Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I had a great honor this morning, and it will change the nature of the remarks I intended to make on the Senate floor.

I just returned from the World War II Memorial. We had a group of 90 World War II veterans who flew here on an Honor Air flight. Honor Air is a national program. The funds for it are raised by friends, neighbors, and community individuals to help bring their World War II veterans to the Nation's Capital.

I have probably visited the World War II Memorial dozens of times-- maybe 40 or 50. I visit it every time there is an Honor Air flight from my home State and I am in Washington, DC, I like to be there to say: Welcome and thank you. It is an honor to have you at the memorial that was built for you.

I visited the World War II Memorial. It is especially meaningful to me personally. My dad is a World War II veteran. My dad has been on the Honor Air flight. My dad will be 98 in November.

A few days before the World War II Memorial opened, I walked down there--I was a House Member then, not a Senator--and got a glimpse of what it was going to be like. It is a wonderful place and it reminds us of many things. That day, I stepped away from the memorial and used my cell phone to call my dad at home in Plainville, KS. I was fortunate I got the answering machine, because these are difficult things to tell your parents. So I said: Dad, I am at the World War II Memorial. Thank you for your service to our country. I respect you and I love you. It was great to be able to say that to an answering machine instead of to your own parent.

My dad actually one-upped me. A few moments later my cell phone rang and he said: Gerald, I couldn't understand what you said.

So I repeated it in person.

The great thing about the memorial is it causes us to reflect and say things and express ourselves in ways that we otherwise would never do. So that memorial, as do others that honor our service men and women, is one that calls us to say we thank you for your service, we respect you, we love you. That was my experience again this morning.

Again, I try to be there every time a group of veterans comes from Kansas, and I was hoping today wouldn't be any different. With the shutdown of our government, with the funding on hold for the National Parks, there was some concern about whether these veterans would be able to actually get to the memorial. It all worked fine. I appreciate the way the morning's events transpired and there was no confrontation and no one wanted to deny those veterans their chance to visit their memorial for the first time.

In addition to those sentiments about these individual veterans, I think what may be of value as we approach today and tomorrow and try to find the solutions that are necessary to solve the circumstance we find ourselves in is a recognition that our veterans--I have had this thought every time I have walked to the Vietnam Wall or to the Korean War Memorial and now to this newer memorial, the World War II Memorial--not a single person represented on that wall or memorialized in the World War II Memorial or the Korean War Memorial, not one of them--I cannot imagine that a single one of them--volunteered or was drafted for purposes of a fight between Republicans and Democrats. No one went to serve our country, no one volunteered to serve our country because they believed in Republicans or they believed in Democrats. Knowing veterans as I do, my view is they answered the call to duty. They were willing to serve because they believed in America. They believed in the United States and our principles and the freedoms and liberties it provides, and they knew their service would make a difference in the lives of their kids and grandkids. They knew their service would help make America a better place for everyone, but certainly for people they knew--their family members.

I hope I can portray to my colleagues here in the Senate and here in this Capitol building and down Pennsylvania Avenue that the battles we engage in need to be a lot less about Republicans and Democrats and much

more about what is good for the country. We ought to use the veterans we met with this morning and those who are memorialized on the National Mall in every circumstance to remind ourselves that there is a higher calling to what we do in our Nation's Capital. There is something more important than political skirmishes.

I don't say this in any Pollyanna way. I don't say it in a way that doesn't acknowledge partisan differences. I always assumed and believed that America sent a variety of people to Washington, DC, to represent their interests and my State of Kansas will probably send somebody different than some other State. We all come here with a philosophy, a background of the way we grew up, the way we think about things, the instructions our constituents have given us, and all of that is reflected in the way we vote, the issues we pursue, the priorities we have. So it is not that we are all supposed to agree, but surely there ought to be a recognition that when there is disagreement, as there often is, there is a desire, just as our service men and women had to serve the country, much more important than the desire to serve our political party.

Today's trip to the World War II Memorial, while it is a common experience for me, was especially useful and meaningful because it happened at a time when these veterans came not knowing whether they would be able to gain entry to the memorial. Being there to encourage them and seeing them welcomed and greeted was important but, perhaps equally as important, it served as a reminder to me that what we do in the Senate is motivated by the best of intentions and the greatest of goals; the idea that America is a special place and we who serve here have a special responsibility. We have a chance to try to do something good for the country.

One of the things that has always inspired and pleased me about Kansans--and I assume it is true elsewhere--most of the conversations I have with folks back home are a lot less about what they want me to do for them but more about what decisions they want me to make, to make certain their kids and grandkids have a better life. There is something very great about how we have an interest--as human beings, as parents-- in the well-being of the next generation and not just the well-being of ourselves. So my efforts in trying to find resolution to the circumstance we find ourselves in is strengthened, the resolve I have to try to work with others here in the Senate is one that is highlighted by my experience this morning at the National Mall.

I think about where we are and where we need to go. Again, having decried the high partisanship nature of this place, I don't want to detract from that, but we need to be able to have leaders who are willing to have discussions, conversations, and a coming together. It is true of Republicans and it is true of Democrats and it is certainly true of whoever is the President of the United States. We need to make certain we have the ability to recognize that not all of us agree on everything, but with the efforts we make to find a solution to a problem, there is a coming together. It seems to me we have now gotten ourselves in this entrenched position. And while I was pleased moments ago to learn that our President has called congressional leaders to the White House, it is disturbing to me that the message is: But we are not negotiating. I am not certain what the purpose of the White House visit will be. I hope it results in movement, in success.

It is my understanding my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle have agreed this morning to ``not negotiate.'' All I know about that is what I have read in the press. I don't--again, in an attempt to make certain this doesn't sound partisan and detract from what I was attempting to convey moments ago, we need to make certain Republicans understand we can make progress in the positions we hold even without getting everything we want.

So this experience I described of being a Senator--a Member of this great deliberative body--hasn't been my experience in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate. The idea that we can't negotiate seems to me to be contrary to the purpose of this historic body.

I hope the attitude and approach changes and every Senator recognizes it is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is an opportunity for us to resolve differences and each find some satisfaction in moving in a direction or preserving the status quo, if that is one's position; that because America is a diverse place and that people care differently about different issues and have different opinions, we certainly have a responsibility to represent those views of the folks back home, but recognizing that the country doesn't always agree with us. Surely, there is that common ground, that opportunity to find solutions.

My call is for leadership--and by leadership I mean broadly all 100 of us; not leadership in the sense of someone who occupies a position of leadership beyond being a Member of the Senate but all of us--to find the leadership to find the necessary resolve to solve our country's problems.

The Affordable Care Act is a very controversial piece of legislation. It has been said here on the Senate floor: It is the law, it is not negotiable. That position doesn't make sense to me. In fact, the President has delayed, excluded, found exemptions for what is the law. So, surely, if the President can, for example, delay the implementation of the employer mandate, it is not outside of the realm--in fact, I would say it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress--to have the debate, discussion, and consideration of whether to delay the individual mandate. It is the law of the land, but if the President can make changes to the law of the land, surely the body created by article I, the legislative branch, has that opportunity to do so as well. So it ought not be nonnegotiable.

It is time for the Senate to function. It is time for us as individual Senators to provide the leadership to resolve our problems.

