Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first, I would like to commend Chairman Dodd for his hard work on the Wall Street reform bill and for maintaining an open and transparent process while developing this legislation. With regard to the orderly liquidation authority under title II of the bill, an ``insurance company'' is defined in section 201 as any entity that is engaged in the business of insurance, subject to regulation by a State insurance regulator, and covered by a State law that is designed to specifically deal with the rehabilitation, liquidation, or insolvency of an insurance company. Is it the intent of this definition that a mutual insurance holding company organized and operating under State insurance laws should be considered an insurance company for the purpose of this title?

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Private First Class Edwin C. Wood of Omaha, NE.

Private First Class Wood was an ``All-American kid,'' who dreamed of one day serving his country. That opportunity came in October 2009 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army and became a cavalry scout for the 1st Squadron, 71st Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, NY.

A graduate of Omaha North High School, Private First Class Wood, better known as Eddie or Freckles, spent his time growing up as a member of the Boy Scouts and Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps a military re-enactor and a junior counselor at YMCA Camp Pokamoke in Crescent, IA. He was a role model to all who knew him.

Private First Class Wood had just gotten back to Afghanistan, after being home on leave in June, when the truck he was driving on July 5, 2010, was hit by an improvised explosive device. The explosion took this brave young man's life, along with that of another soldier, SSG Christopher F. Cabacoy.

Although he was only in the service for a short time, Private First Class Wood's awards and decorations include the Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Combat Action Badge.

PFC Edwin C. Wood served his country honorably and made the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Americans. His courageous choice to protect his country and help the people of Afghanistan achieve peace and security represents all that we can be proud of in our armed forces. I know I join all Nebraskans in grieving the loss of Private Wood; he will be remembered for the selfless hero he was. Private First Class Wood's family and friends remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Corporal Todd Nicely

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army SPC Blaine E. Redding, who lost his life as the result of an improvised explosive device in Konar, Afghanistan, on June 7, 2010.

Specialist Redding, who grew up in Plattsmouth, NE, was assigned to A Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, KY. He was serving in Afghanistan with his younger brother Logan, who was also a member of the 101st Airborne.

Having previously served a year in Iraq, Specialist Redding was just 4 weeks into his deployment in Afghanistan when the vehicle he was riding in was hit by the roadside bomb. Four others were lost in this tragic event.

Specialist Redding served his country honorably and made the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow Americans. His courageous choice to protect his country and help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan achieve peace and security represents all that we can be proud of in our Armed Forces.

I commend SPC Blaine Redding's bravery and selflessness, while offering my deepest condolences to his young wife Nikki and the family members he left behind. It is a small comfort for those who must now go on without one they loved so dearly, but they know that Specialist Redding gave his life for a noble goal. I join all Nebraskans--indeed, all Americans--in mourning the loss of this fine young man.

Madam President, today I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval offered by my colleague and friend, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and out of concern as well about a serious, harmful impact on Nebraska's economy that could result if the Environmental Protection Agency moves ahead with its plans to regulate carbon emissions in our country.

While I will outline some of that impact in a moment, I wish to first explain why I am supporting the resolution. I am supporting it to protect the Nebraska economy and our Nation's economy from EPA overreach. It is that simple. I want to send a clear message: Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, business owners, cities, towns, and hundreds of thousands of electricity consumers should not have their economic fortunes determined by unelected bureaucrats in Washington,

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on the occasion of his 79th birthday, I want to take this opportunity to honor fellow Nebraskan Walter Scott, Jr. for his exceptional business and civic leadership and his significant contributions to the telecommunications, construction, and mining industries, as well as his community, State, and country.

Walter began his distinguished career at Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc., formerly Kiewit Construction, working during the summers for Kiewit's construction operations, where his father also worked. In 1953 after earning his civil engineering degree from Colorado State University, he became an engineer for Kiewit in Omaha. A year later, Walter joined the U.S. Air Force as an air installation officer, inspecting military construction projects. Upon returning to Kiewit after his service, Walter excelled in the company, being elected to the board of directors, then becoming vice president in 1964. In 1979 Walter was named president and, later that year, succeeded Peter Kiewit as chairman of the board.

Over the next decade, Walter used his leadership and keen insights to advance Kiewit and develop the company to its full potential. Foreseeing the needs of society, Walter began diversifying the company's investment to include mining, energy, and telecommunications interests. By 1992 this expansion had led to the division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc. into two major subsidiaries: Kiewit Construction Group, continuing the company's historical excellence in construction and mining; and Kiewit Diversified Group, later renamed Level 3 Communications, focusing on high-speed fiber optics networks and geothemeral powerplants. Kiewit is now a Fortune 500 company and is a recognized industry leader.

