Floor Statements

Mr. President, throughout history, medical research has been responsible for hundreds of groundbreaking discoveries that have improved and saved lives, enabled health care to become more effective and efficient, and lowered overall health care costs.

May was National Cancer Research Month, and I wish to take a few minutes and recognize the importance of medical research and the invaluable contributions made by scientists, doctors, and researchers across the United States who are working not only to overcome cancer but many other devastating diseases.

With decades of research, cancer mortality rates have steadily declined since 1990, and today more than 12 million Americans are cancer survivors. In fact, the number of survivors have quadrupled since the mid-1970s, and the overall 5-year survival rate for all cancers has improved to more than 65 percent.

Decades of research and technological advances have brought us into a new era of medical care for cancer. We can now sequence all the genes of a tumor and use that information to determine the biological causes of cancer. This greater understanding of the causes of cancer has led to advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment that have saved countless lives.

Despite significant advances in research over the last few decades, much work remains to be done. More than 1.5 million Americans are expected to be diagnosed this year with cancer. It is estimated that one out of every three women and one out of every two men will develop cancer during their lifetime. In America, cancer is still the leading cause of death.

But history demonstrates that with a strong commitment to medical research, we can change these statistics not only for cancer patients but for many other patients as well. Congress's longstanding bipartisan support of the National Institutes of Health has been an integral part of establishing the United States as a world leader in research and innovation.

NIH is the focal point of our Nation's medical research and plays a critical role in laying the groundwork for the private sector to develop new drugs and treatments for cancer and other diseases.

I have seen firsthand how medical research at NIH is being translated into new treatments with a visit to the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD, which is the Nation's largest hospital devoted to clinical research.

The Center is uniquely designed to enable researchers to work directly alongside a wide range of specialists who deliver the best possible care to patients with the most advanced treatments available. This powerful arrangement has led to a long list of revolutionary medical discoveries, including chemotherapy for cancer, the first tests to detect AIDS/HIV, and the first treatment of AIDS.

Medical research leading to successful discoveries often takes years, requiring the institutional knowledge and intellect of numerous highly qualified, committed researchers. Given the vast amount of progress made over the last century and the great potential current research holds, we must not waiver on America's commitment to advancing disease cures and treatments.

If researchers cannot rely on consistent support from Congress, we will squander current progress, stunt America's global competitiveness, and lose younger generations of doctors and scientists to alternative career paths. Our Nation's researchers and scientists must know Congress supports their work and will ensure they have the resources needed to carry out their important work.

The next century holds great promise for future discoveries. By investing in

medical research, we are investing in our future.

In Kansas, the bioscience industry has grown at a faster rate than the national sector since 2001. This growth opens the doors for new medical and technological advancements.

Kansas has already become a leader in advancing biomedical and bioscience research. One example of this is the University of Kansas Cancer Center in Kansas City, which has formally applied to the National Cancer Institute to become an NCI-designated cancer center.

The National Cancer Institute is a component of NIH, and it is our Nation's principal agency for cancer research and training. Obtaining NCI designation would dramatically enhance the KU Cancer Center's ability to discover, develop, and deliver innovative treatments to patients in our State, improving their quality of life.

Currently, there are no NCI-designated centers in Kansas. With that NCI designation, KU Cancer Center patients would have access to the latest clinical trials and the most advanced cancer treatments close to home.

Because NCI designation is the highest recognition for an academic cancer center, KU Cancer Center would also be in a better position to recruit the best and brightest researchers and scientists to develop cutting-edge treatments and cures in Kansas.

In addition to saving and improving lives, medical research helps create thousands of jobs and drives economic growth across our country. NIH directly supports 350,000 jobs nationwide and indirectly drives more than 6 million jobs across our country.

Medical research also lowers costs by advancing treatments to chronic, debilitating diseases and improving early detection and wellness promotion. During a Senate Appropriations health subcommittee hearing last year, I asked NIH Director Francis Collins to explain how medical research at NIH could reduce health care spending. In his response, Dr. Collins pointed to the potential impact of medical research on Alzheimer's.

Today, annual costs related to Alzheimer's disease are roughly $180 billion, and those numbers are expected to rise to roughly $1 trillion by 2050. However, medical research leading to treatments that delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease could not only bring a better quality of life to thousands of families but also save billions of dollars.

Medical research has changed the lives of millions of Americans and has the potential to impact millions more because the possibilities are endless. But in order to plan for the future, scientists and researchers need certainty.

Today, Congress faces the difficult task of identifying our government's funding priorities, while at the same time righting our Nation's fiscal course. I will continue to advocate for fiscal responsibility, and I will also prioritize programs that effectively serve the American people.

Our consistent, sustained support of medical research is essential to saving and improving lives, growing our economy, and maintaining America's role as a global leader in medical innovation. This commitment will benefit our children and our country for generations to come. Most important, it will give us what we all desire, which is hope.

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

Madam President, yesterday a group of four Senators introduced legislation that I would like to highlight in this brief opportunity on the Senate floor. We introduced S. 3217. This legislation is called Startup 2.0 and was introduced by Senator Warner, Senator Coons, Senator Rubio, and me to begin the process of trying to create a better entrepreneurial environment in the United States, to create opportunities for entrepreneurials for innovation and to grow the economy and create jobs.

I want to personally thank those three Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats--who decided that this common phrase we hear around Washington, DC--we can't do anything this

year because it is an election year--is nothing that we are willing to tolerate. We didn't get the marching orders and instructions to say we cannot work and accomplish good work for America because there is a November election.

I want to highlight to my colleagues and ask them to join us in this effort to grow the number of Senators who find this kind of legislation valuable and appealing and to commit myself to work with Senator Warner, Senator Rubio, and Senator Coons to see that we are successful in 2012. I have talked about this legislation before. In fact, Senator Warner and I introduced the Startup Act months ago. We then joined with Senator Coons and Senator Rubio, who had introduced legislation called the AGREE Act. We took the best components of our two pieces of legislation and yesterday, as I said, introduced S. 3217, the Startup 2.0 Act.

This legislation has about five components. In broad terms, it is based upon the Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurship based in Kansas City, which is the most world-renowned organization that studies and promotes entrepreneurship. Their proposals were based upon their research and are included in many aspects of this legislation. Part of it is dealing with the regulatory environment that a startup company faces and to require that the benefits of that regulation exceed the costs. That kind of requirement has been in the law before but only for the departments, not for the independent agencies. So we know the independent agencies create lots of hurdles and handicaps in regard to the ability of particularly a young company, a beginning company, a startup company to succeed.

In fact, in my view, our legislation is based upon something I was told once by an engineer who said that for an airplane to fly, there are two forces at work: one is thrust and the other is drag. The thrust has to be sufficient to overcome the drag or you could reduce the drag so the thrust is not so necessary. What I like about this legislation is that it is so focused on reducing the drag--getting things out of the way. It is not a thrust program, meaning more government programs, more government spending, more government. This legislation provides aspects that are designed to get government out of the way and to reduce the drag so that the airplane can launch and can fly and can succeed.

One of those, of course, is the regulatory environment. Another is the tax environment. Startup companies face significant challenges in accessing enough capital to get off the ground. We were successful in passing the JOBS Act signed by the President a few weeks ago. This legislation picks up where that legislation left off.

Incidentally, I read this morning that crowdfunding is already beginning to develop a piece--a development that occurs as a result of the passage of the JOBS Act. So once Washington, DC--let me say that differently. Once Washington, DC, gets out of the way so that the private sector can pursue opportunities, those opportunities are pursued. We see that already happening with the passage of the JOBS Act in regard to crowd source funding in which we are gathering capital investments from people across the country to help new businesses commence.

This legislation, the Startup Act, makes permanent the 100-percent exemption on capital gains taxes for investments held at least 5 years in qualified small businesses so investors can provide financial stability at this critical point in their growth. The legislation also includes a limited, targeted research and development tax credit for startups less than 5 years old. So we alter R&D, we alter income taxes, and we alter capital gains in a way that is designed to create better opportunities for access to credit.

We attempt in this legislation to accelerate the commercialization of research. Billions of dollars are being spent--taxpayer dollars--at universities and colleges across the Nation. We want to incent that research to be devoted toward what can be commercialized, that brings new products, new businesses to market. So we take existing resources and utilize those dollars to reward those universities that take their research dollars and use them in ways that are more likely to be commercialized--in other words, create products, pursue dreams, and ultimately create jobs.

In addition, we create competition--at least knowledge of information, knowledge that allows somebody who is thinking about starting a business to decide which States are the most progrowth- oriented and make decisions about their location--where they should locate--based upon information. That then would also encourage States to be very entrepreneurial and progrowth, pro-innovation in their State policies.

Perhaps the most significant portion of this legislation creates two new visas. The first is an entrepreneur's visa to help foreign-born entrepreneurs currently legally in the United States to register their business and to employ Americans. In many instances, foreign-born entrepreneurs, here legally, have an idea and want to begin a company that will employ Americans but are told their visa does not allow them to remain in the United States.

The second visa that is created in this legislation is related to STEM--and this is a topic of conversation I think is so important--to retain foreign students who are studying in the United States, who have a Ph.D. or a master's degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. It is silly, it is wrongheaded for us to educate these individuals and tell them we no longer want them in the United States once they receive their degree. So the Startup Act 2.0 makes two important modifications to that current system of visas.

