Floor Statements

Mr. President, in this day and age, there is simply no denying that our economy is very much a part of a global economy and affected by it. Gone are the days when businesses relied solely on growing their customer base for domestic markets. Today, 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States, and we are producing for those consumers as well as domestic ones.

One action that would help our economy improve at a faster rate would be to increase trade opportunities overseas for American businesses and farmers. Increased trade helps create jobs, increase incomes, and expand opportunities for innovation.

As we have seen over the course of history and also repeating what President John F. Kennedy often spoke about, free and fair trade helps all boats rise;

That is to say, countries willing to lower their trade barriers and allow fair and competitive trade will see growth in their economies.

However, history also shows even among nations with good relations, trade disputes still arise. That is why we need a forum to settle international disputes such as the World Trade Organization does. The WTO allows American businesses a place to take complaints against unfair trade barriers and have a judicial result.

For 19 years Russia has worked toward entry into the World Trade Organization. Now they are in the World Trade Organization. I support Russia being in the World Trade Organization. As the world's eleventh largest economy with over 140 million citizens, it is obviously an important market for U.S. businesses and farmers looking to expand their overseas markets.

Some of Iowa's heavy equipment manufacturers are already exporting millions of dollars of equipment to Russia.

Agricultural equipment manufactured in facilities all around Iowa is being used by Russian farmers as they look to increase their agricultural efficiency and productivity.

The World Trade Organization accession process afforded us an opportunity to address Russian tariffs against our products. In the accession agreement, Russia has agreed to lower its tariffs for these construction and agricultural equipment products. That obviously means increased exports and an increase in good American jobs.

By far the largest percentage of Iowa exports to Russia consists of grains, meats, and other agricultural products being produced by Iowa's farmers. Russia's accession into the WTO has been an important issue for our pork producers, for our cattlemen, and for our grain farmers. Iowa's farmers are some of the best in the world. They are truly helping to feed the world. Expanding opportunities in overseas markets is vital to the future of American agriculture. Russia has been and I think will continue to be an important market for our farmers. But it does not come without its challenges.

Russia has repeatedly raised barriers to the U.S. imports based upon restrictions not supported by sound science. So now I am going to tell you about some problems I have with Russia, even though I want Russia to be in the WTO and I want this legislation to pass so it can be fully implemented.

I will share some things we have problems with regarding Russia. Let us take pork exports as an example. In 2008, U.S. pork sales to Russia totaled over 200,000 metric tons. Since that time exports have fallen nearly 60 percent due to Russia's reduced import quota and questionable sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions. I am pleased our trade negotiators were able to negotiate a satisfactory tariff rate quota for our pork. But this administration under President Obama has fallen short in its obligations to stand with U.S. farmers on these sanitary and phytosanitary standards; in other words, standing up for using sound science instead of some illegitimate reason for keeping our products out of Russia.

I have communicated time and again what I expected of this administration because they have to negotiate for us. In June 2011, I led a bipartisan letter with Senator Nelson of Nebraska and 26 other Senators to Ambassador Kirk requesting his negotiators follow the steps we have taken during consideration of past WTO accessions. I referred to China and Vietnam as examples for this administration to follow. When these countries joined the WTO, we used these opportunities to obtain firm sanitary-phytosanitary commitments from those countries that went beyond the WTO sanitary-phytosanitary agreement. In particular, we obtained further commitments in areas of meat inspection equivalence.

In addition, in June of this year, I sent another bipartisan letter with Senator Nelson of Nebraska and 32 other Senate colleagues to President Obama again laying out our request that he stand for American farmers and demand more of the Russian Government on sanitary- phytosanitary issues which would very much benefit our agriculture products going into Russia.

As we know, this administration did not use the accession process to fully address these crucial issues so they have to be addressed outside of this process where we do not quite have the leverage we would otherwise have. That is why I requested language that is in this legislation to require our trade negotiators to keep working with these unfair trade barriers and report to Congress on their progress. Our farmers are some of the very best in the world. We cannot allow their products to be discriminated against based upon arbitrary nonscientific and unjustifiable reasons.

In addition to the concerns I repeatedly raised on sanitary- phytosanitary issues, there are other issues at stake with Russia. It is a shame that we are handling this bill in a lameduck session when time is so limited. This bill should have been debated at a time

when the Senate could more fully evaluate the current course of our relationship with Russia.

Russia continues to cause challenges in regard to Syria, Iran, and other regions of the world where the United States and our allies are trying to do what is right in the name of human dignity and also in the name of national security. I am concerned with Russia's own human rights issues. That is why I am very glad the Magnitsky provisions are in this bill.

As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I remain troubled by the lack of progress Russia has made on protecting intellectual property rights. Furthermore, Russian officials need to step up their efforts in combating cyber crimes. There continues to be a large number of cyber attacks that originate from within Russia's borders.

All that being said, I realize having Russia in the WTO is a very positive step. One of the goals of international trade is to build upon relationships between nations. Having Russia in the WTO fold will hopefully benefit our nations as we work together on so many issues that concern us, plus, as I have stated before, having the WTO forum available to help our businesses and farmers when disputes arise is important.

I have said I want Russia in the WTO. I have said there are good opportunities for us there. I just spoke as to why I think there are problems with Russia that need to be worked out. President Putin is not going to pay any attention to what I say, but I want him to know these are issues of the re-Sovietization of the country and I do not like it. I favor this bill; I favor working with Russia. But they are becoming more of a problem. I look forward to hearing from our trade negotiators in the not too distant future on their progress in getting Russia to remove the unjustifiable barriers to our agricultural products.

Furthermore, as President Obama looks toward other trade initiatives in the future, I hope this accession process will be a lesson. This process could have been better, in other words, using the leverage the United States has during these accession negotiations to get a lot of these disputes settled as we did with China and Vietnam that we have not fully done with Russia.

The President has called on Congress to pass this legislation for some time. But his lack of consultation with Congress and disregard for the concerns raised by this Senator and other Members has only served to delay this whole process. We cannot keep approaching trade issues in this fashion. This administration needs to have real and substantive consultation with Congress.

Furthermore, when there are opportunities to stand for American businesses and farmers against unfair trade barriers such as the sanitary and phytosanitary issues in Russia, the President needs to seize that opportunity the same way it was seized in the case of Vietnam and in the case of China's accession.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there has been a lot of discussion lately about how the Senate is not working properly. This is evident to even a casual observer. On the other hand, to understand how the Senate was intended to work and what has gone wrong requires some knowledge of the history and the rules of the Senate. I would put more emphasis upon the history than the present rules of the Senate, particularly the history and purpose of the Senate expressed in the Federalist Papers by the people who were advising the States at that point, the colonies, to approve the Constitution.

To many people, this subject, no doubt, seems arcane and confusing. The simplistic explanation we get from the other side of the aisle--and it is a steady drumbeat--is that Republicans are filibustering everything just willy-nilly; thereby, grinding the Senate to a halt.

Various vague and nefarious motivations are suggested as to why Republicans would do such a thing, but the point they want Americans to take away is that Republicans are abusing the filibuster. This message has been repeated ad nauseam by Democrats in the hope it will sink into the public's consciousness by rote. In fact, the story goes that Republicans have so abused the filibuster, the Democrats have no choice but to take it away, even if it means violating the Senate rules in order to change the rules. Can you imagine a political party saying it is OK to ignore the rules or to change the rules?

In order to discuss this topic, it is very important to establish what we mean by the word ``filibuster'' and how it fits into how the Senate operates today and has operated historically. I hope everyone will bear with me as we try to understand this because I ultimately want to get down to how the proposed changes to the Senate rules threaten the very principle underlying our system of government, particularly the checks and balances within our system of government.

First, I have a legitimate question: What is a filibuster? We talk about it so much that we would think it referred to a very specific activity that is easily understood by everyone. It can actually refer to different types of activities. Of course, this leads to confusion, and that confusion is reflected in some of the speeches from colleagues on the other side of the aisle, intentionally or not.

When most Americans think of a filibuster, they probably think of Jimmy Stewart in the classic film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' standing and talking without stopping for an extended period of time to delay proceedings and to take a lot of theater just to make a point. This is the classic understanding of a filibuster. Unless all Senators have agreed to waive Senate rules, it is a fact that a Senator who has been recognized to speak may retain the floor as long as he continues to speak. This is the basis in the Senate rules for a classic filibuster, but this is not the rule some Democrats want to change.

When the Members of the majority party complain about how many filibusters the Republicans have engaged in, they actually mean how many times the Senate has voted on a motion to bring debate to a close, and that motion is called the cloture motion. When debate comes to an end, it also means no more opportunities for amendments. If Republicans don't agree to end debate and force a final vote when the majority leader decides we should end debate and vote, he calls that a filibuster. In fact, even when every single Republican votes in favor of ending debate, he still calls it a filibuster. It ends up in those statistics that add up to numbers that are not very intellectually honest. Think of Republicans voting in favor of ending debate and it is still called a filibuster.

