Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague and mentor, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and to celebrate her legacy as the longest serving woman in Congress. For over 35 years, Senator Mikulski has proudly served the people of Maryland as a tireless advocate and a selfless public servant. It is my privilege to honor her today.

The great-granddaughter of Polish immigrants, Senator Mikulski grew up appreciating the value of hard work and service. On the weekends she worked in her parents' East Baltimore grocery store delivering groceries to homebound elderly. It was then that Barbara developed her deep passion for helping others.

After earning her master's degree in social work from the University of Maryland, Barbara started a career as a social worker with Catholic Charities and Baltimore's Department of Social Services. An outspoken advocate for at-risk youth and the elderly, she quickly earned a reputation as a fighter and was elected to the Baltimore City Council in 1971. After 5 years on the city council, Barbara ran for Congress.

In 1976, Barbara began her first term representing Maryland's Third Congressional District. As one of only 18 women in the House of Representatives, Barbara was a member of a small but mighty group. During her 10 years in the House, she gained a reputation as a fighter, and in 1986 the people of Maryland again chose her to represent them but this time in the Senate.

As one of only two female Senators, and the first woman elected to the Senate in her own right, Senator Mikulski was met with much skepticism. While outnumbered, Barbara's determination and dedication to her constituents shined through. Barbara is a steadfast proponent of greater access to higher education, a leader on the front of women's health, and an unwavering supporter of America's veterans. She is determined to stand up for those who are often forgotten.

A few weeks ago, Barbara shared a touching story that I think exemplifies her character.

When Barbara first ran for Senate in 1986, she had the opportunity to get to know Harriet Woods, who was campaigning as a Democrat for the Missouri Senate seat. Barbara saw the significance of having two female candidates for Senate, and she was certain both of them would win. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be for Harriet Woods, who lost to Republican John Danforth.

On Barbara's first day she was shown her desk on the Senate floor-- she opened it and saw Harry Truman's autograph. She had Harry Truman's desk. While she was delighted to have that desk, she knew that it really belonged to the Senator from Missouri and relinquished it. She said that for years she thought about that desk and hoped that it would someday be returned to a Democrat from Missouri.

Twenty years later, on election night in 2006, Barbara watched the election results come in from around the country--and in Missouri, in particular. She said she stayed up late in the night waiting for the final result. Once she learned of the results from Missouri, she knew that the desk that had been accidentally given to her all of those years ago would finally be returned, where it belonged. I am so pleased to know that the Truman desk was shared, if only briefly, with my friend Barbara Mikulski.

Barbara Mikulski is a trailblazer, a role model, and an advisor to the other women in the Senate. Today there are 17 women in the Senate, and much of that progress can be attributed to Senator Mikulski's leadership.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating Senator Mikulski on this milestone and thank her for her 35 years of leadership, friendship, and service.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a new and successful program for at-risk youth in St. Louis--the Innovative Concept Academy--and about its founder, my friend, Judge Jimmie Edwards. Before I talk about the school and the incredible work Judge Edwards has done in the St. Louis community, I wish to spend a moment talking about his childhood roots.

Judge Edwards grew up on the north side of St. Louis in the shadows of the city's Pruitt-Igoe housing project. The residents of this housing project faced many challenges, including drug and gang activity, violence, and sometimes acute poverty. But through discipline, hard work, and determination, Judge Edwards rose above these circumstances. He earned his bachelor's and law degrees from St. Louis University before being appointed to the State bench in 1992, and for 4 years he has served as the chief judge of the St. Louis Family Court's Juvenile Division.

During his service on the bench, Judge Edwards became increasingly concerned about the number of young repeat offenders coming into his courtroom time and time again, only to be sent back to the same troubled environment that negatively influenced their behavior in the first place. From his own experience, he knew that offering these kids the opportunity for a proper education and for mentoring was absolutely critical to breaking the cycle.

In 2009 Judge Edwards, together with the St. Louis public school district, the Family Court Juvenile Division, and the nonprofit organization MERS/Goodwill Industries, founded Innovative Concept Academy, a unique educational opportunity for juveniles who had already been expelled from the city's public schools and who were on parole. These young people, whom many would have given up on, found a formidable advocate in Judge Edwards and the academy. From the beginning, Innovative Concept Academy has been devoted to helping at- risk youth achieve success through education, rehabilitation, and mentorship. Its mission--to enrich the learning environment for some of our most troubled kids--has resulted in second chances for these young men and women to dramatically improve their lives.

At the start, Judge Edwards planned on providing educational and mentoring services to 30 students who had been suspended or expelled due to Missouri's Safe Schools Act. When he asked the St. Louis public schools for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they asked him if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more. This was a challenge he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do attitude.

During the first year of its existence, the academy saw 246 students move through its doors. Today the academy teaches at-risk youth between ages 10 and 18 and has an enrollment of over 375. Some of these students are visiting our Nation's Capital this week with Judge Edwards, his wife Stacy, his daughter Ashley, and his son John, along with chaperones. Here today along with Judge Edwards and his family and chaperones are students Angel Tharpe, Deyon Smith, Tyrell Williams, and Nadia Jones. These are young men and women who have turned their lives around with the help of Judge Edwards and the academy and who serve as an inspiration to others in the community and, frankly, an inspiration to me. I am so proud of what they have been able to accomplish.

The Innovative Concept Academy provides these students and many like them with so many important services--a quality education in a safe environment; one-on-one mentoring with school staff, counselors, deputy junior officers, and police; an array of extracurricular and afterschool activities, many of which are often new experiences for these students, including golf, chess, dance, classical music, and creative writing; uniforms, meals, and so many other necessities are also provided; and with tough love and important lessons about discipline, respect, anger management, goal setting, and follow- through.

All of this allows the students to meet their full potential, and St. Louis has seen positive results already. The academy has an attendance rate of over 90 percent. Let me repeat that. The academy has an amazing attendance rate of over 90 percent, and we are seeing significant improvement in these young people's grades. And the students are responding positively. For example, at the end of the first semester at the academy, the suspensions of 40 of the students ended and the students were supposed to return to their home school. Almost every student asked if they could stay at the academy because they know the academy is a special place where they can improve their lives.