In my view, we desperately need leadership from the President. While I have serious policy and philosophical disagreements with President Obama, my greatest complaint about his Presidency is his lack of leadership. We need somebody to rally us, to come together and find solutions to those problems, to better resolve our differences. Again, I don't want to detract from the observations about how partisan this place has become by talking about President Obama. In this case, he is a Democrat and I am a Republican, but regardless of who is the occupant of the White House, in order for the Congress to resolve difficult issues, it takes the leadership of a President.

My call is, as it was earlier to my colleagues in the Senate to provide leadership--I hope the President, in his meeting with the leadership of the Senate and House today, will provide the leadership necessary to help us move in the right direction and step back from the statement that while we are meeting, nothing is negotiable.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to echo the Senator from Connecticut's comments and to ask the Committee leaders for one more clarification.

The issue is the definition of ``excess refining capacity'' and its requirement that it be made available at commercially reasonable rates as a condition of continued participation in the sales and auctions provided for in this legislation. I ask Senator Murkowski if it is the intent of the legislation that the BLM consider the economic impacts of defining ``excess refining capacity'' once the auction level reaches 100% of the Federal helium reserve.

Mr. President, I thank the Committee leadership for their dedication and cooperation, and I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I come here this evening with no notes, so hopefully I will be able to communicate my feelings and concerns from the heart and from the brain about the tasks we are about. We have been focused so much on the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, and rightfully so. I consider it one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever to pass a Congress and be signed by a President.

I want to start by pointing out something that is receiving, in my view, inadequate attention. We are back on the Senate floor with a continuing resolution. It is almost as if passing a continuing resolution has become the norm, and has almost become a way of life.

I have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee. Our task--and what I would consider a very basic task--is to pass a budget. This is the first time the Senate in 3--almost 4 years--has passed a budget. The House passed a budget. Yet there is no reconciliation and no success in the effort to conference that bill, and so we have no budget framework to go by. The other requirement--again, one that ought to be so basic--is to pass appropriations bills within that budgetary framework.

We are here--almost on September 30--and I would remind my colleagues that not 1 appropriations bill out of the 13 appropriations bills that should be passed by September 30 has passed the Senate. It seems to me that it is important to highlight the fact that this place, once again, is failing to do its job. There has not been 1 appropriations bill out of 13.

Why is passing a continuing resolution important? Without it--or if we just do it at will--the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on behalf of the American people, are never required to prioritize our spending. Does anyone not think the priorities of this Congress should have changed from last year to this year? Have things not changed in our country, in which, if we were doing our work, we would decide how much money each program should receive based upon its effectiveness, its efficiency, whether it is a proper role for the Federal Government, the changing nature, the economic environment of our country? Yet, no, one more time we are here to pass a continuing resolution.

The thing that troubles me perhaps the most about this topic is that it is just a given. We are not complaining about the passage of a continuing resolution; we are focused on a very significant provision in that continuing resolution that very well may be removed tomorrow when the Senate acts.

The Appropriations Committee needs to work. Just as we always raise the debt ceiling every time the debt ceiling is met, if we always agree to raise the debt ceiling, what is the effect of a debt ceiling? If we always, every year, pass a continuing resolution, why have an appropriations process in which we are to establish priorities on behalf of the American people as far as how their tax dollars are spent? We are failing miserably, once again, the American people, and it is just happening as if it is of no consequence.

I want the appropriations process to work. I want to eliminate funding for some programs that aren't our business, that the Federal Government should never have been involved in in the first place. I want us to establish the amount of money we can afford to spend on programs within the Federal agencies and departments. It may be true that there are some things on which we might want to spend more money.

I would remind our colleagues that, in my view, the primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to defend our country, and what we do in regard to defense spending has a huge consequence upon our ability to fill that vital mission, that constitutional responsibility. We take on too much to deal with.

I have always believed the view that if the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had ever been enforced in the way I or most Kansans would consider its words to mean, our Federal Government and our lives--more importantly, our lives--would be so much different in the United States. The 10th Amendment says that all those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are hereby reserved to the States and people. Yet government continues to grow, and we have an appropriations process that has failed to do anything about curbing that spending.

The issue that is front and center is the President's health care reform measure that passed 3 years ago and is being implemented on October 1, when many of its provisions will kick in, become viable, and the American people will begin to feel the consequences even more so than they have to date. There is no question the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, is the most damaging piece of legislation passed, certainly in my time in Congress. Not a surprise: I voted against it. Perhaps not a surprise: I offered the first legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act after it was passed.

The House is often criticized for time and time again passing legislation to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act. Yet, if one believes it is so damaging to the country, isn't it our responsibility to do everything within our power to change the policies of Washington,

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Madam President, every 68 seconds--a little more than 1 minute--someone in America develops Alzheimer's. It is a devastating and irreversible brain disease that slowly destroys an individual's cognitive functioning, including memory and thought.

Back home in Kansas, a Kansas City physician, Dr. Richard Padula, and his wife Marta had been married for 51 years when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2006. It is difficult to imagine the anguish Dick and Marta and their family and their friends experienced as he deteriorated from a leading heart surgeon into someone unable to comprehend a newspaper article. Unfortunately, these stories have become very common.

Alzheimer's currently affects more than 5.2 million people in the United States and more than 35.6 million people worldwide.

As our population ages, the number of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's after the age of 65 will double every 5 years, while the number of individuals 85 years and older with this disease will triple by 2050. Already, Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, and there is currently no cure, no diagnostic test, and no treatment for this terrible, terrible disease.

As a nation, we should, we must, we ought to commit to defeating one of the greatest threats to the health of Americans and to the financial well-being of our Nation.

In 1962, President Kennedy called our Nation to action to reach the Moon by the end of the decade, and Americans rallied around that cry. Similarly, we need to commit ourselves to a goal just as ambitious but perhaps even more imperative. We must strive to achieve not only an effective treatment but a cure for Alzheimer's over the next decade.

President Kennedy said: `` . . . because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. . . .''--I would like those words to be spoken about the fight against Alzheimer's.

As the baby boomer generation ages and Alzheimer's disease becomes more prevalent, the need to confront the pending health care crisis has become even more urgent. The financial costs alone cannot be ignored. What it costs America's health care system, what it costs Americans, what it costs the taxpayers, we need to address these issues.

Caring for those with Alzheimer's and other dementias is expected to reach an expense of $203 billion this year--$203 billion this year-- with $142 billion covered by the Federal Government through Medicare and Medicaid.

A recent study by the RAND Corporation stated that the cost of dementia care is projected to double over the next 30 years, surpassing health care expenses for both heart disease and cancer. Without a way to prevent, cure or effectively treat Alzheimer's, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to rein in our Nation's health care costs.

Alzheimer's has become a disease that defines a generation, but if we focus and prioritize our research capacity, it does not need to continue to be an inevitable part of aging.

It is time to truly commit to defeating this disease in the next decade, a goal no more ambitious than President Kennedy set forth for the Apollo space program. For every $27 that Medicare and Medicaid spend caring for an individual with Alzheimer's, the Federal Government only spends $1 on Alzheimer's research--$27 to care for the disease; $1 to try to cure or prevent the disease.

Yet we know that research suggests that more progress could be made if given more support. One study found that a breakthrough against Alzheimer's that delays the onset of the disease by just 5 years would mean an annual savings of $362 billion by 2050. A sustained Federal commitment to research for Alzheimer's will lower the cost and improve the health outcomes for people living with the disease today and in the future.

