Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2560 be equally divided between the majority leader and the Republican leader.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. Rather than taking a balanced approach that requires shared sacrifice, House Republicans have passed legislation that would gut essential services for average Americans while asking nothing of the wealthy and privileged. Such a misguided approach would cost countless American jobs while doing nothing to solve America's long-term deficit challenges.

In my opinion, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act fails to measure up as a serious proposal to address the structural deficit that our Nation faces. It is misguided, and assumes that our Nation will pay no price if we fail to invest in our future. These are some of the assumptions of this bill. Highways will not buckle, pipes will not rust, bridges will not collapse, and there is no need to invest in the next generation of innovators to keep America's competitive advantage. This bill would gut the very funding we need to revitalize our economy and invest in the future.

Cut, cap and balance would render Congress essentially powerless to address revenues, thereby pushing America further down the road of economic inequality by ensuring that the wealthy do not have to share in any sacrifice. And whatever might be said about this legislation, to call it balanced is a cruel irony. In fact, all of the sacrifice is demanded of the poor and working families. This legislation forces Congress to slash programs that average Americans rely on for education, housing assistance, food safety, safer air traffic control, and clean air and water.

We have an aging population, which means that increasing costs for Social Security and Medicare are a reality that must be dealt with. The Baby Boomers are retiring, which increases the need for Social Security and Medicare. And while those programs are not subject to sequester, how will we meet the higher costs and at the same time bring down overall spending to 18 percent of GDP, a level that has not been achieved since the 1960s? My colleagues should not kid themselves: mandating a balanced budget by 2020 while taking revenues off the table will require draconian cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I take particular note of the impact cut, cap, and balance would have on nondefense discretionary spending. A 10-year freeze on domestic spending that does not adjust for inflation would have a devastating impact on the ability of all nondefense departments and agencies to carry out their missions. My colleagues should know that over 10 years, such a cap would amount to a 33-percent cut in real dollars. Such a level of cuts would make it impossible for the United States to compete on a global stage. Our infrastructure, our education system, our technology, everything we need to remain a great nation will be drastically underfunded, or simply not funded at all.

I hope we all understand that we are not talking about nice to have things, we are talking about investments that are necessary to maintain the quality of life for the middle class. Education is not optional. Roads and sewers, clean air and clean water are not options. Meeting the basic nutritional needs of our poorest children should not be optional. This great Nation was built on such investments, made in the best interests of the American people--all the people, not just the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent.

I would like to take a brief moment to provide a few specifics about the impact of this act. While it is not possible to predict specific impacts 10 years down the road, it is certainly possible to give examples of what the American people would experience in the near term, as a result of this deeply flawed bill.

In fiscal year 2012, Head Start funding would decrease by more than $900 million, eliminating comprehensive early childhood services for over 130,000 low-income children and their families and resulting in the termination of 30,000 teachers, teacher assistants and related staff.

The combined cuts to mandatory programs such as Food Stamps and School Lunch programs coupled with domestic spending reductions contained in this legislation would be a double blow to the Nation's most vulnerable populations. With these cuts, there would be 13 million fewer meals served to seniors. Let me be blunt, if this bill is enacted, children and seniors in this Nation will go hungry in far larger numbers than today.

We all recognize that reducing waste, fraud, and abuse are essential components of getting our fiscal house in order. Every billion dollars we save is a billion dollars we can use to reduce the deficit or better invest in America's future. And yet this bill would reduce funding for the Internal Revenue Service by some $1.8 billion below the President's request for fiscal year 2012, which would cripple its efforts to find fraud and eliminate waste and abuse. The IRS could be forced to furlough between 4,100 and 5,000 employees, mostly enforcement agents. Furthermore, a cut to IRS funding would increase the deficit by approximately $4 billion a year beginning in 2013, since every dollar invested in enforcement resources brings in $5 in tax revenues.

Finally, I would note that a cap on the Federal budget means that we are unable to make smart choices about our future investments. As an example, the Bureau of Prisons inmate population is expected to grow to roughly 250,000 Federal inmates by 2018, an increase of more than 31,000 prisoners, or 15 percent, over the next 8 years. A growing inmate population coupled with a spending cap for Department of Justice activities will mean further severe cuts to other important functions of the Department of Justice--Federal, State, and local public safety efforts will be cut in order to pay the required costs of housing prisoners.

Yesterday 97 Senators voted in favor of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The Senate is perfectly capable of producing and passing fiscally responsible appropriations bills that meet the Nation's needs and that have strong, bipartisan support. The real answer to our fiscal crisis has not changed since this debate began. We must cut spending in a responsible fashion. We must reform entitlement programs to ensure that they survive for future generations. And we must reform our Tax Code to allow for sufficient revenues to meet the needs of an aging population and the challenges of a global economy.

