. It contains over 25 lengthy, detailed, analytical footnotes. It is clear the Commission considered the costs and benefits of acting, and they concluded that ``there is no evidence that prior open Internet obligations have discouraged investment,'' and that ``open Internet rules will increase incentives to invest in broadband infrastructure.''

I recognize that a couple companies are challenging the FCC's rules in court, and they have every right to do so. But this resolution of disapproval amounts to little more than political gamesmanship from fringe organizations. I think it is important to know that not a single large telecommunication company supports this resolution of disapproval. They are not wasting their time with an arcane process, and we should not either. That is not to say Congress cannot and should not have a discussion about the merits of net neutrality. We can and we should.

Frankly, I have been disappointed by the quantity of misinformation that has been such a large portion of this debate in the past.

The rhetoric I heard during the House debate last April was disappointing. It is not the type of debate Americans deserve. I encourage a frank and in-depth discussion on net neutrality. I hope one day soon we will consider making a statutory change to the FCC's authority that will clarify that we want the FCC to make sure the Internet stays open and free. That will put the issue to rest for good. It is, frankly, the process we should be relying on. By forcing an up- or-down vote through the Congressional Review Act, we are short- circuiting the normal legislative process and ignoring the FCC's tremendous work on this issue.

This resolution of disapproval is a procedural stunt that wastes limited time which should be used to address the real problems Americans face every day. At the end of the day, the problems of Americans are why we are here. I love hearing from Minnesotans, and I got a great e-mail the other day. The letter was from a group of five self-proclaimed ``highly-credentialed computer geeks,'' including a professor, a startup founder, an ex ``Google-er'' and a ``non-ex- IBMer.'' In their e-mail they wrote:

The free market will drive innovation in the Internet, but

careful regulation is needed to preserve the freedom of the

markets from coalitions of companies that will seek to reduce

competition.

They noted:

History promises that the leading companies will work

together to create a monopoly that they can control so they

can make more money and . . . disrupt innovation.

I am glad they and thousands of Minnesotans have taken the time to write and call to tell me how much preserving net neutrality means to them. These highly credentialed computer geeks are right: The free market will drive Internet innovation as long as that market is truly free and open--free from corporate control and open to all content providers equally.

These constituents and millions of Americans don't want Congress engaged in political sparring matches designed to appease a few vocal critics. Americans, entrepreneurs, and small businesses want a world where the future Twitters, eBays, and Amazons of the world can grow and thrive, without interference from big mega conglomerates.

If passed, this resolution will hurt consumers, stifle innovation, and create uncertainty in one of America's most innovative and productive sectors. We are at a pivotal moment, and I hope my colleagues will recognize this and join me in voting down this resolution of disapproval.

I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me to speak during this time, and I thank the Presiding Officer for holding the chair while I have been speaking.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Wind

Act with my friend and colleague Senator Tester from Montana.

Rural renewable energy development has been one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate. America's rural communities have some of our country's most abundant renewable energy resources, and I strongly believe that community-owned renewable energy projects are among the most promising drivers of economic development in our rural communities.

Minnesota has a lot of wind. In the past decade, communities across southwestern Minnesota have been transformed by wind power, with turbines producing renewable energy to power homes and businesses across the midwest. These projects are helping Minnesota meet its ambitious goal of obtaining 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. As we look to develop more renewables in Minnesota and across the country, I want to make sure that rural communities are reaping the maximum benefit from these projects.

That is why community wind is so powerful. When a wind project has some level of local ownership, studies have shown that the project will have higher local economic impact than conventional projects. That is because profits from the project flow to members in the community. Those profits are then reinvested in the community, fueling economic activity that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

Like many small and distributed energy projects, community wind projects face unique challenges when compared to conventional wind, ranging from difficulties accessing financing to the inability to take full advantage of Federal tax benefits. Despite these barriers, community wind projects have devised innovative financing structures to move forward with projects across the country. However, like the larger wind industry, community wind still faces great uncertainty with the looming expiration of the federal production tax credit for wind at the end of 2012.

Our bill provides long-term certainty to community wind over the next 5 years by expanding the existing small wind Investment Tax Credit to projects with capacity up to 20 MW. There is no restriction on turbine size, and the bill prevents the subdivision of large wind projects to game the system and claim the credit.

This bill has support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the American Wind Energy Association to the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota Soybean Growers, a broad coalition of Minnesota and national small and community wind developers, and rural businesses and nonprofits across the country. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Tester today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to garner support for its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Community Wind

Act with my friend and colleague Senator Tester from Montana.

Rural renewable energy development has been one of my top priorities since coming to the Senate. America's rural communities have some of our country's most abundant renewable energy resources, and I strongly believe that community-owned renewable energy projects are among the most promising drivers of economic development in our rural communities.

Minnesota has a lot of wind. In the past decade, communities across southwestern Minnesota have been transformed by wind power, with turbines producing renewable energy to power homes and businesses across the midwest. These projects are helping Minnesota meet its ambitious goal of obtaining 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. As we look to develop more renewables in Minnesota and across the country, I want to make sure that rural communities are reaping the maximum benefit from these projects.

