Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate so much the remarks of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

It was a significant moment in my brief time as a Member of the Senate when, 3 months ago, Senator Wyden and I had a conversation here on the Senate floor about this legislation, about PIPA and about SOPA and about the open Internet, and it was a moment in which Senator Wyden found me looking for ways in which I could be engaged in the process of trying to create an environment in which entrepreneurship flourished in the United States.

I had been discouraged or disillusioned a bit by the lack of Congress's and the President's ability to find ways to reduce spending and to balance the budget, and while I don't intend ever to walk away from those important issues, it became clear to me that another way we can reach a more balanced budget is to have a growing economy. I started looking at research that would suggest how we get there. When Senator Wyden presented this thought to me about engaging on this issue, it was one that made so much sense to me, and I am very grateful for the partnership we have developed.

Senator Wyden and I, as he said, intended to speak this evening about our concerns about the PROTECT IP Act prior to the bill being considered this week on the Senate floor. But because of the actions of millions of Americans in voicing their concerns about this legislation, it is no longer necessary for us to throw procedural obstacles in the way of the PROTECT IP Act, and I

appreciate the majority leader withdrawing his plan to hold a vote tomorrow on this legislation.

Last week's events in which we all received so much input is a very good reminder of what a powerful tool the Internet can be. It was encouraging to see so many Americans get involved, particularly young Americans who often choose not to be involved in the process. But they saw something important to them, and they knew exactly how to communicate with elected officials. What became clear last week was that Congress, in this issue and its far-reaching implications, was not fully yet understood, and so to take a pause, to take a step back and to reconsider the direction we were going seems so appropriate to me.

Congress has the responsibility to remain engaged and up to speed on all issues, particularly those that so directly impact our economy. It is no easy task given that technology is constantly evolving, but it is an important task. Technology holds incredible promise, from strengthening education, to delivering health care more efficiently, to allowing entrepreneurs to develop products that have yet to be invented. By remaining more engaged, Congress will also be better able to enact public policies that encourage Americans to innovate, create new products, and strengthen the economy.

Last week's decision to delay consideration of PIPA was an important moment for many innovators and entrepreneurs across America, and it was an outcome that my colleagues and I--Senator Wyden and others--sought to see occur. It is important also not just to entrepreneurs, though, but to people who are concerned about freedom and about the opportunity to use the Internet to communicate, the opportunity for free speech. And certainly we had concerns about national security. My concerns about the PROTECT IP Act can be summed up like this: Certain provisions in this legislation will threaten free speech, innovation, and our national security.

I am adamantly opposed to legislation that tampers with the Internet security, specifically the Domain Name System. Internet engineers have worked for 15 years to develop a way to authenticate the sites we visit to make sure they are secure and to enhance commerce on the Internet. At a time when our Nation faces increasing numbers of cyber attacks from abroad, PIPA and SOPA would create significant security risks and set America back more than a decade.

Second, both PIPA and SOPA would create new liabilities because of vague definitions in the bills that would drag companies into unnecessary and prolonged litigation. We don't need more legal battles. Congress should not put in place a system that would force law-abiding innovators to utilize their limited resources in the courtroom to defend themselves rather than invest in their companies, develop new products, and hire new workers.

America is a country of innovation that was founded on freedom and opportunity, and that has been true since the birth of our Nation when entrepreneurs have strengthened our country and its economy by creating new products and sharing them around the world. Americans today still want the opportunity to develop new products and to innovate in the marketplace. Because of the power of technology, ideas that were once only imaginable have now become a reality.

About 1 year ago, Google announced that it was accepting applications from cities across the United States to deploy a 1-gigabit Internet connection, which is roughly 100 times faster than what most users could experience today. Last March, much to my delight and the delight of many Kansans, Google chose Kansas City as the Nation's first Google Gigabyte City. In fact, Kansas City was selected from more than 1,100 cities that had applied and competed.

Many people in the Kansas City area were soon asking: What is actually possible with a gigabit Internet connection? What happens when you connect an entire community with a gigabit Internet connection?

An organization called Think Big Partners wanted to know the answer to those questions, so they put together a competition called Gigabit Challenge. The Gigabit Challenge was a project based on an idea and a prediction. They predicted that when Americans are given access to cutting-edge technology--in this case, one of the fastest bandwidths in the world--new innovations, new applications, and new products would be created. So they challenged entrepreneurs and innovators to come up with products that will leverage this new network capacity and offered significant cash prizes for the three best ideas.

The response was overwhelming. Mr. President, 113 ideas were submitted from 5 continents, 7 countries, and 22 States. The list was eventually narrowed down to 17 companies that presented last week to a distinguished panel of judges. I had the opportunity to join Think Big Partners in Kansas City last week for part of that event, and I was impressed, so impressed, by what I saw. I congratulate the prize winners tonight who competed, and I congratulate all who competed and brought new ideas to the table.