The innovative program has garnered national attention. Judge Edwards has appeared as a guest on a number of major network shows and most recently was honored by People Magazine as one of its 2011 Heroes of the Year. But, for him, it is not about the magazines or the interviews; for him, it is still about the kids.

I am proud that Judge Edwards hails from my home State of Missouri and from my hometown of St. Louis. His compassion for those whom society may have given up on and his commonsense and innovative approach to solving the problems facing some of our young men and women are inspirational. He is compelled by his duty to serve and uplift the next generation no matter what the circumstances. He said it best when he observed that ``if the community, and that includes judges, does not take it upon itself to educate the children, then our community and what we stand for will be no more.'' This notion that we all succeed when we work together with a common cause and unified purpose is central to our American identity.

I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the Innovative Concept Academy and Judge Jimmie Edwards. The success of the academy and Judge Edwards' dedication and service to the St. Louis community should be an inspiration for everybody serving in this Chamber. If we could have a little bit of Judge Jimmie Edwards' attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit, and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Toomey for joining me. He has been a great leader on this since he arrived in the Senate, in terms of

the fight against earmarks. I thank him for that.

I also welcome him to our band of warriors in terms of fighting the earmark culture in Washington. It has been a fairly small number of Senators since I arrived here in January of 2007. I will be honest, the Senator spent some time in the House, so he was more familiar with the process of earmarking than I was. When I came to the Senate, I did not really understand how it worked. I did not really get it. I do not think, until you have gotten here and watched it from the inside, you truly appreciate how flawed it is in terms of a way of distributing public money. It really is going in the back room and sprinkling fairy dust. It is really a process that has more to do with who you are and whom you know than merit.

Have there been lots of projects that have been funded that I have supported? Of course. Did I make a decision--a difficult one--to not cherry-pick certain earmarks to go after on the floor? Instead, I have tried, when I got here and realized the problems, to reform the process, not just to say, let's find this one earmark in this bill and gin up an amendment on it; rather, let's try to stop the process in its entirety because it makes no sense. And that is what this amendment does. It actually will stop the process in its entirety.

Why do we need it if we have a moratorium? Why now? Frankly, when I first started saying I wanted to do away with all earmarking, I was laughed at by Members of this body, directly and indirectly. Sometimes I felt as if people were patting me on the head and saying: Go away. You have no chance to do this. I am proud of the fact that we have gotten a moratorium now. The truth is, there are a lot of Members of this body who want to go back to the old ways, and I think it is very important that we do a permanent ban. I certainly thank the Senator for helping, and I think the amendment we are working on together will make sure we will not have what happened in the House this year.

I will tell my colleagues that I think for too long too many Senators believed the measure of their worth as a Senator had everything to do with how much money they were bringing home. I have a new idea. Instead of the measure of our worth being how much we can spend, I think the measure of our worth ought to be how much we can save. This place turned on the notion that if one stayed here long enough, if they got to be an appropriator, they got more earmarks. If they became a ranking member on a subcommittee on appropriations, they got even more.

Then I found out about honey pots. I didn't know about honey pots until I got here. I don't know if Senator Toomey is familiar with that term, but let me educate him about what that term means. A honey pot is what the ranking minority member and chairman set aside as their special pot of money that they get to spend on earmarks that is greater than everyone else's. Some of the appropriations subcommittees have honey pots and some don't. The very notion that we are deciding how to divide the money based on how long we have been here, what our party affiliation is, what committees we serve on is not the way we should spend public money. We spend public money based on merit or on a formula based on how many people are in our State.

One of the other things that drives me crazy is this talking point against doing away with earmarks: We can't let the bureaucrats decide. We can't let the executive branch decide. It is the power of the purse. We have had the power of the purse in Congress for hundreds of years. Earmarking is a modern invention. We have the right to oversee the executive budget, change the executive budget, cut the executive budget, and add money to the executive budget. We can do that as a Congress and that has nothing to do with earmarking.

Let me also say this about this talking point: This notion that earmarked money just grows on trees somehow--where does the money for earmarking come from? It comes from other programs. Guess what programs it is taken from. It is taken from programs--I will just say from programs such as surface transportation.

Let's talk about that. We have a local process in Missouri. We have stakeholders all across the State who go to meetings and the public is invited and these agencies work very hard at trying to prioritize their transportation projects based on the economic needs of their community, based on safety considerations. These local folks work very hard to prioritize their projects, and what does earmarking do? It cuts in line. One individual's judgment supplants all the local planning.

This is not about Washington bureaucrats. In a lot of these instances it is about saying: I know better than the people back home know. Look at the Byrne grants, another perfect example. Money for the Byrne grants--which is a State-administered program done on a competitive basis at the State level--they have been stealing money out of the Byrne grants for earmarks so one individual Senator can decide this sheriff needs new equipment as opposed to the State authorities deciding that there may be a crime problem in one area of the State, such as a methamphetamine problem that needs special attention.

Mr. President, it is easy to see why earmarking is held so dear to so many Members. I remember when I first was elected and people

began showing up in my office that, frankly, had not been big supporters of mine. All of us who are here--and if we are brutally honest for the folks back home--we want to be loved. We put ourselves out there for public acceptance or rejection every 2, 4, 6 years. So people started showing up and being very nice to me who had not particularly been supporters of mine, and they were being nice to me and I thought, What is up here? Then all of a sudden I figured it out. They were all showing up to get their earmarks. The people in Missouri--I don't know about Pennsylvania--but in Missouri they are very worried about not having earmarks because they have been fed this line all these years: If we don't have earmarks, we are not going to get anything. We are not going to get our share. We are not going to get as much as we deserve.