That is why community wind is so powerful. When a wind project has some level of local ownership, studies have shown that the project will have higher local economic impact than conventional projects. That is because profits from the project flow to members in the community. Those profits are then reinvested in the community, fueling economic activity that wouldn't have otherwise happened.

Like many small and distributed energy projects, community wind projects face unique challenges when compared to conventional wind, ranging from difficulties accessing financing to the inability to take full advantage of Federal tax benefits. Despite these barriers, community wind projects have devised innovative financing structures to move forward with projects across the country. However, like the larger wind industry, community wind still faces great uncertainty with the looming expiration of the federal production tax credit for wind at the end of 2012.

Our bill provides long-term certainty to community wind over the next 5 years by expanding the existing small wind Investment Tax Credit to projects with capacity up to 20 MW. There is no restriction on turbine size, and the bill prevents the subdivision of large wind projects to game the system and claim the credit.

This bill has support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the American Wind Energy Association to the National Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Corn Growers, the Minnesota Soybean Growers, a broad coalition of Minnesota and national small and community wind developers, and rural businesses and nonprofits across the country. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Tester today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to garner support for its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the chairman for allowing me to ask a question. I want to know because I have only been here 2-plus years. But it seems to me that actually, from my perspective--this is my perspective--this committee has worked in a pretty functional way. It took a long time. We started having hearing on this however long ago was it, about a year and a half?

During this whole period, I talked with the Senator. I have asked to see the ranking member and meet with him in his office to tell him what I wanted to see in this bill. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky, who has talked about there is just one test at the end of the year and the kids do not--the teachers do not get to see the results until the kids are out the door. I think that is terrible. I am offering an amendment that the ranking member referred to today.

I have gone all around my State since I have been a committee member and talked to teachers about what they want to see to fix this or to get rid of No Child Left Behind and replace it with something that makes sense. That is exactly what we are doing. Is this not the normal order of things?

That is my question.

I went to Senator Alexander and met with him in his office to explain what I wanted. My staff has been meeting every other Member--not every other Member's staff but every other Member's staff who seems to be engaged in this on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Harkin's staff, with the committee staff, with staff from Senator Enzi's office. I keep hearing whose staff they are talking to about this piece of this amendment or that amendment or this piece is going to be in the managers' bill. I think I have spent more time on this bill than on any other bill in my time here, and nothing has stopped me from being engaged in it. I do not think there is anything that has stopped anyone in our committee from going back over the transcripts of the many hearings we had. I do that often.

So my question is: Am I wrong or has this not been conducted in a way that is actually, as these things go, pretty functional for any Member who wants to be engaged in the process? I think there is a responsibility on the behalf of committee members, and is there not a responsibility on the behalf of committee members to be active in the committee, to come to hearings, to be engaged in the process, to approach the chair, to approach the ranking member? Is that not part of our responsibility?

Absolutely not.

I wish to thank the ranking member. We talk on the phone about this. We have talked over dinner about this bill. I wish to thank Senator Alexander, whom I asked to come to his office. We spent a very substantive session talking exactly about how I saw this--what was wrong with No Child Left Behind and how we could essentially get rid of it and solve what it is that every teacher hates about it and what principals hate about it and what superintendents hate about it.

Senator Alexander and I had some disagreements on things. But, man, I think we agreed on 80 percent of this. I think I had an 80-percent agreement--I mean, that is Senator Enzi's rule. He has this 80-percent rule, which is that we agree on 80 percent and we focus on the 20 percent. I have a 64-percent rule which is that 80 percent of the time we agree on 80 percent. We see that Senator Bennet laughed because he is proficient at math.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I also respect my good friend from North Carolina, and I want to thank him for his vote on my amendment. I think he is going to like some of my other amendments too.

I wish to take issue too with one thing he said. I think he said it in a moment where, if he thought about what he said, he might reconsider it. I had commented that I have spent more time probably on this bill than on any other, and I have spent a lot of time on the Affordable Care Act. The Senator from North Carolina then said, if I had spent more time on this bill than any other, that is a pathetic commentary or a sad commentary because we just got this bill the other day. The fact is--and I think the Senator would acknowledge this--work on any piece of legislation doesn't start when the bill is introduced. My work on this bill

started very soon after I arrived in the Senate.

My work started with a bill I coauthored with Orrin Hatch, which is going to be an amendment. It is an amendment to recruit and train principals for high-needs schools. We have had schools I have seen turned around by principals because principals can create the ethos of the school. They have so much to do with selecting the teachers and transforming a school. This amendment would create a program where we recruit people who want to be principals in high-needs schools and have them monitored--if they haven't been a principal before--by a principal who has successfully turned around a high-needs school. That work started immediately upon my getting to the Senate.

I have been going back to and traveling around the State of Minnesota talking to teachers and superintendents and principals. The Senator from North Carolina talked about the need to have superintendents and principals and teachers here. We had 10 hearings. I believe it was the other side at one point that said, please, stop the hearings.