In addition, we include a provision from the legislation introduced by Senators Rubio and Coons, a provision that eliminates the per- country numerical limit for employment-based immigrant visas, which is another handicap in our system that prevents those who have the greatest skills and talents and intellect from being eligible for a legal visa to remain in the United States.

I heard a story from an entrepreneur in California who was ready to hire foreign-born immigrants who were U.S.-educated individuals with Ph.D.s in computer education--computer science, for example--and yet the H 1B visa program failed them. There were no slots available. So, yes, the company hired these 68 Ph.D.s--technicians, highly skilled and educated individuals--but they hired them in Canada, not in the United States. So not only is that a loss of 68 jobs, but many of those people who are now working in Canada will be the next set of entrepreneurs, and they will start their businesses, their startup companies, and grow their companies in Canada, not in the United States. So we lose in both employment today and in opportunity for American jobs in the future because we have a visa system that handicaps our ability to get the highly educated, trained, and technically skilled individuals in the United States.

Today in the local paper I read some statistics that I think are important for us to remember and to know. Research by the Partnership for a New American Economy and Partnership for New York City shows a widening gap between the supply and demand of American graduates educated in the so-called STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The number of job openings requiring such degrees is increasing three times the rate of the rest of the job market. However, college students majoring in non-STEM fields still outnumber math and science-minded counterparts five to one, according to the National Science Foundation. So five people are majoring in something other than science or mathematics for every one who majors in math or science in the United States.

If this trend continues, American businesses will be looking for an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees in 2018--just 6 years away--but will only find 550,000 American graduates with that type of training. Not only do we need to fill that gap with those who are available to us today, but we also need to encourage education in the United States and educate American students in the STEM field as well. Without easing these restrictions, we will continue to have 60 percent of foreign graduate students in the United States enrolled in science and engineering today. So 60 percent of foreign students are majoring in science and mathematics--not true of American students--and we need to reverse that course.

A study earlier this year showed that half of the Nation's top venture-backed companies have at least one immigrant founder. Three out of four claim at least one foreign-born executive.

The point is that we want the economy to grow, we want to create jobs, and we want to do the commonsense things that get government out of the way to allow the private sector to be entrepreneurial, to be innovative, and to create great opportunities for Americans today and, equally important, for Americans tomorrow. We want our kids and grandkids to have the opportunity to live and work in a growing, exciting economy. That requires the Congress to take actions today to create that environment for the private sector to succeed in creating entrepreneurship in the United States.

When we look at the last few years, we see that the net jobs filled in the United States have been filled by entrepreneurs, by new startup companies, not by existing companies. In fact, the trend is that big companies are often laying off workers while startup companies are the ones obviously hiring individuals.

I ask my colleagues to take a look at the legislation that my colleagues, Senators Warner, Rubio, Coons, and I introduced. I look forward to working with the leadership of the Senate to see that it receives appropriate consideration. We ought to do all we can do. We ought not ever use the excuse that we can't do everything; therefore, we can do nothing. These are all commonsense ideas that, in my view, will be supported by at least 80 percent of my colleagues here in the Senate. We ought not use the idea that it is an election year so we can't accomplish anything. The country cannot afford to wait. It needs our action now.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I woke up this morning in Kansas with some sad news. One of our State legislators, Bob Bethell, a 13-year member of the Kansas House of Representatives, died in a car wreck late last night. The Kansas legislature has had a difficult session and finally concluded, I believe after 100 days of the legislative session, this year's work in Topeka, and one of our central Kansas legislators on the drive home from Topeka back to Alden, KS, was involved in a one- car accident, a fatality.

I rise tonight to pay respect to my friend and former colleague Bob Bethell, and express my respect and gratitude for his public service, and my care and concern, in fact my love, for his wife Lorene and his family and friends.

Bob Bethell was, I suppose you could call him, a great politician in the sense that his constituents loved and admired him. They respected him. They cared about him. He could be called a great politician because in Topeka he was someone whose voice was listened to. But nothing about Bob Bethell was a politician.

Bob Bethell was a person who was a Baptist minister in his small hometown. He loved God greatly. God was the focus of his life. He loved the people God created in his community and across Kansas. In fact, Bob became the administrator of a nursing home because of his care for senior citizens. It was that extension of his care for seniors that caused him to want to serve in the legislature. Bob wanted to extend that opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the people he cared for in his profession with public policy decisions that were important to them and their future and their families in Topeka, KS.

Again, I would say there is nothing political about Bob Bethell. He was respected and someone everybody enjoyed being around, but it wasn't because he as a politician calculated what the right answer was or how to get along with people or one who took a poll to discover what the issues were that people supported; it was just that Bob Bethell, in his love of God, had a love of human beings, of citizens of Kansas. So we would see Bob Bethell with a smile on his face at every parade, at every community meeting.

I think sometimes in our lives, when we see an elected official, we may see someone walk across the street sometimes to avoid the political conversation. But, again, there was nothing political about Bob; he was somebody who cared about people and it showed. He enjoyed being around people; loved the conversation. He worked hard at being a constituent- service-oriented member in the Kansas House of Representatives. It is so sad for us to lose such a person.

I hope Lorene and her family and friends in Alden find comfort in the belief that God will care for Bob Bethell in the life hereafter. They believe that in their lives. They demonstrated that to the people across Kansas, and their focus was a love of others. Bob is a role model for all of us to make certain we focus on the things that matter--not the public opinion polls and not the calculation of how to get along with people, but the idea that we in public service are given an opportunity to make a great difference in the lives of others, and it ought to be that motivating factor, the one that Bob Bethell exhibited throughout his life, that we should exemplify.

So Robba and I--my wife and I--extend our greatest sympathies and care and concern to the people across Kansas, but especially to the family and the folks who knew Bob so well in his home district, the 113th House of Representatives District in Kansas. Our prayers and thoughts are extended to them, and we praise God for the life well lived of one of His servants, Bob Bethell.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, our Nation's Founding Fathers amended the U.S. Constitution more than two centuries ago to guarantee a bill of rights for its citizens. Since then, our democracy has stood strong and Americans have enjoyed liberties and freedoms unparalleled in the world, including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Today our freedoms and our country's sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations. To ensure our liberties remain for generations, today and for the future, I am offering legislation to protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of any U.N. arms treaty.

In October of 2009, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration voted for the United States to participate in negotiating an arms trade treaty--a reversal of the previous administration's position. This treaty is supposedly intended to establish ``common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms,'' including tanks, helicopters, and missiles. However, by threatening to include civilian firearms within its scope, the arms trade treaty would restrict the lawful private ownership of firearms in our country. Whether that is true depends upon what the treaty actually says.

Less than 2 months from now, the U.N. Conference on Arms Trade Treaty will take place in New York, and that presumably will determine the language that is ultimately included as the treaty will be finalized for its adoption.

Given where the process stands today, I am concerned that this treaty will infringe upon the second amendment rights of American gun owners. I am also concerned it will be used by other countries that do not share our freedoms to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.

Currently, proposals being considered by the preparatory committee at the U.N. would adversely affect U.S. citizens. I have several concerns with these proposals. First, there have been regular calls for bans or restrictions on the civilian ownership of guns Americans use to hunt, target shoot and defend themselves.

Second, by requiring firearms to be accounted for throughout their lifespan, the Arms Trade Treaty could

lead to nationwide gun registration. This despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it's been tried.

Third, other proposals could require the marking and tracking of all ammunition, including ammunition for civilian sale and use.

To make sure that our country's sovereignty and the rights of American gun owners are protected as the administration negotiates this treaty, I have sponsored S. 2205, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act. This legislation is simple.

First, it says that the administration cannot use the ``voice, vote and influence of the United States'' to negotiate a treaty that in any way restricts the second amendment rights of American citizens. This is a commonsense requirement that even the Obama administration maintains.

In an August letter I received from the U.S. State Department, they wrote:

The Administration will not agree to a treaty that will

infringe on the constitutional rights of American citizens .

. . We will not agree to treaty provisions that would alter

or diminish existing rights of American citizens to

manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer, or purchase

firearms, ammunition, and related items.

This bill will hold them to that pledge.

Second, S. 2205 specifically prohibits the administration from seeking to negotiate a treaty that regulates the domestic manufacture, possession, or purchase of firearms and ammunition. In other words, this bill seeks to maintain the sovereignty of our laws within our borders. U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside a country's own borders. This is unacceptable.

Again, the administration claims to agree, saying it ``will oppose any effort to address internal transfers.'' Congress should hold them to this pledge. At stake is our country's autonomy and the rights of American citizens protected under the Constitution.

More specifically, this legislation seeks to ensure that U.S. citizens will not be subjected to restrictions on the use or possession of civilian firearms and ammunition. It prohibits the administration from negotiating a treaty that would result in domestic regulations on civilian firearms like hunting rifles that are often mischaracterized as ``military weapons,'' ``small arms,'' or ``light arms.'' Civilian firearms must be excluded from the Arms Trade Treaty.

Preparatory committee meetings have made it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty that includes civilian firearms within its scope. For example, Mexico and several countries in Central and South America have called for the treaty to cover ``all types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.''

If those provisions were included in a treaty, that treaty would be incredibly difficult to enforce, and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry, from manufacturers to dealers to consumers.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense legislation. On July 22 of last year, 57 U.S. Senators joined me in reminding the Obama administration that our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

We notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Americans' second amendment rights. Our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified.

