Floor Statements

Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is an amendment I offered yesterday, Moran No. 815. There has been agreement that it will be accepted on voice vote, and I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Blunt.

I yield the remaining time, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for up to 10 minutes.

I am here today, as we debate H.R. 2112, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, to address a particular provision that, in my view, needs to be addressed. I also hope to have the opportunity later today to offer an amendment regarding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program and to allocate some additional funds for that program, and I hope to have the chance to speak during the debate on this bill on the proposed school lunch regulations the Senator from Maine has so appropriately addressed previously.

At this time, I would like to turn my attention to a problem with the pending legislation; that is, its failure to address the proposed rule titled ``Implementation of Regulations Required Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; Conduct in Violation of the Act,'' commonly known as the GIPSA rule. This proposed rule has the potential to adversely affect livestock producers in my State and around the country, as well as consumers of meat products.

The House included a funding limitation on implementation of this rule in its appropriations bill. That is not included in the Senate version of the bill. I am a member of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee and believe that, in this case, the House is correct.

Initially, this rule that the Department of Agriculture is proposing grew out of the 2008 farm bill. As a Member of the House of Representatives back then, I was a member of the conference committee that developed that farm bill. It directed the Department of Agriculture to issue regulations in five very discrete areas.

In June 2010, the Department of Agriculture responded with the issuance of its proposed GIPSA regulations that clearly went way beyond the mandate of that 2008 farm bill and way beyond the Department of Agriculture's authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The GIPSA rule as written is exactly the type of burdensome regulation that was the focus of our President's January 18 Executive order.

In addition to the Executive order, the President promised to have a very transparent and open administration in regard to the development of rules. Unfortunately, the process surrounding the GIPSA rule has been far from transparent. This rule was proposed with zero economic analysis from the Department despite the major impacts it could have on the agricultural economy.

For months, USDA denied that this would be an economically significant rule, until multiple private sector studies and overwhelming comments from agricultural producers and others, such as those in my home State of Kansas, finally convinced the USDA this rule would indeed have a significant economic impact. Private analysis at that time indicated that these GIPSA regulations, if finalized as proposed, would cost the U.S. meat and poultry industry nearly $1 billion.

Under this pressure, the Department of Agriculture is now conducting an economic analysis. While I certainly welcome that economic analysis, I am very concerned about whether this analysis will be made public before a final rule is announced and whether the public will be able to analyze and comment on the data and methodology used by USDA to complete the study.

In fact, I asked the Secretary of Agriculture, during an agriculture appropriations subcommittee hearing, if he would release that economic analysis before the comment period concluded or open a comment period after the analysis is complete so people can make comments based upon what the economic analysis demonstrates. Certainly, in my view, the Secretary failed on a number of occasions to answer my question and give me that commitment that the process would be open and transparent and that a comment period would occur.

I sincerely believe it is incumbent upon this Congress to exercise its oversight discretion and direct the necessary transparency and thoughtful analysis that USDA to date has not publicly provided. We need time to study and comment on the methodology, and we need to make sure we get these rules right if they are going to be implemented. It would be irresponsible to not adjust the rules to mitigate a negative economic impact determined by the Department's own economic analysis.

As I mentioned, the House included a provision barring funding for the current proposed GIPSA regulations, and USDA should be delayed from going forward until it can limit itself to the five areas set forth in the farm bill--its congressional authority--and until public comments can occur regarding that economic analysis. We ought not have a final rule without the benefit of the economic analysis. The Department of Agriculture should not just be going through the motions because there was insistence that an economic analysis occur. We need to be able to mitigate any negative impacts that we learn from that economic analysis.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity at this point in the day to address an issue that is appropriate as we discuss the agricultural appropriations bill throughout today. I look forward to being back on the floor later today to offer an amendment to that bill regarding watershed rehabilitation and also at that time to speak in regard to what I view as some crazy ideas that are proposed School Lunch Program regulations.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and the Moran amendment No. 815 be made the order of the day in the Senate.

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

Madam President, the amendment I am offering today was one I discussed in the agricultural appropriations subcommittee. I am a Member of that subcommittee and am very interested in the topic of the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture. This amendment would transfer $8 million from the Department's administrative account to the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program is a bit broader than this, but basically what we are talking about are PL-566 watershed structures. Across our country, more than 1,000 structures have been built over a long period of time. Many of them are up to 50 years old. These structures are built for purposes of flood control, for nutrient management, for conservation, wildlife habitat, for recreation. Clearly, these structures have been an important component of the economy and well-being of communities and people across America for a long time.

In fact, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, these PL-566 structures provide agricultural benefits at their estimate of $404 million. These benefits are things such as erosion control, animal waste management, water conservation, water quality improvement, irrigation efficiency, changes in land use--things such as that.

There are also nonagricultural benefits which the NRCS estimates at $877 million in benefits. These are associated with recreation, fish and wildlife, rural water supply, water quality, municipal and industrial water supply, incidental recreation uses. Then, of course, what is particularly important as we look at what has happened in our country during this season, during this year: flood control. Agricultural flood control by NRCS estimates is a value of $320 million; nonagricultural flood protection, $425 million. We are talking about flood control structures that have benefited, for a number of reasons, about $2 billion. This amendment does not create the opportunity to construct more of those structures. The problem this amendment addresses is that those structures are aging. As I said earlier, many of them are nearly 50 years old.