We just voted a day or two ago, 93 to 0, to end debate on the Defense authorization bill. Is he still going to call that a filibuster as well? How can he accuse Republicans of filibustering when he is the one who made the cloture motion? This is a key point. When the Democrats talk about Republicans launching a filibuster, it is important to note it is the Senate majority leader who almost exclusively makes the motion to invoke cloture. I understand it takes a petition of 16, but not very many Senators I know ever initiate such a petition unless the Republican leader, when we are in the majority, or the Democratic leader, when they are in the majority, provoked that. This means the number the majority leader is so fond of quoting as a number of so- called Republican filibusters is the number of times he has attempted to shut down debate and block further amendments from being considered. Again, we are talking about a process launched by the majority leader intended to shut off debate and amendments, not some process initiated by Republicans.

If every time the majority leader made the motion to close debate we had been considering a bill for days or weeks with dozens of amendments and no end in sight, then there is a legitimacy to such a decision by the majority leader in the petition for cloture. He might then have a point. However, the recent history of the Senate cloture votes tells an entirely different story.

The majority leader has filed a motion to cut off debate in the same day a bill has been taken up over 220 times since he became majority leader. How can this be justified, considering the history of the Senate and given that it is a deliberative body? He certainly cannot claim Republicans are delaying action with excessive debate when he moves to cut off debate before that debate has ever begun. As I said, by forcing a final vote, a cloture motion also ultimately cuts off the amendments.

The right of a Senator to offer an amendment for consideration has been enshrined in the Senate rules from the very beginning. It is true that about half the cloture votes I cited were on the motion to proceed to consider a bill which is before the stage where amendments can be offered. I will say more on that point later. However, the majority leader has moved to cut off debate on amendments on a measure other than the motion to proceed over 100 times. In my judgment, he can hardly claim Republicans forced his hand by offering too many amendments when few, if any, amendments have even been considered when he attempts to cut off amendments.

What is more, the majority leader has consistently used the tactic called filling the tree, where he offers blocker amendments that block any other Senator from offering their own amendments unless the majority leader or somebody speaking for him agrees to set aside a blocker amendment so the other Senator can offer an amendment. This way he is able to get in line first to put his blocker amendments in place

because of a tradition that the majority leader has priority to be recognized by the Presiding Officer. This doesn't happen to appear anyplace in the rules. In fact, the rules make very clear that whatever Senator seeks recognition first should be recognized and that any Senator has a right to offer an amendment. This so-called filling the tree tactic was relatively rare before Senator Reid became majority leader, but he has made it routine.

Technically, some germane amendments can be considered during a short window after cloture has been invoked and before final vote. But by using the blocker amendment tactic, along with a motion to invoke cloture, the majority leader can block any Senator from offering any amendment while shutting off debate. That means the Senate would take a final vote on a bill without a single amendment having been offered.

The abuse of this tactic is at the heart of the Senate's current gridlock. This is confirmed by a chart--and I don't have a copy of this chart with me--published with a recent New York Times article. Here is what the caption said:

The use of filibusters has risen since the 1970s,

especially when Republicans have been in the Senate minority.

That would tend to blame Republicans, but listen to the rest of this quote.

But the most recent spike of Republican filibusters has

coincided with the Democrats' unprecedented moves to limit

amendments on the Senate floor.

This doesn't even tell the whole story because much of the time the Senate majority leader doesn't have to actually use his amendment- blocking tactics. He simply informs Republicans he will block amendments or refuses to commit to allow Republican amendments before making the motion to consider a bill. In this all-too-common scenario, the majority leader tells the Republicans he intends to move to consider a bill and will immediately move to cut off debate on that motion. By the way, if we do vote to take up this bill, we will not be allowed to offer any amendments. So that kind of puts everybody on this side of the aisle in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Why on Earth would Republicans take that deal and vote for cloture on proceeding to a bill on which we are told we will be allowed no input, contrary to the deliberative tradition of the Senate?

Just to be clear, some Democrats have proposed eliminating the filibuster entirely. Others have proposals to limit it in various ways. Majority Leader Reid wants to start by eliminating it on the motion to proceed. But as we have seen, the real problem is the way Republicans have been blocked from participating in the process. If we are looking to reform how the Senate operates, maybe we ought to start by considering doing away with the tradition that the majority leader can block amendments. That is something which is already contrary to the letter of the Senate rules.

Again, there is no doubt that the Senate is not functioning properly. However, the complaints I hear from Iowans are not that the Senate is considering too many amendments and working too hard to make sure the legislation we pass is worded properly. In fact, I hear quite the opposite. A great many Iowans have told me they are not happy with legislation being rammed through the Congress without their elected representatives even having an opportunity to read it. If Members of Congress don't have a chance to read a bill, we can bet the American public doesn't have a chance to understand it. I suppose that is fine if we believe we should pass a bill first and let the American people find out what is in it later, as Speaker Pelosi once famously suggested about the health care reform bill. We have to pass it, she said, and then we will find out what is in it. And then there is a rude awakening that now in this 2,700-page health care reform bill, we are finding out there are a lot of bad things in it, a lot of bad things that we warned the public about and warned the Democrats about as well. However, if one thinks, as I do, that we should be listening to those who elect us, one would have to conclude that a more deliberative process is needed, not less.

The rules of the House allow for quick consideration of legislation, but the Senate is supposed to be different and historically has been different. When the majority leader says the Senate is not operating efficiently, he means we are not approving the legislation he wants on the timetable he demands. The simple historical fact is the Senate is not designed for that kind of efficiency. However, for a period after the 2008 elections, the Democrats had 60 Members in the Senate. That is enough votes to shut off debate and amendments without a single Republican cooperating. Naturally, the majority party couldn't resist the temptation and shut Republican voices out of every aspect of the legislative process because they had the votes to do it. Not only did they use their supermajority to prevent Republican amendments on the floor of the Senate, but since they didn't need Republican votes to pass a bill, they cut us out of the process of developing the legislation.

In my experience as a former chairman and now ranking member, some of the best examples of bipartisanship happen at the committee level. The Senate committees are where Senators of both parties often work in a bipartisan way to delve into the details of the legislation and iron out imperfections. This is how most bills are supposed to be handled.

I often tell people who are cynical about all the partisanship they see on TV that there is a lot of bipartisan work that goes on that they never see because only controversial things get on television. When a committee process is working and the Democrats and Republicans are working together to get a bill and everything is going smoothly, no journalist is going to pay any attention to that. But that goes on in the committee process, and that process can be dry and it can be technical. Senators of both parties sitting around a table discussing where to place a comma doesn't make the breaking-news alerts. Nevertheless, the committees are where much of the hard bipartisan work of the Senate is done.

In recent years the Democratic leaders prefer to write bills behind closed doors without Republican input. I suppose the health care reform bill is the best example of that, but there are others as well. They have then used a parliamentary trick to bring them right to the Senate floor. I suppose I shouldn't use the words ``parliamentary trick'' because there is a rule XIV, but that bypasses the usual committee process where we build consensus between the political parties. If Republicans are shut out of having any significant input on the front end and are blocked from having any amendments on the back end, is it any wonder we don't vote for the majority leader's motion to cut off debate?

Despite the bad blood caused by the tactics I have described, I had hoped and believed that after the 2010 elections, things would be different. When Americans elected Republicans to a sizeable majority in the House of Representatives--larger than any election since 1938--and at the same time enlarged our representation in the Senate to 47 Members, I thought the majority party would recognize that they had to work with Republicans. With 47 Members, it was no longer possible under the Senate rules for the majority party to shut Republicans out of the legislative process and still expect to ram their agenda through. So I naturally assumed the Senate would resume its usual tradition of bipartisan cooperation involving open debate and amendments from both sides--in other words, the way the Senate had historically functioned.

The majority leader didn't see it that way and continued to shut Republicans out of the process. In fact, if he had allowed an open debate and amendment process on many of the bills he sought to bring up, we could have gotten a lot more accomplished than we have. One week in June last year, we passed four controversial pieces of legislation because that process worked. It involved Republicans seeking things. But most of the time that doesn't happen. Sure, it would have taken more time under that amendment process and the deliberative process to consider each bill than the majority leader might have preferred to be given to it. He and his caucus might also have had to vote on Republican proposals instead of only legislation of his choosing. But is there anything wrong with a Republican offering an amendment now and then,

even if that amendment loses? Some Republican amendments might have embarrassed Democrats by forcing them to vote on issues they would rather avoid. Is there anything wrong with voting on some tough issues from time to time? Some Republican amendments might have attracted enough Democratic votes to actually pass. Perhaps that is exactly what the majority leader might want to avoid. He seems to want total control over the agenda. Majority Leader Reid has said as much in private. He told Senator McCain flatout that ``the amendment days are over.'' How can he say that?