Let's take water. Pennsylvania--this is a good example because Pennsylvania didn't get very much in water projects either. I don't know how many rivers there are in Pennsylvania. I should be more familiar with the geography there. But to say that Missouri is a river State is an understatement. I mean, we have the confluence of the two greatest rivers of our country, the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, in our State. We have major impact in terms of water projects that need to be done in our State because of how prominent water is in the State of Missouri. But yet we have been way down the line in terms of water projects because we don't have an appropriator on that committee. We have appropriators on other committees but not on that committee.

I keep telling the folks at home, if we compete with other States for water projects, we are going to do just fine, and that is the way it is supposed to work. States are supposed to get what they need and not get the benevolence of Washington because they happen to have somebody who has been here long enough to be on the right committee to have the right chairmanship or the right ranking committee so they can get even more. That is not the way this place should be run. It is not the right way to spend public money.

I will.

I hope we get a vote on this amendment. I am not optimistic about that because, typically--let's be honest--the vast majority of the leadership in this body has typically been appropriators and many of them want to go back to earmarking, and this is on both sides of the aisle.

As I started to point out before, it was the Republican Armed Services Committee in the House that set aside a slush fund and began doing earmarking on the Defense authorization bill. We were able to expose it and stop it, but clearly people are having a hard time breaking this habit. So I think this amendment is very important. I am happy to go toe-to-toe with anyone over the merits of this amendment. I am happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with anyone in this Congress, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to stop this process once and for all.

I think this amendment would do it. I hope we get a vote on it, and if we don't, it will not be the last time I think they will hear from both of us about our bill and how serious we are about getting it passed.

There will come a time that this bill will pass because the American people are on to us. The American people are on to this bad habit. They want it to end and they will have their way. It may not be today, it may not be this week, but I remind the Members of the Senate that it wasn't that long ago people laughed out loud at me when I said there would be an end to earmarking. They thought that was the silliest joke they had ever heard, and we have made a lot of progress thanks to the American people.

By the way, the credit should not go to me or Senator McCain or Senator Coburn--who have been working on this for much longer than I have--it should go to the American people who are figuring this out and rising in record numbers to say: We don't like earmarks. Stop it. We should give credit to them for paying attention. I hope they stay on it, and I hope we will eventually prevail.

I also yield and thank the Senator for his work. This should be the easiest for us to get done. We have some hard work we have to do around here that is going to mean sacrifice and changes that are not going to be easy for anyone. This ought to be simple, so let's try to get it done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, could I ask a question of the Senator from New York through the Chair?

I am confused. The House passed a bill last night and has sent it to the Senate. Correct?

This is a Republican bill?

And we are ready to vote on it?

And the Republicans will not let us vote on it?

I am confused.

Why would the Republicans not let us vote on their bill?

That is why we vote, to determine whether there is dissention.

Well, I would certainly urge every single Senator, be they Democrat or Republican, to come to the floor and ask the question: Why are we not voting today on the bill that was passed by the House? We are ready to vote. You know, the American people do not get this game. The bill was passed in the House. Why are we not voting? Why is the Republican Party blocking its own bill?

With all due respect to my friend and colleague from New York, I thank him for the answers, because I was confused that the Republicans are keeping us from voting on a Republican bill. But it is not the House we need show anything. We have a tendency around here to get focused on the back and forth among ourselves. It is the American people we need to show that we are capable of standing up, casting a vote, seeing whether it passes or fails, and then negotiating and finding a way forward.

I would say to my colleague from New York, if the Republicans in the Senate are not willing to vote on their own legislation, then you have got to scratch your head.

I thank the Senator for the opportunity.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate St. Louis-based Concordia Publishing House on their 2011 Baldridge Award and overall commitment to excellence.

Founded in 1869, Concordia Publishing House, CPH, serves as the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, LCMS, and provides

members of the LCMS community with resources for Christian worship and education. Throughout its history, CPH has grown both in size and scope while providing the very best products and services to customers around the world.

CPH's successful customer-focused business model distinguishes their business as one of the best in the industry and has earned noteworthy praise. With a near-perfect customer satisfaction score, CPH's customer call center was ranked a center of excellence by a Purdue University study for 3 consecutive years. CPH pairs their outstanding customer care with state-of-the-art products and technology. From being one of the first St. Louis companies to utilize an IBM online data filing system, to delivering eProducts on iPhones and iPads, the company has always embraced the latest technology in service of their clients. CPH's rank as one of the ``Best Christian Workplaces in the United States'' in 2009, 2010, and 2011, illustrates their focus on employee satisfaction and well-being.

Named after the 26th U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldridge, the Baldridge Award was established by Congress in 1987 to enhance the competitiveness and performance of U.S. businesses. It is the highest Presidential honor for business performance. Recipients serve as role models not only for their peers in the nonprofit and business sectors but for every American organization that strives for a higher standard of performance and overall excellence.

The 2011 Baldridge Award winners were selected from a field of 69 applicants. Applicants were evaluated based on seven areas defined by the Baldridge Criteria for Performance Excellence: leadership; strategic planning; customer focus; managements, analysis and knowledge management; workforce focus; operations focus; and results.

Mr. President, 142 years after its founding, Concordia Publishing House continues to fulfill their mission to provide the LCMS community with the best possible products and services. Concordia Publishing House is an exemplary model of a customer-focused, quality-driven business that provides important resources to its community. It is my pleasure to recognize Concordia Publishing House for their well- deserved 2011 Baldridge Award.

Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that unfortunately we are not going to get a chance to vote on, but I want to begin talking about it because I think this is something we need to do as we appropriate money for our military for the next year.

I wish to start by saying that I support the mission in Afghanistan, but after years of work on wartime contracting issues and looking at the way we have spent money through contracting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have come to a stark and real conclusion about the money we have wasted and continue to waste in this effort.

We are building infrastructure in Afghanistan that we cannot secure and that will not be sustained. Since 2004, the Defense Department-- just the Defense Department, not the State Department--has spent more than $6.9 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan on humanitarian stabilization projects that include infrastructure, energy, and road construction.