In my view, it is very much like the analogy we have with bridges. We focused some attention over the last several years on deteriorating bridges and infrastructure in our highway system. We know if we don't provide the maintenance, the deterioration occurs, and ultimately we could have a catastrophe. That is what I am trying to address here, is my fear that in the absence of paying attention to the maintenance of these flood control structures, we run the potential of having a disaster. Not only do the benefits accrue to agriculture and to communities and water supply and recreation, but the real thing here is about the loss of property values and, more importantly, the loss of life. In the absence of maintaining these structures, we run the risk that the investment we have made over decades begins to disappear. Not only do we lose the value of the asset, we potentially lose life by those who would be harmed by the flooding that will occur in the absence of these flood control measures.

Therefore, a watershed rehabilitation program was created years ago. The problem in the funding we have today in the appropriation bill before us is there is no money, zero money in the bill, to maintain these structures. So ours is a very modest proposal to keep the program ongoing of transferring $8 million into that rehabilitation program to maintain those structures and prevent bad things from happening. This is probably woefully inadequate in regard to the amount of resources that should be devoted to this. Looking at the bill and looking at the structure of the bill and how we tried try to find the right priorities and the balance within the agriculture appropriations subcommittee and at the full Appropriations Committee, we concluded that we had the opportunity to at least put $8 million into the program.

The watershed rehabilitation program is administered by the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, and here is what it is described to do. It assists project sponsors with rehabilitation of aging project dams. Only dams installed under PL-566 and a couple of other programs are eligible. The purpose of this program is to extend the service life of dams and meet applicable safety and performance standards. Priority is given by NRCS to those structures that pose the highest risk to life and property. Projects are eligible when hazard to life and property increases due to downstream development and where there is a need for rehabilitation to extend the planned life of the structure.

What that is saying is in many of these instances where the structure has been built, almost 50 years ago, communities have been built downstream and the dam becomes even more important to protect property and life for that development. So we are here trying make certain there is a level of funding for repairing and replacing deteriorated components, repairing damage from catastrophic events, such as the floods we have experienced this year, and upgrading the structures to meet new dam safety laws or to even decommission a structure.

I would guess we are not going to fund new structures here in this Congress in this fiscal environment. We ought to at least take the responsibility of providing money to maintain the structures that are there. In my view, it is important that we do so. Unlike in past years, we can be assured that the money we put into this bill will go to the highest priority projects, the dams that are in the most need of repair and maintenance. There is no opportunity for Members of Congress, under our rules here in the Senate, to earmark these dollars, and so the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, through the Natural Resource and Conservation Service, will make those decisions.

We are not one of the States that has the most dam structures, although it is an important aspect of maintaining water in its proper place and to provide wildlife habitat and conservation practices and improve the agricultural environment. Those structures are important to us, and we see this each and every day.

In fact, for most of the time I have been in Congress, we do an annual what I call conservation tour. We look at the role of the Department of Agriculture, the private sector, wildlife and habitat organizations, and how they partner and come together to make good things happen to improve our environment. This year we focused on water quality and water quantity. Clearly this program of PL-566 structures is critical.

When I talk about that partnership, it would be important for Members of the Senate to know that this program requires a 35-percent local match. There is local money. The sponsors of these projects, these dams across our country, will have to find local resources in order to make that match.

I would ask the Senate to approve the amendment I am offering today. Again, it is something I raised in our subcommittee and raised in our full committee with the hopes we would be able to find a satisfactory offset, and from my view, the priority we place on this program is one that is deserving of Senate support.

I offer the amendment as I described.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I certainly have no objection.

I certainly have no objection.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his remarks. I believe that while what happens in Washington is important, we really do change the world one person at a time, and it happens at home in classrooms across America each and every day, and there is no more noble profession, other than parenthood, than that of a teacher. They make a tremendous difference in the lives of Americans each and every day, and I commend them for that. I also commend the Senator from Tennessee for his passion for education.

Mr. President, I want to talk about education that is occurring at Fort Leavenworth, KS. I want to call my colleagues' attention to the important work that is being done in our Nation's heartland to educate the next generation of military leadership at the Command & General Staff College. The CGSC is the intellectual center of the U.S. Army and has trained

many of our Nation's legendary leaders: Generals Marshall, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Arnold, and Bradley. Today, the college continues to prepare a new generation of leaders who are tasked with protecting our country from threats here at home and abroad, around the world.

The 21st-century national security challenges we face are often complex and require the cooperation of several Federal agencies. It is not uncommon for officials from the Department of State to be working alongside the Department of Homeland Security or Department of Defense on the same project. From the provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan to responding to hurricanes or manmade disasters, the capability of agencies to work together is vital to the success of this mission. By working together and learning from previous mistakes, our government will become better prepared to keep our country safe and secure.

To improve coordination within agencies tasked with our national security, the Command and General Staff College Foundation, under the leadership of retired COL Bob Ulin, established the Arthur D. Simons Center for the Study of Interagency Cooperation at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Thanks to a very generous financial gift from Ross Perot, the center was created last April and named after Mr. Perot's good friend, retired COL Arthur ``Bull'' Simons, who led a rescue mission of U.S. Special Forces to free American prisoners in Vietnam in 1970. The Simons Center focuses on generating solutions to challenges often encountered when government agencies must work together. By drawing on real-world experience, the Simons Center works to facilitate broader and more effective cooperation within our government at the operational and tactical levels through research, analysis, publications, and outreach.