To this day, Walter remains engaged in the industries he helped to shape, continuing as director and chairman emeritus at Kiewit and serving as chairman of the board at level 3. Walter's numerous contributions to business have been acknowledged with dozens of accolades, including the Horatio Alger Award, the Golden Plate Award from the American Academy of Achievement, and induction into the Nebraska Business Hall of Fame.

Beyond his notable accomplishments in business, Walter's civic service and philanthropic contributions have enriched Nebraska and left a lasting impact on our home State. In 1996 Walter helped create the Peter Kiewit Institute, working with the University of Nebraska to provide tomorrow's leaders in information science, technology, and engineering with an unparalleled education. Walter has also given his service to numerous community and nonprofit organizations, including Creighton University, Joslyn Art Museum, Boys & Girls Club of the Midlands, Omaha Development Foundation, Omaha Zoological Society, and Nebraska Game and Parks Foundation. Additionally, I have had the pleasure of serving with Walter as a member of the Open World Board of Trustees, providing international leadership and building multi- national relationships to effect positive change in Eurasian countries.

In closing, Walter Scott's illustrious leadership and generous service has strengthened his community, state, and country. On behalf of our fellow Nebraskans and Americans, I thank Walter for his innovation and leadership and wish him the best for the future.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3588

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Curt Tomasevicz of Shelby, NE, and his teammates who won the gold medal in the four-man bobsled at the Winter Olympic games in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It was the first gold medal for the United States in this event since the 1948 St. Moritz, Switzerland, games more than 60 years ago.

After blistering the course with back-to-back track records, the U.S. sled only needed to post a solid fourth run to give the United States a gold medal. The Americans made it through the course in 51.52 seconds, resulting in a total time of 3:24.46, 0.38 seconds ahead of second place.

Curt got his start in sports at Shelby High School, where he helped the football team to the State semifinals and was an all-conference pick as both a linebacker and a fullback. After high school, Curt attended the University of Nebraska, where he continued his football career as a Cornhusker.

In 2004, Curt began bobsledding; and just 2 years later, he earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic team competing in Torino, Italy. Since then, he has continued to compete in international bobsledding events and took home a World Cup gold medal in two-man sledding in 2007.

Curt's dedication and hard work is an inspiration to all Nebraskans. He showed what can be accomplished through determination and teamwork. Congratulations, Curt, on your inspiring achievement of Olympic gold. It is a tremendous accomplishment and instills pride in all Nebraska.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3431 be in order when we return to H.R. 4213, with up to 10 minutes to speak regarding that amendment.

Mr. President, I still ask for up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of this amendment, even though the action has been heard and registered.

The amendment I rise today to speak on is straightforward. It would provide an offset for all known emergency provisions included in the bill, H.R. 4213. The amendment would direct the Office of Management and Budget to rescind $35 billion in unobligated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds on a prorated basis. The amendment would exclude military construction and veterans affairs stimulus funding from the rescission.

This rescission would offset all remaining nonemergency items in the

American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act, which is H.R. 4213.

As a result of my amendment, all provisions in the bill would be paid for minus the emergency extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just made the best case I have heard for this amendment. They raised concerns about the underpayments for Medicare and Medicaid patients and patient care. In this underlying bill, doctors would have their fees increased for payment purposes so the concerns that were raised by my colleague from Arizona would be, in part, answered by the increased payments the Mayo Clinic was not receiving and, therefore, made the decision to reduce their care to Medicare patients.

It seems to me it would be appropriate to support this bill. I suspect they will not, but it would seem appropriate to support this bill then and also support having it paid for under pay-go rules applying to the unused stimulus funds that would be available through this act.

If we are going to see that Medicare patients are treated and are not excluded from treatment, it is going to be because the providers are adequately compensated. That is one of the provisions of this bill. What we are seeking to do is to make sure that is paid for, among other things.

The Governors of the States have come to us and said they cannot afford to make their part of the Medicaid match that they are required to make under the Medicaid Program that is approved in virtually every State. As a result of that, a good portion of this bill is seeking money to pay the States, compensate them for that unfunded mandate that the States are currently facing.

In other words, they come in and say: You forced us to do this. We don't have the money to do it. We are asking that you make it good. You pay for it.

The challenge is, if Medicaid is decreased or payments to providers are decreased, then the concerns they raised about the Medicaid Program underfunding providers will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems to me there is an opportunity for the other side to take a very positive look at this particular bill.