My colleague talked about the transformation models, which I do have problems with. What do we do with a school that has failed? What do we do now with a school in the bottom 5 percent? If the Senator from North Carolina was there, we had a superintendent--Joel Klein, superintendent of schools or chancellor of the schools in New York--who spoke exactly to the transformation models. Again, what works in New York certainly doesn't work in Pine City, MN, or parts of North Carolina, but there are plenty of teachers available and plenty of principals available in New York City. So I think we need more flexibility in transformation models than in this bill--than Joel Klein suggests--and maybe that is in the managers' bill now. Joel Klein is a superintendent, and he spoke to the transformation models. He said the transformation models gave him the ability to fix schools that were failing, schools that were dropout factories.

So the very thing we have been asked for here: Let's have testimony from superintendents; aren't these transformation models surreal? We have had these hearings.

I would suggest to the Senator from Kentucky who has just come in, my office will print out the transcripts of all the hearings we have had and you can read what teachers and principals and superintendents have said.

I have to say that the work you do on these bills doesn't start when the bill hits the desk. In my case, it started 2 years before. And I don't think the Senator actually meant----

For a question. Sure.

Certainly. And obviously I believe in the markup we will have a healthy discussion of every part of this bill and of every amendment. I think the Senator from North Carolina is going to be so thrilled with my amendments, that at the end of the day he is going to not just cast an aye vote on the bill but an enthusiastic one.

I accept your apology. I don't think you said exactly what you said you said. What you said was if the Senator spent--it is not worth going into.

The point is that your work on a bill doesn't start when a piece of legislation is written. Most of the work comes before. And I want everyone to understand that who is listening.

This bill has been a tremendous passion of mine. You mentioned passion for success. I want the growth model. Senator Bennet was superintendent of the Denver schools, and very successful. When I did my principal bill, I went to a school in St. Paul, MN, Dayton's Bluff, which had been a failed school and was turned around by a successful principal. So I had a roundtable there. This was very early in my tenure here. One of the principals said, You know those No Child Left Behind tests, we call them autopsies. What he meant was you take them at the end of the year, you take them in late April, and you don't get the results until the kids are out of school, and then the results are abrogated.

We have something in Minnesota that the teachers, superintendents, and principals agree on, something called the NWEEA tests. What are those? They are computer-adaptive tests. What does that mean? In Minnesota, very often they take these three times a year. They are computer tests so that teachers get the results right away. The principal called the No Child Left Behind test autopsies because the kids are out of school and the teacher can't use it to inform instruction. If you do a computer test and you get it right away, the teachers can use the tests to inform their instruction. I think that is what most parents thought we were doing in the first place when President Bush first suggested this law.

Secondly, they are adaptive. What does that mean? Well, that means if a kid gets a question right and keeps getting questions right, the questions get harder; but if they start getting questions wrong, they get easier. It is much more diagnostic and you can see exactly where a child is. Right now, the No Child Left Behind test forbids these assessments from going outside grade level.

Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, said something profound. He said that a sixth grade teacher who takes a kid from a third grade level of reading to a fifth grade level is a success, is a great teacher; but under No Child Left Behind, the way it is now, that teacher is a failure. That makes no sense whatsoever. We have to measure growth. That is what the Senator from Colorado was talking about. We need to measure growth. And that is no mystery.

I go around to schools, and I remember being in a school in St. Cloud, MN. I was introduced by the principal to the teacher who won Teacher of the Year, a math teacher. I met the math teacher, and the math teacher said, ``Growth.''

This is not a mystery, and we have had hearings on this and we know this. We need to be measuring how much kids grow, and that will help kids who are from poor schools, because they are starting at a lower level. But if the

school is good and they are increasing their growth, they will be rewarded.

My daughter graduated from college. I am looking at the pages now who are juniors in high school. My daughter, immediately out of college, became a teacher at a school in the Bronx, 97 percent free and reduced price lunches, a third-grade teacher. That is the first year they do No Child Left Behind testing. She had to take her kids from here to here, to this arbitrary level of proficiency in order to be considered a success, where 15 miles to the north a teacher in Westchester had to take her kids from here to here. That doesn't make any sense.

In Minnesota, I have learned from my teachers I have talked to that there is something called ``the race to the middle.'' What is that? Under No Child Left Behind, the way it works now is that there is an arbitrary bar of proficiency a teacher is judged on, on what percentage of their kids in these different subgroups meet or exceed that bar of proficiency.

Well, the smartest kid in the class is going to pass, no matter what. There is nothing you can do to that kid that won't make that kid exceed the bar of proficiency. So guess what. The teacher ignores that kid.

The kid at the bottom, the most challenged kid, well, no way that kid is going to make it, so let's ignore that kid.

A race to the middle. The kid right below and right above proficiency, those are the kids who are drilled--drilled and killed, as they call it in Minnesota.