The Gigabit Challenge underscores the fact that Americans want to innovate, and Congress should encourage innovation rather than create new hurdles for American creators and innovators. One of the most important things Congress can do to encourage innovation is to make it easier for entrepreneurs to start a business.

Last month, Senator Warner and I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Startup Act to jump-start the economy through creation and growth of new businesses. Data from the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City shows that between 1980 and 2005, nearly all of the net jobs that were created in the United States were created by companies less than 5 years old. In fact, new businesses create about 3 million jobs each year.

The Startup Act recognizes the job-creating potential of entrepreneurs and is based upon five progrowth principles:

First, the Startup Act will reduce the regulatory burden on new businesses and startups.

New businesses, which are almost always small, face a tough challenge complying with the various rules and regulations that govern business behavior. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, companies with fewer than 20 employees spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with Federal regulations.

The president and CEO of the National Association for the Self- Employed, who endorsed the Startup Act, said this:

The majority of small businesses are enterprises of 1-2

people. . . . Cutting down on some of the unnecessary red

tape that new businesses must face means that the owner can

spend more time growing their business, hiring employees, and

helping to turn our Nation's economy back around. The Startup

Act would help address these regulatory burdens faced by new

companies.

Reducing regulatory burdens means entrepreneurs will have more time and money to invest in their business and to hire more workers.

Secondly, the Startup Act creates tax incentives to help facilitate the financing of new businesses so they can get off the ground and grow more quickly.

One of the greatest challenges for startups is accessing the necessary capital to grow their business. The Startup Act provides capital gains and income tax incentives to facilitate financing the new business at its critical juncture of firm growth. Helping entrepreneurs attract investment and retain greater share of the company's profits will lead to job growth.

Third, the Startup Act recognizes that innovation drives the American economy.

Some of the best minds in the world work and study at American universities. The innovation that occurs on campuses across the Nation contribute to the strength and vitality of our economy. To speed up the movement of new technologies to the marketplace where they can propel economic growth, the Startup Act uses a portion of existing Federal research and development funding to support innovative projects at American universities in order to accelerate and improve the commercialization of cutting-edge technologies developed through faculty research. When more good ideas make their way out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, more businesses and more jobs are created.

Fourth, the Startup Act encourages pro-growth State and local policies through the publication of reports on

new business formation and the entrepreneurial environment in States.

I am proud that Kansas City leaders recognize the importance of policies that support entrepreneurs. Last year, area leaders declared that Kansas City should be called ``America's Most Entrepreneurial City,'' given their efforts to encourage entrepreneurship.

Better policies at the State and local level will create more opportunities for entrepreneurs to open businesses and put Americans to work.

Finally, the Startup Act will help win the global battle for talent by keeping entrepreneurial-minded and highly skilled workers in the United States.

For too long, our Nation's immigration policies have turned away American-educated talent and sent highly-skilled individuals back to their home country where they competed against America. Rather than lose that talent, we need to keep those highly-skilled individuals and potential job creators in the United States.

The Startup Act recognizes the job-creating potential of entrepreneurial and highly-skilled immigrants, and provides additional opportunities for those who are here legally on a temporary basis to stay if they have the high-tech skills our economy needs or are willing and able to create jobs for Americans.

Highly-skilled workers will fuel growth at technology startups and entrepreneurial immigrants will employ Americans.

Business and industry leaders across the country are speaking out about the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship. Gary Shapiro, the President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, said this:

As a country we must do more to support and foster

innovation and entrepreneurialism, and the introduction of

the Startup Act is an important step forward.

Dr. Robert Atkinson, the President and Founder of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation echoed those remarks. He said:

The United States is at risk of losing its economic

leadership and vitality and it is essential for policymakers

to unite in practical ways to reverse this trend. The Startup

Act is a commendable example of what is needed to restore

U.S. innovation-based competitiveness.

The millions of Americans who spoke out last week against a bill that would stifle innovation on the Internet understand the importance of this too.

Fostering innovation and promoting entrepreneurship are not Republican or Democrat ideas they are American values.

What occurred last week is a reminder to all of us in this Senate about the leadership that is necessary. Again, I congratulate Senator Wyden for providing that leadership. With good leaders in Washington, DC, and with the American people who understand in many instances better than we often do the value of entrepreneurship, of free speech and an open Internet, great things can once again happen in the United States of America. Our economy can flourish and grow.

It is so important that what occurred this week, with the legislation not proceeding, sets the stage for greater opportunities for Americans across our country to have a dream, to pursue it, to succeed, to spend their time pursuing that dream, and in achieving their dreams they have the opportunity to create success for others.