Primarily, this has occurred through what is known as the CERP fund. ``CERP'' stands for ``Commanders Energy Response Program.'' This began as an effort in the war against insurgencies, the counterinsurgency effort, the COIN strategy. This began as a good idea where the commanders on the ground would have money they could directly access to do small neighborhood projects, to win the hearts and minds, to secure a neighborhood, to stabilize a community.

These projects were envisioned, when I first came to the Senate, as fixing broken panes of glass in a shopkeeper's window. This program has morphed into something much different than what was envisioned at the beginning of the counterinsurgency effort in Iraq. These $100 projects, $1,000 projects, are now hundreds of millions of dollars. In fiscal year 2010, more than 90 percent of the spending in CERP was for projects over $\1/2\ million. At its height in 2009, the authorizations for CERP spending in Afghanistan and Iraq reached $1.5 billion. And-- this is the kicker--the military building large infrastructure projects has not shown a measurable impact on the success of our mission.

I have stacks of studies, and I am such a wonk; I have actually read all of these studies. These are just a few of the studies that have been done by inspectors general, by special inspectors general, by the DOD inspector general, by the Wartime Contracting Commission that Senator Webb and I put into place to look at all of the wartime contracting issues. Even our own troops have studied the expenditure of these funds. I want to quote their conclusion in a recent study that was completed by the troops that are, in fact, fighting this effort in Afghanistan.

Despite hundreds of millions in investments, there is no

persuasive evidence that the Commander's Emergency Response

Program has fostered improved interdependent relationships

between the host government and the population--arguably the

key indicator of counterinsurgency success.

I go on, a direct quote:

The effectiveness of CERP in advancing our

counterinsurgency objectives in Afghanistan has yet to be

operationalized or well documented. The relationship between

development assistance and counterinsurgency is being

increasingly challenged in the academic and practitioner

fields with only unsubstantiated assertions and the

occasional anecdote offered as counterargument. There are no

clear objectives for a program that funds everything from

immediate emergency relief to multi-year, multi-million

dollar road projects. The lack of proper incentives and

accountability measures have rendered CERP and similar funds

an extractive industry for construction companies,

nongovernmental organizations, and multiple Afghan government

ministries, fueling rather than fighting corruption,

community insecurity and insurgent coercion.

Finding and defeating terrorists, fighting the Taliban, securing strategic victories against al-Qaida, training the Afghanistan military and police--all of these things I support. But this amount of money being spent on large infrastructure projects that cannot be sustained we must end.

In an unprecedented fashion, our military--not the State Department-- has embarked upon these massive projects. This year, for the first time in this authorization, there is now a new Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund to get around the limits that have been placed on the size of projects in the CERP fund. I call this fund the ``son of

CERP.'' It has now been documented that they want to go even larger and even bigger with these large multimillion dollar projects. I cannot stand by as we spend billions on roads, electrical grids, and bridges in Afghanistan, knowing the incredible need we have in this country for exactly that kind of investment.

These projects are not being built in a secure environment. We are paying off people to try to keep the contractors safe. And it has been documented that some of that money has gone right into the hands of our enemy. That must be stopped.

These projects, in many if not most instances, cannot be sustained. I can give a number of examples. But all you would have to do is travel around Iraq and see the empty, crumbling health care centers built with American taxpayer dollars, the water park that is a twisted pile of rubble that is no longer operational, all of the investments that were made in oil production and electricity generation that were blown to bits.

I can give specific examples in Afghanistan. How about hundreds of million of dollars spent on a powerplant--the latest technology: duel fuel--and nobody there knows how to operate it. And they cannot afford to operate it, so it stands by as an empty, hulking potential generator for backup power, while they buy cheaper electricity from a neighboring country.

For the first time, the Department of Defense has requested and received $400 million in authorization in this new Afghanistan Reconstruction Fund. We should limit our military to the small projects that CERP was originally intended for, not produce contracts to major, multinational corporations.

All of these reconstruction funds should be pulled, and my amendment would do just that. We would pull all of this money out with the exception of projects under $50,000. That would be as much as $700 million that we could immediately put directly into the highway trust fund in this country. That is what my amendment does. It will transfer that investment from a nonsecure environment, in areas these projects cannot be sustained, to the very needy cause of infrastructure investment in the United States of America.

Let's do this. Let's stop these large projects that cannot be secured and be sustained. Keep in mind, as much as $700 million would be pulled, and that is a small fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan. The authorization for next year is more than $100 billion. So anyone who tries to say this will cripple our mission in Afghanistan does not understand the numbers. Of the moneys we are spending in Afghanistan, the vast majority is about personnel: to train the Afghan military, to train the Afghanistan police department, to fight the terrorists who are there, the Taliban, al-Qaida in the areas near Pakistan. All of that remains. A very small percentage of this would be pulled. But it should be pulled, and it should be pulled today. We should take this investment and put it in roads and bridges right here in our country.

I hope this amendment will have success when we look at the appropriations process. I think it is time we stop this funding, and stop it now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Daniel G. McKay who passed away on November 10, 2011. It is with deep sorrow that I offer my condolences, to his wife Sharron for the loss of her beloved husband, to his two sons: Dan Jr. and Mark, and to his three grandchildren; Jesse, Dana and Danny.

A native of St. Louis, MO, Dan grew up in north St. Louis and attended Central High School. He began his career after high school as a truck driver and worked for over 30 years as a driver for several local companies.

Dan assumed leadership in the Teamsters and spent much of his life and career working tirelessly to secure the rights of working men and women. Within Teamsters' Local 600, Dan held several leadership positions including business representative, recording secretary and President. His passion for helping others also led Dan to become President of Teamsters Joint Council 13 in 2002, representing over 25,000 Teamster families in Missouri. Dan also held several positions in the Missouri Kansas Nebraska Conference of Teamsters. He retired from both Local 600 and Joint Council 13 in March, 2010.

It is with great humility and respect that I honor Dan today. His dedicated leadership improved the work experience for many Missourians, and under Dan's leadership the Teamsters organized and educated workers so they would know their workplace rights and could participate fully in our democratic society.