As the treaty process continues, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act seeks to further reinforce to the administration that our country's sovereignty and firearm freedoms must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes and my bill will make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully punished.

In the days ahead, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure an Arms Trade Treaty--if negotiations result in one--that undermines the Constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival in the Senate.

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

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

Mr. President, today we considered five separate budget proposals for the Federal Government. At first glance, that would appear to be the fiscally responsible thing to do. The families and small business owners I talk to back home in Kansas do that every year. They operate with a budget, and we know the Federal Government needs to do so as well. However, this Chamber has not passed a budget in 1,113 days. That is more than 3 years.

In my first speech on the Senate floor as a new Member of the Senate a little more than a year ago, I indicated to my Senate colleagues that my greatest concern for our country is our Nation's out-of-control spending. I am here today because I still have that concern. We spend too much money, and we no longer can delay the difficult decisions necessary to correct that problem.

Our national debt stands at more than $15 trillion. This enormous

amount of debt is slowing our economic recovery and threatening the prosperity of our future generations, who will have to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility.

Writing and passing a budget is one of the most basic responsibilities of Congress. It is required by law. The budget sets forth priorities and guidelines for the fiscal year and begins the process of determining how much money should be spent and which programs should be cut back, eliminated, or even further supported. Without a budget, the annual appropriations process--and I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I want the appropriations process to work, but in many ways that appropriations process continues to be on hold. This is not the way to run our country. To put our country back on its path to fiscal responsibility, we must set the budget. We set budget limits, and then we have to stick to them.

Any serious conversation about the budget and Federal spending must include a candid assessment of our Nation's entitlement programs. Those programs include Social Security and Medicare. Mandatory spending makes up 56 percent of the Federal budget--if we had one. This percentage will only increase in years ahead as more Americans retire and fewer workers are there to replace them. Without addressing our long-term commitments, our attempts to significantly change our country's fiscal outlook will be limited.

As I said, I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, where our appropriations process deals with about 30 percent of spending on an annual basis. We have done a reasonable job--I hate to be overly complimentary to Congress--at holding the line on discretionary spending, that 30 percent we deal with every year. It has been pretty flatlined over the last several years, but you cannot solve our country's fiscal problems by only dealing with the 30 percent that we include in the appropriations process. We have to deal with the remaining portions of our budget.

The challenge of not only the appropriations process to determine how much money we spend every year but the broader issues of so-called entitlement spending cannot be ignored any longer. Of the five budgets we considered earlier today, four of them--all but President Obama's budget--contained serious proposals to these entitlements. I can critique every one of the four budgets that move in the right direction of balancing the budget. There are things I would do differently, but I commend my colleagues for offering serious solutions to serious problems.

It has bothered me greatly that when Members of the House or Members of the Senate offer a serious budget, they are immediately attacked from a political point of view as if we can continue to ignore the problems we face and simply make sound bites out of proposals that Members of the Senate and the House care very seriously about.

We have to work together to put forward commonsense solutions that will preserve these programs for future generations. This is not about ending those entitlement programs. In fact, the reports that recently came from nonpartisan sources tell us that both Medicare and Social Security will face significant shortfalls in the near future. Therefore, this is about taking care of those programs to see that they are available for those who need them in the future. I want to be able to tell every young person--when they ask, will I be able to get Social Security when I retire, I want that answer to be yes. If we don't deal with the issues, the answer cannot honestly be yes.

In Congress, we have a solemn obligation to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Our spending debate is oftentimes seen as something that is philosophical or academic or more likely just a partisan argument, but the truth is that out-of-control borrowing and spending has a very real consequence on the daily lives of every American and certainly on the economy in which we live and operate. It is about whether Americans can find a job, make payments on their homes and automobiles, and whether their children will have a bright future and the opportunity to pursue what we all call the American dream.

When we continue to fail to balance the budget, when we don't put ourselves on the path toward a balanced budget, it means increasing inflation, with higher interest rates and an uncertain economy, which results in fewer business investments and fewer jobs.

The greatest opportunity we have to improve the lives of Americans is to erect an environment where employers feel comfortable in investing in the future and create jobs so people can go back to work. When they go back to work, they can put food on their family's table, they can save for their children's education, they can save for their own retirement, and most importantly, every person in America will once again be able to pursue the American dream.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier today I attended a memorial service to honor our Nation's law enforcement officers who laid down their lives to protect their fellow citizens. Since 1962, May 15 has stood as a day of remembrance for the many fallen police officers who faithfully served our communities and our Nation. They must never be forgotten.

This year 362 names were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, and among those names were three brave officers from Kansas. Two of these men died in the line of duty many years ago, but we paused today to remember their sacrifice.

In 1892 Andrew Balfour of Kiowa County was filling his duties as a local sheriff and pursuing a man who was wanted for theft when he was mortally wounded. Andrew passed away at the young age of 41, leaving behind a wife and six children.

In 1992, William Bloomfield, a deputy sheriff, was serving in Bourbon County and arresting a well-known killer when he was killed during a fierce gun battle.

These two men were killed while carrying out their duties. Rather than shirk from danger, police officers face danger with courage, and that is exactly what these two men did.

Just 5 months ago, Kansans were grieved by the loss of another officer, SGT David Enzbrenner of Atchison, KS. On December 9, 2001, David joined a fellow officer on a routine call to see a local resident. As they were turning to leave the front steps of the home, a person suddenly appeared and opened fire on David without warning. This act of violence was unprovoked and forever robbed the Enzbrenner family of their father, husband, and the Atchison community of a loyal public servant.

When we lose someone in a community in Kansas, it is not just a name to us. It is somebody we go to church with, it is somebody we see at our kids' activities at school, it is somebody we know and care for. That is how Atchison felt about David.

In remembering David, Atchison Mayor Allen Reavis said:

He was No. 1 father, No. 1 husband, No. 1 partner to his

fellow officers, No. 1 son.

Inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington are these words:

It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it

is how they lived.

Police Chief Mike Wilson served alongside David for 24 years and referred to the words inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Memorial when he said this about his former colleague and friend:

Those words speak directly to David. How true about our

brother.

David was dedicated to his family, his fellow law enforcement officers, and his community. He was well known in Atchison and well loved. David attended high school there and served in the Atchison Police Department for 24 years. David was also on the board of trustees at his local church and found great joy in teaching and coaching his daughters on their softball teams.

Last December I witnessed the impact that David had on the local community when I attended his memorial service and more than 2,000 people gathered to pay their respects to him. During the service, many moving tributes were read about David and how he lived his life. One that stood out from among the others was a statement from David's wife Kerri. She said this about her husband:

David was a man of few words. He always tried to keep a

simple life. And when I questioned things, he would remind me

that it's okay sometimes not to understand.

We don't fully understand. We don't understand at all why David's life was taken or why the lives of more than 19,000 officers we remembered today ended so soon. But we express our gratitude for their service and dedication to their communities and to our country.

During National Police Week, we also remember their families and the loved ones they left behind. May God comfort them in their time of grief and be a source of strength for them. May he also protect all those who continue to serve today.

I want to especially mention David Enzbrenner's wife Kerri and his three teenage daughters Avery, Abbi, and Celia. I want them to know we honor the way David lived his life and tell them we love and care for them today and always.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask consent to address the Senate as in morning hour.

Madam President, once again, it is that time of year when many proud parents will watch their children walk across the graduation stage to receive their diplomas. Two years ago, I watched my oldest daughter saunter across her college graduation stage and it was one of those moments for me in which I realized our country faces tremendous, enormous challenges, and if we fail to act our children's future will be at significant risk.

I believe all Members of Congress, in fact every American, has the responsibility to be a good steward of what has been passed on to us. At that graduation event, I renewed my commitment to do my part to turn our country around.

My fear is we are not doing enough, that we as Americans and especially we as Members of this Congress are not doing enough to offer our children a bright future. In the last 2 weeks, I have read headlines that caught my attention. They would catch every American's attention.

First, the amount of student loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in American history. Americans now have more combined student loan debt than combined credit card debt.

Second, the AP recently reported that one out of every two college graduates this year will be unemployed or underemployed. Unfortunately, it is not just college graduates who are having trouble finding a job and paying their bills. The Department of Labor reported just last week that more than 12 million Americans are still looking for work and our economy only added 115,000 jobs in April, the lowest number of jobs added in 5 months. This makes 39 straight months of unemployment rate over 8 percent.

Our first priority in Congress must be to strengthen our economy so more jobs can be created, more Americans can get back to work, and more graduates can pursue their dreams. Data tells us that for close to three decades, companies less than 5 years old created almost all the new net jobs in America, averaging 3 million jobs each year. While startups provide the gasoline to fuel America's economic engine, new businesses are hiring fewer employees than in the past and make up a smaller share of all companies than in previous years.

Troubling data out last week from the Census Bureau shows that the startup rate fell to the lowest point on record for new firm births in 2010. While startup companies are so important to job creation, their numbers are now falling too. Given the disproportionate impact new businesses have on

the economy, it makes sense to craft targeted policies that help entrepreneurs start businesses and that make it easier for these young businesses to grow.