There is a longstanding tradition here in the Senate that all voices be heard and that amendments get full hearing regardless of the party of the sponsor. For example, tax and trade policies aren't exactly areas of natural agreement between the two parties. Despite that fact, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I helped put together several bipartisan bills. I, a Republican, worked in partnership with Senator Baucus, a Democrat, to produce bipartisan bills that we could both live with. Even when we were starting with a bipartisan bill, Senator Baucus wanted to make sure his fellow Democrats had a chance to offer amendments, and I respected that, and if he were chairman, he would have respected that for us Republicans. It took a lot of time and effort, but that is what we have to do in the Senate if we actually want to get something done rather than simply blame the other side if we fail.

The Senate has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world because it was specifically designed to proceed at a measured pace and guarantee that the rights of the minority party are protected from what political philosophers called the ``tyranny of the majority.''

In 1788, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10:

Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate

and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and

private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our

governments are too unstable, that the public good is

disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that

measures are too often decided not according to the rules of

justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the

superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

In 1788 James Madison was warning us about the superior force of an overbearing majority, the reason the Senate was set up to make sure the overbearing majority of the other body, where the majority rules, didn't do stupid things.

Those arguing for abolishing the filibuster sometimes talk about majority rule as though this is some fundamental principle. On the contrary, the aim of our Constitution is to protect the individual rights of all Americans, not the right of the majority to impose its will on an unwilling minority. In fact, James Madison was very concerned about what he called factions gathering together to impose their will on others. So I wish to quote again from Federalist No. 10. Before I start that quote, let me say for the benefit of people that I think when he used the word ``faction,'' for the most part he was speaking about political parties.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is

supplied by the Republican principle, which enables the

majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may

clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it

will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the

forms of the Constitution.

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of

popular government, on the other hand, enables it to

sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public

good and the rights of other citizens.

To secure the public good and private rights against the

dangers of such a faction, and at the same time preserve the

spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great

object to which our inquiries are directed.

That was a long quote, so let me say that in other words, Madison is saying that an important goal of the U.S. Constitution is to protect ``the public good and the private rights'' from a temporary majority trying to impose its will on the minority. This is evidenced throughout the Constitution. We call it checks and balances. We see it in the separation of powers between the three branches of government, and we see it in our system of federalism dividing power between States and the Federal Government. It also helps explain our bicameral legislative branch, and, of course, what I am talking about here is the unique structure of the Senate.

In Federalist No. 62, also usually attributed to the father of the Constitution, James Madison, he explains:

The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the

propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to

the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced

by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious

resolutions.

Examples of this subject might be cited without number; and

from proceedings within the United States, as well as from

the history of other nations.

Madison wrote that in 1788, but it is still applicable in 2012.

So kind of repeating, the purpose of the Senate is to save us from ``the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.''

There is a place for the passions of the moment in any republican form of government or any democratic society, and that place for the passions of the moment to be reflected is in our House of Representatives. But imagine if our only legislative body were the House of Representatives. Right now, that would mean Speaker Boehner would control the entire legislative agenda, and the priorities of the House Republicans would be the only legislation that would have a chance of passing.

Then, once the Democrats gained control in some future election, Republicans would have virtually no ability to have their views considered.

This is a teeter-totter approach to governing. This teeter-totter would not lead to thoughtful legislation that protects individual rights and balances the views of all Americans.

You will also note that Madison references examples from proceedings within the United States at that particular time. Many State legislatures in the early days of our Republic were unicameral, with frequent elections and also with weak executives. This led to many instances where a temporary majority faction would gain control and quickly pass legislation that advantaged the majority at the expense of the minority.

It is also the case that the Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, was unicameral, which caused a lot of instability as described, again, by Madison in Federalist 62:

Every new election in the States is found to change one-

half of the representatives.

From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions;

and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.

But a continual change even of good measures is

inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect

of success.

The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more

just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

The staggering of the terms of Senators was partly done to provide stability, preventing temporary majorities from acting hastily and trampling on the rights of the minority.

Only one-third of the Senators are up for reelection every 2 years, unlike the House of Representatives, where all Members are up for reelection every 2 years. Because only one-third of the Senators are up for reelection at once, it is less likely that one party can sweep the election and gain control of the entire legislative branch of government in one election. Here we see how the Senate was specifically designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In Federalist Paper 66, Madison, the father of the Constitution, continues his explanation of the unique role of the Senate--the unique role of the Senate--

. . . there are particular moments in public affairs when the

people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit

advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of

interested men, may call for measures which they themselves

will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.

In these critical moments, how salutary will be the

interference of some temperate and respectable body of

citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to

suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves,

until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority

over the public mind?

Now, I want you to contrast--with these quotes from Madison--the role the father of our Constitution says the Senate is intended to play to the present debate going on in the Senate that the rules ought to be changed and the majority leader's vision for how a newly altered Senate would operate.

One faction, the Democratic Party, would be able to ram through massive pieces of legislation with little or no input from duly elected Senators who happen to be from another political party. And what if Republicans are not happy with being shut out of the legislative process at every stage? Well, the majority leader explained to one freshman Republican Senator: ``You can always vote against the bill.''

Not only does this take-it-or-leave-it approach effectively disenfranchise all those Americans who elected Senators from the minority party to represent their views, it also leads to poorly thought out legislation. Since the proposed changes to the Senate rules would make the body more like the House of Representatives, let's take another look at how that Chamber operates.

Although the House is designed to reflect the will of the current majority, the trend toward the majority party shutting out the minority party in that body has increased over time. Some people trace this trend to the last decade of the 19th century when the Speaker of the House was a man named Thomas Brackett Reed.

Then-Speaker Reed strengthened the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and sought to diminish the rights of the minority party. He once used his position to unilaterally change the interpretation of the quorum rule to prevent Members of the minority party from blocking a measure by refusing to vote in a quorum call. This incident was called the ``Battle of the Reed Rules.''

Then-Speaker Reed famously said: ``The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch.'' This attitude earned that Speaker of the House, whose name was Reed--they called him Czar Reed.

Do we really want another ``Battle of the Reed Rules'' like we had over a century ago in the House of Representatives? Wouldn't that be going backwards?

Ironically, the House of Representatives under Speaker Boehner has actually allowed more opportunity for the minority party to affect legislation than the current Senate majority leader. Senate Minority Leader McConnell has cited data from the Congressional Research Service showing that the Democrat minority party in the House has had 214 occasions to affect legislation this year compared to only 67 for the Republican minority in the Senate.

When the House of Representatives allows for more input from the minority party than the Senate, which is supposed to be the deliberative body, it seems to me something is very wrong.

It is true that the cloture rule and the various different procedures that are called filibusters are not found in the Constitution. But changes to the Senate rules that some in the Democratic caucus are proposing would fundamentally transform the character of the Senate in a way that the Founders never intended and best expressed by James Madison.

The proposed gutting of the Senate's historic rules and traditions threatens to replace the principle of the rights of the minority, so important to James Madison and our other Founders, with a new principle that the might of the majority makes right. The fact that the majority leader is contemplating doing so on a partisan basis by ignoring existing Senate rules is outrageous. Can you imagine ignoring the rules to change the rules?

I know this unprecedented power grab makes even Democratic Senators uneasy. Other Democrats who find this proposal tempting and who have not yet served in the minority will find they have a rude awakening once they have to live under the new regime they might help create.

To all my colleagues who might be inclined to support this fundamental transformation of the Senate, I will repeat once more Madison's warning about temporary majorities in the heat of passion enacting legislation: `` . . . measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I'm proud to speak in support of the STEM Jobs Act of 2012, a bill passed by the House of Representatives last week. This bill would make available up to 55,000 green cards each year for foreign students who have received doctorates or master's degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math, also known as STEM, from a U.S. university. The bill would not increase overall immigration levels, but rather, would move our immigration

system toward one in which we reward the best and brightest of the world with the chance to remain, live, and work in this country.

Without a doubt, our immigration system is flawed. I have long argued that we need to enhance and expand legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. While I am a champion for rooting out fraud and abuse from many of our visa programs, I'm also supportive of finding ways to allow people to enter this country through legal channels.

It makes sense to allow foreign students who have been trained and educated on U.S. soil to remain here. These students have advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math, and this bill will ensure that we keep those highly skilled and sought-after students here for employers in need.

Our economy cannot wait. We need to enact solutions today that create economic growth.

We also have no reason to wait for next year's likely debate on immigration. Attracting and retaining high-skilled workers should not be a partisan issue. The senior Senator from New York has a similar proposal to grant green cards to STEM students. I can only assume that many people on the other side of the aisle would support this bill if the majority leader gave it a chance. Nearly 30 Democrats in the House crossed the aisle to help this bill pass last week.

Finally, as we look ahead to immigration reform, it will be important to consider ways our policies benefit future generations, not just solve the problems of the day. Our immigration system should be structured in a way to recruit people with skills in STEM fields. This bill is a good first step to changing our system to a merit-based one. Enhancing our legal immigration channels should be a top priority, and I am committed to working on ways to do that for all sectors of the economy.