Dan touched the lives of many, and improved the quality of life in the community at large. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has lost a friend and an advocate, and I have lost a dear friend, advisor, and confidant.

Dan was afraid of no one when it came to defending his friends or confronting his adversaries. When I explained to him one time that his political support of me was going to cause him trouble, he said, ``Nothing that I can't handle. We are in this together.''

Dan will certainly be remembered for his gruff but engaging personality as well as for his many accomplishments. Dan was tough, but under that tough exterior was a huge heart filled with love for his family, for his community and for his brothers and sisters in labor.

Dan's life and commitment to others serve as an inspiration to me and to all Missourians. Our State has truly lost a leader and a hero.

I extend my deepest sympathies and sincerest condolences to Dan's family in their time of bereavement, and I invite the Senate to join me in honoring the life and accomplishments of this son of Missouri.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 315, introduced earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in St. Louis this fall, we had much that was special and different. We had the rally squirrel that ran through one of the playoff games. We had the saying ``happy flight,'' and ``happy flight'' became synonymous with a team that was chocking up improbable victories night after night, day after day.

I am going to term this speech a ``happy speech.'' I have had to give a number of speeches on the floor of the Senate since I have been blessed enough to be given this opportunity to serve my State. Sometimes I come to the floor angry. Sometimes I come to the floor frustrated or upset. Sometimes I come with a passion for a piece of policy that I think is essential in terms of our government operating the way we would want it to operate. Today, I just come happy. I just come happy with the notion that our team provided the kinds of thrills that baseball yearns for in this country--especially at these moments when many families are faced with long days and tough decisions as they try to right the ship as we travel through a very difficult economy.

The 2011 World Series was an unlikely one for our Cardinals. It wasn't supposed to happen. Bookies made a lot of money off the World Series this year because the Cardinals weren't supposed to be in it. The Cardinals were 10\1/2\ games out with 30 days to go. In fact, the Cardinals secured their wild card berth on the last day of the season at the eleventh hour. As a wild card team, they weren't supposed to do well. They weren't supposed to defeat Philadelphia. That just wasn't going to happen. Philadelphia has one of the top three payrolls in baseball, right? That wasn't going to happen.

Well, it did. We won against Philadelphia and then took on the mighty Brewers, the winner of our division, and, of course, we won that also. Then it was on to the Texas Rangers, who were supposed to win this year because they had won last year, and we weren't supposed to be able to compete with the depth and breadth of the Texas lineup. Well, as everyone now knows, that is not how the story ended.

This was a special World Series. It was a unique World Series. It was competitive. It was fun. And I was lucky enough to be at some of the games. In fact, I was at game 3 when Albert Pujols put on a show for the world. He showed everyone why he is the best player in baseball-- three towering home runs in one World Series game. All of a sudden his name was being used in the same sentence as Lou Gehrig.

It was a special night to watch the Cardinals pound the Rangers in Arlington, TX, but the Rangers came back the next night to win and the next night after that. So the Cardinals returned to St. Louis once again with their backs against the wall. Once again, everyone assumed it was over because all the Rangers had to do was win one game. And that is when game 6 occurred. I was fortunate enough to be at game 6, and I am saving my ticket stub for generations to come. People in St. Louis are going to claim they were at game 6, so I am going to save the proof. None of us will ever forget game 6.

At our eleventh hour, trying to win our 11th world championship, in the year 2011, our hometown guy--right from St. Louis, graduated from Lafayette High School--walked to the plate in the 11th inning, after the Cardinals twice, with two outs and two strikes, saved the game by getting a hit--twice; not once but twice--so there we were in the bottom of the 11th with the score tied, and our hometown guy, at the eleventh hour, in the 11th inning, in the year 2011, cracked the bat, and that ball sailed out for a home run, and suddenly we had secured the most improbable and exciting victory in World Series history. Now, maybe that is hyperbole, but, honestly, I don't think so. Find someone who watched that game who knows baseball, and they will tell you that was among one of the very best World Series games in the history of American baseball. And what a history that is. With that one crack of the bat, Cardinal Nation became Cardinal World, and all of the world stood in amazement as we cheered like crazy for our Cardinals.

What did this team do this year? We had a masterful manager whom we will miss very much. We had David Freese, our hometown guy, who rose to the occasion when we needed him. We had Albert Pujols. We had Carp, who was amazing as a pitcher. We had a bullpen that rose to the occasion when necessary, after they had been maligned through most of the season. We had Yadi, we had Craig, and we had so many of our players who did what had to be done when it had to be done to deliver a World Series championship to a city that loves them more than we love the arch and more than we love our beer.

For years now, young people will hear over and over that old cliche about refusing to quit. You can never give up. And I have to tell you the truth, it is a cliche I have used with my kids when they were moping around and grumbling: Oh my life is horrible. You say to them: You can't quit. You can't give up. Well, this team is going to allow parents in St. Louis and beyond for many years to say: See. See what happens when you don't give up. See what happens when you refuse to quit. You can win a championship if you just refuse to die. And that is exactly what our Cardinals did.

On behalf of Cardinal Nation and thousands of people around this country who were proud of what St. Louis represented--a fall classic with our classic Cardinals bringing home the victory for a city that loves them--God bless them all. And God bless the fans who understand it is okay to cheer for a sac fly, who understand baseball better than most fans around the country. They will now wait anxiously for spring training so we can begin once again our love affair with the St. Louis Cardinals.

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

Mr. President, today I congratulate Dr. Henry Givens, Jr. on his retirement and to thank him for his many years of leadership and service to the field of education. For over 50 years, Dr. Givens has been a champion of higher education and has fought to improve the lives of Missouri's students. It is my pleasure to honor him today.

A native of St. Louis, MO, Dr. Givens attended public schools and received his bachelor's degree from Lincoln University, a master's degree from the University of Illinois, and his doctorate degree from Saint Louis University. Dr. Givens began his career in education as a fifth and sixth grade teacher in the Webster Groves School District in suburban St. Louis. After his work with the Webster Groves School District, Dr. Givens became the principal of the first prototype magnet school, Douglas Elementary School in St. Louis, MO. Under Dr. Given's guidance, Douglas Elementary faculty debuted revolutionary teaching techniques that are now standard classroom practices, helping to modernize Missouri's school systems.