We know what is wrong with No Child Left Behind. We have been discussing it for 1\1/2\ years in hearings. We have been talking about it. I have been talking to the ranking member. He mentioned today these computer-adaptive tests in the markup. These things aren't mysteries. Members were welcomed to the hearing, and some didn't come.

But the work on a bill doesn't start the day the bill hits the table. The work of a Senator, if the Senator is a hard-working Senator, is every day. It is going back to your State and finding out what teachers and principals and superintendents need. It is going to the hearings. It is talking to the other Members, to the chairman, to the ranking member, and to your staff. And your staff is getting information from other staffers--not just the committee staff but from other staffers. I don't want to leave people with the impression that we work once the bill hits the table.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act with my friend and colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar. This legislation will finally allow for the distribution of funds owed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Before I talk about our legislation, I want to first thank my colleague in the House, Representative Peterson of Minnesota, for his leadership on this issue and for the tremendous work he put into crafting this bill.

It has been a long road to get to this point. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe first filed complaints before the Indian Claims Commission in 1948. It took all the way until 1999 before their claims were settled. For over 60 years, members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe have been waiting for these funds. It's time to get this done.

In 1999, the United States Court of Federal Claims awarded $20 million to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. This money is to compensate tribal members for the improper taking and sale of land and timber under the Nelson Act of 1889. The Federal Government owes the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe this money. In fact, in 1999, the $20 million owed to the tribe was transferred to the Department of the Interior and deposited in a trust fund account, where it has been collecting one percent interest. But tribal members in my home State of Minnesota have never received a dime. That is because, before any money can go to the tribe, Congress must pass legislation detailing how to allocate the funds between the 6 bands that make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.

Today, Senator Klobuchar and I are introducing legislation to do just that. Our bill will provide $300 to every tribal member. While this might not seem like a lot of money, I want to remind my colleagues that Native Americans represent one of the poorest segments of Minnesota's population. On the White Earth reservation, where one in five members live under the poverty line, a check for $1,200 for a family of four would make a real difference. This is money that the 40,000 enrolled members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe could be using right now to put tires on their car or fix a leaking roof or buy new shoes for their children.

Our bill allocates the remaining funds equally to each of the six bands that make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. That is approximately $15 million or $2.5 million per band. This funding is desperately needed. It will allow the bands to provide for the basic needs for their people by investing in economic development, health care, housing, and education.

There is one band, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, that does not agree with this distribution plan. I am sympathetic to their concerns, and I sincerely hoped that a consensus agreement could have been reached that would have satisfied all those involved. But, in the end, I believe we must respect the decision of the tribe.

The bill we are introducing today reflects the distribution agreed upon by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive Committee. This is a democratic body comprised of two elected officials from each of the six bands. Under the tribal constitution, the Executive Committee is the governing body of the tribe. After years of disagreement, the Tribal Excusive Committee has agreed on an allocation formula. I deeply respect tribal sovereignty and therefore believe we must respect their decision.

I also worry that any further delay will only cause hardship for individual tribal members. The thousands of tribal members across Minnesota cannot afford to wait another decade. It is time for Congress to act to allow for the distribution of the funds owed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act with my friend and colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar. This legislation will finally allow for the distribution of funds owed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Before I talk about our legislation, I want to first thank my colleague in the House, Representative Peterson of Minnesota, for his leadership on this issue and for the tremendous work he put into crafting this bill.

It has been a long road to get to this point. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe first filed complaints before the Indian Claims Commission in 1948. It took all the way until 1999 before their claims were settled. For over 60 years, members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe have been waiting for these funds. It's time to get this done.

In 1999, the United States Court of Federal Claims awarded $20 million to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. This money is to compensate tribal members for the improper taking and sale of land and timber under the Nelson Act of 1889. The Federal Government owes the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe this money. In fact, in 1999, the $20 million owed to the tribe was transferred to the Department of the Interior and deposited in a trust fund account, where it has been collecting one percent interest. But tribal members in my home State of Minnesota have never received a dime. That is because, before any money can go to the tribe, Congress must pass legislation detailing how to allocate the funds between the 6 bands that make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.

Today, Senator Klobuchar and I are introducing legislation to do just that. Our bill will provide $300 to every tribal member. While this might not seem like a lot of money, I want to remind my colleagues that Native Americans represent one of the poorest segments of Minnesota's population. On the White Earth reservation, where one in five members live under the poverty line, a check for $1,200 for a family of four would make a real difference. This is money that the 40,000 enrolled members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe could be using right now to put tires on their car or fix a leaking roof or buy new shoes for their children.

Our bill allocates the remaining funds equally to each of the six bands that make up the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. That is approximately $15 million or $2.5 million per band. This funding is desperately needed. It will allow the bands to provide for the basic needs for their people by investing in economic development, health care, housing, and education.

There is one band, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, that does not agree with this distribution plan. I am sympathetic to their concerns, and I sincerely hoped that a consensus agreement could have been reached that would have satisfied all those involved. But, in the end, I believe we must respect the decision of the tribe.