I hope the majority will reconsider, and allow the Senate to call up and pass the STEM Jobs Act and send it to the President. It would be a signal to the American people that we can work together to enact needed immigration reforms.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has the admirable goal of advancing the interests and rights of the disabled across the world. However, I have great concerns about acceding to this convention. I am also disappointed that the Senate will dedicate just 2 hours of debate to consider this convention, without the ability for any Senators to offer or consider worthy amendments.

U.S. leadership in advancing and safeguarding the rights of the disabled is unmatched. The United States is the leader on disability issues. It's for this reason that the convention is modeled on the disability rights laws of the United States. However, I have serious doubts that simply joining the convention will lead to greater U.S. influence in promoting disability rights abroad. The ability of the United States to lead on this issue is not and should not be dependent upon joining this convention. We can lead on disability rights abroad because we lead on disability rights at home.

Joining this convention will have no impact on the disability rights of Americans in this country. Americans with disabilities are already afforded the rights contained with the treaty. Many Federal and State laws protect the rights of the disabled, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even proponents of the convention acknowledge that it will not enhance the rights of individuals with disabilities in America.

We have made great strides in disability policy in America. Laws which I authored, such as the Family Opportunity Act and Money Follows the Person, not only gave the disabled health care coverage but gave them real self-determination in that health care coverage. In the future, I will continue to work to protect coverage of the disabled during difficult budgetary times and work to find solutions for the disabled that allow for coordination of support services across all an individual's needs. While I respect the concerns and goals of supporters of this treaty, we should not let this take the place of focusing on problems and solutions here in America.

However, becoming a party to the convention would subject the United States to the eighteen-member Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This committee is created to monitor the implementation of the convention and provide conclusions and recommendations with regard to State Party's treaty reports. I have serious concerns about the infringement upon U.S. sovereignty by a committee tasked with providing criticisms and recommendations for the United States on our disability laws.

Further, the convention raises additional concerns by unnecessarily including references in the area of ``sexual and reproductive health'' and the ``best interests of the child.'' These provisions call into question the purpose of the convention regarding abortion rights and the fundamental rights of parents to determine how best to raise their children.

It is for these reasons, along with the decision of the majority leader to shut out the rights of Senators by prohibiting the consideration of any amendments, that I oppose this convention.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, today, America faces no greater threat to its growth and prosperity than our uncontrolled national debt. Currently, the country's debt exceeds $16 trillion. We are passing this amount of money on to our children and grandchildren to pay off. It is simply far too large a burden to be placing on them.

As we move forward, it is clear that we must discuss spending.

I know that President Obama is hyper-focused on increasing taxes as part of a deficit-reduction proposal. However, if we are serious about reducing our debt, we must talk about spending--not sometime next year, not only after we talk about taxes. We must talk about our spending Now.

We need to have a thoughtful conversation that focuses on where our Federal spending most calls for control and containment.

I would like to begin by drawing your attention to this chart I have in the Chamber.

This chart from the Congressional Budget Office details noninterest spending as a percentage of GDP.

We already know the significant role health care spending plays in our budget.

Over the next decade, the Federal Government will spend over $7 trillion on Medicare and $4.5 trillion on Medicaid. Together these two programs account for one-quarter of the entire Federal Government's spending throughout the next 10 years. But look closely at the even longer term projections of our spending.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this middle graph-- Social Security, as a percentage of GDP--will remain relatively stable over the next 25 years.

Noninterest spending, the bottom graph, as a percentage of GDP will also remain relatively stable over the same period.

Now, look at this top graph. Over the next 25 years, spending on health care entitlements will basically double as a percentage of GDP.

Unless we take a serious look at health care spending, we aren't genuinely acting to reduce our country's debt.

Twenty-five years is not a lot of time. We need to be talking about health care spending now--not sometime next year, not just once we have discussed taxes; now.

In Washington, we can get all wrapped up over semantic terms. Do we need Medicare and Medicaid reform? Should we call it restructuring, reorganization, improving and strengthening?

To me, the terms are irrelevant and the conclusion is undeniable. We must gain control of health care spending.

As we move forward in debt talks, I know a lot of attention will be devoted to taxes and revenue. Those conversations are important and should conclude with tax policy that fosters economic growth. But conversations about the health care entitlements should not be postponed or relegated to second-tier status, and they certainly should not be confined to cost reduction exercises that ignore the fundamental cost drivers.

I have read reports of the savings in Medicare and Medicaid that President Obama has proposed. In my mind, they do little more than take cash out of the system without making fundamental changes necessary to bend the growth curve. Let's take a look at a few of those in the President's 2013 budget.

There is increasing income-relating of Medicare premiums. That one takes more money from rich seniors. There is increasing copays for home health. That will increase costs for all seniors. There is getting bigger rebates from drug companies, even if it harms Part D. That one takes money from drug companies. There is cutting provider taxes in Medicaid. That one will take money from States at a time when the administration is encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover childless adults. As an aside, I notice that the Washington Post had a banner editorial last Friday supporting a reduction in Medicaid provider taxes. I wish that the Post had been so helpful in 2006 when the Bush administration made a similar proposal.

There is also something called a ``blended rate'' for State reimbursement under Medicaid.

That breaks the promise to pay for 100 percent of the costs of those made eligible under Obamacare.

These proposals will certainly reduce the Federal outlay in Medicare and Medicaid. However, these proposals will not solve the larger problem of health care spending growth. Instead, we should also focus on where our spending really is.

I am fully aware that there is significant opposition from Democrats to Republican ideas like premium support for Medicare and block grants for Medicaid. I am not here promoting either of those ideas. But opposition to those ideas should not allow Democrats to walk away from the issue. We must address the growth of health care entitlements.

I believe our Medicare and Medicaid spending problems can be explained in three straightforward charts. This chart I have in the Chamber is the first one.

Here we look at the Federal Medicare and Federal and State Medicaid spending divided into three groups.

On the left is spending by the Federal Government for people who are eligible only for Medicare.

On the right is Federal and State spending for people only eligible for Medicaid.

In the middle is Federal and State spending for people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, also known as dual eligibles or duals.

This middle group, the duals, accounts for just over 10 percent of the entire Medicare and Medicaid population. However, there is more spending on duals than on the Medicare-only beneficiaries or the Medicaid-only beneficiaries.

When we talk about the need to find ways to control spending on duals, it is for good reason. We must find ways to realign the disparate incentives of the federally run Medicare Program and the State-run Medicaid Programs.

However, focusing on solutions exclusive to duals misses the fullness of the problem. For one, the duals are not a homogeneous population. While most people consider people on Medicare to be typically elderly, fully 38 percent of the duals are nonelderly. Also, while many of the duals are clearly high-cost, there are a large number of duals who utilize very few services.

So while improvements to the care model that we use for duals are necessary, they are far from sufficient in reducing the totality of the growth driving health care costs.

Consider this next chart, I have in the Chamber.

In this chart, we see the most expensive individuals in the Medicare program. This is a population who has two to three chronic conditions and functional impairments. Among the most expensive Medicare beneficiaries, more than half--57 percent--qualify only for Medicare.

Providing better coordinated care and reducing costs for high-cost beneficiaries is critical for the future of Medicare and Medicaid. I have strong reservations about splitting these two groups based solely on individuals' income.

Proposals that give the States greater control of acute care services for the 43 percent who are duals, essentially, divide two similarly situated, expensive individuals between one Federal model and 50 States models based solely on their income. That makes no sense to me. A Medicare-only beneficiary may exhaust income and assets and become dually eligible. The separation between the two populations is arbitrary and artificial.

Whatever we do to find a better model to coordinate care and reduce costs for high-cost beneficiaries, it needs to address all beneficiaries, not just duals.

To find rational solutions to our health care spending, we must first accurately target the populations who incur the most significant expenditures. This includes individuals who are not only the duals but also those Medicare-only seniors with multiple chronic conditions and functional impairments.

Finally I would like to draw attention to this chart I have in the Chamber.

This final chart details spending on long-term services and supports in 2010. Two years ago, a total of $208 billion--8 percent of all U.S. personal health care spending--was spent on long-term services and supports. Among this spending, Medicaid, the single largest payer of such services, picked up 62.2 percent of the cost, while the private market paid for just over a third of it.

With 80 million baby boomers entering retirement age, and 7 out of every 10 seniors needing long-term care at a certain point in their lives, the demand for those services will only increase and further drive health care spending if we don't take action. We must find ways to increase private spending and decrease public spending on long-term services and supports.

If we are going to argue that we are reducing the growth of health care costs, we must actually do it.

In closing, we have an opportunity before us. We can either make real changes to our health care entitlements that will impact the growth curve for years to come, or we can simply take cash out of the system and call it reform. We have to be willing to re-examine the effectiveness of our current overall Medicare and Medicaid structure. We should not be afraid to ask tough questions.

Should Medicare and Medicaid be structured in a way that provides benefits to individuals in the most efficient and effective way possible?

Are Medicare and Medicaid, in fact, structured in a way that guarantees we will spend Federal and State dollars inefficiently or ineffectively?