In 1973, Dr. Givens continued to break new ground when he became the first African-American assistant commissioner of education for the State of

Missouri. Dr. Givens spent 5 years in that position before becoming president of Harris-Stowe University in 1979. When he first assumed leadership, Harris-Stowe State College offered one degree--elementary education--and had only one building. During Dr. Givens' 32 years as president of Harris-Stowe, the university expanded and upgraded facilities, tripled student population, and added 13 new degree programs. Dr. Givens' determined leadership shaped Harris-Stowe into the outstanding university it is today.

In addition to his accomplishments in the field of education, Dr. Givens is affiliated with numerous national and local professional and social organizations and has received over 125 awards and recognitions for his service to his community. President Obama recently appointed Dr. Givens to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Finance Advisory Board, and Dr. Givens has served as the chairman of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Statewide Celebration Commission for Missouri since its inception in 1986.

It is my pleasure to honor Dr. Givens today. His dedicated leadership has improved the quality of the educational experience for Missourians. He has undoubtedly touched the lives of many and improved the quality of the community at large.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Dr. Henry Givens, Jr.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to MG William Howard McCoy Jr. who is retiring on January 1, 2012, after 37 years of exemplary active Federal service in the U.S. Army. He has served our Nation with dignity, honor, and integrity, including serving multiple tours at Fort Leonard Wood in the great State that I call home, Missouri.

MG William Howard McCoy, Jr, is a native Texan and a 1974 graduate of Texas A&M where he earned a bachelor's degree in construction engineering. He was then commissioned through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and entered the U.S. Army as second lieutenant in the Army Corps of Engineers. He later went on to earn a master's of business administration from the University of Phoenix.

Following the Engineer Officer Basic Course, his first assignment was to Germany. From 1974 to 1975, Major General McCoy served as a platoon leader, and later as an executive officer, in the 237th Engineer Battalion, 7th Engineer Brigade, VII Corps, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. His next assignment was as project officer, director of training developments, U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, VA.

From 1980 to 1981 he commanded Company B, 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, at Fort Hood, TX. From there he deployed to be an engineer advisor, as part of the Technical Assistance Field Team at the U.S. Military Training Mission in Saudi Arabia.

From 1981 to 1983, he was assigned as a project officer with the Southern Colorado Project Office, U.S. Army Engineer District Albuquerque in Pueblo, CO. It was during this time when he would meet and marry his lovely lifelong partner, Jill McCoy.

With renewed vigor, from 1983 to 1986, he was assigned as the engineer staff officer for the Directorate of Engineering and Housing, Installation Support Activity in Europe and later became the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, 56th Field Artillery Brigade, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. He was then assigned as engineer staff officer, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer for U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany.

From 1986 to 1989 he served in numerous positions at Fort Hood, TX. Initially, he served as plans officer, Corps Staff Engineer Section, III Corps and later he served as the operations officer and executive officer of the 17th Engineer Battalion, 2d Armored Division. Following his assignment to Fort Hood, he returned to Virginia to attend the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk.

From 1989 to 1991 he served in the Pentagon as a staff officer for the Force Development Directorate for the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Headquarters, Department of the Army in Washington, DC. Following this tour at the Pentagon he was nominated and selected to be a research fellow for the RAND Army Fellowship Program in Santa Monica, CA.

From 1992 to 1995 Major General McCoy served as the executive officer to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, U.S. Army South, at Fort Clayton, Panama. He then transitioned to become the commander, 536th Engineer Battalion (Combat)(Heavy), U.S. Army South, Fort Clayton, Panama and Joint Task Force Builder, El Salvador/Uruguay, later OPERATION SAFE HAVEN, Panama, and later, Joint Task Force Builder, El Salvador.

Due to his outstanding performance and unlimited potential, he was selected to study at the Army's prestigious professional academic institution, the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, PA. After graduating from the Army War College, from 1997 to 1998, Major General McCoy became the deputy director for the Maneuver Support Battle Lab, U.S. Army Engineer Center, Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

In 1997, he was once again assigned to Europe as the Director of the Engineer Operations Directorate, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, U.S. Army Europe, and Seventh Army, Germany. From 1998 to 2000, Major General McCoy transitioned to be the Commander, 130th Engineer Brigade, V Corps, United States Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany and OPERATION TASK FORCE HAWK in the country of Albania.

From 2000 to 2003, Major General McCoy served as the Chief of Staff, 1st Armored Division, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. He later became the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 2003, Major General McCoy became the commander, 18th Theater Army Engineer Brigade and simultaneously as the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, U.S. Army Europe, and Seventh Army, Germany. During this period he led his unit during OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM/Joint Task Force-North in the country of Turkey.

Upon returning from overseas, from 2003 to 2005, Major General McCoy was assigned as the assistant commander, U.S. Army Engineer School/ Deputy Commanding General, Initial Military Training, Fort Leonard Wood, MO. However, his tenure in the States was short-lived and Major General McCoy once again answered the call to duty by becoming the Commander, Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in Iraq.

He returned from his deployment to Iraq and from 2006 to 2008, Major General McCoy served as the commanding general, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

From 2008 to present, Major General McCoy has been assigned as the deputy, the inspector general, Office of the Secretary of the Army and Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. In August 2010 he became acting, the inspector general.

During his career, Major General McCoy steadily rose through the ranks and excelled at each assignment. He served in commands at the tactical, operational and strategic levels, as well as installation commands, during times of peace and war. At every command he effectively led our men and women in the accomplishment of the mission. From domestic to overseas assignments, and as a platoon leader to acting, the inspector general, Major General McCoy was ever mindful that the Army's most precious assets were those who wear the uniform and the civilians who work in the service of our nation's military. He ennobled this diligently through his thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Major General McCoy's personal awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (with four Oak leaf Clusters), the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (with three Oak leaf Clusters), the Army Commendation Medal (with two Oak leaf Clusters), the Army Achievement Medal (with Oak leaf Cluster), the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Army Superior Unit Award, the Ehrenkreuz in Silber, and the Silver Order of the DeFleury Medal.