I am the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. NIH is the focal point of our Nation's medical research infrastructure, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to prioritize funding for Alzheimer's research. This year our subcommittee increased funding for the National Institute on Aging--the lead institute for Alzheimer's research at NIH--by $84 million and supported the initial year of funding for the new Presidential initiative to map the human brain. Both projects will increase our understanding of the underlying causes of Alzheimer's, unlock the mysteries of the brain, and bring us closer--closer--to an effective treatment and, one day, closer to a cure.

Alzheimer's is a defining challenge of my generation, and we should commit to a national goal to defeat this devastating disease. We can do that by supporting critical research carried out by scientists and researchers across our Nation and supported by the National Institutes of Health.

In my view this is an area in which we all can come together. You can be the most compassionate, caring person--and we ought to spend money to care for people--you can be the most cautious about spending dollars and the investment and what the return is for every dollar we spend, and because we could save on health care costs, you ought to be supportive of this funding.

The health and financial future of our Nation, in my view, is at stake, and the United States cannot, should not, must not ignore this threat. Together, we can make a sustained commitment to Alzheimer's research that will benefit our Nation and bring hope to families such as the Padulas, as well as to every American. It is a challenge. It is a challenge we ought to accept. The moment for us to act is now, and the end result is hope for the future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 3 years ago Congress passed a massive health insurance law which didn't have a single Republican vote, and it had significant opposition by the public.

In an administration proclaiming to be the most transparent ever, this 2,700-page bill was rammed through Congress in the early morning hours on Christmas Eve. Even then-Speaker of the House Pelosi said Congress had to pass this bill so that we could find out what was in it.

Well, we did. It was passed, and the American people are not liking what they have discovered.

While the President promised the Affordable Care Act would lower health care costs and strengthen our health care system, the law, instead, is increasing health insurance premiums, slowing economic recovery, and hindering job creation. We should not allow the administration to continue to ignore this reality. We must permanently delay the Affordable Care Act.

Since its enactment in 2010, 18 components of the health care law have been changed, cancelled, or delayed. The President downplays the law's substantial defects by characterizing them as ``glitches and bumps'' that are to be expected. He also claims that the Affordable Care Act critics are responsible for the law's broken promises by arguing that the problem is with ``folks out there who are actively working to make this law fail.'' Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act is slowly unraveling.

Every day brings new information about missed deadlines, funding shortfalls, soaring health insurance premium rates, and a technical implementation that is floundering. Is it any wonder that this law continues to be publicly unpopular?

With the majority of mandates, fees, and taxes taking effect in 2014, we are already beginning to see the alarming effects of the law on individuals, families, employers, and on our economy. It is one broken promise after another.

Promise No. 1. In attempting to convince the American people that the ACA was good, the President promised it would ``save families $2,500 in the coming years.'' But since 2008, the average American family has seen health insurance premiums rise more than $3,000. Nonpartisan actuaries estimate that national health spending will grow at an average rate of close to 6 percent annually between 2011 and 2021. As national spending ticks up, American families will continue to see their monthly premiums go up.

States are beginning to release details on the rates consumers will pay for ACA-related health insurance starting on January 1. An unfortunate pattern is emerging--ACA-mandated insurance is going to increase costs for many Americans.

Recently, the State of Indiana announced that insurance rates will increase 72 percent for consumers in the individual market. Consumers in Ohio, Florida, South Carolina, and Maryland have also announced they are expecting to see their premiums increase significantly. Just yesterday, the Georgia insurance commissioner asked the Department of Health and Human Services to extend the deadline to approve health plans in their State because some rates were expected in Georgia to rise by 198 percent.

In my home State of Kansas, I consistently hear concerns from individuals, business owners, and even local government officials about the impending costs of the Affordable Care Act.

For example, rural Kansas school districts and special education co- ops, whose budgets are already stretched thin, will now be forced to cover the costs associated with the law. This has resulted in reductions in employees' hours and may trigger layoffs in order for the districts to avoid significant ACA-related penalties.

It is sad to visit with the director of a special education co-op only to learn that less services are going to be provided to special needs students because of the costs associated with the Affordable Care Act.

The American people were promised savings and security. Instead, we are experiencing less of both. The Affordable Care Act is leaving Americans with less options and simply unaffordable care.

Promise No. 2. In 2009, the President said:

No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this

promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep

your doctor, period.

Reality has since whittled down this promise dramatically. If you go to the Affordable Care Act Web site today, you will find this far less confident statement:

Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you

may be able to keep your current doctor.

Even large labor unions have recently criticized the President and congressional Democrats for breaking this promise. Notably, the National Treasury Employees Union, the union that represents most IRS employees, is urging its members to write their elected officials to oppose any effort that would force them to participate in the health insurance exchanges.

Further, several unions stated:

When you and the President sought our support for the

Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the

health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that

promise is under threat.

And another statement:

[A]pproximately 3 million laborers, retirees, and their

families now face the very real prospect of losing their

health benefits. This, I must remind you, was something that

you promised would not happen.

Promise No. 3. The President indicated that the Affordable Care Act would ``lower costs for . . . the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible.''

The only way the Affordable Care Act will reduce deficits is by grossly increasing the taxes and fees associated with this law. One wonders how anyone believed at the time that the new entitlement program would ever save money.

These broken promises are more than just words. The administration's false starts and early failures in implementing the Affordable Care Act are just the beginning. The harm this law will do to individuals, families, and businesses will continue to emerge. In less than 3 months, individuals will be asked to start enrolling in a health insurance exchange when insurance rates, coverage requirements, and subsidy amounts are still largely unknown. And, increasingly, the question being asked is, What happens to individuals required to buy health insurance or face penalties if the exchanges are not ready on time?

I am the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. I offered two amendments to the fiscal year 2014 bill that would bring some certainty to this overarching issue.

First, I offered an amendment to codify the administration's decision to delay the employer mandate. While many of my colleagues on the Democratic side issued press releases praising the administration's decision to delay, when asked to affirmatively vote in committee to delay for 1 year, they all voted no. The amendment failed on a straight party-line vote.

The second amendment I offered delayed the implementation and enforcement of the individual mandate for 1 year. While I support the delay of the employer mandate, in that decision, like it or not, the administration undermined its own credibility in stating that the Affordable Care Act would be implemented on time, as promised. We should not, and cannot, require individuals to risk their health care coverage by signing up for an unworkable program with a dubious future. Unfortunately, my colleagues--again, on the Democratic side-- disagreed. They refused to extend the exemption the President granted to businesses to families and individuals--to all Americans.

The evidence continues to show that the Affordable Care Act is so large and convoluted that it cannot be implemented into practice. Reports from State actuaries, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and nonpartisan think tanks have reached the same conclusion: Almost everything we were told about the Affordable Care Act is untrue.

We were told 3 years ago that we need to pass the Affordable Care Act to find out what is in it. Now we know, and it is not good. We don't need to force American families to endure another 3 years just to see how bad it actually will be.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there are many things I admire about folks from my home State of Kansas but especially how Kansans carry on the traditions of previous generations. No tradition runs deeper in Kansas than the tradition of working on a family farm.

Across our Nation, 98 percent of our country's 2 million farms are family owned. For many Kansas children, growing up on a farm is a way of life. By working alongside their parents, grandparents, and neighbors, young people learn important life skills and values like hard work, personal responsibility, and perseverance.