Cut, cap, and balance does none of these things, and I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided measure.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the motion to waive section 303 of the Budget Act and to allow the Senate to move forward with its consideration of the MilconVA appropriations bill. I would like to say for the record that I agree with the Senator from Alabama that it would be preferable for the Senate to have passed a budget resolution prior to its consideration of individual appropriations bills.

In fact, on March 10 of this year, I stated my strong desire to move all of the fiscal year 2012 bills through regular order, which of course begins with the passage of a budget resolution and adoption of our 302(a) allocation. Unfortunately, such is not the case this year. As we are all painfully aware, the current impasse over the budget is a direct result of the unwillingness of some in Congress to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our long-term deficit problem.

We are all well aware of these realities. It is my strong belief, however, that we must not allow the needs of our military or our veterans to be held hostage by the current budget stalemate. And while it is true that we do not have an overall allocation for discretionary appropriations, for the MilconVA bill we were able to agree with our House colleagues on an acceptable allocation. Therefore, there is

no reason to delay consideration of this bill.

It is important that all of our colleagues understand that what we are recommending is not unprecedented. In fact, the Senate has acted on appropriations legislation absent a budget resolution four times in the past decade, including twice under Republican control. It is my strong desire, as I believe it is the desire of every member of the Appropriations Committee, that we move our bills under regular order. However, with less than 90 days left in the fiscal year and no budget resolution in sight, efforts need to be made to ensure the livelihood of our veterans and their families are not disrupted.

This is not a controversial bill. It passed out of the full committee unanimously, by a vote of 30-0. Yesterday, 89 Senators voted in favor of the motion to proceed to the bill. Finally, my colleagues should know that many of the provisions of this bill were voted on in the Armed Services Committee which was also passed unanimously, by a vote of 22-0. That is a great deal of support for moving forward with this measure. And, I am aware of no serious opposition to the substance of the bill.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of waiving the budget point of order and allowing the Senate to move forward with its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.

Cloture Motion

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I am pleased that we are beginning consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.

This bill passed out of the Committee on Appropriations by a unanimous vote of 30 to 0. It is the hope of the committee that such strong, bipartisan support will continue as the full Senate debates this measure and that we will be able to consider germane amendments in a reasonable period of time, pass the bill, and move on to a conference with the House.

As we continue to debate the larger fiscal challenges our Nation faces, I note that the level of funding in the Senate mark of this MILCON-VA bill is consistent with the level of funding in the House- passed measure.

I thank Chairman Johnson and Vice Chairman Kirk for their brilliant work in producing a bill that provides essential support to our veterans, our Active-Duty military, and their families. The resources provided in this bill will fund vital construction projects and will ensure that our wounded veterans and warriors receive the excellent care they deserve.

It is good we are moving the first of our fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills under regular order. As I have said on numerous occasions, the best way to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely is to move our 12 bills through the committee, the full Senate, to a conference with the House, and through final passage in both Chambers.

Our ability to work together on this important bill serves as a reminder that bipartisan compromise can be achieved by the Congress, even in the most difficult of budget environments. It is my hope that the spirit of bipartisanship embodied in this bill will serve as a model for the remaining fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.

I congratulate Chairman Johnson and Vice Chairman Kirk for their efforts. I look forward to returning to the floor at the earliest possible date with the next appropriations measure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 8 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Akaka of Hawaii, that will provide duty- free treatment to U.S. imports of finished Philippine apparel in return for purchasing and using fabrics and yarns made in the United States. This bill will promptly create an incentivized export market for our shrinking textile industry, and create new jobs.

The Philippine apparel industry estimates that U.S. fabric sales spurred by the SAVE Act could reach potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and translate into upwards of 2,000 additional jobs in the United States fabric mill sector. With almost 99 percent of the U.S. apparel market now served by imports, U.S. textile manufacturers are reliant on export markets for their survival.

The SAVE Act is patterned after the Dominican Republic, Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, which permits tariff-free import of apparel assembled in those countries in return for using cotton and manmade fiber fabrics still made in the United States. The SAVE Act will provide our textile companies with a new opportunity to export fabrics into the dynamic Asian market.

The Philippine apparel manufacturing industry is well established and known for its quality needlework and high-end fashion. It has been supplying top American brands and U.S. retailers for decades. With the growth of China in apparel production and the end of the quota system, Philippine apparel exports to the United States have dropped by 50 percent in the last five years. The Philippine apparel sector is in critical decline, with employment dropping by 75 percent since 2003.