Throughout his lifetime of military service, MG William Howard McCoy, Jr. showed extraordinary professionalism, valor and integrity, and

dedication to the mission. He leaves a legacy of tremendous leadership and genuine concern for the soldiers and civilians of the U.S. Army. Furthermore, he attributes his success to the loving support of his wife Mrs. Jill McCoy and his children. General McCoy may have only spent several assignments in Missouri, but his career embodies classic Missouri values: love of country and family; selfless service; ``show me''--or, in other words, speaking with one's actions not words; and being humble. I wish Major General McCoy and his family the very best in retirement and I congratulate Major General McCoy on a fabulous career of service to our Nation and to the cause of freedom.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the work of Dr. Doris Jones Wilson, a music legend and icon in the St. Louis, MO community. For over 65 years, she has worked as an instructor, arranger and performer of music from every genre. Dr. Wilson's retirement marks just one more wonderful milestone in a life of service. It is my pleasure and privilege to ask the Senate to pause for a moment to honor Dr. Wilson today.

Dr. Wilson is a beloved member of the St. Louis community. She first earned a bachelor of music education degree from Lincoln University in Jefferson City, MO. She continued her education at Washington University in Saint Louis earning a master of arts in teaching and later a doctor of education in music education. Following her studies, Dr. Wilson went on to become a professor of music and director of the Concert Chorale of Harris-Stowe State University in St. Louis. Dr. Wilson recently retired from her position as minister of music for the West Side Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis.

Dr. Wilson has received numerous awards and commendations over the course of her career that recognize the exceptional impact her work as a musician, teacher and choral director has had on the music community. I was so humbled to learn that this previous September, the Kennedy Center featured a special performance of one of her most popular arrangements, ``Even Me.'' This is only one in a long list of honors.

In 2004, Hampton University awarded her the Living Legend Award of Ministers and Choir Directors. She received the Missouri Arts Award from the Missouri Arts Council in 1998 and the Excellence in Teaching Award from Emerson Electric in 1997. In 1994, Dr. Wilson was honored with the Stellar Performer Award from the St. Louis American newspaper for outstanding leadership in music education. That same year the Bahamas Department of Tourism wrote Dr. Wilson a letter of commendation for Concert Choral Performance. In 1981, Dr. Wilson was awarded the Gold Medal for Concert Choral at the International Music Festival.

As a Representative of the great State of Missouri and a resident of St. Louis, I am proud and humbled by the life and career of Dr. Wilson. I have no doubt that she has touched the lives of many students with her wonderful gift and spirit. The education and wisdom that she has passed on as a music educator will live on in the work her students do and the people they become. I truly believe that the impact her work has had on the St. Louis community is immeasurable.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Dr. Doris Jones Wilson on her retirement.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate and commend the Honorable James W. Symington and the American Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation on the success of their exhibit ``The Czar and the President, Alexander II and Abraham Lincoln.'' Housed in the magnificent Palace of Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg, Russia, and the State Archives of the Russian Federation in Moscow, the display included an impressive collection of documents, art, and personal artifacts of Czar Alexander II and President Lincoln.

The exhibit debuted in St. Petersburg with great fanfare on April 26, 2011, with representatives from the American Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, ARCCF, and Russian government officials in attendance. Russian Minister of Culture, Mr. Alexander Avedyev, and ARCCF chairman James W. Symington, presided over the ribbon cutting, while the Kremlin's Presidential Band provided entertainment. The exhibit was widely covered by the Russian media, and featured in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Timed to correspond with the 150th anniversary of the emancipation of the serfs and the beginning of the Civil War, the exhibit explored the commonality of Czar Alexander II and President Lincoln as liberators who ultimately met a tragic end. Although they never met personally, they exchanged warm correspondence, and shared a somewhat unexpected friendship. Through a study of these two leaders, visitors became acquainted with the often unexplored history of mutual respect and friendship during the Civil War era.

``The Czar and the President'' closed on July 31 after receiving rave reviews. Reviews of the exhibit can be read below. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Symington and the ARCCF, and thank them for their continued dedication in preserving the cultural and historical ties between the United States and Russia.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a copy of the text of the guest book.

The material follows.

The Guest Book from the Exhibition, The Czar and the President,

Alexander II and Abraham Lincoln, The Liberator and the Emancipator

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Mr. Amos McClure, who passed away on October 1, 2011, at the Veterans Administration Hospital in St. Louis, MO. A veteran of the Korean war, during which he was taken prisoner, Amos lived the life of an American patriot.

Just out of high school, Amos joined the U.S. Army in 1948 at the age of 17. At the U.S. Armed Forces Institute in Fort Lewis, WA, he became an expert rifleman before specializing in heavy infantry during the Korean war. On November 29, 1950--just 19 days shy of his 20th birthday--Amos was captured by the enemy while serving his nation in Korea. He spent almost 3 years as a prisoner of war, until his release on August 8, 1953--Armistance Day.

Amos was shot and wounded as a prisoner of war. But Amos was a survivor and his strength and determination helped him overcome both the physical and emotional wounds that were inflicted on so many American POWs. For his service, and in recognition of the sacrifices he made for his country, CPL Amos McClure received numerous military awards, including the Prisoner of War Medal.

Amos returned home from serving in Korea to marry his sweetheart, Norma Jean Southerland. They were married for almost 52 years before she passed away. They leave behind five children.

After his discharge, Amos worked for the Atomic Energy Commission as a storage battery technician. Later, as a civilian for the U.S. Air Force, he worked as a storage battery technician before moving to St. Louis to become a service manager and electrician until his retirement in 2004.