I urge my colleagues to work with me. Let us work together. Our country cannot wait until after another election to get the economy growing again.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I know we are all anxious to reach a conclusion on significant legislation that is pending. It determines many things important to Americans and it creates the opportunity for Members of the Senate and the House to spend a little

time at home during the holiday season. I am reminded how blessed I am this holiday season to return home to a rural State, where family values and community traditions run deep. There is no tradition more important to us than how we pass on, from one generation to the next, the workings on a family farm.

I am worried these rural traditions are under attack by Washington, DC. In September, our Department of Labor proposed new rules that would ban youth under the age of 16 from participating in what are many common farm-related tasks such as rounding up cattle on horseback, operating a tractor or cleaning out stalls with a shovel and wheelbarrow. I am sure there are many 15- and 16-year-olds who would be happy not to do that work, but it is important work, and it is a way fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, grandparents, work side by side with family members.

One of the things I care a lot about is agriculture. That matters to us in places such as Kansas because that is the economy of our communities. But I also know it is important for other reasons as well, not just dollars and cents. It is important because it is how, historically, in this country, we passed on our values from one generation to the next. Working side by side with moms and dads and grandparents is the way we pass on character and values and integrity from one generation to the next. It is something that throughout the history of our country has been important across our Nation when every place was a rural part of our Nation.

To most young people growing up on that family farm, jobs are routine, it is a part of their lives. These Department of Labor regulations are going to intrude significantly in that ability. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, about 98 percent of our country's 2 million farms are family owned. By working alongside those parents and grandparents, important skills and values are learned. The problem we face now is that agriculture is a way of life and the Department of Labor wants to change that.

Until recently, farms jointly owned and operated by multiple family members had discretion over the responsibilities they gave their children on the farm. But this new rule would do away with that freedom. The Department of Labor is proposing to tell farmers and ranchers: We know what is best for your children and what they should and should not be doing.

The Department of Labor is also trying to do away with successful farm safety and training certification programs. In our part of the country and around the Nation, 4-H and FFA county extension offices are very important. They play a critical role in training and certifying young people to safely carry on farm activities. That happens today. But the Department has ignored research that shows such programs improve safety habits of young people and instead criticizes these training programs for being too locally driven and lacking Federal direction.

One would assume, before making such a drastic change to farm labor rules, the Department would identify reliable evidence and data that show the need for changes, but it is quite the opposite. In fact, the Department of Labor admits it lacks data to justify many of its suggested changes. Furthermore, according to the National Farm Medicine Center, youth-related injuries from farm accidents have declined by nearly 60 percent from 1998 to 2009.

If you ask any farmer or rancher about the importance of safety, they would tell you safety is at the top of their list. It is their children. It is their neighbor's children. They care greatly. But they would also tell you it is critical for the rural way of life to be able to train and encourage the next generation to safely and successfully begin careers in agriculture. If today's young people are 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.

If these changes go into effect, not only will the shrinking rural workforce be further reduced and our Nation's youth be deprived of valuable career training opportunities but, most important, a way of life begins to disappear. Our country cannot afford to lose the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

I shared my concerns with the Secretary of Labor several weeks ago, in which we asked for a delay, a longer comment period. The comment period was running through fall harvest across most of the country. The Department of Labor granted a 30-day extension, but that expired December 1, about 2 weeks ago. Parents and communities should be allowed to look after the best interests of their families and citizens. Now that comment period has run. I hope the Department of Labor will take into account the serious concerns by farmers and ranchers, their families, and agribusiness across the country. But just a delay and longer comment period is insufficient. In fact, I am circulating a letter among my colleagues in the Senate that I am asking them to sign, requesting the Department of Labor not proceed to implement these rules. I ask my colleagues to take a look at that letter and please join me.

Local experts should be the ones conducting safety training programs to educate our Nation's young people. The future of agriculture depends on stopping this vast overreach of Executive authority, protecting individual rights.

We know rural America's values are not always the values held in Washington, DC. In the weeks ahead, I will continue to work with my colleagues to make certain this destructive rule does not move forward so we can protect and preserve our values for the next generation of American farmers and ranchers, values our country so desperately needs.

One of the beneficiaries of growing up on a family farm in Kansas is somebody I would also like to mention briefly this morning. As Members of Congress, we surround ourselves with bright minds and fellow natives of our home States. I have had the privilege of working alongside a young man, Aaron Popelka, as a member of my staff for 6 years. In those years, Aaron has proven himself to be a thoughtful voice in a chaotic Capitol Hill culture. With a bright policy mind, Aaron has advised me on agriculture and energy and trade policy while also serving as my chief council.

A native of Munden, KS, Aaron brought with him a commonsense approach to the way he conducted his duties on behalf of our State. Aaron will continue his duties on behalf of Kansans but in a different fashion. Aaron has accepted a position back home in Kansas and will leave my staff at end of the year. The lure of returning home to Kansas is powerful. Over the years, I have lost valued members of my staff, much like the rest of you. However, I appreciate the fact that while their departure from Washington DC is not pleasing to me, more often than not they return home to Kansas and the result is a benefit to our home State.