The Philippines has been, arguably, our closest and most steadfast friend in Southeast Asia. They were our protectorate and strategic partner from the Spanish-American War through World War II. 10,000 American and Filipino servicemen died together in the infamous Bataan Death March after our forces were overwhelmed by the Japanese Army in 1942. More than 100,000 Filipinos then volunteered to fight alongside the United States and under U.S. command.

More recently, the United States and the Philippines have partnered in successful efforts to combat terrorists in and around their islands. Campaigns by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, trained in counterterrorism by U.S. troops, resulted in the deaths of the Abu Sayyaf leader and his deputy in 2006, as well as two other leaders in 2010.

Our close partnership deserves to be mutually rewarding on an economic level. The SAVE Act would represent the first trade initiative with the Philippines in nearly four decades. Unlike other countries in the region, the United States and the Philippines share a balanced trade relationship. The SAVE Act would continue to build on this positive trade relationship and strengthen our economic ties with the Philippines by helping each other reestablish competitive textile industries.

The SAVE Act would also allow duty-free treatment for a limited range of apparel not using U.S. fabrics so Philippine manufacturers can offer a complementary product line to U.S. brands and retailers. This category of apparel, which includes certain lines of coats, dresses, skirts, blouses, and infants' wear, will not contain any components that could have been made in the United States. These lines of apparel also will not compete against imports from third countries using U.S. components.

With the Republic of the Philippines as a partner, we can expect proper customs enforcement. We believe the enforcement provisions of the SAVE Act are more rigorous than any comparable bill. At our request, Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, conducted an informal technical review of the SAVE bill. With their recommendations included, CBP concluded that the SAVE Act can be administered and enforced. The Philippine Department of Trade and Industry then reviewed and agreed to all the enforcement provisions.

This bill will provide our manufacturers with new export markets and provide mutual benefits to a longstanding and erstwhile friend in Southeast Asia. The Philippines, in my view, should never be relegated to secondary consideration even as our focus shifts from one priority to another.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Akaka of Hawaii, that will provide duty- free treatment to U.S. imports of finished Philippine apparel in return for purchasing and using fabrics and yarns made in the United States. This bill will promptly create an incentivized export market for our shrinking textile industry, and create new jobs.

The Philippine apparel industry estimates that U.S. fabric sales spurred by the SAVE Act could reach potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and translate into upwards of 2,000 additional jobs in the United States fabric mill sector. With almost 99 percent of the U.S. apparel market now served by imports, U.S. textile manufacturers are reliant on export markets for their survival.

The SAVE Act is patterned after the Dominican Republic, Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, which permits tariff-free import of apparel assembled in those countries in return for using cotton and manmade fiber fabrics still made in the United States. The SAVE Act will provide our textile companies with a new opportunity to export fabrics into the dynamic Asian market.

The Philippine apparel manufacturing industry is well established and known for its quality needlework and high-end fashion. It has been supplying top American brands and U.S. retailers for decades. With the growth of China in apparel production and the end of the quota system, Philippine apparel exports to the United States have dropped by 50 percent in the last five years. The Philippine apparel sector is in critical decline, with employment dropping by 75 percent since 2003.

The Philippines has been, arguably, our closest and most steadfast friend in Southeast Asia. They were our protectorate and strategic partner from the Spanish-American War through World War II. 10,000 American and Filipino servicemen died together in the infamous Bataan Death March after our forces were overwhelmed by the Japanese Army in 1942. More than 100,000 Filipinos then volunteered to fight alongside the United States and under U.S. command.

More recently, the United States and the Philippines have partnered in successful efforts to combat terrorists in and around their islands. Campaigns by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, trained in counterterrorism by U.S. troops, resulted in the deaths of the Abu Sayyaf leader and his deputy in 2006, as well as two other leaders in 2010.

Our close partnership deserves to be mutually rewarding on an economic level. The SAVE Act would represent the first trade initiative with the Philippines in nearly four decades. Unlike other countries in the region, the United States and the Philippines share a balanced trade relationship. The SAVE Act would continue to build on this positive trade relationship and strengthen our economic ties with the Philippines by helping each other reestablish competitive textile industries.

The SAVE Act would also allow duty-free treatment for a limited range of apparel not using U.S. fabrics so Philippine manufacturers can offer a complementary product line to U.S. brands and retailers. This category of apparel, which includes certain lines of coats, dresses, skirts, blouses, and infants' wear, will not contain any components that could have been made in the United States. These lines of apparel also will not compete against imports from third countries using U.S. components.