Gary Nelson of Falun, KS learned many of these life skills on the farm by working alongside his parents, Vernon and Marie Nelson. The Nelson family farm has been in his family for 144 years. It was originally homesteaded by Gary's great-grandfather Lars Frederick Nelson, in 1869. Nineteen years ago, Gary's father Vernon passed away, leaving the management of the farm in his hands. In the years that followed, Gary took over the farm operations with the help of his mother. But just a few weeks ago, Marie passed away. The community of Falun lost two special people when Vernon and Marie passed away.

Both of Gary's parents came from a strong Swedish heritage and were well known in the small rural community of Falun in Saline County. They were married in 1952 and spent the next 42 years together, raising their son, managing the farm, and investing in the local community. A strong work ethic and an abiding care for others were defining attributes of both Vernon and Marie. They were also both skilled craftsmen--Vernon once made a walnut box that contained a bronze sculpture for President Ronald Reagan, and Marie had a love for quilting and once worked on a special quilt that was given to Nancy Reagan.

Vernon and Marie were also very proud of their son and came to visit Gary while he was working as an intern for former Senator Bob Dole in the summer of 1983. One of their special memories was enjoying lunch together in the Senate dining room at the invitation of Senator Dole.

In small rural towns across Kansas, people work hard, take pride in their communities and care for one another. Vernon and Marie were two such people. Gary recently said this about his parents: ``They are part of the fabric that is our community now and that of the future.'' Individuals like Vernon and Marie also make up the fabric of our country, and their contributions have made our Nation what it is today. Vernon and Marie lived each day to its fullest, and their devotion to those around them stands as an inspiration to us all.

I extend my heartfelt sympathies to Gary and the Nelson family and friends. I ask my colleagues and all Kansans to remember the Nelson family in your thoughts and prayers in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, the need for economic growth remains one of the most pressing and challenging issues we face today in our country. Unfortunately, over the past decade economic growth has been stagnant, creating difficulties for small businesses, for working families, for recent college graduates, and for entrepreneurs.

If I have a goal here, it is to make certain every American has the opportunity to pursue what we all know is the American dream. For that to be possible, we need a growing economy that accomplishes many things, including creating the opportunity for people to go to work, to pay off their loans, to feed their families, to put food on their familie's table, and to save for their future.

Last month the Senate had an opportunity to do something positive about our economy. We spent a significant amount of time addressing this issue of immigration, trying to fix our Nation's broken immigration system.

Sensible and overdue improvements to our Nation's immigration laws will spur economic growth and create American jobs. This is why I have been so interested to see how highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants create jobs and contribute to the U.S. economy. It is that aspect of our Nation's broken immigration system I wish to talk about today.

There is an economic imperative to improve our Nation's immigration laws. Many of our Nation's leading businesses struggle to find the talent they need to grow and compete in global markets. According to the Partnership for a New American Economy, American businesses are projected to need an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees by 2018 but will only find 550,000 American graduates with an advanced STEM education.

First and foremost, we must do more to prepare Americans for careers in science, technology, and engineering. I have been encouraged that several immigration proposals before Congress aim to improve STEM education for Americans so that one day we will no longer be required to seek outside labor to meet our country's needs.

In the short term, we must work to equip Americans with the skills of the 21st century. We also need to create a path for highly skilled foreign students to stay in the United States, where their ideas, talents, and intellect can fuel American economic growth.

Legislation I introduced with Senator Warner of Virginia called Startup Act 3.0 creates visas for foreign students who graduate from an American university with a master's or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. These skilled workers would be granted conditional status contingent on them filling a needed gap in the U.S. workforce. This will help growing American companies secure the talent they need now for current job openings. Without this help companies will have to look elsewhere, will find it difficult to find the qualified workers they need, and will likely open locations overseas, taking the jobs with them.

When I was in Silicon Valley last year, I met with executives at Facebook. They told me they were ready to hire close to 80 foreign-born but U.S.-educated individuals in California, but their H-1B visas were not granted. Rather than forgo these skilled workers, the company hired them anyway. That caught my attention, but the story is that they placed them in Dublin, Ireland, not in the United States. Facebook was ultimately able to get visas for these workers after training them in Ireland, but all too often companies end up housing the jobs permanently overseas. When this happens, it is not only those specific jobs that are lost. In this case we didn't just lose 80 jobs but also the many supporting jobs and economic activity associated with those jobs.

Even more damaging, more damning, more frustrating to me is that many of these highly skilled workers who are now employed in some other country will become entrepreneurs that will start successful businesses there, not in the United States. Of the 80 engineers working in Dublin, Ireland, for Facebook, I have no doubt but that one or more of them will be the next originator, the next innovator for companies such as Facebook. We want them in the United States creating that opportunity here for Americans.

Immigrants to the United States have a long history of creating businesses in our country. Today, 1 in every 10 Americans employed at a privately owned U.S. company works at an immigrant-owned firm. Immigrants are more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. Of the current Fortune 500 companies, more than 40 percent were founded by a first- or second-generation American. Ranked No. 73 on that list is Google, which was cofounded in 1998 by Sergey Brin, an immigrant from Russia. Sergey and his cofounder Larry Page developed Google as Ph.D. students while at Stanford University. Google is now the world's top search engine, generates more than $50 billion in revenue annually, and employs tens of thousands. We need to create an immigration system that welcomes more immigrants like Sergey Brin.

Our bill, Startup Act 3.0, creates an entrepreneur's visa for foreign-born entrepreneurs currently in the United States. Those individuals with a good idea, capital, and a willingness to hire Americans would be able to stay in the United States and grow their businesses here. Each immigrant entrepreneur would be required to create jobs for Americans. Providing a way for an immigrant entrepreneur to stay in the United States and create American jobs makes economic sense.

Earlier this year the Kauffman Foundation, headquartered in Kansas City, studied the economic impact of the entrepreneur's visa in Startup Act 3.0. Using conservative estimates, the Kauffman Foundation predicts that the entrepreneur's visa alone could generate 500,000 to 1.6 million new jobs during the next 10 years. These are real jobs with real economic impact that could boost GDP, by their estimate, by 1.5 percent or more. When we talk about economic growth and creating opportunity, a boost in GDP by 1.5 percent is a major accomplishment.

Recognizing this potential, several bills create visas for immigrant entrepreneurs. It is important that these visas be structured in a way to facilitate job creation. Unnecessarily high investment and revenue requirements and burdensome mandates, such as having to submit a business plan to Washington, DC, bureaucrats, threaten to diminish the impact these entrepreneurial visas could have.

Although well-intentioned, the INVEST visa created in the Senate immigration bill fell prey to some of these traps. To improve that idea, I developed an amendment with the help of entrepreneurs, investors, and startup policy experts. This amendment would reduce paperwork and reporting requirements so that entrepreneurs could spend more time building their businesses, allow entrepreneurs to secure initial investment from those closest to them, add flexibility to the way in which startup employees are compensated to account for geographic and industry differences, and clarify that the jobs created by immigrant entrepreneurs must be held by Americans. A list of more than 30 startup companies, investors, and business leaders and immigration attorneys supported this amendment.

Sadly, like many other amendments, it was blocked from even receiving consideration. But in the end, that may not matter. The Speaker of the House has said the Senate immigration bill is ``dead on arrival.'' Instead of taking up Senate legislation, the House is pursuing, perhaps, a more thoughtful, methodical approach to immigration--writing several targeted bills that address aspects of our broken immigration system.