I am thankful for having had Aaron as a member of my staff. I am thankful for the faithful service he has provided to my fellow citizens in our home State. But I am most thankful for his friendship and I look forward to our paths crossing again back home.

Aaron, best of luck to you and God bless you and your family.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to explain my absence from rollcall votes 230 and 231 on Thursday, December 15, 2011.

I was unable to vote yesterday because I was back in Atchison, KS, paying my respects to slain police sergeant David Enzbrenner. Officer Enzbrenner was a veteran of the Atchison Police Department but, more important, he was a loving dad and a caring husband. Although I returned to Washington today to continue the important work being done in the Senate, my thoughts and prayers continue to be with Officer Enzbrenner's family and the Atchison community.

Mr. President, earlier today, I submitted a resolution with my colleagues from Ohio and Massachusetts, Senators Brown and Kerry, to recognize the 40th anniversary of the signing of the National Cancer Act of 1971 and to reaffirm our Nation's strong, bipartisan commitment to cancer research and the more than 12 million cancer survivors alive today because of that research.

This commitment to cancer research is supported by 40 Senators from both sides of the aisle who cosponsored this resolution. Additionally, this resolution is endorsed by more than 105 cancer institutes and hospitals, medical schools, and patient groups, including the University of Kansas Cancer Center.

Forty years ago this month, President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act into law. The creation of this law marked a turning point in our Nation's efforts to prevent and cure cancer and set in motion a coordinated and focused approach to cancer research.

The return on our commitment to cancer research is measured in lives saved, a better quality of life for cancer survivors, and an enormous economic benefit to our country and world.

Since the National Cancer Act became law in 1971, the 5-year survival rate for all cancers combined has risen consistently--this rate is now at 68 percent for adults and 80 percent for children and adolescents, up from 50 percent and 52 percent, respectively, in 1971.

It is estimated that every one percent decline in cancer mortality saves the U.S. economy $500 billion annually.

Our country has made significant progress in combating this devastating disease, but more work remains. This year, more than 1.5 million Americans are expected to be diagnosed with cancer. Of those individuals, many will face a very serious, life-changing diagnosis.

Today, I am proud to help submit a resolution that reaffirms our sustained, strong commitment to cancer research that will help improve the entire spectrum of care for patients, from prevention to early detection and diagnosis, to treatment and long-term survivorship, and most importantly--cures.

Madam President, a few weeks ago, in November, in communities across our country, our Nation's men and women in uniform were honored on Veterans Day for their service to our Nation. I wish to share a story with my colleagues of one exceptional Kansas veteran who is no longer with us but whose story stands as a lasting tribute to the members of our Armed Forces whose courage and sacrifice preserve our freedoms.

Father Emil Kapaun was born in Pilsen, KS, in 1916 and served as a Catholic priest in the diocese of Wichita for 4 years before volunteering for the U.S. Army in 1944. During the Korean war, he served as a chaplain for the 8th Calvary Regiment of the First Army Division.

His courageous actions in the Korean battlefields saved countless lives as he ran under enemy fire to rescue wounded soldiers. When Father Kapaun was taken prisoner in 1950, he continued to live out the Army chaplain motto: ``For God and country.''

In the bitter cold of winter, Father Kapaun carried his injured comrades on his back during forced marches through snow and ice, gave away his meager food rations, and cared for the sick who were suffering alongside him in the prison camp. When all else looked hopeless, this simple priest from Kansas rallied his comrades, regardless of their faith, to persevere, until his own death as a prisoner of war in 1951. This good man distinguished himself by laying down his life for the sake of others.

Earlier this year, Senator Roberts and I introduced legislation to award this Kansas war hero the Medal of Honor for his acts of valor in the Korean war. The legislation would request and provide the Department of Defense and the President with the authority to grant this important honor. By waiving the 3-year statute of limitations--the timeframe in which it can be awarded--Father Kapaun would be eligible to receive the Medal of Honor.

Senator Roberts and I offered this legislation recently as an amendment to the Senate Defense authorization bill and the amendment was unanimously approved by the Senate. I thank Senators Levin and McCain for their support. My Kansas colleagues in the House were also successful in including this language in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I ask that with such strong support from both Chambers this provision be included in this year's final Defense authorization bill.

Father Kapaun is most deserving of the distinguished award and I am hopeful the Secretary of Defense and President Obama will use the authority outlined in this legislation to give Father Kapaun his long overdue recognition.