The bill we are introducing today reflects the distribution agreed upon by the Minnesota Chippewa Tribal Executive Committee. This is a democratic body comprised of two elected officials from each of the six bands. Under the tribal constitution, the Executive Committee is the governing body of the tribe. After years of disagreement, the Tribal Excusive Committee has agreed on an allocation formula. I deeply respect tribal sovereignty and therefore believe we must respect their decision.

I also worry that any further delay will only cause hardship for individual tribal members. The thousands of tribal members across Minnesota cannot afford to wait another decade. It is time for Congress to act to allow for the distribution of the funds owed to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the President's desk to be signed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the urgent need for FEMA disaster funds, which is under this Burma joint resolution. I was very concerned when I heard some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives demanding that spending cuts be in exchange for supplemental disaster relief funds. Last night, we could not even pass a procedural vote to proceed to a bill that would provide this needed relief. This raises the question, What kind of country are we? Are we a country that takes care of the victims of disasters without hesitation or reluctance or are we a country that engages in misguided debates in the midst of a disaster when our citizens need us the most?

My State of Minnesota has seen its fair share of natural disasters over the last few years. In the past year and a half, President Obama has declared seven Federal disasters in my State. I have seen the devastation Mother Nature can cause. I have seen communities that desperately need Federal assistance to recover. Northwest Minnesota has seen the phenomenon of 100-year floods turn into nearly annual events. Every spring, towns in the Red River Valley of the north hope that this year will not see another record-setting flood.

This spring, I visited Georgetown, MN, and watched as they built emergency earthen levees to protect their town. The town had run out of the clay needed to build their levee, and the only choice left for them was to dig up their baseball field--their park, the diamond and the rest of the park. I watched as they dug up the heart of their community to protect their homes and businesses.

That same day, I visited Oslo, MN. Flooding in the Red River turns Oslo into an island town. Residents are cut off from the rest of Minnesota for weeks as the Red River floods all of the surrounding roads. That night, as I left, I was one of the last cars to make it out of town before all the roads were closed, and its residents prayed that the temporary levees would hold.

The residents of Georgetown and Oslo were doing what they could do to protect themselves, but not all disasters can be anticipated. On June 17 of last year, storms brought 39 tornadoes, 26 funnel clouds, and 69 reports of hail in Minnesota. Three Minnesotans died.

The town of Wadena was hit the hardest; 234 homes were damaged. The roof was torn off the high school, and the county fairgrounds and community center were destroyed.

After a disaster, Minnesotans have enough to worry about. It would be terribly unfair to pile politics on top of their worries. Natural disasters just happen. They are acts of God, and they happen without warning. Minnesotans need to know, when their State and local governments are overwhelmed, that their Federal Government will be there to help them recover. Every State needs to know that; we are one country. And they need to know we will not play politics with their lives and their livelihood.

Many of the same people who are demanding that we offset the costs of natural disasters have voted year after year to fund our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. Some have done this for nearly 10 years now. They have passed on well over $1 trillion in debt to our children to finance wars that have not been a surprise and that we could have and should have been budgeting for from the beginning.

For the last 10 years, we have paid for wars by borrowing from countries such as China willing to finance our debt and by giant emergency spending bills, as they are called. That is unusual in American history, where wars usually prompt reevaluations of our fiscal policy.

This spring, I introduced my Pay for War resolution to address this fiscal irresponsibility. My resolution would simply require that war spending be offset in the future. To be sure, there can be real emergencies that require the immediate exercise of military force with its attendant costs. That is why my resolution allows the offset requirement to be waived in such emergencies. But when you know year-in and year-out that you are going to be at war, you should budget for that and not just pass the costs on to your children.

Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us well over $1 trillion, and we will be paying for years to care for the veterans who came back with the wounds of war. That did not singlehandedly create our deficit problem, but it sure made it a lot worse. Yet many of the same people who now demand that we must offset disaster spending for Americans who have lost their homes or are suffering otherwise have been fine with spending staggering sums of money on our wars--without offsetting them. Doesn't that seem just a little hypocritical? I wonder, what kind of mindset does it take to conclude that it is OK to pass on to your children the costs of war. Yet, when Americans have lost their homes or had their communities destroyed, it is not OK to respond to that emergency in an appropriate way? It just does not make sense to me.

When Congress plans its spending, it can and should be accounted for through a budget. But when emergencies arise--and natural disasters are the quintessential emergency--we should not hesitate to act for the good of the American people. I believe the United States of America is a country that protects its citizens when they are at their most vulnerable. I hope this Congress will confirm that conviction by voting for emergency aid to the communities across this Nation that have been devastated by natural disasters.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to give a voice to Minnesotans to relay their thoughts on how Congress should resolve this impasse and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default.

On Wednesday, I received an e-mail from a constituent in St. Louis Park, my hometown. His e-mail reads:

Dear Senator. I am a Republican. I am a Minnesotan. I am a

small business owner. I am considered to have a high income

relative to the average American. . . . Here's my request:

Please work together to get this debt limit impasse settled.