The center is also actively engaged in working with Members of Congress. Most recently, the center has been working with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and on legislation to help facilitate better communication and coordination among personnel in the national security and homeland security fields.

The Interagency Personnel Rotation Act is scheduled to be considered in committee tomorrow and would give security professionals the opportunity to work alongside one another in a different agency for a period of time. The bill reminds me of the old saying ``Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.'' By giving staff the opportunity to work within another agency--to walk within his shoes--I imagine perspective will change and cooperation will increase. If the legislation is approved by Congress, the Simons Center will play a role in implementing these policies.

In addition to offering policy recommendations, the center also partners with several organizations to host conferences focused on how to improve interagency coordination. For example, the center recently cohosted a symposium on interagency transitions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond with the Combined Arms Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace. Conferences such as these help provide senior government officials a helpful forum to further analyze ongoing challenges and develop practical solutions.

I wish to thank the center's executive director, Ted Strickler, who joined the center after a 30-year career in the State Department, for his hard work over the past year to get the center up and running. I also wish to recognize retired COL Bob Ulin of the Command and General Staff College Foundation for his ongoing dedication to this important initiative. Under the colonel's leadership, the foundation has successfully supported our country's oldest and largest military staff college in its mission to educate the next generation of our military leaders.

Finally, I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at the valuable work taking place at the Simons Center. We all recognize the importance of improving our government's ability to harness the strength of its various agencies. By promoting interagency cooperation, the Simons Center is helping to strengthen our national security capabilities so that our country and its citizens are better prepared for their future.

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

Mr. President, in large and small communities across our country, way too many Americans find themselves placed in danger by the very people who are supposed to love and protect them--their families. Each year, more than 2 million women are victims of domestic violence across our

country. In Kansas, an estimated 1 in 10 adult women will suffer from domestic abuse this year.

I am here this evening to try to give a voice to the hopeless--to those who have often been too afraid to speak for themselves. Domestic violence is not just a problem for women; children and men are all too often its victims as well. Throughout October, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we are especially mindful of these victims and the urgent need to put an end to the cycle of violence.

I imagine many Americans may assume that domestic violence does not occur in their neighborhoods or among their friends, with those with whom they are acquainted. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Domestic violence does not discriminate by race, gender, age group, education, or social status. Three years ago, citizens in my hometown of Hays, KS, learned of the tragic death of a young woman from domestic violence.

Today, I wish to share with you the story of Jana Lynne Mackey. I shared Jana's story with my colleagues when I served in the House of Representatives, but it bears repeating because it is a solemn reminder of the urgent need to put an end to this so-called silent crime that plagues hundreds of thousands of homes across our country.

Jana was born in 1982 in Harper, KS, and spent her childhood in Hays. She was an active member of 4-H, an athlete, and a talented musician. Upon graduation from high school, Jana completed a bachelor's degree, where she discovered her passion--advocating on the behalf of others.

She went on to pursue a law degree from the University of Kansas and fought for equality and social justice through her work with countless organizations, including volunteer work in Lawrence, KS, at the GaDuGi SafeCenter, a shelter that aids victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. But 3 years ago, on July 3, 2008, at the young age of 25, Jana's own life was taken by domestic violence.

More than 1,100 people gathered at Jana's memorial service to celebrate her life. In her death, Jana's parents, Curt and Christie Brungardt, started the Eleven Hundred Torches Campaign to encourage 1,100 people to carry on Jana's torch. Since its creation, the campaign has attracted more than 1,100 volunteers who now make a difference in lives across the country through civic engagement and voluntarism. Yet there is so much more that must be done.

Throughout our country, an estimated one in four women still suffers abuse during their lifetime. Domestic violence brings fear and hopelessness and depression into the lives of every victim. But we must not only work to end this silent crime; also, we must care for those who are the victims. By volunteering at a local shelter, speaking out when you become aware of domestic violence or making a donation to a local organization, every citizen can find a way to get involved and make a difference.

This October, and throughout the year, let us be mindful of the victims of domestic violence and do our part to help break the cycle and bring hope to those who suffer. Let each of us be a torch to see that we bring about an end to domestic or family violence.

The tragedy of Jana's death is a rallying cry, calling each of us to make a difference in the lives of others.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to share a few thoughts on a topic that has a daily impact upon the lives of Americans. It is the topic we have had front and center now for a long time--job creation. Whether a mom or dad can find a job directly impacts their ability to put food on their family's table, pay their mortgage, save for their children's education, and prepare for their own retirement.

In August our economy failed to create any jobs. In September our economy created about 100,000 jobs, but that is not fast enough to get us out of our economic slump. The fact is that 14 million Americans are still out of work, and about 42 percent of those unemployed have been looking for a job for more than 6 months. We know those facts.

Over the last few weeks, I have asked Kansans what their thoughts are about this circumstance, and we find many Kansans, as are others in America, discouraged, looking for work, unable to find a job. They want to know why our businesses are not creating those jobs and making them available for them.

I recently had the opportunity to sit down with Kansans who own businesses in Overland Park--a suburb of Kansas City--and in Hutchinson--a community just outside Wichita--to talk about the economy and their outlook for our economic future.

Throughout our conversations, it became clear the main reason businesses are not hiring is because of economic uncertainty. In fact, a survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce indicated more than half of small business executives cited economic uncertainty as the greatest obstacle to hiring more employees.