With the Republic of the Philippines as a partner, we can expect proper customs enforcement. We believe the enforcement provisions of the SAVE Act are more rigorous than any comparable bill. At our request, Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, conducted an informal technical review of the SAVE bill. With their recommendations included, CBP concluded that the SAVE Act can be administered and enforced. The Philippine Department of Trade and Industry then reviewed and agreed to all the enforcement provisions.

This bill will provide our manufacturers with new export markets and provide mutual benefits to a longstanding and erstwhile friend in Southeast Asia. The Philippines, in my view, should never be relegated to secondary consideration even as our focus shifts from one priority to another.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of the Emergency Medical Service for Children, or EMSC, Program. Recently, we celebrated National EMSC Day, an annual event raising awareness about the need to improve and expand specialized care for children in the prehospital and acute care settings.

The EMSC Program holds great personal importance to me. More than 30 years ago, Senator Hatch and I, on a bipartisan basis, took note of the systematic problems and deficiencies surrounding emergency care for children. With these deficiencies in mind, we authored legislation to address the gaps in emergency care for children. Through the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Surgeon General the bill became law in 1984 authorizing Federal funding for EMSC.

For over 25 years now, EMSC, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration's, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, has been doing truly amazing work. With just over $20 million a year, EMSC works with all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories to educate emergency medical personnel. In addition to educating and training health care professionals, EMSC supports research at leading governmental and academic institutions so that our children are treated with cutting- edge technology and services.

The EMSC Program addresses the entire continuum of pediatric emergency services, from injury prevention and EMS access through out- of-hospital and emergency department care, intensive care, rehabilitation, and reintegration into the community, while ensuring the ongoing involvement of the child's primary care physician. It serves the unique needs of children in a way no other program can. Over the years, we have also funded various projects for emergency care. I thank my colleagues for supporting the inclusion of a 5-year reauthorization of the EMSC Program in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In recognition of all that EMSC has done and will continue to do for this Nation's children, several experts gathered on Capitol Hill last month to hold an educational briefing in conjunction with EMSC Day. Sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, staff heard from Dr. Elizabeth Edgerton, the new branch chief for EMSC and injury prevention at the Maternal and Child Health Bureau at HRSA, who described the EMSC Program and what it has accomplished. Katherine Dixon Hert, EMSC program manager, Office of EMS and Trauma at the Alabama Department of Public Health, recounted the devastation of the recent tornadoes that swept through the State of Alabama; the challenges in caring for children often separated from their parents; and the pediatric deaths that occurred. Lastly, Joseph Wright, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.A.P., principal investigator and medical director of the EMSC National Resource Center, shared his experience of ``growing up'' with the EMSC Program as part of the original cohort of board-certified pediatric emergency physicians in the United States.

I do not know a parent or grandparent who would advocate for anything but the best care of our children during an emergency. The EMSC Program has filled a void that existed within the EMS system prior to its inception. Many experts have identified the need for a lead agency for EMS in the U.S. While such a lead agency could improve optimal emergency care and response, any reorganization of Federal EMS Programs must maintain the EMSC Program as a freestanding program. Without the EMSC Program, children's medical and treatment needs will not be met. I would like to honor and thank the many hard-working Americans that work daily to serve and save our children.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Trash Free Seas Act of 2011, a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, MDRPRA. This act, of which I am proud to have been the original sponsor, was first passed in 2006 to address the pervasive issue of marine debris which is found in myriad forms throughout our oceans. It created programs in both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard that research, track, and work to mitigate and remove marine debris and its associated impacts. The Trash Free Seas Act would update these programs to incorporate advances in our understanding of the issue and allow for greater regional and international coordination in our mitigation efforts.

Marine debris is a catch-all term that encompasses everything from floating refuse to lost fishing nets and pieces of micro-plastic. In all its forms, however, it is something that was once manufactured and has since been lost at sea through accident, intent, or act of nature. Once at sea, the impacts of marine debris may reach unintended shores as it drifts on ocean currents

and harms our ecosystems and economies. This harm may come from direct interactions such as physical damage to a coral reef or fishing vessel; through indirect impacts such as the concentration of harmful chemicals in floating plastics; or from a reduction in tourism due to the unsightliness of a littered beach. In every case we should be responding by working to reduce the overall problem on a global scale and by striving to mitigate specific impacts.