At this special season of the year, we are reminded that there are saints and heroes throughout the history of our Nation who put others above themselves and live by God's plan for their lives. May we be inspired by their example and live our lives accordingly. Father Kapaun demonstrated that one person can make a difference and help change the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just a few moments ago we cast several votes in regard to the so-called payroll tax holiday. I opposed both the Republican amendment and the Democratic amendment.

There were significant differences between these two versions of this legislation; in part, the differences at least included the way that the provisions were paid for. While I may support the pay-fors, I objected to what the pay-fors are paying for.

I support freezing the pay of Members of Congress, the elimination of certain benefits to millionaires, and reducing the Federal workforce. But wouldn't we be better using the proceeds of these reductions in spending to reduce the debt and deficit rather than a short-term change that reduces the revenues going to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds? When are we going to admit we are broke?

I am reminded of a plan approved by Congress just several years ago where we borrowed money to give citizens a $600 rebate, all in the name of a stimulus. We wanted to stimulate the economy and, in my view, what we did was we stimulated little and increased the debt a lot.

Many of us have expressed support for the concepts contained in the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan. Their recommendations are very important and we have paid a lot of attention to them and expressed our desire to proceed in that way. Many times we have said that. But the legislation we just voted on uses many of their suggested reductions in spending, not for deficit reduction but for another stimulus plan. The Bowles-Simpson plan has been hijacked once again in the name of stimulating the economy.

These proposals also undermine the foundation of Social Security. We are reducing the payments into the trust fund. We should leave the trust fund alone and cut spending and use those savings to pay down our annual deficits and live within our means. Once again, we are putting off difficult decisions and leaving it up to our children and grandchildren to pay for our irresponsibility.

Finally, let me, once again, on this floor make the case for certainty in our Tax Code. Congress is tinkering tonight with the Tax Code, creating greater uncertainty. In almost every conversation I have with a business owner, they ask for certainty in the Tax Code and certainty in the regulatory environment. But instead, tonight we are changing or attempting to change the Tax Code one more time, for a short period of time, claiming some benefit for doing so. Instead, we should focus on long-term tax policy and a Tax Code that is simpler and certain. Certainty is something that will create jobs.

I expect there to be some criticism of the votes I just cast, and I can hear the campaign sound bites. But we have to get beyond the next election and get to the next generation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to speak on another topic, but it has been my privilege to hear the discussion between the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, about what I think is a very serious debate; that is, the juxtaposition of our constitutional rights as U.S. citizens in light of our desire to make sure Americans' lives are protected. I have always struggled with trying to find that right balance, and I found tonight's conversation on the Senate floor very valuable.

I wish to turn my attention and bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate a pending piece of legislation, a bill I have introduced dealing with our country's economy and particularly as it relates to financial institutions and particularly our community banks.

There are, as we know, so many Americans who are looking for work. I would say our government's first priority is to defend our country, and we have been having a debate about how we do that, but we also have a significant responsibility to create an environment where businesses can grow and put people to work. I want to point out tonight a piece of legislation I have introduced that I believe is part of the solution. It is called the Communities First Act, and it is a compilation of what I would say are commonsense tax and regulatory relief ideas for our Nation's smallest financial institutions.

We constantly hear about Wall Street. I want to worry tonight about Main Street. These banks in communities across Kansas and in States across our country were not the cause of the financial crisis from which we are still struggling to emerge, but unfortunately they have become the victims. They have become casualties of the crisis on Wall Street. Hundreds of community banks have been allowed to fail, and the survivors are left waiting for the next burdensome regulation to come from Washington, DC.

Until banks are willing and able to make prudent loans to creditworthy hometown customers, job creation will remain stifled and our economic recovery will continue to lag.

The evidence seems clear to me that the current regulatory requirements impose a disproportionate burden on community banks because they do not operate on the scale to spread the legal and compliance costs. When a bank with, say, just 40 employees requires 4 compliance experts, I believe something is terribly wrong.

This expensive overregulation diminishes the ability of a community bank to attract capital and to support the credit needs of customers. What that means is that someone who wants to be

a stockholder or the owner of a community bank, because regulatory requirements increase the cost of capital, will decide there is a different way to earn a living, a different place to invest that capital. So, in short, these burdens prevent a community bank from serving the community, and they avoid, therefore, the resulting job creation that comes when a community bank invests at home.

All of the regulations being piled on community banks might be justified if the failure of a community bank could pose a serious risk to our Nation's financial system, but that is clearly not the case. It was not the failure of several hundred community banks that left our economy in such poor condition; it was the financial condition of a handful of the largest firms in America that grew so large and so complex that their failure or bankruptcy could not be tolerated and the consequences would affect every American. We need a tailored approach to regulation.

Ross Wilson, one of my constituents in LaCrosse, KS, a banker, wrote to me. He says his bank will no longer make home loans, real estate loans. This is his quote:

As a community banker, I really hate this decision, but the

complexity of the new regulations have forced us to make this

decision. It appears that the powers that be in Washington

don't understand the importance of a small community bank.