From a business owner's perspective, I can understand why they are reluctant; if they do not know how much they will have to pay in taxes or to comply with additional regulations a year from now or how much health care costs will be for any new employee, why would they hire a new employee now or invest in their business? Any successful business owner will tell us they have to take risks to get ahead, but they will also tell us they have to balance those risks against their expected costs or they will run their business into the ground.

One chief executive put it this way:

What are the rules of the game going to be in the long

term? What our retailers would like to have is consistency

and predictability. We can handle decisions we don't agree

with, but that's easier than not knowing what the decision is

going to be.

Another executive of a small business put it very plainly:

Among the other presidents and CEOs I interact with, the

only consensus of opinion is none of us has any idea where

things are going. In my observation, the uncertainty we are

experiencing is caused almost entirely out of Washington and

other governments around the world.

The reality is the private sector has been the engine of job creation in our country throughout history. So we should do everything we can to encourage business to create jobs. In fact, small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms and employ half of all private sector employees, according to the Small Business Administration. In the last two decades, they have generated 65 percent of the new jobs created in our country.

One of the greatest opportunities we have to improve someone's life is to create an environment where jobs can be created, so employers can feel confident about investing in their companies, and they can put people to work.

Today, I wish to outline a new approach, one that is based on a proven track record of success--the success of the American entrepreneur. Soon I will be introducing legislation called the Startup Act to help jump-start our economy through the creation and growth of new businesses.

The American dream is based on the principle that anyone can achieve success, given the freedom and opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. America has long been known as the land of opportunity, where individuals risk all they have to live out their dreams. Many Fortune 500 companies, such as Ford, Apple, and General Electric, got their start with a handful of folks, an individual, a great idea, and a lot of hard work. Many of our businesses started in garages across our country. So we should continue to encourage this spirit of entrepreneurship in our Nation.

In Kansas City, there is a foundation dedicated to the promotion of entrepreneurship called the Kauffman Foundation. Their research shows that between 1980 and 2005, companies less than 5 years old accounted for nearly all the new job growth in the United States. In fact, new firms create about 3 million jobs each year. For 45 years, the Kauffman Foundation has worked to strengthen opportunities for entrepreneurs in this country, so when a person comes up with a good idea, they can pursue it and turn it into reality.

Many of their good ideas are reflected in the legislation I will soon be introducing and are based upon Kauffman's extensive research and analysis.

The foundation of the Startup Act is based on five progrowth principles: removing barriers to growth, attracting business investment, bringing more research from the laboratory to the marketplace, attracting and retaining entrepreneurial talent, and encouraging progrowth State and local policies.

First, the Startup Act will remove barriers to growth by streamlining Federal regulations. Rather than hiring new employees, businesses are spending money on complying with unreasonable regulations, sometimes regulations not based upon sound science. New businesses face an especially heavy burden in complying with the multitude of local, State, and Federal rules governing their business.

According to the SBA, firms with fewer than 20 employees spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with Federal regulations. Very small firms spend 4\1/2\ times as much per employee to comply with environmental regulations and 3 times more per employee on tax compliance than the largest corporations.

When I met with those business leaders in Kansas City recently, one of them told me he was required to replace all the light bulbs in his factory because of an EPA regulation. But his factory has skylights and was already well lit. He did not need new lighting, but the government told him he did, and this unnecessary regulation cost him tens of thousands of dollars. This is just one example of how cumbersome and how costly regulations have become. That money could have and should have been, in my view, better spent on helping that business grow.

The Startup Act will overhaul the Federal regulatory process for all regulations that have an impact on the economy of $100 million or more. By requiring these rules to undergo a cost-benefit analysis every 10 years, the benefit and burden on businesses and consumers will become much more clear. This will ease the burden on businesses so they can focus on growing their business and hiring more workers.

Second, the Startup Act will help companies attract investment so they can get off the ground and grow more quickly. One of the greatest challenges for startups is having access to the necessary capital to grow their business.

Investors' capital gains are currently taxed at 15 percent. Last year, the Small Business Jobs Act passed by Congress temporarily exempted taxes on capital gains from the sale of certain small business stock held for at least 5 years. The Startup Act will make this exemption permanent so investors have an incentive to partner with entrepreneurs and help provide financial stability for the first few years of that business's beginning.

Third, the Startup Act will make it easier to take research from the laboratory and apply it in the marketplace. Some of our brightest and most creative individuals study at American universities. Each day, faculty members and graduate students make new discoveries and develop new ideas. The possibilities of research are endless. In

fact, university research led to groundbreaking discoveries such as the polio vaccine, antibiotics, black-and-white television, barcodes, and, more recently, e-mail and Google.

To help bring more cutting-edge research to the marketplace, my bill creates an incentive for universities to reform their technology policies and practices. The Startup Act requires the top Federal R&D grant-making agencies to give preference to universities that have a proven track record of success in discovering commercial applications for their research.

Fourth, this legislation will enable new businesses to attract and retain highly trained workers, including those who immigrate to our country.

Our country was founded on immigrants who have long contributed to the strength of our economy by starting businesses and creating jobs. In fact, a 2007 study found that more than one-quarter of technology and engineering companies started in our country, from 1995 to 2002, had at least one key founder who was born overseas. These companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005 alone.

Research shows that 53 percent of immigrant founders of U.S.-based technology and engineering companies completed their highest degree at an American, a U.S. university. Unfortunately, many foreign-born immigrants leave the States after they complete their studies and return to their home countries to start businesses because they have a hard time securing a visa to stay in the United States.