I can look at it positively if we pay for it. My concerns are that we pay for the nonemergency provisions within this bill, that we pay for the FMAP fix, that we pay for the other parts of this bill minus the emergency extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA. That would make us consistent with the pay-go rules we forced upon ourselves--I think appropriately so. But it is important that we follow the rules we set for ourselves. This is one of the ways we do it--by paying for these nonemergency items in the underlying bill.

That is my argument. That is why I have offered this legislation. I think it is unfortunate the other side has chosen to object to it, but they have and that is it. The amendment will fail unless the other side finds that it makes sense to simply begin to pay for things. I thought the other side was interested in seeing that these requirements are paid for, particularly when they make such a strong case for the payment to physicians for Medicare and Medicaid patients. That does not seem to be the case.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to extend my gratitude to GEN Douglas M. Fraser, Commander, and the men and women serving within the U.S. Southern Command, SOUTHCOM, for what was a true act of heroism. Certainly, all the members of America's great military exemplify a ``can do'' spirit and selfless service to our Nation each and every day. And, as we all know full well, our military has ever- changing missions; yet the men and women of our armed services demonstrate time and again their ability to adapt and perform, as is the case with America's most recent humanitarian mission in Haiti.

Recently, staff from Creighton University in my home State of Nebraska sought emergency assistance for some critical patients in Jimani, Haiti. The Creighton medical team on the ground there needed a rapid response for these Haitian patients, but they were unable to connect with any support agencies in the region to get the immediate attention this situation required.

The team at SOUTHCOM quickly saved the day, airlifting these critically injured patients from Jimani to Milot, Haiti, where they could be properly treated. The entire American and international teams in Haiti have saved an untold and incalculable number of lives since the devastating earthquake, but I would be remiss if I did not highlight the incredible effort by the men and women of SOUTHCOM. The servicemembers under General Fraser's command managed to evacuate 37 patients and their families over the course of January 31 and February 1, 2010; and these individuals will be forever grateful to the men and woman of America's military for saving their lives.

All Americans should recognize this valiant effort by the members of SOUTHCOM. General Fraser showed great leadership in overseeing this mission, and the courageous service of the men and women at SOUTHCOM has the gratitude of not only the medical team and others from Creighton University, but the people of Haiti as well. You are all a credit to our Nation.

Madam President, I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the applicability of the Senate's cloture rules to the budget reconciliation process. Under the Congressional Budget Act which governs Senate procedure for consideration of a reconciliation conference report, the question is: Is a cloture vote necessary prior to a vote on adoption of the conference report?

Madam President, another question. Under the Budget Act, which limits the time for debate of a reconciliation conference report, how many hours are provided for debate?

Thank you. And finally, therefore, under no circumstances would a cloture vote be necessary or required prior to a vote on adoption of a reconciliation conference report?

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a serious problem with the way Washington has done business for years. The problem is passing unfunded Federal mandates on to the States that throw State budgets into disarray. Everyone in Congress has to decide how to best look out for their State. A little over a month ago, I decided to look out for all their States and mine too. But the efforts I made to protect my State and all other States should not be the issue. The issue should be, why wasn't everyone taking steps to protect their States and why weren't the critics reacting to the real issue rather than coining names to describe this effort to protect State budgets from the effects of yet another unfunded Federal mandate?

The reason is, all along they wanted to derail health reform. Misrepresenting this issue would help that goal. So it was too easy, too convenient to come up with a catchy name and to impugn motives. It was too easy, too convenient to ignore the problem facing Nebraska and every other State--another mandate without money.

Unfunded Federal mandates are not just bad for Nebraska; they are bad for all States, from sea to shining sea. They are a fiscal injustice that I fought for two decades during my tenure as a Senator and through two terms as Governor. They are a burden on the States that I will keep fighting to eliminate as long as they continue.

Unfunded Federal mandates are pretty simple, but they appear in many unexpected and unwanted ways. They are orders that arrive from Washington on State Capitol doorsteps with too little or no money to carry them out. Unfunded Federal mandates force States all across the country into no-win choices: cut spending on State priorities or raise revenue with tax hikes. They are a fiscal injustice States have no option to avoid. Unfunded Federal mandates are both bad Federal policy and bad fiscal policy.

As a Senator, I have said I will put Nebraska first, Nebraska always but not Nebraska only. That remains the case with questions about how the Senate health care bill dealt with an underfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid. First, my goal has always been to draw attention to and fix, with one approach or another, any unfunded Federal mandate that would be passed on to every State through the Senate's health care bill. The bill sought to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who do not have it today. The Federal Government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first 3 years through 2016. In 2017 and thereafter, States would have to pick up a portion of the cost. In other words, they would pay for a new unfunded Federal mandate.