A former NASA engineer now in the technology field gave me a useful analogy. He described the process of designing a rocket or an airplane, in which there are two forces at play that determine whether the rocket will launch or plane will fly: thrust and drag. So much of what we want to do around here tends to focus on the thrust, spending money and creating programs, when what we ought to be doing is focusing on reducing the drag.

Rather than spend money on government programs, Congress must and should enact policies that create an environment in which many entrepreneurs and their young companies have a better shot at success, and in the process of pursuing success they put people to work--reduce the drag so the private sector can create jobs.

To create this environment where these startup companies can be successful, I have introduced the Startup Act with Senator Warner. The Startup Act reforms the Federal regulatory process to ensure that the cost of compliance does not outweigh the benefits of regulations. The Startup Act alters the Tax Code to create incentives that will facilitate the financing and growth of new businesses. The Startup Act accelerates the commercialization of university research so more good ideas move out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, where they can create jobs for Americans.

Perhaps most important, the Startup Act helps America win the global battle for talent.

On a recent trip to Silicon Valley, I met with startups, entrepreneurs, and some of the leading technology companies in the world--and they were just startup companies a few years ago. While I heard many encouraging stories of success, their No. 1 concern was attracting and retaining highly skilled employees. One business I met said they had plans to hire dozens--I think the number was 68--foreign- born but U.S.-educated individuals and to hire them here in the United States, but they were unable to get the visas necessary to have these workers work in the United States. Rather than lose that talent, this company hired the employees but placed them at various international offices in countries with immigration policies that encouraged the retention and attraction of highly skilled foreign-born workers.

Another company told me that with the talent increasing overseas, it will soon be easier for them to open offices and plants in other countries rather than have the work done in the United States.

The last thing we want is for American businesses to have a better business climate in places outside the United States. It is not just the loss of those dozens of jobs to some other country; many of those people in those businesses will become entrepreneurs themselves and create their own businesses, hiring even more people down the road. So we lose this talent, this skill on two occasions--first, the direct jobs today and ultimately the jobs these entrepreneurs will create in the future.

The future of our economic competitiveness depends upon America winning the global battle for talent. Foreign-born Americans have a strong record of creating businesses and employing Americans. Data shows us that 53 percent of immigrant founders of U.S.-based technology and engineering companies completed their highest degree at an American university, and rather than send these talented, highly educated individuals who have been educated in the United States back home once they graduate, we should do much more to allow them to remain in the United States, where their skills, their talents, and their intellect, as well as their new ideas, can fuel U.S. economic growth.

We are not talking about illegal immigration; we are talking about legal immigration. It makes no sense to educate these talented, foreign-born students in America and then send them to their home countries to compete against Americans for jobs.

The Startup Act will help America win this global battle for talent. The Startup Act creates entrepreneur visas for foreign entrepreneurs who register a business and employ Americans in the United States. By encouraging more entrepreneurs to stay in America, they will not only start more businesses but they will employ more Americans and strengthen our economy. The Startup Act also creates a new STEM visa for foreign students who graduate from an accredited U.S. university with a master's or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. Our own Department of Commerce projects that STEM jobs will grow by 17 percent in the years ahead. We have to retain more highly skilled and highly talented and educated individuals, the ones we educate in America, for us to remain competitive in a global economy. We are going to make sure our own U.S.-born and educated citizens have those job opportunities as well. We do not want to risk the loss of the next Mark Zuckerberg to Brazil or India. Doing so will fuel America's economic growth and result in the creation of jobs here in America by retaining these folks.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, Congress should address this issue. Congress's conventional wisdom says not much will get done. My guess is 80 percent of my colleagues in Congress would agree with the proposals contained in this legislation. Particularly, 80 percent I think would agree with the aspect of the legislation dealing with STEM visas. But we are told that because we cannot do everything, we cannot do anything. That excuse is no longer a good one and should not be accepted. We cannot continue to operate under the sentence that always says we can't do anything in an election year. Our country desperately needs us to act now, not later. In fact, in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate--about 14, 15 months--six other countries have changed their laws to encourage these types of individuals to work in their countries, to create jobs, to support entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in those countries. In just the little over 1 year I have been a Member of the Senate, six other countries have advanced further than we have while we have waited because we cannot do anything because it is an election year.

America cannot turn a blind eye to those developments or to use the upcoming elections as an excuse to do nothing, yet again, on an issue that is so critical to our future. Congress should work to make it easier for companies to grow because in a free market, when people have a good idea and work hard, they not only enhance their own with success but the lives of so many others through the products and jobs they create.

If we do not take the steps now to win the global battle for talent, our country's future economic growth will be limited. That means college grads and young people will have fewer opportunities, and higher rates of unemployment may become the norm instead of the exception. Allowing talented, foreign-born U.S. students and entrepreneurs to remain in the United States will create jobs for more Americans.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to implement policies such as those contained in the Startup Act so more entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into reality, that they will have the chance for success. We owe the next generation of Americans the opportunity to pursue their dreams--that those who this month walk across the graduation stages in high schools and colleges and universities, technical colleges and community colleges across our country, will have the opportunity to pursue what we all know as the American dream.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as certainly every Kansan and all Americans know, our gas prices are on the rise and the U.S. economy continues to struggle. I believe one of the most important things Congress can do now is to facilitate the production of affordable energy in this country. In Kansas, we have the third highest number of highway miles in any State in the country, so higher fuel prices are particularly difficult for Kansans who drive long distances each day for work and school. When business owners pay more for fuel, they have less to invest in their businesses and fewer resources to use to hire new employees.

In our State, higher fuel prices increase operating costs for farmers and ranchers who produce much of our Nation's food supply. One Kansas farmer feeds 155 people. The global food supply is threatened when food producers have to pay high costs to plant, harvest, and transport their production.

Higher gas prices don't just affect the farmer or rancher filling their equipment; they also affect every American as they shop at their grocery store. While producers have to pay higher fuel costs, so do the folks who transport the goods to market. So that increased cost gets passed on to the consumer. We all are paying more.

For the United States to remain competitive in this global economy, Congress must develop a comprehensive national energy policy. No single form of energy can provide all the answers. High fuel prices and an uncertain energy supply will continue until we take serious steps toward increasing the development of our own natural resources.

Our country has some of the most plentiful, affordable, and reliable energy sources available. Our own Congressional Research Service has reported the United States has greater energy resources than China, Saudi Arabia, and Canada combined. Unfortunately, access to those resources continues to be restricted.

Technological advances have made the exploration, extraction, and transportation of oil and gas safer and more efficient. Yet the Obama administration has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand energy production. In the President's State of the Union Address, he claimed oil and gas production has increased under his leadership. While private lands are being further developed, and energy production is being increased on those private lands, energy production on Federal lands has actually decreased. According to the Department of the Interior, oil production on Federal property fell by 14 percent and natural gas production fell by 11 percent last year.

The failure to explore and develop our vast natural resources on Federal lands hit an unfortunate milestone last week. Ten years ago, the Senate failed to open a fractional portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for responsible resource development. Those opposed to developing that small portion of that vast area claimed the resources available in ANWR would not reach the market for 10 years. Well, here we are, 10 years later, no closer than we were in 2002 to gaining our energy independence.

American businesses involved in the oil and gas industry can bring these resources to market and send a strong signal to the world that the United States is serious about energy security. Yet rather than allowing these companies to deploy their expertise and increase production, there are those who say oil and gas companies deserve even more taxes--a tax increase. Raising taxes on the very businesses tasked with locating, extracting, and distributing the fuel to power our economy would do nothing to lower costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, it would do exactly the opposite.

When the Congressional Research Service analyzed President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal last year to raise taxes on the oil and gas companies, they concluded those efforts would have the effect of ``decreasing exploration, development and production while increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says these taxes would reduce domestic supply and hurt consumers.

To increase domestic production, I have sponsored the 3 D Act, which would require the administration to reverse their cancellation of dozens of oil and gas leases, open areas previously restricted to responsible oil and gas development, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and streamline the environmental review process that continually ties up worthy projects in costly bureaucracy and litigation.

The administration is also delaying projects that will improve our energy's infrastructure. The President's denial of TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline permit delayed an important project that would create thousands of jobs and bring billions to the U.S. economy. This private investment in energy infrastructure is exactly the type of investment the President should be encouraging. Construction projects create jobs and boost local economies.

For example, back home in Kansas, Clay County is a small, lowly populated county. Their utility sales to TransCanada could quadruple their overall sales and add more than $\1/2\ million to the local economy every year. This would be a significant boost to the county's economic development.

President Obama's own Jobs Council cited the pipeline construction as a way to boost the economy in their year-end report released January of this year, stating:

Policies that facilitate safe, thoughtful and timely

development of pipeline, transmission and distribution

projects are necessary to facilitate the delivery of

America's fuel and electricity and maintain the reliability

of our nation's energy system.

But TransCanada's project has been stalled as the company works to seek a new route through the State of Nebraska, to our north. But instead of putting the entire project on hold, we would be much better off if we would allow construction to begin in areas not subject to this rerouting so jobs could be created and our Nation could have greater access to more reliable energy. S. 2041, which I have sponsored, would do that.

Renewable energy must also play a role in supplying our energy needs as new technologies allow for the increased commercialization of renewable fuels. Kansas is a leader in wind production and second only to Texas in wind resource potential. Innovation in biofuel production has also increased our ability to develop additional energy from renewable sources available in my home State of Kansas.