It does not make much sense to make such an investment in these students and then not give them the opportunity to apply what they have learned by starting a company in the United States that will generate jobs for other Americans. We should be doing all we can to attract and retain highly skilled and entrepreneurial folks so they can work in the field where they have studied and contribute to our economy.

The Startup Act will help retain this talent in two ways.

First, it creates a new visa, called a STEM visa, for any immigrant who graduates with a master's or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering or math. This will give those graduates the opportunity to stay for up to 1 year beyond their graduation date to find a job and put to work the high-tech skills they learned and that our economy so desperately needs.

Second, the bill creates another visa, called an entrepreneur's visa, for immigrants who register a business and employ at least one nonfamily member within 1 year of obtaining that visa. Once they have satisfied those requirements, the entrepreneur would be allowed to remain here for an additional 3 years if they employ additional employees and further grow their business.

The goal of both these visas is to encourage innovation among highly skilled entrepreneurs and to help grow our country.

Finally, the Startup Act would encourage progrowth State and local policies.

While Federal policies certainly impact the formation and growth of new businesses, State and local policies also play an important role in their creation and growth. In order to identify the States which are the most entrepreneur-friendly, this legislation will create the ``State Startup Business Report'' to analyze State laws and policies. The report will encourage healthy competition and lead to the development and expansion of progrowth policies.

In conclusion, our first priority in Congress should be to create an environment that encourages companies to grow and create jobs. We know our economy cannot continue on the path it is on. In a recent Chamber of Commerce study, 64 percent of small business executives said they do not expect to add to their payroll in the next year, and another 12 percent said they plan to cut jobs.

The Startup Act would encourage American entrepreneurs to do what they do best: dream big and pursue their dreams. The American economy can and will recover when we give American entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed.

By removing those barriers to growth for new companies, attracting business investment, bringing more research from the laboratory to the marketplace, retaining talented entrepreneurs and skilled employees, and encouraging progrowth policies, we will spur growth in the marketplace and assist in putting people back to work.

The ongoing debate about how to create jobs needs to turn from rhetoric to reality. Nothing in this legislation is designed to be highly partisan. It is designed to make certain Republicans and Democrats can come together with a plan that will make a difference.

It is time for Congress to put policies in place that give job creators more confidence and certainty in the marketplace. If we fail to act as we should, if we continue to ignore the economic problems facing our country, if we let partisanship and bickering get in our way, we will reduce the opportunities the next generation of Americans have to pursue the American dream. It is our greatest responsibility as citizens of our country to make sure the next generation of Americans can live in a country with freedom and liberty and have the opportunity to dream their dreams and see them fulfilled.

I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this is a historically significant week for the United States and for all those who care about peace and stability in the Middle East. As we know, it is a region that is already roiled by protests and war and faces the prospect now of even more tension, more uncertainty, and potentially more violence.

We know this to be the case if the Palestinian Authority's President Abbas goes forward with his plan to seek recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations in New York. We have known for some time that this was coming and, thankfully, the U.S. Government has expressed opposition to this ill-conceived idea, and the administration plans to direct a veto of the measure.

Our government has also worked to persuade other nations to join us in opposing the Palestinian statehood bid. But I am afraid we have not done enough to convince the Palestinians there will be consequences for their actions.

By pursuing recognition of a state at the U.N., President Abbas is choosing confrontation rather than negotiations with Israel. In doing so, he is violating the Oslo peace agreements signed 18 years ago which state that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must be solved through direct negotiations between the two parties. Direct negotiations are not just the best way to achieve peace, they are the only way to achieve lasting peace.

Direct negotiations are meant to bring the two sides to the finish line, where all the final status issues, including borders, can be resolved. By rejecting negotiations with Israel and appealing to the U.N., the Palestinians are trying to make the previous agreed-upon finish line the new start line. If President Abbas pursues statehood this week at the U.N., the Palestinians will find it more difficult to

compromise in the future, given the terms of the state they are seeking recognition for.

Israel will also find it more difficult to enter into future talks when the starting point is already an unacceptable result. Years of American efforts to foster peace will be set back and threats to security will increase once the Palestinians discover that votes in favor of their statehood have not changed any of the circumstances of their daily lives.

The Palestinian statehood bid will do nothing to bring Palestinians or Israel peace, for peace cannot be made by votes in the Security Council or the General Assembly. All parties involved stand to lose if President Abbas pursues statehood at the United Nations.

It is important the truth be told. Israel is not what stands in the way of a Palestinian state; neither is the United States standing in the way of a Palestinian state, for both the United States and Israel have endorsed the creation of that future state. What prevents the state's creation is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with historical rights going back thousands of years, to the land and to Jerusalem.

The Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and must return to the negotiating table. Rejecting these terms and instead going to the United Nations will result in widespread repercussions. The Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people rely heavily upon international donors and support. Chief among those benefactors are the American taxpayer. Last year, Americans sent about $550 million to the Palestinians.

In June, this Senate unanimously passed a resolution cosponsored by 90 Senators, including me. That resolution stated that the Senate intends to consider reductions and restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority should it continue its efforts to circumvent direct negotiations by turning to the United Nations.

My request this evening of my colleagues is that we should abide by this resolution. There might be consequences. Lasting peace requires it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me.

I am honored to be, once again, on the Senate floor. I have spoken many times about the issue that is now before us for a vote in just a few minutes.