I honor Amos today out of appreciation for the sacrifices he made on behalf of his fellow Americans, for his contributions to his community, and for the example he set for his children. He had the benefit of a strong family support system and a work ethic that allowed him to move forward from the horrors of war. His spirited approach to life is emblematic of the courage, honor, and strength of our veterans who fought for our freedom.

I join his family, the people of Missouri, and all Americans, in saluting Amos McClure's courage, and I humbly recognize him for all that he has done and for all that he endured for this country. Amos McClure was a true American hero.

Mr. President, I try to listen very carefully to folks at home. I would not quarrel with my friend from Alabama in saying that it is very clear to me--and it has been clear to me for a long time--that Missourians are very worried about spending in the Federal Government. In fact, my friend from Alabama and I started work on this before, if one can say--we were trying to cut spending before cutting spending was cool. He and I were working this floor for votes to try to do something about spending long before last November's election.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. There is nothing wrong with walking across the aisle and finding common ground. Frankly, it is what I thought would be common when I came to the Senate. It is kind of what I learned in the history books; that it would be common.

I have been watching what is developing, knowing my folks at home want us to cut spending. I certainly have been part of wanting to cut spending. I have watched this debt ceiling approach. It is like watching a movie and watching a car driving along, and you are in a camera above it and you see what is ahead, and you see this cliff and you see this car driving toward this cliff, and you are thinking, as you start tensing--Oh, surely, you are not going to go over the cliff.

Well, they have an opportunity to avoid going over the cliff. They are not going to go over the cliff. We are not going to see these people die. They are not going to drive over that cliff. They are not going to knowingly drive over a cliff. I have been thinking for the last several weeks: There is no way people who are elected--because they love their country--are going to let the car go over the cliff. I have to tell my colleagues, I am worried.

What do we have to do to keep from going over the cliff? Make no mistake about it. It is a cliff. It is a historic moment for our country. Never before in the history of our country have the world markets been worried about whether the United States of America will pay its bills. Never has that happened before in our history. So what does it take?

Well, it is not complicated what it takes. It takes one basic ingredient: compromise. To keep from going over the cliff, all we have to do is compromise.

I will tell my colleagues, reading my mail and listening to phone calls that have come in on the answering machine--and I am going to take phone calls myself over the weekend--what Missourians are now saying: Please don't go over the cliff. Please compromise. I am confident that is what most Missourians want.

Compromises have already occurred--big compromises. Most of us on this side of the aisle believe the way we get at our long-term debt structure is a responsible approach that includes some revenues. I advocate cleaning out the goodies in the Tax Code so we can lower tax rates. I don't understand how we can vote to gut the Medicare Program and at the same time vote to continue writing checks to Big Oil. I cannot conceive how a Member votes that way. I cannot imagine I would vote to keep writing a taxpayer check to the most wealthy and profitable corporations in the history of the world at the same time I was voting to put Medicare

on a voucher program. That would be saying to seniors, if they are 83 and they have three chronic illnesses, and they run out of Medicare coverage, they are on their own. I can't imagine doing that.

But we compromised. We compromised and said: OK, we will set revenues aside, for now. You will not vote for revenues, Republican Party. Members of the House in the Republican Party, you will not vote for revenues.

So we took revenues off the table. By the way, some people in my party were not happy with that. I got those phone calls: Why did you capitulate? Why did you give in? We gave in because we care about our country, and we don't want to go over the cliff. That is why we gave in. So we gave in on revenues.

The Republicans wanted us to cut spending by more than we raised the debt ceiling. It is a political thing we need to do, not required by the economics, but we have done that. So now we put revenues aside-- compromise. We have said we are going to cut spending by more than the rise in the debt ceiling.

Now the only thing we have not compromised on, the only thing--which I think is, really, when we think about it--I didn't think, frankly, this may have been as big of a deal until I stand here today--is to do this again in 6 months, to leave this loaded gun on the table. We are going to leave this loaded gun on the table for our economy?

People can talk to small businesses right now and learn they are scared about what is going to happen next week. Will they be able to borrow money? Will people be able to afford to borrow money to buy cars? Will they be able to afford to borrow money to buy homes?

We talk about the economy going in a tailspin, and we want to keep that loaded gun on the table for another 6 months? There is no way we can provide the certainty in this kind of economic climate if we leave the loaded gun on the table.

So the only thing we have not agreed to that is in the Boehner plan-- well, it depends on which plan it is. They keep changing it to try to get enough votes. I don't know what it is today. But the only thing we are not going to budge on is saying to this country and our business community and our job creators: We are going to kill job creation for sure for the next 6 months by telling you we want to repeat this ridiculous exercise in 6 months. We are not going to do that.

The irony is, the people who want us to do that are the people who have been preaching certainty: We have to have certainty. By the way, let's do this again in 6 months. We have to have certainty. It is important we do this again in 6 months.

I know the leader is working on trying to get a compromise today, and I am confident that before the day is over there will be some kind of compromise that will be before this body that we will have a chance to vote on.

I will tell my colleagues this: People will never hear me brag about refusing to compromise. Some of my colleagues from Missouri who serve in the House of Representatives are willing right now to brag about refusing to compromise. They are willing to say it is a good thing to go off the cliff. I will never brag about refusing to compromise because I don't think that is what we do here. When we look back in history, America's brightest moments usually happened around the table of compromise. The most difficult questions this country has wrestled with through the years, we have forged a way forward through compromise, and that is what we needed to. That is what we need tomorrow. That is what we need as we approach the edge of the cliff.

So my last message I will leave with my colleagues across the aisle is this: We have shown our willingness to compromise. Please show us yours. Please show us yours and allow us to vote. Allow us to vote on the compromise. If my colleagues don't want to vote for the compromise, then don't vote for it. But allow us a chance to vote for it. Is that too much to ask, just to allow us an opportunity to move to a vote, to avoid this country having a permanently diminished status in the world? I don't think that is too much to ask.

So let us vote, and if my colleagues can't compromise on the substance of the compromises that will be put forward, at least allow our voices to be heard by allowing a vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally divided.