Congress crafts better policy when it is done in manageable bite sizes. In my view we do not have to look far in the past to see what happens when Congress bites off more than it can chew. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank offer two examples of the unintended consequences of passing giant bills with multi-thousand pages that are poorly understood. In fact, it was the 1986 comprehensive immigration bill that left us with the many problems we are attempting to fix today. Passing a series of smaller more targeted immigration bills will result in better policy and achieve better results for the American people.

Moreover, there is broad agreement within Congress on many aspects of immigration policy. Last year the House of Representatives passed two immigration bills. One would have repurposed visas from the diversity lottery to STEM visas for some of our most talented foreign-born U.S. graduates. Another would have eliminated the employment-based, green card per-country cap allowing American employers to have access to the best talent regardless of where a potential employee was born.

This bill passed 389 to 15 in the House. Yet neither received a vote in the Senate because of adherence to the approach that says we can't do anything unless we do everything. This line of thinking has prevented progress on important challenges facing our country for a long time.

Republicans and Democrats agree that creating opportunities for highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants to contribute to our economy is beneficial to America. I strongly hope Congress will finally come together and pass what we can agree upon now while continuing to work on the issues that divide us. In my view, we can no longer allow ourselves to be hostage to the all-or-nothing strategy or wait until after the next election.

Right now other countries are taking advantage of our inability to solve problems and are exploiting our broken immigration system. Since I arrived in the Senate in 2011, at least seven countries have changed their policies and

laws to better attract highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants. One of those countries, Canada, even went so far as to buy a billboard in Silicon Valley in an attempt to poach the best and brightest.

We must address this problem, and the best way to do so is in a measured and incremental way. The benefits to our Nation's economy will be great and the goodwill produced by working in a bipartisan manner on targeted solutions will sow the seeds of trust necessary to solve the problems where disagreement remains.

So we will see what happens now in the immigration debate, but my hope is that if we are unable to pass so-called broad-based immigration reform, if we are unable to come up with sensible solutions in an understandable legislative package, let's at least work to accomplish those things on which there is broad agreement and continue to solve those problems where there remains disagreement today.

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

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

Madam President, there is no group of individuals I hold in higher regard than our Nation's veterans who have dedicated their lives to serving our country.

Among our veterans I have special admiration for the members of the greatest generation who served during some of our Nation's darkest hours and liberated the world from the forces of tyranny.

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, more than 16 million Americans answered the call to serve our country and more than 400,000 husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, and daughters never returned home.

More than 200,000 Kansans served during the war, including GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower, future U.S. Senator Bob Dole, and my own father.

During the dedication of the World War II Memorial here in Washington, Senator Dole described the greatest generation this way:

On distant fields and fathomless oceans, the skies over

half the planet and in 10,000 communities on the home front,

we did far more than avenge Pearl Harbor. The citizen

soldiers who answered liberty's call fought not for

territory, but for justice, not for plunder, but to liberate

enslaved peoples around the world.

Among those citizen soldiers was a young Kansan named Richard Seitz. When WWII began, Dick was attending classes at K-State University, but by the end of the war he had successfully led his battalion through some of the fiercest fighting of the war in the Battle of the Bulge. Our country lost a great man, a dedicated soldier and an American hero when LTG Dick Seitz recently passed away.

Dick was born in 1918 in Leavenworth, KS. At an early age he showed great interest in serving his country through the Armed Forces. In high school he was the cadet commander of his school's ROTC unit and received the American Legion Cup as an outstanding cadet.

As a young man Dick attended Kansas State University and while a student, he accepted a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. While spending a year away from K-State to earn enough money to finish his degree, Dick was called into active duty in 1940.

During an infantry course at Ft. Benning, Dick witnessed the original parachute test platoon and volunteered to become a paratrooper. He was part of the sixth jump school class ever held by the Army and became one of its first paratroopers.

Dick rose rapidly through the ranks until at the age of only 25, as a major, he was given command of the 2nd Battalion of the 517th Parachute Infantry Regimental Combat Team.

Showing great potential at a young age, Dick was soon promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. As the Army's youngest battalion commander, he led his men throughout many historic combat operations in Europe.

During the Battle of the Bulge, Dick's battalion and a Regiment of the 7th Armored Division formed what became known as Task Force Seitz. Their mission was to plug the gaps on the north slope of the Bulge every time the Germans tried to make a breakout. During the battle, some of the bloodiest fighting in WWII, Dick's battalion went from 691 men to 380.

Years later when asked about the worst day in this life, Dick quickly identified it as Jan. 3, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, when his unit came under heavy artillery fire and 21 of his men were killed.

Before shipping out to Europe and while still a student at K-State, Dick began dating his first wife, the former

Bettie Merrill. When Dick was called up for active duty, Bettie continued her studies at K-State, graduated in 1942 and joined the Red Cross.

In 1945 she was stationed in Holland when she read that Dick's battalion was heavily engaged in the fighting around St. Vith. Determined to see him, she drove by herself from Holland to the front in Belgium and managed to find his battalion.

She wasn't allowed to go to the very front lines where Dick was, but her trip put them back in touch and 6 months later they were married in France, with one Red Cross bridesmaid and 1,800 paratroopers in attendance.

Dick spent the next 33 years by Bettie's side before her passing in 1978. Together they raised one son and three daughters and traveled the world as Dick continued to serve his country.

Among his many command posts were the 2nd Airborne Battle Group, 503rd Infantry Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division, which he led into Detroit and Washington, DC, in 1967 to quell the riots.

An airborne historian, Dr. John Duvall, said Dick was:

. . . an airborne pioneer and one of the fellows who set

the standards for what the airborne was all about. That

standard continues to be the standard the paratrooper follows

today. They have bigger airplanes and more complex weapons

today, but standards were set by them. We have lost a great

soldier in Dick Seitz.

During his Army career which included nearly 37 years of active duty, Dick received numerous awards. Because of his great courage and heroism during WWII, Dick was awarded with the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart.

Despite his many accomplishments in the military, one friend said he:

. . . remained humble and sincere. Often embarrassed by any

fuss made over him. He was the kind of person you wanted to

be. He was always concerned for others above himself.

As a soldier and commander, Dick's philosophy was always to take care of his troops. Throughout his career, he served as a mentor to many other soldiers and leaders in the Army.

Retired Brigadier General and former senior commander of Ft. Riley, Don MacWillie said:

LTG Seitz showed to me and the entire 1st Infantry Division

what it is to be a soldier, a statesman, and a gentleman.

Very few men come along who can live as all three--Dick Seitz

certainly did. I will miss him not only because of our

friendship but because other soldiers will not have the

opportunity to learn as I did. Our Army, community and nation

has lost a treasure.

In 1975, Dick returned to Kansas upon his military retirement and 3 years later, his wife Bettie passed away. In 1980, he married Virginia Crane and together they spent the next 26 years actively involved in the local community until her passing in 2006.

Dick was a mentor, a friend, and someone I greatly respected. He not only served our country but also his state and community.

Dick settled in Junction City following his retirement, but he never truly retired from serving. He frequently visited Ft. Riley to greet deploying and returning units from Iraq and Afghanistan--no matter the hour, day or night.

He was also involved with the Coronado Council of the Boy Scouts, served on the Board of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, and was named an outstanding citizen of Kansas.

Most recently, the General Richard J. Seitz Elementary School at Ft. Riley was named in his honor in 2012.

Dick was well known to the students and staff because he regularly visited the school. During his visits, he would talk with the students about what it meant to be a ``proud and great American.'' And his message was always to ``respect the teachers and be a learner.''