This is a significant point in our country's financial history--a time in which politics has played its course and decisions have to be made. I come here at this moment with no real joy. I think we have put the American people through a lot--certainly, over the last several months--as we asked them to follow along as we discussed this idea of raising the debt ceiling.

There was some thought by many of us that we could use this moment of raising the debt ceiling to make some significant changes in the way we do business in Washington, DC. In fact, on March 22 of this year, I wrote President Obama a letter indicating I could not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless I saw substantial reductions in spending and structural changes in the way we do business in the Congress and Washington, DC.

Why I say there is no joy for me to be here today, in my view, we have failed to do either one. There are no substantial reductions in spending, and there are no significant changes in the way Washington, DC, does business.

This country needs certainty, and I have said all along we need to raise the debt ceiling. There needs to be that certainty. I have said it would be irresponsible for us not to raise the debt ceiling, but I have said all along it would be equally as irresponsible if we raised the debt ceiling without meeting the criteria I have outlined.

While we will have a discussion among all of us that continues today--and we will probably play quarterback and Friday morning quarterback after this is over to figure out what we have accomplished--but, in my view, it is important to know there are no cuts in this bill. There is only a reduction in the growth of spending, and that reduction is so small--$21 billion reduced in the first year in the growth in spending.

In Kansas, when we hear the word ``billion,'' we think that is a lot of money, and it is. So I think Kansans will hear the words ``$21 billion'' and think: Oh, my, they are finally doing something significant. But the truth is, we spend $4 billion more each day than we take in, and that $21 billion, if realized, in the slowing of the growth of spending, will be gone in less than a week. This legislation does not cut spending.

While we promote a balanced budget amendment, which I think is so critical to our success in changing the structure of how we do things, there is no balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution in this agreement or one that will necessarily be sent to the States for ratification. Our national debt will continue to grow and, in fact, at the end of 10 years, if everything in this legislation is accomplished--and I think we have to be skeptical about that--our national debt will grow and reach $22 trillion. We are at $14.3 trillion or $14.4 trillion now. Ten years from now, with this legislation in place, $22 trillion. Over the next three decades, our debt will become three times the size of our entire economy.

We have talked about changing the way we look at things in Washington, DC. For the first time--and I agree with this--we are talking about reducing the growth of spending by the amount we are raising the debt ceiling. But can you imagine a family back in Kansas congratulating themselves for changing the topic without ever changing their spending patterns? Kansas families, when they are in trouble for spending too much money, cut the budget today. We are not doing that. They do not just slow the growth, and they do not wait for 10 years to see it realized.

The problem is today, and I think this is a significant problem. People will say we need to raise the debt ceiling today or our credit worthiness will be judged by the rating agencies and we will be downgraded. I worry that even with the passage of this bill, its effects are so minimal in spending that the downgrade will occur regardless.

So this is a time for us to make the tough choices as compared to kicking the can down the road one more time.

It is an honor to serve in the Senate. Nothing in my life, my background, would ever suggest I would have this opportunity. I am honored to serve Kansans, and I will do my best to make the right decisions on their behalf. But as I have listened to Kansans for the last 2 years on the topic of what is important to them, the economy matters, and the first thing we have to do is get our fiscal house in order so the economy can grow and people can find jobs and get better jobs.

While my assumption, based upon the news reports, is the legislation I oppose will pass today, I pledge myself to my Kansas constituents that I will work hard to see that every dime that is possible to be saved occurs, and I will redouble my efforts to see we grow the economy and put Americans back to work because the revenues we need to balance our books are not increases in taxes.

The revenue we need to balance our books is a strong and growing economy so every American can put food on their family's table, save for their children's education, and prepare for their own retirement, and that we are blessed with the opportunity in this country to see every American child be able to pursue the American dream.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during any quorum call be equally divided.

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

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

Madam President, I have spoken several times over the last several weeks with regard to the issue at hand. Clearly, the time continues to escape us, and the day of reckoning is coming in regard to the debt ceiling issue. I have said from the very beginning that in my view it would be irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling, but it would be as irresponsible if not more so to raise the debt ceiling without reducing the spending, getting our books more in balance, and moving us in the right direction toward a balanced budget in the future. I recognize this cannot be accomplished overnight, and I recognize there are those who bring different points of view and perspectives to the Senate floor. This is a body of people who represent individuals who live in all 50 States and have points of view and philosophies and backgrounds that are different than perhaps the constituents I represent from the State of Kansas.

I have been a strong supporter of the legislation entitled ``cut, cap, and balance.'' I actually believe it is not just cut, cap, and balance; it is cut, cap, balance, and grow. We could do so much for our country both in the fiscal sense and with the idea that we could better pay our bills if the revenues are increased by putting people to work, by creating a climate in which people could find jobs, people could improve their situation in regard to their jobs, and in the process of doing that the revenues increase to the Federal Treasury.

It was back in the days of President Clinton that we came the closest to having our books balanced. While there was spending restraint and disagreement among Republicans and Democrats about new spending programs or bigger government, in my view, the real reason we had a balanced budget was because the economy was growing.

So I again ask my colleagues to pay attention to what I believe was the message of the 2010 election: It is the economy. It is the desire of people to have a better life, to save money for their children's education, to save money for their retirement, and to be satisfied that the job they have today is the job they will have tomorrow.

I believe there is much that we can do with regard to the regulatory environment, making the Tax Code fair and certain, issues regarding access to credit, a trade policy that will allow us to increase exports--both agricultural and manufactured goods--and a trade policy that reduces our reliance on foreign energy and gives us greater control over its costs. But the time has come for us to reach an agreement, and we anxiously await what action the House of Representatives may take.