Nuclear energy is a necessary component that will help us supply our country's future energy needs and allow our country to be less reliant on energy

from other nations. I will continue to support initiatives to spur growth in the nuclear energy industry, including initiatives to streamline regulatory compliance.

Energy exploration must be accompanied by energy conservation. When Americans drive more efficient vehicles and occupy energy-conserving buildings, they not only consume less energy, they save money. At a time when gas prices continue to climb, we need to be looking for more innovative ways to help consumers save money on energy bills.

Congress must develop a comprehensive national energy policy--a policy based upon the free market principles that say we can find the resources necessary to meet our country's needs. We must develop our domestic sources of oil, natural gas, and coal, encourage the development of renewable energy sources, and promote conservation.

Not only would the development of our Nation's resources reduce our dependence on foreign energy, it would also provide our economy can with a reliable, affordable fuel supply. If future generations of Americans are to experience the quality of life we enjoy today, the time to address our energy needs is now.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am here this evening to express concern about the developments of the day in which I thought we were going to be addressing the issue of postal reform with the goal of making certain that this Senate, this Congress makes decisions in short order that would preserve the financial viability, the future of postal delivery and the Postal Service of the United States. I am concerned now because apparently the process has been put in place by which virtually no amendment can be offered to the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2011.

On two occasions I voted to proceed to this piece of legislation. It is an important one, in my view. The idea of reforming and improving the opportunity for the financial viability of the Postal Service is important to the country. It matters to the Nation. We have an obligation under the U.S. Constitution to provide postal service. It matters in the sense that there are many items that are transported in commerce on an ongoing daily basis in which the Postal Service is the method by which that transportation occurs, by which we certainly deliver mail and packages. Shipping occurs in the United States as a result of the viability of the U.S. Postal Service. It is important, in my view, especially to me as a Kansan.

One of the things that is pending in the absence of reform, improvements, and financial stability in the Postal Service is the potential demise of many rural post offices across Kansas and around the country. In my view,

and I have expressed this to the Postmaster General, the U.S. Postal Service on many occasions has made a decision that I think, while it may save a few dollars, reduces the service the Postal Service provides and ultimately hastens the day in which the Postal Service has even more challenges remaining viable. One of those was the decision by the Postal Service to close many rural post offices across the country, 130-plus in Kansas.

We have had attendance at more than 90 of the community meetings that revolve around the potential closing of a post office. I have expressed great concern in the committee. I serve on the Committee on Homeland Security, in which this bill originates. During that markup and debate, I expressed concern then and expressed concern on several occasions to the Postmaster General that there is no basis for making an intelligent decision about which post office should or should not be closed. In fact, when citizens across Kansas and across the country attend one of these community meetings, their question to the representative of the Postal Service is, What can our community do? What can I do to make certain our post office remains open and we have the opportunity to receive and have mail delivered from here at the U.S. post office in our community?

In working with the committee, provisions were added to the 21st Century Postal Service Act that create criteria by which these decisions would be made and the community has an opportunity to appeal should the decision be adverse and those criteria not met.

In my view, the Senate should not delay any longer addressing the issue of what we do to make certain the Postal Service is and remains viable today and in the future. It matters, as I say, for a series of reasons but certainly to me as a Kansan who is concerned about what happens to the community, its senior citizens, if there is no longer postal service provided.

I know there are some in the Senate and in the House of Representatives and across the country who want to make certain the Postal Service is operated as a business. I certainly support that concept and believe we ought to do what is necessary to improve the business environment by which the Postal Service conducts its business. There is a long list of those. Some of them are addressed in the legislation that I hope remains pending here in the Senate.

But there is another reason in addition to the need to provide service to Americans that we need to address this issue. I want to make certain the decisions we make today eliminate the need that there ever would be a call upon the taxpayers of the United States to provide taxpayer dollars to support the Postal Service.

I am here this evening to encourage my colleagues but particularly the majority leader to work to find an agreement by which amendments can be offered to this bill so that we do not lose the opportunity we have this week and next to address this issue of making certain we make changes to the Postal Service that allow it to be successful.

I am concerned that, as I understand it, there is no agreement yet that would allow Members of the Senate to offer amendments to this legislation. While the provisions of this bill are important to me and important to Kansans, I also recognize the importance to every Member of the Senate to be able to offer legislation, to have debate, to make certain that our rights are protected. I know that particularly in a sense as a member of the minority, as a Republican in the Senate, but I know that even more as a member of a minority called rural America. I do not want to lose the opportunity in the Senate for me to be able to speak on issues that are important to my constituents and to be able to offer amendments to legislation that is important to a minority of Americans called rural America.

What I am troubled by and what I want to see addressed is the legislation that is pending. I do not want it to disappear because there is no agreement for Members of the Senate, all 100 of us, majority and minority, to offer amendments. So I am asking the majority leader to work with Senators to make certain their amendments are available for consideration in this legislation. Don't put me and other Senators, who care about this legislation, in the position of not being able to support moving forward because the rights of some Senators have been violated in their ability to offer amendments to this piece of legislation.

Again, this matters. The Postal Service desperately needs our attention. The American people who are served by the Postal Service desperately need our attention. We need to set the stage today in which the taxpayers of the United States are protected from any future calls for support for the U.S. Postal Service. We need to make certain in that process, as we pursue this legislation, that the ability of those who live in rural communities, where it is very difficult for the Postal Service to be financially viable, to have access to the Postal Service is not trampled on by the desire to see that only those post offices that are financially viable individually are the ones that remain. In fact, I remind my colleagues that the Postal Rate Service Commission in their study said we could close 3,700 post offices in the United States and save less than .7 percent of the money necessary to put the Postal Service back on a financially sound basis.

This legislation is important. The concepts that are contained in it matter to me as a Member of the Senate who represents a very rural State, Kansas. But I also know how important it is to make sure we do not lose our ability to offer amendments on this legislation or legislation in the future.

Please, Mr. Majority Leader and other Senators, please come together to make certain those rights are protected so this legislation can be fully considered by the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the weekend the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany returned to the negotiating table with Iran for the first time since January 2011. Reports indicate modest progress was made, and a second round of talks has now been scheduled for May.

While these negotiations represent an opportunity to achieve a peaceful outcome regarding Iran's nuclear program, the United States and our allies must guard against Iranian delays. Iran has a history of using negotiations as a stalling tactic. While our negotiators talk, the centrifuges keep spinning. That is the crux of the problem--Iran's nuclear program continues.

According to the most recent report in February from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has produced more than 5,400 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and more than 100 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 20 percent. Enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent represents 85 to 90 percent of the work needed to reach weapons-grade fuel. Iran is also preparing additional cascades used to produce enriched uranium, which will accelerate the speed at which it can stockpile nuclear material. In total, Iran has enriched enough uranium

that, upon further processing, could build three to four nuclear weapons.

In response to Iran's continued nuclear program and its defiance of United Nations' Security Council resolutions, the United States and many of our allies have adopted sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are having a significant impact on the Iranian economy. In March, Iran's oil exports fell nearly 300,000 barrels per day or 12 percent, according to foreign reports. Iran's currency has lost roughly half its value in the past year, and inflation is more than 20 percent. The new European Union sanctions are scheduled to take effect this summer. These would make it even more difficult for Iran to ship oil globally.

Once the EU sanctions go into effect in July, the Congressional Research Service estimates that oil sales could fall by up to 40 percent.

In addition, a major Chinese insurance provider has announced it will no longer insure ships carrying Iranian oil. These are important developments that will increase economic pressure on the Iranian regime. Yet neither sanctions nor past negotiations have stopped Iran's nuclear program and its quest for a nuclear weapon.

Iran's nuclear program threatens American interests. First, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons increases the risk of global nuclear proliferation, which would jeopardize the security of the United States. The last two nations to acquire nuclear weapons--Pakistan and North Korea--have presented numerous challenges to American security interests.

North Korea provoked international condemnation last week when it launched its rocket. In Pakistan, a December report in the Atlantic called into question the security of that country's nuclear arsenal, stating that Pakistan regularly transports nuclear weapons through city streets without much security.

If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon other nations in the Middle East may soon follow. Saudi Arabia has already said it will consider seeking nuclear capability if Iran's program is not stopped.

Second, a nuclear Iran could increase its support of terrorism. Iran is already one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism, funneling money and weapons and supporting training for terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. With a nuclear weapon Iran and its terrorist allies may be emboldened to carry out even more attacks. Furthermore, what would prevent Iran from giving nuclear weapons to one of the terrorist groups it supports, sharing its capabilities with one of the terrorist groups?

Third, a nuclear Iran could exert more influence over world oil markets. A direct link exists between volatile oil prices and Iran's nuclear program. Prices have risen when tensions have increased, and when tensions recede prices typically decline. American consumers and businesses are directly affected by these volatile prices that negatively impact our economic well-being.

Although Saudi Arabia has pledged to boost production to make up for the loss of Iranian oil on the market, this will reduce spare production capacity and leave our country and the global economy vulnerable to any reduction in supplies, whether from conflicts within oil-producing nations or from natural disaster.

Finally, a nuclear Iran would threaten the safety of American troops serving abroad in the Middle East. For years Iran has fought American presence in the Middle East and has supported terrorist groups who have targeted and killed American troops. American officials believe Iran supported the terrorists responsible for the 1996 attack on a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 of our servicemen.