His family and friends have described him as a gentleman, compassionate, respected, full of integrity, gracious and giving. He was truly a remarkable individual.

His daughter Patricia said this about her father:

He was my role model. An individual who had great wisdom,

great sense of humor, always interested in others, always

looking for ways to help others succeed.

Dick lived each day to its fullest and his commitment to his fellow man serves as an inspiration to us all.

In closing, I'd like to share with you what Sen. Dole once said about his comrades in arms:

We were just ordinary Americans who were called on to meet

the greatest of challenges. . . . No one knows better than

the soldier the futility of war, in many respects the

ultimate failure of mankind. Yet there are principles worth

fighting for, and evils worth fighting against. The defense

of those principles summons the greatest qualities of which

human beings are capable: courage beyond measure, loyalty

beyond words, sacrifice and ingenuity and endurance beyond

imagining.

I would say that is a fitting description of my friend, LTG Richard Seitz.

I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his three daughters, Patricia, Catherine and Victoria; and to his son Rick and the entire Seitz family. I know they loved him dearly and will miss him very much.

I ask my colleagues and all Kansans to remember the Seitz family in your thoughts and prayers in the days ahead.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

I thank the Chair for the recognition.

I just returned from my home State of Kansas to return to the work we are about to do in the Senate. This week away from Washington, DC,

gave me the opportunity to travel all corners of our State. I went from southeast Kansas in Galena to northwest Kansas in Goodland, and almost every night while I was home weather was the topic of conversation.

Certainly, as Kansans who have experienced tornadoes in our own State over the last week and, certainly, over the life of our State, we extend our deepest sympathies and concerns to the people of Oklahoma. It is weather that I wanted to talk about on the Senate floor today in preparation for an amendment I will offer, which is being offered to the farm bill, and continued discussion of that farm bill throughout this week.

As I listened to Kansas farmers, the most prevalent request when it comes to farm policy, to a request for what ought to be in a farm bill is the request by Kansans that the Crop Insurance Program remain solid and viable. We live in a State in which weather is not always a friend to agriculture. Yet agriculture is our most significant creator of economic activity and generator of jobs and economic growth in our State.

We have the pleasure, in fact we are very proud, to feed, clothe, and provide energy to much of the world. At the moment the challenges are great because of the significant effect the drought has had on Kansas and much of the Midwest. That drought has been ongoing for more than 2 years, and it has had a significant impact on agricultural production. It is that point I want to make as we debate the farm bill, the importance of the Crop Insurance Program in response to those difficult times.

Despite the drought, our Nation remains the land of plenty, and Americans continue to enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. The reason we have so much is because of many factors: Prayers, the work ethic of American farmers and ranchers, the courage to persevere in spite of enormous challenges, and, among those things, finally, is the ability to manage risk.

Farming and ranching is a high-risk occupation. Producers can't manage the one thing that matters most to them, Mother Nature. Mother Nature is the one variable that can't be controlled. Mother Nature brings drought, rain, wind, and hail, the things a producer must face head on each year and each year to follow.

With the inability to control the weather, we must control what we can--the great risks associated with agriculture. This is required for the United States to remain that land of plenty.

The risk management tool of choice is crop insurance. Crop insurance gives producers a safety net so when there is a drought, a flood, a hailstorm, or windstorm, they can pick up the pieces and try again. This is what sets us apart from the rest of the world. We have the ability to manage our risks so when Mother Nature gives us something bad, our Nation's farmers and ranchers can live to start again.

Crop insurance is a public-private partnership. The government helps the producers cover some of the costs of the policy, and the producer covers the rest. Consumers help the producer, and the producer helps the consumer.

To be clear, producers pay a significant part of the premium out of their own pocket. In 2012 they paid $4.1 billion to buy insurance to manage their risks. When farmers take out a crop insurance policy, they get a bill, not a check.

Crop insurance has virtually replaced the need for ad hoc disaster measures for crops. During my time in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate, going back to 1989, 42 such pieces of legislation have cost the taxpayer more than $70 billion. During my time in the House, and now the Senate, many times we have asked for ad hoc disaster assistance, a bill to pass the legislature to provide assistance at the moment. Crop insurance is the tool by which we can avoid those requests. When you manage risks with crop insurance, you save the taxpayers money and give the producers a better program.

Today, as we have scheduled votes, I have an amendment on the Senate floor dealing with a crop called alfalfa. Alfalfa is the Nation's fourth most valuable crop, and it plays a significant role in our daily lives.

Alfalfa is a building block for milk and meat. The hay that is grown in the fields of California, Idaho, South Dakota, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas, and the rest of the 50 States is a driver of the cost of products on grocery store shelves. The Nation's fourth most valuable crop is vitally important.

The reality is producers are faced with risks, and there is no good way to manage them when it comes to this crop, alfalfa. The current Crop Insurance Program, Forage Production APH, is severely inadequate, as demonstrated by the fact that less than 10 percent of the acres are enrolled in the program--compared to corn, soybeans, and wheat, which are all more than 80 percent.

Producers are going back to the bank to borrow operating money and being told not to plant alfalfa because there is no good way to manage the risk. This is very troubling because of the impact that alfalfa has on the economy and our Nation's food supply.

The crop is important, and we need to figure out a way to manage its risks. Producers are being told to grow crops that have a safety net, crops that have some kind of guarantee when weather is bad. My amendment, No. 987, requires the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to conduct research and development regarding the policy to insure alfalfa and a report describing the results of that study. There are no additional costs to the taxpayer with my amendment.

We need to take a good hard look at alfalfa and recognize its value to the Nation. We need to study and develop something that will work, save taxpayer money, and make certain the land of plenty remains the land of plenty. Alfalfa is a building block of milk and meat. With a risk management tool for alfalfa production, producers will enjoy lower input cost and consumers will enjoy less expensive products on the grocery store shelves.

I know you understand the value of agriculture in Kansas, and I appreciate the opportunity to be on the Senate floor today to describe the value of crop insurance and particularly to highlight the amendment we will vote on later today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 987, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I was on the floor earlier today describing this amendment, and I will do so very briefly.

This is an amendment to the farm bill that deals with a crop called alfalfa, one that is grown and produced in most States but often not known a lot about, as we discovered in this farm bill discussion. What we know about this crop is that it is very important and used in many ways--to feed cattle and produce milk by feeding dairy cattle--and so it is a very important component in the livestock industry and valuable as feed for both cattle for meat consumption and cattle for dairy consumption.

There is a real challenge in getting crop insurance available for this crop. So this amendment would require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to conduct research and development regarding an insurance policy to insure alfalfa and then provide us with a report from the results of that study. There is no cost to the taxpayer. As I understand, this is a noncontroversial amendment.

I see the chairperson of the committee is on the Senate floor, and I would be happy to yield to her.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business, and I wish to recognize the presence of my senior Senator from Kansas.

I am here to visit about an individual who died in Kansas recently to whom I wish to pay tribute. There are many things we admire about our folks back in our home State of Kansas, but one of the things that stands out to me is how strongly people care about their local communities and the citizens who live there. It is demonstrated by volunteering at school, serving at their church or getting involved in public service. Kansans are often looking for ways to improve the lives of those who are around them.

Former Kansas State Representative Melvin Minor was exactly one of those individuals. In Kansas, his family, his constituents lost a great man. He was a talented educator, highly regarded by his students, and a dedicated public servant.

Mel was born in 1937 in the small Central Kansas community of Arlington. As a young man, he attended Kansas State Teachers College-- now known as Emporia State University--where he graduated in 1959.