When your hometown bank won't make a home loan to one of its customers not because the loan won't be repaid but because the regulatory costs are far too significant, our regulations have far exceeded their value.

How does the Communities First Act that I have introduced change this trend and restore some level of sanity to our financial regulations? This bill would strip away outdated and unnecessary regulations, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley annual privacy notice requirement. Under current law, every bank and credit union is required to disclose their privacy policies on an annual basis even if that bank's policy has never changed during the year. So you can have a customer of a bank who has been a customer forever, and the bank has a policy in place that never changes, but every year the bank has to send out a significant mailing to every customer explaining their policy in regard to privacy. While that burden maybe doesn't sound too significant, it is a costly requirement of questionable benefit.

Blake Heid of the First Option Bank in Paola, KS, tells me:

Very little of what the regulations have us do is

productive or helps us take care of our customers better.

Just the privacy notices alone cost our small bank in excess

of $13,000 annually. We haven't changed it . . . we never

sold our customer information, and we still don't.

The Communities First Act would also address an issue regarding SEC registration by community banks. The number of shareholders which triggers a registration has not been updated in a long time and remains a burden that discourages community bankers from raising capital and making loans.

The Communities First Act would also reform which banks are required to comply with the costly burdens of Sarbanes-Oxley. Current law exempts banks with market capitalizations under $75 million from compliance under section 404. The benefits of that section do not appear to be worth the cost, so my legislation raises that threshold.

Another commonsense provision would encourage Americans to save by reducing the tax on longer term certificates of deposit. It would also allow for individuals under the age of 26 to invest in Roth IRAs without regard to their income level. We desperately need Americans to save money for their long-term retirement benefits.

The Communities First Act would also reform the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so that the National Credit Union Administration, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the other regulators would have a meaningful role in the creation of consumer protection rules. Dodd-Frank provides these regulators insufficient input, and review of the CFPB and the results of poorly written regulations could mean less credit and, again, fewer jobs.

There seems to be some disagreement here in Washington, DC, today about the effects of burdensome regulations on our economic recovery. But back in Kansas, Jay Kennedy of the First National Bank of Frankfurt indicates:

Our staff of 7\1/2\ people are busy taking care of our

customers and serving our communities. The extra burden from

things like tracking escrow payments, sending privacy

notices, and filing call reports that take a month to

complete all create undue stress and busy work for us.

Kansans don't know what the words ``busy work'' mean.

The relief of those three things alone would allow us time

to teach financial literacy that our schools can no longer

afford to do and create new products to better serve our

customers.

The provisions of the Communities First Act are just a first step in unleashing the ability of small banks to do what they do best--provide capital that results in jobs.

Congress has created a regulatory monster, and I urge my colleagues to join me in removing unnecessary burdens from our financial system and cosponsor S. 1600, the Communities First Act. While this legislation may directly benefit our Nation's community banks--our small financial institutions--the real beneficiaries are the entrepreneurs, the Main Street small business men and women, and farmers and ranchers who, with access to credit, can help put Americans back to work.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am proud to honor the 50th anniversary of the Center of Latin American Studies at the University of Kansas. The Center was founded in 1961 to equip KU students to face the political, economic, sociological and geographical realities of our world and, 50 years later, that vision continues. KU's strong ties to the University of Costa Rica have continued, and the Center's connections have expanded in Mexico, the Caribbean and South America. The Center provides students with advanced language and area studies training, including opportunities for study and research abroad. The Center provides the education and experience Kansans need in order to pursue successful, satisfying careers as teachers, scholars, and business and government professionals in the 21st century.

I want to congratulate the Center of Latin American Studies for its 50 years of commitment to building strong international relations with Latin America for the benefit of Kansas and the nation.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and a member--in fact, the ranking minority member--of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. The amendment the majority leader offered, that excluded the provisions related to Cuba, was an amendment that was adopted by the full Appropriations Committee in a very bipartisan way. In fact, the vote was two-thirds to one-third--20 votes in favor, 10 votes against.

The provisions that have been struck by the procedure that has occurred today are the final implementation of legislation that was passed by this Congress in 2001 in which we provided for the first time the sale for cash upfront of agricultural commodities, food, and medicine. It has always been my view, when we fail to sell agricultural commodities to Cuba, we only harm ourselves. Again, the amendment that has been eliminated from consideration today, through this process, would implement the ability for money to be transferred to the United States by a Cuban bank for purposes of paying for that sale upfront.