Iran also has long-range missiles that could hit U.S. military bases in the region, including ones in Turkey, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Iran's nuclear program also threatens the existence of our ally, Israel.

The President of Iran has called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.'' If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, its leaders would have the capability to do the destructive things of which they speak. Understandably, Israel is worried. Israelis know all too well the price of war because they have witnessed war and destruction. They know what can happen when evil men gain the ability to carry out evil deeds.

While some would have us believe Iran is Israel's problem, we should not be fooled. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens all nations that care about global peace and stability. We cannot leave Israel to deal with this crisis alone. American leadership is needed now more than ever to stop Iran. We can begin by passing the Iran Sanctions Accountability and Human Rights Act. This legislation, which came through the Banking Committee, on which I serve, earlier this year strengthens and expands existing sanctions and for the first time makes it official U.S. policy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The administration and President Obama must also fully enforce U.S. law and penalize those who violate U.S. sanctions.

In addition, the U.S. should use current negotiations to bring about an end to Iran's nuclear program. As a party to the nonproliferation treaty, Iran must adhere to its obligations under that treaty and provide transparency to international inspectors.

The longer Iran's nuclear program continues, the greater the danger grows for the United States and all nations. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in Washington. He is an incredible leader, and his speech to Congress last year was one of the best I have ever heard. While speaking in Washington last month, he laid out very clearly why a nuclear Iran would be such a grave danger. He said for the last 15 years he has been warning the world about a nuclear Iran.

We must not be fooled by negotiations that only stall and continue to create the opportunity for greater disaster down the road. Prime Minister Netanyahu said no one would be happier than he if Iran gave up its nuclear quest. But there are many around the world who would be happy because we all know the world would be a far safer, more peaceful place without a nuclear Iran. While we all desire a peaceful resolution, negotiations must not be a stalling tactic or an excuse for inaction.

Thursday of this week is Holocaust Remembrance Day. As we pause to remember and reflect on this past tragedy, the United States must act to prevent a nuclear Iran and the real possibility of a future tragedy. The world cannot again look the other way.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor today, especially with the Senator from Wyoming, a doctor who is such an expert on the topic of really not just the moment, not just the day, but the topic of what our country faces.

I will say that I do spend a lot of time in hospitals across our State talking to health care providers, talking to patients, doctors, to administrators, trustees. In fact, there are 128 hospitals in our State. I have visited all of them, and there is genuine concern about the future of the ability for health care to be delivered in communities across our State. And you add to that the physician and other health care provider community, and this health care reform act is creating significant challenges.

My interest in public service started a long time ago with the belief that we live our lives in rural America, in my State of Kansas, in a pretty special way. When I came to Congress, it became clear to me that if our communities were going to have a future, it was dependent upon the ability to deliver health care close to home. And those rural communities across our Nation often have high proportions of senior citizen populations where Medicare is the primary determining factor of whether they can access health care.

When the affordable care act was passed, many promises were made, but one of the things that was told to the American people--or at least the attempt was made to sell to the American people--was that there would be greater access. And I would certainly say that one of the promises that is not being kept about the affordable care act is the likelihood that there is going to be greater access for Americans across our country to health care because this bill is underfunded, it is not paid for. The consequences are that the administration is already proposing and Congress will always be looking for ways to reduce spending when it comes to health care, and the most likely target is the payment Medicare makes to health care providers, which in many instances already doesn't cover the cost for providing the service. So when we look for access to health care, every time we make a decision, every time a decision will be made in order to try to make this more affordable, we are going to see fewer and fewer providers able to provide the services necessary to folks across the country but especially in rural communities where 60, 70, 80, even 90 percent of the patients admitted to the hospital are on Medicare.

So one of the problems with the affordable care act is the reality that it will reduce access to health care for people who live in rural America and we will see fewer physicians accepting patients on Medicare, we will see fewer hospital doors remain open; as this bill takes $500 billion out of Medicare to begin with, the Congress that passed and the President who signed this legislation set the stage for there to be less affordable health care available to Americans across the country but especially for constituents of mine who live in a rural State such as Kansas.

That is true. The point made earlier about the goal of the legislation bending the cost curve down--it didn't do it, it doesn't do it, and it cannot do it. That created the problem we all face now. How can we have access to affordable health care if we are not reducing the cost of health care?

The end result, in my view, is that Americans will have less options for their own plans. As employers, they will provide either less options or no options for their employees. So the idea that people are going to get to keep what they have, that begins to disappear. If they are a senior citizen and Medicare has been their primary provider, we go back to the idea that we didn't bend the cost curve. So in order to make health care affordable--when the legislation fails to do that, we find other gimmicks to do that. One of the things this bill creates is IPAB, an independent agency that will make decisions about what is covered by people's health care plans. The goal will not be to have better quality health care; the goal of the IPAB will be to reduce expenditures.

As the promise was made that people get to keep what they have, it becomes totally different than what they have experienced in their health care plans--either in their own private health care insurance or as a beneficiary of Medicare. Even the President's own Medicare Actuary estimates that the law will increase overall national health care expenditures by $311 billion during the first 10 years alone, and that private health care insurance premiums will rise 10 percent in 2014.

So if we are complaining today about the increase in premium costs, there is more to come. In 2014, the Medicare Actuary says there will be another 10 percent increase in your health care premiums. At the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their economists found the increasing growth rate in health care spending will occur in every sector of health care. More recently, the Congressional Budget Office, our neutral provider of analysis, says the cost of the health care law may be substantially higher than earlier estimated.

One of the things I would suggest we should have done and that never happened--if we want folks to be able to keep what they have, if we want access to health care in rural and urban and suburban places in the country--we should have done something about fixing permanently the reduction of payments to physicians--the so-called doc fix. One would have thought, in health care reform, that would have been front and center. Because if we don't have a physician providing a service, we don't have health care. Yet we have a Medicare system that is going to reduce the payments. In fact, expected this year, the reduced payments to physicians was going to be 30 percent.

The reality is, no longer will physicians accept Medicare patients. The option the American people were promised about keeping what they have disappears one more time. In fact, at a townhall meeting in Parsons, KS, this year, a physician in the front row said: Senator, you need to know I no longer accept Medicare and Medicaid. I will take cash, but I cannot afford to provide the services based upon the Medicare reimbursement rate I get. When you add in all the paperwork, trying to comply with Medicare and Medicaid, it is no longer financially feasible for me in this small town to provide the services my patients need under Medicare.

So we are going to see a lot less access because, once again, this is a failure. The promise that was made to bend down the cost curve, to reduce health care costs, to reduce premiums was totally false.

I thank the Senator from South Dakota. I am pleased that we are here finally on a topic of significant importance to the country. We have heard for a long time about the necessity of creating jobs, of creating an opportunity for Americans to succeed. In fact, I would guess that is the primary motivation for why many of us serve in the Senate: so that every generation, those who follow us, but those even today have the opportunity to pursue the American dream.

I think our goal is not to create a circumstance in which no one fails, but the goal is to create a circumstance in which many succeed. So while it has been very disappointing that the Senate has failed for so long to get to the important topic that we should be addressing, job creation, we are finally here today.

I commend the leaders of both parties for reaching an agreement that allows us to begin the discussion and ultimately, hopefully, pass the JOBS bill in a form just like the House passed a few days ago.

I came to this issue of job creation and innovation and entrepreneurship with a realization that this Congress is failing--this administration is failing to address the issue of the deficit and the financial condition of our country. I believe my kids and those Americans who follow us are going to be in much worse shape because the administration and Congress have failed to address the issue we face today, which is our country is broke. We are spending money we do not have.

We cannot seem to resolve that issue in a way that puts us on a path toward a balanced budget. I will not ever walk away from my belief that is necessary. I will continue to work as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and in every capacity I have to see that we get our spending under control and that we are on that path toward balancing the budget. Because of the failure of the administration and the leadership of the Senate to address this issue of the deficit, I started looking for ways in which we could approach the deficit in perhaps a way that is easier for us to grasp, easier for us to deal with.

And that is job creation, because the more people who are working the more taxes that are collected and the more money comes into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury to pay down this tremendous debt. These two issues are actually related. I have tried to figure out how to explain to Kansans why the deficit matters in whether they have a job or can pursue a better job. The answer is that no business is going to expand, grow, or invest in capital and plant and equipment and hire new people if they are concerned that the United States might be the next Greece-- the next country in which our creditors decide that we are no longer capable of paying back this tremendous debt that has accrued over a long period of time now and escalated in the last few years.

The goal of paying down the debt is certainly worthy in and of itself. But if we can do that, we also have the opportunity to create an environment in which business feels comfortable in hiring more employees and adding plant and equipment and investing in their business and growing it.

Today we come to the floor in support of the JOBS bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, in hopes that the Senate will do so in short order. It is the opportunity we have to make a tremendous difference so that Americans can, today and in the future, pursue that American dream.

We, over a long period of time, have created many impediments toward the success of that job creation. The Senator from South Dakota talked about the regulatory environment, and we have highlighted on the Senate floor a major overreach that fundamentally alters the way we live our lives back home in Kansas in regard to family farms. Farming and ranching in our State is a family operation. Yet the Department of Labor believes it is their role to tell parents what that relationship should be with their own children and their ability to work on their own family farm. It is just an example of this mindset in our Nation's capital that exists today that says we know better than the American people, better than the moms and dads, about the families, about what is the role for a young person working on a family farming operation in Kansas and across the country. That is an example.