Six years later, Mel married Carolyn Fuller and spent the next 46 years by her side before her passing in 2011. Together they raised two daughters, Gayle and Mary Jo.

Mel and Carolyn had a lot in common, especially their interest in education and in young people. In fact, they met while they were both serving, working as teachers. For 15 years Mel taught American Government and Carolyn taught home economics in the St. John School District.

Many of us can remember a favorite teacher who made an impact on our lives when we were growing up, someone who taught us not only facts and figures but also instilled in us a love for learning and an interest in the world around us. Mel was just that kind of teacher for many Kansas high school students. St. John is a small rural community in Central Kansas with less than 1,500 people.

Many folks who live in St. John make their living on the farm and Mel understood this way of life and could

relate to his students from the farm because he too was a farmer. For more than a decade Mel taught them about how our government works and invested in their lives. He helped broaden the horizons of those students and opened their eyes to new subjects and to new ideas. Upon learning of his passing, one of his former students said, ``There was no better social studies and government teacher than Melvin Minor.''

After teaching government for 15 years, Mel decided to try his own hand at governing and he campaigned for a seat in the Kansas State Legislature. He was elected and he served Kansans in the 114th District in the Kansas House of Representatives for the 14 years to follow.

We all know that to serve in public office takes a great commitment from your family, but especially from your spouse. For the Minor family running for office was a team effort. Mel and Carolyn made a great team--such a team that, in fact, Carolyn served as his campaign manager and treasurer.

I had the privilege of getting to know Mel when I served as a State senator and our terms overlapped for 6 years. Even though we were of different political parties, we had a lot in common because it was about our love for Kansas and interest in rural issues that brought us together.

He was such a strong advocate for rural Kansas and the special way of life we enjoy in small communities across our State. As a farmer Mel was especially interested in agriculture policy and stood up for the best interests of Kansas farmers and ranchers.

As a longtime Kansas resident, Mel was well known and respected throughout our State but especially there in Central Kansas where he was very active in the community of Stafford. He was a member of the Stafford United Methodist Church and served on the board of directors of the St. John National Bank, the Zenith COOP, and the Stafford District Hospital.

He was also dedicated to making sure all Kansans have access to a quality education and served on the Stafford Board of Education.

During his time on the school board, he met another strong advocate for education, Ruth Teichman. After getting to know Ruth and witnessing her dedication to Kansans, Mel encouraged her to run for the State senate. Here it was a Democrat encouraging a Republican to run. It took 8 years of prodding, but he finally convinced her, and she served Kansans for 12 years in the Kansas Senate.

Ruth remembers Mel as someone who was never without a smile and someone who simply enjoyed life and spending time with people. Even when things were not going his way, he was known for saying ``the sun will come out tomorrow'' and took all of life in stride.

His family and friends described him as someone to whom others went for advice and counsel. He was known for his integrity, hard-working spirit, and dedication to the work at hand--whether as a teacher, a farmer, or a legislator.

One of his former colleagues in the house, Dennis McKinney of Greensburg, eventually rose to become the minority leader in the Kansas House of Representatives and considered Mel his mentor when he began his political career. He remembers Mel as someone who always lived out the biblical command to care for those with the greatest needs. From the patients at Larned State Hospital to the youth in the juvenile justice system, Mel was always looking for ways to serve his fellow Kansans and improve their lives.

Dennis McKinney also remembers that Mel Minor had a great sense of humor. Dennis recalled one time when the two of them were the only two Democrats voting in favor of an appropriations bill in the Republican- controlled house of representatives. Dennis was sitting behind Mel at the time and leaned forward to tell him that he felt a little bit awkward. Mel looked around the chamber, and with a glint in his eye told Dennis he did not see anyone in the chamber registered to vote in his district. He said he was not concerned about the pressure from his colleagues but was more concerned about doing what was right for the people who voted him into office.

Mel lived each day to its fullest, and his commitment to his fellow man serves as an example for all of us.

I extend, on behalf of Senator Roberts and me, our sympathies to his two daughters Gayle and Mary Jo and to his grandchildren Abby, Katie, and Barrett. I know they loved him dearly. He loved them dearly. He will miss them and they will miss him very much.

I ask my colleagues and Kansans to remember the Minor family in your thoughts and your prayers as they face these days ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I certainly recognize that providing advice and consent of Presidential nominees is one of our most important responsibilities as Members of the Senate, and it is a responsibility that I expect and believe all of us take very seriously.

On a number of occasions, I have had the opportunity to meet Sri Srinivasan, whom President Obama has now nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I have found Sri to be a highly qualified candidate who has a distinguished career in the private sector and in the Department of Justice of both Republican and Democratic administrations, for President Bush and President Obama. I announced my support for his confirmation in advance of the Judiciary Committee realizing the same circumstance I realized, which is that we have a very highly qualified individual of integrity who has been nominated by the President. Of course, the Judiciary Committee unanimously supported that nomination to confirm him.

Sri is a fellow Kansan and is one of our State's most accomplished legal minds. He was born in India and moved with his parents to Lawrence, KS, where he graduated valedictorian from Lawrence High School in 1985. As do most Kansans, he enjoyed basketball and at one point in time was a guard on the high school basketball team playing alongside one of our State's most famous athletes, Danny Manning.

After high school, he went to Stanford University, earning a bachelor's degree, an MBA, and a law degree.

Sri served as a clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court and served with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and later worked in the Solicitor General's Office under President George W. Bush. He became the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 2011.

Sri has argued more than two dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and his nomination is supported by 12 former Solicitors General and Principal Deputy Solicitors General evenly split among political parties.

If confirmed today, Sri would become the first South Asian to serve on a Federal circuit court.

I wish to indicate to my colleagues how proud Kansans are of Sri and his success, his accomplishments, and I am pleased to support his nomination. He is one of our Nation's leading appellate lawyers, and I believe he will serve our Nation well on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Thank you very much.

I want to tell a story. It goes back to the summer of 2011. Back at that point in time, we had 30 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent. I decided it was important to work on legislation to jumpstart the economy and to work in every way possible with my colleagues to put Americans back to work.

With a foundation of compelling data showing that nearly all of the new net jobs created since 1980 had been created by companies less than 5 years old, Senator Warner and I introduced the Startup Act in December of 2011. The Startup Act was a jobs bill written to help entrepreneurs who have been responsible for most of the job creation in our country over the last 30 years.

The legislation made changes to the Federal regulatory process so that the cost of new regulations did not outweigh the benefits and encouraged Federal agencies to consider the impact of proposed regulations on startups, particularly.

Our bill made commonsense changes to the Tax Code to encourage investment in startups and reward patient capital. The Startup Act also sought to improve the process of commercializing federally funded research so that more good ideas out of the laboratories were put into market where these innovations could be turned into jobs by companies and spur economic growth.

Finally, the Startup Act provided new opportunities for highly educated and entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States where their talent and new job ideas could fuel economic growth and create American jobs.

When I began work on the Startup Act, I did not intend to write an immigration bill. My goal was simple: Find the most cost-effective way to jumpstart the economy and create American jobs. After reviewing the academic and economic data, it became clear that these strategies to create American jobs must include highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants. Immigrants to the United States have a long history of creating business in our country. We can all think of examples of individuals who have done so: Sergey Brin cofounded Google; Elon Must cofounded PayPal, SolarCity, SpaceX, and Tesla; Min Kao founded Garmin in my home State of Kansas. There is a long list of people from other countries who created businesses here in the United States that now employ thousands and thousands and thousands of Kansans and Americans. Of the current Fortune 500 companies, more than 40 percent were founded by first-or second-generation Americans. Immigrants are now more than twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. In 2011, immigrants were responsible for more than one in every four U.S. businesses founded.