I sought an opt-in or opt-out for all States to ease the Federal unfunded mandate. But because there was no Congressional Budget Office analysis for that approach, a provision was placed into the bill for Nebraska. It is not something I sought. It is something I accepted to launch the larger battle against the unfunded mandate affecting all States. I have taken criticism over this issue. If I have received it because I drew attention to unfunded Federal mandates, fine. But the larger question is: How do we in Congress eliminate this practice of passing these mandates on to the States? Rather than criticize me, others should join in fighting the war to stop all these burdens on the States. It is an effort I welcome the Governors to join in, too, for they have a direct interest in the success of this battle.

The Nebraska provision was a victory in the battle against unfunded mandates necessary to win the war. What otherwise had gone completely unaddressed is now part of the debate, not only in the Nation's Capital but in State capitals across America.

We only have to look back a few years to see what trouble unfunded mandates cause for States. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, it was hailed as a landmark that would improve education nationwide. It established new standards to measure educational achievement in our schools and required States to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades. States had to make sure that happened for their schools to receive Federal aid. But the law provided far too little money to meet its requirements. This was a fact acknowledged by its chief sponsor, the late Senator Kennedy.

He said:

The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally

in place, but the funds are not.

Was that ever a true statement. States have paid and paid and are still paying for that whopper of an unfunded mandate. In fact, No Child Left Behind, which I opposed largely because of its being an unfunded Federal mandate, has cost my State of Nebraska at least $382.7 million. Nationwide, it has cost all States a total of $70.9 billion from 2002 through 2008, according to U.S. Department of Education data. Those costs have kept piling up ever since, and that is not right.

I fought another unfunded Federal mandate in the 2003 major tax cut bill. At the time, cutting Federal taxes would also have forced cuts in State taxes. That, in turn, would have blown holes in State budgets. So I teamed up on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues, Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, to help the States. We won a provision that provided $20 billion in Federal funding to the States to make up for the lost money they needed to pay their ongoing Medicaid costs.

Today, here we are again hearing from financially strapped States across the country asking for additional Federal money to pay for other previous unfunded Medicaid mandates. I do not blame them for asking. The government tells them they have to pay a share of certain social services and medical expenses, and in tough economic times such as these they just do not have the money. Unfortunately, neither does Washington. Then, while States are currently seeking aid from Congress, we are busy creating this new unfunded mandate set to hit States beginning in 2017. When would that one be addressed? In 2018, 2019, sometime later? Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

I have been asking: Why not deal with that now in this health care reform legislation and change the paradigm from unfunded mandates and do it in a different way? Just last week, we learned how big this unfunded mandate would be. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that covering the Medicaid expansion costs for all States would cost the Federal Government $35 billion. That means Congress was about to pass a $35 billion unfunded Federal mandate on to the States--until I got wind of it. Let me say that again. Congress was about to send a $35 billion bill to the States, until I blew the whistle.

We need to stop this madness of passing these fiscal timebombs on to the States. I would hope my colleagues, on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis, would work with me to make sure Congress stops passing unfunded mandates of any kind on to the States and that the Governors would join in also. They certainly do not like Washington telling them how to spend State money.

I hope people put aside the spin, the partisan talking points, and misrepresentation they have heard on this issue, including the media. I hope people stop citing the inaccurate interpretation of it as an excuse to avoid working for health care reform that provides coverage to millions of Americans who today do not have insurance and lower costs to all other Americans who pay ever-rising costs for health care. I hope we can also stop the practice of Washington burdening the

States with unfunded Federal mandates which are truly bad for every single State--not just mine but every State--from sea to shining sea.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on the occasion of her retirement, I take this opportunity to honor Glenda Mlady Reimer for her many years of service to our great Nation. I have known Glenda for a number of those years and will miss her unfailing good humor and her dedication to public service.

Glenda began her illustrious career in 1989 after graduating from Northeast Nebraska Community College in Norfolk, NE. She spent the next 7 years working for my good friend, former U.S. Senator Jim Exon, first on his reelection campaign, then as his scheduler and office manager. During that time, Glenda distinguished herself, continually helping others and coordinating activities. She was the volunteer coordinator for Vice President Al Gore's first Inaugural Ball. In 1993 she served as president of the board of directors of the Nebraska Society of Washington, DC, where she still remains an active member today. Glenda also served as the coordinator with Members of Congress for the 1995 National Champion Cornhusker Football Team presentations at the White House. In 1996, Glenda became a member of the board of directors, Cornhusker Capital Chapter, University of Nebraska Alumni Scholarship program, where she continues her lifelong support of my home State's university.