Those regulations are there today and they are being proposed all the time. In my view, if the Federal Government believes it has this significant role to play in defining the relationship between moms and dads and working on a farm, what can't the Federal Government tell us back home what we can and cannot do? If they can go so far as to--I guess I should say, who more than a parent cares more about the safety of their own children, whom they are working side by side with or working with a neighboring farm? This is but one example in which we have decided that the government knows best, the Department of Labor knows better than moms and dads.

Once we reach that kind of conclusion, then there is nothing off limits for the Federal Government to say we know better than the citizens of our country. That is a misguided approach to the Federal Government, the role that we are to play. But it is a handicap and hindrance toward the ability of the American people, the entrepreneurs, and those who believe in the free enterprise system--it is an impediment to them ever pursuing that opportunity to create jobs and an economy that encourages job creation.

I appreciate earlier Senator Warner, the Senator from Virginia, being on the floor talking about legislation he and I are working on called the Startups Act. We continue to believe there is a great opportunity for entrepreneurs. In fact, research from the Kaufman Foundation shows that startups less than 5 years old have accounted for nearly all of the net jobs created in the United States from 1980 to 2005. In fact, startups create 3 million new jobs every year.

What we are about today is a portion of this legislation that Senator Warner and I have introduced, the Startups Act, about the capital formation provisions of the bill. We have been working with Senators Coons and Rubio and others to blend these provisions into the Startups Act, but a portion is now on the Senate floor. I am here to commend the opportunity that we have today to pursue that portion of job creation. It is not enough, but it is certainly a great beginning point for us in the Senate to follow the lead of the House of Representatives and create an opportunity for capital formation.

This legislation creates tax incentives that will spur investments in startups, reduce the regulatory burden and barriers that make it harder for startups to grow, and win the battle for us to see that the United States remains a highly competitive, innovative, entrepreneurial environment in which businesses succeed. I suppose what we say about businesses succeeding--it is not about necessarily the business success but about the consequences of that success, which is that Americans will have jobs, the opportunity to put food on the families' tables, save for their kids' education, save for their retirement, and meet the responsibilities we have as parents and members of the family.

I join the Senator from South Dakota in my strong support for moving forward and passing this JOBS legislation. I also ask the Senate to consider further legislative initiatives, such as the one Senator Warner and I have, to make sure we do more to create that circumstance, that opportunity in America, where everybody has that opportunity to succeed, and that many will.

Yes.

Mr. President, I have no doubt that the ability to have an economic recovery and create jobs is, in so many ways, determined by what happens with our actions in regard to an energy policy and the development of our own resources.

Certainly, while we are here to talk about jobs today, there is a national security, military stance issue that is, unfortunately, related to our strong dependence upon foreign energy supplies. This Congress, this administration, in my view, needs to get out of the way and let the private sector begin the process of meeting our country's energy needs.

When we talk about high prices and complain about the price at the pump, what we are complaining about is that the supply is insufficient to meet the demand. The supply is not increased and the demand goes up, and the resulting consequence is increasing prices. You can remedy that by increasing the supply of energy in this country. We have a vast array of those resources that, because of the regulations, environment, and the policies of the Federal Government, we are unable to pursue. The market would send the message that we need more supply, but the regulators are in the way of making that happen.

In a State such as ours, as the Senator from South Dakota says, we have to drive long distances. Agriculture is dependent upon natural gas for fertilizer and fuel, for irrigation, and diesel fuel matters to us; and we have many industries that consume energy in the creation of manufactured products. Every time the price goes up, the ability to create a new job goes down.

This country desperately needs an energy policy that is focused on the production of energy, using our own resources to meet our own country's needs. It is a significant and critical component if we are going to get the economy back on track and have jobs created.

Mr. President, just to conclude, I would like to thank and commend the Senator from South Dakota for his leadership on these issues and again express my pleasure that we are finally taking up legislation that will make it easier for new businesses to raise capital, creating a phase-in period for small, growing companies to comply with government regulations that will help young businesses expand and could ease the decision to go public, and, finally, to update our securities laws that have been in place since the 1930s to reflect a 21st-century marketplace so they can expand access to capital for entrepreneurs to grow their businesses. And all this is done with the goal of creating the circumstance where many will succeed.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I share the genuine concern expressed by the Senator from South Dakota. Farmers have so many things to concern themselves with in the ability to earn a living. The weather is not always their friend. Is this the right crop to grow? What are market conditions going to be? How do we predict? How do we have risk management? And always concerned about what the Federal Government, through its regulatory agencies and departments, is going to do, to create one more impediment toward the success of farms and ranches across our Nation, to always be worried about the issues related to the Environmental Protection Agency. And now comes the Department of Labor with a proposed set of rules that will fundamentally alter the nature of farming and ranching.

The Senator from South Dakota said it well when he said that inherently agriculture, farming and ranching, is a family operation, and that is certainly the way it is across the State of Kansas and across the rural portions of America today. I have always been an advocate for the success of farmers and ranchers during my time as a Member of the House of Representatives and now in the Senate. Certainly part of that is the economic viability of that is agriculture determines the ability for communities across my State to survive and to prosper and to bring another generation of young people back to rural communities, back to the rural part of America. But there is also something very special about agriculture. It is the way that historically in our Nation, in the history of our country, we have been able to transmit our character, our values, our integrity from one generation to the next. It is one of the few professions left in which sons and daughters work side by side with moms and dads, with grandparents, and have that opportunity on an ongoing daily basis to work, to learn something about what is important in life, about personal responsibility, and that you cannot plan your day based upon your own preferences; there are cattle to be fed; there are crops to be harvested; that there is something more important in life than just what you want to do.

Again, this is the way we live our lives. In the process of living this kind of life, we pass on things that are so important to the character of the individual, and over the history of our Nation, the character of who we are as Americans has been molded by the fact that agriculture, farmers and ranchers, have played such an important component in the way Americans have lived their lives.

The Department of Labor announced a few days ago that they are going to repropose a portion of the rule and that they are hoping Americans, farmers and ranchers, Members of Congress look the other way, that they are doing something significant to change the onerous nature of the rules that are proposed. While they have agreed to repropose a portion of the rule related to the definition of family farms, there remain are two significant components important to the way we live our lives--that we pass on to the next generation those inherent characteristics that we desire so much and that we will lose the opportunity to entice a young person to decide agriculture is their means of earning a living as they grow older.

You have to have experience as a child to learn what opportunities are available for you. Students who become teachers have been enthused about becoming a teacher because of an experience in a classroom. Well, it works the same way on a farm in Kansas or South Dakota or in Arkansas. It is the experience that child has, that young person has in working with their families, with neighboring farmers that causes them to think: When I grow up, I want to work on this family farm. I want to earn my living in agriculture.

While a portion of the rule is being reproposed, don't take your eye off the consequences of the remainder of the rule, even if we get a good definition of a family farm in the reproposed rule. What remains is replacing the things that have a time-honored tradition and success in rural communities, in agriculture, in educating our kids--FFA, 4 H, county extension; those things are being replaced and the Department of Labor is going to become the decider of whether a young person has the capabilities to work on a family farm.

The Department says that those things, FFA, 4 H, and county extension, are too local and that we have to have a nationally driven policy from the Department of Labor to decide how we educate and train and make certain we have safety for young people working on farms.

The other part of the proposed rule that remains, that is not involved in any new modification and is working its way through the process--and we expect the Department of Labor to announce in a few months their final rule--is the definition of farming practices that even if the Department of Labor determines that this young person has the right safety credentials to work on the farm, these things are still prohibited--things such as working 6 feet off the ground. Six feet off the ground is where you are when you are on a tractor or when you are on a combine. So what the Department of Labor is doing is taking away a whole segment of the things that are important to young people on the farm. You cannot work with a wheelbarrow and a shovel to clean out a stall, you cannot herd cattle.

In fact, the proposed regulation says you cannot do anything in animal husbandry that inflicts pain upon the animal. Those are things that are pretty important, such as branding and breeding and dehorning and vaccinating. Certainly young people across Kansas and South Dakota have the opportunity to do those things today and take them away, and it diminishes the opportunities that are important to them in earning a living and saving money for their future, but also takes away those other invaluable characteristics of working side by side with farmers who know the real meaning of life, with moms and dads, grandparents, and neighbors.

I very much appreciate the Senator from South Dakota and the sentiments he expressed.

Just another example to show the overreach of these regulations, one of the proposals by the Department of Labor has sought comments on whether we should limit the exposure of direct sunlight if the temperature reaches a certain limit once you factor in wind velocity and humidity. How is a farmer going to make a decision under those circumstances--whether or not this young person could work on the farm based upon daylight, humidity, temperature? We are going to have to hire a meteorologist to make a determination whether that day it is OK for a 15-year-old to be working on the farm.

I have invited the Secretary of Labor to come to Kansas to experience farm life. That invitation was not accepted. I don't begrudge the Secretary of that. It is not expected necessarily that the Secretary of Labor would come to my State and visit with farmers, although we would love to tell her the story.

We had asked for an opportunity to have a conversation with the Secretary of Labor here in Washington, DC. I was happy to go to her office. That also was denied.