On Thursday, I received this e-mail from a man in Bloomington. He writes:

I'm a small businessman in the middle of a fund raising

effort. The concern over the debt ceiling has caused all the

angel investors to put off any discussion of investment until

they know what is going to happen. This has stopped my

ability to raise funds which will lead to new high quality

jobs in Minnesota. I support a simple bill that increases the

debt limit to get us through the 2012 elections as has been

done hundreds of times before.

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a couple in Bemidji:

We are retired small business owners who are watching our

very very conservative retirement account drop and plunge due

to the inability of Congress to come up with a plan for the

debt ceiling. We trust your judgment as a Senator, but plead

with the Congress and the Senate to come up with a solution.

We absolutely cannot afford to see our retirement savings

sink again like it did in 2008. . . .

And it is not just individual citizens. I received a letter from Dakota County's administrator. The letter reads, in part:

If the federal government does not resolve its fiscal

issues in a timely and responsible manner, it will drive up

costs to taxpayers here in Dakota County. . . . Being able to

borrow at the lowest possible rates has meant that our

County's taxpayers have gotten more and better public

facilities--from libraries to senior housing to highway

interchanges--and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for

both property taxpayers and senior housing residents in the

past several years alone.

The city of Chaska reached out to my office, explaining that they are planning to sell debt in August to fund a street reconstruction program and refund their water treatment plant. If Congress fails to act, these projects will come at a much higher cost to residents of Chaska.

I received a particularly compelling e-mail yesterday from a woman from Falcon Heights. She wrote:

I am writing again to say I support the President and

realize a need to compromise. It is scary for a 66 year [old]

retired schoolteacher who has Medicare and social security.

Scarier is a default and what it would do to the economy.

That is advice from Sue. Sue gets it. She gets that Congress's failure to act may have a direct impact on her but the impact is really for the whole economy. And Sue is asking for us to compromise.

And compromise we have. Let me make one thing clear: Leader Reid's plan is a compromise. Let me make another thing clear: House Speaker Boehner's plan is a tea party plan.

Harry Reid's plan is a true compromise. It contains all spending cuts and zero revenues. During these debates, there have been lots of ratios floating around. Senator Conrad, the budget chairman, proposed a balanced and sensible plan that had a 1-to-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. Personally, I liked that approach. President Obama was negotiating a 4-to-1 or even 5-to-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. In the Reid plan, there is no ratio. It is 100 percent cuts and zero revenue.

Secondly, it contains dollar-for-dollar spending cuts to match the debt ceiling increase. This is exactly what the Republicans had been asking for. Yet, this morning, I learned that 43 of my Republican colleagues have signed a letter to Leader Reid signaling their opposition to his proposal. Why? Well, they say the savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count. Specifically, they say these savings are ``a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism.'' Yet all but 3 of the 43 Senators who signed this letter voted for the Ryan budget on May 25 of this year. That budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. So those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the Ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for Leader Reid's debt ceiling compromise. Here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they have done a 180-degree turn. Either these savings count or they do not. You cannot have it both ways.

So we are proposing exactly what Republicans have been saying they want. Yet, instead of accepting this deal, they are using what precious time we have to push forward with their agenda. And it is not even their agenda, it is the tea party agenda. Their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Last night, we voted down Speaker Boehner's plan, which requires the passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. A balanced budget amendment sounds, on its face, sensible, but in reality, all of the current House proposals for a balanced budget amendment would have disastrous consequences for our Nation.

A balanced budget constitutional amendment would do permanent damage to our social safety net by slashing spending to 18 percent of GDP. That is what they all propose. We have not had a spending ratio that low since 1966, and today's America is very different than in 1966. We have a much older population. Today, we have a higher percentage of people drawing on Social Security and Medicare benefits--more than ever before. Health care costs are 50 percent higher. Even during President Reagan's tenure, spending averaged 21 percent of GDP.

What would an 18-percent cap really mean? Well, let's use the Republican Study Committee's budget, proposed in April, as an example. A budget such as theirs is roughly what we would expect if we capped spending at 18 percent of GDP. Their budget cut nondefense discretionary funding by 70 percent by 2021. Like the Ryan plan, the Republican Study Committee's budget ended Medicare as we know it, changed it into a voucher program, and raised eligibility to 67, but it did it more quickly. Their budget raised the Social Security retirement age to 70. It resulted in important programs such as food stamps and Medicaid getting cut by 50 percent.

The Republican Study Committee's budget was the Ryan budget on steroids. I would like to remind you of what happened to it on the House floor--this is an interesting story--because this story shows you just how extreme this budget was.

Most House Republicans did not actually want such a harmful, Draconian budget to be the official House budget, but many of them wanted to go on record to brag to their tea party supporters that they voted to slash $9 trillion in Federal spending. So they scheduled a vote and just assumed Democrats would vote it down for them. Then they could just blame the Democrats.