When you look at the spending on duals, the spending on high-cost beneficiaries and the spending on long-term supports and services, I believe the answer to both questions is yes.

Medicare and Medicaid proposals must address these three areas.

President Obama hasn't come to the table yet. I know there are people telling us we shouldn't talk about health care entitlements now. We don't have a choice. Look at the numbers. Look at

the spending. We only make the problem worse by putting it off. We can save Federal dollars by extracting more from beneficiaries, providers, and States, but that won't bend the long-term growth curve. We have to talk about solutions to actually lower the growth curve now.

We are $16 trillion in debt. One of every four dollars we will spend in this next decade will be on Medicare and Medicaid. We will see health care entitlements double as a percentage of GDP in the next 25 years. If we want Medicare and Medicaid to not only survive but also thrive for the next generation, we need to be willing to ask fundamental questions and seek solutions that can affect the growth curve.

I sincerely hope we are willing to look for solutions that can make a real difference.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, today, for only the fourth time in over 70 years, we will confirm a Federal judge during a lame-duck session in a Presidential election year. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has confirmed judicial nominees during a lame-duck session in a Presidential election year on only three occasions since 1940. It occurred in 1944, 1980, and 2004. So for those who say we are treating this President differently, I would say we have treated him far better than most Presidents have been.

This year we have already confirmed 31 District Judges and five circuit judges. That meets or exceeds the confirmations for Presidential election years in recent memory.

That is more confirmations than we did in 2008; it exceeds the district confirmations in 2004 and ties the circuit confirmations for that year. It is the same number of district confirmations in 2000, and it is considerably more than we confirmed in 1996. So for the past five Presidential election years, this year stands near the top for judicial confirmations.

Yet, despite that record, and despite the fact that we are about to confirm yet another district court nominee, all we hear from the other side are complaints. I must say, it makes it quite difficult to work cooperatively with the other side when, no matter what you do, all you hear are complaints.

Lately we have heard the other side argue that since the President won reelection, we should not follow past

practice, but rather we should confirm a large number of nominations during this lame duck session.

The last time a President was reelected--President Bush in 2004--we heard a different tune from Democrats. That year the other side was in no hurry to confirm President Bush's nominees. In fact, only 3 judicial nominees were confirmed after the November 2004 election. That year, following President Bush's reelection, 23 judicial nominations that were pending either on the Senate Executive Calendar or in the Judiciary Committee were returned to the President when the Congress adjourned in December.

Recently one of my colleagues on the other side stated, ``From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed.''

I suppose this is meant to imply there is some long record of routine confirmations following a Presidential election. But that is simply not the case.

Let me tell my colleagues what that means: One Circuit confirmation in 1980 and 3 District confirmations in 2004. That's it. From 1980 through 2008, those four nominations represent the entire list. There were no such confirmations in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2008.

Furthermore, limiting this list to ``reported with bipartisan committee support'' fails to take into account that many judicial nominees in the past administration were subjected to a ``pocket filibuster.'' That means, of course, that they never had a hearing or opportunity to be reported out of Committee. So it is somewhat misleading to suggest the Senate routinely confirms nominees during Presidential lame-duck sessions of Congress.

Again, the last time a President was reelected, only three of his nominees were confirmed following the election. Today we will add to that exclusive list, and the Senate has a time agreement for a vote on a second District nominee before we adjourn.

This afternoon, we are considering the nomination of Paul William Grimm to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland. With his confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 159 of President Obama's nominees to the District and Circuit Courts.

During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges, 24 district and four circuit. This Presidential election year we have exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed five circuit nominees, and Judge Grimm will be the 32nd district judge confirmed. That is a total of 37 judges this year versus 28 in the last Presidential election year.

So once again, I want to set the record straight, and I hope I have done so. Republicans have been more than fair to this President and his judicial nominees.

Judge Grimm received his J.D. degree in 1976, graduating magna cum laude from the University of New Mexico School of Law. He began his legal career serving in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, JAG, Corps. After resigning his active duty commission in 1979, he established a general practice law partnership of Daniels and Grimm. In 1980, Grimm left the firm to serve as a prosecutor in the Baltimore County state's attorney's office. In this position, he handled both misdemeanor and felony cases. From 1981 to 1984, Judge Grimm served in the Maryland attorney general's office as the chief of litigation and administration for the Department of Licensing Regulation.

Judge Grimm had his first prolonged stint in private practice serving as an attorney for the firm of Niles, Barton and Wilmer from 1984-1987. He was initially hired as an associate, but was promoted to partner in 1985. At Niles, Barton and Wilmer, he handled products liability cases, fidelity and surety cases, general tort cases, professional malpractice cases, and construction cases. In 1987, he joined Jordan, Coyne, Savits and Lopata as the managing partner of the Baltimore Branch. In 1991, he returned to Niles, Barton and Wilmer when Jordan, Coyne closed its Baltimore office.

Throughout his time in private practice, his typical clients included government agencies, insurance companies, private corporations, partnerships, law firms, accounting firms, and individuals.

In 1997, the U.S. District Judges for the District of Maryland appointed Judge Grimm to be a United States Magistrate Judge. In 2006, he was elevated to Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

Judge Grimm has served as an Adjunct Professor of law at the University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law, 1990-present, and at the University of Baltimore School of Law, 1997-present. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated him unanimous well qualified.

I support this nomination and congratulate Judge Grimm.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Yajuan Lu, a health care fellow in my office, be allowed privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, the Nation has lost a brave patriot who died defending freedom. Sergeant Joseph A. Richardson, who grew up in Algona, IA, was killed during a patrol in Paktika province, Afghanistan on November 16, 2012. He was clearly an accomplished, professional soldier as evidenced by his numerous awards, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star Iraq Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, NATO Ribbon, and the Combat Infantry Badge.

SGT Richardson's family released a statement that described Joe as someone who ``lived his life full of energy and with passion for everything he did.'' They also said that, ``He loved his job; he loved fighting for his country and our freedom.'' In fact, he demonstrated this by re-enlisting for six more years in the Army shortly before his untimely death. His love of country and willingness to serve marks Joseph Richardson as one of our nation's finest citizens, and his noble sacrifice immortalizes him among the ranks of our most honored war dead. We owe SGT Richardson and all those like him who have fallen in the name of liberty our infinite gratitude.

We ought also to remember his family in our prayers, including his wife Ashley, his mother, Ginette, his father, Greg, and many other family and friends who will feel his loss very deeply. As those closest to Joseph Richardson remember the life of their loved one, it is incumbent on all Americans to preserve his memory and to reflect on the enormous price he and other like him have paid to preserve our free way of life.

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

Madam President, in less then 2 months, American taxpayers are set to experience one of the largest tax increases in American history. With the elections behind us, it is time for us to work together to reach an agreement that can pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the President.

Reaching an agreement won't be easy, but it must be done to avoid going head first off the fiscal cliff. By this time we are all aware of the Congressional Budget Office warning that failing to come together threatens to send us into another recession.

An agreement is certainly doable, but all we hear about is what revenues Republicans are willing to put on the table.

We need to hear what the President and my colleagues on the other side are prepared to tackle in regard to reforming entitlements that are the long-term drivers of our fiscal problems.

That being said, we will not be able to reach an agreement if the other side continues to insist on punishing entrepreneurs and small businesses in the name of raising taxes on the ``wealthy.''

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that tax increases, particularly on high-income individuals, do not matter. They argue that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy will return us to the economic growth experienced at the height of the 1990s.

This defies common sense. If you ask a business owner if raising his taxes will hinder his ability to grow his business, he assuredly will tell you they will. He understands that the more the government takes from him, the less he has to put back into his business.

This is in line with the general understanding around here that taxes can be used as both a carrot and a stick to affect behavior. If you want to discourage behavior you impose a tax. If you want to encourage behavior you provide a tax incentive.

For example, the excise tax on cigarettes has been increased to reduce the number of people smoking. A tax has been imposed on individuals for not purchasing insurance, so more will. Our tax code is littered with tax incentives to get people to do more of the things we like and less of the things we don't like. Individuals and businesses have and do respond to these incentives.

Yet, if we are to believe the other side, when it comes to marginal income tax rates the influence of taxes ceases to exist. According to them, we can raise income taxes on the wealthy as high as we want with no ill effects for jobs and the economy.

Well I have news for my colleagues; high marginal tax rates influence many factors that contribute to economic growth. Capital accumulation and the availability of a well trained labor force are two important factors influenced by taxes. Just as an increase in the excise tax on cigarettes leads to fewer packs of cigarettes being purchased, increasing taxes on capital reduces capital accumulation. Likewise, the more you tax labor the fewer hours worked you will get. In other words, taxes matter.

Some of my colleagues on the other side have pointed to a Congressional Research Service report they claim proves raising the top marginal tax rate does not impact economic growth. There has been ample criticism of this one analysis that I will not go into here.

But, even if one gives any credence to this one analysis, it must be viewed in light of a larger body of economic research that indicates higher taxes do hinder economic growth.