As an island State, Hawaii is particularly susceptible to the impacts of marine debris and, all the more so, because we are located near the center of a great network of ocean currents in the Pacific that tend to concentrate debris into a wide region known as the ``garbage patch''. For this reason, our State has long been at the forefront in dealing with this issue and in fact we have recently become the first State to develop and implement a comprehensive marine debris action plan. This Plan, along with the programs at NOAA and the Coast Guard, are likely to be even more valuable to us in the coming years as recent research suggests that the tragic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that struck in March, resulted in a tremendous amount of lost infrastructure that may reach our shores as debris in as little as 1 to 2 years.

The Trash Free Seas Act of 2011 would strengthen our ability to respond to the pervasive problem of marine debris by incorporating marine debris removal as an explicit purpose of the programs; clarifying research and assessment and reduction, prevention, and removal as two distinct components of the NOAA program; and including tool development, regional coordination, and promoting international action as explicit program functions.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Trash Free Seas Act of 2011, a bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, MDRPRA. This act, of which I am proud to have been the original sponsor, was first passed in 2006 to address the pervasive issue of marine debris which is found in myriad forms throughout our oceans. It created programs in both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard that research, track, and work to mitigate and remove marine debris and its associated impacts. The Trash Free Seas Act would update these programs to incorporate advances in our understanding of the issue and allow for greater regional and international coordination in our mitigation efforts.

Marine debris is a catch-all term that encompasses everything from floating refuse to lost fishing nets and pieces of micro-plastic. In all its forms, however, it is something that was once manufactured and has since been lost at sea through accident, intent, or act of nature. Once at sea, the impacts of marine debris may reach unintended shores as it drifts on ocean currents

and harms our ecosystems and economies. This harm may come from direct interactions such as physical damage to a coral reef or fishing vessel; through indirect impacts such as the concentration of harmful chemicals in floating plastics; or from a reduction in tourism due to the unsightliness of a littered beach. In every case we should be responding by working to reduce the overall problem on a global scale and by striving to mitigate specific impacts.

As an island State, Hawaii is particularly susceptible to the impacts of marine debris and, all the more so, because we are located near the center of a great network of ocean currents in the Pacific that tend to concentrate debris into a wide region known as the ``garbage patch''. For this reason, our State has long been at the forefront in dealing with this issue and in fact we have recently become the first State to develop and implement a comprehensive marine debris action plan. This Plan, along with the programs at NOAA and the Coast Guard, are likely to be even more valuable to us in the coming years as recent research suggests that the tragic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami that struck in March, resulted in a tremendous amount of lost infrastructure that may reach our shores as debris in as little as 1 to 2 years.

The Trash Free Seas Act of 2011 would strengthen our ability to respond to the pervasive problem of marine debris by incorporating marine debris removal as an explicit purpose of the programs; clarifying research and assessment and reduction, prevention, and removal as two distinct components of the NOAA program; and including tool development, regional coordination, and promoting international action as explicit program functions.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Goodwin Liu for confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Goodwin Liu and I share the immigrant experience. He is the proud son of Chinese immigrants and my father came to this great Nation from Japan. He holds degrees from some of the top universities in the world. Before attending Yale Law School, he worked with the Corporation for National

Service in Washington, DC, where he helped launch the AmeriCorps program. In 2000, he served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Since 2003, he has taught law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall. He has also served as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, advising the Department on a range of legal issues including the development of guidelines to help turn around low performing schools.

Goodwin also practiced as a litigant for the firm of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington, DC. There, appellate litigation comprised nearly half his practice.

Were these accolades not enough to demonstrate Goodwin's capacity to serve as a Federal appellate judge, I would also point to the ``unanimously well qualified'' rating he received from the American Bar Association, ABA, the ABA's highest rating for Federal judgeships. I believe Goodwin's extensive knowledge of the law, understanding of appellate procedure, and appellant litigation experience make him an outstanding candidate for confirmation.

I would like to remind my colleagues that there are still many judicial vacancies that need to be filled. The constitutional right to a speedy trial correlates to the number of judges able to hear cases. While it is important to ascertain the character and capacity of a nominee to such an important position, postponing Goodwin Liu's confirmation does a disservice to our Nation, and to this body's responsibility for confirming Presidential nominees. I believe Goodwin Liu will make a fine judge, and will serve with distinction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask my colleagues to join me in confirming Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to restore the 80 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses.

By way of background, business meals previously were fully deductible. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax deduction for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 percent. In 1993, the deduction was further reduced to its current level of 50 percent. The business meal deduction should be reformed to better reflect the basic principle that business expenses should be fully deductible. Increasing the limitation to 80 percent would better align the provision with these objectives.