Well, the minority whip, Steny Hoyer, caught wind of their plan and had an idea. Moments before the vote, he asked Democrats to vote ``present.'' This would leave the onus squarely on the Republicans to vote it up or down. Chaos erupted in the House, as Republican leadership realized what was happening. Too many votes had been cast in favor of the radical budget, and it was on the verge of actually passing. Frantically, Republican leadership got a number of their Members to switch from ``yes'' to ``no.'' In the end, 119 Republicans voted in favor and 120 against. Crisis averted. That is how bad this plan was. And a balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18 percent would essentially do exactly the same thing. This is a perfect example of political posturing.

We voted down Speaker Boehner's plan last night for that very reason. His plan was not about finding a real solution; it was all about political posturing. If it became law, it would subject Americans to a very scary Republican Study Committee reality. House Republicans have shown they do not really want that. The American people definitely do not want that. The American people have clearly said they want compromise, they want an honest effort to meet in the middle. Sue from Falcon Heights is one of them.

Leader Reid has responded to the pleas of the American people by offering us a sensible compromise. I urge my colleagues to be statesmen for the sake of the country. Please come to the table. We are trying to work with you for the sake of the country. The clock is ticking.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to former Minnesota Twins pitcher Bert Blyleven, who this week received his sport's highest honor when he was inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame.

To Bert, I offer hearty and well-deserved congratulations.

To the rest of the baseball world, I ask the question: What took so long? In the 14 years since he first became eligible for the Hall of Fame, we in Minnesota all assumed that, with his rare talent and Hall of Fame numbers, Bert was a shoo-in, and for many of those 14 years he was considered the best player never to have been inducted. I am proud to say as a Minnesotan and a lifelong Twins fan that this year Bert Blyleven was officially voted into the Hall of Fame.

People in Minnesota all know Bert belongs on the distinguished list of Minnesota Twins already in the Hall of Fame, including Harmon Killebrew, Rod Carew, and Kirby Puckett, as well as two other baseball greats who grew up in St. Paul, MN, and later played for the Twins and were inducted into the Hall of Fame: Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield. Each of them had Hall of Fame careers, and now Bert has finally joined them.

Bert pitched 22 seasons in the Major Leagues, 11 of them for the Twins, but he also took his talents to Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and California. During his career, he won 287 games, he struck out an amazing 3,701 batters, and is fifth on the alltime career strikeout list, with more career strikeouts than pitching greats Tom Seaver, Walter Johnson, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Cy Young, or even his boyhood idol, Sandy Koufax. He pitched 60 shutouts and led the league in shutouts three times. He had a career earned run average of just 3.31. He pitched 242 complete games, something that would be unheard of today. He played on two world championship teams: in Minnesota, with the 1987 Twins and in Pittsburgh. For Twins fans, we all know Bert was a major part of that

1987 Twins world championship team which we all revere for finally bringing a world championship to our State. And we won again in 1991.

Bert mentioned in his acceptance speech on Sunday that he is the first Hall of Famer born in Holland. He moved to California as a child and became interested in baseball by watching Sandy Koufax pitch for the Dodgers. His father Joe, also a baseball fan, built him a pitcher's mound in the backyard, where he developed one of the best curveballs in baseball history. I would like to think if my dad had built me--no, I don't think so.

Bert finished his playing career in 1992. In 1996, he rejoined the Twins in the broadcast booth, where for many years he and Dick Bremer have become familiar voices to Twins fans all over the upper Midwest. I personally love nothing more than watching a Twins game on TV and listening to Dick and Bert, who, in my humble opinion, are an authoritative and amazingly entertaining broadcast team.

During broadcasts, Bert has created a phenomenon using his telestrator to circle Twins fans who, whether they are in the Target Field or on the road, are holding up signs that catch Bert's interest, and then he will circle them. There is no higher honor for a Twins fan than to be circled by Bert, and every game is packed with fans holding signs that simply say ``Circle Me, Bert.''

It was great to see that Bert was joined at Sunday's induction ceremony by his wife Gayle, their children, Bert's siblings, and his mother Jenny. During his speech, Bert spoke about his father Joe, who died in 2004 of Parkinson's disease, saying, ``I know he is up there right now looking down.''

In memory of his father, Bert and his wife Gayle started the ``Circle Me, Bert'' Web site to raise research money for the National Parkinson Foundation Minnesota. That says volumes about Bert Blyleven. Bert is known in Minnesota for his dedication to other charities and to the community there.

So, once again, Bert, as a lifelong Twins fan, thank you and congratulations. After 14 years of waiting, you are hereby ``circled'' by the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame, where generations of fans from Minnesota and around the country and around the world will know of your career and of your amazing contributions to the game of baseball and to the community of Minnesota.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor and maybe also put in a word for Tony Oliva and also suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the urgent need to raise the debt limit. I wish to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues of our obligation to represent our constituents' best interests and those of our great Nation, for at this late hour, with the deadline for an agreement fast approaching, the consequences of inaction are clear. They have been made clear by economists, they have been made clear by credit rating agencies, they have been made clear by the Federal Reserve and by our Treasury Secretary, and they have been made clear by respected leaders of each side of the aisle. And soon, if we do not act, they will be made clear by the market itself.