This research confirms that high marginal rates reduce the hours worked and are a disincentive to small business owners and entrepreneurs.

Among this research is a 2007 study by Christina Romer that found that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces economic growth by as much as 3 percent. According to this study, tax increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of the ``powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment.''

The last thing we need to do now is discourage business investment. Business investment has been stagnate. This has directly contributed to slower economic growth than in past economic recoveries. It has also contributed to weak job creation and wage growth.

Raising marginal tax rates on entrepreneurs and business owners, thereby reducing their after-tax rate of return is not the answer.

We need to give entrepreneurs and business owners the certainty they need to start investing again.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has issued several reports analyzing how different forms of taxation impact economic growth. This OECD research found that income taxes significantly impact economic growth.

According to this research, the most damaging tax was the corporate income tax followed by the individual income tax. The study further noted that highly progressive individual income tax rates are negatively associated with economic growth.

The United States of course relies extensively on both corporate and individual income taxes. Our corporate rate of 35 percent is the highest in OECD countries, which is bad in its own right. But a large number of American businesses are taxed at the individual rate, not the corporate rate. We also already have a highly progressive tax system. In fact, according to a 2008 OECD study we have ``the most progressive tax system and collect the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.''

Currently, the top individual rate of 35 percent is the same as the top corporate rate. Starting in 2013, if the President has his way, the top rate goes up to 39.6 percent with the second highest rate scheduled to go up to 36 percent from 33 percent. When you consider the effects of the personal exemption phase-out and limitation on itemized deductions, the marginal effective tax rate jumps to over 41 percent.

These tax increases will hinder the growth of small businesses, and of course, slower business growth means slow job growth.

Evidence of this is documented by a 2001 study available from the National Bureau of Economic Research. This study looked at how the marginal rate cuts in the 1986 tax reform affected the growth of small firms.

The study showed that businesses that experienced the largest marginal rate cuts saw their businesses grow the fastest. Conversely, the study concluded that when marginal tax rates go up, the growth of small businesses goes down.

Similarly, a 2005 study conducted by the Small Business Administration found that ``lower marginal rates on entrepreneurial income encourage more entrepreneurial entry and lower rates of exit, and lengthen the duration of spells of activity.'' This means that if my colleagues are successful in raising the top two marginal rates there will be less entrepreneurial activity. Fewer people will seek to start their own business and more current business owners will be looking to close up shop.

Further research confirms that high marginal tax rates leads to fewer hours worked. A 2008 study that appeared in the Journal of Monetary Economics and a 2004 study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis examined how taxes impact the labor supply across time and across countries.

Both of these studies found that countries with higher marginal tax rates generally worked fewer hours. Conversely, those with low marginal rates worked more hours. In fact, these studies, controlling for other variables, found that the marginal tax rate accounted for the ``vast majority'' or ``preponderance'' of the difference in hours worked.

Research by economist Michael Keane has highlighted that high marginal rates have the biggest impact on labor over the long-run. This is because of the effect of marginal rates on lifetime decisions.

While a sudden increase in taxes may not lead to an immediate shift in current hours worked, it will impact future decisions.

For instance, higher marginal rates will discourage the accumulation of human capital through work experience and training. His review of research in this area further concluded that the effect of high marginal tax rates is especially pronounced when it comes to women's participation in the workforce.

There are many more examples of economic research that point to high tax rates hindering economic growth. For the sake of time, I am not going to go through all of them. Instead, I will ask unanimous consent to place a list of more than 20 studies in the Record. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I believe these provide a good starting point for my colleagues who are interested in learning the truth about taxes.

In sum, this research suggests that soaking the rich through an ever more progressive tax code will only reduce incentives for work and entrepreneurship thereby reducing economic growth. It means that for a couple deciding whether or not a spouse who left the workforce should go back to work, taxes matter;

for an Individual who is considering investing in their own human capital through education or training to increase their earning potential, taxes matter;

for a small business owner considering hiring employees, purchasing equipment, or expanding their business, taxes matter;

for an entrepreneur deciding whether or not a business venture is worth pursuing, taxes matter.

Let me turn to another argument used by my colleagues on the other side to support increasing taxes. This argument is that tax increases on the ``wealthy'' are necessary to reduce the deficit and balance the budget.

The truth is there are not enough so-called rich people to make this happen. Based on 2009 tax returns, if you raised the top tax rate on income over $200,000 to 100 percent, you would still come short of covering the the $1.1 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2012.

This back of the envelope calculation assumes that people will not work less or engage in tax planning or fraud to avoid such a confiscatory tax. I imagine my colleagues on the other side would even concede this would be the case with such a high rate.

For people out there who think they don't have to worry about the President's proposals because you are not wealthy, my message to you is this: You should be worried, because in order to tackle the deficit and pay for all his proposed new spending; the President will have to increase taxes on individuals well under $200,000.

The President of course claims that he wants a balanced approach to deficit reduction. He says we should do a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. So far he has been rather specific about his tax increases. However, he has not said much about entitlements that are going to be the main drivers of our national debt over the coming years and decades.

The President needs to lead in this area to get a serious discussion rolling. He needs to begin offering serious solutions, not just attacking those that have been offered up by Congressman Ryan in his budget proposal.

Given my tenure in Congress, I have learned to be skeptical when people around here start saying we will reduce the deficit by raising taxes now and cutting spending later. Especially when no specifics are articulated regarding what programs can be cut or what reforms they will accept for addressing entitlements. It's been my experience in these situations, the taxes always go up, but the spending cuts never happen.

Professor Vedder of Ohio University, who has studied tax increases and spending for more than two decades, confirms this in recent research. Professor Vedder looked at tax increases and spending spanning from the end of WW II through 2009 and discovered that ``each dollar of new tax revenue has been associated with $1.17 in new spending''.

If we are ever going to get a handle on the deficit, we are going to need to learn to live within our means. Spending as a percent of GDP has averaged about 20.5 percent since 1970. From 1998-2001, when we did balance the budget, spending as a percent of GDP averaged 18.5 percent. In fact we have never balanced the budget with spending as percent of GDP exceeding 20 percent. Spending under President Obama has averaged 24.5 percent of GDP. We must curtail our spending if we ever hope to balance the budget in the future.

Some around here insist that cutting spending will be as damaging, if not more so, than increasing taxes. They use the rationale of spending multipliers pushed by some economists that

suggest for every dollar of spending by the government we will get more than a dollar in economic activity.

This theory is deeply flawed. Even if we assume the government spends money wisely with no fraud, waste or abuse--and that is a big if--it means one less dollar to be spent by the private sector.

If this was solid economic theory our economy should be booming given all the money we have been spending around here. The truth is spending is not the solution to our problems, it is our problem. It is what got us into this mess in the first place.

For my colleagues who are still wedded to the idea that tax increases are preferable to spending cuts, I recommend reading a recent study by Harvard Economist Alberto Alesina. Given the fiscal shape of many countries, Professor Alesina studied the impact of spending and tax policies put in place to address fiscal imbalances.

His research concluded that ``fiscal adjustments based upon spending cuts are much less costly in terms of output losses than tax based ones. In particular, spending-based adjustments have been associated with mild and short-lived recessions, in many cases with no recession at all. Instead, tax-based adjustments have been followed by prolonged and deep recessions.''

This research paper comes on the heels of a paper he released in 2009. This paper similarly found that policies favoring spending cuts over tax increases are more likely to reduce the deficit.

In the words of Professor Alesina, fiscal adjustments ``based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over Gross Domestic Product ratios than those based upon tax increases.''

These studies confirm what through shear common sense Winston Churchill knew more than a half century ago, ``for a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.''

In the coming weeks, I hope to work with my colleagues and the President to reach a bipartisan agreement to help put our country back on sound fiscal footing. However, as I said in the beginning, it can't be just one side of the aisle that is expected to come to the table. My colleagues on the other side must be willing to put real reforms to address entitlements and our out of control spending on the table.

I ask unanimous consent the list to which I referred be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to thank several of my colleagues who have recognized me for casting my 11,000th vote yesterday. I want to acknowledge the fine things Senator Reid, the majority leader, said, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, Senator Stabenow, Senator Harkin, and Senator Leahy, and I wanted them to know I appreciate very much the recognition they brought. I hope it is nothing special, because I believe I am just exhibiting the work ethic of Iowans generally, who work very hard.

Reservation of Leader Time

Mr. President, we are again discussing the important topic of cybersecurity--a topic we all agree is of the utmost importance and worthy of our attention. Unfortunately, this is like the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' The majority continues to push the same flawed legislation that failed to garner enough votes for consideration just three months ago.

No one disputes the need for Congress to address cybersecurity.

However, Members do disagree with the notion this problem requires legislation that increases the size of the Federal Government bureaucracy and places new burdens and regulation on businesses.

Enhancing cybersecurity is important to our national security. I support efforts to strengthen our Nation against cyber attacks.