More importantly, at a time when the Nation is getting back on stronger economic footing, the legislation is particularly critical especially for the small businesses and self-employed individuals that depend so heavily on the business meal to conduct business. Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best, and sometimes only, marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small business's bottom line.

In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant. Research has shown that increasing the business meal deduction to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by over $7 billion and increase the number of jobs by over 200,000. Moreover, restaurants service more than 130 million guests every day. Every dollar spent dining out generates $2.05 in business to other industries, totaling more than $1.7 trillion in overall economic impact.

The impact of the restaurant industry on the Nation's economy is considerable and felt in every State. Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA's, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to restore the 80 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses.

By way of background, business meals previously were fully deductible. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax deduction for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 percent. In 1993, the deduction was further reduced to its current level of 50 percent. The business meal deduction should be reformed to better reflect the basic principle that business expenses should be fully deductible. Increasing the limitation to 80 percent would better align the provision with these objectives.

More importantly, at a time when the Nation is getting back on stronger economic footing, the legislation is particularly critical especially for the small businesses and self-employed individuals that depend so heavily on the business meal to conduct business. Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best, and sometimes only, marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small business's bottom line.

In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant. Research has shown that increasing the business meal deduction to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by over $7 billion and increase the number of jobs by over 200,000. Moreover, restaurants service more than 130 million guests every day. Every dollar spent dining out generates $2.05 in business to other industries, totaling more than $1.7 trillion in overall economic impact.

The impact of the restaurant industry on the Nation's economy is considerable and felt in every State. Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA's, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.

Madam President, our Nation continues to struggle out of the economic downturn that swept across the country a few years ago, and today, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 493, the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs. The Congress has worked toward improving the economic conditions for small businesses to survive these challenging times. It is important for us to sustain this incubator for high-tech innovation, research and development, and the driving force of our economic engine, our entrepreneurs. Today's global economy is only getting more and more competitive, and in order to maintain the United States' edge in science, technology, and engineering, opportunities to encourage small businesses through programs like the SBIR/STTR will benefit all of us.

I wish to highlight some of the successes in my home State, Hawaii, that were assisted by the SBIR/STTR program. Since the program began in 1983, the State of Hawaii has received 313 SBIR grants, for a total of $94.4 million. One of these companies is Referentia Systems Incorporated, an applied research and development company dedicated to providing relevant and innovative cyber security and network enterprise solutions to meet the critical needs of our national security and Federal Government. Referentia was started in 1996 with a staff of 30, and now employs 94 people at military bases throughout the Nation and overseas, with offices in Honolulu, HI; San Diego, CA; Albuquerque, NM; and Sterling, VA. In its earliest years, the fledgling small disadvantaged business secured its first SBIR Phase I award in 2004. Since then, Referentia was awarded 13 more SBIR Phase I and 7 SBIR Phase II grants. Three of Referentia's core building blocks were developed with SBIR grants. These include: LiveAction, for cyber security and network enterprises; Sprocket, for cross-boundary data conditioning and cross-enclave data transfer; and Time Series Rapid Exploration, or T-REX, for data storage and analysis. The result of the opportunities created for Referentia helped to position them in the growing and important cyber security market. These SBIR/STTR grants generated deliverable products that Referentia is working to transition into long-term programs of record with the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Joint Operations programs.

The discovery, energy, and motivation of our entrepreneurs also power the inquisitiveness we find in the fields of science, engineering, and high-technology development. Through the SBIR/STTR programs, the sustainability of small companies that benefited from the relationships they have formed doing SBIR/STTR work have encouraged partnering with large systems integrators and the government in an effort to seek solutions that address the evolving challenges we face. Another Hawaii small business that participated in the SBIR program is TeraSys Technologies, LLC. TeraSys Technologies secured a Phase I SBIR from Naval Sea Systems for the development of an interoperable solution for counter remote controlled improvised explosive devices and blue force communications. As a result of TeraSys Technologies' work on the SBIR Phase I, a Phase II award was made from the Joint Tactical Radio System office. I am pleased to report that TeraSys Technologies secured a Phase III award to support a high-priority requirement for our military's current engagement in the Middle East. The ultimate goal for TeraSys Technologies, and all companies that participate in the SBIR/ STTR program, is to use their Phase III award toward securing a large production order of their product following the rigorous testing it has undergone, and will undergo in ``real-life'' conditions during the SBIR Phase III. Should TeraSys Technologies be successful in their efforts, it would be a boost to Hawaii's economy, and include final product integration in the State.