After a few years working in the private sector, Glenda returned to Capitol Hill in 2001, joining Maryland Senator Barbara A. Mikulski's Washington office. At the end of that year, the U.S. Air Force hired Glenda for her current position as legislative specialist and scheduler in the Congressional Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office. Over the past 8 years, Glenda has touched the lives of countless uniformed military servicemen and women. She always worked to instill a sense of direction, dedication and family, marking her exemplary career with superb professionalism.

While serving in a variety of positions within the U.S. Senate and Air Force, Glenda has assisted me and many members of the Appropriations and Budget Committees with numerous scheduling and coordinating challenges. Her thorough and efficient planning, experience, wisdom, hard work, and organizational skills assured mission success every time. Glenda will definitely be missed.

In closing, I firmly believe that Glenda Mlady Reimer deserves acknowledgment and appreciation for her outstanding service to both the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government. She consistently conducted herself in a manner which brought great credit upon her, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. Air Force. Glenda's outstanding character and dedication to service have resulted in a career of which she and her son Joel can be very proud; and I am sure my fellow Members of the Senate join me in thanking her for her commitment to our country and in wishing her all the best for her future.

Madam President, during the consideration of the health care bill, one of my primary concerns has been ensuring that the longstanding Hyde amendment would be incorporated into the bill. I have strongly held views on the subject, and I fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions.

I was pleased that the House included strong abortion provisions in its health care bill in the form of the Stupak amendment. I modified this language to meet the Senate bill and offered the Nelson-Hatch- Casey amendment to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, and I was disappointed to see that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54 to 45.

I knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit Federal funding of abortion and, consequently, I would not be able to support it. So I began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. After long days of negotiations, I believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles.

I want to be clear, I stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. I did not look for weaker language. I looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same: to maintain the standard that we have had in Federal law since the mid-1970s.

While I respect the opinion of the Senator from Kansas, I have to respectfully disagree. The Senate language fully upholds the Hyde principle like the language in the House bill. The wording may be different, but the principle is, in fact, upheld.

Under the health care bill, if you cannot afford insurance, you will receive Federal assistance to help pay for a private health care plan. The Stupak language prohibits that Federal assistance from paying for insurance that covers abortions. If you like a plan that covers abortion, you must purchase a rider or an endorsement to your plan with your own funds. You could do that as well by writing just one check to the insurer. For that you get a separate piece of paper addressing abortion.

The Senate language, with my added compromise, also prohibits Federal funds from paying for private insurance that covers abortion. The only difference is that in the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds--perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account--for that abortion coverage.

Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds.

So under both the Stupak and the new Senate language, no Federal funds can be used to pay for a plan that covers abortion, and if you choose to purchase abortion coverage--if it is available--you must pay out of your own pocket.

Furthermore, the Senate language allows States the right to ban public and private insurance from supplying abortion coverage. Already, 12 States ban abortion coverage on public plans and 5 States ban abortion coverage on both private and public plans. So, in short, the Senate bill ensures, once again, no Federal funds would be used for abortion.

I would like to note that the Senate bill goes beyond Stupak in two life-promoting ways. One, it adds funding to support pregnant and parenting teens and women and, two, it expands the adoption tax credit to help adoptive parents with the considerable expense of adoption by making that credit a refundable tax credit. This means many potential parents who lack the regular resources to adopt will now be in a better position to do so.

The Senate bill also contains the same strong conscience protections included in the Stupak language. We tried winning approval for the Nelson-Hatch-Casey abortion language in the Senate, but we were unsuccessful. However, we did not give up. I know people have very strong feelings about the issue of abortion, and I respect those who disagree with my position, but I could not support health reform that did not maintain the 30-year standard barring public funding of abortion. I did not compromise my pro-life principles; we just found different wording, different language, and both will work. I believe people will see that no public funding will go to abortion.

In addition, my provision empowers the States to pass laws banning the sale of insurance that covers abortion. We make it clear that this new law, this new bill does not in any way preempt the rights of States to be able to continue to make that ban in the decisions they might make legislatively, and we want to make certain there is no doubt but that this bill has no preemption of the States rights.

Despite what some partisans and talk show hosts say in their scare tactics, the conscience clause remains. Also, despite what those same people and even some of my colleagues have said, the bottom line is that the Senate health care bill will not allow taxpayer money to pay for abortion, period.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.