As the Senator from South Dakota indicates, a letter from 30 Members of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats--it wasn't a partisan issue. Senator Nelson of Nebraska was my colleague in asking the Department to extend the comment period so that farmers, during fall harvest, would have a greater opportunity to comment on this rule. It was a bipartisan letter asking for certain information. We learned again this week that the Department of Labor says that letter from 30 Senators--I don't mean this in an arrogant way, but we represent constituents who have serious concerns with a regulation that we believe will fundamentally alter the way we live our lives in agriculture--the answer was, we are going to treat that just like any other letter, which means we are going to send a form letter really telling, I would guess, not much of anything and certainly not answering our questions.

We have asked folks across the country to take a look at the Web site keepfamiliesfarming.com, and we are soliciting comments from folks across

the country so we can try to submit these to the Department of Labor and make the case known. We would ask the American people, particularly those who understand the importance of this issue, to rise and express their concern and tell the Secretary of Labor, tell the Department of Labor the tremendous consequences of a regulation that changes something that is so important to the character of rural America and the character of our country nationwide.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation with the Senator from South Dakota and would be glad to yield to him.

I appreciate those sentiments. I would say that these proposed rules did not come about as a result of Congress passing a piece of legislation or of there being congressional hearings finding a series of problems in regard to safety with young people on farms. In fact, the Department of Labor admits they have no real academic, scientific studies that were compelling them to reach this conclusion. In fact, there are studies out there that show that young people are safer today on farms.

This is a matter that is so important to so many people. Yes, we are probably a significant minority, but we need the help of our colleagues from urban and suburban America to help us hold back this intrusion that will fundamentally alter American agriculture, farming and ranching, and a rural way of life.

I have a letter from a young girl in Stockton, KS. Stockton is a town of probably about 1,500, 1,600 in population. Her point was this: I didn't grow up on a farm, but I love agriculture, and I need a job. There is only a convenience store and a bank and a grain elevator in my town. In the absence of my ability to work on a farm in the neighborhood, my ability to have a job as a teenager is greatly diminished. I think I might be interested in being a farmer or a rancher someday.

I think it is the dream of every farmer, every farm family to be able to say: We are going to pass this farm on to the next generation--to our own kids or to young people.

Farming is this way of life that farmers and ranchers are so proud of and believe they serve--and they do--they serve such a noble profession in feeding and clothing and providing energy to a hungry and cold and difficult world. Agriculture certainly is about economics, but there is an understanding of what farmers and ranchers do that is important to the world, and we need to make certain there is another generation, another set of young people who can step into the shoes of an aging population of farmers and ranchers across the country.

Again, these proposed rules need to be totally withdrawn, and we ought not accept the ruse of a portion of them being proposed.

Everything I know about this topic suggests that it is otherwise. In fact, the farm organizations and commodity groups of the wide array of those who advocate across the country on behalf of agricultural producers are aligned with us in opposition to these rules. So it can't be that they were involved in the process of developing the rules because they--at least every organization I know that is involved as a commodity group or a farm organization is adamantly opposed to what the Department is suggesting.

Madam President, I am here today to raise once again a topic about how we raise our children in rural America, and I want to talk for a few moments about the proposed Department of Labor child farm labor rules.

Last week, we had perhaps what would be considered a piece of good news. The Department of Labor announced it would withdraw and repropose the parental exemption portion of their proposed child labor rules. I am worried, however, despite this good news, there are still a lot of consequences that will occur as a result of the proposed rules that are not being withdrawn, and there is no suggestion they are going to be reproposed.

The thing I want to make clear to my colleagues is that while the Department of Labor announced they were going to withdraw a portion of the rules, unfortunately, the majority of what is going to be offensive, difficult, and a challenge for our way of life in rural America remains.

Last year, of their own volition--no direction by Congress--the Department of Labor proposed a set of rules to put restrictions in place upon a young person's ability to work on a farm, including their own family farm. What we are talking about here is youth less than 16 years of age. Those rules, as proposed, would actually restrict the ability of a son or daughter to work on their parents' farm.

The current rule is that if your parents own a substantial interest of that farming operation, you can work on your family's farm. The rules as proposed by the DOL are going to narrow that definition, as follows: If your family operates in a family farming corporation or a limited liability company, these new restrictions would apply. Fortunately, that portion of the proposed rules the Department of Labor has withdrawn, and I assume they will be reproposing what their definition of a family farm is.

The point I want to make is that so much of the proposed rules yet remain, and the remaining portions of the rules still threaten to fundamentally alter agriculture as we know it today. If the DOL rules, as now proposed, go forward, the education and training for the next generation of farmers and ranchers will be severely disrupted.

We have relied upon 4-H, FFA, and county extension programs to provide farm safety training and certification for a long time. The Department of Labor now says they no longer want those programs to qualify because they are too local. They want a national standard. They want to replace with a Department of Labor safety training program what has traditionally and very effectively occurred through 4-H, FFA, and county extension programs.

The Department has, in my view, ignored research that shows the programs we currently have in place with FFA and 4-H and county extension improve the safety habits of young people, and instead criticizes these training programs for being too locally driven and lacking Federal direction. Their solution is to nationalize these programs and have them run by the Department of Labor. In my view, local experts in our high schools, our FFA programs, and our 4-H clubs should be the ones conducting training programs and educating our young people. And parents and communities should be allowed to look after the best interests of their families and their communities and citizens.

The Department of Labor, in addition to attacking the programs that are in place, that are valuable to us in rural America, is also proposing to change the so-called agricultural hazard occupations. The proposed rules would prohibit a young person under the age of 16 from participating--even with the certification and safety training from the Department of Labor--in doing such things as rounding up cattle on horseback or operating a tractor.

The proposed rules say you cannot be involved in production agriculture if you are more than 6 feet off the ground. In today's environment, in today's agriculture, tractors and combines are 6 feet off the ground.

You can't clean out a stall with a shovel and a wheelbarrow. Those are things I am sure the 15-year-old does not want to do, but they are important to a family's farming operation, they are important to agriculture and of value to a young person in their training and developing skills that are important to them for the rest of their life.

They can't work in a pen with a bull or mama cow. Here is one that really stands out to me: No engaging or assisting in animal husbandry practices that ``inflict pain upon the animal,'' such as branding, breeding, dehorning vaccinating, castrating, and treating sick animals. The ``inflicting pain'' restriction sounds like something more than an interest--``inflicting pain'' sounds like a different standard than really worrying about the young person's safety. These are important tasks that have to be done on a farm and that young people can safely do.

One additional example that stands out to me is that they are suggesting in the rules that they would limit a young person's exposure to direct sunlight if the temperature reaches a certain limit once you factor in wind velocity and humidity. How does that work in the practical world of agriculture and farming today? For someone in Washington, DC, to propose rules that restrict a young person's ability to work on a neighbor's farm because of the amount of sunlight, wind velocity, and humidity is something that again, in my view, demonstrates a lack of understanding about how things work in the real world.

One would assume the Department of Labor, before making such drastic changes to farm labor rules, would have identified reliable evidence and data to show the need for changes. In fact, the Department of Labor admits it lacks the data to justify many of its suggested changes.

Furthermore, according to the National Farm Medicine Center, youth- related injuries from farm accidents have declined nearly 60 percent from 1998 to 2009. I have no doubt that if you ask a farmer or a rancher about the importance of safety, they would tell you that safety is a top concern, especially when they are dealing with a young person. But they would also tell you that critical to a rural way of life is being able to train and encourage the next generation to safely and successfully pursue careers in agriculture. If today's young person is not given the chance to learn at a young age what it takes to operate a farm, we put at risk the future of agriculture in our Nation.

I have always had a strong interest in agriculture. The economy of my State of Kansas revolves in many ways around the success of farmers and ranchers. Communities across our State are dependent upon the success, the profitability of production agriculture. But I also have known and strongly believe there is something more than just economics to family farms. This is the way that historically, in our country, in our Nation's history, we have transmitted our character, our values, our integrity, our love of life, and our understanding of how things work from generation to generation. It has worked. It has been an important component of our country's history, who we are as American people.

Today, across Kansas, when I visit with business owners, they tell me they love to hire farm kids because they have a different characteristic, a different makeup, a standard that is different from other people. They learn something about reliability and that work does not get done if you do not show up, that it is not about punching the clock to check in and to check out, that a calf is born at times that are inconvenient to a farmer. There is just a different set of characteristics a young person develops by growing up and working on a family farm. If these changes go into effect--and the rule as

proposed is being considered, and it is expected we will have an answer from the Department of Labor within several months as to what the final regulations will be--if these rules go into effect as they are written, not only will we see a shrinking rural workforce, but our Nation's youth will be deprived of valuable career-training opportunities and a certain way of life many of us highly value will disappear.

It is important to us as a country--certainly to a State such as mine--that a young person experience the value of farming. I do not know how many times you talk to somebody who has determined what their career is going to be based on an experience they had as a young person and their ability to know what they want to do with their life is determined by the experiences they had as a young child. Our country cannot afford to lose the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

This rule should be withdrawn in its entirety. We know rural America's values are not always Washington values, and in the weeks ahead I ask my colleagues and Americans across the country to express their opposition to the Department of Labor for this destructive rule. Do not allow it to move forward so we can protect our values for the next generation of American farmers and make sure rural America remains a great place to live, grow, and raise a family.

I yield the floor.