A few of the words describing any small business owner include energetic, creative, and highly motivated. Most of us believe that great strides or discoveries are made due to the research and development investments that large science, engineering, and technology companies make within various sectors. The understanding that small businesses drive our Nation's vibrant economy, and that high-tech businesses with less than 500 employees are extremely innovative spurred the SBIR/STTR programs' creation. The drive to grow their enterprises and bring their ideas to the marketplace may not always work out quite as they plan. On occasion, an entrepreneur is awarded an SBIR/STTR grant to solve one particular problem, and it leads to an unexpected opportunity. For example, in Hawaii, Navatek, Ltd., a company founded in 1979, and based in Honolulu, HI, has been producing innovation through research by developing, building, and testing at sea advanced ship hull designs and associated technologies. Navatek, a beneficiary of SBIR Phase I and II awards, originally presented its technology at the Navy Opportunity Forum 2010 for ``Dynamic Compensation for Towed Bodies.'' This particular project's intent was to help the Navy solve the problem of conventional small surface craft unable to

tow AQS-20 and AQS-24 mine hunting submersible sonar bodies. As it turned out, the SBIR Phase II indirectly advanced Navatek's aft lifting body invention, and led to an opportunity with the U.S. Special Warfare Command. Navatek continues to work toward securing a Phase III award, and highlights some of the unreported benefits that come from the SBIR/ STTR programs.

I have provided the experiences of three small businesses in my home State. They, and other companies, are examples of the direct and indirect impact the SBIR/STTR programs' mission to foster and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in the research and development activities of major Federal agencies. We can calculate how much programs cost the U.S. taxpayer, and the companies and jobs that resulted from the competitive nature of the SBIR/STTR programs. What we cannot quantify is the value of ensuring involvement by science, engineering, and technology entrepreneurs in research and development. The people of Hawaii, and all Americans, hope to provide a brighter future for their children. I firmly believe the future success of our children will depend on maintaining our competitive edge in the world. We must continue to uphold and reaffirm our commitment to the innovators and entrepreneurs in this country by completing our work on the SBIR/STTR reauthorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Please.

I thank my subcommittee chairman for highlighting this important provision. Ensuring that the SAFER grants are available to retain and/or rehire firefighters and waiving match requirements will provide communities the assistance they need in these tough times.

Madam President, after 6\1/2\ months it appears the Congress may finally be able to finish the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process. Earlier today the House passed a Department of Defense Appropriations bill which includes an extension of the current continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year. If the Senate passes this legislation and the President signs it, we will be able to close the books on this issue and focus our attention on the budget for fiscal year 2012.

In reflecting upon how we got here, I wish to point out to my colleagues that the fundamental reason we find ourselves debating a continuing resolution today is because 1 year ago the Congress was unable to agree upon a budget resolution. The failure to reach a consensus agreement on the budget meant the Appropriations Committee was asked to resolve the differences in spending itself. After months of attempting to do so, the committee was unable to bridge the gap between the Republicans and Democrats.

When the committee finally adopted a funding level proposed by the Republicans, a hostile political environment crippled the committee's efforts to enact a bipartisan budget plan. As we go forward I would ask all of my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I urge everyone to cooperate both here in the Senate and with our colleagues in the House. If we can fashion a compromise budget agreement this year it might allow our committee to restore the bipartisan working relationship which has long been the hallmark of the committee for generations. I sincerely hope that will be the case.

In some respects today we can take that first step. The bill that we are considering reflects a bipartisan agreement reached among the leadership of the House and Senate and the White House with the details being worked out by the Committees on Appropriations. It is a very tough measure that cuts domestic spending more than I am comfortable with, but it is dramatically superior to the alternative passed by the House 2 months ago and equally superior to not passing an extension through the end of the year.

In total, the measure reduces government spending $78.5 billion below the President's request. It is nearly $40 billion below the enacted level for fiscal year 2010. Never before have we cut our appropriated funding so drastically. By far and away this is the largest 1-year cut from the President's budget request in the Nation's history. The bill cuts all categories of spending: defense, international, and domestic, discretionary and mandatory. While some of my colleagues will argue that the Department of Defense was ``let off the hook,'' others will probably say the bill cuts more from defense than is prudent.

Including military construction, the Defense Department's budget is reduced $20 billion below the President's request. In comparison to the fiscal year 2010 enacted funding, the department's budget is approximately $2 billion below a freeze, with military construction down by more than $6 billion and the rest of defense increasing by more than $4 billion.