In light of this point in time, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate an e-mail I received from one of my constituents, a Kansan named Gina Reynolds. Gina is from Shawnee. She expresses this point of view I think very appropriately for where we are today. In asking Gina if I could share with you what she wrote to me, she indicated this was the very first time she had ever written a Member of Congress. Here is what she had to say that I hope we will take into account. Again, while we bring philosophies and viewpoints and approaches to government to Washington, DC, there is an opportunity for common sense and good judgment to prevail.

Here is what she says:

I firmly believe the United States needs to start living

within our means. However, I am frustrated beyond belief with

the inability of Congress to do their jobs and ensure that we

do not throw the country back into recession. While I and my

husband are employed, we feel lucky to have jobs. We work

hard, pay our taxes and try to raise our children the right

way. It absolutely boggles my mind that we cannot come to a

compromise on the debt ceiling issue that is so critical to

the financial markets and the average American citizen.

For it is us, the middle class, that will suffer the most;

from lost jobs, to lost 401Ks, and lost savings. We need real

tax reform, real entitlement reform (for even though I am 42

years old, I do not believe I will ever see a dime of Social

Security) and real spending cuts. Congress has had months to

work on this issue, and now the time is to act in the best

interests of the People, not the political interest groups,

not some ideology.

It is sad to say, but I honestly don't know if my children will have a better future than me. I know that there are a lot of tough decisions yet to be made regarding spending and taxes, but we only make it harder by defaulting on any of our country's obligations. I am fiscally conservative and generally vote Republican, but I do not blindly follow any one path. I try to use my vote wisely and pledge my loyalty to my God and my country, not a political party.

I believe we have the greatest country on Earth, but our inability to compromise, to stop acting like spoiled children, saddens me. The Founding Fathers were able to compromise and write a document that has stood the test of time for 235 years. Can we not now do the same? Please do the right thing for the American People, the ones frustrated and angry and hurt by this self-produced impasse.

I thank Gina Reynolds for her message to me and Members of the Senate, for taking the time to communicate with her Senator, with me as a Member of Congress. I think she in many ways expresses a conservative yet commonsense point of view so many Kansans have.

I often think too many times we are caught in a circumstance that we find an inability to resolve. Sometimes we are trapped by our political party. In my view, while we ought to have strong opinions and ought to have a solid philosophy, we need to make certain that we are motivated for the right reasons and that the good of America is at the forefront of our minds.

I indicated in my maiden speech when I spoke here on the Senate floor 4 months ago as a new Senator that when I need a perspective as to what we need to do here--and sometimes we get bogged down in those things that are a lot less important--I will put my walking shoes on, my running shoes, and I will walk up to the Lincoln Memorial. You go by the World War II Memorial, you walk on past the Vietnam Wall, and you walk by the Korean War Memorial, and in each one of those locations, I am reminded that no American memorialized in those settings fought and died, sacrificed for their country for purposes of Republicans or Democrats but because they believed they had an obligation to serve our country and because they believed that in that service, they had the opportunity to make life better for their family and for future generations of Americans. We need to remind ourselves that we need that perspective. It is not a fight between the Republicans and Democrats. It is about doing what is right for America. We owe it to those who sacrificed in military service for our country, and particularly those who have died in that service, we will do what is right. I know my colleagues share that point of view. I think from time to time we have to be reminded about what the priorities have to be, what the focus must be.

Again, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by this Kansan and would indicate that we, as American citizens, and certainly me, as a Member of the Senate, our primary responsibility as citizens is to make certain we pass on to the next generation of Americans this country called the United States of America in which we maintain the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution and we allow the next generation of Americans, our children, our grandchildren, and young men and women yet to be born, people we don't even know, the opportunity to pursue the American dream.

I think this Kansas constituent of mine expressed those sentiments very well, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that we do what is right for the future of our Nation and that this next generation of Americans can pursue that which we all idolize and believe in, the American dream.

I yield back.

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

Mr. President, I am disappointed by the outcome of the vote today in which a proposal I believe had the most merit for moving us in the right direction in regard to raising the debt ceiling and moving us toward the direction of a balanced budget failed in the Senate.

I have spoken this week several times about the importance of cut, cap, and balance. It is the plan that has passed the House of Representatives and was the path we could take here, and I have encouraged my colleagues throughout the week to come together to try to make this cut, cap, and balance plan the framework by which we resolve this issue of the impending necessity of raising the debt ceiling.

I have said on every occasion it would be irresponsible not to raise the debt ceiling. I do not know exactly what the consequences are and at what point in time those consequences occur, but I do know it would be damaging to the economy. I also believe it would be equally, if not more, irresponsible to simply raise the debt ceiling without taking the necessary steps to put our country on the right path toward a balanced budget in the future.

I thought cut, cap, and balance really did present that opportunity in which we cut spending back to previous years' levels, we cap that spending so it is not more than a certain percentage of our gross national product, our country's economy, and, finally, that we pass a balanced budget amendment, something I have supported since I came to Congress each and every year. I believe we do not have the necessary discipline and courage, the necessity we need to make the decisions to put us on the path toward balancing the budget. Of course, if we approved a balanced budget amendment in the House and the Senate, it still would be considered by the American people through the State legislatures.