I keep hearing from some Members talking about the August 2 deadline as if it is no big deal. They say they have their own theories about when the real deadline is. That leaves me dumbfounded. I, for one, am going to take the Treasury Secretary and virtually every economist at their word. We need a solution before August 2 or we risk economic catastrophe.

There are some Members who are essentially saying the Treasury can prioritize payments to avoid default, but getting Social Security checks out should not be a problem. I heard a Republican Member of the House Budget Committee on Public Radio this past weekend say the money for Social Security checks is in the trust fund.

Well, yes, we have $2.6 trillion in assets in the trust fund, but they are all in Treasury securities, not cash. I find it stunning that a Member of Congress, let alone a member of the Budget Committee, would not understand the most basic functioning of our government. If there is no debt limit increase, Treasury may be able to juggle payments to get Social Security checks out on August 3, and I am sure they will do everything they can to do so, but August 3 would be just day one of Treasury's improvised prioritization strategy. August 3 is a date that about half of the Social Security checks go out. But we have another round scheduled to out on August 10, and another on August 17, and another on August 24. In fact, the Treasury sends out over 70 million checks a month. August 3 is not the end of the problem, it is the beginning.

About 1 month ago, the Bipartisan Policy Center briefed members of the House Republican caucus on the actual implications of the August 2 deadline, what we can pay and what we could not pay. Jay Powell, the former Under Secretary of Treasury under President George H.W. Bush, presented at the briefing. He outlined his research on what is likely to happen on August 3. He suggested that in the month of August we could pay our debt interest, Social Security checks, Medicare and Medicaid, vendors for Defense projects, and unemployment insurance benefits. That is what we could pay, but no pay for active-duty military, no benefits for veterans, no Federal loans for low-income students about to head off to college in the fall, no Pell grants, no

Federal Government employees, including counterterrorism agents in the FBI, for example, no border agents.

Before we default, we could have time to make this sign for all points of entry. This is the tip of the iceberg. That is a symbol of things we definitely could not afford to do.

That does not even address the global economic impacts of playing it so close to the edge. The dollar would be devalued, our credit rating would be downgraded. It would cost us much more--much more--to borrow and to pay the interest on our debt, and thus our debt would actually increase.

More importantly, all adjustable interest rates would rise, including credit cards and mortgages and student loans. New loans, of course, would be more expensive. These impacts could have a legacy that dogs us for decades, if not centuries.

This is serious business and we should not be testing this deadline. Yet that is exactly what some of my colleagues are doing. I worry that Republicans in the House are blind to research, deaf to reason, and are simply ignoring facts that are contrary to what they want to hear.

Throughout this debate, conservative House Republicans have stood in the way of a deal. We have offered them some pretty sweet deals, and they have walked away. They treated the August 2 deadline as advisory, as optional. They suggest that the Treasury can figure out something to prevent a default.

Now they are opposing Senator Reid's sensible deficit reduction plan because of how it calculates some of its savings. Specifically at issue is the Reid plan's $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick, not real savings.

Yet the Ryan budget, which almost every House and Senate Republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. So to say it is real savings in the Ryan plan but fake savings in the Reid proposal--I am sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

Further, Senator Reid's plan is actually all cuts. I do not necessarily like that. It contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debt ceiling increase. And as much as I do not like this aspect of it, it does not include any revenues, even though a Washington Post-ABC News poll says that 72 percent of the American public believe we should have those making over $250,000 pay more--72 percent.

But a cuts-only plan is what Republicans have been saying they wanted all along. Now we have given it to them, we have it out there, it is there, and all of the cuts in the Reid plan have been supported by Republicans in the past. So we are presenting a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. The pretense they are using to reject it does not pass the smell test. According to CBO, it saves $1.3 trillion more in savings than the Boehner plan, such as it is. You know, I often hear Republicans say corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash instead of investing, expanding, and creating jobs, because businesses are facing so much uncertainty. Well, Senator Reid's plan offers certainty.

But suddenly Republicans want a short-term deal, one that would very well put us in this same crisis again in 6 months. What kind of certainty is that? No, a short-term deal will not offer our businesses and markets the certainty they need. A short-term deal may very well induce a credit downgrade, according to Standard & Poor's. Yet Republicans say they prefer a short-term deal over Senator Reid's plan, which would take us through the end of next year.

I do not get it. It sounds to me as though they care more about politics and winning than they do about their constituents' well-being and the prosperity and economic security of the Nation. Their hard line and cavalier attitude is frankly dangerous--very dangerous.

Playing fast and loose with the facts is reckless. The American people deserve better. We need to raise the debt ceiling now, and Leader Reid has shown us the way forward. I do not like all of the cuts in his package. I wish there were increases in revenue from those who can afford it. But I know we have to pass it because it will keep us from defaulting, and it will do so responsibly and sensibly.

We owe it to the American people to pull back from the brink and pass the Reid plan so we can avert disaster. We owe it to our constituents, and we owe it to our children.

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