The priority in this defense bill is first and foremost to ensure that we treat our military personnel and their families fairly. This means a 1.4 percent pay raise. It means fully funding health care, but it also means ensuring that our forces have the proper equipment and the funding necessary to operate it. While funding is austere, the bill includes important enhancements such as buying more missiles for our Aegis missile defense ships, and more helicopters for search and rescue operations and medical evacuation in Afghanistan. It means investing in new technologies at a faster pace than requested, purchasing more drones to find and wipe out terrorists, and ensuring the safety of our soldiers and Marines by accelerating the purchases of safer Stryker vehicles and MRAPs.

Accomplishing this while at the same time reducing defense spending has been a challenge, but working with our colleagues in the House we have put together a plan which fulfills all of these objectives.

But this bill isn't just about defense. For the State Department and foreign assistance, we are providing $8 billion less than was requested. This low level of funding was the most we could get our colleagues in the House to agree with, and it means many important programs will have to be reduced. We won't be able to make as much progress on fighting AIDS and hunger. We won't have as much funding as I would like to support our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. But considering the budget situation we face, we will have to make do.

It is in the area of domestic spending in which the bill makes the most serious reductions, with the total included being approximately $50 billion below the President's request. In achieving this rate of savings, this compromise measure sought out as many different ways to reduce spending as possible to allow us to preserve our critically important priorities. We were able to mitigate the damage by looking at areas where we could identify savings from mandatory spending and by rescinding lower priority funds. In total, domestic discretionary spending is cut by $38.3 billion while mandatory spending comes down by $17.7 billion.

Many, many programs had to be cut to reach these levels. In health care, in education, in housing, in infrastructure, but this bill is much better than the approach adopted by the House in HR 1. For example, we were able to fully fund Head Start--restoring the House Republican cut of $1.4 billion which would have denied 218,000 children an opportunity to learn. We provided $30.7 billion for NIH, $1.4 billion more than the House Republicans. We provided $2.1 billion more for food safety than the Republican plan.

In energy, housing, our National Parks, our transit programs, in every area we forced the House to back away from their unwise cuts which would have devastated the progress we are making to restore the economy and protect our people. Crazy ideas like furloughing Social Security workers and shutting off food inspections were turned around. But there is more to this story. The House bill wasn't just about dangerous and drastic cuts; it was also an attempt to legislate terrible social policy on a must pass emergency spending bill.

Here too we turned them around. Nearly a dozen provisions to overturn health care reform were rejected. Eleven riders to gut the Environmental Protection Agency were rejected. Provisions to eliminate successful programs like needle exchanges, and the Corporation on Public Broadcasting were denied. Their attempts to rewrite gun laws and net neutrality were rejected.

It is true and regrettable that we had to accept limited provisions affecting the District of Columbia on abortion and school vouchers. We are not happy about that. Still, in comparison to what the House wanted to do, this bill is an enormous improvement even for the District of Columbia.

As in any compromise, neither party to the agreement is happy with every item in the bill. Some on the other side would have preferred more cuts in domestic programs while most members on our side believe we have cut our domestic priorities too deeply. But, this is truly a bipartisan bill. When it is approved it will be the most significant

legislation to pass the Congress this year.

I believe this bill provides a road map on how we can continue to work across party lines to achieve what is necessary for the country. Yesterday the President unveiled his long-range strategy to reduce the deficit. His approach is extremely different than the approach of the House Republicans. In 2 weeks our Senate Budget Committee will unveil its plan on regaining fiscal control. It is not overstating the case to say that it is truly a matter of urgent national security that we reach across party lines and conclude an agreement with our colleagues in the House to regain control over our government's finances.

Both parties feel strongly about their recommendations and the structure of future budgets. The philosophical divisions are wide. But as I watched the President's speech, I thought about this continuing resolution and how we were able to bridge a huge divide between the Houses and the political parties. Because of this experience I became more optimistic that we can find a way to work with our House colleagues and come up with a deficit reduction plan that would represent all of our best efforts to act in the Country's interest.

Today it is vitally important that we take that first step toward putting our fiscal house in order by adopting this bill. It is also critical that the Congress demonstrate that it can act in the spirit of compromise and in the national interest. This bill represents a fair compromise which will meet our country's needs, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, my amendment addresses the concerns raised by the Coburn amendment, but it does so by using existing authorities established by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. My amendment accomplishes the same objectives, but it maintains the proper deference to Congress on matters of appropriations.

The Coburn amendment simply duplicates that existing authority but removes the checks and balances. I urge a yes vote on the Inouye amendment and a no vote on the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, since 1974, there has been a law on our books that does exactly what this amendment proposes to do. It does so without taking away the checks and balances we have in the government. It also does so in a proper way. It goes through the Congress of the United States.

This is an appropriations matter. So, therefore, I hope all of us can vote no on the Coburn amendment.