However, I take issue with those who have come to the floor and argued that those who don't support this bill are against strengthening our Nation's cybersecurity.

As I said in August, disagreements over how to address policy matters shouldn't devolve into accusations about a Member's willingness to tackle tough issues.

The debate over cybersecurity legislation has turned from a substantive analysis of the merits into a political blame game as to which side supports defending our Nation more.

If we want to tackle big issues such as cybersecurity, we need to rise above disagreements and work in a constructive manner. Disagreements over policy should be openly and freely debated.

Unfortunately, this isn't how the debate on cybersecurity proceeded. Instead, before a real debate began last August, the majority cut it off.

This was contrary to the majority's promise earlier this year of an open

amendment process to address cybersecurity.

Aside from process, I also have significant substantive concerns with the bill. Chief among my concerns with the pending bill is the role played by the Department of Homeland Security. These concerns stem from oversight I have conducted on its implementation of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, or the CFATS program.

CFATS was the Department's first major foray into regulation of the chemical sector. DHS spent nearly $500 million on the program. Five years later, they have just begun to approve site security plans for the more than 4,000 facilities designated under the rule.

I have continued to conduct oversight on this matter. Despite assurances from DHS that they have fixed all the problems with CFATS, I keep discovering more problems.

On top of this concern, since the last vote in August, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have released a report criticizing DHS and the fusion centers they operate. The subcommittee report criticized DHS's fusion centers as ``pools of ineptitude, waste, and civil liberties intrusions.''

And that is the evaluation after DHS spent as much as $1.4 billion on this program.

Given these examples, I am baffled why the Senate would take an agency that has proven problems with overseeing critical infrastructure and give them chief responsibility for our country's cybersecurity.

Additionally, I am concerned with provisions that restrict the way information is shared.

The restrictions imposed under title VII of this bill are a step backward from other information-sharing proposals. This includes the bill I have co-sponsored, the SECURE IT bill.

The bill before us places DHS in the role of gatekeeper of cyber threat information. The bill calls for DHS to share the information in ``as close to real time as possible'' with other agencies. However, this will create a bottleneck for information coming into the government.

Further, title VII includes restrictions on what types of information can be shared, limiting the use of it for criminal prosecutions except those that cause imminent harm.

This is exactly the type of restriction on information sharing that the 9/11 Commission warned about.

In fact, the 9/11 Commission said, ``the [wall] resulted in far less information sharing and coordination.'' The Commission further added, ``the removal of the wall that existed before 9/11 between intelligence and law enforcement has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.''

Why would we even consider legislation that could rebuild these walls that threaten our national security?

We haven't had any real debate on these issues. The lack of a real process in the Senate on this current bill amplifies my substantive concerns.

In fact, this is eerily reminiscent of the debate surrounding ObamaCare.

Here we are once again, in a lame duck session the week before Thanksgiving, tackling a serious problem that hasn't been given the benefit of the Senate's full process.

I don't want cybersecurity legislation to become another ObamaCare. If we are serious about our Nation's security, then shouldn't we treat it as such?

Additionally, the staff of the sponsors of the legislation before us continue behind-the-scenes efforts to negotiate changes to the bill we are being asked to vote on. If the bill sponsors are still negotiating changes, why don't we have the benefit of a full and open amendment process to try and fix it before we vote for cloture? It simply doesn't make sense.

Instead, it appears today's vote is about something other than cybersecurity. It is yet another attempt by the majority to paint the minority as obstructing the work of the Senate. Most likely, this vote will be used simply as fuel for the majority's effort to dismantle the filibuster. So much for tackling cybersecurity without putting politics into the mix.

This isn't the way we are supposed to legislate. The people who elected us expect more.

How many Senators are prepared to vote on something this important, without knowing its impact because we haven't followed regular order? Are we to once again pass a bill so that the American public can then read it and find out what is in it?

These are questions that all Senators should consider. And our citizens should know in advance what we are actually considering.

If we are serious about addressing this problem, then let's deal with it appropriately.

Rushing something through that will impact the country in such a massive way isn't the way we should do business.

It is not good for the country and it is not good for this body.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am getting the runaround from the inspector general at the Department of Defense, and my remarks, which are fairly lengthy, will be connected with that problem I am having. With sequestration looming on the horizon, Congress needs a truly independent Department of Defense audit oversight capability. We need it to root out waste.

As my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, knows all too well, rooting out Department of Defense waste is no easy task. His new report identifies some excellent examples of waste ready for removal. I commend Senator Coburn for his outstanding work and stand ready to help him.

But to successfully root out waste day in and day out, there must be a topnotch audit quality and capability in the hands of an inspector general who is ready and willing to use it effectively.

I am reluctant to say this, but it needs to be said. I fear, and I suspect, that the independence of the inspector general's audit capability may have been compromised. I say this because of the story I am about to tell. This story is about a difficult audit, where the inspector general apparently got a bad case of weak knees and caved under pressure. The inspector general dropped the ball on an audit that should be a critical component in Secretary Panetta's good-faith effort to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the Chief Financial Officers Act.

Today, the Department of Defense is the only Federal agency that cannot pass the test. So Secretary Panetta turned up the pressure. He wants to move the audit readiness date up to no more than 3 years from the congressionally mandated date of 2017 to 2014. This is a daunting task, which I spoke about here on the floor almost 12 months ago now, on December 11 of last year. I say it is a daunting task because there is a big pothole in the road the Secretary faces that he may not know about, hence the reason I am speaking.

The kingpin of this initiative--the Department's flagship accounting agency known as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service--may not be ready to produce credible financial statements. It claims to have earned a clean opinion. Yet when its financial statements were put under the inspector general's microscope, they were found to be very lacking. They did not meet the prescribed audit standards.

To make matters worse--far worse--all the evidence suggests the inspector general may have quashed this negative audit report, allowing the charade to continue unchecked. This oversight failure could leave a gaping hole in Secretary Panetta's master plan.

Except for the Corps of Engineers, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service handles all the Department's financial transactions. It should be the foundation of Secretary Panetta's initiative. It was created over 20 years ago to clean up the Department's financial mess. It should be exerting leadership in this arena and showing the rest of the Department how to balance the books. Its audit needs to be as clean as a whistle. If the Department's central accounting agency can't earn a clean opinion, then who can earn a clean opinion?

Today the central accounting agency's claim of a clean opinion may be hollow. The inspector general, who is responsible for making those judgments, rejected that opinion. The inspector general reviewed it and concluded that it did not pass muster. Unfortunately, the inspector general dropped the ball and quit before the job was done.

The inspector general's report, known as a nonendorsement report, was finalized but never signed and issued. It was simply buried in some deep hole and covered with dirt. Were it not for whistleblowers who are in touch with my office, we might think the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's statements were somehow squeaky clean. I now have the nonendorsement report and other relevant audit workpapers, and they tell a very different story.

The financial statements produced by smaller organizations, such as the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, are audited by certified public accounting firms. But this is always done under the watchful eye of the inspector general. In the end, the inspector general must validate those opinions produced by a CPA firm.

The firm Urbach Kahn and Werlin, UKW, examined the defense accounting agency's statements. It awarded an unqualified opinion or passing grade. The inspector general, by comparison, reached a different opinion. It concluded that those statements did not meet standards. The inspector general announced that it would issue a nonendorsement report, but that report was never issued.

That is why this Senator is here on the floor today. What happened to the nonendorsement report? All the evidence appears to indicate that the inspector general may have quashed the nonendorsement report. That assessment is based on a continuing review of all the pertinent documents. I would like to briefly review those facts so my colleagues can understand where I am coming from.

Seven red flags have popped up on my radar screen.

Red flag No. 1. The contract, which governed the audits in question, is a good place to start because it sets the stage for what followed. The contract was supposed to put the inspector general in the driver's seat. Section 3 of the contract clearly specifies that ``all deliverables are subject to final Department of Defense Inspector General approval.'' The opinion prepared by the public accounting firm was the main deliverable. Two members of the inspector general's audit team were designated as contracting officer representatives. They had exclusive authority to determine whether that opinion met audit standards and deserved endorsement and to approve invoices for payment. Unfortunately, as I will explain, none of the parties involved showed much respect for this contract. In fact, when the crunch came, they trashed it.

Red flag No. 2. The inspector general's decision memorandum and final version of the nonendorsement letter, both dated February 16, 2010, contain compelling evidence. The evidence points in just one direction: There was a lack of credible audit evidence to justify a clean opinion. Both the inspector general's audit team and its Quantitative Methods and Analysis Division reported major deficiencies in the CPA firm's work. Once the inspector general determined that the CPA's audit opinion did not meet prescribed standards, the inspector general's representative prepared a nonendorsement letter and instructed that payments on outstanding invoices be stopped. Those decisions precipitated a classic bureaucratic impasse.