We have worked closely with the administration, with the Treasury Department, to make certain that nothing contained or nothing that would be contained in this provision would be objectionable to the security or the financial safety and soundness of our country. So with the process that has occurred, while there could have been many rule XVI points of order made today, one was made that defeats the will of the majority of our committee, and I do object.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to CPL Vollie Pitts of Hutchinson, KS. Corpora1 Pitts proudly served our country in World War I and has been revered as a hero by his family, friends, and those who served alongside him. Today it is my privilege to share the story of this unsung hero and honor him for his service and sacrifice on behalf of our country.

Corporal Pitts was born on February 14, 1897, and raised on his family's farm in Salina, KS. Like so many Kansans of his generation, Corporal Pitts put his country's needs before his own, leaving his parents and three siblings behind to volunteer as a member of the Kansas National Guard. At the young age of 19, he was first called into duty when his regiment was mobilized to the Mexican border in 1916. Their mission was to protect Americans from Mexican outlaws who were operating along the U.S. border. Following the successful completion of their mission, his regiment joined with another and became the 137th Kansas Infantry Regiment.

Corporal Pitts was again called into duty in 1917 to serve his county in World War I. In the spring of 1918, Corporal Pitts and his regiment made their way to the frontlines for one of the most significant battles of the First World War--the Battle of the Argonne Forest. It was during this battle when Corporal Pitts courageously rushed a German gun emplacement, single-handedly capturing the gun and part of its crew. His heroic actions that day saved countless lives, including the men of his own unit. Even after he was wounded and gassed, Corporal Pitts continued to fight until he was forced to seek help at a field hospital, where doctors determined his fighting days had come to an end.

Upon his arrival back in the United States, Corporal Pitts received an honorable discharge from the service and returned home to Kansas. On September 2, 1920, he began a new chapter in his life and married Gladys Reichardt. The young couple made their home in Hutchinson, Kansas and raised two daughters, Koloma and Patricia. Several decades later in 1954, Corporal Pitts passed away in Denver, CO, surrounded by his family.

Corporal Pitts exemplified many traits we can all admire: courage, dedication, and selflessness. His heroic actions during World War I will forever remain a testimony to his love for this country and his fellow Americans. America is proud and honored to call Corporal Pitts one of our own, and we shall never forget his courage and sacrifice, which made America a stronger and freer nation.

Mr. President, for Edie and Larry, farming is more than just a way to make a living it is a way of life. Together they make a great team, and their commitment to the Farm Bureau and the values it represents is widely known. Edie and Larry's leadership and service together began more than 20 years ago when they served on the State Young Farmers and Ranchers Committee. As an Outstanding Young Farm Family, they have represented their fellow producers on numerous committees over the years to advocate on behalf of producers at the local, State, and national level.

Edie's leadership and advocacy began with humble beginnings on the soil of a

rural Kansas farm. In 1976, she was selected as a Farm Bureau leader to represent her district on the State Women's Committee. In 1989, she was elected to the Kansas Farm Bureau Board of Directors, and in 2002 she was elected as vice president of the Kansas Farm Bureau. Edie's career has taken her around the world to convey the importance of agriculture and to share her passion for the special way of life so many Kansans love.

Edie Dahlsten embodies many traits we can all admire--a deep love for the great State of Kansas, gratitude for the many hard-working families who daily provide the food, fuel, and fiber Americans rely on, and the respect of her peers across the nation.

I would now like to ask my colleagues to join us in recognizing Edie for her dedication, passion, and many years of service.

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

Mr. President, yesterday we concluded our work here in the Senate on our version of the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, a member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and I supported the legislation we passed, but there is an outstanding issue at the Department of Agriculture of which I was only recently made aware. To me, it is a very serious issue, and given more time I would have taken action here on the Senate floor. It is an issue I will continue to pursue as a member of the conference committee as we work toward our final fiscal year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill.

The issue involves a memo issued by the Department of Agriculture last month, October 6, authorizing the Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to conduct an animal welfare scientific forum. This forum was approved by Under Secretary Edward Avalos on October 12.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the USDA's memo.

What is ironic about this forum is there is little science involved. It is little more, in my view, than the Department of Agriculture spending taxpayer dollars on a forum to provide the Humane Society of the United States a public forum to espouse its anti- agriculture views. The document speaks for itself in this regard. On page 2, the document states:

APHIS [the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service]

representatives believe that the Humane Society's intent is

to [promote and] position the organization to be recognized

nationally as influencing APHIS policy on critical and

sensitive welfare issues.

After reading that statement, it becomes clear that the Department of Agriculture is catering to an outside organization instead of relying on the advice of animal scientists at our land grant universities or even at the Department of Agriculture. If the Department of Agriculture was interested in science, why would it allow an animal rights organization to steer its agenda? Why wouldn't APHIS simply request the latest animal research from scientists across the country to make sure its guidance is up to date?