Today, one in every 10 Americans employed at privately owned U.S. companies works at an immigrant-owned firm. The immigration bill drafted by eight of our colleagues and reported by the Judiciary Committee recognizes the importance of entrepreneurial immigrants. The legislation creates new visas for immigrant entrepreneurs and awards points for the merit-based visa for successful entrepreneurship. Yet this bill could be improved significantly to reflect more accurately how new businesses grow and hire workers.

Done right, an entrepreneur's visa has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of needed jobs for Americans. Now in its third version, Startup 3.0 creates an entrepreneur's visa for foreign-born entrepreneurs currently in the United States. Those individuals with a good idea, with capital and a willingness to hire Americans, would be able to stay in the United States and grow their businesses. Each immigrant entrepreneur would be required to create jobs for Americans.

In many instances our country already has made a commitment to these entrepreneurs, allowing them to study in our universities and work temporarily at American companies. Providing a way for immigrant entrepreneurs to stay in the United States and create American jobs makes economic sense.

Earlier this year the Kauffman Foundation studied the economic impact of immigrant visas in the entrepreneur's visa in Startup 3.0. Using conservative estimates, the Kauffman Foundation predicts that the entrepreneur's visa could generate 500,000 to 1.6 million jobs over the next 10 years. These are real jobs with real economic impact that could affect real American families and boost our GDP by 1.5 percent or more, a 1.5-percent increase in our gross domestic product by this provision of the legislation alone.

Anticipating floor consideration of the immigration bill, I have been speaking with entrepreneurs, investors, and startup policy experts to develop an amendment that would improve the legislation. In my view, we have an opportunity to create jobs for Americans by making certain highly skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants are able to start a new business and contribute to the growth of American companies. If we miss this opportunity, we risk losing the next generation of great entrepreneurs and the jobs they will create. I will offer an amendment to the immigration bill to accomplish these goals and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the changes to the legislation that would result in the creation of jobs for Americans.

While it is important to provide a straightforward and workable way for entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States so they can employ Americans, we also need to make sure the immigration bill addresses the needs of growing American businesses.

The current problem is twofold. American schools are not producing enough students with the skills our economy demands. While American universities do a great job of attracting foreign students to study advanced subjects, few pathways exist for these talented graduates to remain in the United States and contribute to American prosperity.

One reason for this problem is our Nation's high schools have fallen behind in STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Forty percent of high school seniors test at or below basic levels in math. Fifty percent of our high school seniors test at or below basic levels in science. By 12th grade only 16 percent of students are both math proficient and interested in a STEM career, and fewer than 15 percent of high school graduates have enough math and science to pursue scientific or technical degrees in college. It is no wonder that by the time American students go to college few are choosing to major in a STEM area subject. According to the National Science Foundation, college students majoring in non-STEM fields outnumber their math and science-minded counterparts 5 to 1.

Moreover, the growth rate of new STEM majors remains among the slowest in any category. Unfortunately, research shows that this gap continues to widen at a time when the number of job openings requiring STEM degrees is increasing at three times the rate of the rest of the job market. The number of students pursuing math, science, and engineering is declining. The demand for the jobs is increasing. Should this trend continue, American businesses are projected to need an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees by 2018, about 4 years away, but will only find 550,000 American graduates with those degrees they need.

How do we solve this problem and prepare America for the future? First and foremost, we need to do more to prepare Americans for careers in STEM fields. This will take time, but our efforts to improve STEM will yield positive results across the economy, even for those without STEM skills.

Second, as we work to equip Americans with the skills for the 21st century economy, we also need to create a pathway for highly educated foreign students to stay in America where their ideas and talents can fuel economic growth.

Startup 3.0, the legislation Senator Warner and I have introduced, addresses this immediate need by creating STEM visas. Foreign students who graduate from an American university with a master's or a Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics would be granted conditional status contingent upon them filling a needed gap in the U.S. workforce. By working for 5 consecutive years in a STEM field, the immigrant would be granted a green card with the option of becoming an American citizen.

The immigration bill we will soon consider attempts to address the immediate needs for more qualified STEM workers and the longer term need for Americans to develop the skills needed to fill those jobs. I am hopeful these aspects of this bill will be strengthened in order to provide growing American businesses with the skilled employees they need now and in the future. If growing American companies are unable to hire qualified workers they need, these businesses will open locations overseas.

I was in Silicon Valley last year, and executives at Facebook told me they were ready to hire close to 80 foreign-born but United States- educated individuals, when their visas were denied. Rather than forgo hiring these skilled workers, the company hired them anyway, but they placed them in a location in Dublin, Ireland, instead of the United States. Facebook was ultimately able to get the visas for these workers after training them in Ireland.

All too often companies end up housing these jobs permanently overseas. When this happens, it is not only those specific jobs we lose but also the many supporting jobs and economic activity associated with them. Even more damaging, more damning to me than the loss of those highly skilled workers who are now working in some other country, the end result is that someone among that group will start another company such as Google, be an entrepreneur, and start another company that creates jobs, but not in the United States--in Canada or in Dublin, Ireland. The United States loses both employment today and an opportunity for American jobs to be created in the future because our immigration policies failed to help our country retain highly educated and skilled individuals.

To me, this story and many others like it illustrate the importance of getting the policy right. Creating workable ways to retain highly skilled, American-educated workers and entrepreneurs is about creating jobs for Americans and growing our Nation's economy.

The United States is in a global battle for talent. If we fail to improve our immigration system, one that currently tells these entrepreneurs and highly skilled individuals we don't want you, they will take their intellect and skills to another country and create jobs and opportunities there.

Some of my colleagues may think I am exaggerating what is at stake, but this week Canada's Immigration Minister was in Silicon Valley recruiting entrepreneurs and promoting Canada's new startup visas. They have billboards in California encouraging those STEM-educated individuals to move to Canada where they have an immigration policy beneficial to them and their jobs. This Minister's message was simple: The United States immigration system is broken, so bring your startups to Canada, where we will get you permanent residency and the opportunity to build your business. Canada put up billboards along Highway 101 between Silicon Valley and San Francisco enticing entrepreneurs to ``pivot to Canada.''

In fact, six other countries besides Canada in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate have changed their laws and policies to encourage these individuals to find jobs and create businesses in their countries. We have done nothing. For the sake of our country and the millions of Americans looking for work, we cannot afford to lose talented entrepreneurs.

As the Senate begins debate of the immigration bill in the near future, I encourage my colleagues to keep in mind the other 11 million, those 11.7 million American workers who are looking for work and the many others who have become so discouraged they have given up.

The United States is the birthplace and home of the American dream. For years our country has been seen as the land of opportunity for innovators and entrepreneurs. We must do everything possible to make certain that remains true in the face of growing competition. When the immigration bill comes to the Senate floor, I will offer amendments to improve the bill and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting commonsense changes that will allow the United States to win the global battle for talent. Doing so will make certain that immigrant entrepreneurs have a home in the United States. In their pursuit of the American dream, they will create jobs for Americans and strengthen the American economy.

I yield the floor.