Red flag No. 3. The impasse came to a head at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's audit committee meeting held on January 27, 2010, where three options were considered: first option, the IG would issue a nonendorsement letter; second option, the CPA firm would do more work on accounts payable and undelivered orders issued; and third option, the IG would do additional work. Just 1 day later, January 28, a senior official from the Inspector General's Office, Ms. Patty Marsh, announced the results of the meeting. Ms. Marsh reported that a consensus was reached: No additional work would be performed. She then declared that the

Inspector General's Office would issue a nonendorsement letter.

Red flag No. 4. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service immediately implemented a series of measures that appeared to bypass and eliminate oversight by the inspector general.

In what appeared to be overt defiance of the inspector general's decision, the accounting agency's Director of Resource Management, Elaine Kingston, in a letter to the accounting firm, unilaterally declared that her agency had ``proudly achieved an unqualified opinion.'' Kingston's letter was dated February 19. At that point, this opinion had been explicitly and unambiguously rejected by the inspector general, and Kingston knew it. She also authorized that all disputed invoices be paid. The invoices authorized for payment by Ms. Kingston were the very same ones previously rejected by the inspector general's contract officer representative. Their rejection was based on advice from the inspector general's legal counsel. Kingston's actions showed blatant disregard for the contract and authorized payments alleged to be fraudulent.

Then, on April 15, the central accounting agency's contract officer, Normand Gomolak, effectively eliminated independent oversight by the inspector general. He issued a letter terminating the two inspector general contract officer representatives. A known flaw in the contract allowed this to happen. Gomolak's termination order was retroactive to January 27, 2010--the very same day the inspector general revealed its intention to issue the nonendorsement letter. It is as if Mr. Gomolak had superhuman powers and could reach back in time and wipe the nonendorsement report clean off the slate, like it never really happened. As one witness put it, ``DFAS virtually kicked us--the Inspector General--out of the contract, and without so much as a whimper from the duly designated junkyard dog.''

Red flag No. 5. Under the circumstances, the stop-work order blessed by the audit committee was not surprising. That it would be accepted and tolerated by the inspector general is astonishing indeed. The consensus reached was between the three main targets of the audit: the accounting agency, the CPA firm, and the chief financial officer, who supervises the central accounting agency--such a consensus, as it was. All appeared to share one common goal: Just simply stop the audit. That is a predictable response from audit targets, especially if there is something to hide.

The inspector general's initial response was appropriate. The Inspector General's Office expressed a willingness to do more work, and when it became evident that was not a viable option, it declared that a nonendorsement letter would be issued. Of course, those were good moves. Unfortunately, however, the Inspector General's Office quickly began to backpedal and to align itself with the stop-the-audit coalition. First, it issued a stop-work order to the audit team. That occurred February 4. Then on April 13 the IG informed the accounting agency by telephone that the nonendorsement report would not be issued. This was, of course, a bolt out of the blue.

Red flag No. 6. In a letter to me dated May 26, the Inspector General's Office attempted to provide a plausible explanation for why this report never saw the light of day. First, the letter suggested that a formal nonendorsement report was unnecessary because the Inspector General's Office had already informed the audit committee of its decision to nonendorse the opinion. Is the inspector general implying that Ms. Marsh's verbal nonendorsement announcement constituted de facto or unofficial nonendorsement? If that is indeed the case, then how come the central accounting agency still pretends to have earned a clean bill of health? There is something wrong with this reasoning. Failing to issue the nonendorsement report left the opinion under a dark cloud, where it remains today.

In addition, the inspector general also suggested that doing a mere 2 to 3 weeks of additional work to finalize the nonendorsement letter would not have constituted a ``good use of audit resources''--that is, it would have been a waste of money. The need for 2 to 3 weeks of extra work appears to be a real stretch. I have the nonendorsement letter. It was finished. All it lacks is Ms. Marsh's signature.

More importantly, however, the Inspector General's Office does not seem to understand either the purpose or the importance of this audit oversight project. For starters, I recommend the inspector general check section 7 of the contract. It states:

The DoD OIG will perform oversight of the Contractor's work

to support the decision about whether to endorse the

Contractor's opinion report.

That was the stated purpose of this costly audit project--to make a decision on endorsement. From day one, however, this was a significant effort to resolve a difficult and sensitive question: Did the Defense Finance and Accounting Service deserve a clean opinion--yes or no? Since the focus of this audit was the kingpin of Secretary Panetta's initiative in the first place, well, that makes this work inherently important.

Red flag No. 7 and the last red flag. One of my main concerns about this entire matter is that it appears to point to a failure of oversight. So I ask this question: Did the Inspector General's Office cave under pressure and surrender its oversight responsibilities? By accepting and tolerating the central accounting agency's actions, the Office of the Inspector General appears to have allowed a Defense Department entity to effectively block its ability to perform one of its core missions; that is, auditing the books of a key defense agency. If true, this would be a cardinal sin for the inspector general.

The central accounting agency allegedly violated the terms of the contract. It allegedly made fraudulent payments, and it unilaterally terminated oversight. Yet, in the face of such blatant defiance, the Inspector General's Office turned a blind eye to this challenge.

So you have to ask the question, Why did the IG just roll over? Why did the IG fail to assert its independent audit authority? Stopping work at this critical juncture does not appear to have been a responsible oversight option. Why did top management fail to allow the oversight team to finish its work and render a decision on the opinion? Why quit when it was on the very edge of issuing a nonendorsement report on the flawed opinion? Was that report quashed to spare the chief financial officer another black eye for the unending accounting screwups or did the IG drop the ball because everyone involved knew these financial statements were in such bad shape they could never pass the test?

While we may never know the reasons for what happened, I feel certain about one thing. On this audit, effective oversight collapsed. Congress and the citizens of this country need some answers, but one is paramount: Did the Defense Finance and Accounting Service earn a clean opinion? A simple yes or no. As the drive to audit readiness begins in earnest, and that is under Secretary Panetta's leadership, the Secretary and the Congress need a straight answer right upfront. Leaving it in limbo is unacceptable.

In closing, I would like to emphasize one point. My inquiry is about some very important principles. True, the preparation of these financial statements and all the attendant audit work probably costs the taxpayers somewhere between $10 and $20 million. To the average American, those are big bucks. Since the audit came to nothing, waste surely occurred. Any waste, whatever it is, is unacceptable.

But putting important principles at risk was as egregious as the dollar waste. What I am talking about are ethical standards, audit standards, and the integrity of the audit process. Those standards must be protected at all cost. That is one of the inspector general's jobs, to watchdog and follow those guiding principles.

The record appears to show that these standards got trampled and this may have happened with the IG's knowledge and approval. That is what the evidence appears to suggest so far. If the integrity and the credibility of that process were undermined, then the effectiveness of one of our primary oversight weapons would be gravely impaired. When and if those lines are crossed, the inspector general and anyone else involved would be treading on dangerous territory. If such transgressions occurred, then there must be corrective action and accountability.

When I complete this oversight investigation, I will submit a final report to Secretary of Defense Panetta. It will contain findings and recommendations for the Secretary's consideration. To facilitate this process, I ask Deputy Inspector General Halbrooks to answer all my outstanding questions promptly. In other words, I am getting tired of being jerked around.

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

Mr. President, I, along with Senator Mark Kirk, intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Richard Berner to head the Office of Financial Research within the Department of the Treasury.

We will object to proceeding to the nomination because the Department of the Treasury has refused to respond to a letter Senator Kirk and I sent on October 2, over 6 weeks ago, regarding the Treasury Secretary's actions when he became aware of the manipulation of the London Interbank Overnight Rate, or LIBOR. The Department has also refused to provide the documents we requested.

In addition, my staff has, on several occasions, attempted to schedule briefing times that are convenient for the Department. The Treasury Department has cancelled each of these briefings and failed to cooperate in rescheduling at a mutually agreeable time.

Because everything from home mortgages to credit cards was pegged to LIBOR, its manipulation affects almost every American. Given the widespread effects of this manipulation, it is disturbing to see that the Treasury Department has thus far refused to answer basic questions and provide essential documents.

It is critical for Congress to be able to ask questions and to have access to administration documents in order to conduct vigorous and independent oversight. It is unfortunate that this administration, which has pledged to be the most transparent in history, consistently falls short of that goal.

Mr. President, Iowa has lost another native son fighting for our liberty on foreign soil. I am sad to announce that on Monday, November 5, just as our Nation was preparing to cast our ballots in the election, PFC Brandon Buttry of Shenandoah, IA, gave his life defending our freedom. He was only 19 years old but had felt a calling to join the military since he was a young child. I thank God for such patriots as Brandon Buttry. Without such brave and selfless Americans in each new generation, our liberty and way of life could not have been sustained.

My prayers go out to his parents, Don and Pam, his many brothers and sisters, and all those who knew and loved Brandon. He is described as having a mischievous smile and a twinkle in his eye as well as a slight contrarian streak. By all accounts, he was liked by all who knew him, and I know he will be missed very deeply in his community.

I understand he had an interest in American history, and his love of his country is evident from his deep desire to serve. He has now given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his fellow countrymen, and his name will be immortalized alongside all those other American patriots who have laid down their lives in the name of freedom.