In addition to catering to HSUS, in planning this forum the Department of Agriculture APHIS is precluding input from members of the agricultural industry it is supposed to promote. The memo states:

HSUS and other welfare advocacy groups would be invited to

participate in a preplanning meeting for the forum with

senior leaders from Wildlife Services, Animal Care, and

Veterinary Services. These groups would have input into the

topics to be discussed, potential speakers for topics, dates

and times for the forum, how the forum should run, etc.

That is quoting from the memo. No mention in the memo is made of asking any agricultural organization or animal scientists for preplanning assistance. According to the memo, HSUS is going to set the agenda for this forum. Even if the agricultural industry is later invited to the event, Agriculture would have the cards already stacked against them.

I believe it is important for most Americans to understand that HSUS is not your local animal shelter. HSUS is a national lobbying organization that spends most of its budget to lobby against farmers and ranchers who provide us with food or clothing that we enjoy. In fact, tax documents show that HSUS spends less than 1 percent of its budget on grants to animal shelters. Given these facts, you would have to wonder why the Department of Agriculture is giving this organization this platform and shunning producer organizations. This is one more demonstration that this organization is no real friend of rural America or the American farmer and rancher.

My purpose this morning is to inform my fellow Senators of this troubling development at USDA and to put the Secretary on notice that this type of conduct from the Department is unacceptable.

The Department's mission statement reads as follows:

We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural

resources, and related issues based upon sound public policy,

the best available science, and efficient management.

USDA should live up to its mission statement and work to promote agriculture, not work against farmers' and ranchers' best interests and, I would say, not work against the best interests of the consumers of food in this country. Going forward, I will do my best to make sure the Department of Agriculture adheres to its mission statement.

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

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I spoke on the Senate floor about some of my concerns with the pending legislation that we have been talking about now--a number of appropriations bills--including the committee report on agriculture. The last time we visited about this, I talked about the GIPSA rules. I wish to focus on one more area of concern in this appropriations bill; that is, that the Department of Agriculture has proposed a rule to revise the nutrition requirements for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program.

In its current form, the rule contains some impractical nutrition standards and goals. I don't think there is any question that all of us in the Senate, and certainly every parent I know, would want--we all want our children to have nutritious food and we want them to have nutritious food at home and at school. That is not the point. It is not the question. What I question is whether the Department of Agriculture's rule is realistic for schools, and for those who provide food to the schools, whether they are able to comply with this new rule.

For example, as written, the rule would exclude many nutritious vegetables in school meal programs. Appropriately, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Collins of Maine, which I supported, that allows school nutritionists to continue to make their own recommendations based upon the most recent dietary guidelines for Americans, rather than having to follow the mandates issued in this latest USDA rule. In my view, that is exactly where these decisions should be made: in schools around our country by nutritionists--not mandated by our government in Washington, DC.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind the impact this rule will have on school budgets and food suppliers. Unfunded mandates such as this one will make it even harder for schools to provide healthy lunches for students.

The Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost of compliance over a 5-year period will reach $6.8 billion. The Federal reimbursement already does not cover the full cost of preparing a meal in many schools across our country. This new USDA rule will further drive up the costs of providing lunches and school districts will have to make up the difference. This doesn't seem like a reasonable approach when many school districts are already struggling to make ends meet.

Let me give an example of what is in this rule. Once finalized, schools would be required to reduce sodium content in breakfasts by up to 27 percent and school lunches by up to 54 percent. There are a couple problems with this requirement. There is no suitable replacement for sodium that can maintain the same functions of flavor and texture. Also, reducing sodium is not just a function of limiting raw salt content. Many ingredients have sodium in them that occurs naturally.

School food suppliers have been working for years to reduce the amount of sodium in their food products. However, they need additional time to come up with a solution that balances nutritional value with taste so kids will eat the school lunch.

This rule would also change how nutritional content is measured-- rather than measure nutrition based on density, the Department of Agriculture rule proposes to measure nutritional content based on volume. For example, tomato paste is nutritionally dense, but the Department of Agriculture says it must meet the same volume as a fresh tomato. That doesn't make much sense. Why would we take a metric to be the arbitrary volume requirement instead of just measuring the nutritional value?

The bottom line is, kids can still get the right nutrients from food products if they are measured by nutritional content.

A more sensible approach to making sure children have healthy options for breakfast and lunch would be to work together with scientists, nutritionists, and industry representatives toward a set of intermediate goals. Food costs, service operations, and student participation rates could then be more closely evaluated before moving on to the next goal. This would give school districts and food suppliers the chance to make changes in a more reasonable timeframe.

Our colleagues in the House included a provision in their version of this legislation that directed the Department of Agriculture to issue a new proposed rule that would not add unnecessary and costly regulations to the school lunch and breakfast programs. Unfortunately, this language was not included in the Senate version of the bill. In conference, I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure the Department of Agriculture is not making it harder for schools to provide healthy lunches but instead is working alongside local schools and their officials to develop better nutritional goals.