So I speak this morning with disappointment that on a straight party- line vote, this issue, this legislation was tabled. But I have also said throughout my conversations about the debt ceiling and about getting our country back on the right path that I believe there is a fourth component to cut, cap, and balance.

In my view, that fourth component is grow--cut, cap, balance, and grow the economy. Certainly, in my view, the Federal Government does not create jobs. But we have millions of Americans across our country who are looking for work, looking for better work, looking for full- time work, and we have way too many people who are discouraged, who have looked for a long time with no success.

In my view, the primary message of the November elections of last year was this insistence that Congress get it right in order to help Americans find employment. It is important. These two things are related in regard to how our country progresses.

As I have indicated, the last time our budget was balanced was at the end of President Clinton's term in office. Yes, there was some spending restraint. There was an inability of Republicans and Democrats to come together and create new programs and big government spending. But what really was happening, what was the primary reason for a balanced budget back in those days was a growing economy.

So if we want to balance our budget, I am one who says, yes, we need more revenue. But that revenue comes not from tax increases but from a growing economy that puts people to work and generates the revenue that then flows to the Federal Treasury to pay down our debt.

It is actually the most enjoyable aspect of how we could balance the budget. The side benefits beyond an improved fiscal house in Washington, DC, is that Americans would have jobs. We help create an environment in which they can put food on their families' tables, in which they can save for their kids' education, and have the opportunity to save for their own retirement.

So today I once again, in the absence of an agreement between the White House and the House and the Senate--as has been indicated, there are ongoing negotiations about this issue of the debt ceiling. But we ought to be looking also at that opportunity to grow the economy, put people to work, creating those opportunities and raising the revenue necessary to fund, in my view, a much smaller government.

So we ought to be promoting a Tax Code that is fair, that is efficient, is not overly bureaucratic, that is certain. We need a regulatory environment in which every businessperson is not fearful of adding employees or investing in the plant and equipment because they do not know what next government regulation is going to come their way.

I spent much time this year as a member of the Senate Banking Committee where we have heard from bankers across the country, particularly our community banks, where the uncertainty of what next happens under Dodd-Frank determines whether it is desirable to make a loan. What next is the examiner going to say? What next are the regulations going to be?

Access to credit for our small business men and women in Kansas, our farmers and ranchers--the ability to borrow money has a significant role to play in whether we have a growing economy that puts people to work. So we certainly need to have that fair and certain Tax Code. We certainly need to make certain the regulatory environment is totally different than what it is today. And we need to make certain there is no doubt about the ability--due to regulations--that a bank can make a loan to a creditworthy borrower.

We also desperately need a policy in place that encourages domestic production of oil and gas, that helps us reduce the cost of energy. I do not know how we have a booming economy if energy prices are going to continue to escalate at the rates they are. The more that cost of gasoline reduces the spending power of American families, the less likely we are going to have any opportunity to see a growing economy.

Certainly, we have challenges in our housing market that need attention, and it is difficult for many of us to make decisions about spending more money if we do not have the sense of security that comes from knowing there is value in our homes.

Finally, I want to point out--and the issue I want to focus on for a moment because of what appears to be coming from the Obama administration in regard to trade--there is an indication that, once again, the ability for Congress to consider the trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea is being delayed. Much of our country's economy--and certainly in my home State of Kansas--is dependent, and many people by the millions work in the United States because of things we manufacture and agricultural commodities we grow that are exported abroad.

The last three trade agreements that have been negotiated have been pending now for a very long time. The consequences of those trade agreements are significant. I certainly know this as a Kansan. We manufacture airplanes and general aviation. We grow lots of agricultural commodities: wheat, cattle, corn. Much of that is exported, and these countries present opportunities for us to grow our economy and put more people to work.

The South Korea Free Trade Agreement, for example, if approved, is estimated to create 70,000 new jobs. It is estimated that it would be an increase in U.S. exports of $9.7 billion, and our gross domestic product would increase by over $10 billion. Yet the framework by which we can begin to increase our exports to those three countries is once again stalled.

The White House announced this week those trade agreements will not be presented to Congress before the August recess. In my view, that is a terrible mistake, and it is particularly a problem because, as we speak, other countries are assuming the role of exporting to those countries, assuming the role that the United States has historically played, and we are being left out in the market.

A free-trade agreement just recently took effect between South Korea and the European Union. Colombia and Canada have an agreement that comes into force on August 15. The more time we delay in approving the opportunity for Americans to export to those countries, the more likely it is that the markets are going to be taken by exporters from other countries.

So while we continue to work to see that an agreement is reached in regard to this issue of the debt ceiling, let's not take any steps back in regard to this issue of growing the economy. Let's continue to work in regard to that Tax Code, in regard to that regulatory environment that so hinders the ability of business to expand, in regard to an energy policy that returns those jobs back home and creates greater stability in the price and cost of energy. We also need to make certain we have access to credit.

But, finally, today, let me again ask the administration to reconsider their position, and let's put these trade opportunities--the ability to increase exports--back on the table so Congress can adequately address the terms of those agreements and get them in place before we lose more market opportunity around the globe.

This is not about taking care of big business. This is about making certain that business has the opportunity to sell goods and agricultural commodities to those countries, so that in the process of their business growing they put more and more Kansans and Americans to work.

So we have our agenda, and it is an important one for America. Yes, fiscal sanity has to return, but let's not forget the fourth component of cut, cap, balance, and grow the economy. If we do these things, America will be a better place today. But, more importantly, every American child will have the opportunity to pursue the American dream.

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